Xiong

"Brynjolfur featuring Beka Hoop - Chain Glass" in still my favorite from you Andrew, great stuff.

​The above comment is thee one, you can close the thread now.

As a lover of movies that was raised on movies shot on film, I can tell. I can see the blown highlights of day scenes, I can see the cropped black bars that "emulates" anamorphic 35mm minus what makes it so magical along with the fake lens flare plugin that's put on top of every shot. The grain with film and the movement of it, all I have to do is point to Michael Mann's latest movie Black Hat. Go download the trailer, its there, the ghosting images of a digital sensor. Film improves movies of all like, just look at low budget B movies from the 70s and 80s, they carry a charm with them and character. Look at low budget B movies of today and it does not have lasting value cinematically say for a few exceptions.

Not to come off too strong Andrew, but your distaste for film in this article is quite absurd, I had to balance it out. Digital is great, I don't doubt the benefits but it isn't film and that's OK. With the coming of time it will just be more prevalent in Hollywood with everything going digital, even the sets and props. With the rise of the independent digital movies(which is a good thing and a bad) its going to take some real effort to find the best among the mediocre, the loss of restriction is a good along with the bad. Then again that usually comes with better film makers out weighing the lesser, its just going to be hard for them to stand out among the sea of creators filming with their iphones in this youtube centric world of not being able to focus more then a few minutes on content. Along with the entries of short films on vimeo that don't scratch the itch that is film storytelling expression with their shallow depth of field and handheld shots because putting the camera on a tripod is "too old fashion" and everything must feel kinetic like the Bourne series right next to the sea of test videos for camera gear, almost outweighing films on that site... I'm ranting now so best to stop.

OMFG, who cares what cameras LOOK LIKE!!! Are you making films or are you trying to stand around in public while on-lookers gawk at your camera gear? What is the film world coming to?

 

And stop using buzz-words/terms like "form factor"... just say what you mean. Just say that you're not confident in your abilities and you want to just impress people with giant gear set-ups. I'm so f-ing sick of hearing "form factor" I could puke. There is no better form factor that something small like the Pocket Cine cam size. It's tiny, it fits on the back of the lens, and you can add whatever you want to it... bigger shoulder mount, more weight, whatever. Arguing against small cameras (which is really just innovation) is an irrational one, and can only be explained by the desire to have something "bigger looking" for the sake of impressing people and the facade of "professionalism".

 

Seriously, if you fall into this category of big-camera chasers... quit film making. Go buy a Harley Davidson or a Ford F-450 truck. It's not an insult... it's a genuine suggestion. You're probably just looking for some kind of personal validation.

That was very stupid. Form factor matters alot, theres a reason why its been the way it has for so long, not because it "looks" cool. It works, you hold a dslr and then you hold an old film camera or the equivalent shape. You will instantly notice the stability and comfort, along with the ability to use your other hands to do more things.

Think of it this way, sure small is great, but there a reason why people have to rig it up, and guess what shape seems to work so well: Over the shoulder. A Progression to a more suitable design is great, it doesnt take away from their previous design either, if this doesnt work for you then check out the prior models.

 

16. Does it have a robot arm that extends into the kitchen to do the dishes?

No.

Damn... I guess no GH4 for me ;)

Yeah that came out wrong, I just meant I didn't see the 5D footage. The video look did put me off however.

Different tastes, its subjective.

I am curious to see the picture profiles, the specs are quite amazing. You dont want a pro level camera? Buy the body. You want more? Buy the extender. I do wonder what the dynamic range will be like but 10-bit 4:2:2 is very impressive, my experience with color grading on h.264 is a pain. This really is a world camera, so many customizable switches is fantastic and welcomed. 

The only thing now is the price, as long as it isnt priced with the same mindset as canon style of thinking, im sure i'll be ok with it.

I only made it half way through.

Really? I found the music video very refreshing, interesting use of the Dogme 95 touches in it as well. 30 fps is not the standard for "cinema" but it worked great here for me, it adds that "other worldly" quality to it since my eyes are so used to 24 fps.

