Jump to content
George Ebersole

XL2 or XL-H1

Recommended Posts


My 2nd series, which isn't finished yet, is called "Experts".

 

And again, the first one was made a long time before I knew how to color properly.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler; you eat Chinese while editing? :)

Close... twas the remains of indian curry!

 

Yea, when I'm home, I'm either sleeping or editing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, that rig only has 4gig or resident RAM, but also a monster of a vid card ... well, monster for a few years back. Like you and everyone else says, it's the RAM on the vid card that important for post.

 

Okay. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch some of the clips I posted, see if that look is acceptable. Watch them full screen, see how crisp even the horribly compressed files look... the later stuff that's colored in DaVinci looks pretty good for a $1000 camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you add a shoulder rig, mattebox/follow focus and external recorder, you've now defeated the whole purpose of owning a small camera, might as well buy a BIG camera. The whole point of a small camera is to be unnoticed, to shoot anything you want without anyone even knowing you exist. To me, that's the amazing part of the pocket and why I love it so much.

 

Why so much focus on the small camera movement? Never understood that. If you have more than one camera, I can see designating one as a smaller camera for use in tighter places... I cannot see making your one and only camera tiny just for the sake of having a tiny camera. Honestly, it looks unprofessional. I can't imagine the looks I would have got showing up at the commercial shoot a couple of weeks ago with a camera that looks like I just stopped off at Walmart to pick it up. My beefed up GH4 rig may be big, but when you show up places with a professionally looking setup - people take you more seriously, and they feel they are getting a better deal for the money.

 

Did you even bother shooting a product with the pocket before you gave up and dragged it under the bus?

 

Define 'project'... I was just starting out back when I bough the pocket. I shot a lot of stuff with it, but not anything I'd deem more than testing and/or nature shooting. The image was too soft, it would not have been usable if I ever made anything for cinema due to 1080p vs 2k or higher. The crop factor was a large problem for me in getting anything wide angle. The battery time was terrible, at about 25 minutes a battery... It also suffered terrible moire issues...

 

The URSA mini tends to shift to Magenta, but I'm sure it will be fixed/reduced with a future update since the camera has only been in the wild a month!

 

Exactly.... A firmware update later down the road... Which is typical of Blackmagic, as mentioned above. They should have a shooting-ready camera on delivery, not one that they use their first customers as beta-testers. My precious, made-in-china GH4 worked great on delivery and didn't require a firmware upgrade that might come at some point in the future.

 

Flat Pro Res mode on the pocket camera is very good, it offers FAR more dynamic range then ANY MPEG camera. Yes, with an external recorder in Log mode, you can get CLOSE to the pocket. I have yet to color anything out of an external recorder, so I can't comment on how much better it looks. All I know is the material I color right form a GH4 has poor dynamic range. Again, I rarely use the RAW mode, it's unnecessary.

 

I'm not arguing that point. Notice, at no time have I suggested a GH4 by itself. I have shot with my GH4 in V-log, and recorded that the the external recorder at 10-bit 4:2:2. I can tell you, I have had no issues grading anything in post. Just a couple weeks ago I shot a commercial for a local furniture store which I'm in post for now which I shot with the Shogun, so far so good. GH4 footage out of the box is terribly compressed - though I will point out no more compressed than the C100, another camera being considered here.

 

Blackmagic doesn't build cameras in China like your precious GH4. They're all hand made in Australia and that in of itself is a HUGE deal because it means things take longer to make. Your GH4 is made by using pre-existing chip set's, made to Panasonics spec. The blackmagic cameras are all one-off chip sets for their own products. Yes, up until the 4.6k, they were BUYING imagers from another company, the 4.6k is their first in-house developed imager. However, that's a big deal. That's what makes Red, Arri, Canon and Sony so great, they develop their own imagers and chipsets. The difference is that, those other companies in-house chipsets cost tens of thousands and Blackmagic offers it for sub 10 grand.

 

Most everything is made in China, that is just a fact. Mass production also has a fairly good quality control involved, whereas 'hand built' products are subject to much more assembler-error.

 

Let me be frank, I know the guys at Blackmagic, I know them well. I talk with them on a monthly basis, not just because I work in the industry, but because they want my feedback.

