Will Turner

Really badly written.

"GoPro Hero 4 is really capable of recording video in 4K"

"GoPro Hero 4 will also come with a 13-megapixel photosensor and a completely new lens for shooting in dark."

"remote viewfinder playback which is extremely easy to use. You shouldn’t to have special technical knowledge or skills to do it"

" GoPro Hero cameras are amazing because they have a waterproof housing with a flat lens for shooting under water (up to 60m). Built-in Wi-Fi module, USB & HDMI – the only thing that brings it closer to homeliness."

"Action Cameras of GoPro have become extremely popular as an excellent way to capture high-quality video at high speeds relative to the price that usually is $340."

 

This isn't a professional press release - at least, not one that was originally written in English.

 

 

Really badly read.

 

"Possible GoPro 4 specs leaked - shoots 4K and 1080/120fps"

Doesn't filmconvert remap all the chroma and luma values? That's quite a scientific process, no wonder the colour and dynamic range is so thoroughly buggered. It looks like it has remapped the bottom few stops of shadow detail to black, and given everything a strong megenta cast. I hope this is a facet of your workflow, rather than the camera itself. The guy at the beginning looks like a lobster!  Nothing personal dude, but I don't think this creative decision has worked for me. 

Televisions and screens in general have reached and surpassed the size of big prints. If photographers are not accepting below 6-7-8k why should we accept 2 megapixels being projected on a 60inch screen?

I think the resolution push toward 4k and 6k were really needed and will improve greatly our content and viewing experience.

 

Word. 

In a few years time - the next generation of film makers will seek out plugins that will imitate all the video abnormalities we dislike today.

Plugins like the film grain, scratches, dust and light leaks etc (over) used by those seeking the "film look" today.

 

Looking forward to NAB to see Canon and Sony's answer to the GH4.

 

I think so too. I can see RS being a useful semiotic to indicate speed/fast motion in the future. 

Wish it was GH4 competitor but I expect 1DC price.

Wow I didn't realise the new mac pro's were so tiny! That's amazing. And relatively cheap too, about half what I thought they were going to cost! Great point on hand luggage Andrew. To be honest I would have mistaken these for new mac mini's unless I knew otherwise; very impressive. 

 

To address the claims that AVCHD is a pain, it's not. I cut a short shot on a hacked GH2 to 176mbit on a 1.7ghz macbook air last year, it was a breeze. Didn't drop a frame. 

 

The only issue I have found with macs is the gamma issue with AVCHD. Most things are plug and play, cameras and printers and such, whereas with PC's you have to piss about installing drivers, software, et al. I have saved hours, probably days by now, by buying a mac. 

 

Anyway, back to the BMPC, the image looks good enough. It's another camera that I wouldn't mind using, along with all the other cameras available these days. 4k is cool, we finally get noise/grain that doesn't make everyone automatically think it's rubbish or a documentary. The dynamic range is the only flaw, seeing as the bottom stop is noisy as hell, we get what, 11 stops useable? Good enough, but nothing special. I'd prefer a BMCC with a speed booster. They should have partnered with metabones and released a camera with a built in speed booster. 

 

Global shutter is great, about time too. 

Not true.  The term you are looking for is "parfocal" and multiple Canon zooms do this.  I believe the two popular L ultrawides do this.  They are perfect for the APS-C bodies as walk around lenses.  Get one from a place where you can return lenses and see if one of them fits your needs.  The 17-40mm is cheap and very well made.  Unfortunately it is only f/4 and has no IS.  The 16- is a 2.8 but it is a lot more expensive and is also non IS.

 

A lot of still lenses are "varifocal."  But not all of them.

 

The 17-40L is not true parfocal. I have tested a couple of copies and they were nearly there but not quite perfect. 

I don't know if that's gonna happen anytime soon, that sd card slot it has is pretty slow.

 

It supports UHS-1 and has a lot in common with the MKIII so there is good potential in that camera. More than you might think at first glance. 

