Germy1979

[quote name='TC' timestamp='1349875780' post='19558']
"Improved RAW coded" sounds suspicious, not just because of the typo. It is quite difficult to "improve" raw. It is exactly what it says it is - the raw data from the camera. You could compress it to make you hard discs go further, but I wouldn't really call that an improvement.
[/quote]

It's possible that they've finally licensed CineForm RAW, which has a number of compression levels, including uncompressed. Considering that Adobe doesn't appear to be motivated to improve CinemaDNG support in Premier Pro and CineForm RAW is already supported, addition of the latter to the BMC's codecs would be a wise move.

[quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1349755040' post='19509']


I do not expect to have better video quality in a DSLR anytime soon. The concept in itself is far from perfect. To process those high resolution sensors, you would need better DSP chips. At the same time those chips generate so much heat to process all that data that this heat cannot dissipate out of those small body. They are just not created for that.

The easiest solution would be to put in them a low megapixels count in them, kinda 4k, but as they are marketed as DSLR, it would not be a good success as it will not generate enough sales on the photo side (where most the sales are in DSLR). So I will forget a breakthrough in the video quality of DSLRs for a few years.

By now, I thought that we would already have some camera likes the C300 from the competition. I really think this is where the future belong as it is the best form factor of any camera I ever saw.
[/quote]

The 1-DC can do it. I wouldn't even say this if Andrew hadn't interviewed the Canon guy that confirmed it was just a badass 1-DX. The sensor has to be downplayed to a lower megapixel count to be optimal for video, but it's supposedly the same 18mp sensor as the 1-DX with a different firmware telling it to work a different way... Which it does:) Without breaking a sweat apparently either. It's not RAW, but it's not moire ridden avchd either... It's 4k for crying out loud & it doesn't look bad at all... So if they can do it with a firmware, (maybe not bump the price $9000 though in the process,lol) - then these other cameras shouldn't have a problem. I honestly think anymore, it's just a rush to get something with a higher model number to the masses and THAT is the primary concern... Whether the technology is a let down or not.

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1349719677' post='19490']
I agree. The 5D Mark ii was introduced in September 2008. 4 years later, and the video quality, in DSLRs, is exactly the same, albeit some minor, cosmetic changes. Also, the XLR Adapter for US$800 is INSANE. Sony seems to be going the Canon way, producing DSLRs with lousy video quality, at exorbitant prices. Maybe, they should just scrap the video, Altogether, instead of consistently trying to fool consumers.

Also, the Canon 5D Mark iii and the Sony A99 are double the price of the Panasonic GH3 (or more). If video is a necessary governing (factor for) price point, then, they should offer a $1000 discount, without any fuss, on both the Sony AND the Canon.
[/quote]

Yeah, I actually think out of all the video offerings Canon has given us at the cost of appendages, the only 2 that have impressed me image-wise, are the C-100, (no...not the C-300) - and the old Mark 2... Nobody can afford a C-100 though, so it's just disheartening as hell to the whole community. Especially since it plays that whole side of the market at face value... until you see $6500 and you're suddenly not surprised. That's 2 BM cinema cameras that shoot Raw, & a 512gb ssd, or a full tank of gas, whatever $6500 gets you these days...

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1349713130' post='19484'] [i]An exploded view of the A99 at Photokina[/i] Whilst I was able to record some footage from the Sony A99 at Photokina I didn't really have any spare time to do much with one. The camera to me seems a little bit disappointing on the image quality front with line skipping resulting in quite heavy moire and aliasing. Not acceptable in 2012. Johnnie (who I had the pleasure of finally meeting at Photokina) is a freelance BBC cameraman and editor based in Vienna. His comments on the new A99 are mixed (as are my feelings about the camera). [/quote]

I agree. The 5D Mark ii was introduced in September 2008. 4 years later, and the video quality, in DSLRs, is exactly the same, albeit some minor, cosmetic changes. Also, the XLR Adapter for US$800 is INSANE. Sony seems to be going the Canon way, producing DSLRs with lousy video quality, at exorbitant prices. Maybe, they should just scrap the video, Altogether, instead of consistently trying to fool consumers.

