Axel

I used this position shake trick for most of my promos, just came to the conclusion on my lonesome, but it's good to share :) Subtler int he first one:
 
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGquFXmLOU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGquFXmLOU[/url]
 
More extreme here:
 
[url="https://vimeo.com/48174944"]https://vimeo.com/48174944[/url]
 
I did it in After Effects using a wiggle expression on position. Set a frequency either at frame rate or below, and use no more than a pixel or so. It works great!

You can see it here in the title card right at the beginning (very subtle, you might have to make it HD and full screen to notice it), that's using Final Cut's "Earthquake" filter.
 
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpcNvHmjx4Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpcNvHmjx4Y[/url]

Because back then, cinema was all emotion and sensations, not about 'technical specs' ...

Calibrating projectors is not a new issue either... When we bought our old cinema/house where we live, I had a talk with the aging projectionist who used to run the theater (now unfortunately deceased)... he told me that for moody, romantic movies he used to change to older, less sharp projector lenses and defocus the mirror behind the arc light to get a little vignetting, just to set the mood... For crispness he would dig out the Möller lenses, get the light as bright and focused as possible ... but as he said "if we get a badly copied movie, nothing helps"... The quality was best in summer, when his wife would wash and bleach the cotton screen...

As a digital projectionist and a cinéaste (getting my eyes checked at least once a year, they work perfect for distances), I can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, and of course I prefer the latter. Sony's argumentation, that viewing distance is of bigger importance than screen size, is rubbish nonetheless, because you can get audiences only so close to the screen as is necessary to let them enjoy 4k by completely rebuilding your cinema. The rows would have to be almost vertical, like in some IMAX-theaters. I watched [i]Inception[/i], [i]The girl with the dragon Tattoo[/i] and [i]Skyfall[/i] (this one 'false' 4k) on a 10m x 24m screen, from row 5. Note, that nobody voluntarily chooses these seats, because inevitably there is also a heavy [color=#ff0000][i]distortion[/i][/color] of the image and people consider it a disadvantage not to be able to overview the whole screen (while, in fact, this is the idea of a big screen). What is more, most content still is produced in 2k, a very high percentage is still even filmed in SD interlaced (regional ads, but astonishingly also commercials for cars, and from row 5 these often -but not always- are unendurable).

I believe that within one or two decades, 4k will be the [i]de facto[/i] standard, but not because the audience calls and pays (more) for it, but simply because the equipment needs to be replaced anyway, and 4k will be quite affordable soon.

The reasons why videographers are attracted by 4k are:
> They think 'bigger is better', which is arguable, because bigger is just bigger.
> They never saw a true HD image in their life, because either their cameras didn't make it or (if they watch a BD on their HD-TV-set), they keep the aforementioned distance, shrinking the image to the size they are used to.
> They stare at their computer displays from the same distance, relatively, as they did with their old 800 x 600 CRTs. Tell anybody, that he should move to a one-foot-distance to his 24" display ([color=#ff0000][i]distortion![/i][/color]), and he will disapprove this advice.

As a digital projectionist and a cinéaste (getting my eyes checked at least once a year, they work perfect for distances), I can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, and of course I prefer the latter. Sony's argumentation, that viewing distance is of bigger importance than screen size, is rubbish nonetheless, because you can get audiences only so close to the screen as is necessary to let them enjoy 4k by completely rebuilding your cinema. The rows would have to be almost vertical, like in some IMAX-theaters. I watched [i]Inception[/i], [i]The girl with the dragon Tattoo[/i] and [i]Skyfall[/i] (this one 'false' 4k) on a 10m x 24m screen, from row 5. Note, that nobody voluntarily chooses these seats, because inevitably there is also a heavy [color=#ff0000][i]distortion[/i][/color] of the image and people consider it a disadvantage not to be able to overview the whole screen (while, in fact, this is the idea of a big screen). What is more, most content still is produced in 2k, a very high percentage is still even filmed in SD interlaced (regional ads, but astonishingly also commercials for cars, and from row 5 these often -but not always- are unendurable).

I believe that within one or two decades, 4k will be the [i]de facto[/i] standard, but not because the audience calls and pays (more) for it, but simply because the equipment needs to be replaced anyway, and 4k will be quite affordable soon.

The reasons why videographers are attracted by 4k are:
> They think 'bigger is better', which is arguable, because bigger is just bigger.
> They never saw a true HD image in their life, because either their cameras didn't make it or (if they watch a BD on their HD-TV-set), they keep the aforementioned distance, shrinking the image to the size they are used to.
> They stare at their computer displays from the same distance, relatively, as they did with their old 800 x 600 CRTs. Tell anybody, that he should move to a one-foot-distance to his 24" display ([color=#ff0000][i]distortion![/i][/color]), and he will disapprove this advice.

