Germy1979

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343250305' post='14503'] The only time rolling shutter has ever been a problem for me was on fast moving subway train going past the camera on the platform. If you are whipping the camera around handheld to such an extent as to evoke noticeable rolling shutter issues then just switch to a smaller chip camcorder for those shots, then back to the BMD or DSLR for the main stuff. A film with constant whip pans is not nice. It isn't really my cup of tea. I prefer locked down stuff or gentle, subtle handheld work. [/quote] If you just had to whip the camera around like you're catching a meteor hitting the Earth, wider lenses usually tame it back quite a bit for me. I was trying it to see how far i could go with a gritty action scene coming out of a trench with a shoulder rig. The gh2 actually did pretty good. I got some keepers.

Soooooo it's another bomb diggity broadcast camera with a stock set lens... annnnnd next.

I'm not feeling this at all honestly. I agree it's goin to look weird, but it may just take some gettin used to. A big damn part of what makes a movie look like a movie is the motion. 24 frames is just fast enough to create a degree of seperation from real life perceived motion the way our eyes render it. I don't want Immersion spelled out and handed to me on a platter with the aesthetic use to capture the story.... I want the story to do it. Instead of worrying about raising the bar with a higher frame rate and breaking new ground, this will be an immediate distraction from the story. I hope nothing interesting happens in the first 20 minutes at LEAST, since the majority of film goers will be trying like hell to adjust to why this billion dollar movie looks like their iphones. Most of the audience are not movie makers... I hope jackson realizes that.

It is and then it isn't. I saw it down the list on alpha rumors...My guess is Sony will be leaving no story untold with a $20,000 F3 turbo SX. I was hoping somebody would clear it up:) http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/page/2/

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1343194760' post='14466'] The dissent of this camera from the so-called "established" is begining already. I was just talking to someone the other day about new cameras and I brought up the BMDCC, which was immediatley shot down with... "there's just no way a $3000 camera is going to look good". I was blown away. No thought into the technology. No thought about RAW or 12-bit color. Just "it can't look good because it's only $3000". I tried my best to explain to them that technology is technology... and the only reason that something like the Alexa sells for $70,000 is because Arri can get away with it. It was no use in the end. But seriously, there is absolutly no reason that this camera will not look as good as the Alexa in most situations. The ignorance and gulibility of these aspiring cinematographers and directors is amazing... Oh anyways, my point is Andrew, is that you should start a poll or "top-ten" list of the new "excuses" to not use the BMDCC. ;) My running list so far is: -Form factor [i]"worrying about how to hold the camera will distract from framing and lighting"[/i]... or some other bullshit that makes no sense at all. -Size [i]"it's too small and the crew won't take the shoot seriously" [/i] This is the tell-tale statment of either the shittiest film-makers on the planet, or closet gear-whores. If you hear someone say this, there is a 100% chance that thier films will always be absolute garbage with no hope of ever improving. Avoid working with, contact, or even talking, with these people. Some of thier aneurysm-inducing logic may seep into you head and poison you. It's just not worth it. -Price "it's not expensive enought to be professional" Many roads lead to this level of stupidity. But it is most likely is that these people have just recentley worked thier first hollywood AC job after film school and are currently undergoing "professional" indoctrination. In 2 years time, the only acceptable shooting formats to them will be 35mm film, or Arri's next offering. -Too much dynamic range "detailed-shadow low-contrast grades are sooo 2012... "professionals" prefer crushed blacks) These people are the same who are now claiming that shallow-DOF is amature. Thier logic is, that whatever features afforable cameras currentley have, must not be "professional". It goes without saying, that these people experiance extrodinary cognative dissonace and pain, and (since cameras like the Alexa and Red also have high-dynamic range) thier cognative processes are constantly being interupted by logic-wrenches. These people are usually the disgruntled camera-op's on set who you'll find yelling at the PA's and production comapny for only providing 32" set monitors. -ISO [i]"If it doesn't go up to ISO 45,000 like the 5DIII, it isn't professional"[/i] Just Canon fanboys. These r-tards are the ones that can actually justfity buing a C300 over a Epic. There is no logic here. Just brain-washed lemmings. The big manufacturers love these guys. -RAW yes, I belive that "the established" will even take stabbs at RAW with asinine statments like, "RAW is for amatures that can't expose on set" or "RAW gives you TOO many options, and consuses the "clients"" That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there will be many more to come. [/quote] Lol. Truth be told bud, 9 times outta 10 you do get what you pay for. I can see the skepticism to some degree... Digital cinema cameras are weird though.

