plochmann

I did a rough test between three cameras: the Nikon D750, Lumix GH2, and Black Magic Pocket Camera. I wanted to see how their videos compared in general. I'm swamped in work, so I couldn't make this as good as I wanted. I literally shot it on lunch break from a day job at an PR firm. However, I think the results are clear and I wanted to share the video and a link to my blog with you guys in hopes that others can learn or give me some good feedback on questions I raise. I'm rusty on the whole shooting thing because I've devoted the last 3 years to teaching and commercial work/writing. It's good to get back into it, and necessary because I have a script I want to shoot next month. http://www.production1studio.com/2016/02/23/3-camera-test/ I know some won't be interested in the blog link above, like I'm plugging myself, but there is a lot of insight into the footage, what I was trying to do, and a big piece on lenses and the way they work (like feel) on different cameras.

This is embarrassing, I agree. I did not say technically perfect, my point was that film has smooth transitions, no glaring ugly codec issues or fixed noise patterns. Alexa does look nicer than film most of the time, we don't talk about that thing. I'm especially nostalgic for high ISO films that kinda bled all the colours together. What did you guys read??? I don't have any clue. Take any screen shot from Days of Heaven, that would do. Film just handles things gracefully, not perfect, but graceful. Sure, 12,800 ISO and 120fps sounds nice on paper... but it isn't gracefully handled.

Strangely defensive sounding forum with poor reading skills. Lets test some knowledge. How can we shoot 5217 metered at 12,80 ISO at 120 fps? Anyone know a way?

Remember film guys, do you. You just shot things underexposed and it still looked great. Remember how all the colours and exposure smoothly bled into each other when you shot 5217. Blacks were blacks, whites were not overexposed but just a part of the image. Point being, people complain because digital still don't do it right! I downloaded the original file, and I just won't be buying any camera. To my eye, I could get these results with GH2 at a lower ISO and by adding more light. Sure, there would be more banding and noise, but when it is at this level I find it distracting and why not add more of it. If you want to know what irks me most about the image, it's the undulating banding on her finger tips, possibly from the light of a flame swaying in the faintest breeze. Sure, it's great to capture this detail, but the codec just kinda hands it back to us in a distracting way. Some of the later shots look great. They remind me of something from the 70s, maybe Altman using pre-flashed film. This is the real crime, that some results make me forget it's digital, and then other shots make me wonder if it is an i-phone? This is the newest challenge to being a DP, so many different cameras and each with their niche. I think this camera has a vast potential for some projects, but you need to know that limit. It's scary now getting called in for a job and they say they are using yadda yadda whatever camera and you haven't used it and you don't really know the limits. You know of course, 8 or 10 bit, what codec, the workflow, but you can't say for sure how she'll ride. If it's a real job they let you take her out and play, but most jobs aren't this professional and the whole shoot will put you in the hot seat. Some people have commented that this is a better demo video for the camera. This is true, I am sick of landscape camera tests. How many times are we working for any kind of job and the shot came down to a landscape and the dynamic range. I don't think hardly any audience anywhere gave a flip about the dynamic range in the films landscape shot. What, maybe the shot in NO Country for Old Men needed that range for artistic flare, but seriously, most videos I shoot it's about the actors face or clarity of image during events. Test videos need to shoot real light situations (including what you would pull from your grip truck) and people's faces. PEOPLE!!! Cameras do more than landscapes and if you are going to buy a camera, that's why you need to pick the most flexible one.

IMO, was looking at a feature done on F5 and there is something weird about that camera. The way the sensor scans makes a strange kind of jumpy look in hand held, not like rolling shutter but something new. The dynamic range is better than F3, but not leaps and bounds, so I would rate it much lower and further not suggest it as a camera to use because of this oddity I saw in a lot of footage. Also, I have shot a lot with GH2 and FS-100, and although the FS-100 image wise is more forgiving, they do about the same thing in good light and GH2 is just way easier to work with, I can't rate the FS-100 that high, too much a pain to work with (hours spent trying to rig it up with equipment that isn't meant to work with something so stupid shaped). If the GH series are league 3, then the FS cameras should be too for sure. Really, a priority for these cameras should be versatility, so no way should camera that alias and moire and over heat and have retarded ergonomics be within the top III.

  Thanks guys, I also wanted to point out that they never even watched the video.  They never responded to calls or my e-mail to them.  They paid!??? But didn't even bother to watch it, so I posted it on the web just to see what I could gain.  I'm not very good at color correcting, I tried to just make it look natural, used a color card and white balancer and just kinda put a light S-Curve on it.  What would you suggest as a better way to color correct?  

