Ernesto Mantaras

Ah yes one of these! I had a whole day comparing the BMCC to GH3 today and the results are extremely interesting. More on this soon.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/50a2db75be6f9_gh3.jpg[/img]

Yeah, but that's an automatic function that's also present in the GH2, and it lifts the low lights whenever it wants to in situations of high contrast, but it can't be manually controlled.
What I mean is a color proflie. I think it's unde "CREATIVE CONTROL". You can choose between "Expresive", "Retro", "High Key", etc. What I'm interested in particular is the "High Dynamic" setting, which has a gamma curve similar to the "Cinestyle" color profile in the Canon DSLR cameras.
Could you look it up in your camera and shoot a properly exposed video in a similar high contrast situation using that "CREATIVE CONTROL" setting?
I think it'd be of great interest to many of us. Thanks!

For a second there Andrew I thought you were speaking in the 3rd person haha
Great info.

With 6k you could also shoot an entire short film with decent production values, if you rent the equipment.
What do you want to have after you spend your money, a film or a camera?

You say-
"I can't have a shot curtailed during a shoot because of an unreliable codec hack."

I say-
I can't have a shot of a curtain during a shoot because of an unreliable sensor."

What about the Silicon Imaging SI-2K camera? It just popped in my mind. It'd be like a 16mm camera (it has a 2/3" sensor) that shoots 2K RAW through Cineform RAW. It's the camera that was used to shoot almost the entire "Slumdog Millionaire" movie, and that one won Best Cinematography (if that matters at all).
I made a quick search to see where they were at, and found no new info. It might be out of production, I don't know. Can't even find a price for it, let alone someone selling it (except here, but you have to contact them: [url="http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-si2k-mini.php"]http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-si2k-mini.php[/url]).

Here are some samples in a quirky page but with high quality downloadable Quicktime videos.

[url="http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/gallery_main.html"]http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/gallery_main.html[/url]

It's an old camera so to speak. Came along around the time the RED ONE was being talked about. But looking at some images I remember why I liked it back then.

I believe you are right about perspective. I can understand though that after spending 4 years with a moire and aliasing ridden 5DM2 that some out there, including myself are a little cautious. The conclusion is that as of November 2012, the GH2 is still the only moire and aliasing (relatively) free DSLR style camera that resolves something close to HD straight out of the box. My take away from what you've written is that the GH3 codec should give us a slightly better image but with slightly more aliasing and moire.

One question that hasn't been answered is the GH3 performance in ETC mode. Did you get to shoot any ETC material? Does the recorded image look better than the GH2? I think ETC mode on the GH2 is amazing but sometimes the image would be unusable particularly if even slightly underexposed at low ISO.

I've noticed the GH2's viewfinder aliases when in sharp focus providing a form of focus assist. Did you notice if the GH3 does this as well?
Might be helpful if peaking gets lost in translation.

Thanks for sharing your latest findings.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1352118270' post='21058']


What would be the best video dslr right now?

A Canon 5D III beats a GH3 in low light for sure and has better dynamic range, but no 1080p60. I'm pretty sure it has less detail in video and it's three times as expensive.

Even with the GH3 being twice the price of the GH2, I can't think of anything else that beats it price/performance wise.
[/quote]

A Gh2 if it has moire and aliasing.

This thread is just a discussion. And maybe it's true that it's turned kind of negative. But it's just a discussion. There's no need to get upset that someone is bashing (which no one has actually done) your new favorite camera. Obviously that's easer said then done. I'm very sorry if it seems like I'm trying to convince everyone to not buy this camera. That's not my intention at all. My reaction comes from my own personal dissatisfaction and is in no way representative of how everyone else feels. I was staking a lot on this camera and feel really upset that it didn't meet my own personal criteria. Of course this is, and should be, different for everyone. This discussion has ruffled a few feathers and in the interest of keeping the peace I wont comment on it any further.

I do have one last thing to point out though (sorry). Many people in this thread have pointed out that the results we've seen are from a pre-production camera. While this is true and normally would indicate that things will change, Panasonic assured some reviewers that this was representative of final image quality. Since I've mentioned this in a few other threads, I assumed most of you guys knew that. I've struggled to find the exact place I read that but eventually, I found a review that has the same info:

[url="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3-review-20489"]http://www.ephotozin...h3-review-20489[/url]

[quote][b]Nb.[/b][color=#2D2D2D][font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] Panasonic Lumix GH3 tested with firmware 0.5, which Panasonic assures us is representative of final image quality and video recording quality.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

So again, not trying to piss anyone off here, Just thought I'd explain that little bit.

I'm not sure how many people even know this camera takes stills, lol.

