galenb

Kingswell First this is really nothing to do with Andrew and second although you and myself too wouldnt like it CVP can do what they like with their own stock. If they decide to earmark certain priorities like Andrew whose blog will reach thousands of potential customers then that is a business decision for them and maybe even Black Magic who may or may not have asked them to deliver a camera to Andrew or popular bloggers as a priority. Business wants to make money as much as it can. We want great cheap cameras. I would be upset if it was potentially queue jumping but its like the theatre manager coming out and taking someone from the queue and so not queue jumping at all.

We will never know the truth if we cant accept what Andrew and CVP have said therefore sour grapes are futile in my opinion.

If I had the choice to shoot in 4K I would every single time. How can you argue against having a better image to start with and for future proofing. What I really like about 4K is how you can crop the frame and resize. The problem with 4K is only the big boys can afford the equipment that goes with it.
Shooting on 2K or 2.8 arri raw gets you the kind of quality skyfall and the last three star wars films offers. SO is that good enough for me??

Jim is not talking B/S in fact he has shaken the market up that has allowed everything to move forward. Without RED we would still be getting the next generation of 2/3 chip cameras. 4K is better but its certainly not a consumer format until equipment and software prices drop and hard drives get bigger and cheaper. However 2K or 2.8K is certainly still a pro fromat that happens now to be doable for most of us. He also predicted digital would surpass film. He is a visionery in this field. But logically 4K is not viable for most of us yet.

4K will undoubtably be the future but in this race for resolution has a cut off point if we want actors to still look wonderful Its alright seeing someone on stage but to see a close up of someone on a 40' screen with every pore every line every blackhead every hair hyper defined like a microscope against an out of focus background wont look real anymore it will look ugly.

Until my computer has a 4K screen and I can edit almost real time without using proxies and colour correct in 4k it just isnt going to work for me unless I want to spend endless hours forcing it.

I need to be more than a technician I need to be creative and for me thats not what 4K delivers yet.

This is a little trick I figured out recently to automatically convert my AVCHD files to ProRes just by dropping them into a folder. It's works by using Folder Actions in OSX to launch an ridiculously simple Automator script. Now, since I think Mountain Lion is the first version of OSX to include the ability to natively play AVCHD files, this my not work on older versions of OSX. Please let me know below if this works in older version.

Here's the step by step instructions:

[b][i]I've updated this to reflect the "Actual" way to do this instead of the old one that was botched due to faulty memory. My apologies to those who muddled through the original with no results.[/i][/b]

1.) we need to create a folder for us to use as the drop convert folder. It doesn't matter where the folder is as long as it's easy to get to. One option is to put it just about anywhere and then drag a link into the "Favorites" list in a finder window. That way it will always be easily accessible from the finder. Another option is just to leave it on the Desktop. whatever you choose create a folder now. I called mine, "Convert" but you can call it whatever you want.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20711/5094e679513d2_Automator.jpg[/img]

2.) Now Launch the "Automator" App located in your Applications folder. Once it opens you be presented with a screen asking you to "Choose a type for your document". Choose "[b][i]Folder Action[/i][/b]".

3.) at the top of the workflow window, you'll see a drop down menu that says, "[i]Choose folder[/i]". Click on it and pick "Other" and then locate the folder folder you just created. Now anything we do will be applied to that folder.

4.) in the left hand column you see a Library of main tasks that can be automated. Click on the "Files & Folders" entry and then just to the right you'll see a list of actions. Drag and drop "Get Selected Finder Items" into the workflow window. A bar at the top will appear with the same name just under the folder chooser.

5.) Now click on "Movies" in the main Library list and you'll see the window change to show you some more actions related to movies. Drag and drop the "Encode Media" action into the workflow window just below the "Get Selected Finder Items" action. You'll see that one automatically flows into the next so you can easily see how other things can be automated pretty easily here too. You can even make this script more and more complex if you need; moving items to specific folders and coping or backing up footage files. We're just going to keep this simple though.