The first crop at f1.4 is just mind blowingly good. I just can't believe how sharp and contrasty that is wide open. 

Nobody should be angry. Early adopters of new tech always pay through the nose. 4k tvs for 50 grand comes to mind...

well, since a panasonic was brought up again, ill try my question again...

 

 

i like to feel like im update on all the dslr action going on, but i was just asked to shoot on the companies GH3 cameras rather than an EPIC i had booked for the job. the producer said " the owner has a fully ported GH3 that shoots 4k uncompressed"...

needless to say i was like what???

 

is this possible or can be true? i need to know before i knock it down.

 

thanks in advance everyone!

 

 

If you were panasonic, for example, then it's entirely possible. Probably quite easy I would venture to say. The likelihood of an individual having done it however is in inquantifiably unlikely. 

I went a little crazy in the wake of it's discovery. I don't think I'm ever going to part with my GH2. 

 

I'm now thinking that a GH2 and a 50D is the best plan of action. Those two would cover a lot of ground, giving me the option to shoot a decent image compressed (GH2) or raw (50D).

 

I love the raw coming from the 50D from what I have seen. The anamorphic footage posted by julian looks great. The motion looks a little juddery but I have no idea if that's the camera or the workflow.

lol @ all these people thinking RAW is the be all-end all. Of course it's nice but 1) it's not going to make you any better and 2) it's not going to help you do your job. Actually it's going to make your job harder.

 

 

LOL @ egotistical maniacs

**** the G6 and it's 20mbps codec. The hardware is awfully nice though.

Whoa whoa whoa! Look at some of the footage rolling off of the 50D before selling the GH2. Make an educated decision about it. If you can find the + or - $450 go for it. But you lose a couple of things on the 50D as a filmmaker. Truly groundbreaking, though. I've been watching this develop and have had my hand hovering over the "buy now" button. I think it is a very capable camera. But something hurts when I almost see a GH2 fly out the window.

 

This raw hack has whipped me up into a frenzy. I started shooting stills years before video and became very used to working with raw files. For my entire time filmmaking I have been irritated that I'm forced to shoot in a compressed codec and suddenly I am presented with a camera that shoots raw that I could swap to for no money? Seems like a no brainer.

 

The ML team have unlocked compressed video on the 50d too and it has a nice enough image from what I have seen.

 

I shoot narrative mainly, so a super 35 raw camera for £350 is a dream come true. Even several of my lenses will become more easily useable. At the moment I have to quickly put the lens on a Canon body to set the aperture, then put it back on the GH2. I only swapped to the GH2 a few months ago because I wasn't happy with the mush the 550D was giving me. Prior to that I have had a 10D and a 30D so you could say I'm a bit of a closet Canon man really. I just hate the way they tier their products based on arbitrary firmware implementations and minor hardware difference.

 

It's now even more obvious than it already was that the camera manufacturers all have a meeting once every few months to decide which feature they shall all implement next. The progression of the technology is far to linear across the manufacturers. BMD have clearly broken the mould and I praise them greatly for doing so. 

Holy moly! Does this mean I should sell my GH2 and get a 50d?!?! All my glass is EF compatible (even have some electronic EF glass)!

 

Everything has been turned completely on it's head and I am left floundering in magic lanterns wake. 

 

I can't believe I am considering selling a camera that a company designed for video use, for a camera that a company didn't even implement video on in the first place.

I can respect the claims that a GH2/GH3 "can't touch raw" but why/how?  In the two clips i've seen between the two it is not that noticeable to the average human eye.  Unless you're pushing it to 400% (why I don't know) it doesn't look to be all that different.  In other words, for the small gain you're getting over the gh3 is it worth the extra money on a body, storage (internal to the body), and extra hard drives you'll need, not to mention time to process, convert, grade, etc?  I'm just curious as I know it is an individual basis.

