nahua

Well Canon's main aim is to sell lenses.  Guess what?  Now all their full frame lenses are in demand again!  Wow!  :-P   Seriously I think this an awesome development.  And bodes much better for m43 users.  I'm very glad I have the GH2/3, and soon BMCC.  Now the whole world really is open - Full Frame DOF and any lens I want.  This is just amazing!

Using FCP will take more time to render. In that case I think you're doing fine just as you are. Powderbanks has some great responses so I'll just add a little: 1) The compression is different between the 72mbit and 50mbit. However for digital noise, there is a better "pattern" for the 50mbit codec that is more pleasing to the eye, not quite film grain but it is good. It's also easier to remove the noise in post. For some reason the 72mbit isn't and thus you will see more pattern blotchy macroblocking noise akin to some jpeg compression. Very hard to remove accurately. 2) Most of the banding occurs in the sky shots. The fade in of the window shot in the beginning is one. It is exaggerated by severe compression from Vimeo too. You can't eliminate it, but you can soften it. Reducing contrast, saturation and noise reduction will help. 3) Turning down the noise reduction will of course introduce more noise. It also brings in more detail. But how much? Well you have to test it out. Since I want the most detail, I go all the way down to -5, but I can recover using Neat Video (there's a version for FCP too). But like I said in my original post, there is a huge rendering penalty. If you shoot mostly day shots, low ISOs of 200-400, then you won't notice anything. ISO 800+ and yes you will see a lot. Again, you have to test it out and see how much noise you can live with. 4) AVCHD and MOV are of little difference really. Just that MOV is easier to edit right away with little to no transcoding needed. AVCHD is actually very efficient and looks almost the same. I know you need to conserve space, so there's nothing wrong with shooting in AVCHD. And you can get the same results as MOV files. So yes you can shoot very flat and get the same results. Good luck and I look forward to seeing your next adventure!!!

Makes you wonder how in the hell they get smooth footage when the car is bumping around with all the road gaps, potholes, etc.  I like the footage and that music does sound so 80's.  I thought the century would flare more?  Maybe it was just too dark? 

M43 mount and I'm sold!  And now I can get F2.8 lenses rather than more expensive F1.2 or F1.4 lenses.  Very nice!!!

  I totally agree, we need more competition.  Sure it doesn't tick all the boxes of wants (neither does the BMCC), but damn it's a step in the right direction.  I think I'm way more excited for NAB this year!

Wow that is some really great footage! Must have been quite a trip! I guess the question is how much post-processing work you can handle. At the standard 0,0,0,0 settings, you will get moire and aliasing. You also get banding in the skies. However, if you have Adobe Premiere CS5.5 or CS6 you can do some simple corrections. The most common is Fast Color Corrector and Sharpen. Fast Color Corrector can add contrast, saturation, and you can set levels. The best thing is it can playback in realtime. When you lower the contrast and saturation in camera, you get a "flat" desaturated image that you can work with in post. But I suggest not lowering it too much otherwise there might not be enough information to bring back in post. I've seen people go from -2 to -4. I've been using -5 contrast and -3 saturation, and then I can play with gamma +.3 to +.5, and saturation 130% to 150%. I suggest you test it out and see how much you can work with. Moire and aliasing are based on the in-camera sharpening. I have dialed sharpening to -5 and it helps a lot. In fact I rarely if ever see anymore moire or aliasing. You can add sharpening in post with the Sharpen filter. I suggest adding anywhere from 10-30. But again, when you add sharpening even in post you risk adding aliasing, especially to sharp edges like lamp posts, roof lines, power lines, etc. But at least in post you can render it and see how much you want to add. If you do it in-camera, it's burned in and can't be removed. Again depends on how much you want to do in post, but at least you get the flexibility to decide what you like. Banding is unavoidable with an 8bit codec. One thing you can do is to use the 1080P60P (or 50P in PAL) 50mbit codec. This codec is better in a lot of ways than the 72mbit All-I codec. 1) digital noise characteristics is better 2) you can still do work in post 3) more recording time 4) great for slow-motion. The only thing you can't do with the 50mbit codec is use EX Tele mode, that only works with 72mbit. But for everything else the 50mbit codec is best (even in 30P or 24P). As far as Noise Reduction goes, by dialing it down you get more noise in the image, but you also get more detail. This also helps reduce banding. I use Neat Video to reduce noise (very reasonable price at around $100). It does a really good job of reducing noise and bringing in detail. The penalty is that it requires HUGE processing time. An hour of footage is easily 40 hours of rendering time (at least for my Mac Tower). This is a significant consideration. However it also enables you to shoot ISO 1600-5000, which can help in very low light interiors or night shots. Another way to reduce banding is to use some kind of Film Grain plug-in. I'm just starting to use this for sky or sunset shots. You can look at my tests here: https://vimeo.com/57102903 I think your footage is great, and I really like the results from your 12-35mm lens! The OIS is awesome! I know you have some jitters and movement, again this can be removed in post but at some cost (processor and $$). Most common is Adobe After Effects and using the Warp Stabilizer. But I have another suggestion. I use a Joby Gorillapod. This can be used as a mini-tripod as well as for stability. And since you cycle and need things small and lightweight, I think it's perfect for you. You can clamp it on your bike, chairs, poles, and you can also form it around your arm for stability. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680973-REG/Joby_GP8_BHEN_Gorillapod_Focus_Ballhead_X_Bundle.html Sorry this is a lot to cover, I hope it helps!