This was a post work i've done with footage from FS700. Not impressed at all with the image, crushed and noisy blacks and very little detail on them. Not very color grading friendly. Hope you enjoy it. Cheers.

[url="https://vimeo.com/54260882"]https://vimeo.com/54260882[/url]

[center]Here is a web/television series I do that highlights artist in the DC area shot with the GH2. I recently got mLooks, so only Black Alley was color graded (b-roll shots) before posting online.[/center]
[center]
You can check out the series and the latest video posted

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIk2NDjlpHI&feature=plcp[/media]

Thanks for watching![/center]

[quote name='Francisco Ríos' timestamp='1353602925' post='22126']What will better to work on grading? prores or nativ avchd with your workflow? I though that the imac will handle better prores to work with grading, twixtor, etc.[/quote]

That's quite another cup of tea. Once you process your footage in a way that you change every pixel completely, it's hue, saturation, luma, it's position, you were crazy to render in any highly compressed codec (such as mpeg4, though you don't gain anything by transcoding [i]before[/i] the editing/grading). If you further change the timing, add multiple keyframes, animated masks, composite shots (all the heavy After Effects stuff), you were absolutely insane not to prepare the video for that by transcoding to an intraframe-codec in advance.

Can you tell the difference in quality then? This depends on your hardware. If your [i]preview[/i] (this is the wysiwyg-side of it) stays full quality then with AVCHD, maybe it will look the same (I'd like to see a machine capable of that). But even then, it makes no sense to wait a day and a half for the results (ProRes renders faster), only to have to throw away the whole if you detect some minor errors. A friend of mine, who builds really complex animations in AAE that take many hours and sometimes days, always renders as tiff sequences for this reason alone.

The same filmmaker has uploaded a lot of city portraits, and all that's clear is, that this is by far the best. He has also filmed with the GH2 (Lisboa), and guess what? It's full of moire. In this video, you see moire occasionally on the cupola of Sacré-Cœur and on some bricks. But you would'nt notice it, were you not looking out for it. The overall sharpness ist stunning. The skin tones are EOS-like, the dynamic range seems to be good. Are we all barking up the wrong tree?

Well filmed and well directed, good actors.

First of all: It's not the camera :P, it's you ;)

I think it is the lens. I couldn't find a specification how much it weighs, but it certainly looks heavy. Then the lens needs an adapter mount, and the cheap ones may have enough slackness (if that's the right term, I mean that they are not machined with highest precision). The two items on the plastic body of the GH2 add instability, more so if you focus by hand, because, the Vivitar being a photo lens, the ring is not designed to run smoothly. The most noticeable problem of your shots is the shivering, that even produces rolling shutter jello (as in ~6 - ~11). The shiver is amplified by the focal length, which makes all of them tele. With a lens like this, a rod support is needed and better yet a follow focus (a good one). Also the tripod should be good enough. Note, that zoomed in fully the lens has an aperture of only f5.3, which is pretty slow and explains why your shots are quite dark.

As you see, the lens, though cheap, is not exactly a bargain for this kind of task. The bokeh looks okay sometimes, but it's certainly not remarkable.

I advise you to look for a faster, lighter and wider lens. Some of the finest are discussed in Andrew Reids book for the GH2, but I'm sure you will find recommendations by using the forum search.

Yes, and the background at 20, you couldn't see anything through the compression artifacts of vimeo, so I downloaded your upload mov.
:blink: Congratulations! You found the *banding* that represents the GH2s biggest problem. Use the search again, but let me explain for now that it is most prominent in dark, blurred areas with slight gradients within.

> It can be avoided to some extend by avoiding dark, blurred areas with slight gradients within.
> It can be fixed in post to some extend by rendering fine grain in the highest possible quality ('de-banding', 'dithering'), by the way also a good trick to prevent vimeo from simplifying your video to a broth of macroblocks.

As you see, everything is fine.

Everybody who shoots sharp, clean footage with the GH2 has a good lens.

I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows:

'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside.

Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.'