***

Good stuff Andrew!

Can't wait to see some test footage of this mysterious camera and your Cooke lens in action.

Congrats Andrew on the new guide!

Andrew, I think you're overlooking engineering issues that are pulling the market apart, between DLSR for photos, and cameras for video.

 

A DSLR is designed to use a large sensor to get the richest color from wide angle lenses on up.  The physical constraints of diffraction and focal length cannot be marketed away.  In other words, an APS-C sized and above sensor will provide the  high resolution still photographs, better than any smaller sensor, from MFTs on down (in 4:3) aspect.

 

What that means, of course, is that you must skip sensor lines to maintain the same focal length.  So DSLRs are primarily high resolution photo cameras.  If they don't skip lines they have to use crop mode which increase focal length.  Then you can get moire-less video, but again, at the cost of focal length and you put the lens under great resolving strain.

 

Yes, the MFT cameras do great video, but mostly because they use small sensors that don't skip lines and are optimized for video.  As photo cameras they are not as good as large sensor cameras, mostly because of physics (of light and sensor design).  No professional photographer would pick an MFT camera over a full-frame.  

 

I'm with you in spirit on the article.  But I think you have to temper expectations with some engineering realities.

 

I spend every day working on my 50D RAW (which you turned me onto) and an EOS-M.  The real question is whether manufacturers believe there is a market in high color depth, dynamic range in consumer equipment.  I believe there is.  I hope there is!

Interesting and true. Although I dont agree with alot of Canon's decisions your comment does make sense. Sure we can hope for all these things but it was not the design, and they dont see the benefit of it apparently from what they are releasing. So maybe its time to jump ship, go the BMCC or Digital Bolex route, or stick it out and compromise with these hybrid cameras? Its really up to us. We have so many options available now, its time to make a decision.

1080p 60fps with a global shutter at 13 stops would be all that is needed for average use. Dont really need anything higher then 1080p if it was to risk 13 stops and a global shutter.

This might make some people jump on board to CC.

Bashing probably wasn't the best adjective to use in my post.

I looked up the GH3 on eoshd.com, it seems like it surpasses the 60d on many levels.

Perhaps my next question seems uninformed but, I am just that so please have patience.

 

The 60D seemed suited for being a good BEGGINER prosumer purchase and well equipped to produce quality films without needing many accessories. I think I read something about the audio quality being high and the ability to hook up microphones were a synch.

I hope to film a series of training videos of policies and procedures at a fire department. I have seen other websites ( like this one)

 

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_60D-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3

 

 

 that rate the 60D higher than the GH3. Just so I am clear that is not something many of you would agree with?

 

 

EDIT

two questions if you will...

 

What is the big deal about "black magic" cameras?

 

Can someone help me understand the sensor size difference in what it relates to filming? I believe the Panasonic is 4:3 and the cannon an aps-c sensor.

 

 

thanks,

K

Some really sound advice from tosvus:

It doesn't sound like your usage will be terribly critical in terms of image quality, to be honest. Also, you should take into consideration what lenses you have (if you already own any, that is).

 

I have to say I have not followed the 60D, so I don't know what the Magic Lantern hack enables (if anything) on it, but if you are looking at in-camera video with audio embedded, the GH3 is very strong out of the box. It also supports 60p in 1920x1080 resolution, which may be useful in training videos as it allows you to slow down the motion. Even IF the 60D has capability for raw through a hack, it is more complicated to work with as it does not allow for audio. 60D probably gives better quality photos, and somewhat better low light capability due to larger sensor.

 

Regarding audio, keep in mind that the GH3 has a headphone jack which means easy monitoring straight out of the cam, which the 60D does not have. The built in mic on the gh3 is ok, but you can easily add a good mic to it as it has mic input, and so has the 60D.

 

Another point to keep in mind, if you need to move around a lot, carrying the camera, the GH3 w/lens will be lighter and smaller.

