Jump to content

sanveer

Members
  • Posts

    2,405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sanveer

  1. I am curious to know whether anyone has tried shooting a film, or something substantial, on the Nokia PureView 808. It has a far superior camera (and onboard sound), to the iPhone. Also, it costs noticeably lesser.
  2. sanveer

    GH3

    I haven't heard or read this anywhere, but, since the GH2 DOES have amazing autofocus, for video, I thought they could come up with some great developments, in terms of software. One of the problems, that a lotta "Old Timers" have complained about, regarding the GH2, especially with the Panasonic lenses, is that, the picture is TOO SHARP, for video, in AutoFocus. And, sharp not in terms of detail, or colour, or contrast, but in terms of Focus. So, i wish Panasonic would introduce more functions, for Video Focus, like, perhaps setting, like 'Very Sharp', 'Sharp', 'Soft', 'Very Soft' and 'Only Bokehs', for FOCUS. Since depth of field can already be manipulated, by reducing or increasing, the Focus Area, that is, I feel, already, very well, taken care of.
  3. Actually, for STILLS there may actually be no comparison between the Panasonic LX7 and the SonyRX100. The RX100 is Far superior. Hands down. This gentleman has taken the pains to compare pics on both, as well as on the LX5. This is the Link. : [url="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=42054141"]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=42054141[/url]
  4. Yes, I realised its [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]1/1.7 inch and not 1 inch. My bad. Its apparently smaller than the one on its predecessor, the LX5 (1/1.63 vs 1/1,7). So, size shouldn't matter here.[/font][/color] I've personally never been completely satisfied with the ability of Panasonic Cameras to shoot stills. Though, I do believe, a lot of people were quite satisfied with the results of the LX5. Panasonic wouldn't make the quality of pics any worse, in the LX7, than the LX5. Most importantly, the Sony RX100 costs $150 more. So, if it doesn't have anything noticeably better, atleast in some departments, to justify that more-than-noticeable price difference, then, quite frankly, its a damp squid. hahaha ... Andrew, i wouldn't want, you, to unnecessarily put, yourself, at any kind of risk, to merely demonstrate your eating habits. Or a one-sided wager ... :P
  5. If you think the lens on the Sony RX100 is good, check out the lens on the Panasonic LX7. Sony 28mm-100mm f1.8 - f4.9 Panasonic 24mm-90mm f1.4 - f2.3 Also, it has BUILT-IN ND Filter (though I wish it has a 3-stop option). It also shoots Full HD @ 60p. BTW, the company claims, the 1.7inch MOS sensor apparently handles Noise much better, and, it also has a Much Wider Dynamic Range. Also, it has a 920k screen resolution (maybe, they may use this, for the GH3). Maybe, the GH3 will shoot Full HD @ 120p. Also, I feel, that Tests conducted o the Panasonic LX7, for video, will give us an idea od what to expect from the GH3.
  6. sanveer

    GH3

    There was this thread, regarding what people were looking for, in the GH3 (which, incidentally, I cannot find, anymore). People asked for everything, from built in stabilizers, to a complimentary date with Megan Fox. Everything, except, everything realistic. Anyways,I just read the review of the new Panasonic DMC FZ200. It has an insane f2.8 25mm to 600mm lens (though I am curious to know, why they don't have a lens for the GH2 or GH3, which does the same). Apart from this, it does the equivalent of 720p @ 120 fps. I am guessing, that, probably, the GH3 will do 120 fps, as well. Though, I wish, it does it at Full HD. I guess, the next few weeks of Camera from the Panasonic stables will be a hint of the features on the Flagship GH3.
  7. I guess, we're just expecting too much from the GH3. I have only a few things, which would make this, almost perfect, Motion Picture Quality, Video Shooter, even better. 1. Flatter Profile and clean 8 bit 4-2-2 would be great. Right now, the contrast and sharpening is too much, so there is a limited amount of scope, for work on post. They should try and make it 12-14 Stops of Dynamic Range, for Video. Also, I feel,12 bit, quite frankly is over-rated. Good 8-bit, is almost as good, at a fraction of the cost. 2. Better battery. The GH2's battery was a joke. Something that should last atleast 3 hrs of video shoot, is perfect for the GH3. If it is too expensive, let people buy it, as a necessary accessory. 3. More lens options. I wish Panasonic would produce some nice pancake primes, at f1.2. We could avoid buying the over-priced Voigtlanders, Leicas and SLR Magics. 4. If Panasonic could make some nice accessories, starting with a Stabilizer, it would be perfect. Maybe, they could collaborate with Glidecam, for something within $150. That would be great. I don't know
  8. I apologize for not posting any videos with the FLAT PROFILE. I've just been travelling (for personal reasons, and not work), and haven't found any coloring/ grading software, to work with. Please give me a little time. Maybe by this weekend, i should be able to upload a footage from the profile. tc
  9. I realized, that the only grouse, that people have with the GH2, is that, the image is NOT flat, like for most DSLRs and Digital cameras, that shoot video. Instead, the contrast is quite apparent, and the coloring is too strong. So, grading and coloring, in post, is not feasible. This discussion is about the same. I have found a way, to get an absolutely Flat picture profile, out of the GH2, but, i want to first color and grade it, and post a sample on Vimeo, before, i state, how i did it. If other people have their ideas, please let us know
  10. I COMPLETELY agree with Andrew. Canon should just give up on making Video Cameras. They should stick to still cameras. The entire 'C' series is bad. I guess, its High Time canon threw out its ENTIRE Design Team, and got some people with competence. Either you do it, or don't do it. At All.
×
×
  • Create New...