I agree on the fact that moire/aliasing are a no go... Still, why is it on one video and not on the next? For most of the examples i have seen, again, they are the 12-35x lens on super-video mode.. The "my first impression" video with the Voigtlander 25, showed no moire or aliasing that i saw.. He even did a scene specific set of shots to find it... I saw none in Genesis as well.. (Just some noise in the dark sky when the lead character is getting shookdown by the police....though that could have been web compression i dont know...can't see something like that being acceptable by 2 respected DP's on a launch video) Regardless... Panasonic has to be getting over-run with emails and questions over these concerns.. I dig my gh2, & i'd love to get the 3.. But if moire/aliasing are there, forget it. This camera scores high in everything in terms of upgrades.. But it's like painting a beautiful picture, then wiping your ass with it. In this case the ass is a metaphor for aliasing, incase no one got that. Not abstract art.. Seems like "good enough" is the mindset though if version 0.5 is the final word... It's a month away, which doesn't leave much time for easing the concerns of the public regarding issues if they plan on a different firmware.. Then again, there is a subliminal deadline that it has to be addressed before release if it's a firmware issue, however, if it's hardware and there's moire... Bummer.

Canon have responded they put their prices up on 1 November on their whole DSLR range!!

Lets make a genuine analysis, rather than play favorites.

Key improvements on the GH3:

1. Weather Sealing.
2. 2.5mm to 3.5mm mic in.
3. Sound Monitoring (through headphone jack).
4. Colours are slightly more flat (though not flat enough).
5. Longer lasting battery, and grip option available.
6. Better LCD and EVF. Though, the screen, suddenly, look very blue. Even the grass and everything that is green, has a strange hue of blue.
7. Bluetooth and Wi-fi (one works, at a time, though, the GH3 has, apparently, both).


Where it doesn't seem to have improved, or not improved enough:

1. Video quality (still visible noise, under certain conditions, though slightly less).
2. Comparatively Low Dynamic.
3. Picture Quality is improved, marginally, though not really enough.


Where it has deteriorated:

1. Sudden appearance of noticeable Moire and Aliasing.
2. Video doesn't seem as sharp (though, in some videos, people state, that, it appears to be, almost, equally sharp. I am not sure I agree with it being sharper, or even close to, as sharp as the GH2).
3. The sensor is not Multi-Aspect Ratio, anymore.
4. The ETC has gone from Video (Completely), and is available, ONLY for photos, of low to mid resolution.
5. It is suddenly bulkier, and a tad heavier (marginally).
6. Cost of the camera has gone up, substantially.
[The GH2 did cost around $ 1300-1500, but, only at launch time, and, with the 14-140 lens. Also, since it was Not available, for a long time, and there were series of offers, on the camera, the price was about $899 for the body only, or so. I am not exactly sure, but, sometime around mid to end of 2011, the GH2 + 14-140 lens cost around $ 1155 (on offers) or $1300 (without offer). I am not absolutely sure, of the exact pricing, because most prices, seem to have been removed, from their relevant dates, and the one, that I found, don't seem completely accurate.]

Please feel free, to add, to this list, or post you opinion or feedback or corrections.

LOL! Okay that's a lot more funny now that I see the actual page and fully understand what this is all about. At first I thought it was some random scam.

I love this one:

[url="http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/551949_355071424531562_336226327_n.jpg"][img]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/551949_355071424531562_336226327_n.jpg[/img][/url]

And this one:

[url="http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/530082_360240997347938_1111608410_n.jpg"][img]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/530082_360240997347938_1111608410_n.jpg[/img][/url]

1080p looks awesome! I used to think 720p was good enough, back when I had a 1280x1024 4:3 monitor. When I got my 23" 1920x1080 monitor my life changed. And as the size of the screens and their resolutions improve (along with everything else) we will notice the difference and worth of 4K. Not that we need it now, but it will be in the future. And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content!

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1351388350' post='20462']
Side note: I also hate that 5dMK3 is not true 1080p. I think canon should put BMCC quality into 5dmk3 body + great low light with FF sensor so I could get the perfect product (price wise: I'd eat current price of the 5dmk3. Although, if it was for 10$ then that would be awesome ;)).
Yeah, it's a shame canon hasn't improved resolution since 5dmk2 and I absolutely hate it. I need FF for wide angles (dark, club shots, ppl dancing, not much space - any ideas ?) (I'm a newbie and was waiting for 5dmk3 and then they didn't deliver :((.
I don't whine on a public forum, though, cause it's a waste of everyones time.
[/quote]
You started a "no whining thread" but whine yourself? So if I got my Freud right, your basically projecting your own shortcoming onto others. Dude, seriously get some help. And puberty is only the beginning, it gets worse, so fast my friend, dial that number...

