Mirrorkisser

Totally agree with Jgharding: these days people do absurd things with grading software. Its absolutely rather about small tweaks, oh well, i got used to orange faces and other weird stuff...

a filter you put in front of your lens. google it. it prevents that too much light gets through to the sensor when you shoot in daylight.

Cheers for your answer! I guess i will have to try both ways and then see which way works best for me. In the end you are most likely right, that the little gain in DR is not worth the extra noise.

 

If i  may ask, which picture profile do you use? I have always been a standard or smooth boy, but i also read that nostalgic has the highest dynamic range (but also more noise than standard or smooth) and will give nostalgic a go, too. Andrew Reid is one of the laudators for nostalgic, too. Some people also use iDynamic for extra DR, but i am not a big fan of those in camera automatic settings, as i fear that they spit into my soup by giving me something  when i dont want it.

 

Thank you again!

Hmm. I read somewhere though that you have the most dynamic range at 160 and 320, from 320 on it really goes down. So maybe its a choice between dynamic range and noise? Maybe its better to choose more noise and just denoise later. You know a lot more than me about this and cameras burnetrhoades, so maybe you can shed some light into this? Cheers!

@Quickhitrecord: Why not 320? I like that quite a lot, too with Moon. In fact thats the iso i shoot with mostly. 160 only in broad day light.

I got the Hague Minicam and bought it on Axels recommendation. Its not bad and i dont know anything at a similar low price. I had my troubles getting it to work with a rode videomic pro on top. But by now i get alright footage for an unbeatable price. To be honest, most of the time i just shoot from my tripod though. And all of those amateur videos (i consider myself a real amateur with a good eye for asthetics and composition) with all those dollyshots, steadycam shots, weird and unnecassary vertical or diagonal pans, hardcore super duper shallow dept of field and fast zooms, make my eyes really hurt. So much overkill. So i would only use steadycam shots if they fit into the whole picture system. And dolly shots if you include them: please at least 10% as masterful as Tarkovsky (or his outstanding DOP Rerberg). Otherwise they look ridiculous.

 

@Axel do you use it with OIS lenses? I used it mostly with the panasonic 14mm 2.5 pancake. In the commercials they use it with the kit lens (14-140mms) though which has OIS. So maybe thats why their footage looks so much better? I would like to use it with some old legacy glass, but my lowest focal length is 20mms there, besides they might be too heavy with the adapter. But maybe 20mm ist still be do-able.

Hmm maybe i have to try that aswell. I always had very good results at 320, at least i thought so. Maybe its hack related aswell?

would be helpful if you told us, which camera you use :)

@andrew reid

 

Is there a new firmware planned for the olympus? something that introduces 24 or 25p and a higher bitrate?

I got myself a cheap steadycam on ebay. It takes a lot of training, but its possible to get at least decent footage with legacy lenses. its called "the hague". Combined with the kitlens you get rocksteady footage walking around. To be honest though, 95% of the time i shoot from a tripod. If you want to use the footage professionaly, i recommend a better steady cam or a good shoulder rig, which costs 10 times as much though at least.

 

For documentary work i do not even mind camera shaking while walking, while at fictional shooting noticing the camera is always a big minus.

thanks for the answer Julian. So i can just use Nikon glass?

Is there a possibility to get Canon FD and m4/3 glass on it with an adapter?

So what would be my benefit, shooting 1/40th? A stop more light? You feel motion to be more cinematic?

 

I live in europe, here all lightning is 50hz. So when i shoot with a different shutter every streetlight looks like a machine that is about to beam that during sex farting girlfriend right into my living room, with my grandparents (they are dead) on the couch, 

 

I would not mind flickering tv or pc screens, as that is nothing i really film. But every outdoor lowlight shot would be a real pain in the ass. During daylight, it might make sense and i will try it, not sure how it intercuts with 1/50th footage though.

 

I must admit, that i 99% shot 1/50th, i tried other shutter speeds sometimes, but after those flickering lights i stopped, maybe i have to try again.

 

And damn driving on the wrong side, ffs i would piss my pants if i had to do that.Almost got run over by cars several times on my last trip to london.

Well its not an option if you are shooting in PAL territory, then you will probably get issues with flickering street lights or computer and tv screens if that is in your footage.

 

If you just shoot outside in natural light conditions, its an option. Curious to see footage, i have never questioned the 180 degree rule, but maybe thats what should be done...

What a nice and romantic project, doubt this will ever go anywhere. By the time they are ready to produce in masses (if they ever will be), consumer camcorders will be on the level of a sony f55.

 

Kudos though for trying.

@gravitatemediagroup: where have you read that mft lenses dont mount properly on the mft-mount of the bmcc? I have been keeping an eye on that version aswell, hoping i can put my old primes on it. Cheers!

what kind of adapters do you need for the pentax, fujian or wesley? cheers

@quickhitrecord: that is absolutely true: if you can't tell a story on a gh2, you cant tell it on any alexa. If you are an amazing story teller, you can get an audience with an iphone cam. Its not pixels, but emotions and true expression that gets people to involve with a movie.

 

Still i think Andrews point is valid aswell. I will stick with the GH2 for the time being. 90% of the people do not even have fully utilised the gh2, before they long for the next bigger thing. 

 

Of course if you have a highly developed skill set, then a technical sophisticated camera will help you to get more out of your visions.

Thanks for taking a closer look at Canons fingers. I would not say that other companies on all fields and in all areas do the same, but once i find out, i stop buying products by those companies.

 

Of course there is a mass who does not give a donkeys about a companies ethics etc, but i think more and more people get aware of such politics, thats why we need investigative journalism. 

 

I am through with Canon for now...

I use the canon fd 20mm f2.8 and the less organic looking, but very cheap and still nice panny 14mm f2.5.

 

You get both of them for half the price of the slr, If it way my choice i would rather safe more than the money for the slr and get the voigtländer 17.5.

wow thats how nick driftwood looks! 

I would also like to see a detailed gh2 vs gh3 comparison. As far as i can judge by now its rather different than a real improvement (ok, the new exterior of the camera is better).

jimjeff, are you craig buckley? might just be some coincidende that craig buckley stopped posting the same day "you" did. also the posting pattern is the same. would be a semi-smart idea to ask your hundreds of questions with 2 accounts....

maybe i just watch too much hitchcock ^^

the hair on the left seems to have more of a yellow tint. Also i would say the DR looks a tiny little bit better on the right picture, but thats perhaps just a gut feel or fata morgana.

But then it probably also depends on the setting (hack) you loaded. But it does not look as if an upgrade was really justified...

As a primary i would rather get something like the canon fd 35mm. Or 20mm canon fd.