I for one, love DSLRs, but precisely because they do limit you. The consequence of this is that you really have to think about how you want to shoot something & this gives you good experience in planning a shoot. In a way its like stepping back in time, where you have to learn your craft - make mistakes, fix mistakes etc... I personally like to get everything right in camera & never have to say "I'll fix it in post". To me that is just plain lazy & you'll never learn from the mistakes that you should be making if you take that attitude.
RAW seems like a good idea (well its amazing really), but how many people will just use it to avoid learning to film a scene properly?
With film you had to get it right - no excuses. Why should digital be any different.
What makes a film look good is a DP creating a mood, seeing an angle etc... It doesn't really matter what its filmed on/with - if its a good film, its a good film.
If you have a good idea, just shoot it on whatever you've got to hand. It doesn't matter, as no one is going to say "Its filmed on a DSLR, so its shit!"
The highest grossing film of all time (based on how much was spent & the return it saw) is still The Blair Witch Project - made for the price of a used car, lots of ingenuity & some balls!
Of course i want a better cheaper camera - i'd kill for one. The future could & most probably will be bright for low budget filmmakers, but first you need the idea & the know how. In the meantime there's no point getting hung up on codecs, formats, resolution etc...
At the moment i'm as happy as larry & love my shitty 60D, with its moire, aliasing, softish picture & the rest of the crap that it throws in my face just to spite me.

I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows:

'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside.

Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.'

I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows:

'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside.

Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.'

Hello,

Here is a short i did couple of weeks ago, it's shot on hacked GH2 (Quantum9b hack). Enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/51677068

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1352446297' post='21370']It annoys me the way some people look for posters weaknesses to win an argument. IE Because I mention I have knowledge of working with film Its easy to diss me off with being out of touch and out of date. That is an awful way to win an argument.[/quote]

You get into an argument (I prefer 'discussion') not only if you want to destroy your opponent, but also because you feel involved, because you care. andy lee and I have already said that we have both analog backgrounds (I used to work in the darkroom back then, making special enlargements - [i]and manipulating the, er, data from the negatives[/i] - , then I was analog projectionist, now digital), so please don't imply we just want to win an argument.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1352446297' post='21370'](Please dont start on about grading)[/quote]

Difficult, because it was done before. It was complicated and not very precise, and if a print came out as expected, that was the exception from the rule. And [i]because[/i] photochemical timing was so time-consuming and frustrating, it was done with special care. These two words represent a value, for sure. We all should care for what is core (and stop to care about unimportant things), and we all should make every minute of our life special.

And as esoteric as this sounds, the analog process is for modern cinema.

> the distribution is digital
> therefore the laboratories shut down
> the film stock production goes down
> prices rise
> the characteristics of analog film get ironed out in the process of digital transfer, digital post and distribution

So very few people with a lot of cash behind them will occasionally try to reanimate analog film.

Reminds me of the true story of a 500 year old wine bottle (with a history appropriate for a TV series) that was auctioned for $200.000. The world's most expert wine lovers were invited. After the bottle was uncorked, the wine reacted with the oxygen in the air and turned into vinegar immediately. The testers said the first breath they took over the open bottle was of a very good bouquet.

Hi Phil, thank you for uploading this. I think it looks great, it reminded me of Sony EX-footage, with the zooms and the good (auto?)-focus. This might finally be the right cam for me, despite all negative reputation it gathered so far.

@markm
I sympathize with your nostalgic view. For me, the main difference between film and digital is not color. andy lee is right, colors are being manipulated everywhere. They have been manipulated in the stone ages and in the renaissance, one must be aware of that simple fact. Leonardo would have used Photoshop. His selfmade colors were raw par excellance.

What film captures in a different way is light. The grain that holds the smallest picture elements is spread in the emulsion in random patterns that change twentyfour times a second. This gives light a vivid quality. As long as the grain is visible. The finer the resolution (of film and digital) the less important is this difference.

@markm
I sympathize with your nostalgic view. For me, the main difference between film and digital is not color. andy lee is right, colors are being manipulated everywhere. They have been manipulated in the stone ages and in the renaissance, one must be aware of that simple fact. Leonardo would have used Photoshop. His selfmade colors were raw par excellance.

What film captures in a different way is light. The grain that holds the smallest picture elements is spread in the emulsion in random patterns that change twentyfour times a second. This gives light a vivid quality. As long as the grain is visible. The finer the resolution (of film and digital) the less important is this difference.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1352150210' post='21082']
This camera doesn't seem built from scratch rather a very mild update, hence it is not an AF200.
[/quote]

I wanted to create a headline in FilmMan's style. [i]Old Panasonic MFT camcorder - hastily overhauled![/i] would have sounded lame ;)

But seriously: My friend is a freelancer using the 5D and an EX-3. He had the opportunity to shoot with the AF101, and he was as well impressed with the handling as with the quality of the video. Perhaps this article is something to consider:
[url="http://marvelsfilm.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/af100-af101-why-is-everyone-moaning/"]http://marvelsfilm.w...eryone-moaning/[/url]

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1352132766' post='21068']
Come on guys, it's not that bad and we know nothing about the sensor.

