Andrew Reid

Plot looks strong from the start. I'm interested to know if it holds my attention throughout the 72 min feature and that will be the true test of the plot. There is a synopsis on the original trailer... [indent=1]Sara runs a large country house in the middle of the Pyrenees, away from the hustle and bustle of the city. Her peaceful life is interrupted by the unexpected arrival of her stepmother with whom she does not get along. Her stepmother brings her father’s ashes. What at first looks like a reconciliation turns into a nightmare.[/indent] [indent=1]Cast Meritxell Ortega…… Sara Mercè Espelleta…… Mercedes Joan Manel Chilet….Juan German Parreño…… Alex[/indent] The first five minutes actually seem more like the middle of the film so maybe it has a non-linear plot which jumps back and forth in time. That would be pretty cool, I have seen that work to great effect before. Congrats Gami, and I will try to grab an interview stay tuned

[quote name='mattbatt' timestamp='1342425901' post='13949']To add light and tons of post work is a detriment to a camera. A camera is supposed to make the MOST of natural light available in which the DP gets to sculpt with artificial light – in the hopes of creating a masterpiece. But it is all about the use of LIGHT. When obvious changes become so dramatic that the lighting looks staged, that speaks to a camera’s weakness far more than resolution or price alone. [/quote] I do agree with this. Natural light, or natural looking staged light is what I tend to go for when shooting with the GH2, or any of my other cameras be it 5D Mark III, FS100 or NEX 7. But I still think Colt did a nice job of making people think the GH2 was the Epic :)

[quote name='sandro' timestamp='1342449413' post='13961'] When will the GH3 be released? [/quote] Estimated time of arrival, Photokina in September. As with GH2 two years ago.

KahL - "Hyperbole". No, it is factual info actually, and my preferences as a filmmaker are based on real experience. Do you have anything solid at all to backup your highly personal argument with? So far, not seeing it, as you head closer and closer to the door.

[media]http://vimeo.com/45596420[/media] [b]Warning - this video contains content some viewers may find disturbing. Not suitable for work.[/b] One of the best looking trailers I've seen on Vimeo from anyone has been for a tense Spanish thriller called Musgo. It now appears the feature length film itself could as thrilling as many were expecting. This looks like being a real breakout hit.

[quote name='KahL' timestamp='1342440252' post='13954']The Red isn't very limited, neither is the Alexa, or the C300 and at certain noise levels, neither are the Canons. [/quote] What is your point again? Frustrating. None of them make any sense. You're claiming I'm flip flopping when I'm not. You're either not reading what I'm saying or choosing to twist it. You're using too much personal stuff in the post as well so cut it out or you will get a ban. I've sent you a warning, so calm down or lose access.

[quote name='Shawn_Lights' timestamp='1342407031' post='13939'] @Andrew I think what you're failing to understand is we're commenting on how the GH2 was used in the shootout. It did look like soap opera TV. Now is that saying that the GH2 isn't capable of a filmic image? no. However, the way it was used in the shootout was pretty bad to me. Yes the other cameras kept the room too dark and I would've loved for them to add a little more light. However, I think it had more of a drama feel than the GH2 footage in this test. I like this site and respect what you do. I just feel sometimes you get too defensive sometimes like no one is allowed to dislike anything about the GH2. Also sometimes you don't simply state a fact about Canon products you resort to trashing it. I admire your passion for gear that indie filmmakers can use that'll produce high quality stuff. This isn't an attack on your or anything. I don't always agree with how you go about things but I respect it. Also to be clear I was simply commenting on the way the GH2 was used and not the camera itself. I think this was more of a DP test than anything. [/quote] I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across.

I want Rioch to succeed and I'm glad you seem quite taken with the little GXR. However there are more M mount digital solutions if you count the E-mount with adapter, Micro Four Thirds with adapter and even the Fuji X Pro 1.

