nahua

So when creating ProRes444 proxies there is virtually no loss of quality or flexibility, as you can see here. This was rendered from the proxy in AE, and I bent the shit out of this image and gave it a massively oversaturated, bleach bypass "Domino" look (In honor of the departed Tony Scott) and it holds up beautifully. (I had to zoom in 400% to see a infinitesimal amount of pixel blur vs. the DNG). So a proxy based workflow is a definite, and viable option.

[url="https://vimeo.com/48098229"]http://www.vimeo.com/48098229[/url]

multiply your 1920 wide figure by 1.5x. = 2880px wide

create a custom frame of 1080x2880, 24fps/25fps when initially setting up the project.

import your footage in and then drag your first clip into timeline. click it and then go to effects tab. on 'motion' deselect uniform scale and set horizontal scale to 150%. bring the rest of your clips in and then right click and 'copy' the first clip. select all the other clips and right click and 'paste attributes'. it will stretch all of the footage by 150%.

otherwise, right click your clips in the preview box and hit 'modify/interpret footage' then there might be a selection for 1.5x anamorphic. i know there is a 1.33x option. if not maybe you can create one?

exporting.. I use quicktime .Mov. H284 compression. 24bit, bitrate depends on the type of footage. frame size =1920x1080. using this frame size means the frame is smaller and black bars get added to the top and bottom. with this there is a perceived detail improvement due to the vertical lines being squeezed. if you want to maintain 1080 tall on the actual image area you need to use uncompressed .mov then set your output frame to match your preview frame(1080x2880)

hope that helps:)

Andrew's review from a while back: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/639/rewo-gh2-cage-full-review"]http://www.eoshd.com...age-full-review[/url]

If anyone is interested: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/ReWo-V2-0-Professional-Grade-Cage-for-GH2-Rare-and-no-longer-in-production-/200808264756#ht_617wt_1367"]http://www.ebay.com/...6#ht_617wt_1367[/url]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345289787' post='15965']
This gets boring very quickly. 1 - it wasn't just fanboys trumpeting the GH2, it was Francis Ford Coppola. 2. I find the fanboy thing offensive because it implies a lack of technical judgement, clouded by emotion.

[b][i]Go and tell the grading studio Andy Lee knows in the UK who said the GH2 holds up brilliantly in post - and they have been dealing with stuff from Red and Alexa for years.[/i][/b]
[/quote]

Andrew has done a superb job of bring the GH2 to a much wider group of people because of this forum he has set up.
I for one only considered switching to a GH2 from years with Canons because of Andrew's work detailing how to get the best out of this great little camera.
I reciently took a hard disc full of GH2 footage to be graded on a Flame Hi end machine at the Facilitys House I have been using for nearly 20 years now......and they are very used to handling Arri Alexa, Canon C300 and Red Raw Files for feature films they have edited and commercials.
The GH2 footage looked superb on their ref monitors AND had a big lattitue in the grade and held alot of infomation that could be pulled out if needed....
I was runing Driftwood Quantum 9b hack exactly like the Zacuto shoot out.
They said these files are as good as any Red or Arri file was have worked on, the GH2 footage I shot was comparable to those cameras and in that bracket of quality and detail.

We all have the choise to use what ever camera we want ...I think for me the GH2 is a great camera for the money and gives me the quaility that is almost as good as the bigger more expensive cameras like Epic, Arri and Sony F65 if used creatively and with good lighting.

Andrew has shot some superb looking films with his GH2 as have many many other people accross the world and people will continue to do so.

The GH2 is genuinely democratising film making for all of us!

So get shooting and get busy !!

