galenb

Image quality is obviously very important, but the BMCC is not a camera that a DP would use on a big production. You'll definitely see many being used on big productions though, as B and C cams, or for specific scenes where they need a stealth camera, etc. but it doesn't have what it takes to be an A cam on a big production, and I'm not talking about image quality. They need it to be able to plug into the video village, record into external media, and so many other specific things, and the BMCC wan't made for that, it was made for us.
 
On top of it all, no matter how much a vimeo video looks like the BMCC to you, the F55 is a different beast in all aspects, and a much superior one I'm sure, which doesn't mean the BMCC wouldn't still be preferable for some situations or aesthetic choices.
 
It's apples and oranges really.

[quote name='endlos' timestamp='1354194534' post='22628']
And where is the evidence of that? Your not referring to the tired and outdated arguments against Final Cut X are you?
[/quote]

Right in front of your eyes!
DVD Studio Pro has been discontinued. Logic hasn't seen an update in years. Same for Aperture. There hasn't been a proper Mac Pro update in what, 3 years??? The iMac is their fastest machine at the moment!
They're obviously focusing all their efforts on iPads and iPhones and consumer stuff, I don't think you need any further proof of that...

The Alexa has become a favourite in film due to its amazing picture quality, and in broadcasting due to its picture quality AND prores support.
The RED didn't have prores until very recently and on paper it's always been better than the Alexa, but that wasn't enough for many top cinematographers.
I'm afraid these specs are more closely evaluated by people like us than actually top cinematographers, because they just hire one of each and run a bunch of test shoots, and in the end their decision is based on the image quality when they run the tests on a big screen. High fps will hardly be a deciding factor unless the film in question relies heavily on it. I've worked on films where the RED was only used because it's easier to use for stereo shoots, not because of image quality, so that has been a huge advantage for them.
Sony will have to deliver in image quality too if they want to succeed, these cameras are not cheap enough for the spec sheet reading enthusiasts and for the pros it doesn't really matter if they're slightly cheaper than an Alexa or RED. If they deliver though, then it might shake things up even more, and who knows soon we'll even be able to afford one!

Canon's C series cameras are great at what they do, you could almost say they're perfect for a bunch of different tasks, including indie filmmaking (maybe 60fps would make them even more perfect), but looking at what everyone else has on offer at the moment, I don't think I'm being unrealistic when I say that all their C cameras should have their prices dropped to half.

Awesome cheers guys! It was all shot in Snowdonia, very beautiful place.

The CG was created to a relatively open brief (the final two shapes and abstract origami feel were the specific requests) by Thom Haig http://mografik.com/ in Cinema 4D and composited in After Effects. I took it all back for final grade and post in After Effects.

There's Colorista II, Looks, Grain 35 and Filmconcvert in varying amounts.

Nice job! Love the super slow motion. I wish I could identify exactly what it is about slow motion that I love so much. ;-) There's some nice subtle CG stuff in there as well. It was pretty cool. What did you use if you don't mind me asking?

Um, Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? It seems like you are suggesting that by attaching a rotary shutter it will somehow enable global shutter on the camera? As far as I know, the sensor has to be made to support global shutter in the first place. And, even if it did, it would need to be switched on in software before it could even be utilized. So we are also talking about hacking the firmware. And, there is a tradeoff with global shutter too. Loss of dynamic range so I would expect that we would loose the 13 stops of latitude in the process.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1353527556' post='22076']
Alexa like? This video looks way worse than what we have seen previously. Was it supposed to be that flat?
[/quote]

Some of the shots do look kind of flat yes. I have a prediction: Now that we are getting cameras with all this dynamic range shot in flat profiles, I bet we will be seeing a lot more flat looking footage. I think there will be a tendency to avoid crushing and burning so much because people will want to show all that latitude that people will leave it more flat then anything else. In some ways I see this as a good thing. Frankly, I'm totally sick to death of the current "Film" look with the over bearing crushed blacks and desaturated orange and blue cast. I'm sure this more subtle grading will eventually even out though and turn into something interesting. We'll have to see what happens though.

I think it's seem pretty obvious to me now that the BMCC soundly trounces the DSLRs. But, what I want to see now is how it stacks up against the higher end cameras like the C300, Scarlet, Alexa, etc. I keep hearing that it's a baby Alexa but then everyone seems to keeps referring to it as a "B" camera or that it's not meant for Pro filmmakers. I'd like to see someone back those points up with some footage. So far everything I've seen suggests that it's every bit as good as the higher end cameras. Maybe the rolling shutter is a bit worse but other than that, I can't visually see anything that makes the footage look unprofessional. Quite the contrary to my eyes.