 

Maybe that is the difference... I don't know them, and therefore have no desire to directly defend them or their practices.

 

I would love to have 48FPS, but it's just not a reality now. I do all my slow-mo in post and it comes out OK I guess. I could care less about high sensitivity. In fact, I'd rather have an imager which has a base ASA of around 350, rather then 800 like the pocket camera.

 

Well, I have native 96 FPS on my GH4 in 1080 mode to an external recorder. It can even do it internal, but the compression is pretty bad. I believe I can even get 120fps in camera and to my Shogun as well, though I have never attempted it.

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like some of that is just raw footage dumped into your final edit without grading. Or do I have that wrong?

 

Either way I'm really impressed with the footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this same video earlier, but I'll post it again for clarification:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDbzBsNg7Y

 

Watch it all the way to the end, where you'll see VERY good lowlight performance, amazing skin tones, and an image that is very flimic and not overly sharp. Throw a Speedbooster on that with a good lens like the 18-35 and you're looking at an f/1.0, and lowlight performance is much improved.

 

I have a pretty slow internet connection here, which is why I don't upload more stuff to show off. I'm currently working on putting together a test that contains footage I shot on the Pocket and on the GH4 w/ Vlog in ProRes... I'll give up if you can correctly tell which is which...

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like some of that is just raw footage dumped into your final edit without grading. Or do I have that wrong?

 

Either way I'm really impressed with the footage.

 

In Log, the files are even more flat then that. When colored they SHOULD and WILL pop. The problem is, my color suite at the time some of those videos were made (more then 2 years ago) wasn't very good. Today, everything is DaVinci resolve and it works great, but back then, I was stuck using apple color and the calibration with my monitor sucked. So I didn't know what I had and honestly, I turned the shows around so quick, I didn't have the time to make it look much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so much focus on the small camera movement? Never understood that. If you have more than one camera, I can see designating one as a smaller camera for use in tighter places...

If you're out shooting scripted narratives in controlled environments (which is NOT what most people do) then who cares how big the camera is. I shoot everything gorilla, get the shot quick and move on to the next shot. I don't have time to waste assembling a rig as well. Sometimes I have to start shooting seconds after I arrive, and just the build time of attaching lenses, mounting to the rig and getting audio setup, is too much time. I've missed critical material due to setup time and again, if I had a big camera, I'd be kicked out of the places I'm shooting because nobody knows I'm using a video camera, since it looks like a still camera.

 

So the "small camera" movement is critical if you actually want to disguise what you're up to.

 

I shot a lot of stuff with it, but not anything I'd deem more than testing and/or nature shooting.

As I suspected, you haven't used the camera. Testing/nature footage doesn't count. I posted 10 projects above, shot with the Pocket Camera. Stuff I did for fun on the side of my regular work. If you want to see more, I have a lot more to give.

 

This makes me wonder how many completed projects you've shot with the GH4!!!! I've cut two feature doc's with GH4 material in them, many of the shots I did myself. How many feature doc's have you made with the GH4?

 

The image was too soft, it would not have been usable if I ever made anything for cinema due to 1080p vs 2k or higher. The crop factor was a large problem for me in getting anything wide angle. The battery time was terrible, at about 25 minutes a battery... It also suffered terrible moire issues...

All of these problems is because you didn't try. You just gave up and didn't bother learning.

 

Field of view is solved with a speed booster, but as you can see from my videos, it's not a problem.

 

The lack of crispness is the result of junky lenses, not a fault with the camera.

 

My batteries last 42 minutes, the length of a card, no problem at all, and they have hundreds of cycles on them.

 

Most everything is made in China, that is just a fact. Mass production also has a fairly good quality control involved, whereas 'hand built' products are subject to much more assembler-error.

If I can put money into a small companies hand made product, I will do just that, even if the Chinese alternative has more bells and whistles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... lack of depth of field?

 

Watch the first 2 minutes of my youtube series episode on suspension building:

 

 

So... lack of wide angle material?

