Xiong

Great stuff Andrew, please do annoy them at Pany that the moire/aliasing must be on atleast on par with GH2 please! ;) Thanks!

[quote name='KarimNassar' timestamp='1347951588' post='18421'] that's funny because when I saw this footage my reaction was were the hell is the high dynmic range? Highlights and shadows are burned out and the footage is too contrasted, dslr like. Looks no better than the gh2 to me but I know I must not make a judgement on a single video, so I am not, and waiting for more footage. [/quote] I agree, that test shot, I did not like. Though it might be based on the shooters taste. Waiting for more samples :D

Looks damn good to me, everything I wanted just got better in the GH3 from GH2. Better form factor, better codec, more frame rates, better dynamic range. I cant complain when its coming out the gate swinging :D Now all I need is a release date.

Well that didn't take long before people started to bicker. If no one read the post on Philip Bloom's site, he mentions not having all the features working yet and some bugs in the pre-production model and alot of people here are already making up their minds on a highly compressed vimeo short film. I'm trying to stay more optimistic, we'll not know until we actually see reviews or actual tests, thats when we should make our judgement on whether it fits you shoot style.

[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1347657739' post='18061'] It's a leaked video that's heavily compressed and then reuploaded and recompressed. It's also not 1080p at all. In fact, I didn't download it and inspect it but I bet it's 30p, because the "cinema" examples from Philip & Friends' shoot has some ghosting artifacts. Reminds me of some of the first telecine movies I watched in VCD. [/quote] I completely agree, the ghosting was very obvious along with compressing it again. Will wait for actual tests from Andrew or Philip Bloom.

Well, im almost about to switch buying a GH2 for a GH3..

For BM its a great beginning camera for them, the next ones going to be very interesting. I just hope they dont go the RED route and movie more towards higher end later on..

[quote name='Tim' timestamp='1347465519' post='17843'] Do you have to use and SSD or could you use a 2.5inch HDD, with much larger capacities. Even use a hybrid drive to get the speeds up if it needed it? [/quote] It only runs on SSD, no HDD slot available since the write speed I believe.

Well it seems like you've kinda made up your mind already. If you want stills, then go the DSLR route, but for video? GH2 seems to hold up better with resolution wise. Color, canon seems to be good in that department. As for shallow depth of feel, you wont beat a full frame. The GH2's build quality is not great, you wouldnt want to shoot in harsh weather unlike say a 7D. Looks like you might want canon. I like detail, very fine detail. With no visible moire. I like resolution, to capture the fine details in scenery or from a person's clothes. The GH2 is more for me. I can get past the build quality and the color rendition. Either wait for the GH3 or get a canon, since you seems to have an issue with build quality. At the end of the day its up to you and your vision.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347009653' post='17511'] As a bloody amateur filmmaker, I consume [i]a lot[/i] of films and [i]a lot[/i] of music. I am a lousy photographer, my framing skills are non-existent. I am a passionate editor, I sample bits and pieces, combine them in a new, personal way that makes me aware of how and why I relate to others. In my view, 'filmmaking' can be defined very strictly as publishing an audiovisual statement as a product or work of art. For me it is a way of thinking, feeling and enhancing the flow of inputs and outputs, a way of perceiving life, even if never anything of it is published. Opinions come and go, I don't care. What counts for me are emotions and how I can set them free. And meanings. We are like the prisoners in Plato's cave analogy. There is a way to the light, and art struggles to find it. [/quote] That's great, don't doubt your skills as an editor. Vincent Laforet admits that his short "Riverie" was terrible until an editor had recut his original version. My writing is terrible because I'm just not patient enough haha. Everyone has their faults but with a little practice its possible.

Guys! John just broke the news! Black Magic with m43 mount! [url="http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/blackmagic-change-it-up-with-a-passive-m43-mount/"]http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/blackmagic-change-it-up-with-a-passive-m43-mount/[/url]

For me its about mood and themes, I like using music as a canvas, or an inception of an idea that is to spawn from the music. Letting music play and piecing a loose storyboard in my head depending on the mood of a track on my mp3, trying to connect the theme and plot into an understandable narrative or "path." My teacher always mentioned that it doesn't always have to start from a beginning, it can spawn from the ending, the middle, even as simple as a conversation at a dinning table. The point was to start a spark somewhere and then to try and fuel that spark into a flame to structure your story.

Weather sealed! Thats the biggest plus I wanted for the GH2, if true then I'll be very pleased.

