Chrad

I should add that I am using this for documentary work, as opposed to anything "creative", and value flexibility and speed over certain lovable characteristics of a lens

Perhaps you should look at the M43 f/2.8 zooms, 12-35 and 35-100. 

Very expensive, but probably all you'd ever need, outside of an extreme situation every now and again.

You can clearly see the better DR of the G6 there though. Less contrasty, far superior highlight roll-off and shadow detail.

I'd rather shoot with the G6 for this reason. Same lack of moire and high detail of the GH2, but better colour processing, dynamic range, and noise, and less banding artefacts. 50p, peaking and manual audio level are just bonuses.

Fingers crossed for a firmware update release so work can get started on a hack. Considering the much better starting point than the GH2 provided, imagine what a high bit rate hack like Driftwood's work could result in.

Anyone know the glass that was used?

At least the Voightlanders and Samyang 85mm.

I reccomend you go take a writing class or something like that. I just did recently and the constant deadlines forced me to open up creatively and get things flowing again.

Haha, wow.

I'm interested to see it! It looks kinda "tree of lifey" from the trailer.

 I read an article last year saying that Malick was probably the most influential director on the current generation of American independent filmmakers. Seems more true with each passing month.

I hope this film makes millions, that'd be good for everyone in the long run.

It almost certainly will with the video release. Primer found most of its audience on video, and as others have said the theatrical release for this film is in some ways an advertisement for the video release. Carruth is self-distributing, so he could make a nice profit.

He did a good job, a part for releasing the typical starving artist story which will keep viewers away from the theater.

yet with 300k you are still under water big time. of those 300k very little can go back to cover productions costs.

there are so many hidden costs that are never mentioned and this kind of articles and generally are worth more than the "official" cash used to put the gig together.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.

$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.

Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.

 

Although it looks well filmed and acted, i do not get all the excitement.

300k after 4 weeks in the US means nobody is giving a damn about this film.

there is nothing better than releasing a depressing movie to stay unsuccessful.

sorry guys time to wake up!

Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.

That is true success. 

I really like the look of GH3 footage, but this one looks to be pretty special if it lacks the moire problems of that camera, and also reduces the banding and noise problems of the GH2, as it appears to. This could be the most artefact free HDSLR on the market.

Looking forward to checking this out at the Sydney Film Festival next month.

Shane Carruth's methods are very inspiring. He is a real independant filmmaker, an artist getting by with little and making work entirely on his own terms.

BMPCC would become your primary camera if you bought one, both because the quality will destroy anything you've worked with before, and because it requires a lot more work in post and a lot more storage space.

G6.should most closely match the GH2, since it uses the same sensor. It has improved image processing over the GH2 and some nice new features. It's also the cheapest.

GH3 is a good camera if you want to shoot stills with your GH2 lens collection while having a nice video camera. It's better in low light and high iso. It's also the most expensive of the three camera bodies.

Seems you can't tilt with it.

there is a tendency these days to just live the postcard-syndrome, as Robert Bresson put it. People should think less of their gear and more about their ideas and concepts and what they got to do with themselves. I have seen wonderful things shot on average cameras. The dslr canon super shallow depth of field-thingy is terrible in my opinion. i would not even call it cinematic. result is most amateurs shoot 70% of the shit out of focus, even in interviews.People like Sven Nyqvist would have spanked the shit out of most of the people out there with an iphone. These days i watched agnes vardas glaneur et glaneuses (excuse my poor french) shot in terrible digital camera video look. and what a wonderful and poetic movie it was, rightly awarded many prices.

Well said.

 

On the previous page I brought up Upstream Color. The important thing regarding that film is not whether it looks plastic or camcorder-y, it's that it was taken seriously at Sundance, was well reviewed and received international distribution deals. The director didn't publicise the use of the GH2 and didn't want it overly publicised so as not to distract attention from the qualities of the film. The write-ups I read didn't go out of their way to criticise the cinematography, and in fact several of them praised it. All of this from a film shot with a consumer stills camera. It makes the excuses a lot of people create that they're waiting for the right equipment to match their vision look very weak.