Heard a little bird talking about the next big thing from Sony.... Actually it's on their site.

I was curious about dof like a bunch of folk. These shots look fine to me. It's supposed to be a m43 sensor anyway right? Most professional films don't look like they were shot on a full frame with a 0.95 wide open anyway... Now i can pre order the dmn thing.

I don't know why i torture myself watching these videos. It'll be a cold day in hell before I get to hit the red button on one. But anyway, here's the link: https://vimeo.com/42177809 There are like 3 versions of this. Graded, ungraded, behind the scenes, etc.

[quote name='Dan Hudgins' timestamp='1343024653' post='14347'] Sorry about the quality of that test frame, but I was limited to 44kB to upload, I can send you the original uncompressed 2048x1080 2K DCP size image if you email me at: tempnulbox [at] yahoo [dot] com [/quote] Lol. Dan if this camera had NO audio capability it would be fine with me. I have a macbook pro with an Apogee Duet 2 with symphony converters and 2 Neumann Km 84's for that job. :). I figured, when he said Kinemags only, the bitrate in DNG raw was so high that they wouldn't guarantee its ability with third party cards just yet... I mean he said like, 900mbps... I suspect I will have no issues with macro blocking, haha. :)

Lmao. Well this thread evolved nicely! Haha! This is the digital camera equivalent of "Rome is Burning." Just watched "127 Hours". The last 15 minutes are visceral and will kill you emotionally.... 99% digital to my knowledge. As much as I'd love to shoot film, I'd rather have a great story to tell... I think if we're talking digital vs film, the main goal of these digital cameras is to emulate film, and save some money and heartache. Digital's sole purpose is to make life easier and more efficient just like the rest of technology. The argument works to the degree of, for instance, say audio production... It's the same argument with vintage gear emulator plug ins. People pay the premium price for a Universal Audio 1176ln vs the Waves version because of the character the real unit introduced to the signal path vs the digitally modeled one. It's there. But i've mixed many a record with plug ins and not one complaint on the quality. I think it's more of a grand idea to call action behind a big badass IMAX camera on a big badass set for a big badass sequence. I attribute my taste in the film look to its aging process.. I came up in the 80's. I remember seeing what it did to cloudy unsaturated scenes in New York City where the protagonist walks alone along the battery... Or a large street level scene. I remember the stretch look for the credit role of "Romancing the Stone" as the boat was driven off. The scene in Thelma & Louise where Geena Davis's character tells Susan Sarandon, "I can't go back, I couldn't live.". (chick flicks I know, but good examples.). It's just how I remember them... I'm feeling both sides of the argument here.

Hahaha.. I got this whole vibe everytime the interviewer ask him about a feature, it was a little bit of a let down. "so no phantom power huh? ...just line level..?" (uncomfortable silence.) - "y,..y, yes... Just line level." "so you have to use Kinemags right? No third party for dng recording?" ... Or, "so just 4:2:2 huh..... hmmm.". Cricket cricket cricket....

Haha! You > me. Fail. "That's real nice son! This here's what I carry!"

