Leaderboard

I don't spend a lot of time 'pixel-peeping' and 'measure-bating' from one camera make to another. I've made piles of money shooting Canon full-frame video, and it does many things well... namely, headshot interviews, which is where I make most of my money. It's not well-suited for landscapes and deep DOF shots, as Andrew tells us time and time again. Lucky for me, I don't make any money shooting that stuff. There's other makes of cameras for that, though. As to which is 'money better spent' or 'too expensive', just know that less than a half-decade ago, filmmakers would DREAM to have the quality of video at a sub five-figure price point that people trash and deride today as 'over-priced' or 'greedy'. I say, go out and shoot with WHATEVER make of gear you have and work on your craft, lighting, and storytelling. Transcend your gear and its limitations.

I watched Skyfall last night My first visit to the cinema for a long time as Money ihas been very tight these last few years I have to say I was quite unimpressed with the cinematography and I know that couldn't be down to Roger Deakins. I felt the film had a videoey feel to it and had lost the richness film gives. I have long been an advocate for real film but have been shouted down so many times I kind of gave up as HD doesnt look to bad on the computer. I'm wondering if things may have been different if shot at 4k or maybe the prints may have been digital when deliverd to the cinema or a lower standard to save costs. I watched the film at cineworld theatre 2 stevenage. I was disapointed. Also disapointed in the film itself and think they have lost their way with it. The key ingredients of a Bond film has always been the gadgets The women The suave charm and of course the villains and cars as well as Bonds intelliigence at working out stuff.. They have ditched all those things in favour of an athlete with bulbous legs a bodybuilders pose without the muscles and poses that made me cringe.He looks for all intents and purposes like a games avatar and actually the villain. The gadgets are gone as is the charm. His intelligence is replaced by a knowledge not suited to the roughness his character potrays. They gave him weaknesses like substance abuse boozing and a bad childhood this time round. Please I dont want to feel sorry for Bond I want to admire him. But I feel they trashed that. The film itself seemed to want to please the critics and the storyline was just horrible. The opening was the best part of the film and couldnt help feeling they should have had the opening at the end of the film. They started with casino royale saying it was a reboots but now they are trying to reboot it even further back The storyline almost seems opportunistic and fits with the film makers needs to well and it detracts from the story making it nonsensical as we already know the past history through countless films. If they think this is a way to reboot the franchise they are losing their grip. We all know what we want with Bond and that is Glamour gadgets women Fast cars and excitement all the things critics hate and all the things we love. I know this has so far done well at the box office. I wonder how well the next film will do. I also wonder if they made a big mistake ditching film.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1352118270' post='21058'] What would be the best video dslr right now? A Canon 5D III beats a GH3 in low light for sure and has better dynamic range, but no 1080p60. I'm pretty sure it has less detail in video and it's three times as expensive. Even with the GH3 being twice the price of the GH2, I can't think of anything else that beats it price/performance wise. [/quote] A Gh2 if it has moire and aliasing.

Hi Caleb, I downloaded the 77,28 MB mov file from vimeo, and it's as dark as there in the player. I guess this has to do with a very complicated bunch of correlations of color spaces, working environment, monitor gammas asf., described in the first chapters of [url="http://splicevine.com/july-color-correction/"]this[/url]. As with every challenge, having become aware of the nature of a problem is of more avail than just buying, say, an Eizo monitor, or two, three. > the utility app in OS X, [i]DigitalColor Meter[/i], should be in your dock permanently. > as the article above suggests, if you can't trust your eyes, navigate with the instruments. In Resolve, you should watch the luma waveform to realize, that big portions of your shadows in the shadows drown completely (if most of the values pike at '10' and below). [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]'72mm Lightcraft Workshop Fader ND'[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]One danger using ND faders is crushing your midtones. Midtones are what the whole grading ado is about. It can very well be that your ND has made the image too flat by dying out the precious midtones. Can be detected by watching the histogram during shooting.[/font][/color] The second thing I noticed is, that in your upload file the block artifacts are bigger than any grain could be. > ProRes-master > 7 mbps (or higher) upload file for vimeo. Good H.264 encoders are AdobeME or x264 Quicktime-plugin.

[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1352077149' post='21027'] Tempted to buy a Red One asap. Can Dragon be upgraded to the One? [/quote] It would be the other way round, and no, which means your films could probably only look as good as The Social Network or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, is that a limitation you're willing to live with? :)

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']quite silly really -they threw away 1/3rd of their sensor.[/quote] Mendes came out of the viewing room. 'Roger!' 'You liked it?" 'No! What have you done! The resolution is like that of my fucking pre-production GH3.' 'Oh, that. I actually extracted all we needed. You know, it's such a pain in the ass to have to deal with all those anal something adapters ...' 'Know what you did, half-wit? You threw away 1/3rd of your sensor!' 'I'm so sorry, Sam. Must be because I am so unexperienced. Give me a second chance.' [quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']Re. Upscaling. I have played around with a 4k film grain overlay on top of nex5n footage and it really does add a perceived increase in detail.[/quote] You mean you upscaled the 1,9 MP to 4k and then added grain in post to dither it? How do you know the grain is 4k?

This thread is just a discussion. And maybe it's true that it's turned kind of negative. But it's just a discussion. There's no need to get upset that someone is bashing (which no one has actually done) your new favorite camera. Obviously that's easer said then done. I'm very sorry if it seems like I'm trying to convince everyone to not buy this camera. That's not my intention at all. My reaction comes from my own personal dissatisfaction and is in no way representative of how everyone else feels. I was staking a lot on this camera and feel really upset that it didn't meet my own personal criteria. Of course this is, and should be, different for everyone. This discussion has ruffled a few feathers and in the interest of keeping the peace I wont comment on it any further. I do have one last thing to point out though (sorry). Many people in this thread have pointed out that the results we've seen are from a pre-production camera. While this is true and normally would indicate that things will change, Panasonic assured some reviewers that this was representative of final image quality. Since I've mentioned this in a few other threads, I assumed most of you guys knew that. I've struggled to find the exact place I read that but eventually, I found a review that has the same info: [url="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3-review-20489"]http://www.ephotozin...h3-review-20489[/url] [quote][b]Nb.[/b][color=#2D2D2D][font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] Panasonic Lumix GH3 tested with firmware 0.5, which Panasonic assures us is representative of final image quality and video recording quality.[/size][/font][/color][/quote] So again, not trying to piss anyone off here, Just thought I'd explain that little bit.

FYI: Skyfall was not shot anamorphic . Roger Deakins shot it with Arri Master Primes (spherical lenses made by Zeiss) Roger Deakins quote: [i]''A widescreen 2.40:1 aspect ratio frames the images, which were shot “flat” and extracted from the Alexa’s 16:9 sensor. The lenses were ARRI Master Primes, usually focal lengths in the mid-range like 27, 32, 35 and 40mm. [url="http://www.codexdigital.com/"]Codex[/url]recorders were used with all cameras, up to about 10. Codex Datapacks were backed up on set and then sent for dailies processing.[/i]'' I think we will see more and more of this process, as film dies away and shooting anamorphic becomes a less used format , by shooting spherical digitally and cropping for 2.40:1 for release.