Leaderboard

Speaking of pixel peeping there really is no light in Vitaliy's dark soul is there? http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/74231#Comment_74231 How can anyone fail to be happy when someone like Francis Ford Coppola appreciates their work?

KahL please meet Facts. The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade. I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others. Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting. Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example. TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless... I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon. I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind. http://vimeo.com/45596420 What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied. We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!

Some of the shots are simple beautiful. The horrid old lady for example. Very Babel in its appearance. And the coloring is also superb.

Free advertising for Ray Valenti! Of course, I'll never be able to afford a house after buying all of these anamorphic lenses. There are a couple of generic/off-brand models out there. I have no idea of what this one is. But it's good to hear that you seem to have found a winner. To answer your question about aspect ratio, try this: Print a picture of a circle and tape it a wall. Square up your camera as much as possible and get a quick shot of the circle. Then take it into your editing software and stretch it out until it's a perfect circle again. Look at how much you had to stretch it and you'll know the ideal ratio of your lens.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934'] KahL please meet Facts. The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.[/quote] So what you're saying is that it isn't limited, but it's decent. Well, which one is it? Either it's limited or it isn't. You can't claim both simultaneously. The Red isn't very limited, neither is the Alexa, or the C300 and at certain noise levels, neither are the Canons. The major flaw with the GH2 are the highlights. It's been shown over and over that they aren't attractive, even with the most log-like profiles available. Does it mean you cannot get a great image? Of course not. However, that wasn't my point. It's funny and ironic that you use the idea of getting it right in-camera. A mantra that was preached by nearly every Canon shooter. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934'] I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.[/quote] That's nice and good for your preference. But again, that wasn't my point. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.[/quote] Of course and THIS was where I was touching on. What the DP did, not what the camera did. Had this lighting scenario been used, it would have lit every end of every camera's sensor. However it wasn't the intention of every DP and if I recall, wasn't the intention of the 14-stop range test either when you think about it (it was stated so at the very beginning of the comparison). The idea was in measuring each camera's latitude capabilities as well as the DP's method of lighting. However if you light everything for a "sweet spot" range for each camera, it will have a certain look, but simultaneously defeat the "dynamic range" test as well. Which is why many DP's left the darks to be dark and worked along the gray areas toward highlights. Nearly any camera can look great if you blast light to fill in where the low light range suffers. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera.[/quote] That wasn't my point. Nearly every camera display on the web was done in natural light as well. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.[/quote] This is nice and well, but again, wasn't the point. If anything, the test clearly proved that in order to show the GH2 can hang with the "big boys", it DID need to be over lit with studio megawatts. Completely contradicting your claims yet again. Wasn't this even shown by the twin-DPs on the GH2's end? And also displayed in so many other videos: the GH2 suffers in DR, whether you boost up the ISO or not. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...[/quote] According to this test, they did use a flat profile. And it still suffered in comparison. It may be flat for GH2 standards, but it wasn't for broader DR standards. Your points for old lenses is one that can be added for any camera (almost). And post-grain is irrelevant. We're talking about the camera's capabilities in-camera, for a 14stop DR test. Not how much post work and power windows are needed to make it compete. The end result, due to their over-lit method was a very TV'ish feel. And, I wasn't even the first to note it on this thread. Is it a bad image? Of course not. But if we're lighting to the tune of a filmic look, it doesn't look right to most eyes. If that's your preference, then fine. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.[/quote] Whoa whoa WHOA. Wait now, which one is it? Either we get it right in camera, or we don't? How are we getting more and more into post-work talk with you here? Yet several paragraphs ago you claimed that if you get it right in-camera, post work isn't even necessary. Seems like some fanboy flip flopping ala the Reduser site more and more here. Actually, other than resolution, most of your tests appear to be falling FAR into post production fixes for what the GH2 cannot produce (for examp: high ISO blasts that only look good if you turn the image black and white. Seriously?) [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind. [media]http://vimeo.com/45596420[/media][/quote] This is a final produced piece of work. NOT in-camera results. When we're talking about the camera, we're talking about in-camera, on-set results. Mind you, the comments about the GH2 having a baked in, video'ish look are stemming from on set results as well as the results from this shoot out test (just to clarify). [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.[/quote] This flip flop, straw grasping can go both ways. For a GH2, F3 or T2i. You do it ALL THE TIME, at every chance you get to shit on Canon cameras, even though there are plenty of results that show how sharp they can be modified in post, how rich the colors are in-camera, everything you bitch about in favor of the GH2. Only the GH2 isn't the broad favorite in most situations. You just tweak the argument to how you like to suit your bias. Which is sad because I just referred a non-profit shooter at B&H a few months ago to purchae a GH2 over a 60D in favor of resolution and recording lengths. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late! [/quote] No, no we are not and this is what brings up the points of your rampant faboyish behavior in favor of Panasonic's camera. What we're talking about are two DP's who knew how to light strongly toward a camera's faults and could have done so with ANY camera on that roster. What we're showing is that a camera, with a ton of over-lighting to compensate for stunted dynamic range and major post work, can match up toward the other cameras that don't need nearly as much to accomplish the same thing. THAT is what Coppola saw. Not the in-camera results. One of the older cinematographers SAID THIS in the same episode. Kudos to the awesome twin DP's (even if the lighting style wasn't my taste, personally). It's sad really. Several months ago on this very site, I was pro-GH2 over the Canon cameras when resolution was the subject matter. And frankly, I still am. However, the way you make it seem, you mind as well never use a Canon sensor as the GH2 is better in ALL aspects or equally so. Which is obviously bullshit. Right camera for the right job and even more so, the Director of Photography is what brings the results. The GH2, Canon, Alexa or any other camera is a smaller footnote. However with how much more you scream pro GH2, anti Canon, one wouldn't know this. Your fanboy behavior is astounding, dude. I swear I'm reading a Sega vs Nintendo thread half the time whenever you go on your rampages of skewed "facts".

