katon

[quote author=AndrewP link=topic=515.msg3541#msg3541 date=1333825494] I think I smirked in disbelief at how "under par" the NEX7 appeared by comparison. The really cool thing is that the GH2 can go from a super sharp highly detailed image that will essentially walk all over every DSLR + the FS100 / AF100 and then morph straight into a softer filmic image with the right lens / patch / filter combination, that will rival any digital camera under 20k outside of RED for producing a true cinematic image. It's mind boggling how adaptable the GH2 really is, it can be anything you want it to be. Something about the motion rendering / blur between the frames that gives the GH2 a very filmic feel as well. Many people don't know how to unlock it's secrets and just go by what they see in videos made on lumix lenses... but they have no idea. It's truly a gem, that still very few people have discovered, let alone learned to use properly. [/quote] Could you point to or show an example of the filmic look you reference. Interested. Thanks

funny timing.... A new post on Shane Hurlbut's blog putting the C300 side by side with the Alexa. [url=http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/04/dueling-canon-c300-and-arri-alexa/]http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/04/dueling-canon-c300-and-arri-alexa/[/url] Notice how the C300 appears quite a bit sharper, with more detail, particularly in the skin. To me, the Alexa is more pleasing and filmic (even though it might look 'soft' by comparison), and this goes for the 5DMKIII also. The 5D has the same type of unaliased image which i prefer. I find the C300 much more video (in fact i chose the 5DMKIII over the C300 for a recent drama project ). Personal taste...

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3463#msg3463 date=1333584761] [quote] Astro i think you've become a bit lost in all this. You've been more insulting than anyone! [/quote] Actually my previous comment was not directed towards you at all, but at hmcindie, read his comment and you will know why. I dont disagree with a lot of your points on Audio, especially the points about trying to re create Fairchilds, Vintage Compressors and Tape emulation in plug ins. Everyone is doing it...some better than others. Yes its true that Neumann U47's sell for a packet and Fairchilds, and instruments like pre CBS Strats, 59 Les Pauls and so on. Slightly off topic...but beesneez make a very good mic capsule and mic, I have heard them A/B'd with Nuemann's under extreme conditions (compression etc..) that utterly crush the tinfoil tone of Chinese capsules and the results are impressive [url=http://www.beesneezmicrophones.com.au/]http://www.beesneezmicrophones.com.au/[/url] I dont disagree with your points about Film by an large either, but I do like a certain type of sharp look on occassion, although I do agree theres sharp and then theres sharp!. I wont drag on with the AD/DA argument, even tho I had some points to add because Andrew wants us to move on. It has been entertaining however (I hope others may have been amused too)...bantering and debating can at least keep you alert...so thanks for that. Now back to the reality of work Cheers [/quote] Your quote was directed at someone else, i know, just made me chuckle. Yeah i know Beezneez. Was going to send them one of my CK12's for re-skinning. Went with someone else in the end. Good mics. Don't worry about Andrew. If you have a point about AD, do make it. There's some interesting points being brought up and i'm sure it's keeping some people reading this thread, which is only good for his site. You like a certain type of sharp sometimes, no problem. Everyone has their own sense of aesthetics and preferences. There's a debate going on and it's been largely one sided for a fair while, I'd just like to raise awareness for the other side of the 5D sharpness coin.

[quote author=Ignacio Carrere link=topic=515.msg3460#msg3460 date=1333582224] katon, I was enjoying your point of view, try to explain your experience, thanks [/quote] Can you be more specific? Not sure what you're asking exactly

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=515.msg3458#msg3458 date=1333578026] Katon and Astro. Not taking sides but will say this: think of the value you can add to the forum, and what others would find interesting to read. [/quote] I think people are probably at least finding our bickering entertaining :P