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1345295517' post='15973']
Yet, at the same time, our creativity would not grow. Picasso painted when he was destitute, John Huston directed when his lungs already collapsed, Beethoven composed when he was deaf and had painfully swollen intestines. Not that I compare myself to any of them, I just say an Alexa doesn't shoot my film.
[/quote]

Tis true! They always say that talent shines through, and hopefully it always will! These are all just tools with which to make some art, conduits for expression, they should really be secondary once they're mastered or at least grasped. They are great fun to learn and discuss, but shouldn't rule our lives or the way we express ourselves. They always say: shoot, right now! With whatever you have. You'll learn than more not shooting but wishing you had something else to shoot with.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345202214' post='15880']Lighting everything the same -- in effect purposefully mis-using a less-forgiving piece of equipment -- then saying "look, cheap cameras aren't as good" is a bit of pointless academia IMHO. The spec sheet already tells me that information.[/quote]

Yes this is bang on correct, they wouldn't mishandle an Alexa in a scientific test so why mishandle the GH2 by getting the exposure and focus wrong in 2 out of the 3 empirical shots?

[quote name='HellKat' timestamp='1345303087' post='15987']But, man, learn your place.[/quote]

How about you learn your place? Are you forgetting it is my blog, where do you suggest I put my own personal opinion if not on here? Being offended by what you perceive incorrectly as a bias implies you have certain rights which I've trodden on. Sorry for stomping on your rights over my blog sir!

You don't have any right and I can write what I want.

[quote name='HellKat' timestamp='1345303087' post='15987']
Although I agree with a number of things you mentioned in your critique of part 3 (in particular, where you talk about endless reminders about the importance of creativity which BTW often look like mantras lacking any sunstance), I think the overall tone of your blog post (and your advices) are not appropriate. Part 3 does not confirm your major leitmotif regarding GH2 - not a surprise, you do not like it.

Here is a piece of advice for you - next time you do what Zacuto did with their overall excellent and amazing effort by its scale and contribution to the filmmaking community, and then we'll see if you are up to the challange yourself.

To finish on a positive note - I respect what you do and check your blog almost every day. Equally, I respect your contribution to the community (even if I sometimes disagree with all your biases). But, man, learn your place.
[/quote]

Really idiotic comment that does nothing to address the facts.

Sorry it took so long for me to upload this. Edelkrone Modula 5 w/ Focus One follow focus. SmallHD DP4, Zoom H4n w/ Azden shorty shotgun mic (going for a Rode NTG2 soon) and generic LED light up top.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/13677/502cc27749ed6__OB_2194.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/13677/502cc33a26d2d__OB_2204.jpg[/img]

I've used both lenses. Remember that pancake lenses are sharp and good for still shots. They are terrible for AF video motion shots. The 25mm Leica is much better for video, but it isn't without drawbacks. AF for anything under F2.0 is challenging, and it will hunt a lot. And if you're doing manual focus, the focus ring on the 25mm is way better. Trying to do manual focus on a pancake is impossible with a follow focus, don't know how you'd get the gears on it. However if you're doing still shots, the pancake lenses are great value for the money. And they are tiny. Good luck with your decision!

Picked one of these up last week but not really had too much time to test it.

However, I have addressed the filter thread issue in a way that might be too extreme for some but here it is anyway.

I looked at the magnetic option and as clever as it is, it is let down by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any info regarding a release date and I didn't fancy just having this thing in a box waiting for that to arrive.

Before doing what I did, I rationalised it by asking myself two questions :

1) Did I envisage a time when I wouldn't want this camera to have a filter thread
2) Did I envisage selling it and if so to someone who would be put off by it having a filter thread.

The answer to both was a pretty firm No so I pressed ahead with my not particularly hi tech solution of adding a permanent filter thread with the aid of a step up convertor and some super glue.

As luck would have it, I had a 46mm-52mm step up convertor and the 46mm end is pretty much the perfect diameter to fit the lens housing of the RX100 and only adds a few mm of extra appendage to the camera. One advantage to that is that it does add a little bit of protection to the actual lens glass which is no bad thing.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20751/501bd8d41ae06_r1000filterthread.jpg[/img]


So, I now have an RX100 with a perfectly serviceable 52mm filter thread.

I've found the Cokin A series system to be a good add on for something like the RX100 as it gives you a slot for a circular polariser and three more slots for NDs and Grad NDs etc so its pretty flexible.

As the A series are pretty compact, it also feeds into the cinema camera in your pocket vibe !

