haarec

I agree. Off topic posts should be deleted or moved out from here.

thedest, now I am sure that this is something with you screen or maybe even further. What I did looks pretty naturally on a (of course) calibrated screen. You are right that first example of BMC footage was washed out, but the second example has too much red and the third (sorry) looks just horrible. Do something with this :)

thedest, how about this? How does it look on your screen?

In few words - dynamic range. What differs video-ish and film-like footage is dynamic range. You should have lets say 15 stops. Sometimes heavy grain or low image definition are misreported as a film-like feature. Here it is an example - no grain, no 720p but the image from both cameras definitely looks like a film:

Yes, this is a good reason, albeit the motion from video-like Inter-frame-prediction is little different then from all-I cedec so it would be nice if GH4 has the all-I option for 4K or UHD. Of course then we would need at least 400Mbps for this (and a bunch of 64GB memory cards too).

One more boo - no all-intra frame mode for 4K. Only IPB. Boo. And more - 100Mbps for 1920x1080 IPB and for 4K nothing more. Boooo! :)

Great comparison. It's a pain that we are actually trapped in a 8 bit situation.

I am a bit sceptical about Sony at all because of the quality and completeness of functions of what they were producing, but the video image of RX10 looks really great. I hope they are going to add h265 support and unlock 4K for this camera.

Good! Could you please attach other 1:1 resolution crops as you did 5D Mark III raw crop? How about GH2 settings?

The codec is the source of many problems but the difference between 12 and 9 stops of dynamic range is so big, that we should see this difference between stills and video with the naked eye. On the other hand the fact is that there is a significant difference between shots from Blackmagic camera and any DSLR so if BM states their cameras have 13 Evs it is not possible GH3 has 12 Evs. Anyways it would be good to have a method to measure this properly.

It is a little confusion about a dynamic range of GH3 and GH2 too. DxOMark states 12,4 Evs for GH3 and 11,3 Evs for GH2. Both at their lowest ISO. Someone quoted above claims only 9 stops for GH3. Maybe units of measurement or the ISO were different. They measured probably in the standard profile. Here is the link to DxOMark comparison site: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors. Chose a brand from a drop-down menu, select model and click "Compare up to 3 items" button. Then "Measurements" and finally "Dynamic Range". Here is a result. The higher ISO the lower dynamic range.

GH3 is a nice camera for stills and video but it is too late for it. A year too late. Now apparently is the time for Blackmagic cameras when it comes to make films. Price and picture quality. GH2 it has one step less of Dynamic Range (11,3 Evs) compared to GH3 (12,4 Evs) according to DxOMark, that's true, but newest hack settings like Cluster X DREWnet GOP12, Spizz GOP3 or Slipstreem All-I GOP1 from Driftwood makes GH2 a new camera. If GH3 has a focus peaking and zebra or at least if it has a 2560 px resolution it would be a killer machine. This is not to much to expect nowadays, is it :-)

Shots with the adapter looks also sharper with Canon 5DIII but chromatic aberration seems to be a problem.

The idea is fantastic! I wonder if it is possible to make x1.33 anamorphic adapter this way too. SLR Magic, how are you?

Let people leave Canon cameras alone!   In the shop ;-)

  The built-in EVF.

This may be a heat issue. When Panasonic was designing a GH3 they had a problem with a heat made by high bitrate processing. They had to redesign a camera body to obtain better heat dispersion. Even a cable attached has an influence on a temperature inside of a camera body. You cannot destroy a processor by using it during extremely hot day since the are soldered to PCB in temperature of 250 Celsius degree (480F) but it will not work properly and cause errors. My advice - use standard 1.1 firmware for your GH2 in such conditions. If you make rather static interview it shouldn't be any difference. Also try some new settings - Canis Majoris or DREWnet or GH3onGH2 matrix before starting a new clip.

Today there is still no better option then hacked GH2 with Vanilla or Canis Majoris settings. Price for the camera and image quality. Nothing else matters. Look at [url="http://vimeo.com/32520456"]this[/url] and [url="http://vimeo.com/42365628"]this[/url] for example.

Here is a bunch of clips showing different FilmConvert settings: [url="http://vimeo.com/romanlegionfilms/videos/page:1/sort:date"]vimeo.com/romanlegionfilms/videos[/url] as well as Sanity 5, Orion v4, FlowMotion 2.02, Quantum 9 settings and GH2 vs. D1x comparison.

  [url="http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/4805315/Resolve_Mac_Config_Guide_2012-08-30.pdf"]Resolve_Mac_Config_Guide_2012-08-30.pdf[/url] (12.2 MB)

Interesting comparison C100 and GH2: [url="http://vimeo.com/54408650"]vimeo.com/54408650[/url]. Seems to be a bit biased. However the C100 image is very sharp and nice. Would be good to have GH3 with this level of sharpness.

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1354134564' post='22566'] For those interested: [url="https://vimeo.com/54325017"]https://vimeo.com/54325017[/url] [/quote] No differences since the 'original' video here has only 17 mbps 4-2-0 and 8 bits.

Yes, a proper balance. Mine - don't forget about resolution while thinking of content. When it comes to resolution that describe camera quality, 4K should have a 4 times more resolution not just 4 times pixel count. This is clear while watching an example of Canon 1 Dc footage - a 4K version looks like upscaled 2K footage. I would really like to have 4K equipment not just for having it, but for more details in a movie.

[quote name='enatsu' timestamp='1354019325' post='22426'] My 4K test movie shot by F55 is now set to private until 29th of this month. You will enjoy it after that. Thank you. Yosh Enatsu [/quote] Could you upload your movie to Vimeo instead of YouTube? We can see it in much higher quality specially when you allow us to download the footage.

This '4K' version looks like an upscaled dvix flick. Is it right link?