Also, the Canon 5D Mark iii and the Sony A99 are double the price of the Panasonic GH3 (or more). If video is a necessary governing (factor for) price point, then, they should offer a $1000 discount, without any fuss, on both the Sony AND the Canon.

I double all of the above.. I'm also glad you posted this here instead of Personal View... It's good to see you still have a good self-esteem:)

A GH2 with the 64gb, 95mbps Sandisk Extreme Pro card... Others will disagree, but this is the only card that has "never" stopped recording on me from 2 years of personal experience.. So don't skimp on that... Get it if you can afford it and plan on using patches with bit rates around 150+

A GH2 with a set of old fast manual Nikon AIS's or Canon FD's (especially the older 'ssc' ones) - will make it sing. Then buy the proper corresponding adapter for around $30. (Sorry.. I'm sure Novoflex is awesome for $200... But come on.). Get a variable ND, and make a movie man.

Looks like a starfighter from Star Wars - not bad!
And I'm sure it's well crafted, but for €750 + tax? A-aa.

Some are funny, some we're just fun:). This one was a test of Color Finesse grading and the Gh2 on a cloudy day:

http://vimeo.com/50270960

Check out my page if you so desire:)

It's a pre production firmware yes... But this is a big ass event! Most of the indie crowd waited with their eye on this camera after the BMC to put in a pre order. The Gh2 didn't have any issues with Moire or Aliasing... Nobody even had a second thought that it would be a factor with this one, until it was. They may fix it yes, but does any camera manufacturer think anyone wants moire and aliasing in their footage? That should be part of the basic checklist. If they could do it 2 years ago, shouldn't be a problem. Second is the same old 4:2:0, 8 bit. We pretty much know that isn't going anywhere in the final product. So we're stuck with 16-235 limitations again. To me, i haven't even seen the banding issue or increased dynamic range comparisons to justify the upgrade, but if the banding is fixed within those numbers, it sounds like cheating when the information could be there to begin with. The fact that the camera was DESIGNED to handle progressive footage at higher bitrates this time, along with finally looking like a damn man's camera for a change though, is a worthy welcome.

For hybrid shooters, i see this as your guy. For pure filmmakers on the other hand, the BMC may be $1700 more, but it will pistol whip these limitations, and more than likely get a 60p upgrade later. You get what you pay for...

"I’d happily pay $3000 for this [better image in the next, upcoming camera], as the GH3 already is a bargain for $1299".

I would NOT.

GH3 is a new camera that many are waiting for. It costs more than GH2 so it is obvious it should be more then just an improvement over previous model. And a camera is not everything. Lenses and propriety accesories makes additional costs, so if a new camera for $1299 doesn't generate a better image it doesn't have any sens.

Aliasing and moiré instability of an image is passé as a chromatic aberration. A new camera have not to be affected by this image defect. Specially that GH3 is made with possible professional use in mind, right? It doesn't make any sense to wait again and again for a newer camera, because this way we will stay with nothing always waiting.

[quote name='peederj' timestamp='1347769413' post='18192']
I admire your screenwriting skills greatly germy!

Though as someone who owns and uses a real U87, i can tell you that after a couple days you aren't thinking "that's a U87." You are thinking about whether it gives the vo talent a cold or a kazoo voice or it's perfect. And if you are worth hiring you are simultaneously considering the bigger picture of what this means to the delivered narrative, and adjusting accordingly.

And after doing vo with a U87 you aren't likely to waste much time with the GH3's of microphones. Let the local car dealerships cope with that sound.
[/quote]

Oh yes brother.. That's a whole different discussion, lol:)

It's funny just how parallel the production philosophies mingle in video/music. I took a break from it after 15 years of having music i really didn't like, shoved down my throat. When it gets to the point where one day you have a revelation, that presents no point in your life where you dreamed of being a mastering engineer for shitty music... It's time to regroup i think, lol.

