Germy1979

I read this on no film school. I think it has a 2/3 sensor doesn't it?

https://vimeo.com/45535389 I shot the daytime scenes with the T2i. Magic Lantern CBR 3.0 on a Sandisk Extreme Pro card. cinestyle profile. The Night shots / fireworks were all a GH2 with sedna aq1. Smooth -2 -2 -2 -2. Both of them I used a Nikon 85mm f2. The gh2 has killer banding in the lights even with 5d to rgb. This could be my fault though as i found out later to switch the render in AE to "trillions of colors" instead of millions. Between the 2, i like them both. Canon's are a little warmer and softer and I liked that for the daytime stuff. Especially around sunset. It might've even done better in the nighttime footage as well. Can't deny the GH2 on detail though. I can see the pores in the close ups with it.

Yeah i've never crashed, or lost any take with my Sandisk Extreme Pro 64/95. That's the only card they say to get if you're gonna run those super high bitrate patches. I've tried the 244mb patch even.. No issues in high detail scenarios. Aside from really not providing a discernible difference in image quality from say, a 176mb patch.. It just took up a lot of space. I think I got 20 minutes on a 64 gb card. I agree they probably used a lower end card.

[quote name='Kickass' timestamp='1342563353' post='14057'] Only an idiot (if he considers himself a pro) would set up lighting for the camera to NOT look its best, with the available means. Unless he of course doesn't know the camera. It's better to light for the sweet spot of any camera, regardless if it has 8 or 15 stops of DR, if it is possible. In an artificial environment, lighting is there to be controlled. In this sense, there was a completely level playing field in the test, regardless of if they used this light or that to achieve something. [/quote] I agree. It's $700 and in most cases you get what you pay for. It's not an Arri. So they lit the set to bring out the best in it. Part 3 i'm sure will show the world just how much it's not an Arri, Epic, F65 and why those cameras cost $70,000 and such. Renting one of those for a day will buy you a GH2 though. I'd love to just bypass all the digital myself and shoot on film since that's what they all want to look like anyway. So if I make a good flick on a GH2 and it gets my foot in the door with enough money to shoot film, I'll do that. Until then, I'll light the hell out my scenes with my GH2 if that's what it takes.

So I googled it. (yes. That happened.). Apparently these phrases are to be placed in their correct order by the viewer. That's 45 minutes however. Maybe with the proper amount of stimulants, and free time... One evening I will write down each line and interpret what "no one must find out about this" means. Don't hold your breath. The whole drag-asstic approach of boredom within the ugliness of what lies beneath is probably all Lynch was trying to convey here... Esspecially with the crowd cheers, etc. Something like that... More coffee.

I read he shot D.K.R. over 70% on IMAX 65mm... This guy is completely against digital.. I read an article on his argument to the Academy on the switch from celluloid to digital. "Nothing has the range of film, the resolution, or the look.". I have to say I disagree on everything except the look... I just watch these trailers one by one come out, and his old school mentality becomes more and more respectable to me. It's really inspiring. Harder work, and a much higher budget than what I could ever get to shoot a film. But damn, what a dream come true.

Y'know... Today i actually kinda grew a little respect for it. I think it's the music. Right off the bat when the curtain draws, it's a brilliant contradiction.. Very creepy, vintage, lofi, etc

Wtf. This probably has some David Lynch form of avant-garde justification for being so weird too right.. The media has been lying to you... Nevertheless, he gets my vote for Silent Hill 2.

Sh-t just got real. From tha streets.