 

Watch this New England Diving promo I produced. At 37 seconds in, there is a great high-angle wide shot that I could never get without a wide angle lens. I put the camera on my mono pod, stuck it in the air and GOT THE SHOT! Watch it in 1080p full screen and notice how you can see the yellow house at the end of the street and the white car in front of it. On the Pro Res HQ original, you can see the numbers of the license plate of that car. Can't read them, but you can see the outline. In my eyes, you don't need more resolution then that.

 

 

So you want a "big" camera? How about carrying around your "rig" in a public place and nobody noticing it? Well... you would never get away with that here. Ohh and talk about low light, this is pretty incredibly low!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of great footage. That last piece on Della had some really vibrant colors in it, and that was shot with a Blackmagic. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're out shooting scripted narratives in controlled environments (which is NOT what most people do) then who cares how big the camera is. I shoot everything gorilla, get the shot quick and move on to the next shot. I don't have time to waste assembling a rig as well. Sometimes I have to start shooting seconds after I arrive, and just the build time of attaching lenses, mounting to the rig and getting audio setup, is too much time. I've missed critical material due to setup time and again, if I had a big camera, I'd be kicked out of the places I'm shooting because nobody knows I'm using a video camera, since it looks like a still camera.

 

So the "small camera" movement is critical if you actually want to disguise what you're up to.

 

Well, who said George is trying to do run and gun stuff? Just because something works for you, does not mean that is what the industry standard is, or that is what everyone else should do. My GH4 can be taken off the rig and be just as small as your pocket camera if I really want it to... Though I can't think of any reason I'd want to. I don't 'sneak around' when I shoot stuff. If I'm somewhere that the requires permission and/or a permit, I attain that. Most of my stuff I shoot at the local metro park and on city streets because I have a year long permit for both.

 

It also helps my Chinese toy becomes a professional stills camera that I shoot a lot of my nature photography with, and has been used on more than a few model shots over the past spring/winter/fall.

 

 

The lack of crispness is the result of junky lenses, not a fault with the camera.

 

Yeah, I don't think so. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 produces a fine image on my 4K GH4, so why was it soft on a 1080p pocket?

 

As I suspected, you haven't used the camera. Testing/nature footage doesn't count. I posted 10 projects above, shot with the Pocket Camera. Stuff I did for fun on the side of my regular work. If you want to see more, I have a lot more to give.

 

This makes me wonder how many completed projects you've shot with the GH4!!!! I've cut two feature doc's with GH4 material in them, many of the shots I did myself. How many feature doc's have you made with the GH4?

 

I shot probably a good 30 hours worth of random stuff with it... Recording two plays for a local community theatre with it, shot a lot of outdoor nature stuff - animals and the like... Maybe not features with it or narrative stuff, but that is not telling of the quality of a camera. I used the camera enough in plenty of conditions to tell me what it was about.

 

As for my GH4 - I have logged plenty of hours with it. Like I said above, I just got done shooting a local furniture store commercial on it 2 weeks ago which I was paid $3,000 to produce. Tons of nature stuff (nature is my forte, so I shoot a LOT of it). I have shot around 4 hours of test footage so far for my upcoming project - from green screen tests, miniature tests, to some dynamic range testing.

 

The largest project on my GH4 is the feature-length documentary 'Underground Indiana: The Binkley Expedition', which is a documentary with a planned 80 minute run time that was shot by me with my GH4 over the winter, and documents the exploration and discovery of the one of the longest caves in the United States. I have been working on post for that for the past several months, and it's honestly taken a back burner as I focus more on my narrative project.

 

So I'd say I have a lot of field experience with my GH4. Caves (wet, dark), nature (bright, sinlit, nighttime, slow-mo), commercial... etc.

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of great footage. That last piece on Della had some really vibrant colors in it, and that was shot with a Blackmagic. Interesting.

Yep! Don't listen to the skeptics. You can make the camera pop if you want! I just generally don't grade things so vibrant.

 

See, the problem is everyone shoots "test" footage. Nobody goes out and actually does production with it.

 

People are looking for the pretty shot and I'm just focused on capturing the moment. I don't have 10 takes to do something, I don't even have a 2nd take. If I don't get it the first time, I loose the shot and I can't get that moment back. This is why things like 10 bit 4:2:2 are important. This why having a decent piece of glass is SOOO critical as well. Now I'm not saying the pocket camera is any good at ENG shooting, but holy heck is it a lot small then the alternative!

