Axel

Many fell in love with the GH2 and keep it with them wherever they go. It has it's flaws, but very few, even those with highest expectations, were disappointed. Now a lot of owners have ordered the GH3, and it could very well be that the market will be flooded with second-hand GH2s soon, and the prices will drop a hundred bucks or so.   As with all DSLR-videography, the charm is provided by the manual lenses (which also is the main difference to your HDV-camcorder). The sensor has a good resolution and almost no visible aliasing, but that's the extent of it. You should choose the right lenses from the start!   This is especially important for lowlight. You probably learned already, that the GH2 has an 'ISO bug'. This makes fast lenses best for your purposes. I recommend the SLR magic 12mm f1.6 and the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f.95. Watch examples on youtube. You seldom need to worry about enough light. The right light of course is what makes the difference to those test shots.

Yes. To synch one master sound track to four or five big chunks of video is so ridiculously easy in your NLE, you won't need PE/DE for that. As for the audio of the MTS, you can either delete it, put the level to zero, disable it or mix it in in some parts (depending on your NLE).

Because back then, cinema was all emotion and sensations, not about 'technical specs' ...

Just curious: Do you have FCS3 on Snowleo? Allegedly, the gamma shift-issue is solved since Lion. I am running FCS and FCP X on Mountain Lion, and I still find the Compressor 3 output to be a little 'darker'. Confusing. Besides that, I [i]would[/i] have recommended FCP X as editor for the Studio 3 (via XML-export with [url="http://assistedediting.intelligentassistance.com/Xto7/"]X27[/url]), but right now you can't create custom ARs in FCP X, so for anamorphotic footage (other than 1440) it's not yet fit. This needs to be added.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354039266' post='22468'] Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster. If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses. Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?[/quote] Because we tend to forget Platos wisdom: The idea creates the form. It shouldn't read content [i]or[/i] style/quality. The need to express something lets you seek for the appropriate means. But the content must be there first.

Interesting to learn about the noisy blacks asf. Encountered similar problems with XDCAM EX recently, compared to EOS and GH2 footage. But I like it. This effect in particular: [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/screenshot-v.jpg[/img]How done?

Wow, real music for a change! Were the graded shots those with the blueish depths?

[quote name='Albert' timestamp='1354014807' post='22420'] Great picture! For the first time I get Sony's 'make believe' slogan :D.[/quote] That's it. The believers join the queue at the stores, the makers are doubting Thomases, who rather believe their eyes. Moire is always an indicator that the recorded resolution is beneath the true resolution. Also, ironically, if the recorded resolution was [i]higher[/i] than the final resolution, because with downscaling you run into more issues with interpolated pixels (and patterns, you may have heard about that) than with upscaling.

As a digital projectionist and a cinéaste (getting my eyes checked at least once a year, they work perfect for distances), I can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, and of course I prefer the latter. Sony's argumentation, that viewing distance is of bigger importance than screen size, is rubbish nonetheless, because you can get audiences only so close to the screen as is necessary to let them enjoy 4k by completely rebuilding your cinema. The rows would have to be almost vertical, like in some IMAX-theaters. I watched [i]Inception[/i], [i]The girl with the dragon Tattoo[/i] and [i]Skyfall[/i] (this one 'false' 4k) on a 10m x 24m screen, from row 5. Note, that nobody voluntarily chooses these seats, because inevitably there is also a heavy [color=#ff0000][i]distortion[/i][/color] of the image and people consider it a disadvantage not to be able to overview the whole screen (while, in fact, this is the idea of a big screen). What is more, most content still is produced in 2k, a very high percentage is still even filmed in SD interlaced (regional ads, but astonishingly also commercials for cars, and from row 5 these often -but not always- are unendurable). I believe that within one or two decades, 4k will be the [i]de facto[/i] standard, but not because the audience calls and pays (more) for it, but simply because the equipment needs to be replaced anyway, and 4k will be quite affordable soon. The reasons why videographers are attracted by 4k are: > They think 'bigger is better', which is arguable, because bigger is just bigger. > They never saw a true HD image in their life, because either their cameras didn't make it or (if they watch a BD on their HD-TV-set), they keep the aforementioned distance, shrinking the image to the size they are used to. > They stare at their computer displays from the same distance, relatively, as they did with their old 800 x 600 CRTs. Tell anybody, that he should move to a one-foot-distance to his 24" display ([color=#ff0000][i]distortion![/i][/color]), and he will disapprove this advice.

