Xiong

Some really sound advice from tosvus:
 
----------
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.

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.

I don't think 'bashing' is the correct word, it's an objective evaluation of the facts. Image quality in video mode is poor compared to other cameras, similar to how the 60D is also short of cameras like the GH3 and 5D Mark III. If you are going to lay down quite a lot of money for a 70D, consider other options first.
 
Johnnie already explains the specific problems. Mushy detail, noise, moire & aliasing.

The G6 is a global cam (NTSC/PAL switchable) and the GH3 is not????
 

Peaking: works during recording, can turn it on and off during recording, works in magnified view.
Auto ISO: works in A or S (and probably P)
Changing ISO during recording: works in all modes
 
All shown in the video:
 

Quick grading test (wetransfer)
 
GH2 original - G6 original - GH2 curve - G6 curve (same curve).
 
GH2 @ 1080p24 65Mbps - Smooth -2-2-2-2
G6 @ 1080p24 24Mbps - Natural -5-2-0-5
 
ISO 160, same aperture and shutter speed.
 
I'm really impressed. Shadow detail from the G6 is so much nicer, as is the grain. Even in the unedited footage of the hacked GH2 you see some dirty noise in the shadows. With the G6 it's a fine grain.

Looks every bit as detailed as the GH2, but with better codec out of the box and of course 1080/60p, better screen, etc.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if it beat the GH3 on image quality in video mode too. Need to test that.
 
If the camera is so detailed with sharpness at 0 or -2 there's no need to sharpen in post any more, something I had to get used to with my FS100 and 5D Mark III footage.

The ISO3200 example is sorta academic, to me.  I'd rather see more realistic comparisons at something like 640/800 where too much above that you're pretty much in a horrible lighting situation and just hoping you get an image you can use and then it becomes a contest of "which camera would I rather have when I'm not lighting anything and my light is shit?", more or less.
 
Some differences between the ISO160 examples could also come from the Standard profile reportedly not giving a correct exposure for medium gray on the GH2.  According to Shian Storm (ColorGHear) and his tests with scopes and handheld light meter (unconfirmed yet myself) only Nostalgia measures medium gray exposure @ 50% and the others are closer to 40%.  Perhaps they fixed this anomaly in the G6?

I saw Upstream at Sundance earlier this year and Shane Carruth gave a lengthy Q&A afterwards. I loved the film, both style and content, but it certainly won't be for everyone. The plot becomes somewhat inscrutable by the end and disintegrates into a kind of symbolic drift that I found intriguing but my partner hated. (Postmodern narrative disjunction, disintegration of stable identity and all that business. Yes it's been done before but not in this way, and the intrigue holds together until the last 20 minutes or so. I actually got the sense the film should have been about an hour longer, or possibly two parts in a series.) I love directors that take risks and put forward an idiosyncratic and clearly personal vision that will alienate some viewers while entrancing others. Not to mention the film is visually gorgeous from front to back. 
 
I had no idea it was shot on the GH2; in fact, Carruth deflected multiple questions about the production (the theater was full of amateur dps, so this was their primary interest) preferring to focus on people's emotional/psychological reactions to the film, which was understandable. Apparently after Primer he was in talks for years with a big studio to make a $XXXmillion sci-fi feature based on a partial script he'd written, but found the process so tedious and soul-numbing he decided to walk away and make Upstream independently.
 
Despite his reticence I would definitely be curious to know more about his setup, GH2 hack, glass, etc, if this information is out there. One thing this film does is demonstrate the crucial importance of good sound work. The sound effects and mixing are phenomenal and play a large part in the storyline. Would also like to hear about the recording process for the film. 

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...

Wow, wild speculation based on bad experiences with unknown filmmakers leaves me...unmoved.

I'm interested to see it! It looks kinda "tree of lifey" from the trailer.  Whether I like it will probably hinge on whether it comes across "try hard" or not...
 
With regard to gear, some shots look better than others and it's never been my favorite camera, but hey, it shows that such kit is good enough so that's a great thing.
 
I have a two-year old film shot on 550D that's still running festivals (last one was filmkunstfest in Germany). No one is really bothered too much about details like overall sharpness, moire and so on if they like the story, but it's a bonus to have them gone, so it's a good thing to always look for better. That's the attitude that lead us here and will lead us forward.
 
This story just gives me more of a push to keep going regardless of budgets. The actors are the most important really, cos the camera is mostly there to capture a performance! Most indies have dire acting, even when the ideas, scripts, sound, music, and camerawork and kit are good, poor acting makes the film shit despite all of the above.
 
I've lost count of the number of times people have bragged about their gear choices and lenses, their anamorphic rigs, shown great stills and then the final work has had such poor/embarrassing performances that you stop it after a minute.
 
You can have millions to play with and a film fall down on performance or scripting. So make friends with actors!
 
I hope this film makes millions, that'd be good for everyone in the long run.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.
$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.
Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.
 
Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.
That is true success. 

Um, sorry but, no.  Those "hidden" costs are invariably related to distribution companies and their fees.  That's how the brothers at Miramax built up their company and gained power, by fucking over the filmmakers they distributed for.  If he's releasing this himself...is he roleplaying and giving himself a hard time?  Is that what you're suggesting?
 