I'm sad the Canon is going to kill these guys.  Why else would anyone want to buy a 600D or any other cheap rebel if not for ML?  I see so many guys with 600Ds, 5dmkIIs, all with ML.  And now with the threat of legal action, for no less their diamond studded 1DC, now ML is going to start "disabling" features because of the threat of legal action by Canon.  Jeez Canon, I guess you really want to kill the indie filmmaker.  Goes back to Andrew's recent post about Canon and the pandora's box they opened.  Sad day this is, but all the more to support the underground efforts that these guys do.

I think powderbanks is right.  Especially with that fisheye lens.  I get flares all the time, although they're purple (mostly panasonic lenses).  This seems to be much different from banding or sensor problems which look like a pattern and constantly in the same place.

Faster shutter speed with 1080P60P is better.  I suggest shooting at 1/125 or 1/200 to get smoother slow motion.  You're shooting 1/50?  I think that's why there's a staccato step in there, especially near the ferry in the beginning.  Good luck and keep shooting!

Looks like you had a lot of fun!  Great editing!

Here's the video on Vimeo too:   https://vimeo.com/57102903   Edit: I guess it's 720P.  I'm not a Plus or Pro member sorry about that.  Youtube is 1080P though.

I've been using Premiere Pro and AE CS5.5 for over a year with no problems.  So I know about the 32bit editing space.  Even editing to ProRes4444 will result in better results.  However I abandoned the film grain because the GH2 was just unrecoverable, the banding just so bad.  However after taking a few shots with the GH3, the banding is much less.  It is still there, and you can see it in my video.  But now adding grain does help to some extent.  It might also depend on the grain plug-in, I'm just not familiar with the good ones out there.  If anyone can suggest some good ones please let me know.   http://youtu.be/do1E_IJ4qv0   BTW this was shot with an old ISCO 2x anamorphic projector lens (HUGE).  Was super cheap, but it's because it has haze and fungus.  That's why the first shot isn't so great.

I'm definitely looking forward to what you have in the future.  And you'll love the GH3.  I noticed the banding in some of your videos, but I just did a banding test and it isn't so bad in the GH3.  Still there, but can be reduced.  And Anamorphic with 1080P60P works a charm.  Much better noise characteristics and very stable.

I still think Sony is jaded in their prosumer division.  It claims XAVC 4:2:2 @ 60P, but this is a prosumer camcorder right?  "Handycam"?  And there's no way it'll sell at $3K if their other full-frame VG900 is selling at that price with that crap moire codec.  They might be showing off a 4K camcorder, but there's no way it'll fill any of those claims at that price.  More like XAVC H.264 8bit 4:2:0 @ 30P just like the rest of their consumer stuff.  Way to go Sony!

Firmware The EOS-1D X has some traces of the EOS-1D C firmware code and the features are locked. We don’t know how much of the firmware is the same. Third Party Firmware? I was told by someone at Canon that they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level, the features of an EOS-1 camera body. So I think the firmware community out there today will probably leave the EOS-1D X alone. ---------------- Yeah there we go in a nutshell.  Thanks Canon for overcharging everyone for a 1DX.  Just admit it already.  Well I think Vitaly should crack it anyway, the guy does shit in spite of everyone, why not Canon?  He's overseas anyway, not like they can find him.  Just goes to show Canon is just out for the money.  Overpriced and underperforming...

