Very cool. Unnecessary, but very cool.
'Murch describes the music here as "a collector and channeler of previously created emotion, rather than the device that creates that emotion."' -- I think that's profound.
I think the most common use of music (in film/TV generally) is to tell the audience what to feel during a scene -- suspenseful music, comic music, etc. But this is lazy filmmaking when that emotion is unsupported by image/editing/story/acting.
The method described in the video works great for objects on a desk, but what about getting a shot of two people lying in a bed? Or what about heavier cameras?
For anyone interested, here's some alternative methods: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-28748.html
Dumb question -- what does "DIT" stand for? I thought it normally stands for "digital imaging technician", but that doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the article. Does it also stand for "digital intermediate transfer" or something like that?
Jeremy, hard to say what gear you should get/consider. Depends what you shoot, what your particular needs/problems are, what gear you already have, how good the gear you have is.
I reckon most people would look at your list and say, "Get sound! Definitely get sound!" If you've got image covered already (because your camera is fine, your lenses are fine), but you don't have any sound gear at all, then adding sound will make a big difference to your production value.
As to what sort of sound gear to get, and which bits of gear... Really "just depends" again.
If you've got a guy to operate a boom pole, a shotgun or hypercardioid will give you great sound. This is how it's done even on productions with huge budgets after all. If you're relying on in-camera sound a lot, a shotgun is also a good choice. Personally, I use lav mics for most of my sound.
All the gear you mention is fine -- Zoom H6 is a great recorder, Sennheiser lavs are pretty standard, NTG3 is fantastic. You can definitely buy cheaper that will probably do the job (for instance, Tascam DR-100 recorder, Sony UWP lav mics, NTG1), but there are features the more expensive gear has that the cheaper gear doesn't.
I liked David's response above. Lots of variables in your question, Mike -- what you're shooting, what your aesthetic is, what your time constraints are... One thing to bear in mind is that every option enables as well as limits. You can get shots with a steadicam you can't get with a tripod. You can get shots with a monopod you can't get with a slider. You think in a different way when restricted to a fixed lens, while zoom lenses can make you lazier.
Truth is, while every shooter will have a weapon of choice, any decent shooter can do a lot of damage with any stabilising device, or none. So, Raguel might like tripods, Guy might be a gimbal guy, David might like monopods, but if you told any of these guys they have 15 minutes to get shots, and have to do it handheld, I'm sure they'd all come up with great images.
Thought this might be of interest: Philip Bloom "ten minute challenge" with the Sony PMW-200: http://philipbloom.net/blog/pmw200/
"I set myself a challenge… Go to one spot, don’t move the tripod, but you can pan, tilt, zoom the camera. Hit record and don’t button off for ten minutes, and try and get as many varied shots as possible. This is what I did and you can see my results below."