Ernesto Mantaras

1080p looks awesome! I used to think 720p was good enough, back when I had a 1280x1024 4:3 monitor. When I got my 23" 1920x1080 monitor my life changed. And as the size of the screens and their resolutions improve (along with everything else) we will notice the difference and worth of 4K. Not that we need it now, but it will be in the future. And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content!

So what are you saying is whether BS or truth? The Japanese 4K standard? Because the rest is a standpoint, an opinion on what should and shouldn't be. I happen to agree with it. Although it is currentrly a luxury that few can enjoy (yet it's not just big budget films, the spectrum is quite broader) the future is in 4K. We'll be able to play it, we'll be able to edit it. It isn't crazy, far fetched or even useless. It will become a standard and I think it's great that it does so. Anything bigger than that, well... maybe that'll be kinda pointless. Let's leave it a 5K to 4K and stop playing with standards every 10 years.

Unfortunately that one single thing kills all of the other advantages the GH3 brings to the table over the GH2. Moiré is unacceptable in a new camera, especially considering its predecessor was free of it! And to the guy that whines about whiners, that was a whine that goes beyond whining: it's there to war those that don't know better to make an informed choice. I still hope the GH3 will have fixed moiré by the time it ships, though.

This moiré problem we're seeing is definitely a processing problem in the hardware department. But I bet it is plenty capable of resolving images without moiré, so I guess the scaling method could be improved or the architecture modified to solve this without losing all of the other things the GH3 does get right. It does bother me that the so called "wide dynamic range" isn't really there either (although I saw picture shot with the High Dynamic Range profile and it looked Cinestyle like a bit). Could it be that the small delay has been stated to solve it?

Yeah, I think they just wanted traffic into their site and channel. The final video has no value whatsoever as a test or comparison. Next please!

Why is there such a different exposure in each moustache man shot? Weren't the cameras at the same aperture, ISO and shutter settings? Also, I notice something I didn't expect: I see aliasing in the upper frame of the glasses in the GH2 shot, although moiré is nowhere to be seen. Yet I see moiré in the GH3 shot but no aliasing... :S So now one is the other one's tradeoff? Damn! By the way, I watched the raw files in the After Effects timeline at the best possible quality and zoomed when needed.

That's a cool script. Very very useful. However, I saw a video you made in the AEScripts YouTube channel, and was wondering if there's a way to make the anchor point stay in the lower side of the text instead of the center? Because the way subtitles usually work (or at least that's how I usually see them) is that it always stays inside the safe margins, and having the anchor point in the lower end allows it to always be stuck to that margin. Whenever there are two lines of text, the first line actually stacks onto the one below without changing position, the space on the screen that the text occupies grows up, not up and down. I don't know if I'm making myself clear... EDIT: I now watched the v1.3 video and I saw there's a Vertical Align option. I guess that does the job. Never mind! Great script.

I recommend you use VisualSubSync ([url="http://www.visualsubsync.org/"]http://www.visualsubsync.org/[/url])to do the subtitles. It's so intuitive to work with, and it's graphical (you directly set subtitles and duration dragging the mouse over the video's waveform and then create them pressing Ctrl+W and just write!). It's the fastes process you'll ever get. I even enjoy doing the subtitles. You have to do the subtitles first, you'll get an .srt file and then my process is to use Lemony Pro (following these instructions: [url="https://vimeo.com/11896354"]https://vimeo.com/11896354[/url]) to generate a subtitle video with an alpha channel that I then place on top of the original video. Now, EZTitles seems to be much more practical, but I haven't used it. I will give that one a try as soon as I can!

I liked it. It was very funny at times, but had a pacing that was too slow, I think. And the asthetic was great, with the titling, the framing and the editing, and the actor (although that seems to be one of the reasons for the slow pacing). I just wish you had gone further with the VHS look, 'cause I think you got close but it wasnt enough. Perhaps a black vignette and a skewed wiggling lower part of the image could have added a lot to the look. Anyways, I think I got what you were doing and I liked it.

[quote name='Chrad' timestamp='1349188002' post='19319'] Is the currently sold 12mm on SLR Magic's site the one that focuses in the 'correct' (non-Nikon) way? [/quote] I second that. Here you can find it being sold at Amazon ("CINE") and I was wondering if this one's indeed that same one, with the "correct" turning of the focus. It also reads T1.6 rather than F1.6. [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006QFRLKU"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006QFRLKU[/url]

I havent made a study about it, but usually I've found aliasing (even if very little) in the GH2 when using electronic Panny lenses, but never when using analog lenses. That's maybe why there was aliasing in the market shots (made using the 12-25mm f2.8) from the first video but there's none in that sinlgle shot of the Louvre pyramid (I know the camera doesn't move, but you'd still see it). Still, if you take a look at the 1080p version of the first video, in the cat playing shots, there's a lot of detail.