 

Honestly, my shoulder rig sits in my bedroom and my camera backpack sits next to the front door because it's always in use by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler; you've got a very intimate shooting style. I guess you need that for the material I'm seeing here. I'm impressed, and also highly intimidated. Wow.

Yeah, thanks for answer that question about the colors. It's always been a major issue with me as to what "looks good".

 

Another stupid question here; I'm guessing anyone shooting with DSLRs or any of the cameras mentioned on this thread, strictly goes by what the camera can gather, and waveform monitors are a thing of the past. Is that right, or am I just showing my complete greenhornedness here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the GH4. Having shot on both cameras, I like the GH4 better personally. You're welcome to disagree with that, and you'd be well within your right to - just like I'm within my right to disagree about the pocket camera being almighty.

 

George has been presented some pretty good camera options that he can choose from, as well as some debate re: apple vs pc. I'm sure he has received enough to make an informed decision about what he wants. Yes, the GH4 will require a Shogun or similar to get good quality from. Yes, that likely entails a rail system... Maybe he doesn't mind that? Maybe he does and wants to go run and gun, in which case a pocket may well be fine.

 

I'm just getting tired of being always 'wrong' about this. I prefer a GH4, you prefer a pocket camera. Both are perfectly capable cameras, both have received praise from professional cinematographers around the world... Both have shot similar stuff... I'm not necessarily telling George he HAS to get a GH4 anymore than he SHOULDN'T get a pocket. I'm simply presenting the case for the GH4, a camera I use a lot. It's up top him to make that determination for himself.

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another stupid question here; I'm guessing anyone shooting with DSLRs or any of the cameras mentioned on this thread, strictly goes by what the camera can gather, and waveform monitors are a thing of the past. Is that right, or am I just showing my complete greenhornedness here?

 

Since Tyler does not shoot much DSLR, I guess I'll chip in on this one: If you're shooting a video profile (non-log), you can pretty much go by whats on your monitor alone - so long as it's a descent monitor. However, if you shoot LOG, you'll need to pay attention to exposure. the GH4 has built in Zebra's, and you really need to over-expose the highlights a bit in terms of v-log. I set Zebra one to 80% and Zebra two to around 40%, which gives a good exposure. However, now that I use my Shogun, that monitor has it's own built-in scopes and tools that I use over anything in the camera itself. And since v-log is finicky and can result in noisy shadows, you have to exposure correctly - so I use the scopes ALL the time.

 

The new Flame and Inferno recorders have HDR shooting, meaning it take take your v-log footage and apply an in-monitor LUT to bring it back to it's full HDR glory. Can't wait to get that.

 

As for in general with DSLR, I think most people without external recorders stick to Zebra's and the like.

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to see what I can get my hands on.

 

You guys have given me first class treatment here. I really appreciate that. I figured I'd get a few opinions, but I've gotten a complete run down on the pros and cons of Canon and non-Canon alike.

 

A very tough decision, but I need to settle on something.

 

I'm just eternally grateful that I don't have to grab a Bolex SR from State or some place, and spend lots of money on film footage and wait for the lab to give me the dailies. But, it feels like there was a simplicity there that's ... nostalgic.

 

Okay. I've got to do some serious building and scripting to do.

 

Thanks everyone! :) Seriously, I didn't think I'd get so much input. This has been a learning experience. Very much appreciated from an old dog like myself. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, who said George is trying to do run and gun stuff?

It's nice to have and sure you can disassemble your rig, but you wouldn't be recording 10 bit 4:2:2 at that point, so again... what's the point?

 

I don't 'sneak around' when I shoot stuff. If I'm somewhere that the requires permission and/or a permit, I attain that. Most of my stuff I shoot at the local metro park and on city streets because I have a year long permit for both.

99.98% of the other people in this world, don't follow your meticulous legal approach to things.

 

If I had to ask, beg or pay permission to shoot things, I would never be able to make anything, ever.

 

If I had your philosophy, I'd be living at home working a regular job, dreaming of making products, but never able to.

 

It also helps my Chinese toy becomes a professional stills camera that I shoot a lot of my nature photography with, and has been used on more than a few model shots over the past spring/winter/fall.

