Leaderboard

Gawddamn Canon. There's moire in the damn brownies. DONE.

Many people find that a 2x (3.55:1) aspect ratio is just too narrow for their liking. The good news is that if you are using a 2x lens and you have a DP4 monitor, you can compose and shoot in 1.5x. This allows us to enjoy all the benefits of 2x glass (greater availability, lower prices, more dramatically stretched bokeh) with none of the headache. Here's how to do it:[list=1] [*]Choose a Preset number so that you don't have to make these adjustments every time (just scroll back to the Preset). [*]Under the [i]Advanced Menu[/i], go to [i]Scale[/i] and select [i]2.35:1[/i]. [*]Go to [i]Custom Scale[/i] and input the following values: [/list] [indent=1]HSTART: 706[/indent] [indent=1]HSIZE: 94[/indent] [indent=1]VSTART: 500[/indent] [indent=1]VSIZE: 600[/indent] Now you are set to monitor in 1.5x. I have created an Apple Compressor setting that I just drag-and-drop onto incoming footage that squeezes AND crops the footage to 1.5x before I even begin my edit. It helps keep my render time down and I don't even have to deal with the trimmed footage area if I don't want to. These values [i]may[/i] also work on the DP6, but I haven't tried it.

Hey guys, I've run a recording studio for about 15 years now, and find myself running into the same issues over and over again. I've also been giving the same speech for about as long, and thought I'd compile it into a short "how to" video for YouTube. Bring your sense of humor, as I don't pull any punches. Shot on a GH2, ISCO Ultra-Star, and 37mm Mir. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw25dOC7H9M&hd=1

That was so full of WIN.

Um, Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? It seems like you are suggesting that by attaching a rotary shutter it will somehow enable global shutter on the camera? As far as I know, the sensor has to be made to support global shutter in the first place. And, even if it did, it would need to be switched on in software before it could even be utilized. So we are also talking about hacking the firmware. And, there is a tradeoff with global shutter too. Loss of dynamic range so I would expect that we would loose the 13 stops of latitude in the process. Am I missing something?

Just got my email from Amazon today!! Shipped! I wanted to see who would ship one the fastest so I preordered the first day from B&H, Amazon and Adorama. For some reason everything I preorder from B&H now is always released later than everybody else. I thought they were on top.? :-(

If this camera is using the 5dmkII sensor, well then I can't believe the moire. Worse than even the t4i. I am seriously ditching Canon. I love my 5dmkIII, but it'll be for photos only from here on out. Thank you Panasonic, can't wait for my GH3!

haha, brilliant! :lol: , should be stickied on every music/recording forum in existence!

I couldn't past the first 8 seconds of the video. That is horrible image quality! Needs to be hacked... ;)

I know this is not that relevant to the article but when I saw the shot on the article it just struck me. Male gaze!

No, 4K is not worth it. In fact, digital projection is a disaster and I believe the only reason the movie industry gets away with such inferior quality is because people don't care about it and, of course, there's no competition to the media. Every movie I've seen -including Skyfall - at AMC which blasts its Sony 4K notification at the start - suffers from color loss, brightness loss and poor dynamic range (Xiong's bulb turned down??). I do far better on my cheap Mits projection screen with an old Cinemascope production (viewing distance??). There's a reason why this particular form of entertainment is - or was - called the dream factory and that's because the medium's "limitations" were a way to present a story that, even in its most "realistic" tone, still had a dreamy, not of the day-to-day reality quality. That is simply not there with digital anything because neither of the ???'s or any of the new limitations, were an issue "back in the day". Without significant change in this current situation, the digital madness at theatres will only accelerate the advent of the home theatre as more people finally realize that the price they're paying for non-quality isn't a value proposition. And, with an aging population, that's a more serious problem that it might seem.

What exactly is the fascination of a FF GH3? Seems unnecessary.. If Panasonic decide to increase the size of the sensor it should be to S35 not 35mm FF............... Why drastically increase the price for near to no benefit whatsoever? Just look at what the BMCC does with an even smaller sensor............................ Tell me again why Panasonic should make a 35mm FF camera?

As a digital projectionist and a cinéaste (getting my eyes checked at least once a year, they work perfect for distances), I can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, and of course I prefer the latter. Sony's argumentation, that viewing distance is of bigger importance than screen size, is rubbish nonetheless, because you can get audiences only so close to the screen as is necessary to let them enjoy 4k by completely rebuilding your cinema. The rows would have to be almost vertical, like in some IMAX-theaters. I watched [i]Inception[/i], [i]The girl with the dragon Tattoo[/i] and [i]Skyfall[/i] (this one 'false' 4k) on a 10m x 24m screen, from row 5. Note, that nobody voluntarily chooses these seats, because inevitably there is also a heavy [color=#ff0000][i]distortion[/i][/color] of the image and people consider it a disadvantage not to be able to overview the whole screen (while, in fact, this is the idea of a big screen). What is more, most content still is produced in 2k, a very high percentage is still even filmed in SD interlaced (regional ads, but astonishingly also commercials for cars, and from row 5 these often -but not always- are unendurable). I believe that within one or two decades, 4k will be the [i]de facto[/i] standard, but not because the audience calls and pays (more) for it, but simply because the equipment needs to be replaced anyway, and 4k will be quite affordable soon. The reasons why videographers are attracted by 4k are: > They think 'bigger is better', which is arguable, because bigger is just bigger. > They never saw a true HD image in their life, because either their cameras didn't make it or (if they watch a BD on their HD-TV-set), they keep the aforementioned distance, shrinking the image to the size they are used to. > They stare at their computer displays from the same distance, relatively, as they did with their old 800 x 600 CRTs. Tell anybody, that he should move to a one-foot-distance to his 24" display ([color=#ff0000][i]distortion![/i][/color]), and he will disapprove this advice.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353991858' post='22392'] Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense? I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time. [/quote] Yeah, I agree. For simple medium to close up shots moire is less of an issue because you'll most likely be shooting at a wider aperture, the 5D is fine for this. But things get messy when you need landscape, having to lose that shallow depth of field can show the bigger issues of the 5D. Thats where the GH2 seems to shine, incredible amount of detail. http://vimeo.com/29549553

Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense? I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.