I don't see anything particularly bad about the footage you got. In fact, you have some shots and cuts that have a lot of energy and follow the music very well, but it starts a bit off, I think. Some hits and explosions in the music should be intensified by strong compositions, strong shots and possibly cuts. At first it's slow. For instance, right after the intro the theme explodes, and you match that with the singer starting to move his head, and then you cut into the fighter running. Perhaps a cut to the fighter insted of the singer shoving his head would have a better effect. And like that one there are other cuts that seem off to me. But as the video progresses so does the pacing of the editing. On the other hand, I think the first shots of the band laughing and doing stuff go against the mood of the whole video. If I were you I would replace them with more abstract shots. In fact, I would hide the musicians until the song explodes (right after the intro,perhaps). You know, not show their faces until the singer starts doing his work, for example. And the story shots that are first presented lack strength. More detail shots and certainly more cuts would help. A faster pace for the first fast part of the song (in between the slow intro and the first verse). Lastly (and this is what I felt, but please try not to take harshly, I don't mean to offend you) the "side story" seemed kinda lame to me. Like there's no real conflict, or there's nothing really important at stake. Just a silly overreaction from the girl and an immature illussion from the fighter. I mean, the song has a lot of energy, and I feel that the conflict in the story should be more dramatic perhaps, more grounded and more mundane. Darker, if you may, with more at stake. That being said, it seems to me they're asking more than what they paid for. They should have their feet more to the ground. Especially considering you only got [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]£100 out of this. Hardly a fair pay. If you can do some more abstract shots and re shoot with the actors doing some tighter shots and detail shots, and change the pace of the editing in some parts I think you'll already have a much better product. But be sure to get rid of the laughing and smiling band at the beginning and also the "Mango Jack Films" in the end pulls you away from the mood the song has created, it's kinda violent and kills the experience (maybe I'm being too picky, but oh well). Perhaps just wait a few seconds before showing off your name and have it be more discreet. People will still read it and you'll save them from a violent draw from the mood you set them in. Oh, and another thing I forgot, the drummer gets a lot of shadows in his shot. Try to avoid that in the future. Best luck and best regards![/font][/color]

I wonder if you guys are watching the 720p version or the 1080p version. What I do see in what appears to be the electronic lens shots (the 12-35mm f2.8) is some aliasing, which worries me a bit. Aside from that the image looks great for a compressed 1080p h264 video.

[quote name='bradleyg5' timestamp='1347939531' post='18414'] How do you guys know that it's going to be as sharp as the GH2? if it's using a totally different more conventional sensor it could just be soft OM-D quality with a higher bitrate. Still going to need to see some raw footage. Entirely different sensor leads me to question this will be as sharp as the previous camera. [/quote] Trust your eyes. If you download the "Genesis" original 686MB file that was uploaded to Vimeo and take a look at the first shot of the girl and the shot of the guy sleeping when the phone first rings then you'll see a lot of fine detail. If it's not the same detail as the GH2 it's around (either more or less). The weird thing is some shots look sharper than others. Could be a focus issue, or perhaps the EX TELE being used (like in the first long shot of the motel, as stated by Philip: it's shot from the same point of view as the car leaving the site and driving off to the right).

[quote name='Dr. John R. Brinkley' timestamp='1347655626' post='18056'] I don't want to judge too much from that vimeo video...but the video they showed, in my opinion, lacked warmth and resolution. Still, I'm very curious to see a real review by Andrew. [/quote] It's a leaked video that's heavily compressed and then reuploaded and recompressed. It's also not 1080p at all. In fact, I didn't download it and inspect it but I bet it's 30p, because the "cinema" examples from Philip & Friends' shoot has some ghosting artifacts. Reminds me of some of the first telecine movies I watched in VCD.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347653149' post='18044'] BTW: Funny, how such first impressions are shot in similar places: [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/%3F%3F%3F.jpg[/img]From the D600 video. Better. Not? [/quote] I'm really liking that D600 image. Here's to hoping it doesn't suffer from aliasing like the D800, because resolution and specially dynamic range look really nice! Of course, I'll be getting the GH3 first and foremost :P

[quote name='Max' timestamp='1347648253' post='18035'] [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]shoulder mounted rig? Yes you are a pro but many potential buyers are not.[/color][/font] [/quote] Then those potential buyers probably won't really need IBIS and specially not 176Mb/s intra frame. And I would love to have the IBIS option in my certainly future GH3, but let's be fair: no other narrative used camera has that kind of stabilizer anyways, so it's not like we're asking for the norm.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1347052373' post='17570'] Are you joking? He barely moved the camera! Rolling shutter would have to be VERY bad to be visible in those shots! Raw is definitely very powerful, but I doubt anyone will be using it for every single project, it does add a few time consuming steps and loads of storage space. People shooting projects with a quick turnaround and no need for much post work will choose the prores mode in a heartbeat. Even you Andrew! :) [/quote] Granted, it's not for every project, but for everyday work you have ProRes that's a lot lighter and still has crazy better image than any DSLR codec, while you have the option (unlike any other sub $15,000 camera now) to shoot RAW for any project that needs it (I persoanally would love to have it for personal and paid fiction projects).