[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1342404290' post='13933'] a bit unfair that the AG-AF100 was not included. truly unfair. different spec architecture than the GH2. this really bothers me. the AF100 is a very underrated camera. 4:2:2 8-bit w/ BNC out. cmon. too bad I couldn't invite Copoola to my premiere. what a stupid workshop. just marketing for "Zacuto." [/quote] The AF100 is underrated you're right. And it is cheaper than the FS100. Unfortunately it has an older sensor than the GH2 and is outgunned for the price by the FS100 on image quality. Various tests have proven that even though the AF100 can do a HD-SDI out in 4-2-2, the GH2 still gives a better image overall. So I don't really mourn its absence and it is time for Panasonic to get their AVC-Ultra stuff out - and quick.

KahL please meet Facts. The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade. I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others. Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting. Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example. TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless... I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon. I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind. http://vimeo.com/45596420 What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied. We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!

Speaking of pixel peeping there really is no light in Vitaliy's dark soul is there? http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/74231#Comment_74231 How can anyone fail to be happy when someone like Francis Ford Coppola appreciates their work?

Yeah F11 is it. But when you're shooting in bright sunlight with any camera you need an ND ideally, not just RX100. I never stop down to F11 just to maintain 1/50. Given the choice between a rock and a hard place I'd rather choose to shoot wide open at 1/2000. Depth of field control has a larger affect on the overall way the image looks than shutter speed, especially if your shot is locked down or with little subtle movements inside it.

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1342388942' post='13914'] I said nothing either. I said your opinion was wrong. Given they didn't change the lighting, ADDS to F65 performance. The F65 operators were confident that the camera could do well without changing the lighting. H was in top 3 for many people. Even EOSHD had it on the front page wrongly thinking it was the "amazing" GH2. It turned out to be F65. You said, "sony's lack of interest in being creative with the lighting was a shame." I said you were wrong. They wanted to show off that their camera can handle the lighting. This is internet. Get used to people telling you are wrong. [/quote] I do think you need to calm down sir. You are entitled to your opinion, but there's no need to put it across by targeting Rich for criticism. If a DP does a shit job at lighting they deserve criticism. If a person on the other hand is simply expressing an opinion, you have no right to be offended.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1342376758' post='13899'] nice. I forgot which I originally blindly thought were best during part 1. Unfortunately (but rightly so) it turns out I thought the Alexa and the Epic were best. After watching part 2 and seeing the GH2 is B, I am amazed how superbly detailed it is, if a little over lit to unrealistic degree - to counter the lower of DR but WOW. F65 missed it for me - sony's lack of interest in being creative with the lighting was a shame. It handled it but i'd have liked to have seen it used to its optimum [/quote] It's interesting to hear your views. I think the F65 still managed to look film-like. Indeed a corporate mindset got the better of creative lighting on that one, and the magenta cast - what was that all about? Still the best cam on paper though. Actually I didn't feel the GH2 shot was over lit. The fill lighting was higher than the others and I felt that matched the set. The scene was an up beat party and it was light outside. Why make it dark and shadowy? I feel the vibrant lighting matched the mood of the party.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/coppola-zacuto-shootout.jpg[/img] Francis Ford Coppola gives his answer in the new Zacuto Shootout, choosing in order of preference the Panasonic GH2, Alexa and Epic [url="http://www.eoshd.com/gh2-guide-book"]Get the most from the GH2 - Read the EOSHD GH2 Shooter's Guide[/url] The results are in from Zacuto's Revenge Of The Great Camera Shootout 2012  and it appears the majority of those at the cinema screenings - including Francis Ford Coppola preferred Colt Seaman's lighting and the capturing of it by the Panasonic GH2 above the stiffest possible competition including the Sony F65, Red Epic, Canon C300 and Arri Alexa. There's a comment from Part 2 which really stands out for me and it sums up the reason EOSHD and my passion to write my GH2 book and the blog exists - "The thing I was most impressed with is that some guys or gals with something to prove did better at lighting than the established cinematographers with a good camera" - Bruce Lundeen (33 min 13 seconds) This is how you make a great film, a great shot, a great scene - Passion, hunger, creativity and a $700 camera.