[quote name='mattbatt' timestamp='1342425901' post='13949'] Andrew - I guessed A,B,C,D,F,G,H correctly in my write-ups. I feel proud of that, missing only E and I. I'm glad C300 was not I. I was second to last for me, even behind G. Just too sterile. My favorites guessed last month were: H, F, C and A. I agree with every word you said about camera H - the F65- and I am happy that we both saw and write the truth with how it handled NATURAL light and looked most like film in the skin. The reason why B was down on my list was that it is by far the most lit scene and upon one quick glance (which most of the voters did), looks most memorable. However, B is the most ‘digital’ looking scene to me and here is what I mean: B looked digital by looking like a soap scene or a staged lit scene. Like a greenscreen effect with shadows slightly off, B looked too pampered and ready and set. I started looking at all the lights and pretty faces and forgot the mood of the scene and that it was a room. Also B had some aliasing on the window frame, skin tone was yellowish and flatter and I saw some compression in the shadows. In other words, the “room” became a “set” because of the lighting. Could you ever see a scene from “24″ being lit like B? No, there is much more moody realism and grit in 24 with natural spill light. Now, H for me was sharpest, had the most latitude and best color fidelity (detail in the lamp and lights). Seeing it is the F65 and looks like that WITHOUT the relighting all the other scenes had is simply - Amazing! To add light and tons of post work is a detriment to a camera. A camera is supposed to make the MOST of natural light available in which the DP gets to sculpt with artificial light – in the hopes of creating a masterpiece. But it is all about the use of LIGHT. When obvious changes become so dramatic that the lighting looks staged, that speaks to a camera’s weakness far more than resolution or price alone. [/quote] I watched Crazy, Stupid, Love the other night. It was shot on 35mm. There's a part where Ryan Gosling is in a liquor store talking to Steve Carrel on the phone. For the first time, (and probably because i'd seen the movie a few times before) - i notice the window in the background is "completely" blown out. No detail outside whatsoever, just a big white glowing mass. I'm reminded of my rant on how the GH2 lacks dynamic range on another thread a couple of days ago. I agree it looked digital... I personally think the C300 is the most digital looking image on the market. It looks like a plug in. I have seen the Lumix come into its own with a 50mm and an Isco. If you paint it flat and warm it up a notch, it's gorgeous because of how well it mimics the motion. I set mine at 24p with a 1/40 shutter and voila.

They turned it into a drama almost.. I actual like the melodramatic music in its placement during the interviews. In 3 or 4 years, 4k will probably almost be an expected basic feature in any camera like HD is today. High dynamic range and so on. Features and price points will eventually not be such an issue. The Alexa will be trumped by something with a faster processor, for a hell of a lot less than $70,000. Yeah, they wanted to prove the point that it doesn't matter what tool you use... - but manufacturers (BMCC) - are watching the demand for these features rise from the sidelines, and are stepping out into the field. Has anybody heard of Axiom? Whoever the hell the company is, they came out of nowhere with a 4k camera with a tag under 10k. Kineraw, etc. Just a start. We're all used to our name brands, and eventually you get into Oakley, Coach, Nike, territory. (Had to throw in the Oakley reference there, Cameras aren't the only thing Jannard overpriced...lol.). Price probably won't be such an issue when the market floods the demand for these cameras. Then we'll all be back in the mindframe that got us here:) We're attracted to a great story well told with a beautiful image. ......But what Ford Focus owner doesn't want a Ferrari..

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934'] KahL please meet Facts. The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade. I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others. Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting. Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example. TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless... I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon. I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind. http://vimeo.com/45596420 What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied. We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late! [/quote] You should hop on Vimeo and check out a guy named "Roman Legion". His little short gh2 test movies are very filmic. He uses a Sigma 30mm and a Flycam Nano. He was one of the main reasons I went the gh2 route in the end. Watch the little Seaquake Alley test he did.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342397962' post='13930'] Speaking of pixel peeping there really is no light in Vitaliy's dark soul is there? http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/74231#Comment_74231 How can anyone fail to be happy when someone like Francis Ford Coppola appreciates their work? [/quote] (snicker..).. I'm sure old Francis got a private message reminding him the shootout was not a Gh2 fanboy contest.. ....sorry. I'm here all week... Lmao

The Alexa was my numeral uno....but you get what you pay for. The lenses on these cameras require mortgages also. This is where we get torn.. I'm not going to get an image that represents the dynamic range of what the human eye interprets as easily with a dslr as I would with an Arri Alexa.... But "Once" was shot on an old Canon XL, and I didn't stop to think, "Man... This movie would be so much better if I could see into those shadows in the background a little better." Story trumps every time. But, if I'm given the option, I'm pretty sure I'd pick up an Alexa before an I Phone.