I have a Canon DSLR for stills that use the same Rokinon primes. I'm not a nature photographer, but every nature photographer I know, uses Nikon or Canon DSLR's, for good reason too.

 

Yeah, I don't think so. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 produces a fine image on my 4K GH4, so why was it soft on a 1080p pocket?

First off, there is no comparison between a zoom and a prime in terms of quality. The very best zooms are still nowhere near the quality of even decent primes. Second, the pocket uses the center of the glass, so if your lens isn't very crisp/sharp it will be soft. Also, most still glass won't work on a video camera because the focus is very temperamental. You won't notice focus issues as much with the larger imager camera, but you will notice aberrations in the edges of the glass.

 

Trust me, I've used Canon L series glass for years. I use to shoot stills with the stuff and it's amazing. Yet put it on the pocket camera and it's soft. There are a few zooms that work well on the pocket, but they're expensive cinema style zooms. So yes, on your camera, the lens will be "crisper" in the center, where it won't be as much on the edges. On the pocket, it SHOULD be crisp in the center and edges.

 

I used the camera enough in plenty of conditions to tell me what it was about.

I highly doubt you put in the effort. You can see from the 13 video's I've posted so far, the camera looks pretty damn good when being used right.

 

The largest project on my GH4 is the feature-length documentary 'Underground Indiana: The Binkley Expedition', which is a documentary with a planned 80 minute run time that was shot by me with my GH4 over the winter, and documents the exploration and discovery of the one of the longest caves in the United States. I have been working on post for that for the past several months, and it's honestly taken a back burner as I focus more on my narrative project.

Nice! Well, it would be great to get it out there for people to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler; you've got a very intimate shooting style. I guess you need that for the material I'm seeing here. I'm impressed, and also highly intimidated. Wow.

Thanks! That's just my personal stuff too. I do commercial stuff with the pocket cameras all the time. It's always fun to show up with a backpack of camera gear and a tripod slung over the shoulder to a commercial shoot. People come out to help me unload my truck and I'm like, "no need!" LOL

 

I wouldn't recommend the pocket, or any small camera to anyone doing commercial stuff. Mostly because it lacks the battery/display/IO that are required for bigger shoots. I've gotten away with A LOT with the pocket, more then I should. But hey, that's what I live for!

 

Another stupid question here; I'm guessing anyone shooting with DSLRs or any of the cameras mentioned on this thread, strictly goes by what the camera can gather, and waveform monitors are a thing of the past. Is that right, or am I just showing my complete greenhornedness here?

The pocket camera has a "histogram" built in. It's basically a graph which shows your signal, the blacks and highlights. It also has adjustable zebra stripes and focus clipping. So when I'm shooting, I'll start by setting the histogram where it should be based on experience and then I look at the shot to make sure there are no highlights in the zebra. There is a grid of green dots on the image on the focused area. So immediately you know what's in focus and what's not. The best thing is with the viewfinder adaptor, where your face is against the display, you can really get focus quick. As you can see from my videos, I'm rarely out of focus and MOST of what I've posted are one to two takes. Most of these "aids" don't exist on the DSLR's, though do on the other cameras like the GH4 and C100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not the camera that was the primary A camera on Mad Max. Hollywood has been using DSLRs like the 5D Mark II and others as crash and c-d camera on features a lot. That is nothing new. Arri and Red still rule the Hollywood set, and will for the foreseeable future. Why? Because Hollywood has little interest in $1,000 - $5,000 cameras. In my opinion, anything less than an Arri Alexa or Red Epic are simply pro-sumer cameras vying for a place among ultra-low budget filmmakers, and many are wasting their time getting caught up in the camera debate.

No doubt the Alexa and the Red (to a lesser extent) produce great, cinematic images comparable to film. Nothing less than that will compare in the real world. So all filmmakers who hackle over 8-bit vs 10-bit, 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4 vs 4:2:0, and sensor size are simply wasting their time comparing the size of their equipment, when they should be out shooting something with the camera that best fits their needs.