Bait & Swtich. Oldest trick in the book.

looks like it comes with free moire too ! please have a read of all the tests on it ......Im sticking with gh2

Lol
You are taking life wayyyy to serious.
How do you know that I don't already have money and the fact that I am content doing something I love to do more so than try and pinch every penny I can get out of somebody. Did you skip over the part where I mentioned "independent"? If I was hired by a company to do their video/editing task, they would be in charge of the greedy side of things. I can make my own price and my own hours, and by choice, I try to undercut the competition. I may get paid less, but more gigs, so compound that mr. Economics. You are trying to put me in the same category as a major corporation that is selling products by the millions, and is by far the dumbest post you have made yet. Does it really bother you THAT much that you can't control people's freedom of speech over the Internet? Do you not have anything better to do than pretend to sound smart and troll forums all day?

Yeah, I think they just wanted traffic into their site and channel. The final video has no value whatsoever as a test or comparison. Next please!

So honestly man.. Did you think you were going to condescendingly pop up a 3 page long slap in the face of every aspiring filmmaker on here and not get a response? For starters, "whining" is a form of ventilation for the majority of us here on the forums regarding the overpriced, underperforming products of companies like Canon. We loved the Mark 2. We were loyal for a Mark 3 that kicked its ass... What we got was a 5d mark 2 without moire & aliasing for $1500 more... Along with a cinema line starting at $15,000 picking up its slack. While i agree that no one has to buy their cameras, you don't have to read our ticked off rants about why we're upset that the very demographic that made Canon a filmmaking revolution, has now been priced right the hell out of the equation. And they wonder why their profits have been pounded suddenly...

I personally don't practice selling something that offers less than what someone else is offering for more than what they are... But that's just me. I know that's shady. So we're a little pissed about their lack of moral fortitude and we "whine" about it in forums. So what. If you get tired of reading it, head over to another thread... Nobody is going to commit murder over an overpriced camera, but we will bitch about it and probably won't give a crap how pointless it is. If i stub my toe on a chair, not yelling "Motherf*cker!!" As loud as i can isn't going to solve anything either... But it will draw a form of release which can be healthy... And since not buying a Canon camera won't make me feel better either, i'll complain about it in a thread instead....because nobody but oil tycoons can afford the sunuvabitch. Thus, why "not" buying their product is not even an option.

Sincerely,

Whiner

[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1351365867' post='20443']
This moiré problem we're seeing is definitely a processing problem in the hardware department. But I bet it is plenty capable of resolving images without moiré, so I guess the scaling method could be improved or the architecture modified to solve this without losing all of the other things the GH3 does get right.
It does bother me that the so called "wide dynamic range" isn't really there either (although I saw picture shot with the High Dynamic Range profile and it looked Cinestyle like a bit).

Could it be that the small delay has been stated to solve it?
[/quote]In the GH2, only a portion of the sensor was used for the video, and the down scaling wasn't the usual method, used in other sensors. Therefore, presumably, the circuitry was in order.

Maybe, the GH3 has a better sensor, than the GH2, notwithstanding the smaller size (and disengaging the multi-aspect ration bit, and disabling the ETC, for video). But, merely because a sensor (and even the processor), is better, doesn't mean that the camera's video and stills would be. In the newer sensors, circuity is extremely complicated (especially in the back-lilluminated ones). The GH3 may not have a back-illuminated one (GOD only knows the exact kind of sensor it has), but,I am guessing, that Panasonic has to seriously tweak a lot of things, including circuitry and codec.

After the benchmark the GH2, set, for video, the only sensible way, would have been, either a 2.5-2.7k video,or a 2k video, with the dynamic range of atleast 2-3 points higher, and much flatter colour profile. This without Any Moire or Aliasing. This is something, which is Clearly lacking in the GH3.

I am guessing (that) the delay, was due to not getting their act in order. They chose Photokina, because, otherwise, they would have had to showcase at some smaller, less prestigious, venue. If Panasonic is afraid that the GH3 will eat into their Professional Video Camera market, then, they should think of the revenues only in terms of numbers and not the profit margins. If the GH3 shoots anywhere near the Alexa or C300 (or even the C100), then, it would easily outsell the GH2, Many Times Over, and most people who picked up one GH2, would easily be tempted to get 2 GH3s, instead. This apart from all the new buyers. Also,people thinking of picking up any of the Canon duds including the 5D Mark II and Mark II and their C100 and C300, would have a good enough reason to move to the GH3. Maybe other models like by Nikon and Sony also could be passed over, for a GH3. Panasonic should think of things, from a broader perspective, and from a quantity perspective, rather than larger margins, per camera.