[quote name='Joe Marine' timestamp='1340712374' post='13146'] The stated full resolution in the documentation I have seen for the Cinema Camera is 2592 x 2192. The BAE sensor is 2560 x 2160. Why would BAE state a resolution lower than what the sensor is capable of? You're absolutely right in that it matches very closely, but this discrepancy leads me to believe that they are using a different sensor. ON semiconductor makes a sensor that is 2592 x 2048, so that tells me that it's a common aspect ratio and sensor size (around Micro 4/3s), and it's very possible there is another company that might make a sensor with the exact same pixel resolution. [/quote] No Film School!

[quote name='chulx1001' timestamp='1342281778' post='13858'] The actual resolution and sharpness of this camera are what I'm most concerned. [/quote] 1080p is like, 2 or 3 megapixels when it's all said and done right? These big $65,000 to $100,000 cinema cameras approach their sensor tech with a different angle though. Cameras like the Alexa, F65, Epic, etc... - the D800 packs more megapixels than they do, or most any camera on the market right now for that matter.. But we know what that does for DR... Film's not the sharpest image i've ever seen, but it has the freedom "TO" be, and that's huge. I want a camera that mimics how my "eyes" perceive an image if i'm looking out of a window in a dim bedroom. The walls aren't black. I can expose for what's outside and still retain detail in the room. A raw, 13 stop image with a fast lens and a polarizer will probably let me do that a lot better than a GH2 right now. Sorry i got off track a little there, (i love talking about this stuff, lol) - point is, i really wouldn't be worried in the least bit about sharpness or resolution. IMAX is projected at 2k. 500 lines of resolution shy of what this baby will resolve. Dump it in After Effects and put an unsharpen mask on it... If it's night and day on a 5d3 image that doesn't actually resolve a true 1080p with that process, .... Then imagine the freedom you'll have to clean it up with 2.5k raw.

Detail wise, the GH2 with one of those holy sh-t bitrates on it will resolve 2 fleas playing poker on the other side of the street at a 400% crop. The problems are in the shadows and the highlights. I guess you really pay for the amount of freedom you get with the images, and Raw is about as untethered as it gets. Most of the dslr's out there have a stamp of their own character they put on images. If you watch a 5dmk2 flick you can usually tell right off the bat. (aliasing, moire aside....it's a pretty vibrant image. Check out "devinsupertramp" 's videos on youtube sometime...) Heavy doesn't bother me one bit. Even though my gh2 rapes a 7d image with no lube and harsh language, the 7d feels like i'm holding a damn camera in my hands. I'd love to get my hands on a Kineraw 35 personally but that's probably a $5,000 difference. A whole other BMCC at that point...with some lovin. Albeit, you may not touch it until next summer:) lol

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=944.msg6904#msg6904 date=1341669103] If you can, wait for the new full frame cameras due in September. Lower priced (Nikon D600) and more advanced (Sony A99 with 1080/60p) [/quote] Holy crap.. http://thenewcamera.com/?tag=sony-a99 Can't say i was watching Sony these days, but i guess these specs leaked yesterday.  This looks like a beast

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=944.msg6841#msg6841 date=1341513882] The Black Magic doesn't exist yet, so it's hard to comment on it. However, I've found that most peoples opinions on it are saturated with wishful thinking. It all depends what you plan shooting. I think the 5D2 and gh2 compliment each other well, and make for a versatile toolkit.  Personally I'd wait until the fall announcements before i make any purchasing decisions. I'm still hoping for a 5-C. [/quote] Yeah i hear ya..  The Bmcc on paper just looks like the Christ of cameras we've all been waiting for.  It will probably kick @ss..  I really wanna wait until the end of the year once everybody has laid their cards on the table and make a decision...  I think i'm in the zone now of, "it's summer, stop window shopping and shoot something.".  It's all impatience really and I've been struck by the Mark 2 image for years anyway..  Nobody wants buyers remorse though, and I'd hate to buy a 4 year old camera just to be pissed at myself when the Gh3 or whatever comes out and smokes it.  At some point it always becomes, "i gotta have the next best thing.".