6.) In the Encode Media action change the "Setting" Property to "Apple ProRes". This Automatically changes to ProRes 422 with uncompressed audio which is fine for most of our needs. If you need ProRes HQ or 4444 or something else, then this workflow probably isn't for you.


[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20711/5094e4f8596f5_workflow.jpg[/img]

7.) Now, save this as "Convert2ProRes" or whatever you find appropriate. Since this is a Folder Action, it doesn't ask you were to save it.

That's all there is to it. Now, you can just navigate to your "STREAM" folder on your card and drag and drop the .MTS files on the "Convert" folder and away it goes. Pretty soon you hear your fan running and you see this little icon up in the menu bar.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20711/5094e661ec27a_workflow_Icon.jpg[/img]

As soon as it's done, the icon will disappear and you'll see all your files have been converted to Apple ProRes quicktime movies.

Yay!

So if my calculations are correct, in 6 months a camera will come out with the headline "R.I.P. F5" or "The F5 Killer."

Solid announcement from Sony. But I don't think either are revolutionary. I think they are where people would expect them to be, given the current state of the technology. I feel that Sony are a year or two behind Red on the signal processing side (don't forget the Epic has been around two years now with similar specs). Canon, despite having a good sensor in the C100/300/500, look to be 5 years behind in terms of the electronics and codecs behind the sensor.

To tell you the truth, I don't see how this could be a "Game changer." if it did all that's it's claimed to do and sold for $3000 (hell, even %5000-$10,000) then yes, that would be a game changer. Will it be better then a Scarlet or C300? I'm sure it will but at $20,000 it had better be. And really, I think this just underscores the great challenge that the BMCC has cast out there into the industry. In my mind, a game changer would be one that offers high-end features at a lower price point, bringing pro features to people who would not normally be able to afford them. If you're going to call it a game changer and charge $20,000 for it, it had better have features that blow away the competition. To me, the only "Game changer" I've seen is the BMCC. Even with all it's flaws, lens mount, sensor size, internal battery, etc., it's still so much more compelling to me then any other camera out there right now because it does what no other camera can do at $3000 by a long shot.

Perhaps we need a "Beginners" forum?

Perhaps we need a "Beginners" forum?

Take out your memory card and pop it into your card reader. If you are using OSX Mountain Lion then you should be able to look at GH2 videos from the finder. Double click on the "PRIVATE" folder and it should pop QuicktimeX and then an "Open file" window where you should see all your videos storied on the card (those that are stored in .mov format (MJPG) are in with the photos.

If you are using an older version of OSX, then you will see a folder called "PRIVAT". go into that folder by right clicking on it and choosing,"Show package contents". then do the same for the folder called "AVCHD" and then into "BDMV" and you should see a folder called "Stream". Inside are all the videos with a .MTS extension.

If there is nothing in there, then they really are gone. I'm not sure how this happened since I don't know what process you used to get the movies onto your computer. If you are using Log and capture, you should be able to navigate to the card while it's plugged into your computer and grab the files that way.

The results are up at:

http://www.mytherapy.tv/lab/

For some reason I can't access the video on Vimeo. Only through their website.

If I may critique the video a bit: I found it very disappointing. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but really, this was basically the equivalent of just telling us, "In our tests we found this to be true."I wasn't really interested in knowing what camera they choose, I just wanted to see them compared. I thought the whole point was to show us how each camera performed? All we saw was the winning camera's footage for each test. Honestly, I don't really care which one you thought the winner was, I wanted to see how each camera performed so I could decide on my own. Ironically, during the video he even says that we should stop worrying about all the specs of each camera and just choose the one that looks good to us. Well, how are we supposed to know if you don't even show us the footage?

