markm

I'm confused why you keep insisting it's an 8bit camera when it does 10bit over the HDMI port.

Yes its 10 bit out which is great but it doesn't do 10 bit in camera. A while back if panny had made the af101 a 10 bit camera they would have cleaned up However they added a pseudo 10 bit out when it was to late things have moved on and now BM do this in camera so Panny need to compete with that The day of the offboard recorder is coming to an end.

@Mark I really don't think Panasonic has rushed through anything to compete with BM. BM is no threat to Panny. And there are so many new features added to the GH4 - stuff everyone has been clamoring for - and still all this hostility toward the company. I simply don't get it. Some people are even calling this a BETA camera. WTF? Crippled? This is pure insanity. Get a grip. I'm happy it can record to regular SD cards or proprietary cards, whatever, it has tons of different file options, peaking, zebras, much higher resolution monitor and EVF (remains to be seen whether they are actually better though), and a bunch of other stuff like pedestal that I know nothing about but which I know for a fact aren't offered on the BMPCC or any other camera for under $2,000. Where is all this pent-up hostility toward Panasonic coming from? Are Nikon, Canon or Olympus making this kind of effort to put a video-worthy interchangeable lens camera into the hands of non-professionals like myself?

Hostility towards the company? Come on I just want the best tool I don't play favourites I cant afford to. Look Im happy for you if you want one but I am entitled to an opinion too. Everything I have said is relevant to the cameras and not out of bias or uninformed.

If it's their intention to sell it as purely an 8bit camera, then the engineers clearly didn't get the memo when they enabled a 10bit debayer, 4:2:2 colour sampling on the sensor, 10bit HDMI output and even a 10bit external box with 4 HD-SDI ports on it :)
 
The sensor in the BM Production Camera doesn't have the pixel design and light sensitivity of the GH4's sensor. The global shutter has a large trade off in image quality. Needless to say, neither camera is done. Neither camera is out there yet. You have looked at 10bit ProRes 4K on the Production Camera and automatically assumed it will be nicer than uncompressed 10bit 4K from the GH4's external box haven't you? Why exactly?

It is an 8 bit camera with a M4/3 sensor But it does have 96 fps which would interest me. I don't want the GH4 to be a bad camera My only interest is what I can do with it. Certainly 4K is only of use to me as a capture format. So far I haven't liked the images I have seen Maybe that will change but on paper the BM4K still looks the better buy with Global shutter Larger sensor and no need for a speedbooster which even though might add another stop it adds something else to the equation so focus marks are wrong and you get swirly bokeh I would rather have the BM4K than worry about that after all your already going to need to add NDs a mattebox as well as follow focus So the nearer you can get to a one stop solution the better.

However, Lets hope the GH4 pricing and image quality will give some relief but for me plugging canon lenses straight into the BM4K and recording pro res or raw and a full version of resolve will oudo dodgy HDMI connectionsextra expenses and add on adapters.
I have no ulterior motive here I clearly don't represent any manufacturers and I haven't bought the BM4K so no vested interest just a bit of common sense argument and conclusions reached ---SO FAR!!!!

I braced myself for The Mark Response. Truth is I've been treading this moment. I'll try not to be too harsh on you, and try to keep it short.
 
You're wrong.

Why should you dread it? Mine is only an opinion We don't even know how much the camera will cost yet. Demeaning me on the forum as the owner and moderator is very unfair. Why not just ban the opposition? Just because you got a test camera and favoured by Panny doesn't mean you should praise whatever they sent you. Try to be a bit more unbiased after all Im only stating a fact The BM4K does outshine the GH4 and with its add ons the costs will probably soon mount up. However if it is cheap enough then perhaps there is a place for it and Im sure Pannys real intention is to sell the GH4 as a 8 bit h264 camera that will undoubtably sell more than the BM4K Hwever I don't think we should sit here and pretend its better if it clearly isn't.

I think the camera is a possible disaster hurriedly rushed through to compete with the BM4K giving them time to make a Panasonic af100 4k or a DSLR along the lines of the 1DC.
I didn't like the skin tones in the demo films and I thought the image looked oversaturated with high contrast and crushed blacks.Will be interesting to see what the DR is on this.