And yeah, I totally agree about how good the GH2 look in these test. It's clearly the best DSLR for video out of the bunch. Just under the BMCC (in ProRes) in quality. Such an amazing bargain!

Outstanding time and effort into this Andrew, but I still can't help but be floored by the GH2 in all the shots. The GH3, given it's a pre-model, looks whack next to it and even the BMCC didn't really stand out, your own cinemascope films shot even on the GH1 were far more gorgeous in their presentation, and that always has to be what this shooting game is only about... about how it makes you feel rather than what's under the hood. At the end of the day that is what only matters, what you craft, how you shape and ultimately, how you you see something, being the image maker, not what makes you the image, although to some extent that does matter :)

I agree with the above comments, im not saying you should never use shallower DOF, heck it helps when your on a budget. But there are these weird techniques I see sometimes where even the subjects face is barely in focus... then again these are just my personal tastes, I do also enjoy shallow DOF, but sometimes I dont see the point of it, its ok to let the viewer's eye wonder in my opinion. To me closeups are perfectly fine for this technique because you're suppose to see the subject and focus on him/her only, Whats weird is when its a shot that doesnt need it at all or when used with run and gun, then there are some that are crazy like shooting 1.4 during a chase sequence.

Im not saying you should never use it, heck i know I will, but its good to know when it has an actual effect to the scene, then being saturated with constant shallow DOF, which can be exhausting at times and can lose its effect when you purposely 'do want to' use it.

To me the the main things that are on my mind when Im shooting is composition, lighting, and what is necessarily to the narrative. To me lighting is so important, its something that I always strive to improve on (probably because im terrible at it haha) because thats usually what gives away the illusion to the audience, in my opinion. It sometimes makes a location feel more like a set then it is a location.

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1353514109' post='22070']
Right on. You're having a lot of fun with these different cameras. By the way, check if any moire on some bikinis. My wife will hate me for that one. Cheers. :)
[/quote]

Bikinis in November in Berlin? Erm I will try my best :) We're going to do more studio based tests with proper actors. I'm bored of scenery.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1353184331' post='21865']

So why the obsession of wanting a 12mm or 24mm anamorphic lens - how wide do you really want or need to go?

[/quote]

Same reason some folks are contributing to this topic.

[quote name='Kingswell' timestamp='1353042743' post='21747']
No arguing the concept is brilliant, but 4 months and still no mass production is an absolute disaster of a release. Since the end of July its been week after week of problems.
[/quote]

I love how everyone has been treating this like they haven't been letting us know what's up the whole time. Like Grant hasn't been disregarding expected industry norms by giving us regular reports (and they are ridiculously in-depth!) every time he knows something. Get a grip people. I understand you are angry because you want your camera and you want it now but have a little compassion. This is not some kind of debacle where people are sneaking around trying to keep things secret because they are worried that it might cause a fuss. I for one feel that they have been up-front and caring the whole way through. I don't know any other company that would give a damn enough to keep us all in the loop like they have. Geez guys.

And think for just a second what it must be like on their end. You think it's fun waiting around for a week for some company to send you samples only to find that they are bad... over and over?

[quote name='Inean' timestamp='1352240153' post='21195']
I love it, congratulations on the look achieved. I'm intrigued by lenses you used coupled to AglA7200. I have read Nikon AIS, but which? Thanks, I'm starting with my newly acquired AG and'm crazy with lenses and Close Ups. Assembling QuickHitRecord is the best idea I saw so far. Sorry for my English translator of google.
[/quote]

Thats from google translate?! It did a pretty good job. What's your native language?

[quote name='Kingswell' timestamp='1353042743' post='21747']
No arguing the concept is brilliant, but 4 months and still no mass production is an absolute disaster of a release. Since the end of July its been week after week of problems.
[/quote]

I love how everyone has been treating this like they haven't been letting us know what's up the whole time. Like Grant hasn't been disregarding expected industry norms by giving us regular reports (and they are ridiculously in-depth!) every time he knows something. Get a grip people. I understand you are angry because you want your camera and you want it now but have a little compassion. This is not some kind of debacle where people are sneaking around trying to keep things secret because they are worried that it might cause a fuss. I for one feel that they have been up-front and caring the whole way through. I don't know any other company that would give a damn enough to keep us all in the loop like they have. Geez guys.

And think for just a second what it must be like on their end. You think it's fun waiting around for a week for some company to send you samples only to find that they are bad... over and over?

