Axel

@markm I sympathize with your nostalgic view. For me, the main difference between film and digital is not color. andy lee is right, colors are being manipulated everywhere. They have been manipulated in the stone ages and in the renaissance, one must be aware of that simple fact. Leonardo would have used Photoshop. His selfmade colors were raw par excellance. What film captures in a different way is light. The grain that holds the smallest picture elements is spread in the emulsion in random patterns that change twentyfour times a second. This gives light a vivid quality. As long as the grain is visible. The finer the resolution (of film and digital) the less important is this difference.

I start my custom settings for video all at ISO1600. I dial down to ISO 320 (or whatever, to the top row). Sorry for the somewhat small image and for the german: [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/DisplayGH2.jpg[/img]

Ooookay ... Additionally, you could try the Tiffen Low Contrast 1. It doesn't affect the resolution at all, it just lowers the contrast (as expected) and helps to keep moire off my GH2 footage with the Olympus MFT lenses. Only drawback: It tends to capture reflexes in backlight, so it definitely needs a sunshade (at least). The usual suspects: Brick walls with pans, power lines against a bright sky, all fine, high-contrast patterns.

Andrew, your points are appreciated. Thank you. I want to say something about the viewfinder (thank you, foggyflute). If you have shot with an EOS, you know that a display, swivel-mounted or not, Z-finder or not, is not the optimum for video. I saw the Zacuto EVF on the 5D, and all I can say is, I am glad to have this already good EVF with the GH2. That it is improved with the GH3 means a lot in terms of handling. I was looking for a solution to prevent my nose from being pressed against the display, (which forces me to sometimes hold my breath during filming, uncomfortable). Like a thick rubber strip mounted on the shoe or a big rubber eyepiece. I hope Panasonic or someone else will find a solutions for this.

Too much. Atomos sells the hope to be able to upgrade from consumer to pro, but I doubt external recording is of much use. Talking about perspective: Do we need a one-in-all? Why not buy a used Canon for photos? A GoPro Hero3 (nice to have anyway, for this price)? An additional classic camcorder with some of the desirable features like 1080 50/60p, i.e. the Panasonic AG-AC90? Or: The BMCC, if you aim at cinema. Or: RED or the fantastic new Sonys, if you can afford them.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1352150210' post='21082'] This camera doesn't seem built from scratch rather a very mild update, hence it is not an AF200. [/quote] I wanted to create a headline in FilmMan's style. [i]Old Panasonic MFT camcorder - hastily overhauled![/i] would have sounded lame ;) But seriously: My friend is a freelancer using the 5D and an EX-3. He had the opportunity to shoot with the AF101, and he was as well impressed with the handling as with the quality of the video. Perhaps this article is something to consider: [url="http://marvelsfilm.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/af100-af101-why-is-everyone-moaning/"]http://marvelsfilm.w...eryone-moaning/[/url]

[quote name='Caleb Genheimer' timestamp='1352147249' post='21080']Honestly, I'm developing an utter loathing for FCP's stupid Gamma shift business, and I'm seriously considering a workflow change so that my final export is from Resolve, not FCP.[/quote] First, since Lion, there is no more Gamma shift within Apples native set of apps including Quicktime. Second, for FCP7, I consider Color the best program for grading. With FCP X, once you have learned the new workflow, you really need no external program for grading. Update to 10.6, and you easily work with the native AVCHD (if you like), wrapped as 'H.264-AVC' in a mov container, with no significant performance problems. As long as you export as ProRes (and with the new 'Share' windows and your own export settings, you can even export AVCHD as ProRes4444, which actually makes no sense, but indeed reduces banding to some extent), there will be no quality loss compared to an intermediate workflow. [quote name='Caleb Genheimer' timestamp='1352147249' post='21080']Why 7mbps for Vimeo? Why not their suggested setting?[/quote] Wasn't 7mbps the recommended setting? The higher the bitrate, the better.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1352114058' post='21052']Skyfall is as far fetched as moonraker. they make it believable because you see it with your own eyes and thats the fun of films like this being able to suspend your disbelief for the moment. No one believes Superman can fly or that Luke Skywalker really uses the force or ...[/quote] 'Seeing is believing'? It's more complicated, I think. If one [i]wants[/i] to believe, he will. The old SFX (the term says analog effects, props, explosions, travelling mattes) were too crude to make anyone see and believe. The new VFX, where anything goes, are completely photo-realistic, but they lost the 'special'. Today, if you see impossible things with such impliciteness, you can't care less. A film works like a dream, not like a 3D computer game. Do androids dream of electric sheep? Another movie quiz.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1352108263' post='21046']We all know what we want with Bond and that is Glamour gadgets women Fast cars and excitement all the things critics hate and all the things we love.[/quote] At least for now they had to move away from the [i]old[/i] cliches (the ones that made Austin Powers and Johnny English look more authentic than Pierce Brosnan and his muppet show co-actors) [quote name='markm' timestamp='1352108263' post='21046'][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Please I dont want to feel sorry for Bond I want to admire him.[/font][/color][/quote] Needs some new make up for our modern time. Movie quiz? Don't use Google: 'Nothing is over 'til it's over.' 'What's that from? The 80's?' 'That's probably the 70's'