I've tried to do a bunch of tests, but there's no getting around the banding.  I say the GH3 is maybe 2-3 times better, especially in the mid-tones.  But when you get close to blowing out, well it steps quite badly.  I think the GH2 even with the hacks had way worse banding.  Again I will try out a "flat" profile, but I haven't found anything acceptable yet.  Unfortunately it is still 8bit 4:2:0.  I hope all the manufacturers will see the folly of 8bit profiles.  Even 10bit would be good.  But until then we just have to shoot around the limitations of these cameras.  I believe the GH3 is in the right direction.  I would have easily paid $3K if the GH3 had 12bit 4:4:4.  I know I'll be getting the MFT BMCC camera when it comes out in volume, maybe after NAB?  I hope so.

Just found this on Vimeo.  Awesome, can't wait to see more footage!!   http://vimeo.com/55887965

That camera resolves a lot of detail.  Just wish vimeo didn't crush it so badly - 1) highlights, 2) banding, 3) magenta cast.  I hope those are all vimeo issues.

Good call.  Sad that the 1080P image is so damn soft.  Is it me or does the Super35mm look sharper than 4K?

I'm going to test different settings to see how "flat" you can go.  But Cinestyle on the Canons aren't a great solution with an 8 bit color space.  I've tried and even though you can color grade it to some degree, it just falls apart.  Let's face it, 8 bit codecs have to shoot as close to final color as possible.  GH3 although better in dynamic range still has the problems because of the 8 bit codec.   I did a sky test and there is still banding, although not as bad as the GH2.  So no matter what you think about low light, day light, whatever the root of the problem is the 8 bit 4:2:0 space that you have to work in. 

Don't get me wrong, the GH2 is still an awesome camera.  For most shooting I think it still produces an awesome image.  Get the right hack, especially a stable hack.  I've had great success with the Flow Motion hack.  The GH3 is just better overall.  No hack so no hang ups or crashes, better built so it can take a few hits, and longer battery life for more recording.  I suggest getting a GH2 and if you have money then go for the GH3.  Eventually the GH3 will drop in price, so you just have to be patient.  And you never know if the GH3 gets hacked, then you can buy it for less and get more.

I will test some more with the FD lenses.  I think the 100mm Macro is out, just way too hard to focus, and the F2.8 max aperture is limiting at best.  I will try and stop down the FD lenses to see how much a difference it makes.   The GH3 has more dynamic range and a better codec.  I think it has 1/2 a stop more on highlights, 2/3 a stop on shadows.  This is good news for low light or interior shooting.  The codec is an issue, I think the 50Mbit has better noise for ISO1600+, the 72Mbit is better for ISO 200-800 and bright conditions.  EX TELE mode is very much improved, but I think it's usefulness is only for a max of ISO 800.  I did some tests but they just didn't come out well.   Overall the GH3 is a much better camera.  But shooting extreme low light is not a strength, but that's true for any digital camera.

On top of my low light high ISO tests I also tested my Sankor Anamorphic 2x lens.  One thing I really learned is that anamorphics need to be focused at a specific distance to get the desired effect.  Of course I only realize this after I do this, so I'll try and do another test later.  Focus is very difficult, next time I'll bring an external monitor.  The 100mm Macro surprisingly was the most difficult to focus.  I think it has a much shallower depth of field than either of the FD 1.2L lenses.   http://youtu.be/U5Oh-IBFZyY   http://youtu.be/eL0HesvFrPc   http://youtu.be/zEk-7OEkVAU   http://youtu.be/ZaRwD_L0n-g   Out of all these tests it's clear that there are limitations with both cameras.  Here are some notes:   - EX TELE mode is much improved on the GH3.  There is more detail and less noise, although it is still very noisy.  Not sure I can call it "grain" but if you really need to use it you can.  But I would still go with a prime over EX TELE mode, even if it is a great lens like the Leica 25mm.  GH2 clearly is bad in EX TELE mode, worse in very low light - Detail is excellent for both cameras.  I still think the GH2 has more but only by a little.  Again focusing is critical. - GH3 clearly has more dynamic range and retains more details especially in the shadows.  The last video you can see more tiles in the shadows at the left of the image. - GH3 can shoot more flat and retain more color detail too.  The last video I upped the saturation to 150% to match the GH2.  You can't go far at all with the GH2, it is so baked into the codec. - GH3 is 2/3 of a stop brighter at high ISOs.  However the codec isn't great for low light.  I think the 50Mbits IPB is better than the 72Mbits All-I for low light.  Just the noise grain is better and easier to remove.  In bright conditions they are about the same.   I prefer the GH3 over the GH2 for usability and for the image.  I'll still use my GH2s because they are still very stellar cameras.  But I think there are many improvements in the GH3 that overall make it a better camera.

00:45-00:50 are nice shots.  Really great little short!

Your calculation is very good.  BTW take a look at this thread:   http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1692-memory-cards-panasonic-gh3/