Hello,

Here is a short i did couple of weeks ago, it's shot on hacked GH2 (Quantum9b hack). Enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/51677068

[quote name='Kingswell' timestamp='1353042743' post='21747']
No arguing the concept is brilliant, but 4 months and still no mass production is an absolute disaster of a release. Since the end of July its been week after week of problems.
[/quote]

I love how everyone has been treating this like they haven't been letting us know what's up the whole time. Like Grant hasn't been disregarding expected industry norms by giving us regular reports (and they are ridiculously in-depth!) every time he knows something. Get a grip people. I understand you are angry because you want your camera and you want it now but have a little compassion. This is not some kind of debacle where people are sneaking around trying to keep things secret because they are worried that it might cause a fuss. I for one feel that they have been up-front and caring the whole way through. I don't know any other company that would give a damn enough to keep us all in the loop like they have. Geez guys.

And think for just a second what it must be like on their end. You think it's fun waiting around for a week for some company to send you samples only to find that they are bad... over and over?

[quote name='kitchentable' timestamp='1353021183' post='21717']
Under the circumstances (basically the myth that there would be a 4-5 month advantage to sticking with the EF mount) , I'd very much like to see Blackmagic offer the option to switch an order to MFT without joining the back of that particular queue.
[/quote]

They seem like reasonable people. You should bring this up with them.

To be honest, I almost pre-ordered when they announced the MFT mount. And I go through this every few weeks now, "Should I order one? No, I should't order one." Aside from it being a finical hardship at the moment, I decided to wait for them to get all the kinks ironed out. I also have a feeling that the "passive" MFT mount is just a phase. I really think they will release an active one. I mean, think of all those Panasonic lenses that are focus by wire. You simply will not be able to use those due to the focus mechanism requiring power. I'd rather wait for that for an active mount if that's in the cards.

First of all: It's not the camera :P, it's you ;)

I think it is the lens. I couldn't find a specification how much it weighs, but it certainly looks heavy. Then the lens needs an adapter mount, and the cheap ones may have enough slackness (if that's the right term, I mean that they are not machined with highest precision). The two items on the plastic body of the GH2 add instability, more so if you focus by hand, because, the Vivitar being a photo lens, the ring is not designed to run smoothly. The most noticeable problem of your shots is the shivering, that even produces rolling shutter jello (as in ~6 - ~11). The shiver is amplified by the focal length, which makes all of them tele. With a lens like this, a rod support is needed and better yet a follow focus (a good one). Also the tripod should be good enough. Note, that zoomed in fully the lens has an aperture of only f5.3, which is pretty slow and explains why your shots are quite dark.

As you see, the lens, though cheap, is not exactly a bargain for this kind of task. The bokeh looks okay sometimes, but it's certainly not remarkable.

I advise you to look for a faster, lighter and wider lens. Some of the finest are discussed in Andrew Reids book for the GH2, but I'm sure you will find recommendations by using the forum search.

Yes, and the background at 20, you couldn't see anything through the compression artifacts of vimeo, so I downloaded your upload mov.
:blink: Congratulations! You found the *banding* that represents the GH2s biggest problem. Use the search again, but let me explain for now that it is most prominent in dark, blurred areas with slight gradients within.

> It can be avoided to some extend by avoiding dark, blurred areas with slight gradients within.
> It can be fixed in post to some extend by rendering fine grain in the highest possible quality ('de-banding', 'dithering'), by the way also a good trick to prevent vimeo from simplifying your video to a broth of macroblocks.

As you see, everything is fine.

Everybody who shoots sharp, clean footage with the GH2 has a good lens.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353027228' post='21726']
This might be just my ignorance but what's wrong with the LA7200? It seems like it would work a lot better then all these goofy projector lenses?
[/quote]

I agree with you regarding the projector lenses. Dual-focus is a no-go for anything but the most patient of experimental filmmaker. It's for people who want the look more than they desire sanity, if they're actually shooting a film with actors and all kinds of people that are usually, already waiting on camera to be ready without such exotic toys in play.

I'm assuming (hoping) the SLR Magic adapter is focus-through as well. Dual-focus is a total deal breaker for me.

The problem with the LA7200 that this test already shows this adapter is an improvement on is sharpness at wider apertures without a diopter, and in the case of the LA7200 an even more rare, more expensive diopter than the venerable Tokina. I'm not sure what it's lower threshold is but with my Century I can't be tack sharp at any focusing distance open wider than F2.8 without a diopter (which affects FOV).

