acmeman

Sub $700 is:

Intel 3.4Ghz i7 2700K
8GB RAM
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1.5GB
USB 3.0

Those are the bits that matter. The rest doesn't need to be anything special.

This should all come to under $700 and if you can't build it yourself, buy one second hand on eBay. Mine is a Dell XPS 8300 of similar spec to the above and it cost me 600 euros.

If you can stretch another $200 for an SSD, that is a good idea. Put a 2TB hard disk in there (that is OK for editing raw footage off), but also an 240GB SSD for the main OS, apps & boot drive.

Wow, it looks great! Hope to see some more of your BMCC footage soon :).

Following some advices from http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/4805318/Resolve_Win_Config_Guide_2012-08-30.pdf
you can actually build a perfect DaVinci PC for about 1000-1500$ (capable real-time raw preview).
So for Mac users it would be best to even build a PC just for DaVinci Resolve (and configure Windows to run DaVinci fullscreen on startup if you don't like the system ;)) - you would appreciate the performance boost.

[quote name='MaxAperture Films' timestamp='1348313715' post='18893']
Looks like the greenish cast is just as bad if not worse on the Genesis BTS video (shot on GH2)
[media]http://vimeo.com/49500954[/media] between 1:06 and 1:09.
Has to be either the ambient light or a similar white balance issue.
[/quote]
I'm seeing a LOT of that icky yellow/green cast in other GH3 foootage around. I think there will be an intresting opportunity for anyone that wants to do a side by side comparo of the GH2/GH3/and another camera, so as to ferret out which modes are spitting out that horrid cast.
With the 4:2:0 constraint, I'd hate to deal with pulling that particular cast out of all my footage in post.

It's a pre production firmware yes... But this is a big ass event! Most of the indie crowd waited with their eye on this camera after the BMC to put in a pre order. The Gh2 didn't have any issues with Moire or Aliasing... Nobody even had a second thought that it would be a factor with this one, until it was. They may fix it yes, but does any camera manufacturer think anyone wants moire and aliasing in their footage? That should be part of the basic checklist. If they could do it 2 years ago, shouldn't be a problem. Second is the same old 4:2:0, 8 bit. We pretty much know that isn't going anywhere in the final product. So we're stuck with 16-235 limitations again. To me, i haven't even seen the banding issue or increased dynamic range comparisons to justify the upgrade, but if the banding is fixed within those numbers, it sounds like cheating when the information could be there to begin with. The fact that the camera was DESIGNED to handle progressive footage at higher bitrates this time, along with finally looking like a damn man's camera for a change though, is a worthy welcome.

For hybrid shooters, i see this as your guy. For pure filmmakers on the other hand, the BMC may be $1700 more, but it will pistol whip these limitations, and more than likely get a 60p upgrade later. You get what you pay for...

"I’d happily pay $3000 for this [better image in the next, upcoming camera], as the GH3 already is a bargain for $1299".

I would NOT.

GH3 is a new camera that many are waiting for. It costs more than GH2 so it is obvious it should be more then just an improvement over previous model. And a camera is not everything. Lenses and propriety accesories makes additional costs, so if a new camera for $1299 doesn't generate a better image it doesn't have any sens.

Aliasing and moiré instability of an image is passé as a chromatic aberration. A new camera have not to be affected by this image defect. Specially that GH3 is made with possible professional use in mind, right? It doesn't make any sense to wait again and again for a newer camera, because this way we will stay with nothing always waiting.

It's almost ok to go a little overboard wanting things to be the way we want to be.

But let's not forget that this is not the final product, it's just a 0.4 version, so at least let's not be so stupid to the point to reach a ultimate conclusion before the product reaches its final version, shall we?