The $300,000 for limited theatrical (less than 50 screens at its highest) with no real P+A budget or conventional marketing is rather outstanding (takes $30M to market a film conventionally, according to Soderberg's revelation).  You aren't even looking at the available information to form an educated guess about what's going on here so your statements are exactly the opposite of "educated".   
 
He's also self-releasing it on DVD and streaming, meaning very little overhead.  The limited theatrical and growing word-of-mouth will serve as a mini marketing campaign for the home video release which could easily bring him three to five times the small theatrical business.  How well it does then will ultimately come down to what he actually spent on it (or raised) and what, if any, deferrals are still owed.
 
You won't know the production cost unless he wants it to be known.  There is no authority to IMDB or boxofficemojo or any of these sorts of sites.  They get their information from voluntary sources with no oversight or fact checking or even a means to fact check that sort of information.  Someone sends a number and if their account or previous history is deemed trustworthy it gets posted as if it were fact without a single phone call or e-mail or any follow-up for first party confirmation.

Nowhere close, from what I gather, he is keeping mum on the budget, because he got a lot of criticism for how low the budget was on Primer, and he doesn't want a similar reaction. My guess is it is still a very low budget.
 
I'm going to see it in theater tomorrow night, and I've been excited for the past month to do so!

No studio. He released it on his own. Traveled to different cities presenting and doing Q&As. I'd say that is pretty successful.

Poor Andrew, he gets so much shite for being a Canon hater, when deep down he really wanted to love the 5D3 for video. He's going all out, trying to save the 5D line from the evil engineers at Canon.
 
It's like watching someone perform CPR even though they know the patient is already dead.

Please don't tell me I'm the only one who had this visual in his head after hearing this news:
 

[attachment=437:anchorman_well_that_escalated_quickly_966.jpg]

If Tarantino is subverting the traditional ideal of good / bad then he's doing so in a fictional portrayal of life, not reality. Films are a reflection of life and subverting the norm is part of art.
 
If it were a literal portrayal it would be boring and it wouldn't be as artistic.
 
Artists have a creative license. You can't go round telling filmmakers that they have a moral influence and therefore should fundamentally alter their films, their visions and their writing based on what is best for society. That leads to totalitarianism, where the film industry is controlled by moral guardians like it is in China - where everything different or risky that gets off the ground in the TV industry is crushed or censored by the government "for corrupting the society".
 
Look you can't fuck with society like this.
 
It is an organic thing, wildlife. Just as a documentary filmmaker wouldn't interfere with nature whilst shooting a piece on a starving elephant in the Congo, you wouldn't as a filmmaker take on the role of police or teacher.
 
Tarantino has given us characters.
 
It is up to us whether we accept them as role models or not.
 
Django is actually a pretty good role model for a lot of people.
 
He hasn't reversed the role of the "good guy" so that he has become a white-guy hating gun wielding savage. It is about freeing the repressed from their shackles and about speaking out for what you believe to be right and just. Those that don't do this risk becoming Samuel L Jackson's character in Django.
 
Even if there was concrete evidence of filmmaking subverting an entire culture and damaging society it is impossible to police, especially in the internet age. You can censor Tarantino, not give him that oscar or that accolade on the basis that he's damaging society somehow, castigate him and not give him the title as master like I have here - but what good would that do anyway!? The most irresponsible form of culture is not Tarantino's work far from it, and sometimes 'the cure' is worse than the ailment.

I know where you're coming from with this Mark but to lay the blame at Tarantino's door is pointless.
 
The real issue is the unfiltered freedom of information brought about by the internet - but only when combined with a lack of values in society and parenting.
 
As well as every wonder, every horror is now accessible.
 
I personally think it should be up the person whether to open themselves up the horrors or not. The brutality, sexual violence, amorality, consumerism, vanity and worse.
 
It isn't the internet's role and certainly not the role of censors or the state to instil a set of values in people.
 
Values comes from the community and parents.
 
Most kids would rather not watch bloody gore and all the other horrible shit you can find out there - be it in a movie or on the internet. Making it commonplace doesn't legitimise it. Tarantino uses the N-word hundreds of times in the course of the film but it's such an integral part of the overall effect, to take it out or change the vile language would harm the characters, making the theatrical villains far less vile. Why water it down?
 
Tarantino is very clear with the comic parts that the joke is very much on the racists in this film. If it wasn't for the bad language and violence teachers would be showing Django in schools as a powerful and stinging condemnation of racism and discrimination. You are absolutely on the side of the good guys whilst watching this thing. It doesn't glorify the bad guys in the least bit. It completely dumps on the fascists from a great height.
 
Although I enjoyed it, Inglorious was pretty far from the masterpiece this is, because he didn't get the characters right. Didn't like Brad Pitt in it especially.
 
I think you should go and see the film Mark because only then can you really get it.
 