What if it is outputting a nice, sharp, 12+ DR, lowlight, 60p, 10bit 4:2:2 with a flat, log style? All you need is a hyperdeck and you have a camera that is (potentially) better than a C300 and maybe an F3. Don't forget the NDs, XLRs, waveforms etc.

For, what, $5k with deck and SSD?
[/quote]

My point is about interface for hardware. Panasonic did great introducing solid state format hence P2. Which records 100mbs with whatever data rate they choose to market. one of the main reasons the GH2 and GH1 got hype was its hack that supposedly records data more efficient for semi grading all on practical consumer based SDHC. Canon was rocking the MPEG format at 50mbs for a while. JVC seems to have a MOV priority for 36mbs on their pro cams. Sony too at 50mbs with their new trend at 50mbs. DSLR's have set the trend of H.264 or AVCHD 2.0 at a max 28mbs. So why does this cam have to suffer a lousy internal codec for a non breakthrough AG-AF series. This thing will probably ring at $6k and then I have to rely on a a separate deck as usual to get a hyped uncompressed stream? All I'm saying is that they should've implemented AVC-Intra into this cam. They blatantly have the technology. Seems like they just want to sell more of their decks and hype 10-bit 4:2:2 externally when AVC-Intra is already that spec even with their old AG-HPX300

Hi Caleb, I downloaded the 77,28 MB mov file from vimeo, and it's as dark as there in the player. I guess this has to do with a very complicated bunch of correlations of color spaces, working environment, monitor gammas asf., described in the first chapters of [url="http://splicevine.com/july-color-correction/"]this[/url].

As with every challenge, having become aware of the nature of a problem is of more avail than just buying, say, an Eizo monitor, or two, three.

> the utility app in OS X, [i]DigitalColor Meter[/i], should be in your dock permanently.
> as the article above suggests, if you can't trust your eyes, navigate with the instruments. In Resolve, you should watch the luma waveform to realize, that big portions of your shadows in the shadows drown completely (if most of the values pike at '10' and below).

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]'72mm Lightcraft Workshop Fader ND'[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]One danger using ND faders is crushing your midtones. Midtones are what the whole grading ado is about. It can very well be that your ND has made the image too flat by dying out the precious midtones. Can be detected by watching the histogram during shooting.[/font][/color]

The second thing I noticed is, that in your upload file the block artifacts are bigger than any grain could be.

> ProRes-master
> 7 mbps (or higher) upload file for vimeo. Good H.264 encoders are AdobeME or x264 Quicktime-plugin.

I watched Skyfall last night My first visit to the cinema for a long time as Money ihas been very tight these last few years I have to say I was quite unimpressed with the cinematography and I know that couldn't be down to Roger Deakins. I felt the film had a videoey feel to it and had lost the richness film gives. I have long been an advocate for real film but have been shouted down so many times I kind of gave up as HD doesnt look to bad on the computer. I'm wondering if things may have been different if shot at 4k or maybe the prints may have been digital when deliverd to the cinema or a lower standard to save costs. I watched the film at cineworld theatre 2 stevenage.

I was disapointed.

Also disapointed in the film itself and think they have lost their way with it. The key ingredients of a Bond film has always been the gadgets The women The suave charm and of course the villains and cars as well as Bonds intelliigence at working out stuff..
They have ditched all those things in favour of an athlete with bulbous legs a bodybuilders pose without the muscles and poses that made me cringe.He looks for all intents and purposes like a games avatar and actually the villain. The gadgets are gone as is the charm. His intelligence is replaced by a knowledge not suited to the roughness his character potrays.

They gave him weaknesses like substance abuse boozing and a bad childhood this time round. Please I dont want to feel sorry for Bond I want to admire him. But I feel they trashed that.

The film itself seemed to want to please the critics and the storyline was just horrible. The opening was the best part of the film and couldnt help feeling they should have had the opening at the end of the film. They started with casino royale saying it was a reboots but now they are trying to reboot it even further back The storyline almost seems opportunistic and fits with the film makers needs to well and it detracts from the story making it nonsensical as we already know the past history through countless films. If they think this is a way to reboot the franchise they are losing their grip. We all know what we want with Bond and that is Glamour gadgets women Fast cars and excitement all the things critics hate and all the things we love.

I know this has so far done well at the box office. I wonder how well the next film will do.

I also wonder if they made a big mistake ditching film.