Ernesto Mantaras

I recommend you use VisualSubSync ([url="http://www.visualsubsync.org/"]http://www.visualsubsync.org/[/url])to do the subtitles. It's so intuitive to work with, and it's graphical (you directly set subtitles and duration dragging the mouse over the video's waveform and then create them pressing Ctrl+W and just write!). It's the fastes process you'll ever get. I even enjoy doing the subtitles.

You have to do the subtitles first, you'll get an .srt file and then my process is to use Lemony Pro (following these instructions: [url="https://vimeo.com/11896354"]https://vimeo.com/11896354[/url]) to generate a subtitle video with an alpha channel that I then place on top of the original video. Now, EZTitles seems to be much more practical, but I haven't used it. I will give that one a try as soon as I can!

So that was awesome... I'm thoroughly convinced Sigur Ros is like bacon. Put that shit on anything and it becomes at least 36% better... This should win a contest though.... or has it already.

I once was camera assistant for a video doc shot on SD U-matic high called [i]beauty & awareness[/i], produced by some rich german, lifted women, who sought spirituality in their lavish lifestyle. They invited a fat american female guru, the whole show was in american english, with the germans trying to sound californian above their heavy german accent. The rooms were white and lit with soft bounced highkey, smoothing their skin. They took each other by the hands and expressed their dedication to beauty, that came out of a pure heart. In the end, the guru performed a playback to Michael Jacksons [i]man in the mirror[/i], and it became apparent that she was a transvestite. Ever since I discovered youtube, I tried to find the film, but couldn't. Perhaps I misunderstood your approach, but nothing is funnier than reality.

Kind of off topic but oh man, sometimes I just want to scream at those guys who post "video samples" from these cameras. "If you're just going to shoot shaky hand held crap on the street or in your back yard, just STOP RIGHT THERE!" I don't even want to see it! I don't know why but I find it so irritating.

der black majick man from atlantis or delmonte or aussistrayla said i shud give him cash monies for a camra he called it a cash advance.
6 monts lata he was sad and sed he had a problam wid der glass windows.
den he said how about puttin sum monies down for a new new camra for next year even better dan der old one from dis year dats broken and nobody has got

i go for a bath wid me ducky he exists when i squeeze him he go squeek

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6_d22aMqZs&feature=related[/media]

The cage will probably not work with the shorter M43 turret? Anyhow, I can see the point of having a fixture for rails, for battery, follow focus and a mattebox, but the camera body, being a monobloc aluminum structure, is a cage in itself. There already are three 1/4 inch holes on top of the camera for handle, mic etc, and if you need side handles they can be fixed to the rails. Paying that high a price for something that already is there seems somewhat silly?

panasonic lens produce moire/aliasing because distortion correction ...

[quote name='MattH' timestamp='1348142087' post='18678']

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 4*4 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]

@MattH:

Inoue would probably say: Ahh, MattH ... you are very difficult ... but funny man :-)

This is hilariously awkward. Watch from 0:55. No applause, dead silence.

[url="https://vimeo.com/49672830#"]https://vimeo.com/49672830#[/url]

Moire? I know that it's an early version, but how disappointing. Being able to shoot without thinking about moire that was one of the big reasons that I switched from Canon EF-S over to Panasonic MFT in the first place. I really hope that this is at the top of Panasonic's list to fix.

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1347964598' post='18433']
I agree, that test shot, I did not like. Though it might be based on the shooters taste. Waiting for more samples :D
[/quote]

shooters taste aside, he got the gh3 before anyone else and all he does with it is shoot random stuff in the streets?
Really?

What about challenging the camera to see what it is capable off?

Go through high dynamic range setups, test the rolling shutter, duplicate the shots with the gh2 to compare, make a video with the different iso ranges to see which ones are usable, test the different video formats, movie modes, test to see how well the footage holds up in post-production with the new codec etc...etc...