Tarantino's films all have a strong good vs evil element and a strong moral message, whereas something like Saw 5 just has a load of nasty sadistic violence for the sake of it. The real worry for society isn't Tarantino, if anything it is what kids can find readily on the internet at any time of day like Saw, Human Centipede - and MUCH worse. But again it is up to them and their particular set of values to switch off to it.
 
I am sure there will be yet another lost generation who doesn't, but regardless of whether the stuff is out there or not - it isn't the primary reason why they are so stuffed up in the head.

Criticisms of Tarrantino's films for violence and "shock" value are so myopic.  His direct influences for this film are thirty or more years old and as violent.  His films are influenced by European cinema, which is what influenced American filmmakers to be more graphically violent than was the standard here.  Even today, American horror movies are timid compared to European and Asian films. 
 
If this kind of film violence was a bad influence on kids then the 1980s would have been a very different looking decade.  Somehow it wasn't.  Pointing fingers at movies is pure ignorance on many levels.

Is Tarantino a master? Well he certainly is post-modern (if we're still allowed to use this term) in his use of historical film pastiche - he carefully stitches together elements, whether they be stylistic or narrative in nature, culled from the film archives to make a new whole. Now some people say that he is simply a great copier of other people's work (Reservoir Dogs & Kill Bill being great examples - the former uses City on Fire as a template & the later is an amalgamation of numerous asian martial arts movies) & others claim his brilliance for homage.
 
Is he an original, progressive filmmaker? Probably not, since he isn't breaking new ground, but is constantly looking backwards to the past. Now, this isn't a bad thing & is his greatest achievement, since he educates his audience in the importance of film history & has helped a lot of people [re]discover films that would've either disappeared without a trace, or simply remained undiscovered.
Where would Asian action films, such as John Woo's, be without him? Would their stylised 'ballets of death' have ever become as mainstream as quickly or at all? Hard to tell, but he sure helped!
On another point he introduced me to the magnificent films of Wong Kar-Wai - who IMO is a true modern Master.
 
Is Tarantino in the same league as say Orsen Welles, who at 25 made Citizen Kane, which has nearly every single type of camera shot used in modern cinema. But he certainly is a master at the niche he has made for himself within the confines of American cinema.
 
On a quick note, he isn't subverting the 'Hero', he readily applies the 'Anti-Hero' as his main protagonist & this characterisation is a whole lot older in narrative story telling than Tarantino's application of it.
 
And does 'Art Imitate Life' or does 'Life Imitate Art'? I'll leave that up to you.
 
As far as the violence debate is concerned, this is very tricky ground since researchers simply can't sit a bunch of kids down & let them watch grotesque horror films or explicit acts of violence. These films aren't meant for children (this doesn't mean that they don't watch them) & research does point to the fact that they can have a lasting effect, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will turn them into mindless killers. Sociopathic personalities are said to be 'genetically based but typically has environmental factors, such as family relations, that trigger its onset'.
 
Having written a PhD on Horror films, the one thing that becomes painfully obvious is that researchers can only determine the effect of such material after the fact & the inquest/research goes on, but there is still no clear cut answer. What we do know is that Fear & Terror are a part of our lives, and that we learn coping mechanisms during childhood to deal with such feelings - parental comfort/explanation/protection & dreams (nightmares) can play a role.
What i would like to say is that making sweeping statements about the effect films have on society is to enter into a minefield & to suggest that society has become more violent as a result is to be completely uniformed about the history of our society. The research that i undertook suggested that the cities that we live in are less violent, than say Victorian times (& they didn't have violent films to watch). I got sidetracked into the Ripper murders & reported violent crime in the Whitechapel district of London - the Ripper murders were by far the worst, but certainly there were some pretty gruesome murders carried out on a daily basis, stuff that would make your stomach churn.
 
Killings, muggings, rape, child molestation/murder & gangs are not new phenomenon, they are as old as the cities we live - fact.
Why are Human Beings so violent/aggressive towards each other? Well that's the eternal unanswered question, isn't it.
To blame cinematic portrayals of violence as the main cause is to be simply naive & uninformed about the history of our society.
The way the mass media try to scare us into believing a supposed truth is just a smoke screen to hide the fact about the true nature of ourselves & the authorities' ineffectual attempts to stem the problem - scape goating is such an easy option. 
 
Sorry for the rant...

For alot of people who feel disappointed for buying a gh2/3, dont! If you have a camera already, just go out and shoot! Don't let tech control your mindset into thinking you need 'this' camer or 'that' camera, if it shoots, then your all good. Think about upgrading or buying a new camera later if you already have a decent camera. Try not to get too deep in the thought of "This camera is better, therefore mine is obsolete."
 
Like I said before, we got it better then we've ever had it before ;)

Its great to know that Nikon has a gem of a dslr that can do great in video, I'm sure like the comment above that this was a possible fluke sadly. To me the GH3 is still a better all around camera, the ergonomics alone is a big plus to me. Battery life, headphone/mic jack, 60fps, lens choice, these are great advantages I like. The low light of the 5200 is great, but I plan to get some lights anyway since in my opinion, controlling light is very important. But its good to see Nikon that has a very competitive camera, anyone with Nikon glass should give it a gander.