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3447#msg3447 date=1333550930] IDIOT!! How long ago did you have your lobotomy? And have you learn't your first play by numbers guitar song on your tube amp yet? Hope its point to point cause tossers like you always need help...to cover up for the fact they cant play or make sense...sad!! [/quote] Astro i think you've become a bit lost in all this. You've been more insulting than anyone! [quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3440#msg3440 date=1333542746] Actually your arguments were pretty flawed in regards to audio...Cameras are digital beasts that largely record digital info to a flash card or drive. Therefore to compare to Audio you need to compare to a more or less totally digital card...A particular model of Hammerfall, M-Audio or presonus or whatever else, in order to make a reasonable comparison. AD/DA (especially DA) does not really come into it and therefore makes no sense, so your argument that sound cards differ greatly because of the quality of A/D converters is more or less a moot point, plus AD/DA was a much bigger deal in the 1990's than it is now because of prices and technology. And in DAW's then there is no AD required at all with VSTI or plain VST plugs and also AU plugins...its all digital. Now all the processing inside the GH2 or Mk3 is LSI based not tape etc... so AD convertors are not the real issue that is being compared. Hopefully we are done with that...Now all cards (even cheaper ones) have the option to record data at higher frequencies based on the 44.1khz and 48khz  multiplication...agreed? Canon has a $3,500 camera that does not allow the user to record at higher resolutions, if that was done in Audio (say it could only record at 44.1 or even less) then they would be laughed out of the market...and I stand solidly behind that point, digital is digital...its numbers. Canon decided not too do this within their $3,500 camera, and it may bite them, and many are saying this. Sooner or later Cameras will have to play on a more level playing field regarding the option to record at higher resolutions, thats surely not hard to understand, and that appears to be Andrews point, and I agree with that. [/quote] ok i'm rereading your first paragraph… Firstly, i never brought Audio in to it. Your point about DAW's not requiring AD is completely untrue. Many people work with analogue outboard, this means going through AD/DA, not to mention the AD conversion needed when you record from microphones, or the v important D/A to go to your speakers. You made a point that Audio is far ahead of cameras. I would say it is not, in fact it is in pretty much a similar place and facing a similar challenge and dilemma due to what the public wants. With audio they want the analog sound, with cameras they want the 'filmic' feel. My point when you raised the analogy to audio was that many people prefer to use analogue outboard rather than doing everything in a DAW. Their 'taste' prefers the imperfect. The smoothness, the warmth, the distortion, the organic feel and nature of what analogue outboard brings. A vast amount of the digital Audio world over the last 10 or so years has been trying to recreate the imperfect nature of analogue equipment. Some of the most prized equipment and microphones date back to the 50's and 60's. Look at how much a Neumann U47 sells for, or a Fairchild 670 compressor, and how many companies are trying to deliver the 'analogue' sound. In a similar way, i would also say that over the last 20 or so years, digital camera technology has been trying to replicate the look and 'feel' of film, something that predates it by decades. So digital camera technology has been trying to get the 'filmic' feel; ability to shoot progressive, high dynamic range, filmic colour rendition, grain like noise, 35mm sensor size, a lack of aliasing and so on. Now, some cameras technically exceeded the look of film, they are more 'accurate' in their portrayal of real life, of what is in front of them. For example if you were to watch a 35mm print that has been through the inter-neg / positive release and distribution process it would have between 600-850 lines on screen of relative resolution. I remember watching a 35mm vs F900 test. The F900 was super sharp and nasty. There is sharpness and then there is sharpness. Put a 4K scanned film that has been output to 1920x1080 next to an F900 at 1920x1080 and i can assure you the type of sharpness they exhibit is very different, i much prefer the look of film. Also, there are cameras that have a more 'realistic' portrayal of colours, whereas film can be 'inaccurate', but it's inaccuracies and imperfections can be beautiful. People choose certain glass because it softens, brings warmth. Look at some old cookes next to modern Zeiss glass for instance. If you want your 5DMKIII to intercut with a camera that exhibits an electronic digital type of sharpness, you're going to have a problem. But cut the 5D in with the Alexa and film, and it can be remarkably close in the 'feel' of the image, because the MKIII does not have an aliasing heavy sharpness. Sure the 5DMKIII may technically have less resolution, and yet when it cuts in it blends far better than technically superior cameras that exhibit a more digital 'real' feeling sharpness. For the money it costs, this ability that the 5DMKIII has is quite wonderful.

