Leaderboard

It's uncompressed 4-2-2 guys.   I'm finally getting it to work with the Blackmagic HyperDeck Shuttle and it grades amazingly. Noise grain is finer, there's obviously far less compression going on via HDMI. There's also about a stop more dynamic range and a more gentle roll off to the highlights. Amazing stuff.   If you get this camera, I recommend you shoot via an external recorder.   Now here's the proof... (blown up 200% in PS)...   http://www.eoshd.com/uploads/nikon-d5200-prores-vs-h264.png   More detail too - look at the thread on the outer ring of the Iscorama... Thread lines visible in the ProRes and smudged in the H.264 internal recording at 24Mbit.

New in this update   Robocop 2 Sony FS100 Isco 2x anamorphic with support system for 15mm rails Optex 1.33x anamorphic lens http://www.eoshd.com/content/2777/rare-ebay-finds-eoshds-latest-picks

From what I understand the only image stabilization with the GH3 is through the lenses, specifically lenses made by Panasonic.    Assuming this is true, I'm curious how people have fared with the GH3 when using legacy glass and/or non Panasonic lenses in regards to image stabilization.       Just curious what people thought was wise/reasonable in how to maximize a stable image when shooting with the GH3. Obviously a tripod helps but was looking to see if anyone had thoughts on this issue.      

Anyone field test this yet? Opinions?

Hi! The band I made this video for finally released it and I'm very happy, so I wanted to share it with you guys.   It was a lot of work and it's not without its flaws, but considering the crew (three people including me apart from the make-up artist) and the time we had it came out quite decent.   Please tell me what you think!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhqTsAmPYYs   By the way, I shot it with the Driftwood Apocalypse Now! 6GOP Nebula patch, and the lenses I used were:   · Rokinon 28mm f2.8 · Minolta MD 50mm f1.7 · Minolta MD 135mm f2.8   If you have any questions just ask!

I have been looking for some LED lights to invest in for my camera shoots. I am pretty mobile, mainly shooting bands but also screenplays/short films. Through some research I have found these portable ones   http://www.ebay.com/itm/4X-96-LED-Video-Light-for-DV-Camcorder-HDV-Z96-F135-/300546751509?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45f9fb7c15   But I was wondering your thoughts if it was better to invest in something less portable and more stable like these,   http://www.amazon.com/ePhoto-Photography-Lighting-Balanced-ePhotoINC/dp/B003QRBAIA/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&qid=1360461706&sr=8-33&keywords=LED+500+with+stand    

I think there are more basic questions to consider when discussing light(s). What is the purpose of it all? To pump enough light into the room? This is the one obvious. But unless you are a news reporter, you might want more.    You want to control the appearence, the mood. With modern equipment, it's not too hard to get sufficient light for correct exposure from existing sources. And if you don't get it from the source light, you have to decide whether you want to *add* more light or exclude the natural/existing light(s) completely and lighten everything with special lamps.   Old textbooks on filmmaking let the latter option look like the more sophisticated one. Since almost fifty years though, the concept of controlling (or mimicking) existing sources has become an alternative to a dogmatic view on film light.   Simply put: The more you want to use artificial light in the sense of a 'dodge tool' (*don't forget the relatively new possibilities to 're-light' an image through color grading) or 'fill light', bounce shadows a.s.f., the less you need to look for a big variety of specialized lamps (floods, spots with different power).    The thing is, that once you start to plan the lighting with external lamps exclusively, you are condemned to follow this path consequently. The physics of light say, that greater distances (bigger sets) need high power lamps, and you end up sitting in midst of a hot film studio, where every mood and atmosphere needs to be created from scratch.   Old hands detest LED lights, for a variety of reasons. They may not be appropriate for every situation. For a very soft light, you can use china balls (cheap, make experiments), for the odd spot you can literally buy or borrow a disco or theater spotlight. Scale everything down to your (comparatively) fantastic low-light capabilities of your modern camera.

quick update, cos i been having a ball :D   picked up a gh2,...   picked up a contax zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f2.8   and made these stills:           the shigascope vignettes on a 35mm+gh2 but is fine on the 50mm f1.4,.. nothing post worthy on the 50mm yet.   i've found that it is possible to get a sharp image at 1.4 with the zeiss,... which is not good for my wallet  :angry:   but i've also found that at 1.4, the little gap between the clamp and the lens,... light comes through that giving me a double image sometimes,.... so have to figure out a way to seal that space up.   at 2.8 its gone completely.   contax zeiss CY very very affordable compared to newer zeisses, but are razor sharp without being too sterile, so seriously, look into them before their prices get stupid high. 

That's a world of difference. If NAB weren't around the corner, I'd consider snapping up one of these.

Its great to know that Nikon has a gem of a dslr that can do great in video, I'm sure like the comment above that this was a possible fluke sadly. To me the GH3 is still a better all around camera, the ergonomics alone is a big plus to me. Battery life, headphone/mic jack, 60fps, lens choice, these are great advantages I like. The low light of the 5200 is great, but I plan to get some lights anyway since in my opinion, controlling light is very important. But its good to see Nikon that has a very competitive camera, anyone with Nikon glass should give it a gander.

I'm working out my Picture Profiles for my feature and I had a few questions:   Which Cinegamma is best for cloudy days, and alongside the best Cinegamma for cloudy/overcast days, what are the best settings after selection Cinegamma for the best, least noise visuals? Obviously shooting in overcast, against darker colors like black, grays, buildings, grays, etc I'd like to have the least amount of video noise/grain, so I'd like to know what settings such as black level, gamma, knee, color mode, color level, color phase, etc are best for least to little to no noise?   I ask this because I am doing out of state shoots (8 hours away) for a documentary segment which will be on cloudy/overcast days (for that dark, brooding atmospheric feeling) next weekend and I wanted to really get the best picture profile that I can for an over-cast/cloudy day.   I will say that I like the flat profile look for color grading (most dynamic range), but perhaps there's a better option that I don't know about that someone can answer for me?

The goal here was to use the Sony RX100's Active Image Stabilization + the plugin Lock & Load to get steadicam-like fluid walking shots without too much CMOS jello wobble or digital zooming on the image. You be the judge...   http://vimeo.com/57910477