Jump to content

The simple thing the GH5 does not seem to achieve: the magic of the GH2


PannySVHS
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Not sure I'm understanding correctly.... filmmakers use cameras. Colorists use LUTs. Some people rely on auto exposure. And?

And the approach to the whole "being a filmmaker" has changed since the GH2, not for all but for a lot of people. It feels like the majority of people who bought the GH2 with video in mind spent more time learning about the image and the tools to grade it than the majority of GH5 buyers do today. As a result Youtube is filled with GH5 stuff that looks meh.

Lets say you're 14 year old. You want to become a star like them other big Youtubers. But your concentration span is about as long as it takes for a Tesla to reach 60mph. What would you rather watch? "Learn the basics of cinematography - 10 parts, 1 hour each" or "INSTANT FILM LOOK IN 1 MINUTE, AMAZING RESULTS, EASY PEASY, JUST BUY THESE LUTS"

Nothing wrong in using LUTs, or auto features of a camera. But things have changed, just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

I'm not seeing this superiority of GH2 image quality over the GH5. Just give it time, @PannySVHS. To my eyes, the GH5 is magic.

Never stated about it being superiour. You are to busy shooting in order to read long posts it seems these days:) Your image looks very nice if opened to full dimensions but looks off colorwise  in the thumbnail. One thing, I would like to see some skintones without makeup on your great model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Never stated about it being superiour. You are to busy shooting in order to read long posts it seems these days:) Your image looks very nice if opened to full dimensions but looks off colorwise  in the thumbnail. One thing, I would like to see some skintones without makeup on your great model.

hahah. I wish I was busier shooting. 

So you're saying that since the GH2, Panasonic users in particular are less creative than they were back in the day? And only Panasonic users, not other filmmakers? This whole thread is lost on me... I know you'd like to see some creative short films made with the GH5.... or any short films whatsoever...

The takeaway for me is that people keep demanding more image quality, but that's not what's preventing people from going out and shooting the next Days of Being Wild. But again, that can't be your point, since it's so painfully obvious. :) 

Images have to be viewed full size in this forum in order to be seen correctly, no different from my blog I'm afraid. Anyhow, I hope nobody's just viewing the thumbnails... :( 

I don't think my great model would be caught dead without makeup. hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GH2 is a classic.  It marked the point where the camera no longer really mattered; the story mattered more.  A lot of good content was created on the GH2 because it was the first real good camera that creative people could use to show off their stories and ideas.  It was the pinnacle for it's time.  Now people have moved on and there are so many good cameras; no one camera can really claim to have a monopoly on being a good camera that creative people flock too.  That time has passed.  Yes, more casual people have also moved into the film making field diluting all the good content that is out there. 

 

p.s., there are a lot more "gorgeous footage" from modern cameras like the gh5 than the gh2.  The quality of the footage is better - 4k, dynamic range, color balance, etc.  But a lot of the older gh2 footage had better content - better story; better editing, etc...  If you look at almost all GH2 content, they are technically worse than the new stuff; but obviously not too much worse -- the failings did not detract from the story.  GH2 content was so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eleison said:

The GH2 is a classic.  It marked the point where the camera no longer really mattered; the story mattered more.  A lot of good content was created on the GH2 because it was the first real good camera that creative people could use to show off their stories and ideas.  It was the pinnacle for it's time.  Now people have moved on and there are so many good cameras; no one camera can really claim to have a monopoly on being a good camera that creative people flock too.  That time has passed.  Yes, more casual people have also moved into the film making field diluting all the good content that is out there. 

Well, that GH5 is an expensive camera but used by a lot of users on vimeo despite its higher price. It´s got the most uploaded content these days on there. Still rarely anything impressive or beautiful in any of the departments of cinematography, may that be color, framing, movement, subject choice.

That is the simple thing the GH5 does not seem to be able to do, as I stated as a catch phrase in order to spark a conversation and an inspiration to revisit shooting style and results and especially videomakers from the earlier GH1 to GH3 times. Also the GH4 is a beast, that in my opinion has only been really used to its potential by very few users, some on this forum fortunately. By the way, anyone also waiting to see that G7 feature from Andy Lee? Hallo @andy lee:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I have said before, I think these new cameras a Too good. That is good for certain situations, but to look Cinematic, Filmic, hell no.

Man I am afraid to guess on the camera LoL. Panny G7. It is pretty sharp I can tell you that. It ain't a Canon unless it is a 1DC! Oh Boy don't tell me a Canon XC10!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, mat33 said:

I suspect the availability of more affordable cinema cameras such as Blackmagic also has a lot to do with the lack of higher quality artistic GH4/5 short films compared to the GH2 era.