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3440#msg3440 date=1333542746] Why? because I have been doing audio probably longer than you have been alive on both sides of the desk and in DAW's and mastering. [/quote] Look, i think you're just as opinionated as me. How does this statement differ from the generalisations you feel i've made. When it comes to your writings about audio, you don't actually put forward a logical argument but instead prefer to throw around big words. I don't feel it's wrong to say of certain cameras that their look is cheap and nasty, how do you feel about Behringer preamps vs DAV or Neve? Or a cheap chinese condenser vs a C12? they're pretty cheap and nasty, but they get the job done if it's all you have. Doesn't mean you have to like them or that you can't call them cheap and nasty sounding. What do you prefer? Not the Behringer/Chinese condenser right?. I don't like the cheap and nasty Canon in camera sharpening, because it looks cheap and nasty to me. What's wrong with that? OF COURSE regarding cameras this is all just my personal opinion, i made that abundently clear earlier on.

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3432#msg3432 date=1333505530] [i]It's technically inferior to audio through a pristine soundcard, but some people PREFER the non technical, the warmth, distortion, compression etc of tape. Do you actually know what you're talking about here? [/i] Really? Gosh I didn't know that!! I have never heard that before Wow!! People prefer the sound of tape...what a revelation, they want plug ins to emulate Studers/Ampex tape 15ips/30ips...I didn't know that. And they like Analogue summing as in API, early Neve desks etc... I did not know that...incredible. No I dont know what I am talking about, but you obviously do...I am greatly humbled by your advice. [i]You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio hardware is that it is non-linear. That it changes the audio, that it adds distortion etc? That it adds 'softness', that it takes the edge off digital 'harshness'[/i]. Wow Another revelation!! nope I know I didn't understand and I know nothing of dithering, nyquist frequencies, softening, linear or non-linear or anything else. This is very enlightening to me. [i]My contention is with what i find filmic, and i'm frustrated by people going hysterical about sharpness[/i] Thats fair enough...but personally I see more hysteria about "Filmic" than anything else, all that was said (on my part) is its easy to soften something than up res something. Are you going to argue with that too? [i]But I don't want Canon to be lobbied resulting in a nasty cheap in camera sharpness being added to the MKIII that i can't remove[/i] There you are assuming again, I dont recall reading that from anyone, most say the 5D mk3's image is too soft, I never read anyone say "Add nasty cheap Sharpness" Fact of the matter is, many have cancelled their orders for the Mk3 based on this point, even Bloom said its hard to look at the lower res image of the Mk3 after seeing the C300's image. Does that make the C300's image nasty and cheap, because its widely recognized as being more detailed than the 5D Mk3's? [i]Why do you think Steve Albini only records to tape[/i] He's only one producer, there are hundreds of them, and they use different methods of recording, whatever works best for them. He mainly records bands tho...makes sense, depends how you create, a lot of DAW people wont use this method. [i] Andrew prefers a particular look, fine, when did i say he was deluded? [/i] You didn't say that directly, you were politically insinuating it. You said Quote "people who don't understand what that looks like" meaning filmic Quote "instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up" Strong words/your words ...dont understand, mess it up...really what does this mean? It reads to me as...they dont know whats good and whats not=deluded!! They offer opinions, but their opinions will "mess it all up" LOL!! Get over it, drop the superior attitude and people may listen, thats what got me about your statements. [/quote] Instead of the sarcasm in regards to my comments about audio, why not instead put forward a logical argument, because most of what you put forward in your reference to audio doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that."? Seems to me you may have just as strong/biased opinions as you think i do. I stand by my opinion that some people have not had the experience of cutting GH2 or other camera's etc sharp footage with film/Alexa and therefore do not understand what the 5DMKIII brings, a non aliased image. I do not say people are deluded, if you want to take it that way that is your issue. There are people here who are used to super sharpness and that is what they prefer because they work in a different field which requires it. So we get a lot of complaints about how a $3500 dollar camera has been hobbled by Canon, how the GH2 is so much better and so on. I am not in that camp and i want to speak out about it because that's mostly what i'm hearing. The 5d MKIII to me is wonderful for the Cinematographer.

