G
G.P.
Guest
This is by no means a bash to any of the DP's who were flown out to Japan to shoot their footage.
But why the heck were these all run and guy type shoots?? Coming from a cinema background where we actually control the lighting and flag lights and using shades, scrims, silks, and everything else to control light... why wouldn't you do a proper cinema test? It would have been quite easy to build a set inside a room, do some dramatic lighting with some actors and actually shoot some scenes.
I mean this camera keeps being called a "cinema camera" then why do I only see run and gun shooting? why do I only see available lighting and 0 control over that available light? No silks, no flags, no proper cinema setup at all. I think that would have GREATLY help the viewers of this footage evaluate it for what that camera is targeted for, cinema type shooting. The footage I'm watching seems to just be what a tourist would shoot on a trip, not very much testing what a cinema camera can do. Why fly a bunch of DP's out to test a cinema camera and not doing cinema tests??
I would have gone straight to a standard set shoot, with metering, full lighting control, actors with both dark and light skin, and shot something cinematic, not tourists in Japan footage. Sure its nice to see what this camera can do just walking around outside and shooting what you can, but its all not really practical for the cinema world. Sure for documentary footage its fine, but when you have a set with actors, crew, producers, and a dramatic script, comedy script, any script... you'd want the same thing for every other film, control of lighting. Even if its as simple as some large silks over head, why wasn't this tested? Is this "cinema" camera really being tested as such? or is this "cinema camera" falling into the traps of the consumer world?
This is not a bashing, this is a serious question from my point of view. If I was flown to Japan to evaluate a new cinema camera from Panasonic that shoots with proper lenses, I'd go in a dark room, get some actors sitting in chairs, start doing some dramatic lighting, soft light, hard light, colored light, flat light, flares, and all of that could have been done in a 5 hour time. Shoot some over the shoulders, shoot some 2 shoots, shoot some wides, change up the lenses... Thats kind of common among testing any cinema camera, its the tests we always see. So why didn't this happen?
Is this camera not geared towards filmmaking, and more geared towards run-and-gun shooting? documentary type shooting? I think these questions are important, because overall it shows whats actually being done with this camera and who its really being geared towards.
I feel slightly let down, because I heard some DP's where going to do some test shooting of the AF100 and this is not the kind of stuff I was expecting at all. It's not really test footage to me, in fact its not even usable for evaluating cinema use. On a film set you'd never just run and shoot, you'd meeter, you'd silk, you'd flag, you'd light.
Attack me if you must, but I think I make a very valid point, and these are the questions I have. Maybe if they actually did those shoots we would have gotten AMAZING footage?? We would have seeing beautiful shots of actors in nice lighting, the things a cinema camera is built for. I know there are some other uses for this camera, but then don't market it as a cinema camera and not show anything cinematic with it.
my 2 bits, anyone care to elaborate?
But why the heck were these all run and guy type shoots?? Coming from a cinema background where we actually control the lighting and flag lights and using shades, scrims, silks, and everything else to control light... why wouldn't you do a proper cinema test? It would have been quite easy to build a set inside a room, do some dramatic lighting with some actors and actually shoot some scenes.
I mean this camera keeps being called a "cinema camera" then why do I only see run and gun shooting? why do I only see available lighting and 0 control over that available light? No silks, no flags, no proper cinema setup at all. I think that would have GREATLY help the viewers of this footage evaluate it for what that camera is targeted for, cinema type shooting. The footage I'm watching seems to just be what a tourist would shoot on a trip, not very much testing what a cinema camera can do. Why fly a bunch of DP's out to test a cinema camera and not doing cinema tests??
I would have gone straight to a standard set shoot, with metering, full lighting control, actors with both dark and light skin, and shot something cinematic, not tourists in Japan footage. Sure its nice to see what this camera can do just walking around outside and shooting what you can, but its all not really practical for the cinema world. Sure for documentary footage its fine, but when you have a set with actors, crew, producers, and a dramatic script, comedy script, any script... you'd want the same thing for every other film, control of lighting. Even if its as simple as some large silks over head, why wasn't this tested? Is this "cinema" camera really being tested as such? or is this "cinema camera" falling into the traps of the consumer world?
This is not a bashing, this is a serious question from my point of view. If I was flown to Japan to evaluate a new cinema camera from Panasonic that shoots with proper lenses, I'd go in a dark room, get some actors sitting in chairs, start doing some dramatic lighting, soft light, hard light, colored light, flat light, flares, and all of that could have been done in a 5 hour time. Shoot some over the shoulders, shoot some 2 shoots, shoot some wides, change up the lenses... Thats kind of common among testing any cinema camera, its the tests we always see. So why didn't this happen?
Is this camera not geared towards filmmaking, and more geared towards run-and-gun shooting? documentary type shooting? I think these questions are important, because overall it shows whats actually being done with this camera and who its really being geared towards.
I feel slightly let down, because I heard some DP's where going to do some test shooting of the AF100 and this is not the kind of stuff I was expecting at all. It's not really test footage to me, in fact its not even usable for evaluating cinema use. On a film set you'd never just run and shoot, you'd meeter, you'd silk, you'd flag, you'd light.
Attack me if you must, but I think I make a very valid point, and these are the questions I have. Maybe if they actually did those shoots we would have gotten AMAZING footage?? We would have seeing beautiful shots of actors in nice lighting, the things a cinema camera is built for. I know there are some other uses for this camera, but then don't market it as a cinema camera and not show anything cinematic with it.
my 2 bits, anyone care to elaborate?