I've mixed and recorded with some pretty coveted gear over the years also man, and i agree with you on the level of expectation... once you get to that level.. Though i don't think we would have said, "Hey Bono... we're gonna try an SM58 first....see how that goes.". But that was back before it was neccessary to autotune someone, until they sounded like they had a cold, lol.... My other issue with the modern music scene. :)

It's basically to the point where finding anything worth liking is like finding a treasure.... Which can be rewarding for those who work in the craft... We still need to be inspired also from time to time. But even my heroes aren't a sure thing like they used to be, anymore... "Prometheus" let me down. The last thing Hans Zimmer did that impressed me was the fast moving viola arpeggio behind the theme in "like a dog chasing cars" on The Dark Knight. I used to love his unpredictability in cues, but he hasn't really done it like that since the 90's... And the only song i liked this year, came out last year by Amos Lee called "Violin.". I sure as hell didn't hear it on the radio though..

Guess it's all subjective to personal flavor these days, People like hearing computers sing:)

Thanks for the interview Andrew, this must have taken ages to transcribe.


Things I infer from this interview:

How do you come to prioritise what’s most important, because you must have a huge list of feature requests?

We had interlaced to make progressive – not so good.

Translation:
You thought you were getting progressive video from the GH2. but you weren’t. It was interlaced that was converted to progressive. This is one of the reasons the GH2 had such a strong video look. Plus we spent so long doing that, we forgot to add peaking

Is the HDMI output 4-2-2?

No its 4-2-0. Why would we spend so long designing and optimising a stable high bit codec in camera if we wanted you to use a fucking ninja?
The output is perfectly suitable for a field monitor, but you won’t be recording shit out of it.


Is it a Sony sensor? No comment.

Translation: Yes it is it’s the same sensor from the EM5. We saw Olympus taking all the glory for having better quality so we decided to sacrifice the multi aspect sensor for the slightly better dynamic range of the Sony one.

This will have an effect on the overall video quality as well. The footage will look less like the old Panasonic video-like look and more of a Sony video-like look. So if you want a more film like look you will have to save up and either put up with the artificially crippled detail of the 5dmk3 which should be sharp as a tack due to the 3*3 pixel binning, or put up with the rainbow moiré of the BMC because they skipped putting in an optical low pass filter in this version to get the camera out the door.

One more question. Electronic follow focus....?

Response: (Gets notepad out.)
Remember when I said There are over a 100 members researching all over the world? I Lied!!

[quote name='tungah' timestamp='1347995078' post='18484']
I'm very worried about skin tones. Will we be seeing more pictures of Pocahontas, Andrew?
[/quote]

Bump.

I too am on the fence about skin tones.

I will PM a suggested list of angles.

Canon confuses me. I love Cinestyle and the way canons see color.. (i know that's an oxymoron since cinestyle flattens out everything, but even grading it, i seem to get more aesthetically pleasing results) - But the GH cameras have cleaner images and more lens options. Then in order to have the shortcomings of the Canon's that the GH's automatically don't have, you need another $10,000.

I guess I should just stfu about it & realize....in the end......

........they truly were...

Stills cameras.


😔

I'm very worried about skin tones. Will we be seeing more pictures of Pocahontas, Andrew?

Lens options man.... You can mount a pair of reading glasses on the gh2 with the proper corresponding adapter.

Lens options man.... You can mount a pair of reading glasses on the gh2 with the proper corresponding adapter.

Lens options man.... You can mount a pair of reading glasses on the gh2 with the proper corresponding adapter.

Stoked about 4:2:2 hdmi possibly, and a Log type PIcture style perhaps? I'm hearing no...

On the other hand, I find it hilarious that the camera hasn't even been officially announced 24 hours, and there's already a cat video up.

[quote name='OzNimbus' timestamp='1347804943' post='18268']
I'm guessing that's 60 [i]seconds[/i], not 1/60th.
[/quote]

Yeah.. That was probably a dumb question for a camera most people will buy to make movies with, lol. That would be like, $7000 for a video camera that shoots 8bit, 4:2:0 in Avchd, hahahaa!

Wait a minute.

