Germy1979

Yeah i was gonna say. The VG900 with an E mount looks like the one we need to look at.. Avchd 2.0 is still 8bit 4:2:0. I wish they'd just tell us what's coming out of the hdmi jack! Lol.

Nice comment on Facebook... Somebody said the Blackmagic sucks because of the sensor size. This guy replied well...Says it all doesn't it!?

"[color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=2][left][background=rgb(237, 239, 244)]Yeah having real 1080p with 13 stops of dynamic range in 12bit 4:2:2 RAW or 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes sucks so bad when you can shoot pristine real 720p soft macroblocked unfocusable 8bit 4:2:0 compressed h264 on a 5D MarkIII for just $500 more!"[/background][/left][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1346921577' post='17432']
Don't know if this was posted somewhere else already, cause I don't read everything:
[media]http://vimeo.com/48861294[/media]

What do you think?

My 2 cents: Silly story, some rolling shutter, apparently no noise problems.
[/quote]

saw this before....hard to tell anything from this....i can only look at this as a complete waste of time and money....light is horrible, flat, there is no mood, unless you like latin soap, every shot and set up looks unbelievably unimaginative to me, i feel bad about the actors, the story? is....what?why? who decided to do this and get people involved, was anyone paid to do this...i don't get it at all....
although i really don't like the grading either (again, no mood, no tone, nothing....) the image looks clean and crisp....
this could have been shot available light, handheld with a 5DII and it should have looked better....

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1347052373' post='17570']
Are you joking? He barely moved the camera! Rolling shutter would have to be VERY bad to be visible in those shots!

Raw is definitely very powerful, but I doubt anyone will be using it for every single project, it does add a few time consuming steps and loads of storage space. People shooting projects with a quick turnaround and no need for much post work will choose the prores mode in a heartbeat. Even you Andrew! :)
[/quote]

Granted, it's not for every project, but for everyday work you have ProRes that's a lot lighter and still has crazy better image than any DSLR codec, while you have the option (unlike any other sub $15,000 camera now) to shoot RAW for any project that needs it (I persoanally would love to have it for personal and paid fiction projects).

a

Sooooo...

Anybody watch the VMA's last night?
...next question.. Does anybody find it "unfair" that somebody like "2 Chainz" can get on a microphone, say things like "she got a big booty, so i call her big booty." - and you have to work in a factory, warehouse, cubicle, etc... Just to make in a year what he probably made in 2 hours last night?... I think they took the "Talent is not enough" approach a little too far. Because apparently, it isn't "shhhhhhit!!!" and should be changed to... "f--k talent." lol.

Well thankfully, not everything sucks:

Per Blackmagic:

"We have also been working on a Passive Micro Four Thirds model of the camera. People have been asking for this as there are a lot of nice high end manually operated MFT lenses on the market, and the MFT mount can also be easily adapted to PL and other lens mounts using third party adapters.

The new Blackmagic Cinema Camera MFT is expected to ship in December, and will be the same price as the original model. It’s identical in features as they are both the same camera, just with different lens mounts. The price will also be the same at $2,995. We will be working with our dealers to help people change their orders if they want."

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/


This changes things for me:)

[quote name='Stephen de Vere' timestamp='1346232798' post='16775']
I can't find any reference on this site to the hope that the banding issue in GH2 will be resolved with the GH3. For me, unless that get's fixed every other improvement is pointless.

Am I missing something ?
[/quote]

Not at all bud:). Most of us are wondering ourselves. I hate the halos that emit from bright lights. I made a 4th of July vid and every firework looked like a nuclear missle launch. It's (gh2) - definitely got its issues regarding how it handles transitioning shades and such, but we never got the freedom to create our own color profiles either. I love cinestyle for my T2i, but i recently started using Visioncolor, and if you're pixel peeping, it Doesn't do the stairstep from one color to another. I'd assume it's the 8 bit space it has to work with. In After Effects, when I A/B 8 bit and 16 bit workspaces, i can see the banding in 8 bit. 16 bit doesn't do it. (granted, i transcode 5d to RGB 4:4:4 as well. You should try it if u don't already... And use Andrews gamma fix technique in Premiere with the Fast Color Corrector plug. full range input, 16-235 output... Double check that last number though.). Your shadows boost cleaner, and your highlights don't look like a supernova.

