Inazuma

I had recently 2 awful experiences as a buyer, with this quite new "shipping+taxes" option (or "Global Shipping Program") that eBay uses:
 
I bought the first item and eBay's shipping company had it for days in their storage place, without never contacting me for delivery. I tried to contact them, and I had to pay for the call €5 (~$6.5), as they charge €1.34 the call, then 0.36/min and they have you waiting for at least 10-12min, without finally accepting your call, with the excuse that the lines are too busy and that you'll have to call later again...
Finally, one day, they came to deliver, but without even ringing my bell, they put it (a signed-for shipment) inside my box...
 
The second one, they never delivered any parcel, but their tracking status indicates that they did delivered to my hands and that they've put my name as the person who received the parcel... When I opened a dispute on PayPal for this, Paypal in dt time, closed the case, with the excuse that they can't help on this and that I have to find a solution with the seller!... In any other similar case, if the seller had shipped via any other carrier, they could ask him to show them (to PayPal) the proof of delivery, asking this from the shipping carrier... If the shipping company couldn't prove that they had my real signature, then the money had to be returned to me. But as this new company is eBay's (so & PayPal's) business, they of course closed their eyes, as they can't blame their own company. SO, I lost $273.76...
 
I will NEVER-EVER buy any item from sellers that they are using this "Global Shipping Program" again! NEVER! I've found though that there are hundreds of others with similar, like mine, problems...
 
If you are selling on eBay and you want to avoid any negative feedback caused by similar cases, never use this option again please.
To be able to do so, please follow this next steps, to block this shipping option from your sales:
Your ebay>>account>>site preferences>>posting and packaging preferences>Offer the Global Shipping Programme, then on the right hand side of the screen change yes to NO and save changes.
 
By the way I have to say that, with this "Global Shipping Program", buyers are paying more on import taxes, than if they had to pay straight to their customs...
 
That's all from me.

I love this comment, by which i mean its just plain idiotic.
Everything you've seen from the FS7 has been shot within the first 5 minutes someone has had the camera. Let's wait a few months before making such a wide declaration. Early A7s footage/GH4 footage also looked pretty crappy. Give people a few shoots with a camera - then make your judgements. 
 
Now to your "video" point. It has zero to do with frame interpolation. Its called over-sharpness. What really annoys me is people who shoot a digital sensor camera that isn't a RED, want a "cinematic" output, and yet use no softening filters (RED deliberately keeps their image as soft as they can get away with). None. An Alexa can look over-sharp shot poorly. 35mm film can too. When we shoot film (too rare!) we often have 3 layers of softening in front of the lens. 3 layers! When shooting a commercial or drama we have a range of Tiffen softeners ready to go for the Alexa or the F55, and we often will soften the highlights again in the grade. 
 
However - if you're shooting for broadcast, and you're matching $150k studio cameras which are horrifically sharp, being able to look 'video' is actually a plus! Sony and Canon and Panasonic understand this.
 
You want a more pure 'filmic' camera that's value for money? I can't recommend the BMs enough.
 
You need a camera that can shoot reportage, TV interview, a feature doc, a music video AND an indie feature? Better to start off hella sharp and adjust to taste.
I tell people all the time: A Swiss Army knife is actually a pretty terrible hunting knife. Unless you NEED that flexibility. 

Yeah, I am not a 100% sure whether it is too strong or not - unfortunately I ordered it before you updated your post :)
 
Maybe I will swap it also with the #3
 
Nice video btw!

Nice test :) I don't think you needed to sharpen it though. It makes the compression artefacts stand out too much.
 

 
This is my entry for the HitRecord competition by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. The objective is to take cinematic, handheld footage of your city. And it needs to include some walking shots as well as a shot with the camera on myself.
 
The afternoon and early evening shots were done on Saturday when I received the Ultra Contrast 5 filter. As I mentioned I think it's a bit too strong and so used the #3 for the rest of the footage which I took over the next few days.
 
