galenb

Sorry, yes Premiere CS6. Oh and I'm basically just prepping for Vimeo at the moment. I usually just give clients uncompressed work on disk when I'm doing FX work so this whole encoding in order to get small sized files but still have great quality is throwing me for a loop.

Thanks Axel! Anyone else? I'd love this to be a thread about everyone's individual exporting preferences.

[quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1348948899' post='19197']
Sorry, no one produces more lenses then Canon. One of the main reasons they have the loyalty from consumer to professional.
[/quote]

While it's true that Canon has more lenses, the GH2 can use a huge variaty of lenses that the Canon can't. Because the micro 4/3 mount is so close to the sensor, It can be adapted to just about any lens type as long as it's a manual lens. The same goes for just about any mirror-less camera.

In my opinion, the GH2 has superior video quality (with the hack) then any Canon, Sony or Nikon DSLR. The only problem is that there is a perceived superiority of Canon due to it's popularity as a stills camera and to the fact that it was one of the first to shoot high quality HD video. Because of this you're friends might laugh at you when you show up to shoot video with this little mirror-less camera. I've had my GH1 for less then a month and I've already gotten into it with several Canon guys who are practically offended by the notion that my camera might produce higher quality video. I learned pretty quickly not to argue. ;-)

On the other hand, there's safety in numbers. If you buy a Canon, you will have the peace of mind knowing that just about every other pro photographer uses one too and there are tons of options out there for it. And, chances are you won't even notice the difference because you never look at the GH2 footage along side the Canon footage. I know so many people who shoot with Canons and live comfortably with the footage they get from their camera; never even caring that there is a camera that can produce better video. You probably won't even know that the video isn't as good because DSLRs are just that much better looking then video cameras anyway that that's about all you'll see when you look at the footage. "Wow! it looks so much like film!" was all I could say the first time I saw footage that was shot with a 5D mark II. The other strong positive in favor of Canon cameras is the custom firmware addition, Magic Lantern. It's got some really great pro features like focus peaking and auto metering that make it a lot better to shoot video on.

The other thing I was going to say about Canon is that the sensor is pretty much the same on just about all the APS-C Canon cameras. So, a 7D isn't going to get you any better quality video then a t2i/550D. However, there are features that you may want on the higher end models like the swing out screen or better metering etc. One thing that you should keep in mind too is that Magic Lantern only runs on specific models so you may want to buy one that it supports: http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if you video editors out there could lend a hand and let me know what your export setting are in order to achieve the highest quality while still maintaining a relatively small files size. I just exported my first project from Premiere 6 using H.264 and it looked awful. I noticed that it was capped at 6 Mbps so that was obviously the reason. I thought, what the heck I'll just turn off the cap all together and see what happens. Well the file size inflated to 755 MB from 184 MB but the quality was only a little bit better. Obviously I just don't know what I'm doing. ;-) So I figured I'd see what you guys are using. It doesn't have to be H.264, I just didn't know what else to use.

Thanks for any help you can give!

This little bit I find fascinating:

[quote name='hoodlum' timestamp='1348840585' post='19143']Yes, it's not possible to read out the whole array at 60p. So this means we have to do some pixel combining. We combine 2 x 2 pixels on the sensor, so that makes just one quarter the data that we have to read out. This makes it possible to read out at 60p. Then we combine again to get the 2 megapixel video image."[/quote]

So theoretically, this means that they are reducing a 16 MP image down to a 4 MP image (4K) from the sensor at 60 fps and then reducing it again in order to get 2k... So theoretically, if they wanted to make it possible, they could get a 4K stream at 60 fps. Of course, the issue then is how to get a 4k uncompressed stream onto an SD card. Or even 4K uncompressed. Yeah right, you can't. So you have to scale it down again to 2k and then compress it. :-( However, if this theory is correct, it could be possible to pass the 4k stream to the HDMI output before it gets compressed. I mean, they are already saying the 2K image from HDMI is uncompress so way not pass the 4K to the HDMI before it gets scaled and compressed?

