kirk

Or use the GH2 as A-cam... B)

I'm sure BM didn't plan to have this delay, having to deal with all these impatient customers, like Toyota didn't plan to recall 7.4 million cars B) And waiting a bit for such a milestone treat at an unbelievably low price shouldn't be that hard...

I agree this is partly a lens problem, shooting wide open through all that glass. And your exposure looks on the darkish side to my eyes. Underexposure will generate noise and artifacts real fast...and since you have done no color correction while having dialed everything to minus 2 you will get a very dull image too, Use the histogram to get exposure right... On the workflow side I have no experience with having to transcode... I dropped my Mac for good when I found out just how easy it was to handle AVCD files on a PC in Sony Vegas Pro... and save a bundle on hardware too -_-

I have a Lilliput 668 connected to the GH2 with an HDMI cable. Works fine, about two-and-a-half hours battery time. Internal battery makes it quite slim. I often use just the viewfinder or the GH2 screen, but the Lilliput is good for my crane and for fine focusing work.

I have no experience with the GF3 but have a hacked GF2 with slightly increased bitrate. Not comparable to a GH2, but very usable as a B-cam. And I got a house for next to nothing... red and all ;o)

Have a look at the Lilliput range...

Thanks for the test... looks like middle row is a good choice after all, corresponding with my findings... bottom row a no go...

But remember to park it one step over and step down before shooting... :rolleyes:

I thought the safe ISO thing (if you don't want to step down to your top row ISo setting) is to avoid the top row alltogether??? I shoot mid row now and have had much cleaner results. And if I need 160 I step down to it... And Re 4: Avoid underexposing, especially in high contrast low light scenes... help a lot.

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1352264499' post='21213'] Are you serious? there is no comparison between the two cameras. I will own both, and yeah, I already know which will be my workhorse. [/quote] Man, you need clearer glasses... I wasn't comparing any cameras, just being bemused over your inconsistency... And I'm never serious -_-

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1352066583' post='21016'] I like the GH3, but it's not my new favorite. BMCC will get that award. [/quote] Amusing to see you critisize people who judge the GH3 from preproduction footage with no hands on experience, while declaring the BMCC your favorite before getting one :lol:

Here's a couple of very dark, contrasty places. The first has some noise to the left in the beginning... it was shot with Nostalgic mode, the other is in Vibrant mode, which works much better for this kind of situation IMHO. Both shot unhacked at 1600 ISO and no Neat... [url="https://vimeo.com/47927412"]http://vimeo.com/47927412[/url]

Haven't had anything even close to the shooting stars on my unhacked GH2's either. And I shoot a lot of unlit interiors of old buildings and the like. A little color noise at 1600 ISO, but nothing like that for sure.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1351618918' post='20639'] I've just started daydreaming because of this... I love cinemas and theaters... what city are you in, if you don't mind me asking? [/quote] I live in a small town in southern Sweden called Näsum... I'm an artist painter, my wife a musician. We wanted a place to arrange concerts and exhibit paintings, and found this closed down 110 seats theatre/cinema with adjoining house, built around 1900, for next to nothing... it is quite a special feeling to watch movies in your own cinema, with the dog snoring on a rug...

I'm lucky enough to own and live in an old cinema (with a beautiful Bauer 35 mm projector with Möller Cinemascope and all..), and have often projected my GH2 videos in full HD to the 6 meters wide sceen. from our Optoma projector.. looks wonderful I can assure you! No need to upscale.

What a waste of fine cameras, and our time...

Thanks for that inspiring link!! Good to see such a passionate photographer in search of the essential ingredient for good images... light.

Desaturating a little in post is IMHO less disturbing to quality than saturating what has already been desaturated by the camera. I agree on the sharpening, and thus never add in post. It is all a matter of how many changes are done to the image. As I have understood the profiles Nostalgic changes more that Vibrant from what the sensor delivers. All changes will accumulate trouble. But once againI must stress that I'm no expert in any sense... I just trust what my own results have shown. I have had way less bad shots, and haven't used Neat once since changing tactics... I shoot quite a bit in unlit interiors of old houses, typically unhacked at 1600 ISO, and here the Vibrant setting has changed quality immensely...

So did I Julian... but was tipped about the Vibrant setting. My low light work has improved radically... I don't go for a flat setting either anymore, since I never could fathom why to remove saturation and contrast, then adding them again in post. From photo work with JPEGs I know that the clue to good end results is to get everything right in camera, while raw gives you more to play with. The same surely goes for non-raw video shooting? When you set the sliders to minus you ask the camera do do further post processing than when you leave them alone (trying to simulate a dynamic range that really isn't there)... My final grading takes way less tweaking than the flat nostalgic did, looks better and much less noisy. Try it please before dismissing it as heresy! :)

Nostalgic is a quite noisy profile for dark subjects... try Vibrant and see the difference...

Looks fine to me (but I get by without a rig, so my vote doesn't count :-) But the whole rig looks way too front heavy on the tripod... should be balanced much further back IMHO...

The tripod is produced by Weifeng, model FT9901.

To my humble eyes there's so far evidence that the GH3 can deliver better, or even equal, footage to what the GH2 produces... I know it is early days, but if you wan't to sell a successor for double the price, there should be be a definate improvement to the most vital part of any camera: the final image/footage. Better build quality, weather sealing etc. should only act as jewels for an already beautiful woman ^_^

Axel, I agree about the sound and lens stuff... but don't forget that the GH2 is made in China :-) The rest of the world's businesses are happily exploiting the chinese ability to produce large amounts of very cheap products, and then we complain about how badly made they are... The chinese can make very cheap knockoffs themselves, but if you pay well, you can get really sofisticated products there too... It is very arrogant to assume that the chinese are incapable of producing original, highly sophisticated products... and there are produced a hell of a lot of shitty products in the US and Europe as well!

Yep... a fluid head is needed if you pan or tilt... the Slik has a three way head for photography.