 

We can argue over 2 stops of dynamic range, and how the pocket sensor somehow creates more magic than the GH4 sensors or how the C100 has horrible MPEG noise - and we can have some great arguments about it as well... On and on for days, months, even years. Meanwhile, none of the films are getting made because we are too busy trying to keep up with Joe filmmaker who is shooting on the next kid camera.

 

I'd say most real filmmakers pick a camera that works in the moment for them, and ticks the most boxes, and then moves on to actually make the movie. Considering nobody watching in the audience cares or can tell what camera you shot it damn thing on, you're wasting your time comparing specs. That only pleases other filmmakers who like to pixel-peep. Can't speak for George, but that is not really my intended audience...

Camera craze was what kept me from making a movie or other film project for 10 years or more... Always needed the best of the best... Well you know what, I bought something and just started using it. It might not be an Alexa, but it works just fine.

 

We can also argue over PC vs MAC all day, but either platform will do the exact same thing, mostly with the exact same software (final cut excluded, but no one uses that anymore anyway).

 

SO, if camera does not matter that much, why am I pushing the GH4? Because it ticks a lot of boxes. 4K, Cinema Aspect, Vlog, ProRes option, wide lens selection, bigger sensor (though not huge), etc. The Black Magic and the C100 do not check a lot of those boxes. I'm simply suggesting to George that a properly outfitted GH4 can be had for around the price of a C100 body, and can produce images just as good as the C100, and has more options for future expand ability.

I could sit here and tell George how he should invest in Mac so he can outfit his 20 computer studio, or how he should buy a Blackmagic since it's going to get his dreams on the cinema screen - but I'd be wasting his time.

 

Bottom line: shoot something with what you have. 9 times out of 10, the audience won't know the difference.

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion isn't about what Hollywood uses for equipment. I only mentioned the use of Blackmagic cinema cameras because you said nobody uses them. To the contrary, a quick cursory google search came up with SEVERAL full-length features shot with the Blackmagic cameras. Yes, most of them are documentary style, which is MUCH HARDER on the camera and equipment then a closed environment narrative project. Heck there was even a nationally distributed feature shot on the pocket camera! It takes a lot of faith in your equipment to shoot a long-term project like that on a relatively unknown camera.

 

It is true, the vast majority of people watching any product, don't care about the equipment used unless it pulls them out of the story. I find it very difficult to watch modern blockbusters because something technical always pulls me out of the story. Whether it's blatantly fake lens flares and visual effects to poor shot composition and lighting.

 

Truth be told, the only person who does care greatly about the tools they work with, are the artisans using those tools.

 

So here we are at an impasse. Two people who strongly suggest their own workflows. Neither workflow is WRONG, but one of them is formed from years of experience, in the industry, working on the ground level. The other is based on being outside of the industry, looking in from the outside and using technical specifications/consumer reviews, to make purchase decisions.

 

My workflow and suggestions are pretty much proven by the 14 videos I posted here, one of which goes into some detail on the equipment decision making process.

 

Your workflow and hardware suggestions haven't been proven in the same way. The videos you posted have little significance to your workflow, outside of the camera body itself.

 

Where I appreciate your enthusiasm for the moving image, it gets very frustrating being shut down by a novice, time and time again. I may disagree with people on here, but that's based on my own personal experiences working in the film industry. That hands on experience is priceless, it's critical to growth. Every day you're asked to do something you've never done before. You have to come up with solutions that never arise in a controlled environment. You've got eyes watching you from all sides, you've got deadlines to meet and if the product isn't perfect, you may have to do it all over again on your own dime. These are the struggles filmmakers go through on a regular basis, sometimes hourly. This is what separates the novices from the experts, the businessmen from the doers. You're either out there in the poop, producing content, or you're sitting at home reading about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler, I think you're being a bit unfair to Landon. He has his own opinion based on what he knows how to use, just as you do. As do I. I've offered my own opinion and left it up to George to decide what to buy. I suggest we all do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler, I think you're being a bit unfair to Landon.

It's unfair to have people on here with a great deal of experience, be overweighed by someone with none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Ritter Battery



    Visual Products



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Serious Gear



    G-Force Grips



    Rig Wheels Passport



    FJS International



    Metropolis Post



    Tai Audio



    Abel Cine



    Wooden Camera



    Just Cinema Gear


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...