sanveer

Where do you conduct these interviews, and on what cameras?

[quote name='aaronmc' timestamp='1350065251' post='19674'] jgjarding, You mention HMI lights on your site post. Have you ever worked with them? I'm curious because a very salient memory of mine is when I was driving through the Rhode Island College campus back in 2006, and there is a satellite elementary school in which primary-ed students can learn in a practical environment. The elementary school was being used as a location for the never-aired CBS show "Waterfront," and the scene's involved Joe Pantoliano's character's daughter in school. They needed to simulate daytime, so they had these MASSIVE circular lights set up blasting into the school's windows. Considering their size and brightness, I can only assume that they were HMI. Is this correct? I read up on HMI and it doesn't seem to make sense why anyone would use them? Never use past half-life? Can EXPLODE?! Is it only the color temperature that is desirable? And if that's the case, can we expect LED and fluorescent to completely obviate HMI at some point in the future? Or is it also the sheer throw of the lights, something that neither LED nor CFL have? And finally, as I eviscerate you with questions, why are HMI the go-to arc lights for the film industry? Why not other arc lights, especially considering that many of them have better safety profiles? [/quote] HMI's have an insane throw. We used one, at a harbour, and, it appeared brighter than the lighthouse light :P Also, during a shoot, an HMI in a fresnel exploding, and the glass cover, exploded with it. My friend and I, missed the huge piece of hot gladd, flying at us, by a few seconds. We didn't have time to move, cause it was too quick. It was a close shave.

Wow. some of the pics are SO sharp, that, I can almost feel the dust/ scales, on the butterfly's wings.

hahaha ... I thought the exact thing ... :P

The picture quality on the GH3 seems to have seriously been improved (though the video quality, is suspect). Even though the framing is not identical in the picture comparison, between the Panny (GH3) and the Olympus (EM5), the GH3 seems to pack just a little more detail, than the Olympus. Also, the low light capabilities of the GH3, till ISO 6400, is phenomenal, and even 12800, isn't too bad. Here are the URLs: [url="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-gh3-vs-olympus-om-d-e-m5-comparison-20412"]http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-gh3-vs-olympus-om-d-e-m5-comparison-20412[/url] [url="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-gh3-sample-photos-20411"]http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-gh3-sample-photos-20411[/url] [url="http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/panasonic_gh3_photos/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+photographyblog+PhotographyBLOG"]http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/panasonic_gh3_photos/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+photographyblog+PhotographyBLOG[/url] [url="http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-lumix-gh3_Digital-Camera_photos"]http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-lumix-gh3_Digital-Camera_photos[/url] [url="http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/panasonic-gh3-1096528/review"]http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/panasonic-gh3-1096528/review[/url]

I saw a few videos (and lots of pics), coming outta the GH3 This one, is among, the better ones: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bksgU-whTUI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bksgU-whTUI[/url]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1349948865' post='19595'] I wrote a whole article on lighting for beginners here: [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/light-fantastic.htm"]http://www.soundonso...t-fantastic.htm[/url] You may find it helps! My most used tools and reflectors (I have three large ones at least with me all the time) and two of those cheap chinese 600LED panels. They're amazing for the money! Fluoros look lovely but they're easy to break and a bit cumbersome for quick jobs. [/quote] Great Article. Very well written, no gobbledygook and very informative. [quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1349949220' post='19599'] Here's my favorite lights. They're cheap, so sue me ;) [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600LEDS-CN600-SA-Studio-Photography-Lighting-BATTERY-MOUNT-DIMMER-LED-Light-/260945997751?pt=UK_Photography_StudioEquipment_RL&hash=item3cc197efb7"]http://www.ebay.co.u...=item3cc197efb7[/url] [/quote] Its always a great Idea to get cheap products, if they are good (and, if branded stuff, is priced prohibitively). I got emergency light kindda Chinese made LEDs for less than $4 each. They last about 5-10 hrs, on a single charge, and are great for scenes inside cars, or small spaces (they don't project light, too far, i.e., their throw is pretty limited). I also, got 5-in-1 reflectors for bout $20 or $30 each. They are 42" and are pretty good. I do have regular lights, too, but, setting them up is a huge task, and, they aren't that portable. I wish professional LEDs were cheaper, and more effective. hmmmm ...

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1349889095' post='19568'] [url="http://www.digitalbolex.com/bringing-sexy-back/"]http://www.digitalbo...ging-sexy-back/[/url] [/quote] I like the look. Its interesting.