Man people are really going overboard with this stuff. I can't see why we only want to focus on the images that look bad and ignore the ones where things look GREAT! How do we keep the camera in that sweat zone is what we need to be asking. What was the cause of the bad color casts and what were the conditions that lead to the great skin tones on other footage? I think this camera is gonna be great once we learn how to get the best out of it. I'm not seeing consistently bad image, just some freaky stuff that could be caused by any number of combination of factors. Could be lens correction, bad lights, settings needing tweaks, firmware issues...

meeum big um chiefum wampum
sittum by the shady swampum
Pocahontas squaw come i give he pumpum
eatum foof and fillum tumtum.
white man come plenty slaughter
eat my food and take my squaw
now what der hell do day do all dat for

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1348275121' post='18857']
The detail is horrible and it renders textures like a 7D (everything looks plastic). The GH3 looks, unfortunately, like a disgusting leap backwards in image rendering. It's just another fake 1080p camera like the rest now. Terrible job Panasonic, terrible.
[/quote]

Too funny... I've seen a lot of 7D footage on projects I've worked and it is mostly shit, this is not soft 7D shit. In fact it looks great considering some of the horrible ceiling lighting that abounds. The only area of concern I have is the last few frames where the guys shirt lights up with moire, that is not going to be acceptable on my shoots. If it is not just a bug specific to certain lenses they definitely need to upgrade that low pass filter or there will be alot of product returns on this model, mine included.

Looks great apart from that stripey shirt at the end.

Very pleased w/ the skin tones for whatever picture style was being used. It's not exactly VisionColor, but very good nonetheless.
I wouldn't call it a "professional" codec though. High bitrate, yes. But 8bit 420 is still 8bit 420 and unfortunately this is the deal w/ the HDMI out :-( Not liking that, but the picture looks good thus far :-)

Oh THERE S my baby mama! She s always running off to intl imaging events.

[i][b]Inoue: [/b]Ah global shutter is a very ideal shutter. GH3 is rolling shutter. The readout is just 100 miliseconds, this depends on the sensor structure and sensor power.[/i]

interesting so each full scan on the sensor is 100ms on the GH3
I wonder what it was for the GH2 as it has bad rolling shutter


also it seams like they ar not interested in making a full frame GH camera as they have spent so much money designing and building a range of lenses for mirco 4/3 format -
these would not be useable on a full frame camera so they would have to design and build all new lenses $$$$$$$ a costly thing to do.

So looks like Panasonic are comitted to mirco 4/3 for the time being

Thanks for the interview, very interesting.
It seems it's really a Sony sensor.
If you have chance again, please consider asking about aliasing/moirè. In the end that's what made the difference from GH2 to the rest of the world.
If aliasing and moirè are back than.. Canon has better lenses, Nex has better dynamic range, both have better crop factor..

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1348138917' post='18671']
Inoue: The AF100 is another division, we are focussed on the consumer DSC. We are completely seperate.
[/quote]

Sigh.

Thanks for the interview Andrew, this must have taken ages to transcribe.


Things I infer from this interview:

How do you come to prioritise what’s most important, because you must have a huge list of feature requests?

We had interlaced to make progressive – not so good.

Translation:
You thought you were getting progressive video from the GH2. but you weren’t. It was interlaced that was converted to progressive. This is one of the reasons the GH2 had such a strong video look. Plus we spent so long doing that, we forgot to add peaking

Is the HDMI output 4-2-2?

No its 4-2-0. Why would we spend so long designing and optimising a stable high bit codec in camera if we wanted you to use a fucking ninja?
The output is perfectly suitable for a field monitor, but you won’t be recording shit out of it.


Is it a Sony sensor? No comment.

Translation: Yes it is it’s the same sensor from the EM5. We saw Olympus taking all the glory for having better quality so we decided to sacrifice the multi aspect sensor for the slightly better dynamic range of the Sony one.

This will have an effect on the overall video quality as well. The footage will look less like the old Panasonic video-like look and more of a Sony video-like look. So if you want a more film like look you will have to save up and either put up with the artificially crippled detail of the 5dmk3 which should be sharp as a tack due to the 3*3 pixel binning, or put up with the rainbow moiré of the BMC because they skipped putting in an optical low pass filter in this version to get the camera out the door.

One more question. Electronic follow focus....?