Personally man, Depending on how much they want for the GH3, if you're making movies primarily, i'd just save up a little more and grab the BMC instead? I only say that because you're much less likely to hit your head against the ceiling because of a lame colorspace, or a shitty codec, or whatever DSLR inherent issue you'd run into with a still's camera.

I can't believe i'm about to say this, but the Gh3's a "still's" camera first.... (I'm f--king banning myself from this site for that one.lol.). But who the hell takes pictures with a GH2 anyway..? Ha!

No doubt, the GH3 will be killer... But being completely redesigned, weathersealed, with an X series kit lens, (12-35 f2.8)... It's not going to be priced like a Gh2. People will easily drop $2000 for it if it's a killer, and it probably will be. If that's the case though, for a thousand more you can have a 12 bit camera with the option to shoot 220mbps pro res... And that's supposed to be the "lesser" codec! It's still 4 times higher than the GH3's. And i could almost guarantee the Gh3 won't be 4:4:4 12 bit raw.

But wtf do I know. Panasonic could've gotten wasted last weekend and said, "you know what f--kers?!.. Let's just go all out with this bastard. Yeah why not.. 4:4:4, 14 bit, RAW, clean HDMI out, 13 stops, X- series lens, unlimited lens options, $2000... Watch the world sh-t its pants.".

.....Only I would be that cool.

4-2-0 24Mbit???????

another fail from canon.

sony A99 will kill this product like anything..

[quote name='Stephen de Vere' timestamp='1346232798' post='16775']
I can't find any reference on this site to the hope that the banding issue in GH2 will be resolved with the GH3. For me, unless that get's fixed every other improvement is pointless.

Am I missing something ?
[/quote]

Not at all bud:). Most of us are wondering ourselves. I hate the halos that emit from bright lights. I made a 4th of July vid and every firework looked like a nuclear missle launch. It's (gh2) - definitely got its issues regarding how it handles transitioning shades and such, but we never got the freedom to create our own color profiles either. I love cinestyle for my T2i, but i recently started using Visioncolor, and if you're pixel peeping, it Doesn't do the stairstep from one color to another. I'd assume it's the 8 bit space it has to work with. In After Effects, when I A/B 8 bit and 16 bit workspaces, i can see the banding in 8 bit. 16 bit doesn't do it. (granted, i transcode 5d to RGB 4:4:4 as well. You should try it if u don't already... And use Andrews gamma fix technique in Premiere with the Fast Color Corrector plug. full range input, 16-235 output... Double check that last number though.). Your shadows boost cleaner, and your highlights don't look like a supernova.

Personally man, Depending on how much they want for the GH3, if you're making movies primarily, i'd just save up a little more and grab the BMC instead? I only say that because you're much less likely to hit your head against the ceiling because of a lame colorspace, or a shitty codec, or whatever DSLR inherent issue you'd run into with a still's camera.

I can't believe i'm about to say this, but the Gh3's a "still's" camera first.... (I'm f--king banning myself from this site for that one.lol.). But who the hell takes pictures with a GH2 anyway..? Ha!

No doubt, the GH3 will be killer... But being completely redesigned, weathersealed, with an X series kit lens, (12-35 f2.8)... It's not going to be priced like a Gh2. People will easily drop $2000 for it if it's a killer, and it probably will be. If that's the case though, for a thousand more you can have a 12 bit camera with the option to shoot 220mbps pro res... And that's supposed to be the "lesser" codec! It's still 4 times higher than the GH3's. And i could almost guarantee the Gh3 won't be 4:4:4 12 bit raw.

But wtf do I know. Panasonic could've gotten wasted last weekend and said, "you know what f--kers?!.. Let's just go all out with this bastard. Yeah why not.. 4:4:4, 14 bit, RAW, clean HDMI out, 13 stops, X- series lens, unlimited lens options, $2000... Watch the world sh-t its pants.".

