I have not seen this comparison yet so I decided to test it out.
I tried to match the shots and then colors as closely as possible, setting the look with the raw footage (starting from BMD Color Space) and then trying to conform the AVCHD to it. The severity of the grade was moderate:
5D Mark III (Raw DNG)
FS100 (w/ Frank Glencairn's G-Log Ultimate)
And here is where the codecs really show their differences:
5D Mark III
Alright, not sure if this is the right forum but, I recently just got a GH3 , I do mostly VIDEO, I film alot of skateboarding about 60 percent and then short movies/docs/video/ the other 40 percent. I am an old vx2000 user for like 10 years and thought it was time to upgrade. I been researching for weeks and decided to get a GH3, My question is should I have i gotten a panny ag-ac90 insted?
This was my reasoning, For years i kept hearing and seeing how good the gh2 was, and how nice the quality was. i saw alot of pro filmers starting to use dslr's granted they prolly use mark 3's but whatever, I saw many tests were it was a gh3 vs the ag-ac90, and they looked just about the same , the ag-ac90 was about 800 dollars more but i would need 2 lenses for my gh3 for they even out in price.
I understand that the Ag-ac90 is an easier SHOT and GO, and the has XLR, and an adapter for gh3 is more $$$$ like 300, but all the seperate videos and short films i kept watching for both cameras, the GH3 BESTED the ag-ac90 easly quality, un color corrected and color corrected I could not understand why,
WHy dslrs have such good quality when cameras made just for filmimg can't keep up.
So in my NOT PRO opinion i got the gh3, it just shipped yesturday. IF u take away the shot and go, and the better sound controls ( i don't really mind taking time to set-up ) DID i make the right choice. Also as there was a awsome hack for gh2 that made it super sweet, i am hoping sometime within the year the gh3 would get one that would make it even more better. Opinions Please?
sorry for making you read all this, --Alex--
Ok, so after receiving my adaptor a few weeks ago... I've created an unscientific review of the Lens Turbo for Canon FD on my nex 7 http://themartist.com/lens-turbo-canon-fd-review/
If you don't feel like reading the review, the bottom line is I am happy with it... even though It appears that those with more pixel peeping prowess are confirming that its inferior to the speedbooster. I still see many advantages using it for stills, but I'm sure that the benefits may be even more useful for video purposes. This bring me to two main questions.
1. If there are any specific shots, or methods you'd like me to test either stills or video on the Lens Turbo - please let me know and I'll do my best. I have a canon fd 50mm 1.4 and 20mm 2.8 for the lens turbo.
2. What positive/negative impact will the speedbooster or lens turbo have on going the anamorphic route? What type of setup would be best, and how would one be able to have a nice compact (ish) setup to match the Nex's diminutive benefits. The dream is having an affordable small full-frame in the nex that is easy to travel with and may shoot some awesome anamorphic footage.
Appreciate any input or questions from either Andrew or the rest of you guys.