Yepp. There was nothing else on the market that could do what the hacked GH1/2 could do without spending 10x more money. Many of the artists that would have started on the GH2 back then would probably choose a Blackmagic if they were starting out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Like I have said before, I think these new cameras a Too good. That is good for certain situations, but to look Cinematic, Filmic, hell no.

Man I am afraid to guess on the camera LoL. Panny G7. It is pretty sharp I can tell you that. It ain't a Canon unless it is a 1DC! Oh Boy don't tell me a Canon XC10!

I had the same thought about cameras being too good the other day when I was watching C200 raw.  The video was  a wedding trailer, and the closeups showed almost too much detail in makeup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Garrett S said:

I had the same thought about cameras being too good the other day when I was watching C200 raw.  The video was  a wedding trailer, and the closeups showed almost too much detail in makeup.

I have seen some stuff from mercer with his Canon 5D mkIII on ML Raw that is pretty jaw dropping. Cheap thrills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day lots of filmmakers would shoot on older-tech film stocks 'kuz they were cheaper than the less grainy stuff.  Or, they used older film stocks because it gave them a look they were going for.  Not much different from deciding what sensor to use now-a-days.

The thing is, technology advancement blew through the financial barrier about a decade ago.  At this point anyone that's deep into wrangling the best IQ out of something...is probably just doing it to wrangle the best IQ out of something.  There's literally about a hundred consumer cameras for under 1K that will allow a "Filmmaker" to go out and capture awesome footage.

Hell, to support a school's volunteer filmmaking club, I just bought a GH1's for $95 and a Pentax f2.8 prime lens set 18mm, 24mm, and 50mm for $50.  A laptop to edit 1080 footage can be had for, what, $250?  If that's not the doors wide open, what is?  Someone with skill in the craft could make that look not only fine, but exceptional.  It will never look AS GOOD as a better camera in a good craftsman's hands, but people don't watch narratives to pick at the technical details.  Accomplish the goals of good storytelling with decent cinematography and you're on your way.

Love new gear stuff, but there's so much else to concentrate on, just can't get excited about it anymore.

One more anecdote:  I'm on a film festival committee, one of our selected films was shot on the GH5, another on the Arri.  Hand to god, while I can certainly tell the difference, the IQ is such a non-factor it's ridiculous.  The lighting in the GH5 film was creative, the Arri film lighting was boring...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Back in the day lots of filmmakers would shoot on older-tech film stocks 'kuz they were cheaper than the less grainy stuff.  Or, they used older film stocks because it gave them a look they were going for.  Not much different from deciding what sensor to use now-a-days.

The thing is, technology advancement blew through the financial barrier about a decade ago.  At this point anyone that's deep into wrangling the best IQ out of something...is probably just doing it to wrangle the best IQ out of something.  There's literally about a hundred consumer cameras for under 1K that will allow a "Filmmaker" to go out and capture awesome footage.

Hell, to support a school's volunteer filmmaking club, I just bought a GH1's for $95 and a Pentax f2.8 prime lens set 18mm, 24mm, and 50mm for $50.  A laptop to edit 1080 footage can be had for, what, $250?  If that's not the doors wide open, what is?  Someone with skill in the craft could make that look not only fine, but exceptional.  It will never look AS GOOD as a better camera in a good craftsman's hands, but people don't watch narratives to pick at the technical details.  Accomplish the goals of good storytelling with decent cinematography and you're on your way.

Love new gear stuff, but there's so much else to concentrate on, just can't get excited about it anymore.

One more anecdote:  I'm on a film festival committee, one of our selected films was shot on the GH5, another on the Arri.  Hand to god, while I can certainly tell the difference, the IQ is such a non-factor it's ridiculous.  The lighting in the GH5 film was creative, the Arri film lighting was boring...

You do realize you just confirmed that the GH5 is better than the Arri...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Hell, to support a school's volunteer filmmaking club, I just bought a GH1's for $95 and a Pentax f2.8 prime lens set 18mm, 24mm, and 50mm for $50.  A laptop to edit 1080 footage can be had for, what, $250?  If that's not the doors wide open, what is?  Someone with skill in the craft could make that look not only fine, but exceptional. 

 

That is literally what I suggested to someone else recently!

Also if you ditch the laptop requirement but get an ex lease PC, you can slash your budget in half!

How are those Pentax primes btw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...