I would have recommended a Slik 700dx, but, its almost always outta stock. Its a heavy, and tall tripod, and pretty well recommended. I ordered one, online, from some terrible retailer, who didn't inform me, about delivery, even 2-3 days after the promised date. Then they, cheekily mailed me at 4 a.m., to tell me, that, its outta stock (after I placed an order, and waited for 10 days). :angry: I abused them on Facebook, but, I still wasn't satisfied with either the service or explanation (or the fact, that they didn't source a replacement, from some other dealer). I feel, that, it isn't too wise to pick up a Tripod, for $500, if your camera, costs, well within $1000 ($699, actually). But, I am not way suggesting, that you buy some flimsy tripod, which is unstable, and weighs too little, and also cannot hold much weight. Ideally, you need something that will support the GH2 with the 14-140 lens (equivalent, in weight, since its among the heavier lenses), and a few hundred grams more. Picking up a tripod which can take the load of a fully loaded Alexa or RED won't be useful. And, I am guessing, you need a little panning, for video, as well. Try this: [url="http://www.amazon.com/slik-pro-700dx-professional-tripod-with-panh/dp/B0002EXF38?SubscriptionId=1E628819KWK3ACMYXF82&tag=cameras0c91-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B0002EXF38"]http://www.amazon.co...ASIN=B0002EXF38[/url] or [url="http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-Alta-263AP-3-Section-Magnesium/dp/B001HBIYWM/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_1"]http://www.amazon.co...sxp_grid_pt_0_1[/url] (I don't own Either, so, just do a little research, regarding panning for video, and quality). I noticed ur link/ url. DON'T buy an unbranded Tripod. The chances of it being good, are far lesser. Why take the risk. Especially, if branded and unbranded (in the link you mentioned), would come within a $20-30 difference, or less. There are many options in Benro, Manfrotto, Slik, etc. You'll just have to do some intensive online research. ;)

I saw this, and the other 6 clips, yesterday. Now I am seriously doubting the quality of the GH3's video. Anyways, I'll have to just wait, till I formally start abusing Panasonic (and the GH3). The GH2, suddenly has all the old old oomph and sex appeal, back. Reminds me of Demi More after that $400,000 makeover. yeah baby ... :wub:

I didn't doubt you, for a moment. I just found it amusing, that a lot of women, probably, don't bother checking up, on technology, before making purchases. hmmm .... (am waiting for the women's brigade to attack me :P )

[quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1349792555' post='19529'] I don't know. Are they really doing it ? Without any problem ? Here is the footnote from the official Canon 1D-C page : [url="http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/products.php?type=Camera-1DC"]http://cinemaeos.usa...type=Camera-1DC[/url] [b]* This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not and may not be offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.[/b] If Canon cannot deliver this high level DSLR camera I don't see a lower end from anybody going in that territory anytime soon. [/quote] Relax. Its just regarding, mostly disclose of wi-fi or Bluetooth, or some other radio-frequency related rules. They have to show if there is some level of interference with other devices, and make disclosures regarding the same (in their product manuals), to the customer, as well. Read this: [url="http://www.cclab.com/fcc-part-15.htm"]http://www.cclab.com/fcc-part-15.htm[/url] Also, read Page iv of this Nikon Manual: [url="http://www.webster.edu/acadaffairs/asp/mediacenter/MediaCenter/equipment%20manuals/NikonD50usergide.pdf"]http://www.webster.edu/acadaffairs/asp/mediacenter/MediaCenter/equipment%20manuals/NikonD50usergide.pdf[/url] Anyways, these rules apply to the US. Dude, Canon has been around, Far too long, to let these small compliances and disclosures bother them.

[quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1349755040' post='19509'] I do not expect to have better video quality in a DSLR anytime soon. The concept in itself is far from perfect. To process those high resolution sensors, you would need better DSP chips. At the same time those chips generate so much heat to process all that data that this heat cannot dissipate out of those small body. They are just not created for that. The easiest solution would be to put in them a low megapixels count in them, kinda 4k, but as they are marketed as DSLR, it would not be a good success as it will not generate enough sales on the photo side (where most the sales are in DSLR). So I will forget a breakthrough in the video quality of DSLRs for a few years. By now, I thought that we would already have some camera likes the C300 from the competition. I really think this is where the future belong as it is the best form factor of any camera I ever saw. [/quote] Smaller sensors are better at dealing with moire, aliasing, and rolling shutter, especially, for video, and that's why, I am guessing, they kept the sensor size, small. I didn't like the look of the C300, when it came out, but, in person, I guess, its so small compact, with all the necessary features, packed in, that its a great innovation, in form factor. [quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1349785661' post='19522'] The 1-DC can do it. I wouldn't even say this if Andrew hadn't interviewed the Canon guy that confirmed it was just a badass 1-DX. The sensor has to be downplayed to a lower megapixel count to be optimal for video, but it's supposedly the same 18mp sensor as the 1-DX with a different firmware telling it to work a different way... Which it does:) Without breaking a sweat apparently either. It's not RAW, but it's not moire ridden avchd either... It's 4k for crying out loud & it doesn't look bad at all... So if they can do it with a firmware, (maybe not bump the price $9000 though in the process,lol) - then these other cameras shouldn't have a problem. I honestly think anymore, it's just a rush to get something with a higher model number to the masses and THAT is the primary concern... Whether the technology is a let down or not. [/quote] I agree. Its just a matter of re-packing old technology,with newer numbers,sometimes even going backwards. Maybe, people (read the Hackers and companies like Magic Lantern etc) should concentrate on actually making filmware, from scratch, rather than just tweaking a few numbers, here and there, randomly. Then, let them sell their Filmware, for what its worth. It would create a Huge market, and people would have RED and C300 bettering quality codecs, right out of a GH2 or GH3.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1349773806' post='19517'] Thats what we photographers/filmmakers think of it.. Soccer mom's have no idea, the Nikon 1 is selling very well. 55% CSC market share in the Netherlands (according to Nikon's own figures). [/quote] Hahaha ... Seriously ??? Maybe, its High time, they joined a photographer's/ video shooter's forum ... :P

Am waiting for more footage myself. I wish they would finish atleast 10 working cameras, and hand them out. 2 to professional DoP (who'll make it look fancy under any condition), and 8 to talented enthusiasts. And, then let us judge the videos. :P

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1349746540' post='19500'] Yeah, I actually think out of all the video offerings Canon has given us at the cost of appendages, the only 2 that have impressed me image-wise, are the C-100, (no...not the C-300) - and the old Mark 2... Nobody can afford a C-100 though, so it's just disheartening as hell to the whole community. Especially since it plays that whole side of the market at face value... until you see $6500 and you're suddenly not surprised. That's 2 BM cinema cameras that shoot Raw, & a 512gb ssd, or a full tank of gas, whatever $6500 gets you these days... [/quote] Hahaha ... so true. Canon has become defiantly elitist. Maybe all DSLR film-makers should boycott them, for a few months. [quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1349755040' post='19509'] I do not expect to have better video quality in a DSLR anytime soon. The concept in itself is far from perfect. To process those high resolution sensors, you would need better DSP chips. At the same time those chips generate so much heat to process all that data that this heat cannot dissipate out of those small body. They are just not created for that. The easiest solution would be to put in them a low megapixels count in them, kinda 4k, but as they are marketed as DSLR, it would not be a good success as it will not generate enough sales on the photo side (where most the sales are in DSLR). So I will forget a breakthrough in the video quality of DSLRs for a few years. By now, I thought that we would already have some camera likes the C300 from the competition. I really think this is where the future belong as it is the best form factor of any camera I ever saw. [/quote] I don't agree with, what you say, for a moment. The GH2 doesn't heat up, too much. And, I am in India, and stay in a place, where the temperatures hover, mostly around 35-39 (in Mumbai), and around 38-46 (in Delhi), in the summers. In Europe, I don't believe, that it would be reaching anywhere close to those temperatures, that make HD shooting DSLRs and other Cameras shut down. And, I have used it (the GH2), for hours. About processing power, if the Hacks on the GH2 can push AVCHD to beyond 200 Mbps, then, I don't believe they need more processing power. And, the short-comings on the hacks (like shutting off, or not playing certain formats, or not allowing certain settings), are due to the programmers, creating the hacks, and not the camera (or sensor). Like Andrew showed us, it may be an analogy, on the lines of the Canon 1DX and 1DC. They just want to seriously bifurcate their elitist clients (over-paying idiots), and the Indie (film-making) Consumer. That's why the codec are not up to the mark.