Just a thought.

Did you make sure that that specific patch had the ISO limit removed? Sometimes different peoples patches don't include all the features that you might think.

So I only have a GH1 but I'm assuming that this might help out because a lot of the features are there in PTools for both cameras. So for my GH1 in PTools, If you load the patch by clicking on it's letter button below you can then double click the "Patches for end users" entry in the list. This allows you to see all the setting that are contained within that specific patch. You should see an entry for "Move related restrictions". Open that and there should be an entry for "Maximum ISO limit removal". Make sure that's checked.

I don't know about the GH2 but on the GH1, I can check the firmware version and it says version 0.0 if it's been successfully patched. Maybe there's something similar on the GH2?

LOL! I find the use of the words Premium and Zeiss to be redundant. ;-)

The one thing I was thinking is, If you are mainly doing run and gun docu style, which usually means, hand held and mostly wide angle stuff to reduce the shake and constant focus following, would it not be better to shoot with a lens that is nice and sharp and has stabilization? It seems like the kit you are trying to put together would be better suited to cinematic features and shorts. I've always heard that when shooting documentary, you sometimes don't have time to switch lenses so a really high quality zoom lens is better then a bag full of primes. Maybe someone else who shoots docu can weigh in on this since it's only what I've "Heard".

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1348743383' post='19108']
The downscaling (for video) isn't really an issue in the GH2. The whole moire and aliasing happens, probably due to some codec issues, where they try and resolve the chromatic aberration (I'm guessing). That is why, it happens with the Panny lenses
[/quote]

I think I see what you're saying. The Panasonic lenses have more chromatic aberration so they try and fix this by using a filter that sums the colors back together and that's what's causing the moire? I don't think this would happen in the compression stage though. I think if this is indeed what's going on, then it would be happening at the initial sampling stage before getting to the codec.

The more I learn about sensor technology the more I realize an interesting parallel between it and "Ray Tracing".Keep in mind that this is just my observations. For those who don't know, ray tracing is a technique to render 3D model and animation data into 2D images. But basically it works on a very similar principal. Aliasing and Moire show up in ray tracing too when you don't employ a good enough anti-aliasing filter. This isn't just a simple filter that looks for edges and tries to smooth them. Instead, while sampling the scene (or in the case of sensors, the original image) you can fire addition rays around around the initial pixel and then take all those color values of the extra pixels (or sub-pixels) and "sum" them together to produce a pixel that better blends with the surrounding pixels. This makes the image appear much smoothers but also retains all the detail of the original image because you are not throwing them out but rather using it to form your final image. This is also referred to as sub or super sampling. I think this is what you guys call "Binning" in relation to the scaling of the full mega pixel image down to an HD image? In ray tracing, the technique you employ to "Sum" the extra pixels into a single pixel is called an anti-aliasing filter. It has a very strong effect on the final image and there are a whole slew of algorithms out there. Gaussian, triangle, box, Mitchell-Netravali, Catmull-Rom etc. How this relates to image scaling is that when you scale an image, you essentially take a group of pixels and "Sum" them together to make a new pixel. This is basically, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as super/sub pixel sampling in ray tracing although, you don't have to use complex math to calculate the color of the initial pixel, you already have it from the original image. And just like in ray tracing, the algorithm you use to sum the pixels together greatly affect the final image.

It would seem that the so called "Line skipping" that Canon and Sony use, is basically just throwing away the ext a data. Which would make sense given the results I see using these cameras. I would assume It takes a lot of processing power to sum/bin (applying a mathematical algorithm to each group of pixels in real-time) all those pixels so it would make sense to use a simpler and faster technique and just do a post filter to smooth out the results while you are smoothing out the noise anyway. The one thing I find funny is that people call this line skipping when I think it's probably more like pixel skipping where you skip ahead in the line in grab a pixel, skip ahead and grab a pixel and so on.

