KahL

According to Bloom's site, Metabones is already making an M43 version.
This EFFECTIVELY makes any excuse not to use the BMCC completely moot. As if that damn camera wasn't resolving enough lines as it is :)

Very pleased w/ the skin tones for whatever picture style was being used. It's not exactly VisionColor, but very good nonetheless.
I wouldn't call it a "professional" codec though. High bitrate, yes. But 8bit 420 is still 8bit 420 and unfortunately this is the deal w/ the HDMI out :-( Not liking that, but the picture looks good thus far :-)

[quote name='bradleyg5' timestamp='1347939531' post='18414']
How do you guys know that it's going to be as sharp as the GH2? if it's using a totally different more conventional sensor it could just be soft OM-D quality with a higher bitrate. Still going to need to see some raw footage. Entirely different sensor leads me to question this will be as sharp as the previous camera.
[/quote]
[url="https://vimeo.com/49558910"]https://vimeo.com/49558910[/url]
Watch the prototype footage.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']
KahL please meet Facts.

The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.[/quote]

So what you're saying is that it isn't limited, but it's decent.
Well, which one is it? Either it's limited or it isn't. You can't claim both simultaneously.
The Red isn't very limited, neither is the Alexa, or the C300 and at certain noise levels, neither are the Canons.
The major flaw with the GH2 are the highlights. It's been shown over and over that they aren't attractive, even with the most log-like profiles available. Does it mean you cannot get a great image? Of course not. However, that wasn't my point.

It's funny and ironic that you use the idea of getting it right in-camera. A mantra that was preached by nearly every Canon shooter.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']
I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.[/quote]

That's nice and good for your preference. But again, that wasn't my point.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.[/quote]

Of course and THIS was where I was touching on. What the DP did, not what the camera did.
Had this lighting scenario been used, it would have lit every end of every camera's sensor. However it wasn't the intention of every DP and if I recall, wasn't the intention of the 14-stop range test either when you think about it (it was stated so at the very beginning of the comparison).

The idea was in measuring each camera's latitude capabilities as well as the DP's method of lighting. However if you light everything for a "sweet spot" range for each camera, it will have a certain look, but simultaneously defeat the "dynamic range" test as well. Which is why many DP's left the darks to be dark and worked along the gray areas toward highlights.

Nearly any camera can look great if you blast light to fill in where the low light range suffers.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera.[/quote]

That wasn't my point.
Nearly every camera display on the web was done in natural light as well.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.[/quote]

This is nice and well, but again, wasn't the point. If anything, the test clearly proved that in order to show the GH2 can hang with the "big boys", it DID need to be over lit with studio megawatts. Completely contradicting your claims yet again. Wasn't this even shown by the twin-DPs on the GH2's end? And also displayed in so many other videos: the GH2 suffers in DR, whether you boost up the ISO or not.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...[/quote]

According to this test, they did use a flat profile. And it still suffered in comparison.
It may be flat for GH2 standards, but it wasn't for broader DR standards. Your points for old lenses is one that can be added for any camera (almost). And post-grain is irrelevant. We're talking about the camera's capabilities in-camera, for a 14stop DR test. Not how much post work and power windows are needed to make it compete.

The end result, due to their over-lit method was a very TV'ish feel. And, I wasn't even the first to note it on this thread.
Is it a bad image? Of course not. But if we're lighting to the tune of a filmic look, it doesn't look right to most eyes. If that's your preference, then fine.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.[/quote]
Whoa whoa WHOA. Wait now, which one is it?
Either we get it right in camera, or we don't? How are we getting more and more into post-work talk with you here? Yet several paragraphs ago you claimed that if you get it right in-camera, post work isn't even necessary.

Seems like some fanboy flip flopping ala the Reduser site more and more here.
Actually, other than resolution, most of your tests appear to be falling FAR into post production fixes for what the GH2 cannot produce (for examp: high ISO blasts that only look good if you turn the image black and white. Seriously?)

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind.

[media]http://vimeo.com/45596420[/media][/quote]

This is a final produced piece of work. NOT in-camera results.
When we're talking about the camera, we're talking about in-camera, on-set results.
Mind you, the comments about the GH2 having a baked in, video'ish look are stemming from on set results as well as the results from this shoot out test (just to clarify).

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.[/quote]

This flip flop, straw grasping can go both ways. For a GH2, F3 or T2i.
You do it ALL THE TIME, at every chance you get to shit on Canon cameras, even though there are plenty of results that show how sharp they can be modified in post, how rich the colors are in-camera, everything you bitch about in favor of the GH2. Only the GH2 isn't the broad favorite in most situations. You just tweak the argument to how you like to suit your bias.

Which is sad because I just referred a non-profit shooter at B&H a few months ago to purchae a GH2 over a 60D in favor of resolution and recording lengths.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!
[/quote]

No, no we are not and this is what brings up the points of your rampant faboyish behavior in favor of Panasonic's camera.

What we're talking about are two DP's who knew how to light strongly toward a camera's faults and could have done so with ANY camera on that roster. What we're showing is that a camera, with a ton of over-lighting to compensate for stunted dynamic range and major post work, can match up toward the other cameras that don't need nearly as much to accomplish the same thing. THAT is what Coppola saw. Not the in-camera results. One of the older cinematographers SAID THIS in the same episode.

Kudos to the awesome twin DP's (even if the lighting style wasn't my taste, personally).

It's sad really.
Several months ago on this very site, I was pro-GH2 over the Canon cameras when resolution was the subject matter. And frankly, I still am. However, the way you make it seem, you mind as well never use a Canon sensor as the GH2 is better in ALL aspects or equally so. Which is obviously bullshit.

Right camera for the right job and even more so, the Director of Photography is what brings the results.
The GH2, Canon, Alexa or any other camera is a smaller footnote.

However with how much more you scream pro GH2, anti Canon, one wouldn't know this.
Your fanboy behavior is astounding, dude. I swear I'm reading a Sega vs Nintendo thread half the time whenever you go on your rampages of skewed "facts".