I admire your screenwriting skills greatly germy!

Though as someone who owns and uses a real U87, i can tell you that after a couple days you aren't thinking "that's a U87." You are thinking about whether it gives the vo talent a cold or a kazoo voice or it's perfect. And if you are worth hiring you are simultaneously considering the bigger picture of what this means to the delivered narrative, and adjusting accordingly.

And after doing vo with a U87 you aren't likely to waste much time with the GH3's of microphones. Let the local car dealerships cope with that sound.

you guys have no idea about nothing.
i know for a fact that in 4 years we will have something really amazing it will blow your minds.
infact if you can wait 10 years i guarantee something that will knock your socks off.
come 20 years the sky is the limit.
hold on as long as you can all this stuff is rubbish compared to the stuff we will get in 50 years

[quote name='Anil Rao' timestamp='1347753417' post='18180']
ok, my genuine points to consider after watching this.

1. Watch the fans blades in the beginning, that was really shocking,
unless they are all really furry, as I have seen fan blades with tassles before.

2. There is no demeaning here, the grading really is all over the place and that is not the fault of the camera now is it?

3. I'd like to know what is the budget of this, time frame of schedule and furthermore, look at how many people worked on it?

This would negate a few things to consider, the first being if you are going to do this properly, give it all the quality it needs. I am not going to fault the craftsmanship as there is a considerable amount of blood, sweat and tears that goes into a production like this and especially with a short timeframe to accomplish everything, however, if this is an official Panasonic showcase why didn't they take the time to do it right instead of a rush job?

More importantly, most of us are not going to have the kind of background support this demo utilises when working for ourselves, so that is not a real working example to use, to fairly showcase the camera, and even if we did, in all honestly I expected a better showcase, and not these kind of Ideal Home Exhibition demos, or shots of frogs close up you see on HD screens in Dixons.

I watched this as a film first and it was just too hammy, now before the obvious reply to that will be, yes but it is to show what the camera can do, I say that is fundamentally wrong as an example to sell this camera and here's why... I want to be held by the idea, if this idea is to show the GH3 as a working tool for filmmakers and not just to start flames and wars amongst the online pixel peepers, then shoot it as a film and not a technical promo, then when one watches it, you can say to yourself, 'wow that was great', followed by, 'what!!!! that was all shot on a GH3', then you have proven the point.

Philip made a film about a camera guy who collects cameras and it was awesome, then he told us at the Mac Video Expo where it was projected for us, that it was all shot on the NEX 5N, I was totally floored, that's the kind of example I expect to see. Even now when I think about it I can recall my wowness at watching it.

When I made a short film for the French filmmaker [i]Luc Besson[/i], I shot it on a 200 line resolution security camera, the kind put outside your garage, I just loved the field of view, (which was very [i]Terry Gilliam[/i] meets[i] Jean-Pierre Jeunet[/i]) and the image the camera gave me.

I had reworked the wiring so I could record the image to a DV Deck and shot my film as a film, as an idea I wanted to express. I then graded it at VTR (now known as Prime Focus) in Soho, by the legendary colourist [i]Tareq Kubaisi[/i] and it was screened in Paris, London and Tokyo.

My point being here, is that I could have shot it on 70mm if I really wanted to, however I am a guerilla filmmaker, and by guerilla I mean that I want to push what can be achieved without all the bells and whistles that raise costs and still be held up as a validated professional piece of work.[i] GENESIS[/i] obviously has all the bells and whistles thrown at it and it's unfortunately speaking, not a good showcase for what it should be doing, which is telling a story that at the end of it, has us go wow and then unbelievable.

They should have given this to Michael Mann and stipulated, off you mate and only by yourself, but he loves his Nikons too much ha :)

Doesn't matter though, I am really looking forward to getting one of these, and if I had the added expenditure I'd feel the same about the BMCC, I'll be watching how that all develops before stepping in, but it's all good. Someone already said it before, but a new kid always stirs things up for everyone else to re-raise their game and that's better for all of us right?

:)
[/quote]

Pretty good points here man.