 

I personally think the GH3 is far superior overall when speaking strictly about video (w/audio). However if you are willing to tinker and have a more cumbersome workflow, it may be possible to get quality that surpasses it with a hacked 60D (but again, don't know enough about magic lantern for the 60D).

 

Regarding the Black Magic Design Cameras, they are all better than either the GH3 or the 60D in video quality out of the box, but really consider those strictly for video. The caveat here is, based on your post, I take it you may not be used to manual focusing(I'm still learning). If that is the case, some of the BMD's only do manual focus, while the new BMPCC camera (that is not out yet..) is supposed to have at least some crude AF.

----------

You also have to take into affect that if you are going for Black Magic Cinema Camera that you'll have to get used to other caviats: SSD, RAW/Proress workflow in post, and you wont be able to deleted captured media via the BMCC, You'll have to do that with a pc. If you're just starting out dont go full BMCC unless you have the time and patience for it. If you dont have any eperience at all then get a t3i or GH2/G6 depending on the glass you want to get, these are reletively cheap now. I mean there's no reason to go full out if you dont really have experience as it can be overwhelming. Then later if you want raw you can get the Black Magic Pocket Cinema.

Thanks for the review Andrew.

Looks like they got rid of the green cast on the G6?!

Seemed to be.

Hello,

 

I am pulling this thread up again, in the hope to get an answer to the last question.

 

Is the GH3 codec really so much better as the codec in the G6?

 

Is it worth the price?

 

I know this is a probably a subjective thing, but I  would be really interested in some opinions.

The best would be (of course) a statement from someone who owned the two cameras.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

amadeus67

I've herd GH3's codec is superior to G6, but from the looks of it the detail may be better on the G6.

Wow... what a waste of R&D...

It's a bit smaller than the GH2, it is as plastic as the GH2 (very light), not as sturdy as the GH3. I actually prefer the ergonomics of the G6 over the GH2. The grip has a better shape.

 

It does feel like a €600 camera (because it is..) and not like a €1299 camera like the GH3.

Thanks alot Julian, yeah I wasnt expecting much for that price range, but its an important factor as to how it feels and if the button layout/dials are positioned awkwardly and if the UI is decent.

Really hope we're not pestering you too much haha we really appreciate it! Thank you!

One thing I really want to know, how does the G6 feel? Is it more GH2 or GH3 in terms of build quality and ergonomics? Just curious.

This is fantastic news! When this trickles down its going to be great. Great stuff ML team,

Yeah right.... like going around promoting like that costs nothing.

Or do you also think that suppliers and people that showed up for free on shooting days, did not get an agreement beforehand that if the film earn any cash they will be paid?

 

Anyway, if he will make a million he will be fine, but at few hundred k he is receiving a lot of phone calls from people who were on set and thereabouts.

 

My "uneducated" guess comes from having been on two gigs like this one.

One, had an "official" 200k shooting budget and the blessing of Martin Scorsese on the opening score (not one of his pennies though),  it made well at festivals, sold few DVD, plenty of nice people were talking on to each other ears about it, all that kind of BS and cashed a little over a million, yet it was barely enough.

 

take care every one.

Seems like someones a little sour on this topic, if you knew what it took to make such works, like you mentioned, shouldn't you hope for success for the film maker? Not to mention the possibility that maybe, just maybe, not all independent film making are the same experience? We don't know the factors, but if the rumor of 50K was the budget, im sure people where paid to do their jobs or maybe a possible % gross of the profits? Thats also beyond the fact that someone made a short film thats doing well? Those 2 gigs you worked on must have been real truble to leave such a horrible after taste...

Looks like Magic Lantern to the rescue again, great to have them working this out.

Thanks for the review Andrew, always great to read your opinion on gear.

Global shutter, that alone will get alot of people to pick this up, BM is knocking down the doors on the bigger competitors. Very excited.

Hahaha great one Mr. Reid.