Really like the image I get with the filter on. Just a shame about my terriby shaky hands :p

I've shot on two G6's since they first come out 18 months ago and as you all know Im a big fan of this camera
I just got a GX7 last month and it is a 15/20% better image than the G6.
 
Much much cleaner and clearer image with alot LESS noise , it noiticebale especially at night shooting in streets
GX7 is without a doubt the best Panasonic 1080p camera they have made so far .
 
The EVF is very good and nicley on the left side and swivels which is great on my shoulder rigs
Also GX7 has a much sturdier metal lens mount than the g6 - I get body flex on the G6 with the big Nikon 'Bourne ' lenses
THE Gx7 is more stable for these big lenses on a rig.
 
The menus and functions are 95% the same as the G6 - they have added a few extra features like 2 settings on peaking for how strong it is.
 
The main thing is its a better newer sensor and this shows in the image - I was stunned at how good it is!!!
this is now my main 'A' camera for night time shooting .

The thing is that the reason the cameras you've listed get talked about a lot is because they're ALL good video cameras. Now that the GH4, A7S and Blackmagic cameras are here, the cameras you've named (not including the BMPCC) are looking increasingly similar in quality. They simply have different strengths and weaknesses. There isn't one that is THE best. You have to decide which one YOU like best and/or which one fits your needs best. 
 
I've had the G6 and D5300 for a year now, and recently got a BMPCC. I've used a GX7 a couple of times but only briefly, but I am familiar with the image. Same with the GH3. This is my opinion of the following as video cameras:
 
D5300
Pros: Beautiful image when using long and/or fast lenses, and in low/ambient light. Colours are VERY appealing. Contrary to EOSHD review I recommend shooting with a Neutral or Flaat profile to grade in post, as colours can be artificial in standard modes and dynamic range can be very good with Flaat_11. The codec is fairly strong so banding is rarely an issue.
Cons: Just a bit too soft for wide, detailed shots or deep DOF. Not the easiest camera to use for video.
 
G6
Pros: Beautifuly detailed image in both wide and long shots with deep or shallow DOF. Colours in good light conditions are very nice and can be graded to a very decent level. It's a PLEASURE to shoot video with (I only wish it and a headphone jack). EVF, Peaking, good tilt LCD, form factor, mic jack, etc all make it a viable camcorder. AVCHD 24p has the best image, MP4 50/60p (1080) is indistinguishable without close/critical inspection. With a speed booster it is a S35 camera with stuff the C100 doesn't have (decent EVF, 60p) and an image that isn't worlds away from it at for about 1/12th of the cost.
Cons: Not so great in low/poor light (it excels in good sunlight), though it's ok and noticeably better than the GH2. Colours are nice but can get muddy quickly in poor light. Dynamic range is mediocre. No headphone jack.
 
BMPCC
Pros: The image from the BMPCC really is in another league to the other cameras here. I love it. It frustrates me that there is so much low contrast 'film effect' stuff on Vimeo etc shot with the Pocket and graded to hipster death with film convert or OTT LUTs. It is capable of such a sharp, punchy, saturated and contrasty image that is so much more pleasing than any 8-bit camera.
Cons: It's not an easy camera to use (there are a lot of things I DO like about the form factor and usage though, and firmware updates have added a lot of good stuff). Why bury ISO, WB and shutter angle so deep in the menu? And it DOES need a rig, VF, and very wide, fast lenses or speed booster. Moire is a problem sometimes too - it can be unpleasant.
 
GX7
I haven't used this camera enough to give an informed opinion, but from what Seb and Andy are saying it is fine to shoot with (I didn't like the EVF when I tried it) and if you don't need an external mic then you don't have much advantages in usability with a G6. The image is definitely better - this is obvious from any videos you watch. I think of it as somewhere between the G6 and D5300 - colour science and low light are noticeably improved.
 
GH3
Barely used it so can't really comment. A lot of amazing stuff has been shot on the GH3, but I can't see a compelling reason to spend the extra money on it now. The G6 has peaking, which really is a huge feature if you want to use manual glass. The GX7 has a superior image. And the GH4 has made it look extremely dated. On the plus side it has a headphone jack and a more pro-level body.
 