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3428#msg3428 date=1333496521] [i]Quote We have a camera here capable of lovely anti-aliased and filmic feeling images, but people who don't understand what that looks like and instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up![/i] OMG I guess James Miller was deluded in taking the AA filter off his then...right? I guess Andrew is deluded in wanting a little more sharpness from his mark 3 then? I guess all those that are complaining about the Mk3 "dont understand"...but you do? ( of course you do) I guess my eyes are aliased with fake sharpness then, cause the GH2 is pretty much capable of capturing what I actually see. Bottom line this is an elitist self serving statement, if you are happy with your Mk3 then fine...all power to you. Others are not, but to say they don't understand, and sharpness is fake etc... is just pure dismissive elitist rubbish. Fact of the matter is in Audio was where we are now with cameras years ago..these days all DAW's conform to at least 44.1/48khz/96khz to 192khz..and 16/24 bit and upwards, practically all (even cheaper) soundcards conform to this. The debate about digital vs Analogue 30ips tape went on for years in Audio, now we achieve that with hi quality plug ins. This debate is newer in the DLSR world, and to be quite honest Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that. It should be an option to have a softer "Filmic" look, just as making clean hi end digital audio (Fake in your your words) sound like Analogue tape is achievable by plug ins (VST and Native) is an option. [/quote] What does audio sample rate have to do with anything? Just because a sound card does 96khz doesn't make it sound good or the same as high end A/D converters. Plugins have come a long way, but there still isn't any plugin that captures the non linearities of hardware compressors completely faithfully. Many get close, but they aren't there yet, and there certainly isn't a plugin that sounds exactly like tape. There are emulations, sure, but they aren't the same. What do you mean "Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that" You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio hardware is that it is non-linear. That it changes the audio, that it adds distortion etc? That it adds 'softness', that it takes the edge off digital 'harshness'. Why do you think people take audio out of their DAW into an analogue summing box when they could just sum in their DAW? Because it changes the audio in a pleasing, non linear manner. Many people prefer tape due to how it [i]messes[/i] with audio, how it changes it. It's technically inferior to audio through a pristine soundcard, but some people PREFER the non technical, the warmth, distortion, compression etc of tape. Do you actually know what you're talking about here? Why do you think Steve Albini only records to tape when he could just record into a pristine and much more accurate ([i]sharp[/i] hehe) DAW? My contention is with what i find filmic, and i'm frustrated by people going hysterical about sharpness. Andrew prefers a particular look, fine, when did i say he was deluded? James Miller is experimenting with removing OLPF, fine, i've been watching with great interest. But I don't want Canon to be lobbied resulting in a nasty cheap in camera sharpness being added to the MKIII that i can't remove. Have you tried to intercut a GH2 shot with an Alexa or film? Have you experienced the difference between the GH2 and Alexa visually? My guess is not. Many people have a different taste through their experience and the type of work they do, they prefer super sharpness. I don't, and feel i have a valid and logical reason why that is based on my personal aesthetic.

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3423#msg3423 date=1333486829] i agree with most, i have both cameras as well, intact I'm now selling my GH2. sharpness is highly over rated, infact any time we are shooting with an Alexa and 5DmkII, we have to soften the 5D footage to match the film look that the alexa gives. now with the 5DMKIII we have an almost matched look and we love it. unless you want super sharp "news" looking footage, we now have a dslr that matches closest to the alexa and red cameras, with no moire! i just did a night shoot in times square and the clients, as well as i, were astonished how great the footage looked, its just amazing. thank you canon for taking the video out of video. [/quote] Exactly. There are people right now lobbying Canon to make in camera sharpening stronger. What a travesty that would be! We have a camera here capable of lovely anti-aliased and filmic feeling images, but people who don't understand what that looks like and instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up! ???

