Ernesto Mantaras

[quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1345260219' post='15944'] Charlie orozoco - Thanks for going through all that work, but the fact is the issue is the You Tube/Vimeo compression. I see what you're seeing with your blow-ups and the door in the video, and if that were really there (and not a compression problem on the Internet) P. Bloom would have stated - correction; he would have BLASTED the camera in his blog. Just like he blasted the D4 and D800. Bloom PRAISED the 1-DX to no end in his new blog, and said the camera was amazing. He does not get paid by Canon. Cannot see why the man would hide the truth if there was an issue. He did not, because there is no issue. We'll see what the new Sony has to offer, but right now the 2 best DSLR's on the planet are the 1-DC (read Hurlbut's review and watch short film) and the 1-DX, which is the same camera minus 4K. Since Sony's product will be (no doubt) much cheaper, I'm hoping their new full frame is better then the Canon's. [/quote] I hadn't been able to download the original .VID file that Philip uploaded to Vimeo before to confirm this, but I just managed to do so and although the image is better (and seems to have an organic grain that could be added in post) the problems present in the 1DX example I showed are still present. Like I thought, the online compression has nothing to do with this, or else the image of both cameras' footage would've been affected in the exact same way, and you see how good the C300 shots look. And what you mention is exactly what makes me so invested in sharing my opinion (which isn't so much an opinion as it is an argument when you see the images): Philip hasn't mentioned a thing about this and no viewer that comments the music video complains, they even praise at how good both cameras look. It makes me think you could literally feed them dust in a silver plate and they'd happily eat it thinking it's cocoa. There's no personal judgement, just obedience. Well, I might be exagerating there and being too passionate about this (it's not like I can't sleep over this, but I rarely have or take the time to write like this in forums and such). It's just that I don't want to believe Philip Bloom is making non conventional advertising for Canon.

No sé por qué imaginabas que alguien te iba a responder en castellano en esta página. Pero tuviste suerte, hay alguien que habla castellano acá (y posiblemente haya otros, no sé la verdad). Ahora, no entiendo por qué preguntás esto y por qué acá? La Sony A380 ni siquiera graba video, o sí? Te fijaste en Google antes de preguntar acá? Y lo más importante, por qué te tomaste el trabajo de poner una foto de Cerati como avatar?

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345170752' post='15853'] It all looks more blurred vertically than horizontally, I agree for $6500 the 1D X is not on my list to buy for video. [/quote] Yes, something like that. Perhaps it's kind of stretched vertically, similar to what bad de-interlacing could look like (in fact, it reminds me of an old Digital8 handycam I had many years ago...).

This is what I'm trying to say. NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL. [url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/502da48f81691_1DXvsC300_Grid.png[/img] NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL. [url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url] I can't believe that nobody wonders about the blockiness of the 1DX video (as more detailed as it may be compared to the 5D3). Nobody brings it up, I've even read people praising how good the 1DX and the C300 cut together. I don't mean to bash Philip Bloom's work. I've been following him for years and I like the images he captured for this video. I'm just talking about the 1DX acquisition: it's terrible for a 6,500 dollar camera! Colors and dynamic range aside, it looks like old HDV! This goes beyond it being equal to a lowered priced camera, I think this kind of quality is unacceptable in those terms. And I know I'm analyzing compressed footage, but if that blockiness of the 1DX shots was added by the compression, why isn't it present in the C300 footage from the very same video? And I see that pixelated image in all of the other test footage shown here (it's less evident in the ships footage, though). Just to add to my point I added snapshots from a compressed video I have uploaded in YouTube (conditions for every shot shown here are completely different, but just look at how each camera captures the images). It's not relevant by itself, just a personal test, but here's the link if you want to check it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GPd3cXxCcI[/media] Please, am I all alone in this?

Am I the only one noticing the bad aliasing and kinda "shot this at 720p then uprezzed without using a lanczos filter" look that the 1DX shots have? I commented about that in the YouTube version of that same music video Philip Bloom shot and he minimized my comment by saying "[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.699219)]i do hope you are not judging anything from a youtube compression...". I'm aware of compression artifacts, softness and all that, but beyond the compression (which affects both cameras' footage in the same way) crisp detail can be seen in the C300 shots while the 1DX's look quite bad to me. [/background][/size][/font][/color] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-arQaoIC5g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-arQaoIC5g[/url] I feel like I'm being the crazy person here, but what was quite noticeable in the first video of this topic when compared to the 5D3 is terribly evident when intercut between C300 footage: the 1DX shots are jagged and aliased, and it seems as though there is much less detail and it's been blown up without any kind of blur to end up looking pixelated. I have a 23" LG monitor @ 1920x1080 and it's too evident. Now, I'm not bothered by this in a personal way, but I don't understand how nobody else brings this up and specially Philip's denial (well, I don't mean to be rude, but that's what it seems). I first thought it could be a postproduction issue, but now I see it's just that the camera shoots like that (which is unacceptable for such an expensive camera, methinks). This problem is the most noticeable in the shot at 1:23 in the door of the motor home in the back.

I kinda like this, but I think it would be much better if somebody made this type of handle but in a horizontal placement, so the camera could be operated like a camcorder. I miss the stability I had with my HV40 (and I have to say it was comfortable too), with my forearm supporting the weight rather than my wrist.

Let's not forget "Russian Ark", comprised of a single 99 minute long shot that was shot digitally back in 2002, and where the camera guy had a backpack holding a hard drive to store the whole shot (something quite unique back then, I think). I remember when I watched it while studying at film school, and was a fan of continuous takes (well, I still am, really).

