D.L. Watson

Yes they are. They are saying that he should work with charts or start doing only artistic videos. They say his tests are too in between.

 

Life would be perfect if you could always have a controlled environment, but unless you are James Cameron, you wont have that. We have lots of amateur shooters (like me). Actually, most of us are hobbyists. We dont work with lights and reflectors. We shoot trips, family stuff etc. When I go to the beach with my girlfriend I dont go with lights and reflectors in my back. Journalists dont shoot in controlled environments. Most of us dont have a crew. And please, if you have a crew, why are you shooting with a GH3? If you want to go pro, you should use a real pro camera.

I understand more now what you are saying now. I agree, I don't care much about charts. And I totally understand that one doesn't always have reflectors and lights. And yes, Journalist do not shoot in controlled environments, but usually, journalists wont shoot with at least a portable light kit or some-kind of low-light solution.

I shoot with a crew of 8 for our show and we shoot with Canon 7D and 5D Mark II. I shoot with a GH3 because I find it superior to the canon cameras in many ways. We may shoot our fourth season with GH3 because according to myself and our colorist, it yields so much more information in the shadows we can work with. 

My shorts are just my own personal hobby thing. I'm totally indie with what I do, and for the price and features, the GH3 is a pro camera - but I still try and use lighting to enhance the image. You don't have to be James Cameron to set up three point lighting. James Cameron would rather just create the light digitally in a computer. :P

But again, I get your point and agree that Andrew's test is perfectly fine - but that is my opinion. If someone else likes charts, that's their preference and opinion and I'm sure someone will do a chart test to satisfy them. But considering this is an open forum, it's well within their rights to state their opinion - just as Andrew has with his blogs. 

I think you're in the wrong forum. We are talking about technical data. If you want to see pretty stuff, go to another place.

 

The video posted from the GH3 was shot in a place with controlled lighting and had really low contrast. An iphone video could handle that situation. If you can be fooled by pretty girls doing a making of in a pretty place, you shouldnt be looking for technical data.

 

My video shows:

 

1. Landscape shot to evaluate the amount of detal the camera renders

2. Focus pull @ 150mm (50mm f1.4 lens) to show how easy it is to focus with the BMPCC

3. Panning shot in a brick wall to see artifacts

4. A lot of high contrast scenes, where most 8-bit cameras would start to struggle, and that includes the GH3, with no reflectors or lights to help

 

Most people can be fooled by pretty images made in controlled environments. Watch the zacuto shootouts and you will understand that. But thats not a forum for the average person. Thats a forum for enthusiasts, and we are not fools.

 

And how do you guys dare to complain about the test Andrew made? He does some of the best real life tests on the internet. I really apreciate test charts, but Andrews tests are more applicable. They give us a realistic difference between the cameras. He shares that without charging you and you have the guts to complain? Please...

I could be wrong, but no one here is arguing Andrews tests. And just because someone shares their test freely doesn't mean that a person shouldn't 'dare' offer an alternative look. 

And shouldn't you always work in a controlled environment? That is the purpose of having a crew, is it not?

I think the problem is so many people think that if you remind folks that you can get a great image out of a 8-bit camera, that means we are saying one is better than the other. Not the case. For me, I just wanted to remind people that in the end - a camera is a tool - and while the BMPCC has more DR and a better codec - the camera doesnt make the filmmaker. (And I'm speaking from as a filmmaker).

Personally, I feel like we can't get wrapped up in the gear envy consumerism that has increased expotentially over the last few years. I've worked with alot of gear and equipment that might have provided great features but at the sacrifice of other key options. For me, I'll wait and see what comes out of the Pocket Cam over the next year.

Everyone has their opinion. From my experience, Magic Lantern RAW is awesome. Produces beautiful clean image, but to really take advantage of it, you need to get the 5D Mark III. And the files are very large. Even for narrative short films like I do on a small scale - this would be highly expensive: hard-drives, CF cards, and the time to process such data on a massive scale. I'm an Executive Producer for a Discovery TV Show and to shoot in RAW at the amount of footage we capture during an 10 hour day would be rediculous. We'd have to have to expand our building to just accommodate the harddrive-farm.

Pocket Cam has a beautiful film-like image. And I'll probably end up purchasing one if it can stand the test of time. While it has a wider dynamic range and in a 10bit ProRes file - it comes at the cost of a lack of audio meters, a lack of a hot-shoe mount, a lack of anykind of weather resistant design, the lack of a full white-balance control, equipped with a viewscreen that reflects everything, equipped with a firmware that doesn't allow you to control your iris (without a ND filter), and riddled with SD card compatibility issues. Definitely not something I would want to buy on a run and gun shooting like I do for a living or even for narrative when every minute you are spending money on cast and crew. I'd like to know the tool that I use is going to work. Not randomly drop frames or not even read a card.

Additionally, I would hate to spend that 'easy' $1k and then Blackmagic devalue the product next year at NAB like they did with it's big-brother.

I'd also like to just say that everything you watch on the internet, either Vimeo, Netflix, Youtube, DVD, and most HDTV's are in 8-Bit. 
 

hmm

Overcrank at 1080 and longer record times...  I don't think it could do this though.

 

https://vimeo.com/71692234

Absolutely beautiful imagery. Not a question - definitely the best of the RAW recording cameras.

this came out very very clean how far are you pushing the shadows and under what settings? natural normal -5's ? I use a GH3 im honestly trying to become more fluid in my CC but im such a minimalist for certain things I do. Shorts id love to stop things down and become better at CC.