[quote author=nahua link=topic=515.msg3381#msg3381 date=1333400864] Katon - not sure who you're preaching to.  I have a GH2, 5d mkII and 5d mkIII and they all fit together.  Using the right lens you can get a more "filmic" look on the GH2 without having to sacrifice resolution.  You can get some old Leica glass that produces some gorgeous "filmic" video on the GH2 and I'd bet you wouldn't know the difference. Just look at Andrew's test for what it is - just a test.  And cameras are just tools for filmmakers.  I think Johnnymossville and Per Litchman are both right.  Quote whoever you want, but you can get good results with any camera. [/quote] No need to be defensive, i'm not 'preaching' anything. Just tired of the constant 'but look at the gh2, look how much [i]sharper[/i] it is' I mean how many times does Andrew need to post the same message? Anyway, i do appreciate the blog, there's just too much hysteria sometimes and i find things taken out of perspective. You find the GH2 filmic, great. I don't compared to the 5D. I would use it but it wouldn't be my choice if i had the 5d3 due to my personal aesthetics and what i find to be cinematic. Sure, Leica could be described as more filmic (i own a full set), but it doesn't change the GH2 enough in my own experience, certainly not to the point where i'd choose it over the MK3. Btw for those interested the 5D is shown to resolve 890 lines.

[quote author=Per Lichtman link=topic=515.msg3372#msg3372 date=1333389521] As to Katon`s comment, I in know why mean to disrespect your experience or background when I say that there is no reason why more resolution has to look harsher. The biggest problems going from film to HD digital production was the high contrast and harshness and overly sharp look of things, not the (alleged) increase in resolution (which was really much more a situation specific question as some film prints were clearly superior to others and they wore over time). [/quote] It's not about resolution, it's about the feel of the image. I find some high resolution cameras/images pleasing to my eye, others i don't. I'm sure overly sharpened film looks horrible.

[quote author=johnnymossville link=topic=515.msg3371#msg3371 date=1333388400] Katon might think it looks more harsh and videoey,  but I think he's mistaking harshness for clarity, and videoey for clarity.  The old "Filmic" argument only holds water if you mean filmic as being slightly blurry.  As far as color reproduction goes, it's all opinion.  Some (Me Included) love the color the 5D puts out, but then taken on it's own, the GH2 looks fantastic as well.  Color isn't limiting factor for either camera. They're just different. Now if you want soft, do as Andrew said and add a gaussian blur to your GH2 Footage so it makes GH2 footage look 5D blurry. [/quote] I'm not 'mistaking' anything. This is purely a question of personal aesthetics. I saw 'the tree of life' digitally projected  (thanks to the 4K scan of the neg they did), it's sharpness and clarity did not look videoy. The GH2 does to me. I do not find the image pleasing. The 5D however feels more filmic and cinematic to me.  I watched the C300 short with the 'bladerunner' theme. Then watched some of blade runner. I found the C300 horribly plastic looking in comparison and did not like it's type of 'sharpness'. It's all down to what we find personally cinematic. Shane Hurlbut (terminator Salvation, Act Of Valor etc) for example does not like the GH2 at all. When asked how it compared to the 5D and if it was better/more filmic, he said "not in a million years". That's down to what is filmic to him, what his eye prefers. For people who like the GH2 image, rejoice. You've got an incredible camera for next to nothing.

So the GH2 resolves more detail!!! Wow, never heard that one before. The thing is it doesn't look cinematic/filmic. It's sharpness looks harsh and videoey to me, not to mention the rest of its image. Until 2K projection and beyond, in the days of 35mm prints in the cinema, release prints barely resolved 800 lines. When HD first came on the scene, the jump in detail didn't look good at all for many Cinematographers (along with all the other videoey traits). But resolution was a bugbear, suddenly actors faces just had too much details, and the softness of 35mm projected was gone. Back then that softness was 'cinematic' and visually pleasing. I think the 5D does look cinematic, and closest to being filmic of all the DSLR's. Put that camera in the hands of a decent Cinematographer and it will do amazing things. So, it depends what you want to use it for. If you need high resolution it isn't the camera for you, but for drama work and feel to the image, it can be amazing, that's why it was used for House, and why Gale Tattersall said it was a camera truly capable of cinema quality, and that was the MKII with all it's foibles, most of which are now gone. I think that many people here aren't even able to get the best out of the 5D MKII, let alone the MKIII. It's a camera that is already above many moaners skill level. If you use it for simple shooting corporates or whatever, then i can understand why resolution might annoy you, you need a different camera!, but for indie film-makers/story tellers, it's an incredible tool at an unbelievable price.