Great review Andrew but the BM4K still beats it with global shutter no need for add ons cost and a larger sensor without the need for a speedbooster that adds more to the final cost.

Although it should please many who want all the gadgets the BM4K is still going to be king as a one stop solution.

Content will always be king
Say Martians landed and someone captured it on a cheap mobile with crap black and white awful image. The whole world would watch and the whole world will be wishing someone had shot it using an 8K camera the very best lens and sound equipment. So in order to get that content and compete with others also presenting similar content it is no longer enough to use a silent 1920's camera In fact you want to make the best image you can to make your content stand out and be more eye candy than the competition unless your content is so good you don't need to.
The problem with content in film is most things have been done often to the highest level so the viewer expects a certain level of professionalism to consider watching.

to use a mobile and make a film that ahs such outstanding content that everyone will watch will usually mean finding something personal to everyone that is a lesson in case something unusual happens like a you tube film called how I cured my herpes or how to make millions or porn Although done to death now you could still get away with el crappo production values Maybe content is king lovers should consider making a you tube film about how to properly apply lipstick on a mobile and stick it on you tube and then make money from the ads. Although I fail to see how content is king applies to those wishing to learn and use better technology in their films in order to give their work a pro look and be more appealing to viewers. Of course we know that in the end content will always be king but the idea that you can use that to flatten the need for a professional approach to creating it is beyond me. Even the mention of it smacks of deceptive trolling in order to draw attention away from the reality of becoming a better film maker

Very nice Andrew an outstanding deal you got there. I'll give you £2000 per lens?

Of course you can still be home of the budget conscious DSLR etc I think you proved that with the deal you got. Some gear may be out of reach but its nice to hear about it The same as I look at high end home cinema or cars. Out of reach but yes.. one day....  

Do you know what? I don't think I've ever entered a competition where they played fair.
They get you at it then change the goalposts change the rules and pick some thing that blows bubbles up Sonys arse and they all congratulate each other. Sorry to be on a downer other peoples experience may vary.

I know with the march of technology this sounds like famous last words but I don't believe 4K will be the format of choice for movies Just like 3D wasn't. Although as a capture format and for sports events/docu's it will be good.

Of course reviewers can have an opinion FINE But if its an ulterior motive IE Reward Revenge Snobbery then trust is lost and fine they can go on and on this way but soon not to many will listen. Being Neutral and fair is the aim of most good reviewers even if it comes at a cost to themselves.

 

But when is a lie a lie? When you heap praise on a cameras strengths and downplay the weaknesses?

 

When you downplay the strengths and overdo the weaknesses?

 

Is that a lie? Often it can be hidden as an opinion But when does it become so obvious people question it then doubts set in about the reliability of the reviewer to give you information needed to make a decision.

 

You can put up all the disclaimers you like But the only reason people are tuning in is because they want help in choosing and deciding and for those in that position like Bloom, money can be made from advertising. So why would advertisers bother giving money if it wasn't going to make them money. Because IT DOES. So who is the reviewer going to favour Those paying him or those who don't answer questions or give the time of day?

 

In the case of the Bolex Bloom has invested I don't see any ads for BM cameras on his site but what I do seem to be seeing is a skewed review in favour of the Bolex.

 

Money is being made from those reading the reviews If the review is skewed then the people buying those products suffer.

You have me to a tee.

In truth Matt I don't think you are a bully But the pen is mightier than the sword and I suggest you dwell on that before you take the decision to crap on people in defence of what you perceive as your peers. Seriously its not a good look. Nor is it the right thing to do.

I understand it fine. I understand that it doesn't make sense as a response to what I said. I said I've done tests. I don't have a PhD in understanding nonesense.

Just cheating Lying arrogance rudeness and character assassination. Maybe you don't like it when someone fights back eh? So add wannabe Bully to the list too.

That doesn't make sense as a response to what I said.

What part don't you understand? I thought you had a PHd? Oh I see where you changed the text and I laughed in the face of your superior intellect? Yes very clever but most of us don't need a PHd to be deceptive. Its called cheating.

Great so I was wrong, your dodgy Vampire film does exist. I'm pleased for you.

 

 As well as insulting me you want to insult the entire cast and crew? Seriously.. Attack me all you want But leave others out of it. 