I for one, love DSLRs, but precisely because they do limit you. The consequence of this is that you really have to think about how you want to shoot something & this gives you good experience in planning a shoot. In a way its like stepping back in time, where you have to learn your craft - make mistakes, fix mistakes etc... I personally like to get everything right in camera & never have to say "I'll fix it in post". To me that is just plain lazy & you'll never learn from the mistakes that you should be making if you take that attitude.
RAW seems like a good idea (well its amazing really), but how many people will just use it to avoid learning to film a scene properly?
With film you had to get it right - no excuses. Why should digital be any different.
What makes a film look good is a DP creating a mood, seeing an angle etc... It doesn't really matter what its filmed on/with - if its a good film, its a good film.
If you have a good idea, just shoot it on whatever you've got to hand. It doesn't matter, as no one is going to say "Its filmed on a DSLR, so its shit!"
The highest grossing film of all time (based on how much was spent & the return it saw) is still The Blair Witch Project - made for the price of a used car, lots of ingenuity & some balls!
Of course i want a better cheaper camera - i'd kill for one. The future could & most probably will be bright for low budget filmmakers, but first you need the idea & the know how. In the meantime there's no point getting hung up on codecs, formats, resolution etc...
At the moment i'm as happy as larry & love my shitty 60D, with its moire, aliasing, softish picture & the rest of the crap that it throws in my face just to spite me.

The filmmaker arrives at the set with a large case. He opens it to reveal four or five camera pods that look something like this:

[center][img]http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dacascas/dacascas1207/dacascas120700101/14636114-illustration-of-white-round-web-camera.jpg[/img][/center]

Except there are three "balls" underneath allowing for autonomous, multi-axis movement. He sets these camera pods down on assorted flat surfaces: the kitchen table, the floor, a high stool, and the highest bookshelf. With a handheld device, he activates the pods, which quickly scan the surfaces they are sitting on and instantly create CAD models for reference -- the pods now "know" how far they can move without crashing to the floor.

No lighting is necessary. Sixty stops of dynamic range make it a thing of the past.

The filmmaker uses his handheld device to drag and drop his favorite classic DP, editor and colorist into the app, or perhaps just the titles of a few movies that he saw over the weekend into the interface. The device quickly scans each filmography or film and comes up with an algorithm of common camera settings and movements, framing choices, focusing styles, etc.

As the scene begins, the operator hits a button and the pods will move about on their respective surfaces, executing these shooting styles and transmitting 80K video signals back to the handheld device where an algorithm makes real-time multicam edits and color grades for a 16K final video.

After the shoot/edit/grading session, the operator is now able to scrub back through the video and make any changes to the sub-final timeline before slapping his name on it and then hitting a button and almost instantly having it posted to the web.

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1352983149' post='21677']
I am guessing, that, there are many opportunities, for start-ups, on sites like Kickstarter, to create a camera, that will bring to the consumers, something, that they really want. Rather than force feeding them, on bullshit.
[/quote]
Is that what [i]consumers [/i]really want? We, a bunch of enthusiasts on a very specific video oriented forum, aren't very representative of the market.

It's easier to market a list of new features (like wifi) to the big public than a better codec. A bunch of new features doesn't cannibalize your own products. An amazing video optimized canon dslr is kinda out of the question now with their cinema line.

'We' shouldn't expect much from such companies. The big ones play it safe, aim at the mass market, the big numbers, thats where the money is, not in the niche of us filmmakers. Nikon with their consumer oriented mirrorless system, small sensor so it doesn't cut into their dslr market too much. Canon goes kind of the same way, don't expect a high end mirrorless camera anytime soon from them.

The only big company that doesn't care much about cannibalisation is Sony. And they are smart not to care, because if they don't cannibalize their own stuff, someone else will. But that might be mainly because Sony is relatively new in the dslr/photography market. People who've been with Canon or Nikon for many years are stubborn and not very likely to switch.

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1352984452' post='21683']
Wow. That would have been amazing.
[/quote]
Yes. It would have been.

And all the photographers who don't care about video would have been complaining about the premium price for all this video stuff they don't need. Even if the extra's come in a grip there would have been R&D costs, the processor has to be more powerfull etc...

I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows:

'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside.

Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.'

/Edit: Uploaded new video with correct contrast.

Here you go. Not the best test situation, had to go to iso 800 to shoot at f/2.8.
Included some footage I shot before as well in the end (with 12-35mm X)
Didn't bother to include +5 contrast, probably nobody wants that anyway.

I used a 50mm Minolta MD Rokkor f/1.7 @ f/2.8 which I bought for €5 on eBay. You get some free moire included. Safe to say More is not a 12-35mm X only thing.

Settings:
1080P MOV ALL-I 72Mbit
25 fps
50mm Minolta MD f/1.7 @ f/2.8
ISO 800
1/50 sec

I left out the Custom profile. It just saves one of the other profiles with your contrast/sharpness preferences as a preset. It's not a different profile.

Here some HQ Screengrabs straight from Sony Vegas: