Leaderboard

He must have read Andrew's article and decided to upgrade! He shot this one on a 5DIII (h264 it looks like) with a Zeiss 25mm f2: It's my favourite of his so far I think. And yes - the better camera does improve his filmmaking!

According to Photorumors: http://photorumors.com/2014/06/08/the-new-panasonic-lx8-camera-will-have-4k-video-and-900-price-tag/ The Panasonic LX8 will be the successor of the LX7. Expected half of july (the LX camera's have had a tight 2 year renewal schedule). It will be a contender for the RX100 III and probably have a bigger sensor than the 1/1.7-inch chip in the LX7. Not sure which size. New rumor: 4K video and $899 price tag. I'd say - Why not? smartphones are able to shoot 4K... so a high end compact shouldn't have trouble with it. Sony's 1 inch sensor also does 4K in the AX100. Awesomesauce! Nice B-cam for the GH4 ;)

More rumours here http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-new-lx8-has-a-24-90mm-f2-0-2-8-lens/

That is basically what we're getting at. "is it worth it?" Some achromat's are worth it others *might not be. We don't know. I can tell you that we do some macro work with diopters at the studio that I work at and we get some nasty color fringing. I'm not sure which brand they're using, but its not achromatic, meanwhile I've liked the results from my Tiffen series 9's. It's explained in depth and better some other places, but the basic thinking behind using achromat's with anamorphics is this... An anamorphic lens of any kind is essentially an adapter, same as a diopter. There are a number of problems caused by using each of them in common. Achromatic diopters work to correct those short comings in close photography, but in doing they inadvertantly correct those same flaws in anamorphic photography. Giving sharper less distorted images (undesireable distortion that is). So you see the point of using achromats on anamorphics often has nothing to do with close photography (though they go well together because you so often use diopters precisely for close-ups when shooting anamorphic). That's why the low power diopters are popular, such as the tokina +.4 (and now, potentially, the SLR magic +.33). But as to whether or not the SLR magic diopters are "worth it." That's what I'm asking. They're new so there isn't a lot of information or quality tests available yet. So get shooting and post something!

Better camera i guess, but it doesn't look as good to me.

I haven't watched this, but as for the Panasonic rep seeming uncomfortable on screen (assuming this is the same rep as earlier videos): I much prefer his honest, factual style to the cheeseballs Panasonic hires to be their "Lumix Luminary" shills. He's knowledgeable and seems to actually shoot at least occasionally, and understands that the market these videos are reaching (serious amateurs/indie folks as well as pros) knows its stuff and just wants specific questions answered and problems addressed.

The better camera doesnt improve his filmaking. His filmaking ability was always there. It just enables him to get even nicer shots :)

No, I think the point is that the traction behind these cameras are not all necessarily unanimous. Some people love it, other's don't. So look at it and make your own decision! There are quite a few things that don't impress me about the GH4, but I still think its a fine camera for most things. Nothing wrong with a reminder now and then that our tastes differ and YMMV. There isn't any one camera that everyone agrees is perfect.

I'd love to share this optimism, but every single time a Sony camera is announced it looks like the best thing ever... on paper. Yes a 4K sensor can make amazing 1080, like in the Cxxx series.... but will it? With most of their products, when they're in our hands all the flaws and intentionally reduced features come to the fore. They just don't seem to make as 'complete' products as Canon. There are good paper features, but something lets them down... I'm not cynical, I'm just sceptical. or after so many years, perhaps realistic :S The lack of ND filters is annoying too.

Well, looks like you got what you bargained for, the lot of you. For some reason people's egos and their cameras seem to be linked somehow. But I'd like to offer another Pythonesque suggestion. You see, in case you do indeed feel necessary to let yourself slide down to exchanging personal insults, why not doing it with style? Something like this, for example; "Go and boil your bottom, you son of a silly person! I'll fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!" After all, you have to admit, that would be much more entertaining for the onlookers trying to read these topics, wouldn't it. ;) Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time-mah.