Specifically, all of this sh-t just looks cool... lol. Somewhere in there is a Gh2. [attachment=267:photo.JPG]

Specifically, all of this sh-t just looks cool... lol. Somewhere in there is a Gh2. [attachment=267:photo.JPG]

Somewhere in this pile is a Gh2. Don't ask me why I bought all of this... lol. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342886237' post='14259'] [img]../../uploads/inline/1/500ad15a53a2c_in495munchbstscream1893.jpg[/img] [/quote] lol... Looks like Van Gogh going, "Teal and Amber Noooooooooooo!" (like Mr. Bill.)

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1342881664' post='14245'] ....... just for giggles..... here is an IMax single frame of Kodak Film next to a GH2 so you can see the size of one frame next to the GH2 Sensor [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1508.jpg[/img] and here is IMax frame ontop of GH2 - it covers the entire lens mount and then some ! [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1509.jpg[/img] here is GH2 - IMax single Frame, 70mm frames , 35mm frames and 16mm frames just for comparison [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1514.jpg[/img] GH2 sensor is closest to 35mm frame in size . Having shot film for 15 years - last job I did on film was 2004 - it's been all digial since then - I can't say I miss it! Digital is more convenient to use! and alot cheaper ! I used to have to insure the negative as it went to the lab incase the courier distroyed it or lost it and the whole job was lost! $$$$$ [/quote] No doubt digital is easier. People like money. So the idea of printing dailies everyday sucks. I can't afford film anyway so the only reason i started this thread was because i like the "LOOK" of film and respect Nolan's point of view on it. I can see a difference in the way it looks and so can a lot of other people that aren't crazy. They can afford it though. I'm not a snob on acquisition. I'm sure i'll be using my gh2 for a while. Case appealed.

Are we beating a dead horse here or something man? Digital is badass. I'm sure it mathematically beats the brakes off of film with a spec sheet pimp slap. & i like the Hawaii video on the F65. It looks really sharp.

Thou hast spoken!!

That is wild!

There are film "characteristics"... But actually these are more "movie" characteristics in my book, not the acquisition factor. 24 frame rate, 48 shutter, decent dynamic range, etc. Film has the sort of disconnection trait that I like. Everything is evolving, i understand film is on its way out like reel to reel recording. But i listen to the music that has hit the radio now in the climax of digital recording, and it's created a bunch of laziness! You can be a tone deaf bull frog belching into the microphone and they will tune your vocal into Celine Dion. Point is, the art of it seems to be getting cared for less and less as time goes by and this is where digital deprecciates to me. I think for the majority of a flick, digital will do just fine. "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" was shot on an Alexa, and i didn't ponder on it. But there are scenes that pop up in my head immediately when i think of film.

What card are you using bro? :). I went ahead and bought the Sandisk Extreme Pro 64/95 when i got mine... i knew i would go through several patches to find the right one. I use the newest firmware and none of the patches i've used have had the issues you have had. Aside from some sort of internal hardware difference, i can't think of anything other than either a faulty unit, or a card that isn't up to the job. I know they're expensive, but if you're doing paid gigs, go big or go home man:). Unless you already have that card, of course. Then you're camera could be f--ked.. Lol

I agree. Film's toast in probably 5 years. It's the grandeur that gets you when you think about it. When I was a kid, I wanted to sit behind that big ass Panavision camera. Alas, technology just gets better every year. They'll eventually make a 65mm digital sensor with a 12 core processor behind it, and Dyson will make the cooling unit.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342692082' post='14140'] Thanks for posting but PLEASE someone write it down for me I don't have 20 minutes for a waffling podcast guy :) [/quote] Lol. There's a link in the description that transcribes the interview. If I was an English teacher however i would've dropped the hammer on whoever wrote it. I'm pretty sure it didn't get a proof read.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1342667595' post='14131'] https://vimeo.com/46000873 [/quote] Andrew it just dawned on me.. I know any updates on this camera usually get an article on the main page. So if you're doing one, just take this post down man:) Just thought everybody'd like to see what's actually going on.

https://vimeo.com/46000873 Good bit of info on the SENSOR in here.