Dr. John R. Brinkley

Working with an  older Mac Pro got me thinking.    I found one for sale with these specs:   Mac Pro 3.1 8 core Harpertown processor 16gb RAM (667 mhz) Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 500 gb hard drive Possibly with Adobe CS 5.5 An average 19" monitor   He wants $1050 USD   Does this seem like a good deal? Any issues/concerns for upgrading this computer?

I pre ordered at B&H on December 16 and am still waiting. Which sucks, but it gives me time to figure out what computer to buy, I guess...

Amazing development. Though film may be almost dead, good to see that NASA isn't.

Andrew's post about the Hackintosh for editing RAW files got me thinking about how to approach an editing system for the GH3 I'll be using (once it finally ships to the US).     I'm curious how much power and storage I would when shooting with a GH3. (Keep in mind I'm not thinking of a PC system, but open to the idea if someone feels they have great results).   Would a Mac Mini with quad core and 8gb RAM suffice? And has anyone done any DIY upgrades to a Mac Mini that works well?   I've been leaning towards a new Imac but can't stand the lack of adaptability and higher cost, which is why I was wondering if I could get away with a Mac Mini and getting my own monitor at a cheaper price. Tweeking a Mac Mini may be an exercise in stupidity I realize, but you can at least get into the guts and people seem to do various unauthorized upgrades, like putitng in an extra hard drive and such. But will this be worth it considering the cost?   I assume a laptop would not be enough power but maybe not?   Curious what others thought based on what you know about the GH3 and the file sizes and demands that will be required...     Cheers,   Dr. John    

One thing I neglected to ask about in the first post was: sliders. They seem quite useful but can get quite pricey. Curious which ones people used, if at all.

Supernova: I'm a hobbyist. I agree about not breaking the bank on a tripod...portability is my first goal. I like the monopod idea. And lenses are my first priority. I don't plan on being a colorist but I can get OCD, in a good way I hope, when in post production. A few plugins is probably what I need: something to make the digital aspects feel less digital. If there are any favorite film type plugins that would be a good start.   I've been out of the loop for ten years. I cut a few times on a Steenbeck back in the day and then went to Avid and then to the early FCP. But like I said I'm starting from scratch with editing at this point. It looks like I could do well with Premiere or FCP at this point.    andy lee: thanks again, as always.   Axel: thanks for indepth comparison, much appreciated.

Does anyone have thoughts on Apple Color?

Thanks for the feedback.   I also need to buy a computer, but I thought I'd spare everyone the PC vs. Apple debate. Ha. For the record I'll probably be buying a new Imac, mainly because I can get a 20% discount via a friend who works for them.

I'm about to get a GH3. Other than a few old SMC Pentax lenses I plan to use via an adapter, I'm really starting from scratch. Hence, I'll need to buy several different things to get started and would like people's informed input if possible. Of course opinions will vary, but I'm curious to hear some thoughts if anyone would like to share.  :)   A few different things I'll need to purchase:   1) Editing software: Final Cut Pro vs. Adobe Premiere?   2) Color correction software: ?   3) Tripod set up: ideally something that balances compactability with a decent amount of quality   4) ND filter   Thanks, compadres. Like I said I'm starting from scratch. Lots of decisions to be made to get up to speed. Any input is much appreciated.  :)

Gracias compadres for the great suggestions.   As I'm starting from scratch (or starting over - I haven't shot moving images since using my Canon 814 and Bauer Super8 cameras about 8 years ago) I'll put energy next into trying to figure out:   1) camera rig setup for handheld shooting 2) tripod 3) computer to edit 4) editing software (I cut my teeth on Avid Film/Media composer but now have no idea what the best option for editing and color correction would be. I was surprised to discover that Adobe Premiere has a good reputation now. Ha.)

  Great to hear. Lucky for me I have that exact 50mm lens.   Any suggestions for an adapter for K mount to mft?

Thanks everyone for their feedback.   I'll probably first get an affordable adaptor for my Pentax K mount lenses (28mm, 40mm pancake, 50mm, 135mm) and see how they work before buying any other old glass, or more expensive adapters.   I looked up on ebay the Canon FD 50mm and 85mm 1.2 L...both are very expensive ($700-1100). However, there look to be other affordable deals for there other FD lenses.   Still, the Voigtlander beckons...