 

I'm not saying that equipment doesn't matter. I think the aesthetic qualities of a work are very important. I don't believe you should force a  video medium onto a filmmaker that is unhappy with it any more than I think you should force an oil painter to use watercolours. But all that said, the effect you can have on an audience with less desirable equipment can't be denied. Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE is another film shot on fuzzy, low res digital video. The 480p image looked soft and blurry on a 35mm blow up, and the dynamic range there is nothing to write home about. But even so, in its way, it's aesthetically gorgeous, and it's a beautiful, haunting work as a whole. Just recently I watched a great Chilean film, No. Shot on VHS! In 4X3 glory! And yet still more engaging and interesting than most films I've watched in cinemas over the past year.

 

As great as it is to have unrestricted freedom, there is also value in working within limitations. A resilient artist can make the most of what is available to them and thrive even with obstacles in their way. Von Trier's The Five Obstructions is a good film on this subject. Had the Taxi Driver themed sequel not fallen apart in the wake of the Cannes Nazi comment controversy, I imagine one of the challenges would be for Scorsese to remake a scene from the film on an iPhone or some similarly limited video device, and I'm sure Scorsese would knock it out of the park.

 

Another note: everyone seems to be longing for a device that looks as much like film as possible. I think Blackmagic has the most conventionally pleasing look of any consumer or prosumer camera on the market. I adore the look. It's closer to the characteristics of film than other consumer cameras, mostly because of the lack of digital artefacts and the very wide dynamic range, but it has its own visual signature. It looks like Blackmagic footage. Only film truly looks like film. 

I think film(video?)makers can free themselves with this philosophy. You are not shooting with film, so it's okay to make something that looks like video. We all aspire to recreate the gorgeous looking films we were brought up on, but there's nothing wrong with loosening up and going for a less 'perfect' look sometimes. In the case of 'No', VHS was the right aesthetic. it's a good fit for a story about television in the 80s, and it does not end up detracting from the warmth and power of the 'film'.

 

1. Can the GH3 be graded or given certain settings/hacks to get that "cinematic" movie quality feel that you get with the Canon DSLR full frame cameras, but with the sharpness?

2. Can the GH3 perform excellent in low light with certain lenses and programs (NeatVideo)

3. Can the 5DMKIII be brought to be as sharp as the GH3?

1. Well, it depends how good you are. You can make the footage much flatter than the GH2, and it's pretty nice to grade. 

2. Better than anything else in the price range, bar the 5D3 or Blackmagic Cinema Camera. It's no FS100 or C300, but it gets the job done.

3. I don't have one, but the answer seems to be 'no'.

 

The whole sharpness craze is a little silly if you ask me.

 

To an extent, but when you see footage out of the original Blackmagic Cinema Camera you understand. It's like IMAX compared to DSLR video. The test Andrew did a few months ago really proves the point.

https://vimeo.com/63131168

I´d say the Mark III´s advantage is Magic Lantern support, the full frame wiith it´s shallow depth of field and the EF mount. I know you can put on anything on the GH3 but who really wants a full frame 24mm lens instead of the voigtländer or the slr magic? So once you buy yourself into mft lenses you can only hope that there will always be some outstanding mft cameras... while EF lenses, well... you can use them on any sensor size, and any brand.

I'm not too worried about this because of the imminent BMD M43 cameras. I think the Pocket Cam and BMD M43 are going to be competitive for many years to come. I'm not too worried about 4K right now, given that nearly all cinema releases are 2K and all TV broadcasts are 720P.

I did read your post, my point was just that some of the GH2 footage that Panasonic uploaded looked quite soft, which points to the fault being on their end. Granted, the GH2 with 12-35 f/2.8 video I posted is a bit sharper than the G6 demo, but barely.  

