bellsbells

OK, I re-applied the hack with Unified and made a test shot of around 30 seconds to compare to a shot of the same length from when I was using Vanilla. I used VideoSpec to compare the two files, and here's what I get (both shooting Cinema 24p/24H): Vanilla: max 43.4 Mbps / avg. 19 Mbps / file size approx. 80 MB Unified: max 88.8 Mbps / avg. 66.9 Mbps / file size approx. 300 MB So this is kind of nuts! The file is more than 3x the size when using Unified. Jeez, I don't know what to do now, since at that rate Unified will take up more disk space than I would like to dedicate.

Thanks Andrew—I think I will upgrade to Unified to see if that improves the bitrate. I'll report back once I've done so.

Please, anyone? I am shooting a documentary and I need an answer ASAP!

Hi all. I hacked my GH2 (Vanilla) and am filming in Creative Movie Mode (24p/24H). Yesterday I made a test shot which VideoSpec indicated was max bitrate 43.9, average 39. After shooting footage all day today with the same settings, I just analyzed my shots and found that though the max bitrate was still 43.9, the average was about 10-15 tops! WTF?! My SD card is a class 10 Sandisk (same as I used yesterday). What can explain why I'm getting such poor bitrates?

After initially using the Unified patch, and then realizing that the bit rate was overkill and deciding that Vanilla was good enough for me (and to save disk space), I went back and created a V13.bin with Vanilla settings to replace with V12.bin. I think I did everything correctly, but how can I verify that it worked and the bit rate is now 44 rather than 88? Another question: when shooting in one of the photo modes and pressing the red dot movie button, what are the settings that are applied to that movie? Are they whatever is selected in creative movie mode? The manual doesn't seem to answer this question!

Thanks popalock, you are starting to make me consider the possibility of recording sound separately. So you say syncing in post is simple—what about the organization of all the sound files—does each need to match a video file in length? Every time you press "rec" on the camera you also have to remember to simultaneously press "rec" on the audio recorder? And ditto for when you cut? I'm thinking about practicality here, and I will be a one-woman crew.... And I'm also thinking that I'm the kind of person who would probably forget to start or stop recording on the audio recorder at some point, and screwing everything up...

HOLY CRAP—just found this: http://www.rodemic.com/vmhd Arrrgggghhhh.... why is it not available? It looks like just what I need. But maybe it's going to cost an arm and a leg...

Thanks for the replies, guys. I'm bummed to find out that there is no headphone jack on the GH2. I looked at the Juice Link which does solve the problem, but in order to be attached to the camera it has to be mounted on a bracket which is really not ideal, as I plan on doing a lot of hand holding and want to be light and mobile. popalock, I checked out the H4n which looks like a nice little audio recorder, but not only is it also a separate piece of equipment to mount and carry around, but I'd have the added headache of syncing in post  :-[ Perhaps I will have to resign myself to not being able to monitor audio, and to practicing a lot to make sure I know how to get reliable sound from whatever mic I end up buying.

I own a GH2 since yesterday, on the advice of users here  :D I also purchased Andrew's book about it and am in the process of reading it. But it doesn't seem to contain the answer to my question, nor does the user manual: how is it possible to monitor the sound that the camera is recording? I plan on filming a documentary with interviews and need to be able to monitor via earphones the sound that is being recorded. I'm getting very worried that this isn't possible, and if this is indeed the case, how can one record audio reliably (especially when one isn't experienced in that area)? Thank you!

Thank you! I'm delighted to hear that the GH2 is a good alternative, because it is SO much cheaper and will allow me to invest in some sweet glass, plus I can use my Nikkors and my Leica Summicron-C 40/2. But ultimately my question is: will I regret not having a full frame sensor if I go for the GH2? If, against all odds, my film is ever projected onto a large movie screen, can the GH2's image hold up compared to the Mark III or the D800? It's hard having to make this decision knowing so little about the differences in video quality between these models....

Thank you—I had a look at the FS100 which is a little more than I have to spend, but I must say I also feel intimidated by it—as opposed to a DSLR which is familiar territory for me (I've been shooting SLRs since I was 16 years old), it's a whole new ball game to go into pro video equipment. I mean, is it realistic for a novice to pick up a camera like the FS100 and shoot a movie? I would like to add that I have read great things about the GH2, which costs a fraction of the Canon and Nikons. Any thoughts on that?