Hey thanks guys! I started this whole search with the Mark ii years ago...  I actually saved up for one, and wound up dropping the money on a GH2 with a rig instead...  I get great stuff from my Gh.  Low and behold, somebody does something great with a Mark ii and I remember why i loved it.  It actually has it's own "character".  I'm not much on its wide shots, but damnit!...does it do amazing tight ones.  I don't really notice moire and aliasing in those vids and i'm sure it's there...  The D800 was seriously a huge contender for me.  They've got a working aliasing filter out there tweaking right now too.  I don't have enough canon glass to justify a Mk2, but my buddies do!  Lol..  (good Sh-t too..).  So access to those lenses is a factor.  I guess as long as I don't do a profile on a guy in a flannel shirt with it I'll be fine... Lol

If you have something like an 85mm on the front, you have to pan VERY slowly to avoid it.  Any long length for that matter...  It's just one of its issues.  I don't have it so bad with my Nikon 24mm.  The best i've been able to do on it, is a wide lens with the Flow Motion patch... Which was just recently as a matter of fact.  Look for LPowell's Flowmotion 2.0 patch.  It looks amazing and renders motion a little better than those super high bitrate patches... It retains awesome detail, but doesn't load your card in 45 minutes.  (sandisk extreme pro 64gb).  Probably won't fix your problem, but it might help a little.  Dslr's are great, but they have a lot of workarounds. 

This is big.  ;D About a year ago Dan told me to email these guys and tell them what i wanted in a cinema camera..  (not that my opinion was special, just r&d..) - i got an email back that ended with a number around $8000 for the 35mm..  This thing looks awesome.. I remember thinking when i saw the original concept camera, "i wouldn't buy that.  It's ugly as hell.  I'm all for cutting corners for other things, but i would've taken a Dynamic Range hit for some sex appeal.".  Now hopefully, it doesn't wind up around $10,000...  That's only 2 grand more, but for some reason, anything under 10,000$ has a nice ring to it.  Add a 5th digit and consumers get depressed.

Hey everyone:) I'm in the market for a full frame camera.  I have the GH2 right now, but it seems lately I've seen some very sexy images from the Mark 2.  To the point where I've now decided I'd like to grab one...  The issue comes into play of its obvious weaknesses.  The Mark 3 has yet to impress me, but then again, I've yet to see a video from the Mark 3 that matches the image of the Mark 2.  I'm not sure if this is a weird perception, but it seems like the Mark 2's image looks better to me.  Call me crazy, but the newly redesigned sensor looks like it took something away from it. I have a full rig complete with an external monitor that I'm aware would flip right to 480p upon record.  And that sucks...  For the money, I imagine it would be smarter to grab a BMCC..  But that's a sensor smaller than the GH2's.  You can get a VAF-5D2 filter for the Mark 2 as well for the aliasing, moire stuff. I guess I need to justify spending a couple grand on a Mark 2 vs grabbing a BMCC.  I imagine most of you will say get the BMCC!!  12bit raw, 13 stops DR, etc...  But man I really like what I've seen from the Mark 2. Talk some sense into me, lol...

[quote author=amband link=topic=897.msg6530#msg6530 date=1340728548] No slo mo apparently :( [/quote] I think they may update that.. Who knows.  Twixtor for now!  Lol..

I was too poor to pre-order it at announcement..:(. Now i'll have to wait a year before i get one, lol.  Blackmagic actually installed our conversion upscaling system in my A/V room at my church last month.  I kept bugging the guy about the camera. He said, "if you didn't pre-order one, you better do it now.". Followed by a devious laugh. [shadow=red,left][/shadow]