jgharding

[quote name='Stephen de Vere' timestamp='1346232798' post='16775']
I can't find any reference on this site to the hope that the banding issue in GH2 will be resolved with the GH3. For me, unless that get's fixed every other improvement is pointless.

Am I missing something ?
[/quote]

Not at all bud:). Most of us are wondering ourselves. I hate the halos that emit from bright lights. I made a 4th of July vid and every firework looked like a nuclear missle launch. It's (gh2) - definitely got its issues regarding how it handles transitioning shades and such, but we never got the freedom to create our own color profiles either. I love cinestyle for my T2i, but i recently started using Visioncolor, and if you're pixel peeping, it Doesn't do the stairstep from one color to another. I'd assume it's the 8 bit space it has to work with. In After Effects, when I A/B 8 bit and 16 bit workspaces, i can see the banding in 8 bit. 16 bit doesn't do it. (granted, i transcode 5d to RGB 4:4:4 as well. You should try it if u don't already... And use Andrews gamma fix technique in Premiere with the Fast Color Corrector plug. full range input, 16-235 output... Double check that last number though.). Your shadows boost cleaner, and your highlights don't look like a supernova.

Personally man, Depending on how much they want for the GH3, if you're making movies primarily, i'd just save up a little more and grab the BMC instead? I only say that because you're much less likely to hit your head against the ceiling because of a lame colorspace, or a shitty codec, or whatever DSLR inherent issue you'd run into with a still's camera.

I can't believe i'm about to say this, but the Gh3's a "still's" camera first.... (I'm f--king banning myself from this site for that one.lol.). But who the hell takes pictures with a GH2 anyway..? Ha!

No doubt, the GH3 will be killer... But being completely redesigned, weathersealed, with an X series kit lens, (12-35 f2.8)... It's not going to be priced like a Gh2. People will easily drop $2000 for it if it's a killer, and it probably will be. If that's the case though, for a thousand more you can have a 12 bit camera with the option to shoot 220mbps pro res... And that's supposed to be the "lesser" codec! It's still 4 times higher than the GH3's. And i could almost guarantee the Gh3 won't be 4:4:4 12 bit raw.

But wtf do I know. Panasonic could've gotten wasted last weekend and said, "you know what f--kers?!.. Let's just go all out with this bastard. Yeah why not.. 4:4:4, 14 bit, RAW, clean HDMI out, 13 stops, X- series lens, unlimited lens options, $2000... Watch the world sh-t its pants.".

.....Only I would be that cool.

The LX7 records at 120/100 fps but the files are saved at 30/25 fps by default.

I have a LX7 around, will do a test later this week.

Wow, that's a lot of options! FS100 is a complete a solution if you can spend the money.

Low light and shallow dof means perhaps 5Dii with filter and Magic Lantern is a good choice for cheap. Then get a fast 50mm manual old prime for cheap unique look.

I don't have experience with all in this list, but the closest I've used are 5D2, 550D and FS700 (similar to FS100). GH2 costs very little and people have done a lot with it with regard to lenses, which are really important.

5Diii is probably a bit expensive for what it does.

Low Light, ok, that's a good reason. I'm yet to find any decent low light footage shot with the LX7, so it's hard to know. The only clip I've been able to find is this

Pretty badly shot, but doesn't look too bad. Dynamic range would probably be better with the RX100 too. I'm still undecided, but that 120fps option would be nice. If it were just used for a few random shots here and there, could easily be uprezzed to 1080P.

Your "what do I want to use it for, and how" makes perfect sense. Although to be honest, my only real requirement is a camera that can shoot video at 1080 50P minimum, with either manual control or some kind of exposure lock. Anything else would a bonus, so I thought it would be nice to get a few opinions here on what additional features others find most appealing. Which I appreciate, thanks!

In fact, if Nokia announce a Pure View Windows Phone 8 device at the Microsoft conference next week, I might even consider that.

If you're shooting on a corporate gig though, C100 with easy to use compact form factor and little files that look good enough will be perfect. It's just easier than spending money and time building a massive rig to get RAW capture, which makes workflow into a pig and the client probably won't notice anyway.

