cybervand

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1345788507' post='16374'] Im a guy who plans to go back to school while trying to create stories on the side, if this camera claims to be what it is then im incredibly excited. I dont have alot of extra money, im planing on getting a GH2 by the end of the year because it suit my needs as a person delving into this field more seriously in the future. By next year I plan on actually getting this as an upgrade(If it proves to be true of what it claims to be). My point is that I cant be spending money on a high end camera or incredible gear/rigs. I need one that is versatile, more bang for buck, and this seems like the next logical step. While saving next year I'll be honing my craft with a GH2 in preparation, just to get my head around the concepts of light and composition. Im glad this is going to hit the market, I hope it shakes thing up in the indie market. I cant wait! [/quote] You'll have to get a good set of lenses also if you don't have any. Don't only think about the brain, think about the eyes too.

There were/are quite large over-heating problems with the 5n. With a even larger sensor how will they fix it?

[quote name='gene_can_sing' timestamp='1344316165' post='15039'] To me it felt really soft, even though I know it was shot with a really shallow DOF. Not sure how to describe it, but when you see shallow stuff shot with cameras like the RED or even the FS700, the parts that are in focus have a certain crispness to it that is not mushy. This footage just look really soft all around, kind of like the Canon DSLRs where even the stuff that is in focus feels kind of mushy. But hey, that's a look unto itself. For $3K, it's a steal. [/quote] It could be the lens, canon lenses are known for their softness...

[quote author=piz link=topic=637.msg4755#msg4755 date=1335483529] There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change.  I think this is the same shift in paradigm.  Higher frame rates + 3D have a different feel that can be applied to a certain type of presentation for a given narrative.  It maybe something completely new we've never seen before.  Take for example if when 24fps and sound came out if all they did was update silent movies to the new frame rate and just read cards out it would have been totally pointless.  Like wise maybe the current style of film narrative isn't correct for this new type of presentation.  I know this is off topic but Tupac is making the rounds as a hologram now.  We can only expect how that type of technology could completely later what a film is and how it can be experienced. [/quote] YESSSSS...thank you for coming up and speaking about why exactly we have 24fps in movies...back then non-sound era movies shot in 16fps to save on film, 24fps was introduced because 16fps was too fast for sound and broke up when then interpolated it 24fps that why we have 24fps...for me I honestly think that for some NON 3D movies 24fps is fine...when I went to the cinema to watch 'Thor' in 3D I walked out with a terrible headache as I could see the flicker...I also wear glasses and wearing glasses on glasses just feels stupid...it also hurts