TJB

  The depth of field will be the same with the Speed Booster on APS-C as a full frame. It's worth noting however that just because the image is brighter by a stop doesn't mean that the depth of field will be shallower by a stop. For instance an EF 24-105mm f4 lens used with a Speed Booster adapter on an Sony FS100 at f4 will behave like it is f2.8 (brighter) but the image will still only have the depth of field characteristics of f4 on a full frame body.

If your index file is corrupted then you may be out of luck. Converting the .mxf files directly to your desired editing codec may be the answer. For example- http://www.mxfconvertermac.com/mxf-to-prores.html Good luck!

You need to use a Canon plugin to interface with FCP or Avid. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/professional/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300#DriversAndSoftware

I tried out the GH3 yesterday and side by side, found the viewfinder on my GH2 sharper, brighter and slightly larger. As soon as I put the GH3 viewfinder to my eye I immediately corrected the diopter. Still, the image looked soft and I was not able to manually pick sharp focus as I can with my GH2.   I went across town to another camera store and checked out another sample with a different kit lens. Same thing. Viewfinder (to my eye) much softer, dimmer and slightly smaller than my GH2. The VF image shooting 4:3 aspect ratio in stills mode is like looking down a tunnel. Awful.  I use the GH2's viewfinder a lot and find it really good - in fact easier (and more convenient) picking focus than the Zacuto Z-finder on my Canon cameras. The Sony and Panasonic viewfinders are for me the number one reason not to use a flapping mirror camera for video.   Maybe the advantage the GH2 has over the GH3 in this regard is the small amount of aliasing in the viewfinder LCD image on sharp focussed areas. This acts like a form of peaking. The GH3 doesn't have this as much. It's there but not as clear as the GH2.   Deal breaker? For me - probably. I need to be able to (at least as easily as the GH2) keep moving subjects in sharp focus using the viewfinder.   Any thoughts?

Ok, great - that's good to know. The magic moire reducing firmware update has been proven to be as load of nonsense then?   Like maybe some other readers, I have specific questions about image quality differences between the GH2 and GH3. Some of these have been answered through various sources but in some cases not definitively enough to make a purchase decision.  You know your way around the GH2 better than most and I for one would really enjoy hearing a little more of your opinions on the differences, even subtle between the two cameras.   I got 10 minutes with a GH3 today in my local camera store which of course wan't really enough to discover personally if it's a goer or not. I did shove a card into it and now know how much better ETC quality is when underexposing. 

Thanks for this comparison. I was wondering if you planned to do a more detailed GH2 vs GH3 comparison and a more comprehensive GH3 review now that the final firmware is out and about.

For me story telling with film is all about impressionism. I find fantasy in impressionism but not in realism. Impressionism requires something of the viewer. A quote from Wikipedia refering to the impressionist art movement -"emphasis on accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), common, ordinary subject matter, inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles." I think that the brain may view the world in 48p but it interprets, remembers and plays back reality in 24p. It's been said the most important brush stroke of a succesful artwork is the final one and that it's not what's painted but what's left blank. Maybe so it is also with film?

Please excuse me but I'm going to ask what most would probably think is a dumb question - however hope someone knows the answer.  For all those who would love to use their full frame glass on a BMCC and actually get the FF angle of view and DOF characteristics.  Would it be possible to use a Letus Extreme? I've never used one - but I'm curious what the image would look like focussed off ground glass and all. Thanks for not laughing too loudly!

One of my favourite suspense movies is Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds". Typically with Hitchcock, there are moments of visual story telling genius. They're genius because they depart from the usual visual language but instead of distracting the viewer, they inform, involve and attract the viewer. One such scene is the climax of the film where the front door is opened. The view is from outside looking into the actors inside. Hitchcock allows the viewer to study the suspense on the faces of the characters from outside as the door is opened as if the viewer can magically see through the door. It's simply done with a wipe of shadow across the faces as the main character reaches for the unseen door knob. It's theatrical, it's magic and it won me as a viewer but .....I didn't notice it. That's why I love cinema.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354114969' post='22532'] Yep it is a intentional style thing. Just preferred it to the full squash and as I said in the blog the LOMO changes the actual squeeze factor depending on the focal position. Need to send them off to a repair guy and see if anything can be done because it seems impossible to rack focus like this. Question for you guys who find it distracting - was the distraction caused by all shots in the first 25 seconds (summer scenes) or just a few? [/quote] If the human form (usually a face) is distorted in anyway - as a viewer, my brain is distracted and askes WHY? When I was a kid and watched Lawrence of Arabia on a 4:3 TV in "pan and scan" my young brain asked WHY? I asked my Dad why the film looked so strange and he said that the film width is wider than our TV screen and they want us to see the important action. End result was that I remember being distracted and missed the story. My question to you would be. WHY? What is the filmic motivation? What is the reason? What are you trying to say in our international film language? Is it part of the filmic grammar that we have grown up with or is it something that just looked cool with or without motivation. Just looking interesting or fun or different or artistic is great but it MAY confuse the viewer or it may enlighten them. It's your film so you can decide. As art - I find it jarring - which is entirely A-okay. As a traditional filmic story telling technique - I find it distracting.