 
 

By the way I'm not very keen on the Holocaust,

 

If you want to post then at least make sense What holocaust are you talking about?

 

but then I've never actually perpetrated one myself so perhaps I shouldn't be so judgemental.

 

Are you joking?

 

What do you think?

 

I think you sound dangerous or stupid?
Gobsmacking.

 

And all those film critics - they've all made films before haven't they? So they have the right to comment on the films of others.

 

Anyone can criticise a film and not every film is everyones cup of tea. That's why we have genres to make it easier to find your preference. But then you should know that with a PHd
 

For the record: I have never criticised Douglas Trumbull.

 

 

Yes you did and then you went away and changed your text and cant even admit when you're wrong.

 

I think he's great.

 

So you criticise his work and then cover it up?

I made a comment on another thread which taken out of context may have appeared so, particularly if you are inclined toward conflict and negativity.

 

I never took it out of context You just removed some of the credit due to him by denying what he proposed as revolutionary when clearly it was.  You may like Douglas Trumball but only in as far as he is a platform to springboard what you perceive as your own superior intellect.

What I meant to say was 'not quite as revolutionary as I had remembered' - i.e. in the context of my previous post. It was badly put. 
 
Regarding tests, I've done plenty. I came here to discuss the theory. So that I could maybe understand that side of things better.
 
Your response hasn't helped me to do that. 
 
Thanks.

Heh heh. Now why don't you do some tests with your camera and answer your own OT

all of Mark's threads get out of hand as he just likes to argue -with anyone about anything !
 
this forum is about digital cinematography its becoming a teenage tit for tat forum rapidly which is very sad to see happen.

Andy may I also remind you that I am defending myself on my own thread taken down by you and your mates. Im happy to discuss the thread topic Only that has been impossible So thanks again for that.

all of Mark's threads get out of hand as he just likes to argue -with anyone about anything !
 
this forum is about digital cinematography its becoming a teenage tit for tat forum rapidly which is very sad to see happen.

So you join in to stick the boot in That's you though Andy a great opportunist Sadly not reflectedon your work Your another that has no work but plenty to say on everyone elses.
Just love the way you guys attack others then blame it on the victim of those attacks. Sadly backing each other and elite forum members in the hope something approaching star status will get awarded. Trust me it wont and arse licking is seldom appreciated as well as trying to be clever beyond your reach.

You genuinely apologise then go on to further insult me Why bother they are just words and you like words don't you Clearly you have zero experience at making a film Kind of gobsmacking you feel you can insult those who have even when it is some cheap vampire trailer that doesn't exist.

Sorry to disappoint you but the two films do exist and been shown in some of the top festivals in the world. Sorry they don't meet to your standards but then even the likes of Douglas Trumbull have difficulty there.

I will also soon be making a feature I'll invite you so you can piss on that too.

Nice start to your career Im sure you will end up somewhere useful like the British film council giving grants to worthy causes like Harry Potter.

Everything you say is correct. You have won. I am the lesser man. Please accept my humblest apologies. 
 
With that in mind could you give me some tips on getting good exposure, as you have here: 
http://www.imdb.com/video/withoutabox/vi2884999961?ref_=tt_pv_vi_1

Oh right so now you have changed the meaning from you like my work to how well I did at getting good exposure.

Yes very clever Your PHd is clearly coming in very useful

Still waiting for that link to your work?

Everything you say is correct. You have won. I am the lesser man. Please accept my humblest apologies. 
 
I love your work by the way:
http://www.imdb.com/video/withoutabox/vi2884999961?ref_=tt_pv_vi_1

Although your apology is insincere it is the best you can do I accept that.
Here is some more
http://www.imdb.com/video/withoutabox/vi2285635353
Perhaps you would like to share yours?

This thread is ridiculous. The guy isn't even making sense. I'd like to suggest just leaving it alone now.

After reading a few of your posts I've come to understand what this is about.

