christianhubbard

Probably low quantity of 14-140s or something small like that. the body-only option and 14-42 kit are still available.

[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=600.msg4193#msg4193 date=1334698640] The best thing Panasonic can do is come out with a Super 35mm format. The micro 4 3rds format just crippled them in terms of professional status, as it's just not seen as Professional. Might be OK for the GH2, but for the higher end gear, people want a minimum of APS-C. Just the way it is. I seriously hope Panny does a good super 35mm of some sort, maybe even a DSLR with a super 35 crop. With that said, it seems really hard to do because they've spent years trying to establish lenses for the M43 format, and those lenses will vignette like crazy on 1.5x crop. Plus it will piss off all those people who bought m43 lenses, some of which are expensive like the Voightlander. They are between a rock and hard place, but sometimes as hard as it is to do, you just have to abandon your old platform to move to the future. [/quote] ..then why do many pros consider s16 acceptable?

it's probably a smart move to kill the AF line, what with sony's recent publicity over the fs700. If the af100 was doing poorly already, I cant imagine offering an upgrade would be much better. However, I do believe there is room for panasonic to play at the <10k price point. Re-imagining a new line with a larger sensor that will (hopefully) also be  introduced with the gh3 would be welcomed by all, i'm sure.

you should buy a RED Epic. It suits all of the needs you listed and really "future proofs" you.

I feel like this is finally an addition to the "gh2" path of upgrades. canon has mark2>1dc>c300>c500 sony has a55>fs100>fs700>f3>f65 Nikon... well. panasonic has gh2>af100> and then what? maybe this is a good step. :) would much prefer this over the af100 as well

[quote author=Sara link=topic=290.msg1877#msg1877 date=1329713657] I personally don't agree that the skin tone on the Canon (any model) is superior to the GH2.  Ten's of thousands of people shooting GH2's get superior skin tone. [url=https://vimeo.com/35321519]https://vimeo.com/35321519[/url] (example - he did a great job with his girlfriend even if it leans towards a baby soft pinkish hue) Remember that even with the Magic Lantern rate improvement hacks for the Canon 5D, it is capturing FAR less video information than current 88mbs-154mbs Quantum X GH2 settings.  Seeing a smoother waxy skin tone is the first sign of a cheap digital production. A couple things to know about skin tone.  First, skin tone lives primarily in the histogram-right of the mid tones.  Poor exposure means poor skin tones. This Adobe pdf will explain why pro's rarely underexpose skin when shooting digital (stills or video - same rules): [url=http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf[/url] Second, skin tone is comprised of nearly all the colors of the rainbow (no matter what race).  Accurate white balance is essential because we are dealing with a limited color space and do not have access to a raw video file. Third when making global color changes in your video editor (you really shouldn't too much - read above) work with vibrance settings before messing with saturation settings.  Vibrance leave alone skin tones and works with the least saturated colors first before messing around with the most saturated colors. If you are finding that your GH2 is capturing "too much" detail - hair, freckles, wrinkles, etc. - use Black Pro Mist filters or my favs Schneider Hollywood Black Magic or Tiffen Glimmer Glass.  Examples:  Results will be similar with video - [url=http://public.fotki.com/makofoto/work/black-glimmer-and-m/]http://public.fotki.com/makofoto/work/black-glimmer-and-m/[/url]  (and no, this can't be duplicated in post production) Take care. [/quote] It's pretty obvious you really know what you're talking about? could you go into more detail about skin tone in general? I hear it discussed often on set or by people who know more than me and I'd really love to learn what it is they're [u]really[/u] talking about. When you say skin tone, do you mean the color of the skin? or how clear the pores/skin resolution is? What about skin tone makes it so important? can you explain what "bad" skin tone is and how I can avoid it in my videos? Thanks for your help.  :)

but where is my EVIL camera?!  :'(

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=548.msg3631#msg3631 date=1334008425] [quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=548.msg3626#msg3626 date=1334000839] [quote author=hoodlum link=topic=548.msg3623#msg3623 date=1333997127] [quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=548.msg3619#msg3619 date=1333994811] I wondering if Panasonic is going release an industry standard 1.5-ish crop? Hate to say this, but if Panasonic sticks with the Micro 4/3rd 2x crop, it will never be used on high profile, marquee type projects no matter how high the resolution. The aesthetic is noticeably different, at least to Pros. Can they make Micro 4/3rd at least a 1.6x crop? Is that even possible? [/quote] You could say the same about FF vs 1.5 crop.  Actually the difference between m43 (1.85 crop in video) vs 1.5 crop is small compared to the drop from FF.  Lens selection will have a greater impact. [/quote] Depends on who you talk to. GH2 fanboys will say there is very little difference, to many other people, there is definitely a noticeable difference between 1.5x and m43rds in DOF. Plus, a HUGE difference if you are shooting super wide or with fisheye type lenses where a difference of 2 to 3mm is an entirely different composition. For the pro market (many of whom are very particular), Panasonic shot themselves in the foot with M43. But I'm wondering if Panasonic can somehow adjust the crop to make it wider? Or is that impossible. [/quote] M43 isn't the right choice for the AF100 or successor(s). It was a consumer format so that the lenses could be smaller and more portable. Panasonic thought - hey, let's be first to the market with the AF100 and do it as fast as possible with our existing sensor and lenses. I'd be very surprised if the NAB 2012 cameras are M43rd's. M43 does however get a bad rap for having a smaller than idea sensor size. I have never really found it a massive issue to be honest, and the difference is actually quite small and more than compensated for by focal length and aperture. [/quote] That being said, do you expect the GH3 to maintain the m43 format, or go to a larger sensor?