"Welterwerk" and "Cronofóbico" are great. That Rob Vegas video was really good too. Here's something that doesn't par, but it's a music video that I made with my GH2 that had just arrived two days before! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ44i0Woa6E The only kinda vintage lens is a Minolta Rokkor-X, 50mm 1.7 (cost me 60 dollars), and I think it shows in the shot where I used it. I have two more videos coming, one of which is exactly what I like the most when shooting for bands: telling a story with a rock song as the music score.

Definitely tired. And it's not like this defines the lives of millions, so perhaps it's not something to be worried about. But if this committee chooses a sensor as a winner (and especially, a CANON sensor) that's corruption right there. And it sucks balls.

Hello. The title pretty much says it all. I'm adressing Andrew himself ("you", in case it's Andrew reading). I've only had the GH2 for two months, but this site's input is one of the main reasons why I decided to purchase it over a 60D, and I'm so glad I did. As soon as it arrived I had a job and the first patch I used was EOSHD Unified. The problem is the first project I made was shot entirely at 720p50 (you can see it in the footage section) and it let me down, because the compression was noticeable, nothing to do with 24H, which was stellar. In fact, I've tried and tested many patches (Sanity, Mysteron, Sedna, Flow Motion) and aside from Sedna (which renders too big files most of the times) I haven't found anything that rivals Unified's 24H. Don't know if it's intra or some other configurations you (Andrew) made, but I love it. The problem is I've used a lot of 720p50 and 60 for slowmo (it's my only option, aside from some Canon DSLRs from friends that can't compare) and Unified's isn't up to the task. I have three small cards with different patches, to change them on the fly, but it's not good at all. Takes time and requires a fully charged battery. If I had Unified's 88Mbps 24H and Flow Motion v2's 720p that'd be all I would need, and I think that would be the ultimate patch. And that could also be all that most people would ever need on the GH2. Could there be a way to do that?

Hi! Here's a music video I've recently shot for an Argentinian synthpop band called "Distant Project" (most of their lyrics are in English). It was shot on my new GH2 that arrived only 3 days before the shoot! I used a Minolta MD 50mm f1.7, the Panny 20mm f1.7 and the 14-42mm kit lens, all of it in 720p50 (we tried 60p but the song was too fast for the guitar -when playing the solo- and the drums to follow properly!). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ44i0Woa6E One thing to note: I used the EOSHD Unified 88Mbit hack, but although the 1080p24 was beautiful, all of the 720p footage I shot was always between 11 and 30Mbps and showed a lot of compression artifacting. I didn't have time to test it, so it was a dissapointment to see how lower the quality was in comparison to 24p. After reading a lot I've come to learn that 720p is a different kind of beast to tame, but perhaps it's wrong to say that the Unified patch is all intra, or at least all 88Mbit? I love the 24p and would definitely keep it, but I do use 720p quite often and I've found Driftwood's Sedna or even Sanity to behave a lot better. Bummer.

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5551#msg5551 date=1337616974] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5491#msg5491 date=1337391606] Anyway... so what if most people shoot handheld because it is convenient? If it works it works. Not everything needs to be shot on a slider. [/quote] Because usually this convenience has a price, paid for by your audience. [/quote] Really? Everybody hates handheld? I could agree that "The Bourne Supremacy" went too far, but handheld isn't all about shaking the camera all around and making a mess on the audience understanding of what's going on. It can be very beautiful when done properly, and many movies and short films prove that, whether there's a subtle or a strong movement of the camera. And as for the "convenience" of shooting handheld, it can be faster than setting up a tripod, but I dare you to hold a camera still on your hands for hours to properly shoot a handheld scene or a whole movie! There's a lot of skill and effort involved to make that look the way you want or need it to be.

Hi. I have the same concern as you do. With the Canon DSLRs' footage I've always transcoded to Cineform, and only recently I've started working with my new GH2, so I haven't been able to do much testing. Still, a couple of days ago I transcoded some footage to be able to edit on multicamera (four h264 and AVCHD videos, including hacked GH2 footage, were choking my modest machine). I compared the original AVCHD video (recorded using the EOSHD Unified patch at 88Mbp/s) to the Cineform transcoded file (High quality, "I-frames only" unchecked) and didn't catch any difference with my eyes. Also, the clip size wasn't too different (1.81GB AVCHD vs. 2.11GB CF). So visually there's no difference at first glance (perhaps with some heavy grading one could spot something) and the final file is 4:2:2, better than the 4:2:0 the GH2 offers, so I believe there's no color degradation either. I don't really know, the extra conversion time and sizes are bothersome, but I have to say editing on CF is a hell of a lot faster, so maybe it's worth it some times. And in any case, it's cool for mastering. Anyhow, it'd be great if someone with more technical info out there could shed some light to this!

Hi! First post here. I'm very new to the GH2 world (I got mine less than 2 weeks ago), and I had a couple of doubts about the EOSHD Unified patch (which I've already gladly in two jobs!). The first thing is, considering what I've read about the GOP configurations in the hacks: would it be sensible to use the 24L mode for shooting video to take advantage of the double recording time it gives whenever the situation doesn't require as much quality? Or would the lower Mb/s mess up the compression since it's all GOP1? I ask this because some times I've needed the extra space but wasn't able to reload the original firmware, and those 45 extra minutes of recording time would have been great. The second thing is: when recording at 720p50 I recorded a lot (I'm thinking about 35 minutes of foootage) in a day. I thought I would almost fill my 32gb card, but as I recorded the remaining time left was reduced by just seconds, and by the time I was finished I had around 36 minutes left to record. I was worried I was losing the footage, so I checked many times but everything was fine. The thing is, when I checked the footage back home it was around 20 Mb/s or less. Is this alright? Is there a problem with the encoding, or does the hack work that way? By the way, I recorded at SH quality, just like the instructions say. I hope Andrew or someone else can help me with this. By the way, love the site, I've become very fond of it in the last couple of months. Regards!