I'm really surprise how people who claim to be professionals on these forums seem to have an enormous amount of ego. Its one thing to talk about improving ones or others craft through constructive feedback, but to blatantly try to demeanor someone else's professionalism, and without any kinda of fact or knowledge to back up that statement is amateurish. Why is everyone always on the topic of "my sticks better then yours." Back on topic, I'm excited for this camera but Im ever more excited for the next iteration. Im sure they'll learn alot from their first outing into the camera making business, the future is bright for young up and comers. As for proress/RAW I've no bias towards neither and will use what is necessarily for the situation. Hope to see a blog post when you have your hands on the BMC, Andrew. Mostly one that covers what type of computing rig you think is necessary for the RAW workflow. :)

[quote name='lightpainter' timestamp='1346754954' post='17277'] I LIKE IT! FIRST you make a FILM for the AUDIENCE and simultanously For your OWN. IT is always and ever. THERE is no SECOND.. NOGO. this fine litte pICE of CAM does for most of us, what we need. ( it is like ALESIS-ADAD-REVOLLUTION in the 90s in Audio..please do not start a reply on audio gear i have api neve and so on please not buddys..) WE PAINT WITH EMOTIONS WITH LIGHT WITH A STORY and think... also the way YOU go to CINEMA is changin... yes the old dears when i sit in our old down cinema and CHARLES BRONWSON will electrifice you in 0,000000001sec when he fires his gun. cut. the bad ass guy falls in the sand in mega close up. do you feel the litte fear running over your skin DO YOU? "...good morning DAVE..." "..good morning HALL" ore simpel DANY BOYLE ( soory for my english its my htc that runs an ios...do you experimentalitaziiali??) used crapp low trash in 28 days later.. only if you mesure it to our gh-2 eos 600 and waht ever so wheh i will ask so arround 2016 bOYS i PRODUCE a new REBELLIAN and OTHER FILM waht then is incoming? i work on a new laser-robotoc-natural-stage-light and such things like DYKSTRAFLEXX and i wrie a script.. are you ready for revollution like 19 74 are you???? out [/quote] Man, I really hope English is not your primary language. I had a hard time even looking at that post...

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346708627' post='17249'] No one camera will ever be good at everything. For example if you go full frame your telephoto end is a pain (expensive and heavy). Also the Alexa makes a crap helmet cam! [/quote] OK, that last part made me laugh! I would love to see an Alexa strapped on to someones head hahaha

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1346576004' post='17141'] Interesting... I didn't know that the Alexa actually needed an external recorder for RAW. That makes the Alexa look like another over-priced hunk of crap, honestly. I might be the first person to state this... but the BMCC might actually be an Alexa killer. (well, besides over-cranking) But it does sound like Black Magic is working on the 60fps mode for 1080p... which would be amazing, even if it's only for prores. But for anything that's just straight narrative 24/25p... why even shoot Alexa now? Is that extra 1 stop worth it? Do you need more than around 24mm of wide angle? Maybe. I can't really see that many cases actually... You'd have to be frickin insane in this upcoming year to purchase a $60,000 camera that requires an additional unit to record RAW... which then becomes a 30lb behemoth of a camera. Do "professionals" realize that the support-gear and personnel you now need to run this is about 20x the cost of what it would take to support a small compact BMCC camera crew? The BMCC even falling a bit behind the Alexa spec wise... easily pulls ahead here. And this is where it matters most... getting your crew down from 100's to only a few key creative roles and cutting all the bullshit out. Now, isn't RAW starting to seem a bit more affordable? [/quote] That's sort of an outlandish claim with a lot of boasting about how superior one camera aimed towards independent to another aimed for professional cinema work. On a high budget shoot I wouldn't want to work with a BMC if I had the choice to use an Alexa, thats like crippling yourself. I tried to see the logic in you post but wound up with only closed minded aggression, there are more factors involved. [quote name='pss' timestamp='1346601274' post='17172'] a couple of things turned me off the scarlet and made me cancel my order... crop factor....the red sensor gets smaller and smaller as you shoot higher frame rates....that concept is just strange to me but it goes right along with the second issue i have with red....the higher and higher raw compression they use to get higher frame rates....a lot of the footage from the scarlet would have been highly compressed from a small portion of the sensor.....since i want to use the stills as well this just would not work for me..... don't get me wrong: the EPIC is great and the stills are great as well....yes, i am not too happy with the raw compression there either, but 5k makes up for a lot.... another issue: a proprietary raw format locks you in with RED....the BMCC uses an open standard and from the first day on i have several options to find whatever works best for me..... another big issue to be honest: price....i ordered the brain for 10000? and to be able to start shooting would have been another (realistically) 10000....selling SSDs and batteries with such a huge markup leaves a bad taste.... i can get 2 BMCCs, more then enough SSDs and some other gear for the price of a scarlet body (sorry, brain)...and i am pretty sure from what i have seen comparing raw files from both, the BMCC wins for a beautiful and detailed image.... the scarlet is a perfect back up for someone already invested in red....i do not see why anyone would get a scarlet over a BMCC right now.... [/quote] Interesting, Its similar to Philip Blooms experience with the Scarlet. Its too bad. Yes, having to be stuck with RED only would have some hindrance. That alone with the cost of the Brain, Monitor, etc does cost alot compared to just having the BMC and a lense, and be ready to shoot. Thanks for the reply.