Anyway, Looking at the results of the GH3 footage and compareing it to GH2 footage, it appears to me that they may have changed their anti-aliasing algorithm. On the GH2, the algorithm seems to favor edge contrast (which increases our perception of detail) and may even do a bit of enhancement. The problem is, I can't really tell what's going on with The GH3's aliasing filter and maybe that's their intent. Maybe Panasonic felt that the GH2's filter may have been to strong and noticeable and tried to tone it down a bit or make it more even handed in it's approach to contrast. This might actually help with dynamic range. This might also explain the seemingly lack-luster quality that we are perceiving in these early tests. Also, if the algorithm is tuned to be less noticeable, it might then let more aliasing through the filter and cause moire in the process.

Again, this is only my observation.

Thanks Andy! Looks awesome.

I love the transparency here. There aren't a lot of businesses that let people know exactly what's been going on like this. But it is good to see this happening more and more.

Recently Luxology who make Modo (a 3D graphics program) and the Foundry who make FX software like Nuke, keylight, furnace etc. merged. When they did, they published tons of details on the merger and did a huge interview and talked about how the merger came about and how it will affect everyone. It's pretty refreshing to see these companies getting out there and talking to people and showing that they are just people themselves who have great successes but also failures too.

Seems just as Panasonic have learned a thing or two about optics from Leica, they too have learned a thing or two about grabbing video off the sensor from Panasonic. :-) Super sampling FTW!

I watched that clip over and over again and I really can't tell the difference between them. Am I missing something?

I would go for the NEX 5n for a few simple reasons:
• Focus peaking.
• APS-C sensor has less image crop.
• More flexible frame rates and up to 60 fps even in 1080p. I don't think there is a PAL mode on the OMD would could be a deal breaker if you're traveling a lot and don't want a lot of flicker from the lights in Europe.
• Smaller size.

here's a review of the OMD from this very website: http://www.eoshd.com/content/8565/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review

Awesome. Thanks so much for your reply. I think I'm just going to wait and keep my eyes open for something more flexible.

$30!!! Holy crap! Yeah, how could you turn that down indeed. And I thought $119 was cheap.

So I have so questions for you if you don't mind me asking:

1.) Is the end threaded? if no, do you use a Vamp-clamp or something else?

2.) Is this unit small enough to use without a rig? I once saw a Bell and Howell projector lens stuck on the ends of 50mm and the guy was just shooting hand held. Is this at all possible?

3.) When you shoot with it, how do you focus? Is it possible to turn the focus on the Anamorphic to infinite and then just focus with the base lens? Sorry, I'm a total newbie and I don't quite understand how this dual focus stuff works.

4.) what's the closest focus distance? Seems like having to be at least 5 feet away from the subject at all times is kind of excessive. Is it the same for all Anamorphic lenses?

Thanks!

[quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1348320764' post='18899']
From this grab, it seems it is just your monitor that is clipping. Non-calibrated Apple screens are really bad, they are too contrasty, a crush the black by a big margin. Not speaking of being glossy glass.

On my calibrated Nec LCD2490WUXi, the left image is correct. No black crushed and - as there is any - no highlight clipped.

You should really look to calibrate your screen, or get a better one.
[/quote]

I have to agree with this observation too. On my monitors the Right image look washed out and the one on the left looks just right... well maybe a little dark but I think that's due to the overcast sky.

That's to bad. What would you recommend?