[quote name='DJJ' timestamp='1354033158' post='22457'] Yes, straight away, first thing I notice, because there are people in those shots. For me it would happen in a normal viewing situation, but I can't speak for everyone, I fully concede that I am quite sensitive to such things. Like I said, it's a personal thing, to me it detracts from the content. The trigger for me is because the proportions of the people are changing from shot to shot. In one shot they're normal, in the next they're squished, it's kinda distracting. Like a sphere changing to an oval and back again in between shots, the inconsistency is breaking up the immersion. If there weren't people in it, it probably wouldn't be so noticeable, but the shape of a human being is built-in to the human psyche so when something looks out of place you can't help but notice it (which can sometimes be a useful tool...). Now that I think about it, using this effect of leaving the anamorphic footage still slightly squished might have been an interesting effect to use only on the dream sequences... creating a distinction between the dream and reality shots. I'm not thinking about the aspect ratio of the frame, which is clearly a creative choice, to be honest I never even noticed the aspect ratio of the frame changing between shots, but the aspect ratio of the pixels, which affects whether the image looks "normalised" for want of a better term. Friend if mine doesn't like "black bars" when watching something :rolleyes:, so with 4:3 content he stretches the image on his widescreen TV so everything looks distorted, bugs the s**t out of me and I can't watch it, but doesn't seem to bother him, so like I said, each to their own. :) Footage is really nice though :) [/quote] Don't go blow a fuse but I found the stretch and squash and varying aspect ratios theme distracting. Maybe it's because people that read websites like this are aware of such things while others would not be so distracted. Just sayin. Otherwise, nicely done.

Has the GH3 got a 2x crop factor or is it the same as the GH2 1.86x crop factor? Anyone?

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353954250' post='22335'] Yes absolutely. Less noise in the mid-tones and shadows with the GH3 codec compared to the hacked GH2. Never use AF so not sure about the focus areas. [/quote] Great! Would love to see some examples of how much this is improved as I noticed the same noise in "Civilian" Please tell me I'm wrong. Hopefully only web compression. I never use auto focus either. I mean when you look thru the viewfinder, areas that are in sharp focus display what looks like alaising. The edges of objects that are in focus shimmer providing a sort of peaking effect. Is this still there with the GH3 viewfinder? Thanks!

Andrew, Thanks for your latest instalment. As you know, the GH2 is often noisy in the mid tones. It shows up quite often rendering perfectly exposed shots unusable. I've tried hacked and un-hacked it makes no difference. It's especially noticeable when using ETC and underexposing a little even at low ISO's. Does the GH3 perform better in this regard? No one else has been able to answer this question. Shame about the viewfinder. I would not want to kit it with my Zacuto EVF as I'm after an ultra small setup. Do the in focus areas displayed in the viewfinder alaise like the GH2 viewfinder? I find this helpful as a sort of defacto peaking. Many thanks!

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353702898' post='22198'] I don't know how I feel about 16mm sized sensor. It's not just a little but smaller, it's a LOT smaller. Here's my GH1 compared to my Beaulieu. It's like point and shoot size: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20711/50afdc9aa8687_16mmvsmft.jpg[/img] Note too that the Beaulieu body is being propped up in front of the GH1 and as a result, is closer to the lens. So, it's actually even a tiny bit smaller in comparison. Most of my first jobs in the film industry where shot in 16mm. I own a Beaulieu and a Bolex but they haven't seen film running through them in over 15 years. I sold all my C-mount lenses too so they are really just completely useless to me at this point. Anyway, I remember the first time I shot 35mm film. It was a stop-motion animated shot for commercial. It was stunning. Even though it had been transferred to SD video, you could easily see the difference between 16mm. There was just so much more detail and color. Even on video! Now a days 16mm stock is so much more advanced. A friend of mine shot a bright eyes video with some of this newer stock and I really couldn't tell that it was shot on 16mm. So, I don't know. I mean, obviously possible to get amazing looking footage out of smaller cameras ("Beast of the Souther Wild" and "Moonrise Kingdom" just recently) but I just don't know... [edit] Sorry for the crappy iPhone photo. [/quote] I agree. I started out shooting 16mm film for TV News broadcasts in 1979. When video tape came along in the mid 80's I shot 2/3 inch chip cameras until recently. Now that the film making world has access to larger sensors, I'm never going back to struggling to achieve even marginal depth of field on small sensor cameras even if they don't look "filmic" or "cinematic". For me Super 35mm is the sweet spot and m4/3 is the smallest I'll go. Full frame is just too damned big chasing focus even at f4. Each to their own.