Hi all, I'm going to be shooting a documentary starting mid-May and had planned to get the 5DIII to shoot it. Then I found out about the D800 which seemed perfect for me since I already have several Nikon manual lenses from my FM2 days. But unfortunately both cameras are absolutely unattainable within the next month. So given that I don't want to invest in a piece of equipment as "old" as the Mark II, what are my other options? The documentary is about an artist, BTW, and it will be mostly interviews with him and shots of him working in his studio. Should I consider the GH2? That model, too, is quite old—over 2 years—and they are probably going to release an update soon. I'm really lost and could use some help! Thanks in advance for your advice!

[quote author=jessekorgemaa link=topic=596.msg4138#msg4138 date=1334667816] [quote author=bellsbells link=topic=596.msg4136#msg4136 date=1334665623] [quote author=RickToxik link=topic=596.msg4134#msg4134 date=1334665244] The BM camera outputs in 3 formats RAW DNG (hmmmmore Adobe), DNxHD (Avid) and Prores (FCP). The automatic modes to correct your footage depends on your software, but I guess someone (maybe Blackmagic) will make a LUT for this camera.  LUTs are files containing a curve that softwares read to balance footage automatically.  I am sure though you will want to try those adjustments yourself, you still have several months to train! [/quote] Thanks, that sounds like it would work for me—so you think I might not be crazy to be considering the BM over the 5DIII for a documentary project, knowing very little about pro video and a lot more about old-fashioned photography? Should I be concerned about the smaller sensor in the BM? [/quote] I'm sorry but I don't think this looks to be a very good documentary camera. On battery life alone (non exchangeable batteries) this camera will be a pain to use for docs. And then you have the form factor which is far more suited to being rigged out rather than ready to go. For a doc you really need something versatile and reliable. I actually think that the 5dIII makes a great doc camera. Extremely reliable, easy to use, long record times. And despite sharpness issues the images aesthetic is still rather beautiful. [/quote] Thanks for chiming in—I know so little about the points of comparison and have so little experience shooting pro video that I wouldn't have thought to make sure there were exchangeable batteries. Why doesn't the BD have this, is it supposed to be plugged in all the time? If it's not suited to docs, than what is it suited for?

[quote author=RickToxik link=topic=596.msg4134#msg4134 date=1334665244] The BM camera outputs in 3 formats RAW DNG (hmmmmore Adobe), DNxHD (Avid) and Prores (FCP). The automatic modes to correct your footage depends on your software, but I guess someone (maybe Blackmagic) will make a LUT for this camera.  LUTs are files containing a curve that softwares read to balance footage automatically.  I am sure though you will want to try those adjustments yourself, you still have several months to train! [/quote] Thanks, that sounds like it would work for me—so you think I might not be crazy to be considering the BM over the 5DIII for a documentary project, knowing very little about pro video and a lot more about old-fashioned photography? Should I be concerned about the smaller sensor in the BM?

Rick, OMG, just from looking at those two samples (thanks, BTW!) I felt so much more drawn to the uncorrected BM one that the highly contrasted and saturated 5D! That being said, I don't have any grading skills whatsoever and probably won't have much of a post-production budget. Won't there be any auto presets for color-correcting the BM footage for general usage? Also, an unrelated question: will the footage from the BM be editable in FCP10?

Hi all, I'm a major noob with a background in photography and some video (back when people still worked in DV on the non-pro level). I have several great manual Nikon lenses and one Leica-M which I use with my FM2 and CL bodies (yeah, old school, real film). But I now am preparing to shoot and direct a documentary for which I need to invest in some equipment. Everyone I know who does pro photo and low budget-pro video uses the 5D and raves about it. With the Mark III coming out, it seemed a no-brainer that I would get that and use my lenses with it (my understand is that there are adapters). But then I saw this beauty, and my heart started thumping, and I realized that I don't know enough about pro video to make a real decision about which would most meet my needs. The documentary is about an artist, working in his studio and giving interviews to the camera. I want it to look very beautiful and cinematic. I know this Black Magic baby isn't out yet, but perhaps someone here can give me an idea of if it might be worth holding off buying the Mark III with a view to perhaps buying this? (I do want to start shooting next month, though....) Thanks in advance!