Unfortunately, the Aptina Sensor found itself on the 'Nikon 1' Series, which has cameras, which shoot pictures, comparable with the earlier generation of smartphones and videos, which are pretty lousy too. Also, the price tag, would make one wonder, why Nikon even bothered to try and compete with far better cameras around. On paper, though, the Aptina Sensors seem promising. Maybe, in the hands of some other camera manufacturer, they would do justice to their specs.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1349703707' post='19483'] 600 lines seems to be an exaggeration. The 5D3's video capture resolution is 1904x1072, vs 1720x974 for the 5D2/7D/550D. [/quote] Where did you get all these figures from? Please post the url. thanks

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1349713130' post='19484'] [i]An exploded view of the A99 at Photokina[/i] Whilst I was able to record some footage from the Sony A99 at Photokina I didn't really have any spare time to do much with one. The camera to me seems a little bit disappointing on the image quality front with line skipping resulting in quite heavy moire and aliasing. Not acceptable in 2012. Johnnie (who I had the pleasure of finally meeting at Photokina) is a freelance BBC cameraman and editor based in Vienna. His comments on the new A99 are mixed (as are my feelings about the camera). [/quote] I agree. The 5D Mark ii was introduced in September 2008. 4 years later, and the video quality, in DSLRs, is exactly the same, albeit some minor, cosmetic changes. Also, the XLR Adapter for US$800 is INSANE. Sony seems to be going the Canon way, producing DSLRs with lousy video quality, at exorbitant prices. Maybe, they should just scrap the video, Altogether, instead of consistently trying to fool consumers. Also, the Canon 5D Mark iii and the Sony A99 are double the price of the Panasonic GH3 (or more). If video is a necessary governing (factor for) price point, then, they should offer a $1000 discount, without any fuss, on both the Sony AND the Canon.

Try the SLR Magic HyperPrime Cine 12mm T/1.6 Lens for Micro Four Thirds. Andrew (Reid) has shot some gr8 footage with it, which you could check out. The Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 is also a gr8 lens (though more expensive).

There is a certainly kind of earnest curiosity, in your questions. I guess, a lot of people on this forum (including me, sometimes), believe that they are too elementary, at times, but, please don't let it bother you. I have worked in a few features, and we had a DoP/ Cinematographer, with about 30 years of experience (or more), who, more than once, missed shadows, and bills on trees, in the frame. Though, he was broad-shouldered enough to admit his folly, the moral of the story is, no one is perfect :) The length of the time left, on the card, depending on the MB rate, you are shooting at.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349542791' post='19444'] I dont have the kit lens, i just got the 20mm pancake with the gh2 body. Would it be stupid to have the 20mm and the 14mm pancake? And I think I would go maybe for a little higher quality than the 14mm panny, just based on my research with its bad low light. Any other suggestions? HOw do the 14mm panny and the Rokinon 14mm compare? THe panny is 300 dollars cheaper on ebay, and has f.2.5 compared to the rokinon f.2.8.. Thanks again. [/quote] If you already have the 20mm f1.7, get a fast 50mm Nikon or Canon (from ebay), with an adaptor. It will be cheap and the optics are quite good.

Ok, Unless you are Einstein, with electronics, PLEASE don't try this at home (or anywhere else): [url="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3269826"]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3269826[/url] [url="http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/panasonic-lumix-gh2-ir"]http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/panasonic-lumix-gh2-ir[/url]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349463206' post='19421'] <Deleted incorrect information!> [i][b]Edit: Looks like I was totally wrong about this! The GH1 and GH2 have the same multi-aspect sensor. Check out this for the real story on the GH3 sensor:[/b][/i] [i][b][url="http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/10/multi-aspect-sensor.html"]http://m43photo.blog...ect-sensor.html[/url][/b][/i] [/quote] Ok, this means, that, like almost all other Camera Manufacturers out there (Nikon, Canon, Sony etc etc), the GH3 will create an approx 22% size reduction, in Stllls for 16:9 size pics, and an approx 7% reduction, in Stills for 3:2 pic size. If everyone else is doing it, then, maybe, it doesn't seem so bad ... :P

Wow, I am so glad, that people are using the GH2 for some great documentary work. Also, quite creative. Your documentary, though, seems a little heavy, on the eyes. Partially due to the focus (you haven't focused properly, and on the right object, in the right sequence of shots), and, maybe, partially, due to the fact, that your camera is, possibly handheld, and, in some curious ways, it shows. Maybe you needed to stabilize the shots. I guess, you could still do it, in post.