All of the above is why it seems that Super35 is a preferred sensor size. Super35 hits the sweet spot. It can achieve deep depth of field if needed but it's also easier than Vistavision size to keep in focus at f2. I hope Blackmagic sell a truck load of these units so they can then produce a Super35 version.

Hey Nahua, It's a joke. Ok - not a terribly clever joke but a joke none-the-less. Curtain patterns can sometimes cause moire. It was a play on words. I'm looking forward to the GH3 as well and I'm pretty sure moire won't be such a big problem. For the style of work I do - I would not even consider using a Canon DSLR for video now because for me the GH2 and 3 viewfinder and flip screen are so much more user friendly than Z-finder etc. I don't use the hacks - the GH2 is just great straight out of the box and I have the 50i (PAL countries) option for broadcast work when it's requested by a client. Wish I lived in Hawaii. Germany is wet and cold.

You say- "I can't have a shot curtailed during a shoot because of an unreliable codec hack." I say- I can't have a shot of a curtain during a shoot because of an unreliable sensor."

I believe you are right about perspective. I can understand though that after spending 4 years with a moire and aliasing ridden 5DM2 that some out there, including myself are a little cautious. The conclusion is that as of November 2012, the GH2 is still the only moire and aliasing (relatively) free DSLR style camera that resolves something close to HD straight out of the box. My take away from what you've written is that the GH3 codec should give us a slightly better image but with slightly more aliasing and moire. One question that hasn't been answered is the GH3 performance in ETC mode. Did you get to shoot any ETC material? Does the recorded image look better than the GH2? I think ETC mode on the GH2 is amazing but sometimes the image would be unusable particularly if even slightly underexposed at low ISO. I've noticed the GH2's viewfinder aliases when in sharp focus providing a form of focus assist. Did you notice if the GH3 does this as well? Might be helpful if peaking gets lost in translation. Thanks for sharing your latest findings.

Canon are asleep at the wheel. Sad but true. My Canon gear is starting to hit the second hand market as I start looking elsewhere. Haven't seen any test footage yet that shows accurately the capabilities of the GH3. Good news is the GH3 price is 1,149 Euros at my local camera store. We'll find out next week what Sony are up to - hoping it's a real camera with a useable viewfinder in the right place. Pretty sure it won't be a $15K stills camera optimised for video. The C100 price is dropping as people flock to the FS700. Come on Canon!

Glad to hear it's not stiff or slippery, but what about moire and aliasing? This will be the deal breaker for many.

[quote name='subsequent' timestamp='1348487530' post='18968'] More Pocahontas please! :D [/quote] Yeah, I agree. More Pocahontas! There's something about her.... I don't know what it is...... I wish I could but .....I just can't put my finger on it. I doubt that she lies awake at night wondering about moire and aliasing. :wub:

[quote name='zephyrnoid' timestamp='1348371474' post='18942'] I'm seeing a LOT of that icky yellow/green cast in other GH3 foootage around. I think there will be an intresting opportunity for anyone that wants to do a side by side comparo of the GH2/GH3/and another camera, so as to ferret out which modes are spitting out that horrid cast. With the 4:2:0 constraint, I'd hate to deal with pulling that particular cast out of all my footage in post. [/quote] I've noticed the yellow/green cast as well. It's one of the things I hoped the GH3 would fix. A plugin called FilmConvert is a good fix. It makes grass look like grass again without changing skin tones etc. Otherwise I've had some success by doing a white balance for every setup and avoiding auto or preset white balance.

I think she looks just fine....and the GH3 does as well. I'm not rushing to pre-order though, especially as the XLR adapter and peaking got lost in translation. I bought a GH2 when the 25p firmware came out and then when I saw the poor reviews of the 5DMK3. The GH2 is simply very hard to beat. It would be a shame if the [i]noticable[/i] difference between the GH2 and GH3 is that the more expensive one has a slight moire and aliasing problem and the cheaper one doesn't. I don't need a larger/ heavier/weather sealed camera body. The tipping point for me would be if they improved banding and noise in ETC mode....Only time will tell.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1348176095' post='18758'] Business is business I suppose. But I think it could backfire. If you look at how the Hasselblad Lunar went down at Photokina, a NEX 7 with fancy trimmings is not worth 5k. The 1D C actually IS worth the money. But what a shame it is not even better, with some more customisation and spec creep it would mean a better product for us and less margin for Canon. Canon chose margin. No peaking, no 25p, etc, etc. They have done the same thing with the Canon C300 / C100 too. Notice that the hardware could be identical there too. And it is just the firmware that has changed to cripple the codec on the C100. By the way, HDMI on that is 4-2-2 and uncompressed so if you want a C300 for less money you know what to do. [/quote] The hardware is crippled as well. Note the 0.24" viewfinder. Useless!!!