I shot with Natural picture profile with everything set to -5. Some shots had i.Dynamic turned on. I exposed to keep highlights from clipping without severely under exposing. I'm right there with you on the color-correction. I usually hire a colorist to handle my short films so - with that - this quick test I did after working 10 hours on set was crude and as some pointed out, may not do the camera justice.

GH3 is the over all winner for me. Top features: Full HD at 60 fps, continuous recordable time, time code (for mutli cams), easy post workflow, practical ergonomics.

 

https://vimeo.com/72737956

This is beautiful! Absolutely amazing that such high-quality images can come from an 8-Bit camera. If I did not know it came from a GH3 - I would have assumed it was shot on RED.

These forums are like a warzone sometimes. Poor D.L Watson for sharing his work on the GH3, I don't see anyone else coughing up and showing their jpeg-like masterpiece eh? 

 

I think D.L should go out and make a Zack Snyder inspired masterpiece with an iPhone 5s, like of some ninjas chopping up mangos or something and grade it in Resolve while hanging upside down. Or you could get a raw camera, sit on a bench and get a really shallow focus shot of a leaf. 

 

Oh, and the 7D footage sucks a bit. Doesn't matter though. It's a Grandpa now in camera years. 

lol It's all a learning experience really. Helps create a thicker skin and a drive to keep doing more and better. Not sure about chopping mangos though. :)

What I loved about this review is that Andrew assumed his readers would understand the trade-offs between the GH3 and BMPCC and 5D3.  I don't look at the GH3 footage to answer the question if it is as "good" as the 5D3 RAW, but if the speed, ease-of-use, etc., benefits of the camera would be worth what I'm thinking about shooting.  D.L. has shot both 50D RAW and GH3.  He has chosen GH3.  That carries a lot of weight from me because 1.) His talent is obvious to anyone who watches his stuff and 2.) He spent a lot of time with the 50D Raw, even shot a whole piece with it.  Does that mean the GH3 is for me?  No, but who knows what I'll want tomorrow?  

 

As for other cameras, these are the 3 most representative DSLR type consumer cameras.  

That's kinda my point. For me, the GH3 provides an ease of use which - in my opinion - evens the playing field a little more with the RAW 50D, 5D, 7D, and Pocket. I was trying to say that the GH3 can be pushed suprisingly far and I believe it could be mistaken for a much high-quality camera (with proper lighting and shooting conditions).

Thanks for the support!

oh man...

lets face it, the GH3 has no place next to raw out of any camera that we've seen to date. i'm not here to slam your grade either.

i'm not saying i don't see a niche for G cameras, they're great and cost effective.

i have shot with many cameras, and just had the opportunity to shoot with some Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon FF-Prime's on a C300. lovely image.

but for me, nothing comes close to the 5D3 for the cost. unbelievable image coming out of that camera. even if I had all the money in the world, i would still be looking through the Canon 5D3.

Hey man. I totally understand that. The 5D Mark III is the perfect cinema camera in my opinion. It produces the best RAW images I've seen out of any camera. There is not question about that. I guess my point I was trying to make failed to resonate about the GH3. I've worked with RAW, Blackmagic, and RED, and for the price, the functionality, and lack of needed accessories - the GH3 holds up fairly well. 

But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. I just create images that look like they had been molested by Trey Ratcliff. :P

@ D.L.Watson

Nice clip. Good pans. Which tripod do you use?

Manfrotto with a 502 head. 

This doesn't exactly give you the "cinematic" look.... It looks like a .jpg that's been molested by Trey Ratcliff in Photomatix.

Oh I get it, you think Trey Ratcliff is a talentless photographic molester. Well, at least he's successful at what he loves.

You may not consider this footage to look very cinematic and that is your subjective opinion. In my opinion, I could grade Canon footage the same way and the image would fall apart.

But you are right, using the Blackmagic Cinema Camera will tell the story of any film much better. 

You guys are not getting the REAL concept of dynamic range. You guys are thinking that a great dynamic range is just a detailed sky or detailed shadow. Nope! When we talk about dynamic range we are talking about highlights, midtones and shadows - and the gradations between them - those are the steps of dynamic range.

 

If your camera has 8 stops of dynamic range in video mode, it doesnt matter what you will do in post, it will still have 8 stops.

 

When you expose your GH3 for the highlights and recover the shadows, you are NOT increasing your dynamic range. You have the same amount of stops. You are just favoring the highlights and the shadows. What happens then? You simply crush and destroy the midtones. In the video posted above you can clearly see that. In the video, everything looks like its made of plastic. You have no gradation in the midtones. The cars look like a colored stain.

 

The image is NOT cinematic at all. In the BMPCC you will have beautiful gradations well distributed in the highlights, shadows and midtones, and thats why they look cinematic.

 

So remember, good dynamic range is not about seeing the clouds or whats in the shadows, its all about having great gradations from the bottom to the top!

I understand perfectly what Dynamic Range is. I know the BMPCC has wonderful graduations between highlights, shadows, and mid-tones. And I agree, the mid-tones are a little flat in my video. My point is, I graded that video in like 20 minutes in resolve. I believe with a little more time (and more talented colorist), one could produce extremely beautiful cinematic video from the GH3 and would be a great alternative to the BMPCC.

It's a nice camera to buy until Blackmagic gives us proper audio metering, compressed RAW, and oh yeah - make them available to buy and shipped within a week. 

If you expose for blown out highlights, push shadows, clean with neat video, you can capture just as much dynamic range from the GH3 as you can from Magic Lantern RAW.

https://vimeo.com/76030718