The results are up at:

http://www.mytherapy.tv/lab/

For some reason I can't access the video on Vimeo. Only through their website.

If I may critique the video a bit: I found it very disappointing. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but really, this was basically the equivalent of just telling us, "In our tests we found this to be true."I wasn't really interested in knowing what camera they choose, I just wanted to see them compared. I thought the whole point was to show us how each camera performed? All we saw was the winning camera's footage for each test. Honestly, I don't really care which one you thought the winner was, I wanted to see how each camera performed so I could decide on my own. Ironically, during the video he even says that we should stop worrying about all the specs of each camera and just choose the one that looks good to us. Well, how are we supposed to know if you don't even show us the footage?

That metadata solution has a big limitation in that it doesn't preserve the original lines of text. It's just a set number of words per line regardless of which subtitle they belong to.

If you have access to After Effects and get the subtitles into the .srt format (i.e. mark them up in something like Aegisub), I've developed a script that imports them into AE. From there you can drag the composition straight into Premiere using Dynamic Link.
http://aescripts.com/pt_importsubtitles/

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270']
Are you serious? The C100 looks to be a fantastic camera for anyone who is actually doing real camera work and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance.
[/quote]

You don't NEED more than a T2i really to do anything of substance. Hell, you don't even need that. The point is that spec/price ratio is completely out of balance. Drawing logic from other cameras price/performance ratio (BMCC, GoPro, GH3) a C100 even WITH 60fps in 1080p is only worth about $1500... IF THAT.

It's not that a C100 can't be used for anything... it's a question of why?
Why shoot to an external recorder when the technology exists for internal RAW recording at $3000?
Why shoot to a GARBAGE 24mb/s AVCHD codec... when there are hybrids like the GH3 that are capable of 80mb/s Intra-frame recording for 1/5 the cost?
Why is there no 60fps in even 720p when $400 toys like the GP3 can do 120fps?
And then, if you can afford the $6000 investment, why not just spend a teeny-bit more and go for the FS700 and get yourself a mind-boggling more flexible camera in terms of frame-rates and res-output?

You have to be a blind, non-critical thinker, who's terrible with money/investments, to even entertain the idea of a C100 purchase for more than 3 seconds. It's only appeal, is to the older "professional" elite crowd, that still thinks "bigger cameras" make them seem more professional... and the extreme-newbies who came into cinematography in the last year and think everything must be shot on canon cameras. It's a joke.

For under $5k I can get a BMCC and a GH3 that will allow me to record high-quality 2.5k 13-stop footage, to EITHER RAW or ProRes, up to 30fps... AND an amazing B/Utility-cam, that get's me great quality 60fps footage and allows for a lighter/quicker setup for certain jobs.

For $6k in canon's "pro" world, I get ONE camera that maxes out at 30fps, has lower than cell-phone quality AVCHD at a measly 24mb/s rate... and... well, that about it.

It's a no brainier to any sane individual. The only reason I'm being so aggressive about it, is because supporting terribly spec'ed cameras from canon just creates slower, more stagnation, in the industry. We need to be moving forward, not applauding them for a camera that should have been available 8 year ago. People need to stop this elitist-ego driven "well if you do REAL work, you can afford it" attitude. It's getting real old, and it's an emotional-ego driven argument, not a logical one.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270']
...and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance.
[/quote]

Well, you know what... to me, I DO need these things... and it's up to INDIVIDUALS to decide this. Not industry unions, not "pros", not anyone. I don't just shoot corporate interview and promo pieces. I'd like to PUSH the boundaries of what's artistically possible of myself, as well as my equipment. And when done right, this can lead to MANY more opportunities and higher-paying jobs than those who are shooting "standard" projects because they don't feel like anyone "needs" to make anything better. There is NO QUESTION that the flexibility of higher-frame rates and RAW coloring can potentially push my pieces above and beyond what most people feel the "standard" is.

In the end, I think people are just afraid of the competition, and are desperately trying to standardize these sub-standard tools in order to control competition.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1350554599' post='19891']
Camera depreciation is getting crazy. Modular sensors all round I say, otherwise we're gonna fill the world with non-recyclable junk and there'll be nothing left to film :0
[/quote]

it'll die soon. All the kids and hangers on will get bored once they get raw and it cant make their films any more viable as a money making enterprise. I remember seeing more good stuff from Canon xl1 users before the dslr become the first choice. nowadays I swear these guys buy their camera to do lens tests, moire and dynamic range tests. They never make anything with them!