I met this guy years ago, he was making a film part of a show I was working on, called Concrete Circus for Channel 4 in Britain. He was a cool guy from what I remember, from Paris, and his film was my favourite one that came out of the lot. Danny Macaskill was on it as well. I think I even have some of the rushes from that show saved on a hard drive somewhere at home. Actually just realised I'm still friends with him on Facebook all these years later…

In my video I used the SLR Magic Anamorphot with the Panasonic 12-35mm X lens. I used all autofocus, and I set the Anamorphot to either Near or Normal, never in between. No diopters at all. I just couldn't risk dropping it into the water and losing it especially when it was getting so dark and there were so many people. All closeups were in the Near position. That is the key to using the Anamorphot especially for run and gun situations. I could never shoot this video with the Iscorama or any 2x projector behemoth lenses.

Looks more cinematic than the GH4. Though, idk if that is because of grading, cinematography, lighting. I have no horse in this race (I'm a Canon fanboy! :lol:). I can't believe people would sacrifice low light performance for less jello. Unless you specialize in filming trains, or out the window of a car I don't see how extreme rolling shutter is encountered on a frequent basis. And it can be mitigated in post. A low light monster has so much more artistic potential, jello or no jello.

2 hands maybe, but there are more than 3 types of customers out there.   Seems our troll Michael has gone quiet. Maybe he has had to go out to the shop to buy some more bullshit.

I have heard of day for night.....but who would want to shoot night for day?

GH4 is as sharp as you want it or as soft as you want it.   It is however, more detailed than 1080p, because it's 4K. This is not hard to figure out is it!?     Download the above 1080p file Michael and take a look at the resolution from both cameras.   5D3 actually has a little bit more aliasing on high contrast edges.   Sharpness between the two is identical. The GH4 does not look 'over-sharpened' and those sloping edges are actually softer on the GH4 (top) to 5D3 (bottom, more jagged).     Facts are facts.   Personally I find a use for both. Prefer 5D3 for raw 1080p, GH4 for 4K video. Not better. They're different.   A7S I am very much looking forward to, for low light.   Each has a use!

we use the 70-200mm for all the close up head shots in pop videos , for that long lens Tony Scott look with alot of fall off in the background , its a great lens to use with the 24-105mm , we use 2 x 5D cameras so one is on each when we shoot on Canons - but Im mainly shooting on 2 xG6's now for pop videos -

For anyone with Premiere CC, Speedgrade CC makes a lot of sense! Just send the sequence, then it comes back with an LUT which renders very quickly... non-destructive and very fast

That's what Stu Maschwitz calls 'memory colors'. Among them the blue of the sky, the green of the grass, a yellow banana and (no joke, but typical for Maschwitz) coffee beans. Usually, if the skin tones hit the 'skin line' (vectorscope), the others fall into place. Here is a catch: One can easily be tempted to achieve a certain look at this early stage, making the image appear darker (usually also described as 'more punchy') or brighter (more hazy, as if the strength of the light shines through). If the shot was an early morning landscape, backlit by the sun, you may very well have recorded neither blacks nor whites. If you shot in a night club, you can have crushed shadows and clipped lights, and then all that remains to alter the exposure in post are the mids. It also depends - of course - if you are correcting in 8-10-12 or 14-bit color depth. 8-bit forbids a too much stretched ratio between input and output levels (spreading the midtones). But one rule stays valid whatever your footage is: Expose correctly, capture everything. See point 5. This will accentuate the color contrast and make the image look sharper. However, if not done with care and taste, it dominates the overall look and limits one's options. I don't consider it primary CC. The point is to make an informed decision how your finished image should look. This should be clear already during shooting. With all (also mine) 'test shots' people have no clear *concept* of that. But of course, to just correct and bring to full impact a well-shot, powerful scene is preferable to apply some exchangeable, stylish look for the sake of it. Not sure about this one. The goal rarely is an HDR-look, that's right. But the question is, when to decide how much I take away, because of: Yes, I've seen Erin Brokovich a few days ago. Heavily graded film. Many highlights (windows when shot from inside) appeared to have been allowed to clip unashamedly. But recorded clipping mostly consists of unbalanced color information. Somewhat hard to color those areas convincingly, at least with my very limited experience. The downside of grading within an NLE is that the tools are accessible only as effects. So you have to load them individually and apply them either to one clip at a time or to a clip selection. Both not very practical. In a special CC software, you grade the whole sequence, the tools always visible (sometimes you have to one-click a tab, that's the extend of it), you jump from clip to clip, and you have a better overview of how your manipulations affect a scene in it's entirety.

