zephyrnoid

We learned with the Scarlet vs. C300 price comparisons that the only thing worth comparing pricewise is [b]total cost of ownership[/b].

Sure the camera body may cost $15K but what good does that do you if you need another $20K of proprietary add ons to shoot at the quoted specs and media costs $40/minute at those specs.

I'm sure when you have the proper info you will go over TCO for each attractive camera option in practice.

"a military contractor ......and must be used to the most rigorous testing standards....."

cough... chuckle :P

[quote name='MaxAperture Films' timestamp='1348313715' post='18893']
Looks like the greenish cast is just as bad if not worse on the Genesis BTS video (shot on GH2)
[media]http://vimeo.com/49500954[/media] between 1:06 and 1:09.
Has to be either the ambient light or a similar white balance issue.
[/quote]
I'm seeing a LOT of that icky yellow/green cast in other GH3 foootage around. I think there will be an intresting opportunity for anyone that wants to do a side by side comparo of the GH2/GH3/and another camera, so as to ferret out which modes are spitting out that horrid cast.
With the 4:2:0 constraint, I'd hate to deal with pulling that particular cast out of all my footage in post.

[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 :-)

[quote name='MaxAperture Films' timestamp='1348313715' post='18893']
Looks like the greenish cast is just as bad if not worse on the Genesis BTS video (shot on GH2)
[media]http://vimeo.com/49500954[/media] between 1:06 and 1:09.
Has to be either the ambient light or a similar white balance issue.
[/quote]
I'm seeing a LOT of that icky yellow/green cast in other GH3 foootage around. I think there will be an intresting opportunity for anyone that wants to do a side by side comparo of the GH2/GH3/and another camera, so as to ferret out which modes are spitting out that horrid cast.
With the 4:2:0 constraint, I'd hate to deal with pulling that particular cast out of all my footage in post.

Hey Andrew, just a quick note regarding gamma.

Note: this post assumes that you think the left image has the 'wrong' gamma setting, and the right one has the 'correct' gamma setting.

Are you sure 100% that you're getting crushed blacks and highlights? I did extensive testing some time ago, and have a good method of testing for sure.

As you say, the GH2 records in 16-235.

The picture you posted before had correct gamma on the left, not the right. The right hand one had, I think (might be wrong), lifted shadows and darkened highlights, giving a pseudo low contrast look, which doesn't actually recover any detail, as black is effectively never truly black, nor is white ever really white. They're limited because 16-235 footage is being shown in a 0-255 space, so black is 16 levels brighter than it should be etc.

The way to test is by a histogram. Record some video with the lens cap on, low iso, and fast shutter speed, then record one with 100% blown out sky or something else that's bright.

Now, bring it in to whatever editing software you're using, and see if the brighter gamma (the same method you used to get the brighter result on the right) results in a black level that's truly black (looking at the histogram), or a black level that is actually grey (which won't reach down to the bottom of the scale on the histogram). Same for the highlights - see if the "white" you're seeing is truly white, or actually darker. Perhaps comparing it to a webpage window would be easy to spot, too, if you want a visual representation of what the histogram says.

All this is assuming that your monitor isn't the culprit of these crushed blacks and highlights that you are seeing...

Anyway, if you still don't get what I'm saying, take a look at this modified picture of what you posted... if the blacks were truly being crushed and the whites clipped, I wouldn't have been able to recover that information in the left image. I have literally just lifted the blacks and brought down the highlights on the left image using levels in photoshop.

Hope it's useful! I personally just wish everything was 0-255... but anyway :)

Man, I'll be so happy when a Global shutter hits these cameras!

What lens was used for this footage?

I think the GH2 has a unique 'look' that may now be lost forever now the GH3 has an 'alleged' Sony Sensor
I think alot of people will be hanging onto their GH2's for the foreseable future.

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='zephyrnoid' timestamp='1348157015' post='18707']
I sure wish people would stop using a term that they don't understand precisely. Usability , Funtionality or the right feature mix? > They are different terms. The GH3 looks to have a higher [b][i]Usability Quotient [/i][/b]than the GH2, though I see that some functionality has taken a downgrade in the inevitable juggling of specifications. [b][i]ONLY[/i][/b] a direct side by side challenge will resolve doubts.
[/quote]

The GH3 has improved [i]functionality[/i], but only clean, moire-free shots are [i]usable[/i] to me.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='AdRath' timestamp='1348154452' post='18704']
How so?
I see far more pluses than negatives from the gh3.

-better reliable rec formats all span.
-highspeed 1080p
-Real progressive not the interlaced wrapper crap
-headphone jack
-Better lcd screen
-Superior build and weather proofing.
-Wifi for monitor support (still to be confirmed) lots of potential with apps.
-better dynamic range
-better low light performance
[/quote]

All good things, but moire and aliasing? I liquidated my Canon camera and lenses so that I could switch over to the moire-free GH2. It was worth not having to worry about it anymore. But now it's back in the GH3? I just don't think that I can do it. If these were fixed, I'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Andrew
any sign of the banding we all get on gh2 if you shoot the sky ?
is the new sensor better for this issue?

and will the focus assist work via hdmi if we use an external monitor?

Rolling shutter ? how is this looking! any better than the GH2

thanks
Andy

@andrew it is of utmost importance to us that we find out more about this pocohantus and her skin tones!