You have a Phd in fine art and struggle to use a cheap camera and unable to do simple tests with it. You comment on masters like Trumball with putdowns. No wonder you cant comment on this thread You simply don't have the tools. Easier to just piss on the poster eh? So much for a Phd

I must have been thinking of this (from Trumbull's website statement):

"I have been developing a new technical approach to digital photography and projection, which is now enabled by both digital cameras and digital projectors. For the sake of compatibility, I have used 60 as the most comfortable and compatible frame rate in order to retain long-term viability. However, I have been shooting at 120 fps, using a 360-degree shutter in the camera. This makes it possible to digitally merge any number of adjacent frames in order to recover the appropriate amount of blur necessary for 24 fps display. Keep in mind that the movie medium we are accustomed to has used a 160-200 degree shutter, resulting in the "texture" that we know as movies (not television). Having shot material at 120 frames with a 360-degree shutter, it is a simple and perfect conversion to digitally merge three frames into one, and delete the next two frames, thus resulting in a 24 frame movie without any artifacts, and while retaining the normal blur. This patented process will provide a compression of visual data that will bring immense improvement to the viewing experience, and also offers the unique opportunity to "embed" 60 fps object motion within a 24 fps overall "look", thus preserving the cinematic texture while enabling unblurred fast action."

Not a revolutionary concept perhaps, but actually quite interesting in relation to my original questions about shutter angle and playback ...

I disagree Trumbulls idea is revolutionary also regarding your opening thread Why didn't you do some tests before you came on here?

I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean by doing the 2x crop factor in this particular case but I'd say no, it doesn't mean that. 
I'd suggest that you just ignore that video and all the fancy cinema format names for the time being, and concentrate on what you wish to shoot right now.
 
When choosing a lens for your GH3 (or for any other stills+video camera ftm), it's a good idea to keep the usual crop factor in mind. That is, the one used on the photo side of things. It's a useful point of reference, commonly used to define the lenses that go for your camera, for example. The fact that the cinema side have their own names for their points of reference doesn't change that.
 
To simplify things for now, just ignore the Super35, Super16 and such, even including the varying aspect ratios, and concentrate on the photographic references, like
 
1."Full Frame" (=35mm film shot in horizontal mode, aka 24x36mm, no crop factor)
2. APS-C (=1.5x crop factor, roughly about the same as Super35, 35mm film shot in vertical mode w/ audio track)
3. mFT (=2x crop factor, Panasonic/Olympus).
There are others, like the so called 1'' sensor, which is close to the Super16 format (close to 3x crop), but you can ignore it, for now.
 
A lens that gives you the field of view of a standard lens with the GH3 is 25mm (2x 25mm = 50mm, the classic standard lens in photo terms).
 
Which means that if you wish to have a wideangle lens for your GH3, (when you wish to shoot fluent steadicam floats, for example), you'll need to choose a lens that is way less than 25mm. A 24mm lens in a FF camera is considered a reasonable (often sufficient) wideangle. So in mFT terms you'd get similar (sufficiently wide) field of view with a 12mm lens.
 
If you had an APS-C camera (close to Super35 in cinema terms), the same field of view would be accomplished with a 16mm lens (1.5 x 16mm = 24mm).
 
Again, a standard lens (good for a lot of general shooting) would be 50mm for a Canon 5D3, a 35mm for a Sony NEX, and 25mm for a Panasonic GH3.
 
There are a lot of inexpensive yet very nice classic 35mm and 50mm lenses around, which will fit all those cameras with a suitable adapter, so it pays off to keep the 2x crop factor in mind. A classic 50mm means a lens of 100mm field of view in the GH3, and the 35mm lens would still be 70mm equivalent, still a telephoto field of view. You might want something a bit wider than that for most of your video shooting.
 
This all may sound a bit confusing at first, especially if you start bringing in the cinema terms in the mix, but it becomes pretty clear after a short while. So just keep the 2x crop factor in mind, and your life will be much easier.
 
Better still, try the lens in your camera and see what the view looks like before you buy one. Remember also that there is no right or wrong lens, so you can choose whatever focal length you wish, as long as it works for you and helps in achieving your goal.
 
There's plenty of time to geek out about the cinema formats and terms later on, and then join the merry nerdy-nam-nam above.  :P
That's my 2c, hopefully it helps with the confusion, rather than making it worse.

Yes just ignore Super 35 and Super 16 standards and follow Quirky not the merry nam nam. This just gets better and better