MattH

[quote name='OverCranked' timestamp='1348159503' post='18717'] That comment is not civilized. Only if you knew a bit more about Japanese culture. May be you should consider his action as a noble move from a highest ranking engineer. Perhaps he is the team leader for those 100 members researching the subject. Yet again, only if you knew a bit more about Japanese culture. [/quote] Firstly it is a joke. You have a poor sense of humour sir. If only you understood British culture ;) The point I was jokingly making is that if they had a hundred researchers you would think that he would already know about fly by wire follow focusing, and not need to write it down. I mean it doesn't even have focus peaking. How can they not know about that with 100 researchers? It would be funny if the front of the pad had "stuff that will never appear in the GH4" written on it.

Thanks for the interview Andrew, this must have taken ages to transcribe. Things I infer from this interview: How do you come to prioritise what’s most important, because you must have a huge list of feature requests? We had interlaced to make progressive – not so good. Translation: You thought you were getting progressive video from the GH2. but you weren’t. It was interlaced that was converted to progressive. This is one of the reasons the GH2 had such a strong video look. Plus we spent so long doing that, we forgot to add peaking Is the HDMI output 4-2-2? No its 4-2-0. Why would we spend so long designing and optimising a stable high bit codec in camera if we wanted you to use a fucking ninja? The output is perfectly suitable for a field monitor, but you won’t be recording shit out of it. Is it a Sony sensor? No comment. Translation: Yes it is it’s the same sensor from the EM5. We saw Olympus taking all the glory for having better quality so we decided to sacrifice the multi aspect sensor for the slightly better dynamic range of the Sony one. This will have an effect on the overall video quality as well. The footage will look less like the old Panasonic video-like look and more of a Sony video-like look. So if you want a more film like look you will have to save up and either put up with the artificially crippled detail of the 5dmk3 which should be sharp as a tack due to the 3*3 pixel binning, or put up with the rainbow moiré of the BMC because they skipped putting in an optical low pass filter in this version to get the camera out the door. One more question. Electronic follow focus....? Response: (Gets notepad out.) Remember when I said There are over a 100 members researching all over the world? I Lied!!

I'm not seeing much increase in dynamic range at all. Even in the stills on the panasonic website there is highlight clipping all over the place [url="http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/dslm/gh3_special/gallery/index.html"]http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/dslm/gh3_special/gallery/index.html[/url] Rumours talked about a high dynamic range sensor, but this looks like stealth marketing. The only reference to high dynamic range on the website is a multi exposure hdr mode for stills. No flat mode for video, although you can turn the contrast down which may do something. As far as the multi aspect sensor, I don't think it is one. By looking at the pictures of the cam without the lens mount the sensor clearly looks smaller with black borders all around, and as already pointed out the horizontal resolutions on the website are 4608 for all aspects. Both of these things strongly indicate a regular sensor. I think dpreview made a mistake. They probably saw the different aspect ratios and just assumed panasonic wouldn't go backwards on such a good feature, so they just copied and pasted the sensor stuff from the gh2.

[quote name='PTRush' timestamp='1343355923' post='14585'] Pretty exciting to finally get to see a little more footage out of the Blackmagic camera. It's so close to release you'd think we could get some raw files to pay around with. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but did anyone notice all the moiré in the mesh of the chair by the window? I don't think thats from Vimeo... This camera does seem to produce very beautiful detail, and organic feeling video. [/quote] That mesh looks extremely fine. Difficult to tell exactly how fine, but some meshes and fabrics are so fine that there is moire even when looking with the naked eye. The colour is the most distracting part of it. If a mask was used to desaturate the chair then it may just look natural. If the full 2.5k was enough to resolve the pattern then the moire might have occurred merely by downsizing to 1080. In this case I think one could apply a blur mask before down scaling which would act as an anti aliasing filter for that part or the image. It may just be that 2.5k isn't enough to resolve the detail, but that's the case with many cameras. I think an anti aliasing filter would just soften the image overall.