Indeed. Now, I can't explain that. All I can say is, that I eliminated the bars with my (european current) 50Hz @ 25p. I sometimes film my editing monitors, just because they are there, for tests, there is no other reason. They look as clear and motionless as paper sheets.

[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] You mix up terms. Banding is only visible (and very prominent) in the TZ-10 footage. Both videos show occasional moire, which has nothing to do with frame rates or the so-called 'clear scan' at all. Moire occurs, when the resolution is not exactly 'true', then fine patterns (the screen pixel pattern) will overlay. With the GH2, this has more to do with the system lenses (Panasonic, Olympus), which, in order to provide outlines for fast AF, sharpen the image, overriding your settings in filmmodes. [/background][/size][/font][/color] [quote name='Gareth' timestamp='1353927468' post='22305']The frequency of the bands changes but no shutter speed loses it completely.[/quote] What you call banding are frequency interferences (darker bars that run over the screen). They will be completely eliminated only if monitor frequency, framerate and shutter speed all fit. So for example with 50Hz, 1/50 and 25fps. The moire that then is still visible once you pan diagonally has another reason, as described above.

[quote name='Francisco Ríos' timestamp='1353602925' post='22126']What will better to work on grading? prores or nativ avchd with your workflow? I though that the imac will handle better prores to work with grading, twixtor, etc.[/quote] That's quite another cup of tea. Once you process your footage in a way that you change every pixel completely, it's hue, saturation, luma, it's position, you were crazy to render in any highly compressed codec (such as mpeg4, though you don't gain anything by transcoding [i]before[/i] the editing/grading). If you further change the timing, add multiple keyframes, animated masks, composite shots (all the heavy After Effects stuff), you were absolutely insane not to prepare the video for that by transcoding to an intraframe-codec in advance. Can you tell the difference in quality then? This depends on your hardware. If your [i]preview[/i] (this is the wysiwyg-side of it) stays full quality then with AVCHD, maybe it will look the same (I'd like to see a machine capable of that). But even then, it makes no sense to wait a day and a half for the results (ProRes renders faster), only to have to throw away the whole if you detect some minor errors. A friend of mine, who builds really complex animations in AAE that take many hours and sometimes days, always renders as tiff sequences for this reason alone.

I never had problems with AVCHD in CS 5.5 on the Mac. I did load the CS6 test version, but it doesn't have the preset at all. Imho, when working with Premiere, ProRes will only help a lame processor, quality-wise there is no difference.

The same filmmaker has uploaded a lot of city portraits, and all that's clear is, that this is by far the best. He has also filmed with the GH2 (Lisboa), and guess what? It's full of moire. In this video, you see moire occasionally on the cupola of Sacré-Cœur and on some bricks. But you would'nt notice it, were you not looking out for it. The overall sharpness ist stunning. The skin tones are EOS-like, the dynamic range seems to be good. Are we all barking up the wrong tree?

[quote name='QuickHitRecord' timestamp='1353127002' post='21830'] Interesting.... [/quote] 'Who draws conclusions from what laymen say about a product anyway?' 'Exactly.' 'They thought the crap we let them glance at at the roadshows was the finished product. It isn't.' 'That's obvious.' 'Because, as someone said, products never get finished.' 'Right.' 'They get abandoned.' 'So there definitely will be some softening filter added before final release?' 'Rely upon it. And the new Panasonic disclaimer [i]this is from a pre-production model[/i] will be seen as a watermark in the video.' 'That's good news.'