A6000
Haven't used this at all but I have ruled this camera out based on image problems alone. It's perhaps easier to use than the D5300 but if it really does share the same sensor Sony have really messed up. It has quite severe moire issues and is not great in low light. It's not as sharp as the Panasonics, the codec seems quite weak and I personally am not keen on the colours it produces. Unless you desperately want a native APSC sensor with an EVF at a low price (Sony is your only option really) I can't see any reason to go with this. I may be biased though, as I never seem to like Sony's image quality - even the A7S.
 
My recommendations (i.e. my opinion):
 
GX7 scores the most overall points here I think. If you don't need an external mic go for it.
 
The G6 is still a superb camera and a joy to shoot video with, but the image has some (small) limitations in comparison to the GX7. Of my 3 cameras it's the one I would keep if I was doing commercial or documentary work and could only have one. Definitely. It's very reliable and has great video features.
 
The BMPCC is by far the best video camera here in terms of image. If I was just doing personal/art stuff it is the camera of mine I would keep if I could only have one. But it isn't really suitable as a shot-grabber/r&g workhorse.
 
The D5300 has a special image and if I'm shooting indoors or want a very 'filmic' shallow DOF look it is the camera I go for. I love it. But it is not made for shooting video with AT ALL.
 
For the A6000, although I've seen some really nice stuff shot with it, I think it's image quality is the least versatile (i.e. worst) here. My recommendation is to stay away from it.

I don't know about colour reproduction, but in terms of noise and dynamic range for stills and video I found the G6 and GH3 to be noticeably inferior to the GX7. I haven't got a GH4 but I've heard it uses the same sensor as the GX7. The GX7 also handles the best imo, except for when using large lenses (500g+). Also I wish it had a 50mbps codec.
 
If I had $1000 or £700 now I would buy the LX100 to accompany my GX7. If I was starting from scratch... I don't know really. 

This is one of my favourite things shot with the Blackmagic

Lenses used included a Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 which seems to be his main lens of choice.

This is one of my favourite things shot with the Blackmagic

Lenses used included a Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 which seems to be his main lens of choice.

So I bit the bullet over the week and bought the filter. From what I had read the filters work by spreading the light around the image, which is different to simply using a low contrast lens I think. And besides that, I don't want to add another lens to my collection when I already have three superb ones.
 
I started with Ultra Contrast 3. It had good effect but I thought I'd go further so this morning I received the #5.
 
The filters have an immediate effect of making the image look way more filmic. The reason for this is that really do spread the light around the image - but it's not so simple. They take in more ambient light and thus ambient colour. The result is that you get a much more balanced picture in terms of colour and tonality. These filters really are something magical.
 
I have been shooting a fair bit with them over the past few days and will be putting together a video, but for now here's a few images:
 
No filter, Standard iDynamic:
 

 
With FilmConvert:
 

 
Tiffen Ultra Contrast #5 (no iDynamic):
 

 
With FilmConvert and some additional saturation.
 

 
Each filter costs just over £100 for the 77mm sizes. I do recommend getting the strongest one (the #5). After further consideration I think the #3 is a better choice because the #5 washes out darker midtones too readily.

Hello, 
During the past week, I've been testing my new Rectimascop 48/2x anamorphic lens with my GH4.
Here's the third test, shot on the road.


Shot in Tel Aviv, Oct. 25th, 2014 using a Panasonic GH4 in 4K Photo Mode, 3:2 aspect ratio, Cine D.
Lenses: Helios 44/2 58mm, Rectimascop 48/2x anamorphic.
Music by Jimi Hendrix.
Edited and graded with FCPX.

Indeed, thanks for sharing! Ordered one :)

Cool test. I really like the look you got out of it in the end. Thanks for sharing.

So I bit the bullet over the week and bought the filter. From what I had read the filters work by spreading the light around the image, which is different to simply using a low contrast lens I think. And besides that, I don't want to add another lens to my collection when I already have three superb ones.
 
I started with Ultra Contrast 3. It had good effect but I thought I'd go further so this morning I received the #5.
 