Andrew, You say that the video was shot all handheld. It looks really stable. In the review you mention running with the Zacuto z-finder. Is that what you did with this video?

[quote author=MOONGOAT link=topic=939.msg6819#msg6819 date=1341474210] I think it would be a mistake to create sub-forums for cameras and have comments directly on articles. Really you'd just be dividing an already small community. [/quote] +1 Its good to see at a glance what conversations are going on and what activity has taken place.  And there is no risk of missing something that somebody commented about an article.

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=926.msg6745#msg6745 date=1341270906] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=926.msg6743#msg6743 date=1341266579] [quote author=markm link=topic=926.msg6736#msg6736 date=1341250687] If I was serious about making a film I would choose the BMC. The FS700 is 8 Bit 4.2.2 out. I'm not sure if that could change if it ever gets its 4k option. [/quote] 8 bit per sample. Lots of colours (16.7m I think?) and 255 shades of each. Seems enough for me. 10 bit is overrated. Your screen is likely 8 bit too. Well my Dell U2711 and MacBook Pro use 8 bit LCD panels. JPEG and raw stills look fine with 255 per colour sample as does C300 footage. [/quote] I think Macbook Pros use 24 bits per pixel, but each pixel is represented by three 8 bit elements(red green blue).  When you play back you footage from a c300, since each photo site records only 8 bits in one color (RGB), then the remaining information is interpolated from neighboring photosites. I think you are confusing photosites with pixels. [/quote] Wrong camera to make that point with.  The c300 uses 4 discreet photosites per output pixel.  Therefore it doesn't need to debayer (interpolate). Also when people refer to 8 bit, that of course means 8 bit per channel (if they know what they are talking about). I personally think capturing 10 or 12 bits per channel is an advantage even though the output is only 8 bits per channel:  It leaves more room for adjustments with less chance of banding etc.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=900.msg6519#msg6519 date=1340690270] I don't particularly like the films of Wes Anderson, but this doesn't mean anything. At least there is something about them to like more or less. Fantasy-killing fantasy-films like [i]Snowhite[/i] are the reason why cinema as a commercial art form is doomed. The 16mm aspect is interesting. I saw a lot of films blown up from 16mm, transferred from DV to 35mm or simply as such shitty 35mm mass copies that they [i]looked[/i] like 16mm, and in no case did this weaken their impact nor their success at the box office. Content prevails over shiny surface. Let me say it with LOTR: The army of orks is beaten by those with faith and a pure heart. Don't let yourself be corrupted, all ye indie filmmakers! [i]Prometheus[/i] starts in Germany only in 6 weeks. This is the only blockbuster I look forward to. Ridley Scott made some of the best examples for big budget films that really influenced the cinema. One always finds interesting stories in his films. Sometimes only by making an own summary. Do so for [i]1492[/i] or[i] Kingdom Of Heaven[/i], and you will see. [/quote] I'd lower your expectations for Prometheus.  A lot! 

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6430#msg6430 date=1340495348] [quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6428#msg6428 date=1340494035] [quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638] [size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size] [/quote] Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio. [/quote] well, all this DSLR movie is about being on a budget and working to a budget.  Given all the aftermarket kit required, better off getting a cheap HD camcorder with better onboard audio, easier workflow [/quote] Yeah definitely, if that type of videography is needed then a dedicated video camera is sometimes the better option.  But for narrative work I don't see an external recorder as a problem.  Its what the clapperboard was invented for. 

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638] [size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size] [/quote] Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio.