.....Only I would be that cool.

If the price were at $4000 could be a killer cam, but at that price is better to go with the FS700. Is like a FS100 with ND filter, better construction and ergonomics, but for $4000 more, i don't think so.

Sounds good but still very conservative pricing from Canon. This should be priced to compete with the FS100. The FS700 has a bunch of features that make it very special and extremely good value. Obviously Canon is hoping to bank on the reputation the C300 has been making in picture quality.

You will see the softness big time on a huge screen - when compared to other cams on a huge screen. However, put some beautiful naked girl dancing with another beautiful naked girl and I really doubt anyone will give a shit. They'll call you the new Coppola :)

Hey, Canon is pushing hard too: today they announced an exciting new superzoom compact. And it is available in red!

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/21/canon-announces-powershot-sx500-is-sx160-is-superzoom-cameras-a/?m=false

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...

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...

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...

[quote name='HellKat' timestamp='1345303087' post='15987']
Although I agree with a number of things you mentioned in your critique of part 3 (in particular, where you talk about endless reminders about the importance of creativity which BTW often look like mantras lacking any sunstance), I think the overall tone of your blog post (and your advices) are not appropriate. Part 3 does not confirm your major leitmotif regarding GH2 - not a surprise, you do not like it.

Here is a piece of advice for you - next time you do what Zacuto did with their overall excellent and amazing effort by its scale and contribution to the filmmaking community, and then we'll see if you are up to the challange yourself.

To finish on a positive note - I respect what you do and check your blog almost every day. Equally, I respect your contribution to the community (even if I sometimes disagree with all your biases). But, man, learn your place.
[/quote]

Man...it's like bad mouthing Texas. Get your ass shot off over cameras around here...

Yeah they did put in a lot of effort...but damn... Putting on a test like that would not be what i considered a terrible inconvenience..

Using the best technology on the market, working with and interviewing some of the most respected DP's of our time.... Sounds awful.
Which one of us wouldn't jump at the opportunity to do something like this if we we're Steve Weiss? The whole point of this series was to get us all out of the forums and out there in the field. (I'm guilty as hell here on it myself, so don't crucify me:).

It's fun to talk shop on technology. That's all it is. People on Youtube are telling each other to go f--k themselves by the 9th comment over there because the uploader didn't use "smooth" -2 -2 -2 -2 and thus, the test was void.. It's retarded how personal people get over it.

For every negative comment on a camera, there are probably 2 or 3 positives out there somewhere if someone is researching. I have a T2i and a GH2. I've seen just about every negative comment there is on the T2i... But i absolutely love Cinestyle and Magic Lantern. I love the GH2... It's a detail monster and Flowmotion is the best patch i've ever used... But i prefer Canons look sometimes. No forum told me that...

But if it did, i sure as hell wouldn't post 50 pounds of negative on the commenters face... Pretty condescending.

But in this case this is not being a gearhead. I'm over stating stuff because I can't believe the indifference so many people have to something so evident and bad looking. This is purely based on what I saw when watching a music video: an image that hit me in the face because of its uncommon artifacts.
I've shot short films and movies for 7 years, and I've drawn and painted my whole life. I live through images. I do VFX all the time. Animation. I have a trained eye. And I believe Philip does too, and he probably has far better equipment than I do. So how come he denies such an obvious shortcoming (I have to say that softness is a lot more filmic than jagged edges and pixelated details, really...)? It can be better in every other aspect, but this single one, considering this is an HD camera intended for film production, is a really bad one.

And this is the main point: don't repeat someone's words as if they were the most qualifed truth, the undeniable opinion on what's good just because of his experience. Judge for yourself. Do you like the image that camera produces? Do you believe it's worth its price? That's great. But do it because you think it's so, not because a celebrity cinematographer says it is.

I saw what comes out of the camera and think it's not up to par with what he's claims, if even for one single aspect of the image. I'm not afraid to question Philip for being experienced. I trust my experience, my work and my sensitivity.

It's in Philip Bloom's best interests to speak highly of Canon cameras.