The filters have an immediate effect of making the image look way more filmic. The reason for this is that really do spread the light around the image - but it's not so simple. They take in more ambient light and thus ambient colour. The result is that you get a much more balanced picture in terms of colour and tonality. These filters really are something magical.
 
I have been shooting a fair bit with them over the past few days and will be putting together a video, but for now here's a few images:
 
No filter, Standard iDynamic:
 

 
With FilmConvert:
 

 
Tiffen Ultra Contrast #5 (no iDynamic):
 

 
With FilmConvert and some additional saturation.
 

 
Each filter costs just over £100 for the 77mm sizes. I do recommend getting the strongest one (the #5). After further consideration I think the #3 is a better choice because the #5 washes out darker midtones too readily.

One of my favourite independent directors has started testing the GH4 against his RED. http://danieljohnpeters.com/2014/05/14/gh4-2/

So I bit the bullet over the week and bought the filter. From what I had read the filters work by spreading the light around the image, which is different to simply using a low contrast lens I think. And besides that, I don't want to add another lens to my collection when I already have three superb ones.
 
I started with Ultra Contrast 3. It had good effect but I thought I'd go further so this morning I received the #5.
 
The filters have an immediate effect of making the image look way more filmic. The reason for this is that really do spread the light around the image - but it's not so simple. They take in more ambient light and thus ambient colour. The result is that you get a much more balanced picture in terms of colour and tonality. These filters really are something magical.
 
I have been shooting a fair bit with them over the past few days and will be putting together a video, but for now here's a few images:
 
No filter, Standard iDynamic:
 

 
With FilmConvert:
 

 
Tiffen Ultra Contrast #5 (no iDynamic):
 

 
With FilmConvert and some additional saturation.
 

 
Each filter costs just over £100 for the 77mm sizes. I do recommend getting the strongest one (the #5). After further consideration I think the #3 is a better choice because the #5 washes out darker midtones too readily.

Looks impressive! 

Hi.
I just wanted to show of my latest short film STORM. I shot it on the Panasonic Lumix GH4 with Kowa/Bell and Howell Anamorphic
 

 
Please let me know what you think.
 
//eric

Hi,
Few weeks ago, the french dealer Digistore lent me the blackmagic URSA camera together with a set of Canon CN Lenses. We had fun shooting 'Petit Bateau' :
 

The codec was set to 4K RAW, we had Canon CN lenses and my lovely SQN3 mixer connected to the camera. My friend Broad Rush made the sound design of that short experimental film, if you wish to know more about the characters, here are two music videos that I have directed and shot on BMCC :

This is the best place to learn :) Ask away

I have been shooting with the Panasonic GX7 for the last 11 months . Having used a variety of mirrorless and DSLR cameras in this price range, I can say I've found the usability and video quality of this one to be superior in most respects.
 
The colours and tonality felt like they popped, but there was always something about them that I felt was strange.  This didn't bother me really until about two months ago when I tested the camera against the Nikon d5300 and when I started looking at a lot of Blackmagic footage soon afterwards.
 
What I've found is that the colours on the GX7 (and other Panasonic cameras) lack a certain harmony. It's as if each is vying for our attention. I believe this is what contributes to the "video" look that people keep going on about.
 
Colours don't desaturate evenly when you dial the picture profiles flat. The main issue being that colourful objects in the midtones stay colourful whilst everything else goes comparatively grey. This applies particularly to greens, reds and oranges. The green of trees and plants don't quite have a natural hue to them in relation to other coloured objects in the scene. I still struggle to quantify why. The best I can do is to say they look somewhat neon. Reds often dip into orange territory. It's subtle but it's there and can be distracting to trained eyes. Yellow is probably the worst offender here. It becomes very prominent when you add LUTs.  
I would not say these things are reasons not to get a Panasonic camera. They are just characteristics of the camera and don't necessarily equate to it being better or worse than others. You just need to understand and take the differences into account when shooting and grading. Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
So having observed the differences, I took to Adobe SpeedGrade again to see what I could do. I called the resultant LUT, the "Balancer". Click the image below to enlarge it.
 

