Leaderboard

It doesn't bother me. Nobody with any experience on a Gh2 would cater to its weaknesses in a real world shoot like the Empirical test. I think they just went for the cleanest image with a nice sheen on it, and that's fine. It has kind of an immediately gratifying characteristic... But by no means would i give it the "film look" stamp. Seriously, an old fast takumar for about a hundred bucks and the right grading could've taken this in a totally different direction. You can't stick a razor lens like the Fujinon in front of a Gh2 with a 150mb patch and expect it to not perform surgery. You almost have to throw some dirt on it to give it some soul... But that's cool because it's cheaper. I've seen plenty of footage that looked filmic. Granted, I can't film an indoor scene on a bright sunny day and get all manner of what's going on out the window as well as inside. But i've seen plenty of Films shot on actual FILM that blow out windows also. Each sensor has its own character. A lot of these cameras throw a "milky" characteristic on skin that drives me nuts... You too $70,000 Alexa...

Here's the footage: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39xXBLVCbUI[/media]

sorry man. wrong topic.

[quote name='HellKat' timestamp='1345303087' post='15987'] Although I agree with a number of things you mentioned in your critique of part 3 (in particular, where you talk about endless reminders about the importance of creativity which BTW often look like mantras lacking any sunstance), I think the overall tone of your blog post (and your advices) are not appropriate. Part 3 does not confirm your major leitmotif regarding GH2 - not a surprise, you do not like it. Here is a piece of advice for you - next time you do what Zacuto did with their overall excellent and amazing effort by its scale and contribution to the filmmaking community, and then we'll see if you are up to the challange yourself. To finish on a positive note - I respect what you do and check your blog almost every day. Equally, I respect your contribution to the community (even if I sometimes disagree with all your biases). But, man, learn your place. [/quote] Man...it's like bad mouthing Texas. Get your ass shot off over cameras around here... Yeah they did put in a lot of effort...but damn... Putting on a test like that would not be what i considered a terrible inconvenience.. Using the best technology on the market, working with and interviewing some of the most respected DP's of our time.... Sounds awful. Which one of us wouldn't jump at the opportunity to do something like this if we we're Steve Weiss? The whole point of this series was to get us all out of the forums and out there in the field. (I'm guilty as hell here on it myself, so don't crucify me:). It's fun to talk shop on technology. That's all it is. People on Youtube are telling each other to go f--k themselves by the 9th comment over there because the uploader didn't use "smooth" -2 -2 -2 -2 and thus, the test was void.. It's retarded how personal people get over it. For every negative comment on a camera, there are probably 2 or 3 positives out there somewhere if someone is researching. I have a T2i and a GH2. I've seen just about every negative comment there is on the T2i... But i absolutely love Cinestyle and Magic Lantern. I love the GH2... It's a detail monster and Flowmotion is the best patch i've ever used... But i prefer Canons look sometimes. No forum told me that... But if it did, i sure as hell wouldn't post 50 pounds of negative on the commenters face... Pretty condescending.

Almost all interviewees talked about telling stories. Yes, it matters for sophisticated film makers and movie critics, but the mass audience, where the most money comes from, do not care. They want to see boobs, special effects and stupidity -- a quick gratification for investing their money ($12 movie tickets) and time spend watching it (Youtube). If the exact contest was shot side-by-side with any of the two cameras tested, most audience members are not going to be concerned about what footage is better than another. They do not understand or care about a little noise, burned out highlights or a slight yellow cast. The general consensus seems to point to the direction that more money you spend on camera, easier and faster it is to turn it around. It all comes down to money. Most artists have luxury of time, therefore they can make any of these cameras work (well.. maybe not iPhone). Since their budgets are severely limited, they choose reasonably prices cameras. Big budget movie makers, on the other hand, need to get things done quickly first time around, therefore they choose the big-boy cameras, minimizing the overall cost. Having said all that, 7D still sucks compared to GH2. It just tells you what is popular (Canon) isn't necessarily the best for the money. Marketing determines results, not truths.

But in this case this is not being a gearhead. I'm over stating stuff because I can't believe the indifference so many people have to something so evident and bad looking. This is purely based on what I saw when watching a music video: an image that hit me in the face because of its uncommon artifacts. I've shot short films and movies for 7 years, and I've drawn and painted my whole life. I live through images. I do VFX all the time. Animation. I have a trained eye. And I believe Philip does too, and he probably has far better equipment than I do. So how come he denies such an obvious shortcoming (I have to say that softness is a lot more filmic than jagged edges and pixelated details, really...)? It can be better in every other aspect, but this single one, considering this is an HD camera intended for film production, is a really bad one. And this is the main point: don't repeat someone's words as if they were the most qualifed truth, the undeniable opinion on what's good just because of his experience. Judge for yourself. Do you like the image that camera produces? Do you believe it's worth its price? That's great. But do it because you think it's so, not because a celebrity cinematographer says it is. I saw what comes out of the camera and think it's not up to par with what he's claims, if even for one single aspect of the image. I'm not afraid to question Philip for being experienced. I trust my experience, my work and my sensitivity.

I bought a Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 on eBay and gave it a spin with my ISCO Projection Anamorphic. I wanted to see how it handles big apertures. These are still images (Panasonic GF3). Most of them at f/2.8. I put in one shot at f/1.4. The photo's look really sharp to me. I also got footage, i'll be putting it together and posting it later. Click for [b]big[/b]! [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_11/gallery_20742_11_24365.jpg[/img] f/1.4 [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_11/gallery_20742_11_396533.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_11/gallery_20742_11_87178.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_11/gallery_20742_11_316443.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_11/gallery_20742_11_843659.jpg[/img]

Andrew's review from a while back: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/639/rewo-gh2-cage-full-review"]http://www.eoshd.com...age-full-review[/url] If anyone is interested: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/ReWo-V2-0-Professional-Grade-Cage-for-GH2-Rare-and-no-longer-in-production-/200808264756#ht_617wt_1367"]http://www.ebay.com/...6#ht_617wt_1367[/url]

It's in Philip Bloom's best interests to speak highly of Canon cameras.