Andrew - I guessed A,B,C,D,F,G,H correctly in my write-ups. I feel proud of that, missing only E and I. I'm glad C300 was not I. I was second to last for me, even behind G. Just too sterile. My favorites guessed last month were: H, F, C and A. I agree with every word you said about camera H - the F65- and I am happy that we both saw and write the truth with how it handled NATURAL light and looked most like film in the skin. The reason why B was down on my list was that it is by far the most lit scene and upon one quick glance (which most of the voters did), looks most memorable. However, B is the most ‘digital’ looking scene to me and here is what I mean: B looked digital by looking like a soap scene or a staged lit scene. Like a greenscreen effect with shadows slightly off, B looked too pampered and ready and set. I started looking at all the lights and pretty faces and forgot the mood of the scene and that it was a room. Also B had some aliasing on the window frame, skin tone was yellowish and flatter and I saw some compression in the shadows. In other words, the “room” became a “set” because of the lighting. Could you ever see a scene from “24″ being lit like B? No, there is much more moody realism and grit in 24 with natural spill light. Now, H for me was sharpest, had the most latitude and best color fidelity (detail in the lamp and lights). Seeing it is the F65 and looks like that WITHOUT the relighting all the other scenes had is simply - Amazing! To add light and tons of post work is a detriment to a camera. A camera is supposed to make the MOST of natural light available in which the DP gets to sculpt with artificial light – in the hopes of creating a masterpiece. But it is all about the use of LIGHT. When obvious changes become so dramatic that the lighting looks staged, that speaks to a camera’s weakness far more than resolution or price alone.

I had guessed that B was the GH2 simply based on the comments about how those guys lit the scene. I also think it was a bit too video looking, but still I would be more than happy with footage that looked that good overall and perhaps toned it down just a bit and had the scene with a bit more DR than it had. They kind of overdid it, but that is based on how it looked on my Vizio and not how it may have translated in the theater. I can imagine that it probably popped just right on a big screen and projector. Regardless it gives me great confidence in the capabilities of the GH2 and that has value of it own. I now know that i'm not fooling myself when I think something I record looks good. It actually does look good and not just cuz i shot it on my camera and and deluding myself. That knowledge has value. I come from a Pro Audio background and I know all too well that many times we fool ourselves into thinking the work we did with low cost gear sounds better than it actually did. It was hard to have a frame of reference to make that judgment. However, with the GH2 we have a really telling frame of reference that is undeniable. Now I can just work and stop worrying so much. Right now the exciting cameras in the sub 10K range are the FS 100/700, Nikon D800, Black Magic Design Cinema and GH2 IMO.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342408742' post='13943'] I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across. [/quote] I agree I think the core of the test should change. You can make nice images for cheap, We get it already. Let's show how certain tools work best for certain purposes. Also how to get the most out of them. Perhaps they should give the operators/teams of the cameras a short script to shoot consisting of like 3 scenes. One outdoors, one indoors, and one at night. Something like that and then show how certain decisions have to be made when using a certain tool. I don't know, that's just the first thing that came to me. I understand totally. I don't understand the doubt with all the evidence out there. I actually don't own a GH2 yet. I plan on getting one because I think the image is lovely and it's a very powerful tool.

