QuickHitRecord

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1347748558' post='18170']I sit and watch patch tests though, and i want to comment: "sorry guys, but what exactly am i looking for?" but it's Personal View and I don't want to read 17 responses that make me question my self esteem, or worth to society..[/quote] Hilarious. It so easy inadvertently start a flame war over there. There is bound to be some disagreement about the GH3 as we get more information, but I hope that this forum continues to be a constructive place to talk about it. Speaking of skin tones, I honestly don't have a problem with what I am seeing. I have been hearing this for a while and I have always wondered. They look a little cool to me, but nothing that I can't warm up a bit in post. But maybe I am not looking for the right thing, or maybe my monitor is off calibration. Can someone post a side-by-side of the GH3 skin tones and a grab from camera that does a better job with skin tones? How do we WISH that the GH3 would capture skin tones?

[quote name='theSUBVERSIVEBIRDS' timestamp='1347734379' post='18156'] What I don't get in people nowadays is how they think that everybody has to have the exactly same necessity over things and usually - actually always - think that people has the same necessity as them, like it's not possible to have different needs.[/quote] I agree. One thing that no one has mentioned here is that the BMC is the first camera ever made by BlackMagic. The GH3 is coming from an established camera company with several previous models that Panasonic has been able to use as benchmarks and improve upon. As good as it looks, this is the FIRST camera by BlackMagic. The first step can be painful. It's something I think that everyone should take into consideration when it comes time to buy a camera. For my needs (mostly short films and the occasional corporate shoot when we're short a camera at work), I could make either camera work. I will probably end up buying the GH3 and then possibly the [i]successor[/i] to the BMC MFT because if it is as excellent as it looks, there WILL be a successor.

They look pretty good to me! I wouldn't call this a "soft" lens at all.

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1347726986' post='18125'] For the history buffs, the movie "[b]Rubber[/b]" had the same motel in it. The movie was shot using the [b]Canon 5D2. [/b] Trailer: around 1:10 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G5pyFhmAqE[/media] GH3 video: check the motel out....at 4 seconds....at 34 seconds... [url="https://vimeo.com/49420579"]https://vimeo.com/49420579[/url] [/quote] Good catch. That movie was bizarre-o. But the nihilist in me enjoyed it.

[quote name='Philip Bloom' timestamp='1347721062' post='18117'] Why can't we all just have a big hug and get along? :) Anyway here we go: [url="http://philipbloom.net/2012/09/15/genesis/"]http://philipbloom.n.../09/15/genesis/[/url] Enjoy. Sweet camera! :wub: [/quote] Very nicely done, Philip. Some of your most cinematic work to date! Any chance that you could make the uncompressed file available for download? We are all dying to get a read on the banding/artifacting/macro-blocking situation. I am thrilled how the GH3 is shaping up. I don't feel like I would have been confident bringing the GH2 into several of the shooting situations in this film, but it looks like the GH3 was able to pull it off. It's going to be a tough decision between this and the BlackMagic.

I have not used one like that but it looks like a nice cine lens. OCT-19 mount, if I am not mistaken. Have you priced out OCT-19 adapters? They are not cheap!

[quote name='roccoforte' timestamp='1347656765' post='18059'] I have a Bolex Anamorphot 8/19/1.5 in front of a Canon 50mm 1.4 on a T2i. I can find an OK focus in good lighting conditions about 2-3 feet from subject, but under closer inspection it's always a little soft. What are my options for sharpening? I've been looking at diopters (close up lenses) on Amazon and they're pretty cheap for a set of four, but what are the reliable brands? I'm already going through two lenses, and I don;t want to screw everything up by having poor quality diopter. So any help there is appreciated, or any other suggestions... THANKS [/quote] Can you post a screen grab?

It all comes back to personal taste. Don't let anyone form an opinion for you. If you see something that you like, go for it!

[quote name='Rudolf' timestamp='1347623907' post='17973'] I think you can spend a lot of money over time: You would want to try this and that anamorphic and therefore you buy and sell on ebay like so many others used to do. In the end my experience is (well not really mine it was a tip from Redstan): Sell all your Sankors, Pany, Optex and buy a good Iscorama for "serious shit". That was the best thing I could do. Nothing comes close when it comes to handling and practicality. I really love it. And the quality is just fantastic - of course you have to be lucky to find a good example. And the "cinematic character" of the image also depends a lot on the taking lens I think?! Good luck :) [/quote] I have a lot of respect for Redstan, but I must disagree. I have easily spent more than the $3k it costs to buy an Iscorama on five or six other anamorphic lenses and I could not be happier. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and I have only kept the ones that I found to be truly cinematic. Personally, I don't think that the Iscorama gives you enough distortion for that truly cinematic look, and that is what this is all about, right? For instance, take a look at this Hypergonar footage by Rings: http://vimeo.com/16065398 Incredible character. I have never seen anything like this come from an Iscorama.

Some screen grabs from the video (property of Panasonic): [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_111867.png[/img] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_870838.png[/img] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_598798.png[/img]

[media]http://youtu.be/9ZFhaYuiQSs[/media]

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1347592634' post='17946'][list] [*][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]First Picture of GH3[/font][/color] [/list] [img]http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/panasonic_gh3_image-1.png[/img] [/quote] Fierce!

[quote name='hidalgoserra' timestamp='1347574099' post='17936'] what about the Baby Iscorama ISCOMORPHOT 8? [/quote] It's like you are running down the list of lenses that I happen to own. ;-) I have one, and I am still trying to figure out if I like it or not. But they are very, very hard to find!