[quote name='pss' timestamp='1346515922' post='17099'] again, coming from a still background....there are jpegs and there are jpegs....set the compression to 7, choose sRGB and don't even start to think about touching the file in any way....set it to 12 and you get a little more to work with.... a 16bit TIFF is a LOT bigger then the raw file it was baked out of but still does not have the same latitude.... RED is funny because red code compression gets pretty strong (even if it is still technically raw) and when you are shooting 1:10 i would hardly compare that raw file to even a 1:3 compression.... so raw is not always the same quality as raw.....cinema DNG is as good as it gets...as pure as it gets....all the data is there.... i have no experience with cineform raw but if it compresses the file in any way you are losing stuff...mostly color (which in turn makes artifacts, moire, ugly stuff....) because somewhere along the way something will have to be "made up" somehow.... i have only played with the available DNGs out there (the pool scene and such)...and i only worked with the raw files in (in my case) in aperture, added my adjustments (graded) and imported the still files into fcpx as jpegs and still got the best looking video (color, detail,...) i have ever seen....maybe this is totally wrong, i will definitely get into resolve to check it out when i actually have the camera and a little time...but so far this completely blows any capture device providing any compressed media completely out of the water.... btw: i was also VERY close to getting the scarlet and went through the same thing there...looking at the raw files, trying to figure out how to use them....all i can say is that i am very happy that there was something in those files that just did not work for me... [/quote] Any chance you can elaborate? I like to know more about what you cam across using the scarlet.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1346508940' post='17094'] When part 2 of the Zacuto shootout was discussed, everybody agreed with the conclusion that 'forgiving' greater capabilities of high end cameras lost against conscientious lighting and clever planning. This is not rendered invalid by an affordable raw camera. With photos, I admittedly use the raw format in the same sense. There is a temptation to do a sloppy job, because almost everything can be fixed in post. Or so it seems. As a longtime analog photographer and professional darkroom laboratory worker (sounds awkward, from german), I know that 'raw' (undeveloped emulsion) actually came long before Jpeg. Digital imagery are historically the first instances of baked-in compression, and I always scoff at the post-deniers who consider themselves better pros. The point is that the goal of it all is a better image and that you will fail if you believe that a 'forgiving' codec will get you there. In the end, decisions have to be made as to how much the colors should deviate from average, natural looking values to creatively change the mood or express something. I suspect that many who welcome raw for making their lives [i]easier[/i] will just botch around and compensate for being too shirt-sleeved. Raw needs the same care during shooting as any other format to lead to good results. And the post is actually most demanding. [/quote] Very true, you cant be sloppy on the a project, but for guys like me where you cant get every shot you kinda have to work with what you've got. I'm not condoning the use of the mentality of thinking that RAW will save every shot, you have to put care into your projects if you want the best out of it. Just some times we don't have that luxury sometimes :)

[quote name='pietz' timestamp='1346485079' post='17076'] i work for a commercial production studio and we just shot a job with a budget of 2.5 million $. with this kind of budget you would expect the freedom to shoot on every possible camera out there and youre right. we shot on the arri alexa in 1080p prores for so many reasons. i find people here who say "people who dont see the benefits of raw, dont know what they are talking about" and the funny thing is that i get the feeling that many of YOU dont know what they re talking about. for example mattbatt, if you honestly believe that in a few years prores will be seen on the web, you have NO idea what youre talking about and clearly dont know a thing about prores. honstely. ProRes was created to be graded in professional purposes. you absolutely cannot compare this to a high bitrate H264, it will never be the same! you cannot put the argument out there saying raw gives you 12bit and prores only 10bit if you dont know what it means in real life. there is absoluty no way in hell and physics that you can tell the difference between 10bit and 12bit material. its so far from being possible. 10bit means more then 1 billion different colors that can be created. even if you decide that you want 75% grey to be white, thats more than enough. also andrew 13 stops is not a plus for raw, it doesnt have anything to do with that. the alexa has 14 stops and records in prores, whats the point youre trying to make? as one of the people in the 2012 camera shootout said, "its much more about workflow these days" you can import the alexa files directly into AVID and also use them for grading. thats about as easy as it gets. not only the space on HDDs but the transfer speeds and computing power you need to seemlessly edit uncompressed is extremly pricy. if you havent compared Uncompressed footage to ProRes you should not be talking here. do your homework and come back with evidence, because it blows my mind every time i realise that prores seems to have no boundaries and its about a tenth the size. [/quote] Very informative, just wished it didn't feel like you were talking down to everyone... I guess that's one of my talents, accepting the information side and trying to deflect all the negative side :D

