nahua

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342408742' post='13943']
I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D

But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across.
[/quote]

I agree I think the core of the test should change. You can make nice images for cheap, We get it already. Let's show how certain tools work best for certain purposes. Also how to get the most out of them. Perhaps they should give the operators/teams of the cameras a short script to shoot consisting of like 3 scenes. One outdoors, one indoors, and one at night. Something like that and then show how certain decisions have to be made when using a certain tool. I don't know, that's just the first thing that came to me.

I understand totally. I don't understand the doubt with all the evidence out there. I actually don't own a GH2 yet. I plan on getting one because I think the image is lovely and it's a very powerful tool.

I preferred the image from the Alexa myself. But if they switched up the DPs for round two, would I be saying the same thing?

The fact that the GH2 is even a [i]part[/i] of this conversation is remarkable. I sold off all of my Canon gear and bought the GH2 because I wanted to have a camera that could produce an image without any distracting visual shortcomings -- I wanted people (professionals, casual YouTube surfers, and everyone in between) to be engaged with the content instead of the pixels. For the most part, I feel like it has been a good decision.

There will always be bigger, better and newer cameras coming out but as far as I am concerned, this one sets the bar for consumer video cameras and will continue to as long as 1080P is still a part of the conversation.

KahL please meet Facts.

The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.

I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.

Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.

Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.

TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...

I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.

I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind.

http://vimeo.com/45596420

What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.

We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!

Speaking of pixel peeping there really is no light in Vitaliy's dark soul is there? http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/74231#Comment_74231

How can anyone fail to be happy when someone like Francis Ford Coppola appreciates their work?

I cannot stress it enough, we are in an age finally where only how you see something is what matters, and having the courage to go out there and make it happen, not what you use to see it on. The GH2 proves that, not just by being mentioned here, but for what I also, like Andrew, have fought long and hard to manifest in people who want to be filmmakers, it's your idea and nothing esle that must permeate everything you do. All these online forums and opinions, 99% of them only are intrested in specs and technical point scoring against each other, none of them are interested in using the toolset to define something else, the actual purpose of why they were made to begin with! If an audience can take a film shot on video to a $100m at the box-office, then that should be your wake up call, and if you hadn't woken up after that, then you never will. Keep pixel peeping. I'll just shoot :)

I had guessed that B was the GH2 simply based on the comments about how those guys lit the scene. I also think it was a bit too video looking, but still I would be more than happy with footage that looked that good overall and perhaps toned it down just a bit and had the scene with a bit more DR than it had. They kind of overdid it, but that is based on how it looked on my Vizio and not how it may have translated in the theater. I can imagine that it probably popped just right on a big screen and projector.

Regardless it gives me great confidence in the capabilities of the GH2 and that has value of it own. I now know that i'm not fooling myself when I think something I record looks good. It actually does look good and not just cuz i shot it on my camera and and deluding myself. That knowledge has value. I come from a Pro Audio background and I know all too well that many times we fool ourselves into thinking the work we did with low cost gear sounds better than it actually did. It was hard to have a frame of reference to make that judgment. However, with the GH2 we have a really telling frame of reference that is undeniable. Now I can just work and stop worrying so much.

Right now the exciting cameras in the sub 10K range are the FS 100/700, Nikon D800, Black Magic Design Cinema and GH2 IMO.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033b76a2eb8_sonyf3.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033b892dc49_panasonicgh2.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033b9b699f4_redepic.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033bac313b5_iphone4s.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033bca7ae0e_canonc300.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033be1c92d6_arrialexa.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033bf90708b_canon7d.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033c0945b0d_sonyf65.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033c1a4ad53_sonyfs100.jpg[/img]


A - SONY F3
B - PANASONIC GH2
C - RED EPIC
D - IPHONE 4S
E - CANON C300
F - ARRI ALEXA
G - CANON 7D
H - SONY F65
I - SONY FS100

My top 3 choices from watching part 1 where:
Camera H
Camera F
Camera B

I was very surprised to find out they where

Camera H - Sony F65
Camera F - Arri Alexa
Camera B - Panasonic GH2

wow! stunned ! the two most expensive cinema cameras and the GH2 !

I really thought Camera B was going to be the Red Epic and it was the GH2!

So this just goes to show we can all make great Movies with the gear we have!!! .... a GH2

A big salute to Panasonic and Nick Driftwood for putting a camera in our hands that is capable of competing with Hollywood movie Cameras without us spending over 50,000 on the camera.

Artistry and talent are such an important part of this and ultimately it is all very subjective and personal.

But for me this shows in the right hands the Panasonic GH2 is a world class camera at very very small price compared to the others ....once it has Nick Driftwood's hack on it.

So lets go to work and make some great movies! there are no excuses now!!!

Andy Lee

i made super 8 home movies using all this old junk that is today anamorphotic treasure then got a job in a film studios then in camera rental.
jdc,panavision and some work for technovision the 3 most important anamorphic motion picture lens rental companies of the last 40 years.
tested gear for many mega movies even prepped vittorio storaro's precious anamorphics.
cleaned robert altmans lovely angenieux zoom his lens not his dick : )
check out his zoom technique
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKQwHSKal0

got kicked off the set of full metal jacket cos kubrick thought i was an assassin.
worked on lot's of bbc shit crap.

Amen.

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=802.msg6104#msg6104 date=1339757784]all they will do is create test footage and then get bored and sell it.[/quote]

You know, you're right. Almost everything on Vimeo that makes use of an Iscorama is a test. There are very, very few films that have actually been made with this adapter. I have never seen one in person or held one of these lenses in my hands but everything that I have read indicates that the focus ring has too much throw to be able to properly rack focus, so you're pretty much stuck with non-focussing shots -- which are achievable (with a lot more character, in my opinion) with almost any other anamorphic lens out there.

I think that it is lost on many people that anamorphic shooting by it's own nature is an image-destructive process. If they want clean and sharp, they should stick with spherical and just crop (and there are workarounds to get some flares in the shot as well). Personally, I like a bit of a soft image (and there is a big difference between soft and out of focus). Anyone who is old enough to have a bank account probably grew up watching 35mm film, and these lenses are the best way that I know of to knock down the clinical sharpness of digital video and emulate that look. EXCEPT for Iscorama (again, in my opinion).