Superb video Andrew. I haven't been to Berlin since I was there in the 90's with The Fleshtones playing my saxophone, but the city is as striking and interesting as ever. And those are some hauntingly beautiful cityscape shots from your RX100 video, and the slow-mo gives it a kind of dreamlike quality. Really impressive work. Am really excited about this camera which I ordered the day it became available. I'm hoping Sony's release here in the States goes smoothly. It's a camera I have dreamed of owning since seeing work people were doing with the hx9v. And even though the hx9v is a camera I never got around to owning, this one will be in my bag really soon. Thanks for the best RX100 video sample yet by far and for an enjoyable review. All the best, Markus

I preferred the image from the Alexa myself. But if they switched up the DPs for round two, would I be saying the same thing? The fact that the GH2 is even a [i]part[/i] of this conversation is remarkable. I sold off all of my Canon gear and bought the GH2 because I wanted to have a camera that could produce an image without any distracting visual shortcomings -- I wanted people (professionals, casual YouTube surfers, and everyone in between) to be engaged with the content instead of the pixels. For the most part, I feel like it has been a good decision. There will always be bigger, better and newer cameras coming out but as far as I am concerned, this one sets the bar for consumer video cameras and will continue to as long as 1080P is still a part of the conversation.

On another note, thanks for putting the "Comment on this article" back under each post's title! So much easier to just get to the discussions.

I cannot stress it enough, we are in an age finally where only how you see something is what matters, and having the courage to go out there and make it happen, not what you use to see it on. The GH2 proves that, not just by being mentioned here, but for what I also, like Andrew, have fought long and hard to manifest in people who want to be filmmakers, it's your idea and nothing esle that must permeate everything you do. All these online forums and opinions, 99% of them only are intrested in specs and technical point scoring against each other, none of them are interested in using the toolset to define something else, the actual purpose of why they were made to begin with! If an audience can take a film shot on video to a $100m at the box-office, then that should be your wake up call, and if you hadn't woken up after that, then you never will. Keep pixel peeping. I'll just shoot :)

I actually hated how the GH2 was used. Reminded me of those Spanish soap operas. I also think that people chose it because it was lit to where you can see everything. When I first saw the shots, B stood out because I was able to see everything. After I watched it several times it became one of my least favorites. Just seemed very digital. I felt the established DPs were pretty lazy here. The younger DPs lit like they had something to prove and kudos to them. Still it's proof that the GH2 can hang with the big boys. I was just not feeling the way it was used. The F65 and Alexa were my favs. If anyone picks a camera based off of this test he or she is a fool. This was more of a test of the DPs than anything.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033b76a2eb8_sonyf3.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033b892dc49_panasonicgh2.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033b9b699f4_redepic.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033bac313b5_iphone4s.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033bca7ae0e_canonc300.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033be1c92d6_arrialexa.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033bf90708b_canon7d.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033c0945b0d_sonyf65.jpg[/img][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19952/50033c1a4ad53_sonyfs100.jpg[/img] A - SONY F3 B - PANASONIC GH2 C - RED EPIC D - IPHONE 4S E - CANON C300 F - ARRI ALEXA G - CANON 7D H - SONY F65 I - SONY FS100

My top 3 choices from watching part 1 where: Camera H Camera F Camera B I was very surprised to find out they where Camera H - Sony F65 Camera F - Arri Alexa Camera B - Panasonic GH2 wow! stunned ! the two most expensive cinema cameras and the GH2 ! I really thought Camera B was going to be the Red Epic and it was the GH2! So this just goes to show we can all make great Movies with the gear we have!!! .... a GH2 A big salute to Panasonic and Nick Driftwood for putting a camera in our hands that is capable of competing with Hollywood movie Cameras without us spending over 50,000 on the camera. Artistry and talent are such an important part of this and ultimately it is all very subjective and personal. But for me this shows in the right hands the Panasonic GH2 is a world class camera at very very small price compared to the others ....once it has Nick Driftwood's hack on it. So lets go to work and make some great movies! there are no excuses now!!! Andy Lee