To get the right motion resolution you should keep in mind that most of the old silent movies we see today were shot at a speed of around 16 fps. [i]Around[/i], because the film was transported through the film gate by the cameraman with a crank. They were being transferred to run @24 fps by frame doubling. This is how we ever got the chance to see these films. >shoot at 24 fps, shutter 1/25. >speed up 150 %, no frame blending, no optical flow or flow motion, this means throwing away 8 frames per second > export this > re-import it into a 24 fps timeline > slow down to values between 80 and 85 % (to simulate the handcranking), again, only repeating frames EDIT: I'm not sure if this is logical. I did this before, but I can't remember the details. But it's the principle. EDIT 2: If you turn [u]on[/u] pixel flow in the last step, it will look like more motion blur, give it a try.

[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1352992403' post='21692']I'm telling you resolution hype is the future.[/quote] Resolution hype for video started in 2005, when the first consumer 'HD' camcorders appeared. That was the past. It didn't wear out, because it looked like a solid parameter to judge the capability of a camera. For the industry, this is an easy way to promote their stuff. I am sure you are right, it's like buying the car with the most HP, and as we all know, everything boils down to this.

I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows: 'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside. Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.'

[quote name='bmd' timestamp='1352963124' post='21669']I use proxy because for some reason if I select Optimized media when importing the 5DtoRGB clips, in the Event browser the clips show up red and say Missing Proxy media. The only way the media shows up is if I click Proxy media.[/quote] Uncheck [i]optimized media[/i], just choose your files and hit [i]import[/i]. [quote name='bmd' timestamp='1352963124' post='21669']I'm sort of new to all of this so my understanding of importing/exporting is a bit muddy.[/quote] So you have ProRes. You go on with a rough edit, then you trim the cut, you add retiming, effects and titles, clean up the audio, add music (generally, if you cut to music, let the video be nonetheless your primary plot line and connect the music underneath, or else you lose the 'w'-functionality). After all this you color correct and grade every single clip. After this is done, you export. You could i.e. export directly to vimeo or instead export as the current format or both. Actually very straightforward.

You describe a worst case scenario. Edit with the best shots. Use a tripod. Workflow: Why proxy? ProRes is optimized media already. I (FCP 10.6, fast Mac) don't use ProRes for editing. I copy the PRIVATE folder to my hard drive before starting FCP X, then I import the good shots (not the rejects) as original media (FCP X makes a copy in a mov-container, takes no time). I export my finished project as ProResHQ or sometimes ProRes4444 (use the new export settings to have the compressor presets in your share menu). This master I open with Mpeg Streamclip and export as mp4 with the x264 QT plugin to H.264 @ 7 mbps for a 720p upload to vimeo. The background of this is, that x264 maintains good quality at very low bitrates, whereas a QT mov then falls apart. So I just guess it will also be better for relatively higher bitrates. I can't say if your workflow is wrong, I just wonder about the proxy. There is no right or wrong, in the end the quality will be the same (and the quality of your original upload file isn't bad compression-wise, you should always fine-tune everything with color-correction, and for that you have all you need within FCP X). You should use proxy for multicam, when you have more than, say, three or four streams. Also, converting to ProRes via 5D2RGB doesn't seem to make much sense. There is a myth that QT cuts off values. But I couldn't find this to be true. In my opinion this just complicates everything. ProRes as an editing codec ceases to be necessary. It is a fine master codec, and you should right-click and convert single clips to ProRes prior to adding animated masks for compositings in Motion.