I shouldn't have been such a smartass about it, sorry about that.

Very encouraging test. Think I'll pick one of these things up.

That is absolutely correct, but just to make it double clear: while YouTube compression can bring a bazzillion types of artifacts it will not render your perfect full HD resolution, carefully encoded video into something this soft:
(or, in other words, it cannot turn GH2 worthy footage into that low resolution video)

Oh really?


I don't think the difference is leaps and bounds.

I totally agree that the Blackmagic cameras are a better choice if you want to purely work with video. I'm looking forward to working with them myself. The question is, are you going to be shooting now, or in six months time?

I'd like to point out that the GH3 has MUCH better low light handling and dynamic range than the GH2. It's more in line with the Canon crop-sensor cameras, even a bit better.

It's also lightyears better as a stills camera than the GH2. There's a much bigger difference in stills quality than video, in fact.

jgharding, on 07 May 2013 - 19:07, said:
In all honesty the look of the movement, especially with people in the frame, is distractingly camcorder-like, to my eyes. It looks very plastic and electronic. Even when it's I-frame hacked it still seems very smeary. It's not so bad with other subjects, but once there's people there it looks cheap. Also the highlights clip harder than an army barber. I still don't find the movement pleasing on the GH3 personally. Some love it though.

I think Upstream Color was intentionally shot with a very over-exposed, white heavy look so that the limited dynamic range of the GH2 wouldn't be so much of a problem.

The one thing it does have going for it if you're shooting for the big screen is A TON of detail. And no moire, of course. The alternatives in the general price range can only give you one or the other.

I don't find the so-called 'smeary' video look to be an issue. It's fine to my eyes, but it's true that everyone's taste is different.
For the record, one of my favourite works of cinematography from the past decade is Miami Vice, king of the smeary video look. A lot of people would think I'm crazy for that, but what can I say, I like what I like.

BMCC is in stock at Adorama...

The point still stands; it's not in stock almost anywhere else and many people are still waiting for cameras they pre-ordered a year ago.

My advice to the OP is to be careful about Blackmagic cameras. Barely anyone has the original camera, announced last April for a release in July (2012). They were struck by a huge production delay. Now, before they've even come close to clearing out the back orders, they've announced two new cameras, again for a July release. Blackmagic's word about release dates is worth next to nothing.

 

The other issue is that when they do ship, the Blackmagic cameras are going to be very expensive to maintain. They RAW and even Prores file sizes have big storage and processor requirements relative to any other camera you may be considering. 

Personally I'm content with the Panasonic's for the time being, and I'll move over to Blackmagic when I can afford to build a new system and storage prices have come down. I don't need the absolute bleeding edge - BMD's stuff will represent great quality that likely won't be matched in the consumer/prosumer area for years to come.

There's always value in being thrifty.

I don't have a 5D but I do have a GH3 and I don't feel the 'lack of cinematic feeling' to be a problem. People said that about the GH2.

Does this look cinematic to you? http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/upstreamcolor/

Shot on a GH2.

 

I feel the GH3 has better colour rendition, dynamic range, and noise structure than the GH2, so it's no less cinematic.

 

One thing you should be aware of is that the GH3 does sometimes exhibit moire artefacts. The 5DMKIII and GH2 don't. It's not as bad as it is on non-5DIII Canons or non D5200 Nikons, or a Sony camera, but it is present.

Well, shit. Was wondering why it wasn't out by now...

Very sad.

On the subject of high-end cinema cameras, I'm curious to see the first film shot on the Aaton Penelope Delta. CCD sensors can have a lot of character, and it's quite a quirky camera in a lot of ways. It wouldn't surprise me if that camera has a filmic look that can compete with the Alexa.

I think this site is really aimed around the (economic) lower end of the indie scene: people who are trying to achieve as much as possible while spending as little as possible.  It's named after Canon's EOS line, not Red or Arri.

I would leave the RX100 at minimum sharpness and do more sharpening on the RX100 shots in post.