I snicker at this response.  I was looking for a more work with what you got, but I totally agree with your input.  I wanted all of that, but they just strung me on and never committed to anything, this is like literally what they wanted.  2 hours to shoot, and a lot of the rooms you couldn't fit heads into, maybe flo sets.  But it wasn't that job.  Yeah, and the colors are awkward in there, some kind of yellow/brown :P   

  I was led on for almost a year to do this simple job.  The clients just kinda never committed to an idea :huh: , and finally when I came in to shoot they didn't want any people in their office.  They asked for a virtual tour.... so this is what I did.  I would love some advice from any veterans or creative types on what they would have done differently.  Thanks a lot.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRP7FcDrEPchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRP7FcDrEPc

Without getting too deep, and in hopes of avoiding debate- I think buffered RAM is a big part of the Mac fidelity and 4-5 years ago, this is most of what you were paying for.  Now, you can buy it without having to buy Mac.  I see a lot of Hackintosh builds out there that go for the fast I7 and regular DDR3 RAM, and I think this is a mistake.  I personally would go for a Xeon processor and the EEC RAM.  RAID is also very important.  I see my processors and RAM barely working unless I'm using RAID.  

No!!! Please buy a descent tripod. Oh, I bought a cheap one before and it blew over in a breeze, smashed my lens. Get something that is really solid. Not to mention a good pan, not just smooth, but one that doesn't make clicking or poping noises. It seems everybody neglects the tripod. I've gone to no-budget films with old film school bodies and we always have 5 7Ds but no tripods. I personally believe a tripod is a better investment than a camera- it will last you a lot longer.

    I had the same problem, but only with the intraesting patch from this site.  I changed to Rocket V2 and haven't had any issues.

That kit lens is too slow!  I've shot some club work and I used the 12mm 1.6 SLR Magic and an old Nikon 50mm f/2.  They don't have stabilization though, but I've never really personally needed it.  At least on a wide angle camera shake is not noticeable.  I use a very heavy pistol grip to carry the camera and it is really stable.    If you need OIS, then Panasonic is releasing a 12-35 f/2.8 lens for a lot of money that would be perfect, or you can use their 25mm 1.4.  Most OIS is in telephoto lenses for bird shooting, and is not as effective for video work.  That's the advantage of the HMC40, it is built for video only and does it well. 

Totally would have dug this if it took C-mount lenses.  Canon is a bane of cinema shoots with their finicky focus and trying to rack f-stops, and then the zooms jerkin about and changing exposure.  This was begging for an old Ang 12-120 and some 4/3 glass.  I guess they didn't want to compete with the new Bolex or they thought Canon glass was so common that people wouldn't have anything else.  Not sure what market they are after really?  DSLR upgraders???  It's not like Canon needed to sell more stuff, now they get 3rd party support :(   

Oh, and I forgot- image stabilization can be a life saver.  Really, are you on sticks for your job or not? 

:D  It doesn't really matter which one you get, neither will make you better- that is completely up to you. The viewfinder for photography is essential and the screen swivel is better on 600D.  Both take good video, but I've seen lots of awful video from both (some of it which i've shot)   I hate the 5n ergonomics, but you'll find that you are holding the lens more than the body so if you own or use big lenses not a big deal.   It sounds as if you don't own any lenses so the 600 is better because Sony does not offer many good lenses and you will have to go legacy most likely, and why do that unless you love the idea or already have some?   I do dislike buying Canon though because they have the least amount of bells and whistles and more importantly the lenses only work on Canon which my hippie/yuppy blood hates and thinks is stupid.  You get stuck with one system, whereas Nikon glass lets me work on almost anything- but I almost never use autofocus, only like 3% of the time, even when filming my daughter or other small critters.  Also most of those cheap Canon lenses are almost impossible to rack focus with, such as the nifty fifty.  It's possible, but stupid hard and you will laugh at yourself for trying so hard.        I suggest the GH2 if you haven't looked at that option.  It won't overheat and m4/3 lenses are really great.  Some ppl critique it for bad high ISO performance and not having shallow enough d.o.f.  Whoo ha, it stomps the 500 in ISO performance (haven't used 600 and Nex's are better but really, who goes around shooting at 6000 ISO, i never have needed to) and they have very pleasant depth of field.   Go out and try them before buying.   

  The Angenieux 8-64/1.9 might be a good lens, but might also have issues like vignetting really bad and being noticeably soft.  I've shot with a lot of Angenieux before and they were all distinctly soft, but it had a great look to it that made you not mind so much.  But I haven't used that specific lens.  To cover your butt a little I would definitely suggest something native like the 20 1.7, the continuous autofocus on the GH2 works great and if you are all alone it can save you.   The SLR Magic 12mm 1.6 is really good looking image wise, great manual focus, fast, and lets you focus really close for interesting shots.     GH2 isn't great at High ISO, so fast lenses have to make up for it.  Although, I am going to suggest the Panasonic 7-14 for it is a constant f/4, good image quality, and can continuous focus.      If you need a versatile zoom, wait for Panasonic newer f/2.8's coming out late this year (hopefully) or pick up a Olympus 4/3 lens on ebay- very beautiful lenses.    I steer clear of vintage zooms, they really don't have good Image quality compared to today's standards and most are slow. 

Driftwood's been upping the ante with crazy gop settings and Intra Matricies!  What do these patches use for gop and are they intraframe...I'm not sure what the matrix thing is anyway.  I do know that I"m impressed by the Quantum X2 rocket V3, even more so than the last GOP3 stuff that wasn't much better than Intraesting.  So I just was curious how the new unified compares to Rocket v3.  Anyone please answer, have to stop this itch on my brain.  :P