A "log" image profile or "flat" "cinestyle" whatever you want to call it.  Basically to give us access to all the dynamic range the sensor is capable of.  If it had this it could compete with the BMCC.  Put it in as a pro option within the menus so that average consumers won't have to deal with it.  But anyone who knows what they are doing will be able to activate it easily.  Make the bitrate selectable in this way too.  with a 50mbps option for both log profile and  rec.709 profile. And tune the sensor for dynamic range in the highlights if this is possible. I personally like the idea of a smaller camera that doesn't look like a dslr because it is less conspicuous.  an ad on battery grip thing like the omd but bigger to beef it up fully would be one solution.  but make sure the standard shutter button is angled and not on the top.  something like nex would also be good.  a descent grip but with a body slim enough to look like a consumer camera, with the smaller mft lenses would be a winner. keep the viewfinder that sticks out.  If anything make the image bigger for better focusing.  but loose the pentaprism hump as it looks dslr like.

Test A was the only one that looked decent to me.  All the others looked unnatural and over saturated, Like a kids tv programme.  A lot of them messed around with the colour correction to much, making the guy in the green shirt in front of the window look like he was in front of a blue screen.  So I am going to guess that A is the Alexa.  If A turns out to be the gh2 then the alexa dps fucked up and the gh2 dps are geniuses.

Wow.  Bad show from canon.  After the 5dmkiii I knew the resolution wouldn't be better, but I at least expected the moire and aliasing to be solved.  What reason do I now have to think it will EVER get solved in their 'rebel' line.  Presumably the video in their upcoming mirrorless cameras will be exactly the same, so I might as well forget being exited about them too.

[quote author=yellow link=topic=724.msg5335#msg5335 date=1337033035] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=724.msg5332#msg5332 date=1337025294] [quote author=richg101 link=topic=724.msg5327#msg5327 date=1337017730]what post processing are you applying to this footage?  any de-noise in software?[/quote] None. Straight off the card and onto Vimeo. [/quote] Except the 5D MkIII full range levels have been squeezed into 16 - 235 skewing results, where as the FS100 full luma levels have been left as shot in camera and for whatever reason the GH2 levels are 16 - 235 as well. The 5D MKIII MOV as well as Nikons MOV's use h264 VUI Options metadata, including a fullrange flag set 'on' by the camera firmware, this forces the decompressing codec to squeeze luma levels, evident in the image extracts in the zip below, showing the luma waveform, notice the fine horizontal lines at regular intervals in the waveform on the 5D MKIII image, clearly showing luma levels have been compressed. http://www.yellowspace.webspace.virginmedia.com/bike.zip The images were extracted using AVISynth. If the Canon MOV is remuxed with a h264 VUI Options patched build of MP4Box here: http://komisar.gin.by/tools/ setting the fullrange flag to 'off' in the process then the full levels as shot in camera are left well alone by the decompressing codec and the outcome would be very similar to the FS100 including less contrast, brighter image than the 5D MKIII is showing currently. As an aside the GH2 levels in the attached image show restricted to 16 - 235 levels. I'm not aware the MTS container holding a fullrange flag and looking at the waveform in comparison to 5DKMIII there are no fine regular horizontal lines to suggest luma is getting squeezed, gradation looks 'fine' like the FS100 and what the 5D MKIII would look like if decompressed correctly, but GH2 looks to capture to restricted 8bit range? A further minor skew is that Canon native files use BT601 luma coeffs where as the GH2 and FS100 are BT709 so there will be a slight skew in contrast / color of a Canon source due to the Vimeo mp4 being flagged as BT709 color matrix, which is incorrect for the Canon file unless a BT601 to BT709 color matrix transfer has been done? [/quote] Wow that is a hell of an information overload for one post. After reading several times I still can't say I fully understand it. So to get the full luma levels are you saying you have to do something before you record the video, or do you do something to the file afterwards? Would you mind explaining how you achieve this? Also if this can be done for the 5dmk3, can it be done for other canon dslrs?

48 fps is a MacGuffin.  The real culprit is badly done digital.  Sounds like the highlights were to harsh, and the image was to contrasty and sharp.    Shoot film at 48 fps and see if that looks cinematic.