amazing cinematography.. killing me not to watch it in HD...

gh2 circlejerk forum? KIDDING. i love the gh2's image AND the 5d3's. I think they work wonderfully together and are entirely different tools, at different price points, for different jobs.  :)

probably an idiotic question, as I'm sure it's possible to rent anamorphic lenses. but where would one do so? I checked borrow lenses and lensrentals to no avail... Anyone know where I could inexpensively rent anamorphic glass?

Colored version: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRz7-9JYGBU#ws]Canon T2i 60mb/s - Magic Lantern CBR Test colored[/url] Pre-colored version: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJR4p5ZacmY#ws]Canon T2i 60mb/s - Magic Lantern CBR Test[/url] I really wanted to test how destructive the grading would be to the footage. graded in photoshop. lenses were sigma 30mm 1.4 and 125mm 2.8

[url=http://youtu.be/SNUwleHZ6y0]http://youtu.be/SNUwleHZ6y0[/url] shot on the canon 5D with a 24-70 as an A cam and a T2i with a sigma 30mm 1.4 for the B cam

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=515.msg3383#msg3383 date=1333401691] [quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=515.msg3379#msg3379 date=1333398539] Andrew, can you do a rundown of contax zeiss glass that is available for DSLR work? there isnt a detailed list to refer to and much of the information out there about converting these lenses are strewn about several different sites. Thanks [/quote] Dude! This is 1st result in Google. Great list, bit wordy but does the job [url=http://photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses]http://photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses[/url] [/quote] I appreciate you responding me, Ive checked that list a few times and done some investigating on my own. But I mean like for a complete novice. Zeiss is particularly confusing for novices because of the different names of the lenses (planar, distagon, etc) and only certain types of contax lenses adapt to DSLRS, (MM, from what I understand). Also, I'm having a hard time finding information about adapting them. Is all I need is a single fotodiox adapter? Like I said, I have found most of the information on my own, and I could do without, but i think it would very useful information to other shooters out there who dont have has much time to scour google as I do. :]

Andrew, can you do a rundown of contax zeiss glass that is available for DSLR work? there isnt a detailed list to refer to and much of the information out there about converting these lenses are strewn about several different sites. Thanks

EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WANTED.

if he hasnt been able to unlock true 1080p resolution for the past three years on the relatively easier to hack t2i, what makes you guys think it'll be easy if he sets his mind to it on the mk3? seriously, if it even is possible, it could take years. :/

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=434.msg2706#msg2706 date=1332281784] Thanks for the article.  If possible, when you post your Canon Mark 5d III video, could you mention which shots had which lenses (ie. Leica 50 mm, etc.). [/quote] First post!  :) yes please do what filmMan asks :] Can you elaborate a bit on your contax/canon adapter? did you have to do anything special? i've read online that some people had to do some modding to fit on their mkii's, not a fan, is there something specific i know for certain lenses that will fit best? Sorry for being all over the place, there just isnt much information about adapting the contax zeiss to canon. At least none that I could find relatively easily. [quote]Blacks crush hugely on my Macbook Pro 17″ 2011. Your milage with the below frame grab my vary but to me it is quite different to the exposure as shot…[/quote] probably stupid to ask, but are you using a glossy screen? apple has said openly that they purposefully boost contrast to make it look better, but matte screens have true color. [quote]Nikon are now providing stronger competition, and don’t have a Canon C300 to protect. The D800 has a lower price (although that is soft as well!). [/quote] Although this is true, i would NEVER pay for a dslr that is ATTACHED to its external recorder! clean HDMI out may be great, but i refuse to invest in a product that is utterly useless without it. [quote]Panasonic will bring a GH3 possibly this year and if it is anything like the GH2 it will hit well above its price point as far as video is concerned.[/quote] YES. very excited for this, but the 2x crop kills =[ even though i could adapt nikon or zeiss class, the 2x completely changes my focal ranges. :/