If any Hypergonar is getting dropped on my foot, I'd prefer that it be the 8mm Baby. Then again, these little things are rare enough that it might be worth a couple of broken bones to save one of them, so bring on the 16mm!

You are very welcome. The Helios 44 is a good choice. It is the best lens that I have found for the Hypergonar HiFi-2 (at least with a Micro Four Thirds sensor). It has very unique swirling bokeh, a static front barrel, and at 58mm is just long enough to shoot through the Hypergonar without vignetting.

I've shot with both and I prefer the Hypergonar. Curious, Andy. Why so many Bausch & Lombs? You must have bought every single one that popped up on eBay for a year or two.

Andy is right, this one is in pretty bad shape. They do pop up quite a bit though.

I am assuming that you are talking about Ed Lee's videos. You should ask him directly what he used. Typically, Lomo primes are not ideal for pairing with anamorphic adapters because the front barrel will rotate when focusing. At least this has been the case with the lenses that I have owned. You won't be able to have a light-tight connection between the front of the Lomo and the back of the Hypergonar without some crudely taped solution that you have to untape every time you want to change focus. If you really like this look, you ought to look into the Lomo square front anamorphic lenses: [url="http://youtu.be/YNclBJZR9mE?hd=1"]http://youtu.be/YNclBJZR9mE?hd=1[/url]

[quote name='Mirrorkisser' timestamp='1347548017' post='17895'] I read it too at personal-view and tested it: its true. Really weird. It also happened with other settings, not only flowmotion. I wonder what the issue is. Its not much of a deal if you know the workaround, still its another routine to go through... [/quote] It's just another thing to forget. I hope that the GH3 resolves this.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_27471.jpg[/img] After looking around and trying a few different things, I came up with this mounting solution. The rubber holds the anamorphic in place and does not allow it to slip when the lens is being focused. There is plenty of support. Though with some force, the anamorphic can be twisted and re-aligned.

Psst! http://www.ebay.com/itm/180971989708?_trksid=p5197.c0.m619#ht_760wt_1165

Typically, it isn't your lens that needs the diopter's magnification. It's the projector lens. Your camera lens can probably focus as close as 2' or 3', but the projector lens is designed to focus on a movie screen 20' to 50' away. If you put the diopter between the two lenses, the anamorphic does not get any of the benefit. You'd be focusing sharp and close on a blurry image. The slight exception to this that I know of is the LA7200, behind which you can place a very weak +0.25 diopter to help the edges be a little less soft. But you can also accomplish this by using a longer focal length on your taking lens as well.

I have a HiFi-2 and in my opinion it is a lot more cinematic than just about any other anamorphic lens on the market. It's even on par with my Lomo square fronts. I can't comment on the 16mm version because I have never owned one, but the samples I have seen are nowhere near as film-like. I bought my Hypergonar for $120 a while ago but lately I have seen them going for up to $350. You have to decide what it would be worth to you. The only thing I would say is that many of these Hypergonars have old pieces of marking tape on them that make them look like they are in worse shape than they actually are. I've been able to remove the tape and residue very easily with a little carefully applied acetone. Don't let tape deter you. If you do buy one, order a Velbon SPT-1 and a lens collar on eBay as soon as possible. Most of these ship from China and it can take a full month for them to get to you. You will also need one of Redstan's adapters and probably a step ring to attach the Hypergonar to your camera, and I'd also recommend an 82mm-77mm step ring to superglue to the front of the lens (it fits nicely and looks very clean) so that you can attach a 77mm +1 diopter, which I would also highly recommend. It's a bit of a task to get one of these things up and running, but absolutely worth it in my opinion.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1347479136' post='17850'] I have this patch! All I can say is, thank you! haha! I always keep it on 160 to avoid this very thing... (unless i can't.) [/quote] I am glad that this could be of help. ISO 640 is just slightly more noisy than ISO 160 (but only if you select ISO 800 first, then go to ISO 640). It's very usable. There is also a theory out there that higher ISO will cut down on color banding so a little noise on this camera may not be such a bad thing!

It's the eleventh hour for the GH2, but it will still be a few months before I have its replacement in my hands so I am still trying to get the best possible performance out of it. And I'd still like to hang onto it as a B-cam, but not until I work some issues out. I did a full-range ISO test of my GH2 with the Flowmotion 2.02 settings, starting at 12800 and working my way down to 160. I did this after reading a little more about the GH2 ISO bug. Initially, I had read that if you wanted to use ISOs 320, 640 or 1250, you had to switch the camera on and first go to [i]any[/i] higher ISO, and then back to one of these three to minimize noise. Then I did some more reading on Personal-View and apparently what you want to do is go to the next ISO increment up, and then back down to the desired setting (so if you want ISO 320, go to ISO 400, then back to 320; if you want 640, go to 800, then back to 640). This seemed to result in a MUCH cleaner image than my initial tests with the first image. The footage is pretty usable up to ISO 1250, at least with the Flowmotion hack. What really surprised me was this: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_13/gallery_18451_13_3510.jpg[/img] ISO 160 Flowmotion 2.02 Noise enhanced for visibility 500% crop [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_13/gallery_18451_13_74801.jpg[/img] ISO 320 Flowmotion 2.02 Noise enhanced for visibility 500% crop This tells me that working around the ISO bug as I have talked about above, ISO 320 is actually much [i]cleaner[/i] than 160. In fact, it's the cleanest ISO (at least with this hack on my camera). Thoughts?