http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-announces-the-new-ag-af100a/

Hi Caleb, I downloaded the 77,28 MB mov file from vimeo, and it's as dark as there in the player. I guess this has to do with a very complicated bunch of correlations of color spaces, working environment, monitor gammas asf., described in the first chapters of [url="http://splicevine.com/july-color-correction/"]this[/url]. As with every challenge, having become aware of the nature of a problem is of more avail than just buying, say, an Eizo monitor, or two, three. > the utility app in OS X, [i]DigitalColor Meter[/i], should be in your dock permanently. > as the article above suggests, if you can't trust your eyes, navigate with the instruments. In Resolve, you should watch the luma waveform to realize, that big portions of your shadows in the shadows drown completely (if most of the values pike at '10' and below). [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]'72mm Lightcraft Workshop Fader ND'[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]One danger using ND faders is crushing your midtones. Midtones are what the whole grading ado is about. It can very well be that your ND has made the image too flat by dying out the precious midtones. Can be detected by watching the histogram during shooting.[/font][/color] The second thing I noticed is, that in your upload file the block artifacts are bigger than any grain could be. > ProRes-master > 7 mbps (or higher) upload file for vimeo. Good H.264 encoders are AdobeME or x264 Quicktime-plugin.

It's about image size (i.e. 1920 x 800 for 1:2,4) and aspect ratio, a.k.a. pixel format, both found in Compressors [i]geometry[/i] tab, i.e. in an editable copy of ProResHQ. What's wrong with Compressor?

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352061412' post='21011']1. Using the full frame and taking the effort to shoot it anamorphic - It would have looked better. The crop method is a cost cutting thing.[/quote] Another low budget movie, deprived of it's potential by measly economics. [quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352061412' post='21011']2. Yes. upscale to 4k, apply slight blur to soften pixel steps, overlay grain, adjust levels and sharpenss to taste. The 4k is mock 4k film grain (Expression 500T) created by a friend of mine - it has no damage, just perfect fine grain at 25p. 5 second loop of uncompressed grain. works magic - specially on the background defocus and helps with moire too.[/quote] Thanks. Sounds good.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']quite silly really -they threw away 1/3rd of their sensor.[/quote] Mendes came out of the viewing room. 'Roger!' 'You liked it?" 'No! What have you done! The resolution is like that of my fucking pre-production GH3.' 'Oh, that. I actually extracted all we needed. You know, it's such a pain in the ass to have to deal with all those anal something adapters ...' 'Know what you did, half-wit? You threw away 1/3rd of your sensor!' 'I'm so sorry, Sam. Must be because I am so unexperienced. Give me a second chance.' [quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']Re. Upscaling. I have played around with a 4k film grain overlay on top of nex5n footage and it really does add a perceived increase in detail.[/quote] You mean you upscaled the 1,9 MP to 4k and then added grain in post to dither it? How do you know the grain is 4k?