Another big advantage is that they are reasonably cheap (particularly "compatible" ones such as 4 x ND at less than £20 on ebay) and you also often find people selling an entire collection on ebay for a bargain price.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20751/501bdb1e8dd17_r1000filterthread2.jpg[/img]


Of course I'm not just limited to using the Cokin system, so I just add the 52mm-77mm step up and can use my Lightcraft variable ND as well.

So, there you go, it might be sacrilege for some to start permanently disfiguring a brand new camera but I think the ends justify the means in this case as it makes it useable now rather than at some unknown point in the future and at less than a fiver you certainly can't argue with the price ;)

[quote name='PAVP' timestamp='1344369725' post='15078']
I really think we're missing the point if we look at this footage and are critiquing the manner in which it was shot. It's a good thing that it wasn't a perfectly lit, steadycam'd, big production that accounted for every weakness the camera could have. What would we learn from that? With enough time and money you can make any camera look great and yet not know much about what the true character of the camera is. This is like a window into what the camera is really like minus all the trappings.
[/quote]
1. To some degree I agree with this, but there are certain technical things that even the most indie film maker should/could iron out.

2. If the article had prefaced these shots with something like, "we wanted to show what the camera looked like, ungraded, and under poor shooting conditions so we...", I would have judged it [b]very[/b] differently.

3. Clearly Mr. Brawley is an accomplished and talented filmmaker, and I doubt he gives two shites about what some meathead like me thinks about some of his unpolished work from an unreleased camera. All I did was criticize the footage that was shown to me without any context.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344367049' post='15069']
The aesthetic they choose was probably down to one of two things. A) they like it like that, loose and informal, can be read as intimate. B)
[/quote]

There is a difference between informal and sloppy. What we saw was sloppy work, for all the reasons I listed above.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344367049' post='15069']
You've seen next to nothing yet you demand something that doesn't have "terrible lighting". It's a daylight shoot with a 3 man crew!
[/quote]

Last time I checked, a three man crew was enough to use a glidecam while someone else holds a reflector.

After going to John Brawley's website, and looking at his reel (and seeing how good it was), I'm even more disappointed with what we see here.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344363313' post='15065']
Just signed up here just to say, where do you get the balls?
[/quote]

From a Y chromosome...duh.

What part of my criticism do you disagree with?

1. The handheld was shaky throughout, starting with the very first shot
2. Sloppy focus at 0:15
3. Guys face mostly in shadow, with a bright spot ocasionally hitting his forhead (1:45)
4. Weird tracking shot swaying back and forth (2:40 ish)
5. Guys face is too dark in the last scene

Look, it's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd put out there to show off new tech just weeks from the suposed launch.

Another Black Magic test that proves only one thing: They need to give the camera to someone else who knows what they are doing. I liked the pool footage better. This was shot with terrible lighting and bad camerawork. What's up with the huge sways durring the tracking shots?

It's got a small sensor(relative to most of the competition) so i'm not surprised about the low light perfromance, but I want to know what this thing can do when lit properly.

This type of innovation is only possible with the initial revenue earned from early investors and pre orders. A lot of the manufacturing bills will have been paid off the back of the pre order revenue. Everyone pre booking will have known this and been prepared - as has been proven by comments from guys who have pre ordered.

The guys being sour won't ever order one of these anyway. -They go with the flow, worried about taking risks, while hoping the innovators fail. When it succeeds they'll change their tune. Only dead fish go with the flow!

Without the chancers and real innovative enthusiastic guys creating and backing this stuff there would be no development, no improvement, and no gains. It would just be grumpy moaners talking the talk without walking the walk.

down @ red hq

jim j

stacey,stacy is it is it true what i heard over the inter web about the delays delays you know the de lays.

stacy
what did you here big fella.

jim j
about those damned fools fools.
you know those crazy aussie cats that made that plastic magic toy de layed cinema camra.

stacy
sure back to bondi beach and back to the drawing board for those kangaroo rustlers.
a lickle issue involving data through put overload resulting in coronal mass ejection sensor melt.
the negative temperature coefficient that will not allow current to flow to kryptonic cryogenic cooling heat sink.
thereby latching and interrupting the device into a tripped position until the device is either manually reset or explodes.
that thing.

jim j
my head hurts and my rubber ducky is throbbing can you give me some boss man relief

[quote name='MOONGOAT' timestamp='1343282620' post='14535']
Reserve judgement.
[/quote]

Yes.
Within a greenscreen hell, everything looks depressingly technical and clean.

