My advice is: be patient with yourself.
If you've been looking at the world through the eyes of a photographer,
don't get seduced into thinking that shooting motion pictures means that
every element has to be moving (camera zooming/panning while subject
moves) in every shot. Play around with duration. Let things unfold. Whether
you're working on narrative pieces or making commercials, the way your
shots unfold over time plays with the viewer's expectations. You aren't just
sculpting light and composing objects in 2D space—you're also composing
and sculpting time. Be patient and allow yourself to play around with time.
I think Guy is right:
"You might want to nail down exactly what you want to shoot before investing in a lot of equipment..."
Making moving pictures is about problem-solving. Sometimes you have the
equipment ahead of time because you know what hurdles you'll need to clear
(this is why storyboarding is essential). But you can't be prepared for every
eventuality, and in fact working with limitations and overcoming unforeseen
obstacles forces you to be creative.
Another interesting but semi-unrelated sidebar is new technology. If you watch
a lot of films by great directors of the past, you'll probably notice a few who
were obsessed with trying to capture shots that today's technology makes
far easier to accomplish. So would those astounding shots still be arresting
if they were made with modern, "easier" techniques? Probably. Because these
shots are not only technically amazing, they serve the story/ideas and immerse
the viewer in the action.
For example extremely wide shots that track smoothly so that the camera "enters"
a space. The extended (visually operatic) opening shot of "Touch of Evil" by Orson
Welles sets the tone for the entire film. It isn't trying to be "subtle". It's trying to
force you to sit back in your seat so that you give yourself over completely to the
experience of the film.
And then there is the opening shot in Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca" where the
camera pans up to show Manderley before zooming in and passing through fog
and curtains to enter a room within the building. For the shot they use a miniature
recreation of the building and some camera tricks (passing through a transparency)
so that the miniature shot matches up with a shot of an actual interior shot of the
room. The effect is that the viewer is swept up and "passes through" the curtains to
enter into the story.
Today these kinds of shots would be done with a drone. No "miniature" or 3D
computer replicas of buildings needed. The drone could just swoop in from outside
and "enter" the action. But will the technology that makes this possible make such
shots seem a hackneyed cliché or make them seem more relevant? The "handheld"
look of films from the '60s and '70s was informed by the equipment that made such
shots of close action possible. Overuse makes any technique into a cliché. And then
a creative manipulation of such a cliché turns it back into something inventive again.
All of which highlights what Guy was saying. Try figuring out what you're trying to do
before you invest in expensive equipment. Whether shooting drama or stock footage,
the camerawork should serve what you're trying to convey—it can be subtle and almost
seem transparent (not noticed but only felt by viewer) or prominently part of the tone
and feel of what you're doing.
I agree with everything you said.
Except that I agree with the Kodak boss that the Alexa is a "video camera". You don't thread some sort of strip of digital membrane through the camera to capture the light directly so that you can later project light through the membrane to recreate the image. By all measures the Alexa captures light by using sensor technologies derived from making video cameras with the goal of achieving the "look" of film footage after it has been digitally transferred.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but to me "digital film" is a misnomer, and is shorthand for "film-look achieved digitally", whereas the word "video" has morphed in the popular imagination to mean "consumer" (i.e. cheap and not to be taken seriously).
But then again, I guess since there is a "film" that coats the image sensor on a digital camera, and so using the term "film camera" is fine, especially as a new generation grows up without having the experience of viewing movies projected on "film".
So far no GH5 rumor has proven true.
But hopefully you're right.
Or, if there is no real announcement on Sept. 19th, then we will only be certain that we still don't know yet.
"Beginner queries" that are specific are not the same as stock queries such as "What is the most cinematically perfect 4K camera that I can buy for $20 that will make my movies pro-level and gorgeous and instantly distributed."
A sticky about the factors to take into consideration when looking into a camera
wouldn't necessarily change the fact that new people are going to ask similar questions
all the time. As others have said, that just happens with online forums.
But... I totally agree that there should be some form of moderation to curtail the
overtly spam-like posts. A "report" button would create more "work" for moderators,
but would improve the quality of the NFS boards.
I suppose the Discussion/Question forum divide is supposed to be a way to separate
the beginner questions about gear from the informed discussions. But I'm not sure
if that's the best way to organize a board. The "answers" are hidden in the Questions
forum and have to be clicked to be opened. So if you want to peruse the responses
that have been given, it is much more difficult and clunky.
When was the last time I saw a movie I knew almost nothing about?
Yesterday. Because that's how I try to see every movie that I watch.
I like to "go in clean". I don't want to read about it ahead of time, I
don't want to see trailers. If I see a trailer then I anticipate when
scenes from the trailer will take place. And I know ahead of time
what the characters will say. If I want to read a book that has an
introduction I don't read that until after I've finished reading the
book itself. I don't want to read a book with someone else's
conception of that book filtering how I take it in.
With a sequential artform like movies, I feel like it's imperative for
me (as much as possible) to let the sequence unfold as intended.