I know most likely he will come up with more vids, but I don't think I am being too demanding of gh3 testers to come up with something more than a cat on a chair shot with no preparation what so ever

[quote name='bradleyg5' timestamp='1347939531' post='18414']
How do you guys know that it's going to be as sharp as the GH2? if it's using a totally different more conventional sensor it could just be soft OM-D quality with a higher bitrate. Still going to need to see some raw footage. Entirely different sensor leads me to question this will be as sharp as the previous camera.
[/quote]
[url="https://vimeo.com/49558910"]https://vimeo.com/49558910[/url]
Watch the prototype footage.

In regards to everyone discussing I-frame/intra-codec compression the Gh2, GH3 amd 5DmkIII here are my own notes based on spending a lot of time testing (and my experience as consultant to tech companies in the past, which is not as an engineer).

Question 1: Is there any reason to believe that the Gh2 and GH3 would be sharper at given Intra-codec bitrate than another camera, like the 5DMkII or 5DMkIII?

A: The primary determinant of the cameras video mode sharpness (other than the lens used, etc.) is approach to downscaling/downsampling the image in combination with the processor used. The codec format and bitrate determines how much of that information is preserved but a huge amount of information is lost before it even gets that chance.

The GH2 feautres a superior downscaling/downsampling algorithm to that used in the Canon APS-C DSLRs and 5DMkII and 5DMkIII. That means that there is more information for the codec to start with. Therefore, given an equal bitrate and equally effective algorithms, the GH2 would be capable of recording more detail.

Question 2: How big a role does bitrate play in determining image quality?

A: Increasing the bitrate increases the range of material that can be represented to the codec`s best ability. At some point you hit a point of diminishing return where there are essentially no realistic scenarios that receive any benefit. Usually this happens some point before you reach the bitrate it would take to reproduce the data in uncompressed fashion. But if your codec is really weird, it is theoretically possible to have it be less efficient than uncompressed at high enough bitrates.

At 70mbps or 80 mpbs, frame size is still much smaller than what would normally be used for a JPEG of similar dimensions (as a somewhat unrelated reference point given the differeing efficency of .h264 encoding) and compression artifacts can easily manifest themselves depending on content and the specifics of the encoder. The most common h.264 artifacts are macroblocking and mosquito noise. If you scene does not have sufficient detail to suffer from one of these (or some of the less common artifacts) then any gains from increasing the bitrate will be subtle at best. Note that changing from GOP1 (I-frame only) to IPB encoding has a much more dramatic difference as it affects the way grain is handled in a scene (or shadow detail) by changing the "update frequency" with which the codec handles what it considers to be "low detail" or "low priority" areas.

Raising the bitrate will not make much difference if you are not spotting artifacts in the first place. A general softness is not the result of a low bitrate: macroblocking often is.

Question 3: Can we get a sense for how the GH2 handles/would handle bitrates around 70 to 80 mbps and possibly compare them to the 5DMkIII?

A: Yes, there multiple settings that Nick Driftwood made for the Gh2 much earlier on that did just that. Note that they do not use the newer high detail matrices and various other tricks, but they still outperform the 5DmkIII in terms of resolved detail. Look up SMBU (v1) from last year and some of the early Quantum X settings from early this year that target lower bitrates (Pictoris is available in two matrices with both CBR and VBR options and there may be others).

Question 4: Does the bitrate of the GH3 All-I settings affect GH2 settings or serve us reason for new ones?

A: No, the bitrates were already tested and provided as settings and the newer matrices may have issues at lower bitrates. In addition, the specifics of the codec handling on the Gh3 may mean a difference in performance at the same bitrate (remember that the GH2 could often look better at the same bitrate than the GH1, even with simlar GOP settings).

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

Hey, you missed the real news today! Canon has announced the S110, the SX160 IS, the G15, the SX 500 IS, and the SX 50 HS. And some of them are available in red. This is true innovation.

