Leaderboard

BTW this is not shot at T1.3 and T1.5 or only their noses would be in focus , this is more like 2.8 - 4 region (or even 5.6 as this is full frame 5D ) in reality or the focus puller would not be able to track them at all! (Act of Valor shot on 5D had to stick to 5.6 of they could not keep pulling focus accurately enough on full frame , they scrapped all the 2 weeks they shot at f2.8 at the start of the filming schedule as it was all too soft!) I'm not seeing anything here I couldnt do on the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 Bourne lens with a speedbooster at a fraction of the cost too, its a full production you are watching here not just the lens , set design , lighting design , costumes props , atmosphere and acting all add to the final look as does the grade , the glass is nice but its not creating the look the Director is creating the whole look with all his choises to make this happen. Just buying these lenses will not suddenly make your films look like this!!

You don't have to. I've used a few systems that could handle h.264. Mine however, and most other machines I've worked from, typically suffer from laggy h.264 playback. If you're using a Windows based machine, try DNxHD. It's available as an export option in Resolve under Video Format > QuickTime. Then under Codec choose any of the DNxHD profiles. Not to be obnoxious. But the Blackmagic subforum for Davinci Resolve could net you more accurate answers. :) (Though sometimes you get none.)

I've concluded that there is a physical trade-off between MFT and APS-C sensor cameras--has little to do with manufacturer. The MFT is sharper, less moire, less rolling shutter, etc. APS-C/FF is better in low light and has a shallower DOF, however it is MORE moire, rolling shutter etc. If I was shooting mostly video I would go with a Panasonic solution like Andy suggests. In the past year, everything Andy has said has borne out to be right in my experience. I have both a GM1 and a6000. The GM1 is a better video camera, the a6000 a better stills camera (due to larger sensor size). As for Bui's suggestion of going ML, I agree, that will give you some seriously awesome footage, but the file-sizes, and time involved, are immense--might be good for you. Don't know what you want to shoot. If you want the best bang-for-the-buck interchangeable lens video equipment Panasonic is the way to go.

In order to make sensible lens suggestions, one should first have an idea about what you're planning to do with the lens. You say you'd like to get a decent wideangle lens with a limited budget, and two of the lenses you're listing are kit zoom lenses, one with a FT and one with a Nikon mount. So that brings up the question what is it that you wish to accomplish with those lenses? Are you going to shoot stills or video, or both? Why not going for primes? From those lenses he only one that makes sense is the 14mm Panasonic. IMO, anyway. As for using the Speedbooster made for BMCC with GH4. I think you'd be wasting your money on Nikon mount lenses with that particular adapter. I'd get a proper mFT one instead, or use native mFT lenses. They'd be much comfier to use with the GH4, too. I've seen other mFT primes, like a new Olympus 2.8/17mm for slightly under 100€, and no doubt you'd find other and better used ones for about the same money. Good luck with the hunt.

Remember film guys, do you. You just shot things underexposed and it still looked great. Remember how all the colours and exposure smoothly bled into each other when you shot 5217. Blacks were blacks, whites were not overexposed but just a part of the image. Point being, people complain because digital still don't do it right! I downloaded the original file, and I just won't be buying any camera. To my eye, I could get these results with GH2 at a lower ISO and by adding more light. Sure, there would be more banding and noise, but when it is at this level I find it distracting and why not add more of it. If you want to know what irks me most about the image, it's the undulating banding on her finger tips, possibly from the light of a flame swaying in the faintest breeze. Sure, it's great to capture this detail, but the codec just kinda hands it back to us in a distracting way. Some of the later shots look great. They remind me of something from the 70s, maybe Altman using pre-flashed film. This is the real crime, that some results make me forget it's digital, and then other shots make me wonder if it is an i-phone? This is the newest challenge to being a DP, so many different cameras and each with their niche. I think this camera has a vast potential for some projects, but you need to know that limit. It's scary now getting called in for a job and they say they are using yadda yadda whatever camera and you haven't used it and you don't really know the limits. You know of course, 8 or 10 bit, what codec, the workflow, but you can't say for sure how she'll ride. If it's a real job they let you take her out and play, but most jobs aren't this professional and the whole shoot will put you in the hot seat. Some people have commented that this is a better demo video for the camera. This is true, I am sick of landscape camera tests. How many times are we working for any kind of job and the shot came down to a landscape and the dynamic range. I don't think hardly any audience anywhere gave a flip about the dynamic range in the films landscape shot. What, maybe the shot in NO Country for Old Men needed that range for artistic flare, but seriously, most videos I shoot it's about the actors face or clarity of image during events. Test videos need to shoot real light situations (including what you would pull from your grip truck) and people's faces. PEOPLE!!! Cameras do more than landscapes and if you are going to buy a camera, that's why you need to pick the most flexible one.