Putting shutter to 1/30 on the camera gives you a look similar to 24p. I'll do a comparison between that and my GH2 in 24p, see if you can tell the difference. Motion blur will be more than 1/50 but I still like it.

Bike was shot from the back of a moving tram handheld with the SteadyShot stabiliser enabled then Twixtor to slow it down.

12 bit colour. 13 stops DR. Raw. $3000. I think if resolution is a bit soft at 2.5k but it produces C300 / GH2 levels of detail at 1080p which I fully expect it to, we can forgive it because of the other features... And that is an understatement!

XZ-1 could have been mentioned, as it is also destroyed by the RX100 for just about everything. I only mentioned the cameras I have had decent experience with though. The RX100 is actually even smaller than the XZ-1. It really does make it obsolete on both features and image quality, not to mention sensor size. There's no need to wait for the others to catch up. If you do you might have a long wait.

DRO will create noise in the shadows. Contrast -3 merely fails to hide it. If you want pre-graded, which is often my preference as well just stick everything on standard. It works well! At high ISOs it is best to go for a contrasty look and crush the blacks to hide some of the noise.

[quote name='JHines' timestamp='1342299022' post='13865'] I feel a lot of people are going to be let down by the resolution of this camera. So far all of the test footage looks not much sharper than Canon's current round of DSLR's. Maybe a touch sharper than everything except the 5DIII with sharpening in post. Even if the Blackmagic camera turns out to be a fail it will still be a sucess as it will bring a lot of attention to the sub-$6,000 market and push other manufacturers in their quest to make something truly professional for that price or less. [/quote] Not what I've seen. It looks very organic and detailed, way better than the 5D Mark III in the resolution stakes and raw stuff requires sharpening in post anyway - so hard to judge the footage unless you have had a go at grading it yourself. So better to hold judgement for now.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/blackmagic-vs-c300.jpg[/img] Blackmagic Cinema Camera - meet Canon C300. Pic by BMD tester [url="http://www.twitter.com/brawlster"]John Brawley on Twitter[/url] Blackmagic paid a visit to British pro video camera dealer [url="http://blog.creativevideo.co.uk/2012/06/a-quick-hands-on-with-the-blackmagic-design-cinema-camera/"]CVP[/url] this week. CVP are the people I have my pre-order with and the expected shipping date is fast approaching - within the next 2 weeks. Exciting times! Here's what CVP had to report about the 2.5K raw shooting marvel.

That 6-12mm won't cover the sensor. In Ex-Tele mode it won't be wide. I've had no end of pain with c-mount stuff so I recommend avoiding them for now. The only one that came close to being usable was the Computar 12mm F1.3 but that vignettes slightly so you still have to crop in post and lose a bit of resolution. 1800x720 would do the trick. The cheapest options are - 14mm F2.5 Lumix pancake (it is nowhere near 300 euros you can get it in a GF2 kit for that!!) or the more expensive 20mm F1.7 pancake with wide angle adapter.

[quote name='MattH' timestamp='1342253750' post='13847'] Andrew, You say that the video was shot all handheld. It looks really stable. In the review you mention running with the Zacuto z-finder. Is that what you did with this video? [/quote] Nope, just holding the camera out in front of me with one hand, sometimes 2 :)

[quote name='eaojunkie' timestamp='1342247798' post='13846'] [color=#000000][font=Tahoma, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]However, slow motion for a video was chosen for a reason. It is bacause of the rolling shutter problems with CMOS sensors. Also there is unexplainable jerking of the picture during the sky shot 1:27 - 1:36 What happened there?[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] Not sure what you mean by the sky shot. Slow motion was chosen because it was all entirely shot handheld, not because of rolling shutter problems with CMOS sensors. The rolling shutter is far faster on the RX100 than any other large sensor stills camera I own. I just prefer the look of slow mo and it takes away the last remaining jitter which the stabiliser cannot cure 100%. I bet most people thought it was tripod shot... Nope handheld footage.