[quote name='bradleyg5' timestamp='1347889688' post='18338']
I'm still not getting it, my 5dII with Alexs hack can record above 50mbit/sec h.264, so that's hardly game changing. All-I is an inefficient codec that has shown to not substantially increase image quality, I suppose the one advantage is those on slow macs won't have to transcode all their footage to be able to edit.

60fps is not particularly slow motion and totally pointless otherwise.


Still no confirmation on the clean HDMI output.

The build quality is much higher, but in the way that makes it seem more like a travel camera.
[/quote]

gh2 out of the box at 24mbs is better quality than your 5dmk2 at 50mbs with proper lighting. Bitrate isnt everything, but the way the gh range acquire the footage from the sensor is different meaning a bitrate increase on this is going to add worlds more quality than a bitrate increase on any 5d. Add into the equation the increase on DR (a weak point of the gh2) and professional body, and the price being less than half a 5dmk3 and the excitement amongst film makers is justified. 60p full hd on the gh3 will probably be about 4 times sharper than 720 60p on the 5d. Twixtor with 60p is nuts - dont knock it till you tried it.

The only reason for a 5D in movie making nowadays is when you cannot light a public place enough for lesser low light machines to work. And this single advantage is soon to be killed off by the upcoming Sony full frame camcorder. The full frame is a disadvantage for all other types of work IMO

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 name='Axel' timestamp='1347660691' post='18067']
Yes. So what? 4:2:0 equals roughly the spreading ratio of cone cells on the retina, which are sensitive only for a color each ('RGB'). The brain combines their signals to form the [i]sharp[/i] image in the center of our field of vision (the borders are blurred like a shallow DoF vignette, and are much less saturated, since outside the fovea the B&W rod cells predominate), interpolating much more color information than any video compression. If our own vision is hardly more than a roughly colored B&W image, how can 4:2:0 make such a big difference? In secondary color corrections, you often feather the masks quite liberally without any problems. We simply have no senses for color resolution.
[/quote]
We've officially hit rock bottom in pixel peeping.

All-I for 24/25p and 50mbps inter-frame for slow mo shots? I can live with that.

[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).

2.5K 12bit raw for $3000 or 4K 8bit MJPEG for $12,999? Canon sure know how to do a bargain :)

Focus assist - it has peaking and a punch in zoom doesn't it?

In real world situations.... I really don't think there is going to be any aliasing situations. I just downloaded Philip Blooms test video and it looks amazing... resolving the tiniest of details with no aliasing on anything. Charts are stupid.

Anyways though, even if on a chart the C300 resolves a few more lines... which it really isn't showing when you look at it... why would people still chose a 5 year old 8-bit codec for 5x the price? It makes no sense. Supporting smaller companies (especially when they have the superior product) like BlackMagic is the best thing we can all do for everyone right now. I mean come on, this is their first camera... and it's giving us 2.5k RAW for $3000!!! Canon is re-hashing 5-year old technology, that sells for $2500, adding a few zeros, and has showed no signs of stopping... All of this canon fanboy-ism I've seen on other forums makes no sense at all. Most of them are just most likely looking for reasons to justify their $15,000 purchase... and discredit people from using cheaper more affordable tools.

People with no talent or creativity that still want to be in this industry either have to rely on "door holding" or "brush-holding". The later is basically gone away this year. This is why people are hating on the BMCC. Cheers!

[font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]I can guarantee that Canon will now start selling lenses at a premium saying "4K ready!" when their still lenses have been shooting way beyond those resolutions for a long time. Damn, people are suckers...[/size][/font]

"black is crushed" in RAW?
HAHAHAHA..
someone waist 20000...
no good in low ligh ? maybe not in12800 iso as c300 ... but if u spend 20000$ for lens feed them with light ...
this camera is close to arri alexa and epic in image quality ... and many people wont believe and i expect lame reasons why as "its a 3000$ cam" ...