 
Please note that the Sigma lens used on the d5300 is naturally less contrasty than the Olympus lens used on the GX7, which may account for why the girl's face is a more washed out there.
As you can see, the changes might look rather subtle at first, but it makes a huge difference when applying other LUTs afterwards. The changes I made pretty much "fix" all the issues mentioned above.
 
Skin tone connoisseurs might especially love this LUT as it pushes oranges more towards red territory and reduces the contrast there too. The download includes two LUTs. One is marked as "Less Red" meaning that it doesn't push skin tones into the red as much.

Download Here
 
More examples can be seen on the original blog post here: http://sebcastilho.com/journal/2014/10/19/a-study-on-panasonic-colours-and-a-lut-to-balance-them/

Brillliant work! I for one have always agreed, no matter what you do to the GH4 in camera settings and in post, something was always wrong with the colour chemistry making it always look like 'video'. It might look that you've cracked it, although I'm seeing a bit more noise in the shadows with your LUT.
 
I'll give these a go soon. Thanks for your hard work!
 
Adrian

I have been shooting with the Panasonic GX7 for the last 11 months . Having used a variety of mirrorless and DSLR cameras in this price range, I can say I've found the usability and video quality of this one to be superior in most respects.
 
The colours and tonality felt like they popped, but there was always something about them that I felt was strange.  This didn't bother me really until about two months ago when I tested the camera against the Nikon d5300 and when I started looking at a lot of Blackmagic footage soon afterwards.
 
What I've found is that the colours on the GX7 (and other Panasonic cameras) lack a certain harmony. It's as if each is vying for our attention. I believe this is what contributes to the "video" look that people keep going on about.
 
Colours don't desaturate evenly when you dial the picture profiles flat. The main issue being that colourful objects in the midtones stay colourful whilst everything else goes comparatively grey. This applies particularly to greens, reds and oranges. The green of trees and plants don't quite have a natural hue to them in relation to other coloured objects in the scene. I still struggle to quantify why. The best I can do is to say they look somewhat neon. Reds often dip into orange territory. It's subtle but it's there and can be distracting to trained eyes. Yellow is probably the worst offender here. It becomes very prominent when you add LUTs.  
I would not say these things are reasons not to get a Panasonic camera. They are just characteristics of the camera and don't necessarily equate to it being better or worse than others. You just need to understand and take the differences into account when shooting and grading. Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
So having observed the differences, I took to Adobe SpeedGrade again to see what I could do. I called the resultant LUT, the "Balancer". Click the image below to enlarge it.
 

 
Please note that the Sigma lens used on the d5300 is naturally less contrasty than the Olympus lens used on the GX7, which may account for why the girl's face is a more washed out there.
As you can see, the changes might look rather subtle at first, but it makes a huge difference when applying other LUTs afterwards. The changes I made pretty much "fix" all the issues mentioned above.
 
Skin tone connoisseurs might especially love this LUT as it pushes oranges more towards red territory and reduces the contrast there too. The download includes two LUTs. One is marked as "Less Red" meaning that it doesn't push skin tones into the red as much.

Download Here
 
More examples can be seen on the original blog post here: http://sebcastilho.com/journal/2014/10/19/a-study-on-panasonic-colours-and-a-lut-to-balance-them/

I've bought the first feature film from Joshua Caldwell, "Layover": I've bought the version with special content, and I'm very happy, because it is full of great informations.

http://layoverfilm.com

I heartily recommend it to you all, it is really amazing and it's great to see that it's not the camera, but the man to make a great movie.

Joshua made it "guerrilla-style", with available lights, handelded, but there are many great scenes that I don't understand how he made so stable without a stedycam or a gimbal stabilizer (i.e. the scene with the girl walking in the airport at 00:08) or the scene with the bike (from 1:37).

Some little parts were made with a GoPro, but the most is shot with a Canon 5D. 





 

The colours and tonality look Panasonic to me. G6 maybe?
 
What lens filters did you use btw?