First of all: It's not the camera :P, it's you ;) I think it is the lens. I couldn't find a specification how much it weighs, but it certainly looks heavy. Then the lens needs an adapter mount, and the cheap ones may have enough slackness (if that's the right term, I mean that they are not machined with highest precision). The two items on the plastic body of the GH2 add instability, more so if you focus by hand, because, the Vivitar being a photo lens, the ring is not designed to run smoothly. The most noticeable problem of your shots is the shivering, that even produces rolling shutter jello (as in ~6 - ~11). The shiver is amplified by the focal length, which makes all of them tele. With a lens like this, a rod support is needed and better yet a follow focus (a good one). Also the tripod should be good enough. Note, that zoomed in fully the lens has an aperture of only f5.3, which is pretty slow and explains why your shots are quite dark. As you see, the lens, though cheap, is not exactly a bargain for this kind of task. The bokeh looks okay sometimes, but it's certainly not remarkable. I advise you to look for a faster, lighter and wider lens. Some of the finest are discussed in Andrew Reids book for the GH2, but I'm sure you will find recommendations by using the forum search. Yes, and the background at 20, you couldn't see anything through the compression artifacts of vimeo, so I downloaded your upload mov. :blink: Congratulations! You found the *banding* that represents the GH2s biggest problem. Use the search again, but let me explain for now that it is most prominent in dark, blurred areas with slight gradients within. > It can be avoided to some extend by avoiding dark, blurred areas with slight gradients within. > It can be fixed in post to some extend by rendering fine grain in the highest possible quality ('de-banding', 'dithering'), by the way also a good trick to prevent vimeo from simplifying your video to a broth of macroblocks. As you see, everything is fine. Everybody who shoots sharp, clean footage with the GH2 has a good lens.

Well filmed and well directed, good actors.

Everything that is put in front of a lens is potential problem. The Tiffen LCF1 causes reflexes in backlight and will also cause stray light to form brighter puddles in the image. But what it does too is providing a flat image at full range. I think a mattebox would help to avoid the aforementioned issues. As for the allegedly better Wratten or so, I doubt they will perform much better. I have the LCW FaderND. Because of some problems, I searched the net for an alternative and bought the much more expensive Heliopan. The problems remained, and it's really hard (for me) to tell, if there is [i]any[/i] difference in quality.

Hi Phil, thank you for uploading this. I think it looks great, it reminded me of Sony EX-footage, with the zooms and the good (auto?)-focus. This might finally be the right cam for me, despite all negative reputation it gathered so far.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1352446297' post='21370']It annoys me the way some people look for posters weaknesses to win an argument. IE Because I mention I have knowledge of working with film Its easy to diss me off with being out of touch and out of date. That is an awful way to win an argument.[/quote] You get into an argument (I prefer 'discussion') not only if you want to destroy your opponent, but also because you feel involved, because you care. andy lee and I have already said that we have both analog backgrounds (I used to work in the darkroom back then, making special enlargements - [i]and manipulating the, er, data from the negatives[/i] - , then I was analog projectionist, now digital), so please don't imply we just want to win an argument. [quote name='markm' timestamp='1352446297' post='21370'](Please dont start on about grading)[/quote] Difficult, because it was done before. It was complicated and not very precise, and if a print came out as expected, that was the exception from the rule. And [i]because[/i] photochemical timing was so time-consuming and frustrating, it was done with special care. These two words represent a value, for sure. We all should care for what is core (and stop to care about unimportant things), and we all should make every minute of our life special. And as esoteric as this sounds, the analog process is for modern cinema. > the distribution is digital > therefore the laboratories shut down > the film stock production goes down > prices rise > the characteristics of analog film get ironed out in the process of digital transfer, digital post and distribution So very few people with a lot of cash behind them will occasionally try to reanimate analog film. Reminds me of the true story of a 500 year old wine bottle (with a history appropriate for a TV series) that was auctioned for $200.000. The world's most expert wine lovers were invited. After the bottle was uncorked, the wine reacted with the oxygen in the air and turned into vinegar immediately. The testers said the first breath they took over the open bottle was of a very good bouquet.