Response: (Gets notepad out.)
Remember when I said There are over a 100 members researching all over the world? I Lied!!

I'm ditching my 60D by the end of the year. I got plenty of EF-S glass that will either be sold off or used depending which way I go. It's been an interesting and steep learning curve finding out I'm more into video than stills.

If the quality is there with the GH3 and it flies off the shelves that will cause a 6D price drop. There's also the BMC & the VG900 they will be enticing to enthusiasts (like me) who want to stretch for better quality. Looking forward to more hands on reviews with the Panny. Stills are of lessor importance to me than video. I'd be much happier with a raw shootin pocket camera than dragging around a DSLR & lenses. Its a good move with the Wifi & GPS, 'Got to keep up with the jones's'.

Often I'd be out with my 60D, take some shots and want to share them straight up. Ended up pulling out my iphone instead with instant sharing and GPS Tags... LOL Go home and forget about the shots on the DSLR. So a camera that shoots raw/jpg with Wifi & GPS is fine by me! Still prefer a pocket size for that though.

But thats me I don't do this for a living, some of you guys/gals might. For me its to put some visuals to music that I write.

Love this site Btw. So much to learn

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346509724' post='17095']


I'm trying out a Windows beta version of CineForm Studio Premium which supports CinemaDNG from the Blackmagic thanks to David Newman.

Did you convert CinemaDNG to CineForm in that too Glenn, or in another program using the CineForm codec for Premiere?
[/quote]

I haven't actually tried the footage yet. Busy with 12 or so projects to finish right now. There's an article here about it - http://eyepatchfilms.com/?p=903

Personally, i would hate the idea of butting my head against the celing when it came to my equipment... I like the thought of not being limited by the tools i have and therefore, i can take full responsibility if my movie looks like trash. So I will be shooting Raw.

But i understand the issue. I bought my Mac 2 years ago. It is currently a dinosaur... My paltry 3.1 Duo Core..(Yes...duo core.) - with 8 gb of 1066 DDR3 ram can grade footage at the speed of smell....and this is transcoded 5d2rgb pro res 4:4:4....which is still shy of raw. So unless I invest in a computer with enough horsepower to render Avatar 2 realtime while I host the Armageddon of Warcraft, i may have no choice in the matter.

Which.....f--king sucks.

Nevertheless, I know people who DO have Nasa mainframes and regardless of the hassle, I've found the determination to create a better product is 10 fold turbo charged when your resources are limited. I have Apogee Symphony conversion with Antelope's Atom clocking it, Neve pres, great mics, Focal Twins, and my floors float. (i know... with a 2 year old Mac...audio is a tad less demanding in a comparison) - point is,
I made more music when I was a broke ass with a hundred dollar M-Audio mobile pre and a Nova mic in my living room using Cool Edit, than i ever have with all of this high end shit I lusted over for years...

I saved, and now I have it, and now all I do is master records for other people... It's paid for itself, yes... But my dream as a kid wasn't to be mastering music i don't even like. I think if you're not careful, you can fall into the gear trap pretty fast. God forbid I win the lottery, i'd probably kill myself for letting my room full of Alexa's and F65's collect dust.

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/BMD2-1.jpg"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/BMD2-1.jpg[/img][/url]

There's some debate at the moment around the Blackmagic Cinema Camera and how useful the raw recording mode is. For me it is ground-breaking at this price point but it seems not everyone sees it with the same enthusiasm because of the workflow and storage requirements. "It is time consuming. It is not practical. My clients don't need it".

Well let me begin this article by being very clear - there is no single answer that suits everyone, or every shoot. If someone says that their current clients don't need raw and they don't see an advantage to working with raw video - then they are absolutely right to believe that. If someone tries to tell you that their opinion on this is the ultimate and final voice on the matter, they are wrong. Personally I am in favour of raw for what I do (this opinion is based on my own needs, yours may differ).

But part of the reason I am coming down so heavily in favour of raw myself is not just because of me - but because I can see some less obvious benefits to work that many would be inclined to 'shoot the easy way' with ProRes in-camera.