I've had my eye on this Schneider-Kreuznach anamorphic projector lens lately:
[url="http://ocdepot.com/blackthorne/ebayimages/05-01-12-P1320536.JPG"][img]http://ocdepot.com/blackthorne/ebayimages/05-01-12-P1320536.JPG[/img][/url]
[url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH-SUPER-CINELUX-ANAMORPHIC-2X-MC-35MM-FILM-PROJECTOR-LENS-HEAD-/330730198921?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d010e5789"]http://www.ebay.com/...=item4d010e5789[/url]

I managed to find a specs PDF here:
[url="http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/kino/cla_anam_2x.pdf"]http://www.schneider...cla_anam_2x.pdf[/url]

The problem is that I don't know enough about anamorphic lenses to know if this lens would even work. It seems nice and compact and kind of cool looking but I realize that's not enough to go on. :-) I noticed that it doesn't have any way to focus it (as far as I can see). I don't know if that prevents it from working or if it just has some kind of fixed distance that gets added to the initial lens focal distance or...??

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Hahaha! Yeah, that's exactly what I would want an Anamorphic lens to do! It looks gorgeous!

[quote name='septemberdawn' timestamp='1348276751' post='18858']
WOW!

Magic indeed.

Whats happenning with the BMC footage @ 08:21 to 08:33
[/quote]

You mean the shimmer effect? That's actually an optical effect cause by looking through heat rising from the ground. It doesn't show up in the 5D footage because the lens doesn't get close enough.

I mean this in the most respectful way but, I find it funny when people think they see moire or aliasing effects in the BMCC footage only to find that it's an actual optical effect that you would see with your naked eye. :-) The mesh back chair in the "Pool shark" footage comes to mind. I have a feeling that if you see something weird going on in BMCC footage, chances are, it's either an optical effect or was introduced in post ([i]like what happened to John one time when the colorist converted the DNG files to... DNX I think it was? There was a weird aliasing introduced[/i]). Even the rainbow flare issue mentioned above, I think this was a lens issue. I mean, that's what the rainbow effect actually is anyway. Lens reflections. They're caused by light reflecting back and fourth between the deferent elements of the lens. The fact that they are all different colors is due to the natural effect of light bending through the glass at deferent angles for different colors. You can see this affect with a simple prism. It's commonly called Light diffraction. I know all about this kind of stuff because we are always trying to simulate this in 3D computer graphics. However, I have noticed this happening in some cases where it shouldn't. Like the moire in the resolution chart used to compare the BMCC to the C300... so... I may be wrong about that and it might have something to do with sensor alignment or beyering or something weird that I don't properly understand.

At any rate, the camera is going to be a hassle in some situations. There's just little things like not having any kind of file management in device so you always have to have a laptop nearby. But to me, the footage you get from it, far out ways those issues. I think that will stand the test of time eventually.

Did anyone else notice the pulsating shirt of the guy in the background of the very last shot? Very strange looking. I hesitate calling it moire... I've never actually seen anything like that before. There's another shot I noticed something similar going on in the shadows that looks similar. I wonder if this is the result of All-i? Like, maybe since the compression happens on an individual frame bases, you can actually get wildly different results on each frame if your codec is not tuned properly?

[edit: yes, I see others noticed this too.]

The more I see these comparison videos the more convinced I become that the BMCC is the one for me. I think I've realized that I really don't care as much about detail and moire as I do about Latitude. To my eyes, it's the main thing that separates film from video. I'm not saying that detail doesn't matter or that the C300 is crap or anything like that. With those chart comparisons it's easy to see the strengths of the C300 compared to the BMCC. It's just that for me, the BMCC is what I'd rather be shooting on. And yes, when all is considered the BMCC is actually going to cost you more then $3,000 to start shooting. External battery, a few large SSDs and follow focus rig could add about $1500 to $2000 to the price of entry. But that's still way less then C300 or even a C100. For low budget indy filmmaker, I still believe this is the right camera for me. Until then, I'm happily shooting away with my GH1. My dream is to be able to shoot a shot (lit only by the sun) of someone looking looking out a window in the daytime and actually be able to see what they are looking at. ;-)

Oh, no I was wrong. For some reason, my twitter was listing the time of his last update as being from yesterday but it was today.

I wonder what happened to Andrew? No Twitter updates since yesterday...