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1347029227' post='17540'] Philip says it has 'Bad Rolling Shutter issues !' we have yet to see how bad these are I would like to see this camera being moved around quickly! [/quote] To be fair it says "[color=#444444][font=Arial, Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans', sans-serif][size=3]Bad rolling shutter issues, not as bad as DSRLS but worse than FS100/ C300". So it depends on what you're comparing it to. If you've learned to deal with DSLRs' rolling shutter artifacts then you should even better with the BMCC.[/size][/font][/color] [quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1347038457' post='17549'] no focus assist too! this is a major issue as you need this for every shot you do! no x10 zoom in and its a reflective shiny screen..... so you will need to get a external monitor with digital focus assist for this camera [/quote] Just reading the Pros and Cons isn't fair for the camera or the reviewer. If you watch the whole video you'll see there isn't only zoom for focusing when you hit the screen twice, so you can focus tightly, but there's also peaking (although Philip does say it isn't that good). [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1347045381' post='17558'] Did you see any rolling shutter issues in any of the shots? Looks pretty awesome to me. [/quote] Like I mentioned above, according to Phillip Bloom rolling shutter is there, but I think saying it's "bad" goes a bit overboard. Still, there was no fast motion in the shots he showed, so one couldn't really use them to judge the issue. In any case, as much as I hate rolling shutter artifacts, it shouldn't be a big problem considering it's better than DSLRs and it costs less than a 5DMkIII. And with a lot of room for improvement in the firmware department!

[quote name='JHines' timestamp='1345749750' post='16308'] RIP wide angle with faster aperture than 2.8. [/quote] SLR Magic 12mm f1.6 isn't natively supported right now, but adapters will find their way, and I think you'll be fine. Don't worry.

That was a great video. And yeah, loved the last quote! [color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3]“To me the great hope is that now these little 8mm, video recorders and stuff that are coming out... Just people that wouldn’t normally make movies are gonna be making them, and, you know... Suddenly, one day, some little fat girl in Ohio i[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3] s gonna be the new Mozart, you know, and make a beautiful film with her little father’s camera recorder and for once this so called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever and it will become an art form... That’s my opinion.”[/size][/font][/color]

Oh. So I guess it's not economically viable. Bummer. Luckily for me, it's not the end of my life! But I had to ask. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

Yeah, I know about that one. But this 8mm is f/2.8, one stop (or 3/4? or 2/3?) faster than the 7,5mm, that's why I was interested in it!

[url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/876966-REG/Rokinon_28fe8mbk_fx_8mm_f_2_8_UMC_Fish_Eye.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/876966-REG/Rokinon_28fe8mbk_fx_8mm_f_2_8_UMC_Fish_Eye.html[/url] Hi. I was wondering if any of you has tried this lens for GH2 filming, in case there is an adapter for it (whether it's on Fujifilm X mount or Samsung NX; I haven't found adapters for any of the two yet). Perhaps I'm doing poor searches, but has anyone come up with good results for mounting it on a GH2 already? Best regards!

But in this case this is not being a gearhead. I'm over stating stuff because I can't believe the indifference so many people have to something so evident and bad looking. This is purely based on what I saw when watching a music video: an image that hit me in the face because of its uncommon artifacts. I've shot short films and movies for 7 years, and I've drawn and painted my whole life. I live through images. I do VFX all the time. Animation. I have a trained eye. And I believe Philip does too, and he probably has far better equipment than I do. So how come he denies such an obvious shortcoming (I have to say that softness is a lot more filmic than jagged edges and pixelated details, really...)? It can be better in every other aspect, but this single one, considering this is an HD camera intended for film production, is a really bad one. And this is the main point: don't repeat someone's words as if they were the most qualifed truth, the undeniable opinion on what's good just because of his experience. Judge for yourself. Do you like the image that camera produces? Do you believe it's worth its price? That's great. But do it because you think it's so, not because a celebrity cinematographer says it is. I saw what comes out of the camera and think it's not up to par with what he's claims, if even for one single aspect of the image. I'm not afraid to question Philip for being experienced. I trust my experience, my work and my sensitivity.