If I were making a short or a feature or a series I'd be quite tempted to BMD, but for a huge amount of those making a reguolar living out of video this C100 is gonna be a very attractive product. They're just made for different markets.

I still hate 24mnbps AVC though :rolleyes:

Another good point: the [b]XF100 [/b]camcorder is about 2500 quid and has their MPEG2 [b]50mbps 422[/b].

The use of the lower bitrate codec in this seems like obvious product tiering, if indeed the resulting footage is noticeably poorer, which it may or may not be. Hmmm, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. If it's of equal quality to C300 it'll kill the aforementioned for a lot of users.

The Canon MPEG2 is pretty damn good. Not all codec implementations are equal, regardless of MPEG type or bit rate. But yeah, more bits is usually better, so I'm getting pretty sick of 24mbps when the quick SD cards write at 760mbps (96MBps).

Canon have, for all their faults, killed higher-end products before though: the 550D made the 7D redundant for many people, unless they wanted to shoot in the rain with L-lenses, or shoot a lot of still frames per second. So it might be that they're doing the same again, and opening up the market a bit.

As I said elsewhere, I just finished a long shoot on FS700 and I only really like the slow-motion, the form factor was so hard to deal with compared the the C300, all corners and awkward places for buttons. But I AM IN LOVE :wub: (lol) with the slow motion! It's so good! :) Again though, the low bitrate codec is such a shame, cos the slow motion is tied to that codec as it can only be recorded internally.

I wish the whole 24mbps thing would just hurry up and f-ing die! :unsure:

It's just so much bloody money! I love the 550D with Magic Lantern, cheap enough to own and chuck about, great for promo projects that only really have 720p delivery. I love the RX100 as a B-cam: sharp as anything, 50/60p, the same AVCHD rate as this and so well stabilised you can do away with tripod and just screw a handle into it.

But the C100 will hire for about 100 quid a day I think, so though I'm sure I'll hire them occasionally (my favorite hire guy pre-ordered one today) I won't buy it myself.

The BMD looks great as a buy though because my vanity projects are likely to be films, so I'll want quality rather than turnaround speed. It's nice to see things hotting up so much.

Good times indeed. Canon are not getting my money. Blackmagic is.

But what next from Canon? C200: same electronics again, but 35Mbps for $12,000? C50: same electronics again, but plastic body and no clean HDMI out for $5000?

I feel sensor size is an issue. Even if it's twice the BMDs price I'm sure Kineraw S35 is gonna help you capture the deep, movie feel more easily than the heavy crop of the BMD, with equivalent lighting etc. BMD has a lot less physical space gathering light than S35...

I have the RX100 and it's a bit dead but it's useful. Try out a medium format stills camera with no AA filter and you're looking at creepily 3D pictures (if you light it well of course), a huge area gathering light. IT definitely makes a difference. Roll on medium format video! ;)

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1345295517' post='15973']
Yet, at the same time, our creativity would not grow. Picasso painted when he was destitute, John Huston directed when his lungs already collapsed, Beethoven composed when he was deaf and had painfully swollen intestines. Not that I compare myself to any of them, I just say an Alexa doesn't shoot my film.
[/quote]

Tis true! They always say that talent shines through, and hopefully it always will! These are all just tools with which to make some art, conduits for expression, they should really be secondary once they're mastered or at least grasped. They are great fun to learn and discuss, but shouldn't rule our lives or the way we express ourselves. They always say: shoot, right now! With whatever you have. You'll learn than more not shooting but wishing you had something else to shoot with.

This is what I'm trying to say.

NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL.
[url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/502da48f81691_1DXvsC300_Grid.png[/img]


NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL.
[url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url]

I can't believe that nobody wonders about the blockiness of the 1DX video (as more detailed as it may be compared to the 5D3). Nobody brings it up, I've even read people praising how good the 1DX and the C300 cut together. I don't mean to bash Philip Bloom's work. I've been following him for years and I like the images he captured for this video. I'm just talking about the 1DX acquisition: it's terrible for a 6,500 dollar camera! Colors and dynamic range aside, it looks like old HDV! This goes beyond it being equal to a lowered priced camera, I think this kind of quality is unacceptable in those terms.
And I know I'm analyzing compressed footage, but if that blockiness of the 1DX shots was added by the compression, why isn't it present in the C300 footage from the very same video? And I see that pixelated image in all of the other test footage shown here (it's less evident in the ships footage, though).
Just to add to my point I added snapshots from a compressed video I have uploaded in YouTube (conditions for every shot shown here are completely different, but just look at how each camera captures the images). It's not relevant by itself, just a personal test, but here's the link if you want to check it.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GPd3cXxCcI[/media]

Please, am I all alone in this?

It all looks more blurred vertically than horizontally, I agree for $6500 the 1D X is not on my list to buy for video.

what do think of the variety of Super-Takumar lenses?

many of them can be bought through ebay for a very low price, like the 50mm/f1.4 for under $100. i already read a few great reviews on them from photographers, so i wanted to know if any cinematographers had any experience with them.

thanks

Super Takumars are excellent & affordable.

I've got the 20,24,28,35 (both f2 & f3.5), 50, 55, 135 & 300 mm versions, all relatively inexpensive, except for the 20 & 24 which are somewhat collector's items. Careful with the 35 f2 & 50mm, as they have thoriated lens elements (very low level, they're safe to use) which yellow over time. A few days in bright sunlight can clear this out, however.

For more info, check out:
[url="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses.html"]http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses.html[/url]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345192767' post='15871']
Holy radioactive lenses, Batman! :0
[/quote]
The best kind of lenses! I like a bit of danger to go along with my work.

And by "work", I mean expensive hobby.

Haha nice analogy. Well the Alpha mount is not the most adaptable, certainly true. Expensive depends on what is in the box though really, and I think it will be explosive. Not literally I hope!

GH3 and A99 have major possibility of providing far better image quality and all-round usability / featureset than any of the current favourites, be it FS100, Blackmagic Cinema Camera or 5D.

Some on Twitter have been underestimating the significance of product planning too. They say it is just a rumour and proof is in the pudding. But for me the pudding is mostly in the cooking and the 5D Mark III was cooked up for photography not video. The chef in this instance is a videographer.

That news alone is enough to have me very excited for the A99.

Hmmmm the plot thickens. I wasn't [i]that [/i]impressed with this stuff. I mean I know it's natural light with little augmentation so it's never going to look blockbuster, but larger-sensor cameras are able to make even mundane daytime scenes seem otherworldly, I think it may just be the nature of super 35 size and up.

My recent experience with digital medium format confirmed this for me! Looking through the lens is really eerie. Even with one eye it's almost stereoscopic looking. Panning has a beautiful but surreal sense of depth. Then again, since Leica lenses also have this look, perhaps it's more glass choice.

But there is an oddly electronic 'feel' to the image here. The motion itself is filmic (low jello and I-frame compression hand in hand there I reckon), but overall it's kind of... dead. Something tells me it's a combo of heavy sensor crop increasing DOF and reducing the 3D feel, plus the lens choice. It could be Canon L lenses here as the image is pretty warm, and I usually find them kind of sterile.

Incidentally, I don't think this camera should have an EF mount, it should have a removable electronic EF mount with a mirrorless one behind, then people could play with hired, high-end PL glass and the like, to give the camera a fair run against RED and Alexa.

The whole raw/prores/no in-cam NR or sharpness stuff is great, but this clip left me feeling a bit disappointed. Will be nice to see some footage that's really gone through its paces. I mean, in order to make EOS footage look the way I want takes a lot of processing (noise reduction, grades, film grain and more), so I'd love to get hold of some rushes and REALLY go to town on them, then judge the cam again. I suppose on balance, if we'd only ever seen straight rushes from the 5D MKii none of this revolution would ever have started ;)

But still, I've yet to feel excited by a real image from this camera, it's only the spec sheets that have got me going, and that doesn't feel right. Perhaps it'll look nicer with a good super fast wide on the front... I'm still watching closely.

Perhaps it's simpler than the above, and I just don't like the work of the film maker. After all, I've seen phenomenal work and average work and bad work come out of 5Ds.