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351960263' post='20967'] I like to find solutions to problems, this may be one? This may not work with GH3, just found the video and thought I would share. seems to work well with Canon [url="https://vimeo.com/41491834#at=83"]https://vimeo.com/41491834#at=83[/url] just woke up, i'm a bit dyslexic today [/quote] Off the cuff, what do these AA-filters do? With a lens optimized for taking stills with the 18 MP sensor the 7D has, the actual video resolution is [i]just under[/i] 500 lines, as also congruent with all the moire on the test chart. BUT: With organic textures with no uniform patterns, the perceived resolution goes towards 1080. There is a lot of detail in the image. It is false detail, but the image looks good. The filter reduces the frequency of the lens, allowing for a video resolution of slightly [i]over[/i] 500 lines. Now you see the true resolution (more or less), and the image looks muddy, like the half HD-resolution it is. By adding post-sharpening, it looks sharper again. Watch the lens bag, the original texture is [u]gone[/u]. It's no longer distracting though. With the GH2, you have 900 lines out of the box, otherwise only reached by Sony's EX-series in any camera under 10.000 bucks. You needn't worry that it might not go for FullHD.

I meant 2/13/2013.

I am a big fan of P.T. Anderson. Unfortunately, I have to wait until 13/3/2013.

If you have ProRes encoder, you probably have Compressor. Create a droplet (>file >create droplet) with your ProRes preset and default destination folder, save it, drag it to the dock, and you have batch background encoding much easier.

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351918265' post='20941']Do people really go out looking for objects that will cause moire in their footage? If so, they need to stop focusing on flaws, and focus on creativity.[/quote] Well said. I say Amen to your last line. I own a moire camera already, the 7D, and all I can say is, if it's in the frame, it says [i]cheap video[/i]. You may be right, and nobody else cares.

[quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351916596' post='20940']Seeing the detail on the 15inch though which to meet looks lifelike even with the heavy overhead lighting in the apple stores and small size of the screen and lack of depth and seamlessness of reality leads me to believe that the skyfall movie was not shown in 4k but rather upscaled 2k.[/quote] Yeah, we all read that it was not filmed in 4k resolution, but it was mastered in 4k, the DCP was 4k, and as you stated your cinema was 4k. You must bear in mind that the goal of *cinema* is not to reproduce 'seamlessness of reality', as in the incredibly boring JVC clips, but the very opposite. The Bravia spot had beautiful images, but I dare to say this is resolution-independend to a very high degree, and besides that this digital fantasy has nothing to do with reality. I doubt if it was fun to watch these advertising aesthetics in a two hour film (reminded me of [i]The Lonely Bored[/i]). [quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351915643' post='20939'] Resolution is not only about size, you can have massive screens with very low resolutions like advertising boards, or very small screens wiith very high resolutions, resolution is independent of screen size although it is harder to squeeze a higher resolution in a small screen [/quote] Self-contradictions. You describe that resolution is relative to size and that size is relative to viewing distance. To build an iPhone with a 4k resolution retina display would be completely, er, [i]point[/i]less. And to watch a tutorial in 640p on a 27" LCD with 2560 pixel resolution as well. You can't delete size out of the equation. [quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351916596' post='20940']If anyone else goes to watch skyfall in a sony 4k cinema, you could provide a second opinion. I could go see the movie again on wednesday at the odeon imax in greenwich but I still remember what I saw, and in the age of smartphones, sitting through over 2 hours gets boring .[/quote] I hope you are not representative for a new breed of film consumers.

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351878729' post='20886'] The people trying to come up with things the GH3 is lacking is really just trying to convince their self they have no need to upgrade from GH2. [...][/quote] Reasonable, isn't it? Why should I pay for something I don't need? I have a history, I bought a lot of cameras as time went by. I am quite modest and like to keep a low profile in appearance but with high expectations to quality. Every now and then I am teased to buy new equipment, because I feel one or other handicap. Past experiences made me smarter. Never go shopping when you're hungry. Wait if a better solution turns up. [quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351878729' post='20886']If you are a real fan of the GH2, how can you NOT love the GH3, for the most part they have kept the same monster in a tiny box with the addition of all the features the GH2 was missing to make it some what a semi-pro camera.[/quote] I have a good camera for photos (Canon), I don't need another. The GH3 is neither fish nor fowl. Maybe MFT is a dead end altogether. Better use it now. [quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351878729' post='20886']You get what you pay for people, as with anything, if you look hard enough you will find flaws.[/quote] You mentioned love. You fell in love with that gizmo, unfinished and multiple flawed as it is? Then buy it.

[quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351823359' post='20843']The picture appeared particularly soft, possibly as a result of upscaling[/quote] Upscaling? You are talking about the Alexa upscaled to 4k? [quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351823359' post='20843']... another thing about the song 4k projectors is that the frame is cropped rather than the use of an anamorphic lens and masking, I found the black bars on the top and bottom distracting even if black levels in the sony projectors are better than other digital cinemas and film.[/quote] You mix up things. That a scope image is narrower than a widescreen image is due to the sound system of modern surround. The loudspeakers need to have the same distances. A DLP image needs no mask, it's borders are sharp. If the borders are not deep black, it's because the screen reflects the ambient light of the room (EXIT-signs asf.). The cinema could have installed a black velvet cache to get rid of it. And anamorphotic projection is a for analog cinema, a DLP projects square pixels. [quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351823359' post='20843']I felt the detail was better than in the cinema yesterday, but once again the screen was much bigger, and I've failed to mention until now I was on the second from last row.[/quote] This is like judging and comparing 720p and 1080p in the default 640p window of youtube. Really not possible. [quote name='Leon Yiu' timestamp='1351823359' post='20843']I was watching 4k videos from youtube on the 15inch macbook pro with retina display[/quote] Wiki says: [b]"Retina Display[/b] is a brand name used by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc."]Apple[/url] for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_displays"]liquid crystal displays[/url] which they claim to have a high enough [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density"]pixel density[/url] that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance." Resolution is ONLY about size. With a retina display, you will learn instinctively to move the display closer to your eyes.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351779549' post='20786'] @ Axel - projection-wise i was talking about before digital editing, sorry should have been clearer. As soon as digital crept in, then yes.[/quote] It's funny how no one remembers how bad cinema projection in the old days really was. It competed with TV resolution of the time (480 i, close to absolute glaucoma), and yet audiences complained (in vain), that very often the images were out of focus. [quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351779549' post='20786']I don't want 2k/4k, i want 7k & as many fps as possible![/quote] I understand that. I have another background. I argue that neither bigger resolution nor higher frame rates add information to the image, perceived is only a cleaner, as you say hyperrealistic feel to it. This justifies to follow the flow of things and to not stand in the way of progress, but there is no reason to freak out. 60p or 5k don't change the way films are made, tempest in a teapot.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351769963' post='20777'] If you've ever talked to a projectionist, then you'll know that film is very sharp & that they would soften the image as time went on and their projectors got better & better - so as to keep things the same.[/quote] They never softened the image intentionally. Fact is, that in the past decade every movie, though filmed with a hypothetically possible resolution of 6k and more, was digitally edited - in 2k for 99% of all content. This was because everybody knew that 35mm film copies, through the whole process of analog degradation, until they reached the screen, never exceeded 2k resolution, mostly way beyond. I believe there will be more 4k-screens every year, until some day it is the standard. Not because you can advertise it (like you could with 3D), but because the systems need to be exchanged faster than the old mechanic projectors, and it will become cheaper by the minute, just as 4k cameras will be less expensive soon or sooner. [quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351769963' post='20777']You also have to ask yourselves - How much detail do you really want/need to see?[/quote] What does 'detail' mean? Do you see more details in a 1080p video than in a 720p video? Or do you just find the image more [i]clean[/i]? What does 'clean image' mean? A lot of sharp textures with millions of tiny details? Or a smooth and organic picture that doesn't show any patterns of the smallest elements (pixel = [i]pic[/i]ture [i]el[/i]ement) of which it is composed?

[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1351746659' post='20757'] And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content! [/quote] [quote name='Zach' timestamp='1351747048' post='20760'] This particular line kind of mind me chuckle a bit. I do understand the sentiment and the angle you're after I think. But nobody will want to watch a really polished turd in the future :) [/quote] As for professional use of video (and even more for film), the business is a 'business on demand', and I don't see anybody demanding 4k, let alone pay for it. Jannards manic speech makes me wonder if he is a cocaine addict. As for amateurs, future-proof means that they can show off with their stuff ten years from now. I made quite a few dozens of videos ten years ago, and all I can say is, if they were any good (some of them can be enjoyed because they have interesting [i]content[/i] and are [i]edited well[/i]), they remain good. The rest deserves to be gone with the wind.