 

I'm curious if it is better to get a GH3 and add on a Metabones speed booster or get a 5D3 and use the h.264 footage the majority of the time and raw for more intense close-ups and landscapes.  It's a trade off either way.  Not sure how one would make a decision in either direction.

 

If you only compare compressed formats then yes, the GH2 and GH3 do indeed smoke the 5DIII. Truth be told the h264 coming from the 5d is a shoddy excuse for 1080p.

 

Raw is in another league and I don't think it's even a comparison worth making. They are just different tools for different environments. It reminds me of the old film vs digital stills debates that went on...and on.. and on... 

 

My 2 pence is that the image with raw is much nicer, but it's a lot more hassle and I sure as hell couldn't edit it on my macbook air. I have similar sentiments toward film. 

No - I am the Guy who makes $100,000-150,000 from paid video productions.;-))

 

So why do you need RAW?

What exactly do you produce to make living apart from weekly tests(for which we are all grateful ;-)?

Is there any feature film i missed from you. What it it you actually hope to achieve with raw? 

'will you have your name in PROMETHEUS 2 trailer"

RAW is very handy for High End and i really mean HIGH END.

Unless it is the Market YOU yes YOU are involved in,then i understand it- but if you are in High End, then the $$$$ you get paid on weekly basis should be enough to buy 10 Epics ;-)))

...but if it is a hobby, then go ahead and get .............................

 

Good for you.  

 

I am the guy who makes virtually nothing from paid video productions, apart from the odd freelance gig. Quite the opposite, I'm paying £9000 a year to study film. 

 

I make shorts and have aspirations of making films for a living. Now, in order to do that I need to impress people with my films. As much as content is king, it doesn't half help if your visuals are beautiful. I put half of that down to movement and half of that down to the image itself.

 

Often when I am grading, with a hacked GH2, I wish I could manipulate the footage in ways that I cannot because I'm shooting in a compressed codec. If I could shoot raw for no extra cost, it would give me more creative freedom. That isn't about 'how good 4K is' or anything, it's just removing limitations which I find irritating every single day.

This is the craziest damn thing I have ever heard!

why does everyone need peaking?

- just focus it with your eyes - people have been doing that for over 100 years on film !!

it works!!

 

Technology is making people lazy!

 

I agree. It's crazy. Even when focus peaking is available I don't use it because I don't trust it.

Everything is subject to aliasing at some level or another. You might not notice it but even your eyes alias sometimes. Pay attention next time you look at something like a fire grate/protector round an open fire place or anything else with multiple layers of the same fine pattern in your vision. Canon DSLR's exhibit a revolting amount of aliasing and moire but to expect literally none ever is absurd. 

Great shout on the GH2. I recently got one with the 14-42 kit lens, second hand (but in spotless nick), for 260 odd quid! That considered, the GH3 is a hard sell. 

You are right but there are other shots where they resolve the same levels of detail.

 

Not sure why that one is the way it is - maybe the codec on the Nikon got stressed out or something.

 

I expect thats exactly the reason. I'm no canon fanboy, not by a long stretch of the imagination, but the 5diii is definitely the clear winner here. Now that I look at it; every shot the 5diii is holding onto much more detail. 

 

The d5200 does have seriously amazing colour and dynamic range for the price, but it falls short in the resolution category. I would be interested to see the results of the same test with the use of an external recorder; the nikon would probably fare far better. 

 

I can see a bit of colour moire in the 5200 footage in the above tests too. Nothing like a 550d/7d/etc but it's worth noting. 

 

I rate the 5dIII resolution pretty poorly too, which doesn't say much for this nikon. 

The 5dIII clearly has much more detail in these shots. Look at the wide at 00:54. 

It may have a top notch sensor when it coms to dynamic range or low light but I don't think it's a patch on the GH3 as far as resolution is concerned. Or even the hacked GH2, which is still as sharp as it's ever been (bloody sharp!).

 

Looks great with an external recorder though, even with the quirks.