Most of us have been following the development of the, (we'll call it) - "affordable cinema look project" since 2008 when Reverie hit the web. I'm sure it went back further, I remember Wolf Creek was shot on high-def....but that ran how much then? I like the philosophy of "the best camera for the job is the one you have".... It keeps you productive. This is a love for cameras that has developed since the dawn of DSLR cinema and its affordability over the last 4 years though. It's likened to a breakthrough medical explanation, lol. (yeah, turns out a.d.d. Is legit!)
We spend a ton of time watching tests with different lenses, patches, cameras, etc... Most of them are flowers. "Flowers with Sedna AQ1" - because we don't have Paramount budgets. But those are some of most cinematic flowers i've ever seen...

The case could be made for both. If you have a story, and the resources to make it, schedule it, and rent a Scarlet.... they're reasonable on lensrentals.com, and Red has a few big budget flicks under its belt.

Otherwise, you're probably looking at a camera for under $3000 because you want to own it, and use it whenever you want, can.
If you love the cinematic look... Shallow dof, interchangeable lenses, Etc... - you won't get that with an ipad.

So I think for some, it is about the cameras and that's cool, because I can see how it's happened. These are exciting times for poor, talented, aspiring filmmakers and if something like a GH2 would have been around when I was making my Army movies as a kid, I would've shit my pants.

So i see your argument here man and it's a good one... Because from an image standpoint, technically the GH2 has impressed me far more than a Nex 5n ever has...but I haven't seen a story on it that moved me... But that's a matter of personal taste on my end.

In Genesis, we see shallow dof, low light, wide angle, fast pace, detail, etc.. Shots most will pixel peep for things like banding and shit, even though it was a pre-production model. Obviously the story didn't concern anybody as much as the rolling shutter did. Ha!

It's funny. I spend more time watching vimeo than I do actual films anymore...Bourne Ultimatum is on right now in the background as I type this. Such a gritty, badass movie. It however breaks every single law of Vimeo cinematography I've come to know.. It's hilarious. I didn't care in 2007 when i first saw it. Now i subliminally think, "Cameraman on Adderall.". or "Blown highlights everywhere...all the time... Blown out.". Then that car chase comes on, and i don't give a shit anymore what it was shot on.

So yeah, i think if you shoot movies for a living, it takes something special to draw you away from that when you watch one. Same thing for a recording engineer. Good music, and all he's thinking is, "That's a Neumann U87."

[b]markm[/b]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"[b][i]Sorry Andrew will disagree with you on this one. Now people dont forget this is just my opinion so need to insult me with personal attacks or fanboy defences.[/i][/b][/font][/color]

[b][i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The original camera run ONLY at 24fps What use is that apart from internet films and vimeo test fan films. Can't record sound seperately and synch it without steps. Only useful for making films to transfer to celluloid if you could afford it and were dumb enough to do it as AVCHD at 8 bit 4,2 0 and 23mbps put paid to any of that.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]So zero use as a film camera and zero use as a normal one.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]They did upgrade it to 25fps MUCH later on AFTER Vitaliys hack and AFTER everyone had been crying out for 25p.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The camera was intentionally crippled surely we can all see that. How could Vitaliy, Driftwood, manage to get so much more out of it if this were not the case. Working on the assumption it was deliberatley crippled you have to ask what has changed and then have a close look at why the GH3 does what it does.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Effectively it trumps the GH2 hacks and may actually stop hacking[/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Next it allows the four thirds lenses to carry on in case people might think panny have deserted it. I'm sure they will desert four thirds next time round though. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The GH3 is it an answer to the BMC or to the slew of new cameras coming out now or are they all trying to squeeze Black magic out and recapture what they are losing along with all their mates. Because what they stand to lose is the ability to drip feed cameras with slight improvements. Segment the pro from the consumer and maximise money by small upgrades year on year. Simply because its got so bad (The crippling) That Black Magic can take off the shelf parts and make a camera that has pro res in built and RAW Throw in software worth about a £1000 and sell the whole lot for £2100. NOW forgive me for being cynical on the way we have been treated and are being goat herded into our pens again. I would think different if the new cams just simply had 4.2.2 10 bit out and decent sensors NOT crippled with bad processing. Come on this has gone on long enough and beyond a joke.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I am annoyed with camera manufacturers and the way they have done business I applaud Black Magic and want to support their ethos I dont want to see certain maunfacturers herd us all back into our compounds with glossy sales campaigns and guru speel in order to do it.[/font][/color][/i][/b]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b][i]There is no reason why camera manufacturers cant output 10 bit in fact they have to take steps to prevent it from doing so. [/i][/b]"[/font][/color]