The directors comment on his choice of D.P. Dion Beebe (Memoirs of a Geisha): "I didn’t want it to look like one of those plastic-looking video-game movies that Hollywood loves to release over the summer. I wanted to set it apart from the pack and Dion’s style is far more evocative of the classic war movies that I love". POST: Did you shoot film or digital? LIMAN: “Film, which was very exciting for me as I wasn’t sure I’d ever get that chance again.†http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2014/June-1-2014/Directors-Chair-Doug-Liman-Edge-of-Tomorrow.aspx

Very nice video. It looks good on a 4K display. Downloaded the 1GB MP4 file from Vimeo (just need a free login account). Quicktime struggles a bit with it (it might be the 50Mbps bitrate), but VLC plays is smoothly. Can't wait to have a GH4 at the office.

Didn't see that show. Could be deconstructivistic intention. Generally, if someone is on the extreme left, looking to the right, he sees 'into the future'. Accordingly, if he sits on the right side and looks left (into an empty frame), he thinks about 'the past'. In WW2, german newsreel cameramen had the order from the ministry of propaganda, that tanks and troops had always to move from left to right, when they were meant to conquer Russia. And from right to left for France ... There is something arbitrary about the rule that one needs to be able to follow. We follow where the master leads us? Life is chaotic, important moments are fragments, thoughts jump and mix with impulses from outside. An excuse for Nolan? Does he need excuses? Go, recut the sequence so it becomes comprehensible, will it make any more sense then or become 'better'? Decades ago someone wrote a rant about Back To The Future. How the episodes didn't fit if you tried and recut them in chronological order. I was more shocked than when I learned there was no Santa Claus.

Here's my quick and dirty guide to color correcting. 1. When a person is the subject, prioritize skin, especially faces when making any color choices. When people's skin look alien to the species in respect to the lighting of that shot, it can't be overlooked. 2. Correct lighting first. A good starting point is to have an even distribution of pixels from black all the way to white. Then color grade. 3. When cross processing, work with complementary colors for the highlights and shadows. A classic combination used in films today is beige and teal because beige is the color of skin (which can't be eliminated out of the palate), and teal complements it. A great tool to look up complementary colors is a free online tool called Adobe Kuler. 4. Grading is great but try to shoot without needing to grade/correct when possible. If lighting, set, props, wardrobe, makeup, and camera profiles are calibrated, then you shouldn't need to make any changes, and any minor changes will be effortless. 5. A common misconception going around today is that all detail in the highlights and shadows need to be recovered and preserved. Unnecessary detail in the shot can lead the eyes away from the subject. Don't be afraid to up the contrast to where you lose visible detail for the benefit of the overall image. 6. Instead of having a half dozen layers of adjustments which will take forever to process for the entire video, create custom LUTs by grading a single frame, then apply the LUT using Red Giant's LUT buddy. If you're using Premiere Pro CC, apply the LUTs you've created with Lumetri instead as it is much faster to process. 7. Blown out highlights are sometimes inevitable. One thing you can do to improve the image is to bring the whites down to the highlights and to add color to the highlights that match the lighting. 8. There are tools to grade within tools like Premiere Pro. For minor adjustments you may only need to play with RGB Curve and Levels. They don't take any processing time either. For more powerful plugins to grade the popular ones are Colorista II, FilmConvert. FilmConvert is faster, easier to use, but more limited in functionality. I heard Davinci Resolve is better but you need a Cuda compatible graphics card to use it.

This is bullshit. We need a shrink to analyze all those continuity-peepers. They didn't get the first thing of what cinema is about. Every great action scene has to cut out the joints of a sequence in order to boost the speed and to make the audience a complice by actively filling the gaps. Wait: There are multiple car chases from multiple views. Haven't we got the goddam right to stay oriented? Shouldn't we know exactly about directions, positions and frigging road maps? Everything should be clearly followable (as for the participants in this chase, they know everything, they see everything, they foresee it). Quote from Wikipedia on 'continuity': There are such unwanted, annoying continuity errors, the new Carrie is full of them, where someone raises his hands, cut, akimbo. And they can destroy the magic. But, Mr. Emerson, Sir, you chose the wrong example. Nolan clearly is a master of 'prestige', he knows what he is doing and why. Go see a doctor, have your anal fixation fixed.

  Oh dear. Well the whole style is supposed to be a mix of documentary and fiction, which makes it so believable. If you're going to criticise on something small, it at least helps to get it into perspective by mentioning what you DID like, if indeed you did like anything at all, you miserable person.