Almost all interviewees talked about telling stories.
Yes, it matters for sophisticated film makers and movie critics, but the mass audience, where the most money comes from, do not care. They want to see boobs, special effects and stupidity -- a quick gratification for investing their money ($12 movie tickets) and time spend watching it (Youtube).
If the exact contest was shot side-by-side with any of the two cameras tested, most audience members are not going to be concerned about what footage is better than another. They do not understand or care about a little noise, burned out highlights or a slight yellow cast.
The general consensus seems to point to the direction that more money you spend on camera, easier and faster it is to turn it around.
It all comes down to money.
Most artists have luxury of time, therefore they can make any of these cameras work (well.. maybe not iPhone). Since their budgets are severely limited, they choose reasonably prices cameras.
Big budget movie makers, on the other hand, need to get things done quickly first time around, therefore they choose the big-boy cameras, minimizing the overall cost.
Having said all that, 7D still sucks compared to GH2. It just tells you what is popular (Canon) isn't necessarily the best for the money. Marketing determines results, not truths.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1343596437' post='14709']I happen to be very impressed with GH2 footage I've seen. In fact, the GH2 is the camera that made me think, "Okay, now I have no more excuses for not making my own films." But the GH2 certainly doesn't compete with film. But I don't really see that as the point though.
[/quote]

That's what I think as well. The point is not, that Coppola, should he decide to shoot [i]Apocalypse Again[/i], would say, friends, we are going to the jungle, leave your cumbersome old film cameras at home, we put on a Lumix each and be done for. And whether Christopher Nolan should go on using film despite the high quality of our amateur equipment - is that our business?

Where our views diverge is in your transition we can't compete now [color=#ff0000]but[/color] soon:
[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1343551432' post='14696']Com'on people! :-D I really hope no one actually thinks film is going to be replaced by a $800 micro 4/3 camera? Okay so film kills GH2 but what about RED and Alexa? And really, we may not have the technology to make a movie that looks better then film right now [color=#ff0000]but just wait. In a few years...[/color]
[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

[/quote]

This is the excuse ("Okay, now I have no more excuses for not making my own films.") not to express ourselves using what we have. Hollywood is like an army with helicopters, napalm, predator drones and everything, all aimed at our hearts, and we have only smartphones. What is the smart thing to do? Use our phones as clubs against the enemy cause that's the appropriate answer?

Do I actually think that film is going to be replaced by an $800 Lumix? No, but my conclusion is not, give up, but stop caring about things you can't influence.

What Hollywood is not particularly good at, is expressing my, Axels, views.

I know how video looks on big screens. Neither do I dream of competing with [i]The Dark Knight[/i] aesthetically, nor do I care about Gotham.

Today all talk regarding poor video quality really is lamenting on a high comfort level. Never before were the means to deliver [i]sufficient[/i] quality for cinema so affordable. Don't look at the aesthetics too close.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Yeah i really don't see the issue. I mean even in its compressed state, i'm still seeing things on the other side of the windows. She doesn't look like she's playing pool on a dying star like we usually see with dslr's. I think there's enough d.o.f. to isolate whatever you need to in frame. A lot of that "cinematic" look, is gonna be on you boys... None of us have gotten our hands on this thing with a dolly, or an anamorphic, or a slider yet.

Can't wait to compare the video the D800 and the 5D3

a bead of sweat trickles down big jim's face.
god damn their aussie eyes.
his attractive intern stacy holds his hand and says big jim it will be ok for sure.
that sensor.
the the little sensor it will burn up in no time.
data through put will melt that plastic sucker,chill out iceman.
now how about a back rub and a dip in the hot tub.
thanks says jim.
stacy.
stacy do you really think the camera will melt..
and it will be ok..
i
i mean first the sauerkrauts with alexa now this.
what about my red flock my followers my people.
i feel rudderless.
get over hear in the tub jim.
sure.
stacy yes jim
have you seen my rubber ducky

I don't know why i torture myself watching these videos. It'll be a cold day in hell before I get to hit the red button on one. But anyway, here's the link:

https://vimeo.com/42177809

There are like 3 versions of this. Graded, ungraded, behind the scenes, etc.