Andy,   I'm curious to get your opinion on some lens questions if you're open to it (or anyone else for that matter.   1) I"m about to get the GH3 and feel open to getting one of the Voigtlanders. Do you have a preference for the 17mm vs the 25mm in regards to what would be more useful?   2) If one was to use old manual 35mm slr film lenses for the GH3 do you think the Canon FD line is the best to go with considering price, quality and adaptability to m43? For example, I have a few old Pentax K mount lenses but wasn't sure if there were issues adapting this to m43.

Great comprehensive review. I figured the BMCC was the best and this helps confirm that. For me I'm still leaning towards the GH3, mainly because I'm not ready to buy a new computer to deal with the post production of the BMCC. Andrew, any thoughts on lenses that work well with the GH3 for video? From the article you seemed to be high on the voigtlander...

Andrew, Good points. Overall, I'm excited that the GH3 can be shown to deliver great quality. So, as long as it can be done, then I'm sold. Now...I just hope I'm not one of the bad guitar players, so to speak, Ha.

The video in Paris blew me away. It made me believe the GH3 can deliver great images. However, I'm still completely flabbergasted how different people, sometimes in the same location at the same time can get some varying degrees of images, from excellence to complete rubbish. Is the difference all in settings and post processing?

These cameras are way beyond my price point. Nonetheless, I'm excited that there is competition and this should work to help us on the lower end get better products eventually.

Great interview. I loved the persistent questions and the remarks to the side. Well done.

I have really high hopes for the GH3. I want to finally get a camera and the GH3 is my best hope for the money. But from the videos I've seen, this Sony image looks superior to the GH3. Perhaps I just like the full frame image more. I want to like what I've seen from GH3 more. I wonder if any hacks will appear for the GH3 to improve the camera even further.

Not sure what to think about the image quality of the vimeo video Bloom shot. I'm going to wait for more videos to come out before making any judgement. I didn't love the image as presented but I'm still being patient. (I will say that, as a tangent, that after watching the Zacuto shootout and hearing hour after hour of DPs saying "it's all about the story" that I'd like to make that group sit through a screening of this horrible story and get their reaction. I agree story is important and maybe it's because DP's always have to shoot such horrible material that they cling to that mantra. For a potentially groundbreaking camera for image and price marketed for an indie crowd, it disappoints me that we still are being subjected to the same calling card short film shit that used to be shot on 35mm. Of course, these issues are no fault of the camera. I would just like to see more of an "exploration" than Genesis. Of course I'm just ranting, but I'd like to see this new technology used in more interesting ways. Ok, rant over. Ha.)

I don't want to judge too much from that vimeo video...but the video they showed, in my opinion, lacked warmth and resolution. Still, I'm very curious to see a real review by Andrew.

They used to say the hardest thing to do on the set was to decide where to put the camera. That issue will never go away. A lot of the other details are negotiable.

I think a lot of this complaining about the camera is just silly. BMCC offers great opportunities for shooting for only $3000. If it had a fixed lens it would still be a great camera for the price, but because they allowed interchangeable lenses people have something to complain about.

I really have enjoyed reading this blog. I've been on a ten year hiatus from filmmaking. I started shooting Super8 film and tried to work my way up to larger film formats but in the end debt on my credit card became too much. The recent advances in affordable video cameras has pulled me back in. I haven't bought a new camera yet. It seems that in one year there will be several great options for under $4k. This is the best blog I've found that offers both updates on new technology as well as great insight. Thanks for all the work keeping this blog going! I, for one, greatly appreciate it.

As far as an "experiment" I think the empirical has use because you need some sort of control to be able to compare the different cameras. However, as others have stated the results will be somewhat obvious. The more expensive cameras look better right out of the box. Having said that, I wouldn't have been surprised if some of the more expensive cameras DIDN'T outperform the more affordable conterparts. The creative is interesting because you get to see what is possible with the lower end cameras - which is what everyone here is interested in. While that may not make it much of a real experiment, I think it is very important to see what is possible.