[quote author=TimeZone link=topic=541.msg3540#msg3540 date=1333824997] I was kind of surprised by some of the comments by Shane on his blog that the c300 still looked like video and that he didn't really like it.  Now he's the pro and I guess has developed a love of the Alexa look and that is fine.  I really like the colors better in the c300 myself and it seemed to have a lot higher resolution.  Now, I can see where high resolution is perhaps giving the "video" look maybe.  I think I would rather start with high resolution and tone it down in post if you want to.  Lower resolution is probably more flattering on actors though and the smoothing gives a more cinematic look perhaps. I know there was a bit of a problem with the white shirt from the c300 scenes and that the Alexa deals with highlight and shadow roll-off better which I'm sure play a big part in the "video" look of c300. He actually said something on his site that maybe the 5D was a fluke and had a cinematic look, like he preferred its look over the c300.  That make me think high resolution is actually being downgraded by some and being called the "video" look..  Kind of like you say to watch on a big screen TV and not your monitor. [/quote] I Think the difference is between resolution and sharpness.  Both cameras are capable of true 1080 resolution, but the c300 in this shoot is perhaps set with added sharpness on.  I think it is this added sharpness that creates the video look he was referring to. Baked in contrast is another thing that looks 'video' to me, but this is one thing the c300 does not suffer with.  Only the highlights with suffered in this test, which may have been solved by shooting with a flatter profile.  This may have helped with the purple fringing as well but I'm only guessing. As for the 5d being a fluke.  Not really.  Still DSLR's were designed to compete with film SLRs from the very beginning, so it doesn't surprise me that the canons look film like.  However I do suspect that canon may have added a slight blur filter to the 5dmk3 video.  Not to make it film like, but to protect the c300.

I believe you are correct about not turning down the saturation.  I have heard elsewhere that it does throw away information if you reduce it.  Yet a lot of people make the mistake of doing so. so you are right when you say: "It is easier to desaturate something than to amplify something which isn’t really there in the first place." You then say "This goes for contrast as well."  but I have to say in my experience I wouldn't agree with this.  I find you can easily add contrast to a dull image by raising the black level or applying curves, whilst it is difficult to do anything with a really contrasty image with crushed blacks and blown highlights. I find that reducing the contrast on a canon dslr picture style actually expands the dynamic range closer to raw level.  Try looking at the histogram on a static scene.  Make a mental note of where the information starts and ends, then reduce the contrast and look again.  The information shrinks within the histogram giving more room on the left and right.

[quote author=Sara link=topic=360.msg2238#msg2238 date=1330974071] [quote author=toxotis70 link=topic=360.msg2236#msg2236 date=1330973630] this is clearly from denoised program , way too soft . 5D MKII is noisier  but musch sharper. [/quote] You think it is fake? Might be. Because if it is real the MK3 looks poor at high iso - no detail.  Everything mushy. [/quote] This is ISO 12,800!  Have you ever shot at this iso before?  Its INSANELY sensitive.  The 550d only goes up to 6400. When you increase the iso the dynamic range is reduced and the picture has to loose detail to not be noisy.  There is no way around this.    The mk2 clip is completely unusable.  The mk3 clip IS usable if you needed it.  Its worth noting that the turbine is over exposed.  It would probably be better at 6400 were the detail would be more and the noise would be less.

You are English.  Why are you using "Period" like an american?  I've always found it an unnecessary and arrogant characteristic. Other than that. Great site.  I can't see the Nikon solving the moire problem with the HDMI-out either.  Its a sampling issue.  As far as I'm concerned they have brought out a last generation camera. I think the fact that the 5d mk3 has a 5760 horizontal resolution which is an exact 3x multiple of 1920 will contribute to very clean and fast downscaling. I am extremely in interested to see what features trickle down into the 650d.  But for a direct multiple they would have to have a 22.3 megapixel aps-c sensor or go down to 9.8304 megapixel which is probably to low for stills.