One of the weirdest(and maybe lazy) things I hear people say is "we don't need RAW." I'd have to agree, we don't 'need' it, its just very VERY nice to have. Its not that they are taking your Prores format away from you, they are adding RAW along side to it! For example, you can shoot your whole project with prores, but (personally) I'd like to shoot the most important or "Money Shot" in RAW. Why?.. Why not! Its an important shot to have in the can, you'd want more flexibility, right? You don't have to shoot your WHOLE project in RAW. Lets say we're having a pyrotechnic special effect, we don't have the budget to shoot more then one or 2 takes, why the hell would I not "USE" RAW if its in the camera?! Lets say the compositions off, well its great we're shooting in 2.5K, we can recompose in post, since we'll be working in 1080p, that gives us leg room to edit. The explosion is over exposed? We will have an easier time pulling it back in post using RAW then Prores. This is of course an extreme example. Lets say we don't have alot of gear, only a few lights, simple boom mic to H4N. Its fine when we're in a controlled set/environment, but if we try to move to say a parking garage? Or an office building with bad yellow florescent light? Wouldn't we want to shoot in RAW? Where we have the option to try and fix these issues? Even for documentary work, you shoot prores mostly, then when you need the RAW, its there for you. Lets say you don't have anything but natural light for this interview and the current setting just isn't cutting it, you'd want to shoot it in RAW with its 13-stop of dynamic range, wouldn't you? This point is literally for me. Im just starting out, I don't have any gear, no crew but friends and family. They dont have a clue about cinematography or would even be interested in it, having more bang for buck is what I need. Its nice to know that I'll have a safety net if I NEED it. If im shooting on location, I know I wont have all the time in the world to setup lights or to get everything perfect. Not to mention money for the permits to shoot, Its nice to know that having the BMC with a lense and maybe a microphone in stealth mode, for a couple of shots here and there before moving on. People who are complaining must be pretty jaded or incredibly professional to get everything they need with a t2i or 5D, because I sure as hell can't. My background is using freaking DV cams with DV tapes for my video journalism class in high school, having to record every tape I used into Final Cut before even editing. And I still made due with what Ive had for my more creative projects, now with todays tech on simply just copying and pasting footage from the source to a hard drive in under a few minutes and editing it and having the footage "look" professional is pretty amazing! Guys, their not taking away our "routines," there just giving us more options. Whats wrong with that?

Bring it on I say, more competition. By the time I can afford one i'll have more options to choose from, which is great for guys like me. I too was a little disappointed by the announcement of the 5D Mk.3 and C300, atleast this looks more aimed as me. Maybe its the pressure from Sony? BMC? Kineraw? Good. Love reading the discussions guys keep them coming!

YES! Totally agree, and im totally jealous that you can get your hands on such amazing cameras :D My biggest issue when it comes to handling is that the BMC doesnt have as many real buttons and its doesnt fit nicely enough in your hands from the look of it, you're guna need some kind of rig. I really hoped that it would have a flip out and rotatable screen, getting those hard to reach places will also be a pain without it. But I can understand why they did have it, makes it more cost effective. Im still really interested in it non the less, its guna be very eye opening in the coming months.

I agree to a certain portion of your statement, but if you cant shoot "good enough" how would that help if you used a 5D? Or a t2i? The advantage of BMC is that if something is off you can try to fix it more easily since it is RAW compared to canon's codec. I do agree that if you aren't "good enough" then some shots while probably look terrible, I also dont agree with the tone and attitude you put in your statement. Everyone is still learning, even the professionals.

Like Ive said on the other thread, best bang for buck is the BMC, it has better hardware features and improves over the 5D's image processing.