A good friend of mine is a production designer. She worked as draughtsperson for David Cronenbergs [i]A Dangerous Method.[/i] The studio filming was done on a big soundstage in Cologne. I often gave her a ride and saw the sets. Nothing spectacular, if you see the final film, but I still have a plank from the gangway Freud and Jung passed to embark their ship to New York. Not wood, painted plaster. But looking more convincing than any real wood ever could. This is something I find very fascinating.

Cinema is about the meaning of things, or, to say with Freud, it's NOT about the cigar! Things that don't resonate in your soul don't make it to the final frame. This has nothing to do with reality, and it has nothing to do with pixel counting or frames-per-second-counting (although the different look of motion over time may have an influence on how we perceive fiction, we'll see).

There is a beautiful behind-the-scenes clip of [i]You The Living[/i]. It demonstrates how film is "only" make believe:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK661yswOF4[/media]

a bead of sweat trickles down big jim's face.
god damn their aussie eyes.
his attractive intern stacy holds his hand and says big jim it will be ok for sure.
that sensor.
the the little sensor it will burn up in no time.
data through put will melt that plastic sucker,chill out iceman.
now how about a back rub and a dip in the hot tub.
thanks says jim.
stacy.
stacy do you really think the camera will melt..
and it will be ok..
i
i mean first the sauerkrauts with alexa now this.
what about my red flock my followers my people.
i feel rudderless.
get over hear in the tub jim.
sure.
stacy yes jim
have you seen my rubber ducky

if this thing is rugged and survives a little crew abuse.
methinks some companies will be cursing it.
praying willing a sensor or system melt down.
i hate the design but the guts are looking good.
take the crap off the front put a M/43 mount on it and you have a real killer


mr jannard's gonna have to buy these suckers and shut the company down before they start moving up the sensor sizes scale. at that point steam will start pumping out of big jims face.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500f28edc4474_CONTINEO_BMC_11.jpg[/img]

Form factor fixed :)

Some people who was featured in that video were average DP you probably might not have heard of had they not got famous because of video dSLRs. They were given the opportunity to play with a prototype or early production models by the manufacturer and released an early clip. It almost seems like each manufacturer when releasing something new would designate someone for fame, they released a footage benefited by the fact the camera will do well anyway. Vincent Laforet is a photographer but he epitomise someone who became a respected film director due to the publicity surrounding his few minute video clip made from the 5DII. Now we have John Brawley who is a DP whose name we would not have heard of 4 months ago but his name is going be sealed in the videographers Hall of Fame and no doubt soon rubbing shoulders with the likes of Coppola, Lucas, Tarantino, etc because he was given a BMC prototype to play with.

We have manufactured popstars, celebrities and reality TV shows, I suppose manufactured celebrity DP has made it present known in the last few years because of affordable video capable dSLR and the likes that is more accessable to the masses.

Reading a lot of the reaction to the Shootout Part 2 is making me cry a little inside.

I want to offer my view of it and rebuff what I think are the misconceptions out there. I am sure Steve can chip in as well to correct me if I'm wrong.

[b]Misconception - "Coppola did not pick "the GH2" as having the best technical performance, he picked the way it was used as being more appealing than the way some of the others were."[/b]

This is only half true. Any shot is a marriage of 'the way the tool was used' and 'the technical performance'. The resulting shot is the sum of all parts. You cannot give the camera no credit or say the camera doesn't matter, even if the lighting was a bigger factor, the camera still plays a critical role in delivering the image.