Make no promises to the band. Just tell them that you are just interested in testing out your new camera. Set up your safety shot with your other camera and then shoot the show lots of different ways with your GH2. Steadicam, tripod, handheld. Different lenses, different camera settings. Go crazy. Do this and you will learn a lot more than you can on any forum.

Good luck.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270']
Are you serious? The C100 looks to be a fantastic camera for anyone who is actually doing real camera work and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance.
[/quote]

You don't NEED more than a T2i really to do anything of substance. Hell, you don't even need that. The point is that spec/price ratio is completely out of balance. Drawing logic from other cameras price/performance ratio (BMCC, GoPro, GH3) a C100 even WITH 60fps in 1080p is only worth about $1500... IF THAT.

It's not that a C100 can't be used for anything... it's a question of why?
Why shoot to an external recorder when the technology exists for internal RAW recording at $3000?
Why shoot to a GARBAGE 24mb/s AVCHD codec... when there are hybrids like the GH3 that are capable of 80mb/s Intra-frame recording for 1/5 the cost?
Why is there no 60fps in even 720p when $400 toys like the GP3 can do 120fps?
And then, if you can afford the $6000 investment, why not just spend a teeny-bit more and go for the FS700 and get yourself a mind-boggling more flexible camera in terms of frame-rates and res-output?

You have to be a blind, non-critical thinker, who's terrible with money/investments, to even entertain the idea of a C100 purchase for more than 3 seconds. It's only appeal, is to the older "professional" elite crowd, that still thinks "bigger cameras" make them seem more professional... and the extreme-newbies who came into cinematography in the last year and think everything must be shot on canon cameras. It's a joke.

For under $5k I can get a BMCC and a GH3 that will allow me to record high-quality 2.5k 13-stop footage, to EITHER RAW or ProRes, up to 30fps... AND an amazing B/Utility-cam, that get's me great quality 60fps footage and allows for a lighter/quicker setup for certain jobs.

For $6k in canon's "pro" world, I get ONE camera that maxes out at 30fps, has lower than cell-phone quality AVCHD at a measly 24mb/s rate... and... well, that about it.

It's a no brainier to any sane individual. The only reason I'm being so aggressive about it, is because supporting terribly spec'ed cameras from canon just creates slower, more stagnation, in the industry. We need to be moving forward, not applauding them for a camera that should have been available 8 year ago. People need to stop this elitist-ego driven "well if you do REAL work, you can afford it" attitude. It's getting real old, and it's an emotional-ego driven argument, not a logical one.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270']
...and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance.
[/quote]

Well, you know what... to me, I DO need these things... and it's up to INDIVIDUALS to decide this. Not industry unions, not "pros", not anyone. I don't just shoot corporate interview and promo pieces. I'd like to PUSH the boundaries of what's artistically possible of myself, as well as my equipment. And when done right, this can lead to MANY more opportunities and higher-paying jobs than those who are shooting "standard" projects because they don't feel like anyone "needs" to make anything better. There is NO QUESTION that the flexibility of higher-frame rates and RAW coloring can potentially push my pieces above and beyond what most people feel the "standard" is.

In the end, I think people are just afraid of the competition, and are desperately trying to standardize these sub-standard tools in order to control competition.

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1350679480' post='20005']
Julian, could you please compose identical frames (by mouthing the 2 cameras together, on the same Tripod, or 2 tripods, placed closeby), also, thereby shooting the Exactly same thing, at the Exact same time.
Thanks in Advance ;)
[/quote]
My idea... :-)
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/med_gallery_20742_16_929748.png[/img]

I have acces to two 14-140mm's, but not this weekend. And since my adapters are missing.. i'm stuck to testing the 12-35mm against a 40mm prime, which is quite a difference. Also, the lack of multi-aspect sensor makes quite a difference.. The GH2 is quite wider.

I was doing some low light tests, the findings were quite interesting...but I think I fucked up the aperture so I have to reshoot it. I'll get back with some screenshots tonight.