Though I think, the hacks were nice, they weren't anywhere 'extraordinary'. The codec was still 4-2-0. The only, possible effect, of the code, was in grading, where the much higher bit rate, helped the video (possibly), from falling apart.

Also, the latest 4-4-4 Patch on the GH2 is exaggerated, again. It is Nowhere near 12 bit 4-4-4. As a matter of fact, the FlowMotion V2.02 Hack seemed better (IMO), that the Apocalypse 4-4-4.

Also, the BMCC and the GH3 are 2 completely different cameras, meant, for 2 completely different users. Till the exact quality of the video, coming out of the GH3 is not tested, in actual tests (as opposed to videos put out by professional DoPs and guys like those who apparently made the Nikon D600 video), it would be pre-mature, to compare it, to anything else around.

The only difference, I noticed, on the GH3, as compared to the GH2, is that, perhaps, those banding issues have been greatly improved (especially w.r.d. to the Sky).

Personally, i would hate the idea of butting my head against the celing when it came to my equipment... I like the thought of not being limited by the tools i have and therefore, i can take full responsibility if my movie looks like trash. So I will be shooting Raw.

But i understand the issue. I bought my Mac 2 years ago. It is currently a dinosaur... My paltry 3.1 Duo Core..(Yes...duo core.) - with 8 gb of 1066 DDR3 ram can grade footage at the speed of smell....and this is transcoded 5d2rgb pro res 4:4:4....which is still shy of raw. So unless I invest in a computer with enough horsepower to render Avatar 2 realtime while I host the Armageddon of Warcraft, i may have no choice in the matter.

Which.....f--king sucks.

Nevertheless, I know people who DO have Nasa mainframes and regardless of the hassle, I've found the determination to create a better product is 10 fold turbo charged when your resources are limited. I have Apogee Symphony conversion with Antelope's Atom clocking it, Neve pres, great mics, Focal Twins, and my floors float. (i know... with a 2 year old Mac...audio is a tad less demanding in a comparison) - point is,
I made more music when I was a broke ass with a hundred dollar M-Audio mobile pre and a Nova mic in my living room using Cool Edit, than i ever have with all of this high end shit I lusted over for years...

I saved, and now I have it, and now all I do is master records for other people... It's paid for itself, yes... But my dream as a kid wasn't to be mastering music i don't even like. I think if you're not careful, you can fall into the gear trap pretty fast. God forbid I win the lottery, i'd probably kill myself for letting my room full of Alexa's and F65's collect dust.

It doesn't bother me. Nobody with any experience on a Gh2 would cater to its weaknesses in a real world shoot like the Empirical test. I think they just went for the cleanest image with a nice sheen on it, and that's fine. It has kind of an immediately gratifying characteristic... But by no means would i give it the "film look" stamp. Seriously, an old fast takumar for about a hundred bucks and the right grading could've taken this in a totally different direction. You can't stick a razor lens like the Fujinon in front of a Gh2 with a 150mb patch and expect it to not perform surgery. You almost have to throw some dirt on it to give it some soul... But that's cool because it's cheaper. I've seen plenty of footage that looked filmic. Granted, I can't film an indoor scene on a bright sunny day and get all manner of what's going on out the window as well as inside. But i've seen plenty of Films shot on actual FILM that blow out windows also.

Each sensor has its own character. A lot of these cameras throw a "milky" characteristic on skin that drives me nuts... You too $70,000 Alexa...