[b]Misconception - "Gear does not matter. It's you."[/b]

"It's you" is the correct part of this statement and the part I think Steve is getting across. "Gear doesn't matter" is often used as shorthand for saying "talent matters most" which is fine but unsurprisingly the way people are interpreting it is often very literal, very black and white. Of course gear matters. Filmmaking is a marriage of man and machine, of the technical and the artistic. Both aspects matter [i]greatly[/i]. "It's you... And a thousand other things". Let's not over simplify it.

[b]Misconception - "Clean images look too plastic"[/b]

I've seen grungy stuff that is so out of place. Sometimes I cry out for that highly saturated HD look. A silky smooth image with no noise. Grungy images are just one of the paints in the filmmaking palette, they are not automatically more cinematic than a clean image. I personally like putting the life back in with old lenses, film grain overlays, etc. But it doesn't mean I will shoot everything like that. Just the stuff that needs it.

[b]Misconception - "Content is king"[/b]

This is shorthand for saying that unless you have a narrative script which goes from A to B, you have no content. For me, a beautiful shot or a small unspoken moment can have as much content as 10 pages of dialogue. For these kinds of shot, how you shoot it visually is more important than the literal interpretation of the script. It actually transcends the content and the words on the paper.

If we count everything in front of the camera as 'content' and crown it king, that also is wrong - because you can have a complete dummy behind the camera with no feel for the language of cinema and piss that content right up the wall.

[b]Misconception - "Grading is cheating / Grading doesn't matter / Grading is essential"[/b]

Again extreme arguments when the truth is never that black and white or one trick suits all. Overheard a quote elsewhere about the Shootout and think it is worth drawing attention too... "This is crazy that people are basically implying that the lighting and coloring was a form of cheating. Guess what camera looks good with no regard to lighting/post work? None of them." Whilst I don't agree that footage automatically looks rubbish if you don't grade it I do agree that to imply that grading and post work to lift the lower end cameras in the Shootout was a form of cheating is ridiculous. It is a viable and established technique in filmmaking and all the cameras were touched by the colourist even the F65.

[b]Misconception - "Lighting is king"[/b]

Lighting is very important but sadly there are many many many people who have a very boxed in view of what lighting is. A key light, a fill light, a man literally moving an electronic light source into position. 'That is how you control lighting'. No it isn't! Your key light could be the sun. Your key light could even be the god damned moon. Your fill light could be a rear window, it could be the end of a tunnel or even a cloudy London sky. Woody Allen likes Europe because of our shit weather. Our shit weather is his fill light. Go and square that with your Arri Fresnel set!

[b]Misconception - "It is bad to be more interested in camera gear than everything else"[/b]

Filmmaking is a collaborative effort that brings a range of people together. They are focussed on what they're most interested in, only the director, writer and producer have a very broad overview of the whole thing. If I hire a DP I'd be worried if he was NOT interested in the camera technology. I wouldn't want him as a writer that is for sure :) Some of these obsessives who talk about cameras and pixel peeping are future cinematographers. They are not merely hobbyists.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/compact-cine-systems-nex-5n-cinema-housing.jpg[/img]

[url="http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574929666&toolid=10001&campid=5336727214&customid=&icep_item=120951703965&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg"]Click here to purchase your Cine Housing for the NEX 5N[/url][img]http://rover.ebay.com/roverimp/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?ff3=2&pub=5574929666&toolid=10001&campid=5336727214&customid=&item=120951703965&mpt=[CACHEBUSTER][/img]

Due to demand Richard Gale has decided to go ahead and put into production his Compact Cine Systems housing for the Sony NEX 5N.

The housing is designed to be used with the NEX 5N, Sony CLM V55 monitor and lens. It is built to order and made in England.

Free advertising for Ray Valenti! Of course, I'll never be able to afford a house after buying all of these anamorphic lenses.

There are a couple of generic/off-brand models out there. I have no idea of what this one is. But it's good to hear that you seem to have found a winner.

To answer your question about aspect ratio, try this: Print a picture of a circle and tape it a wall. Square up your camera as much as possible and get a quick shot of the circle. Then take it into your editing software and stretch it out until it's a perfect circle again. Look at how much you had to stretch it and you'll know the ideal ratio of your lens.