Here's an example of the live view image before recording and during record. This was at iso 3200 (or could have been 1600), with the natural profile everything at -5. The difference is very big..

[URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/113-gh3-live-view/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_305372.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/112-gh3-recording/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_1124525.png[/IMG][/URL]

Yep, awesome job. For some reason it looks like the slow-mo is even more slower then regular 50fps to 24fps. Did you do any further timestretching? Also, did you use any additional lighting or was that all natural?

I love that song by the way. :-)

Kind of off topic but oh man, sometimes I just want to scream at those guys who post "video samples" from these cameras. "If you're just going to shoot shaky hand held crap on the street or in your back yard, just STOP RIGHT THERE!" I don't even want to see it! I don't know why but I find it so irritating.

OMG you guys! That's practically the same tripod he picked out earlier? Did you guys even click on the link before you dismissed it? Hahahahaha! Seriously guys!

This is the one Craig picked out:
[url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Professional-Heavy-Duty-FT9901-75mm-Video-Camera-Tripod-with-Fluid-Drag-Pan-Head-/120996664371?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item1c2bf69433"]http://www.ebay.com/...=item1c2bf69433[/url]
And here's the one Rich picked out.
[url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360495479025?nma=true&si=IpW8TCfQYlyzNVkQwYvhnc3GSWY%3D&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2557&orig_cvip=true#ht_3023wt_1141"]http://www.ebay.co.u...#ht_3023wt_1141[/url]
It looks like the exact same tripod!

I'm sorry but you guys make me laugh sometimes. ;-)

Kind of off topic but oh man, sometimes I just want to scream at those guys who post "video samples" from these cameras. "If you're just going to shoot shaky hand held crap on the street or in your back yard, just STOP RIGHT THERE!" I don't even want to see it! I don't know why but I find it so irritating.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350043406' post='19665']
Thanks again.

Could someone assist me with my audio troubles? Im not getting answer on my other thread and I am pretty confused. Why wouldn't panasonic put an audio jack in the gh2? Seems really silly.

What is the way around this? I have an azden shotgun mic and I would like to monitor the audio when I am recording.. Whats the best way?
[/quote]

Wait... are you talking about audio in or audio out? There is a mic in jack on the GH2... At least there is on my GH1. It's not with the other (USB/HDMI) ports though. It's up and to the left, toward the front of the camera under it's own little rubber door. If you flip it open it says, "Mic" on top and "Remote" below. You'll need a little adaptor because it's an odd format 3/4" plug or something. Of course you'll need a mic pre-amp to plug in your shotgun and then you plug the pre-amp into the mic socket on the camera. I've never tried it before but I've heard of people going this before so I'm pretty sure there's no problem. As far as monitoring goes, well, hopefully there's a some sort of a meter or at least a clip LED on the pre-amp you get. ;-)

[EDIT] Okay I see you already know about the audio in port. Sorry, I was a little to quick on the draw there.

They have the same kind of tint the super expensive LED panels do, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a little less :o There's a lot of talk out there about one LED panel being better than another. It's true a [i]certain [/i]extent. Parts are graded in the factory, and the premium diodes with least shift will go to the big paying branded manufacturers. Some use filters built into the diodes, but you can still do it with a gel.

The green/magenta colour shift (not the blue/orange one) is a [i]spike[/i] in frequency output, it's hard to eliminate. The magenta filter provided for this purpose just makes the light rose coloured and sickly, I don't use it.

The lLEDs in the cheap panels have around a +/- 200K temp shift, and when it comes to green/magenta spike, well that's just a "feature" ;) I've never ever had it be a significant problem once it's all gone through post. If you can afford Arri HMI and Kino Flo on every shoot go ahead, otherwise these panels are great! And can run off of (expensive) batteries.

Once you've used HMI and Kino though, it is a bit of a shame going back. But hey, the easiest way to enjoy the basics is never to sample the best, right?

Agreed on the 3-point thing! People are so often obsessed with it but I rarely find it looks nice. It tends to be quite flat and TV soap looking as it's often used.

Hahaha watch Lord Of The Rings and find the shot without the obscenely over-powered blue backlight, or massive HMI blasting through trees! It's pretty funny how far we can suspend disbelief.

I must be board today... are you ready for this? :-)

This is all working from memory because I haven't seen that one in a couple of years other then some scenes I just watched off youtube: Well I noticed that most of his films use a variety of Studio and natural lighting techniques. He has a tendency to mock or go beyond reality in some of this scenes to achieve a sense of almost theatrical disconnection... Al least, that's how I interpret it. :-)

He's all over the place in his lighting theory. Sometimes the shots look very defused (You can get this effect by putting a large defuser of some sort in front of your light (although as axel pointed out, be careful it's made of some kind of non-flamible material, if there is a lighting a grip shop in your town, they will sell it in sheets) or bouncing a light off of white surfaces. Other times he's intentionally making the lighting look fake in order to achieve a subtle yet surreal look. As far as I can tell, some of those shots use an amber gel on a large light coming from the window the the left (or at least in the direction of the window) and then a cooler, softer fill light coming from the opposite side on the right. If you look at the opening scene, where the three kids are sitting with Royal and he's telling them that he's leaving, you can see that the kids are lit as if the sun is right outside the window and yet, the buildings behind them have a soft almost blue light from an overcast sky outside. I get the impression that it's supposed to look fake but that's part of this look.

There's also other shots where the lighting looks like it's just huge defused overhead work lights with smaller "specials" around the room to highlight things in the scene. For that look, place the lights high up and again, use a large defuser in front of them. It's actually pretty simple. Although you might need to fill in the darkness that pools around your subject's feet with yet another soft defused light. Sometimes two set at either side of the set almost perpendicular to the camera. Diffusers will help eliminate the harsh shadows you get without them.

And even more shots too that seem to use only daylight from a window and maybe an opposing fill to equalize the exposure of the room. Again, pretty simple stuff.

Just watch his movies (of better yet, movies from the 70's) and try and figure out where this lighting is coming from. Expect that you are going to be doing the wrong thing at fist but keep at it.

A last bit of advice: 3 point lighting is a nice little trick to get things to look like a hollywood movie but it isn't right for everything and never treat it like it was some kind of rule that you always need to follow. This may seem obvious but I can't tell you how many people I've run into who actually keep that as an unbreakable rule. I've often heard directors or DP's say, "You always need to have some kind of rim light" even when the scene looked fine without it. I would especially avoid it if you are trying to achieve a natural look. 3 point lighting rarely happens in real life. However, that being said, it is a good trick to get your subject to pop out of the scene... if that's your intent. I prefer subtlety.

LOL yeah that was a typo. I definitely meant to write "Diffuser" Sorry about that.

I can't remember exactly so hopefully someone else can chime in here: I think the amber gels are called CTO and can be bought in rolls or large sheets. The come in varying degrees from 'full CTO' which is really Amber/Orange and come in something like 1/2 and 1/4 and so on shades. I think blue gels are the same way too but are called 'CTB'. I don't remember the range that diffuser gets come in but I seem to remember 172 - 250 being the standard range we used to use a lot. You'll see a number associated with them and that's the amount of diffusion they apply.

I would just recommend getting a daylight to tungsten conversion kit. Usually this includes a bunch of amber gels and some diffusers and maybe a sheet of ND. I think they were pretty cheep if I remember right.

Also, please look on youtube for lighting tutorials and especially about using gels. There's tons of free information out there.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1349720689' post='19491']
Yes, I have. These presets are just combinations of parameters every color correction software has built-in. And the 'look' is just applied as an effect, there is nothing genuine to it. When will we finally be freed from the urge to make such awful mock-ups?

You want a sophisticated look? Create it. Save combinations of filters you experimented with to your own, unprejudiced liking. Do it for a reason. Enhance the emotional impact of a scene. If you want it to taste special, never use spice blends!
[/quote]

At first I saw this and thought, "Yeah! Stupid plugin!" In general, I hate those heavy over-graded drop in looks that come from red giant and crumplepop. to me, they just look like every other low budget movie trying to look like a Hollywood block buster. But then upon further inspection I discovered this is not some silly levels and noise adjustment. They have actually painstakingly tried to replicate the look of actual film. If this is what you need then this is a really great way to get that look. It really does seem to add some nice beautiful sweetening to your final image. Also, the grain can be used to help hide banding if your camera has an issue with it and it's distracting. ;-)

I do agree with Axil in principal though. We need to develop our own look instead of trying to cop some look just because it's fashionable right now or it's what people are used to. Video cameras and DSLR's are what we have to tell stories with. There's no reason to be ashamed of that.

I must be board today... are you ready for this? :-)

This is all working from memory because I haven't seen that one in a couple of years other then some scenes I just watched off youtube: Well I noticed that most of his films use a variety of Studio and natural lighting techniques. He has a tendency to mock or go beyond reality in some of this scenes to achieve a sense of almost theatrical disconnection... Al least, that's how I interpret it. :-)

He's all over the place in his lighting theory. Sometimes the shots look very defused (You can get this effect by putting a large defuser of some sort in front of your light (although as axel pointed out, be careful it's made of some kind of non-flamible material, if there is a lighting a grip shop in your town, they will sell it in sheets) or bouncing a light off of white surfaces. Other times he's intentionally making the lighting look fake in order to achieve a subtle yet surreal look. As far as I can tell, some of those shots use an amber gel on a large light coming from the window the the left (or at least in the direction of the window) and then a cooler, softer fill light coming from the opposite side on the right. If you look at the opening scene, where the three kids are sitting with Royal and he's telling them that he's leaving, you can see that the kids are lit as if the sun is right outside the window and yet, the buildings behind them have a soft almost blue light from an overcast sky outside. I get the impression that it's supposed to look fake but that's part of this look.

There's also other shots where the lighting looks like it's just huge defused overhead work lights with smaller "specials" around the room to highlight things in the scene. For that look, place the lights high up and again, use a large defuser in front of them. It's actually pretty simple. Although you might need to fill in the darkness that pools around your subject's feet with yet another soft defused light. Sometimes two set at either side of the set almost perpendicular to the camera. Diffusers will help eliminate the harsh shadows you get without them.

And even more shots too that seem to use only daylight from a window and maybe an opposing fill to equalize the exposure of the room. Again, pretty simple stuff.

Just watch his movies (of better yet, movies from the 70's) and try and figure out where this lighting is coming from. Expect that you are going to be doing the wrong thing at fist but keep at it.

A last bit of advice: 3 point lighting is a nice little trick to get things to look like a hollywood movie but it isn't right for everything and never treat it like it was some kind of rule that you always need to follow. This may seem obvious but I can't tell you how many people I've run into who actually keep that as an unbreakable rule. I've often heard directors or DP's say, "You always need to have some kind of rim light" even when the scene looked fine without it. I would especially avoid it if you are trying to achieve a natural look. 3 point lighting rarely happens in real life. However, that being said, it is a good trick to get your subject to pop out of the scene... if that's your intent. I prefer subtlety.

Axel, I agree about the sound and lens stuff... but don't forget that the GH2 is made in China :-) The rest of the world's businesses are happily exploiting the chinese ability to produce large amounts of very cheap products, and then we complain about how badly made they are... The chinese can make very cheap knockoffs themselves, but if you pay well, you can get really sofisticated products there too... It is very arrogant to assume that the chinese are incapable of producing original, highly sophisticated products... and there are produced a hell of a lot of shitty products in the US and Europe as well!