sanveer

its from 2:08 to 2:22 seconds (the face profile). Check he details.

Julian, gr8 work. This video seems pretty good. I like the colour, and the flat profile. There is a little banding. But, very little, and in few frames. Also, the sharpness is comparable with the GH2. It is evident, when you focus the shot, on the large pictures. The details, the GH2 is famous for, are there. Have you tried shooting, at f4-5.6?

He answered my query, on the settings, on Vimeo: [color=#7B8084][font=sans-serif][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]"Hi Sanveer, all settings were neutral, 0,0,0,0,0. Standard picture profile. Remember, this is NOT a proper test, just my experience from an hour-long session."[/background][/font][/color]

Appears to be some kind of mini Jimmy Jib arm.

[url="http://vimeo.com/51928527#at=0"]http://vimeo.com/51928527#at=0[/url] This guy tried 'Standard' Picture Profile, and shot with a non-Lumix (Panasonic) lens. Also, he opened his Voigtlander from f2 to f1.2, so background is pretty blurred. Though, from the little portions, which are in focus, it seems sharper than the other videos, doing the rounds. The guy who shot the video, also, doesn't seem to mention, what were his setting (for color,contrast, saturation sharpness) were at (-5,or 0, or +5, or somewhere in between). Grading seems to come out well, with the footage, he's shot. It holds pretty well.

There was no lighting trick. Its just that, like other things on the GH2 (eg:- the strange ISO Bug), the picture profile is subjective, and so is the dynamic range. In lighting situations like over-cast skies (and setting it up, as such, with huge shadows and filters), the picture profile is very flat, and the contrast is much lower. This doesn't happen, though, when the clouds cause extreme loss in available light, or during late evenings. Though, this doesn't apply as a rule or trick, simply because, it is either very difficult to get the same effect as an overcast sky, or its simply impossible.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1350911889' post='20118'] Dude, did you ever follow up with this? [/quote] ha ha ha ... actually, i uploaded a few videos, online, but, strangely, they had banding, when viewed online, though, i couldn't notice Any banding, when i saw it, on my laptop, as well as my friends'. So, i just gave up :(

The GH2 seems to fall apart, pretty badly. Though a lot of noise is visible from the GH3, after the gain, it seems like something that can be worked with, in post (noise reduction).

Wow, they've added some pretty neat feature.

[quote name='agp26' timestamp='1350676539' post='20004'] Now why can't we get 2.5k in at an affordable price for HDSLR's? Curious as to how 2.7k downscales to 1080p...hopefully tack sharp. Was looking at the sony for 120 fps, but gopro pulled a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute...what can I say? 2.7k?!! for 400 bucks....way to go guys.... :) [/quote] Cause the DSLR guys are fooling us, consistently, for far too long. If they are in Dire Need of Money, maybe they could start a Forum for Collections. Or start a campaign on Kickstarter or something. I don't know what the excuse it. Its also probably a cartel or something. Maybe if someone files and official complaint, with some international trade body, alleging cartelization, through limitation of available technology, and show that all DSLR aren't moving anywhere, the Trade Body would do their own research, on the matter. That would be interesting :D

[quote name='jacanaproductions' timestamp='1350705763' post='20023'] I call BS on 4k. [/quote] what is BS on 4k?

I don't know why, but, it looks to me, as though pushing all the settings down to -5 on the GH3, also cause the f-stop to go lower by a few points. Its almost like, the difference between f2.0 @ '0' and '-5', is the difference between f2 and f5.6 or something. Though, at the higher settings, it appears, (almost) not to focus anything, at all. Strange ...

Julian, I am So Proud of You. Andrew, could we Please have a Dude/ Babe of the week (Month) award. Julian, on behalf of everyone of this site (and Andrew, expressing acquiescence, by silence ... :P ), you are the Site's FIRST official, Dude of the Month :D

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350603546' post='19958'] Weird... For some reason, if I click on the links I get a "forbidden" error. So I just went to the sight to look at them. I have to say, these do not look impressive to me at all. There are some that look downright sub-par. Especially the "Firebread" food cart image. Take a look at the noise and mushy details in that one. Oh, and take a look at the alley shot with the hanging bicycle. Look at that weird salt and pepper noise all over the image... I've never even seen that kind of noise... Ugh. Oh what have Panasonic done to our beloved GH range... [/quote] [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350605792' post='19961'] Oh man! Now I'm really on it! Now that I've really looked at the images and compared similar images to other cameras (the bookcase image, is in most of the camera reviews) I can see that it's obviously some kind of user error or a lens issue. The bookcase was shot at f8 there is no reason why is should be as soft and mushy as that. There are even some shots where there is simply no clear focal plane at all (look at shot #33 of the pipe coming out of the brick wall). Even comparing images to those of lesser cameras like the LX7, you can see all the shots seem soft and blurry. In the bookcase shot, look at the "Arizona Highways" book with the little image of the waterfall. Now go look at Sony RX100 review and see how they compare. I can't see how the GH3 could be this bad. It has to be either a photographer error or a lens error. [/quote] True. I just saw ALL the pics. The dynamic range is pretty low. Cause the pic, with the Church, is very clear, even though its Low Light. But, pics with more contrast, have lousy dynamic range, and the onboard noise (thats, what I am guessing, is causing this), is creating strange artefacts, which may not actually exist, in the scene.

Julian, could you please compose identical frames (by mounting the 2 cameras together, on the same Tripod, or 2 tripods, placed closeby), also, thereby shooting the Exactly same thing, at the Exact same time. Thanks in Advance ;)

The measure of details, in some of these pics is really something. check these ones out: [url="http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_77.jpg"]http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_77.jpg[/url] [url="http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_74.jpg"]http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_74.jpg[/url] [url="http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_73.jpg"]http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_73.jpg[/url] I wish someone would do a Comparison with the Olympus.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1350586732' post='19937'] The guys are in there, playing with the codec and trying to improve it, I guess they should know their resolutions by now. [/quote] Apparently a lot of people are playing with the codec and files. All of them have different versions, of what the resolutions of these various cameras are. I merely stated, what seemed like the most agreed upon resolution. It reminds of some famous quote, I read, as a kid, about 2 reasonable men, coming to different conclusions, about the same thing, and both being right ... :P

[quote name='aaronmc' timestamp='1350581050' post='19930'] The Mark III was quite a bit better in low light in comparison to the Mark II. Not a full stop better, but still noticeable. For me, if the Mark III had cost the same as the Mark II, I would have called a decent upgrade. But it didn't. It cost $1,000 [i]more[/i] than the Mark II at launch. That is unacceptable. Also, for future sensors, the few tests of the 1DX that are out show a sensor with excellent performance -- true, next-generation performance. Unfortunately, in grand, arrogant-as-hell Canon fashion, they only put their good sensor in their most wildly expensive camera. Can't afford it? They don't care. They're the telephone company. [/quote] Seriously. Canon is gonna finally shoot itself, in the foot (IF it hasn't, Already :P ) A lot of companies are coming out with good back-illuminated sensors. If buyers can get their wiring in order, we could easily add a few points of dynamic range, as well as brightness. Without having to spend a fortune getting a camera with those kindda specs,

Is this supposed to be the announcement: [url="http://www.scoop.it/t/digital-cinema-tools"]http://www.scoop.it/t/digital-cinema-tools[/url] [list] [*]Selectable Full Frame/ S35 Mode [*]16k EXRUMOR Sensor Delivers true 4k [*]10-bit 422 ProRes to Internal SXS Cards [*]Ergonomic Compact Design (may require periodic cooling, by turning off for several minutes) [*]RAW RGB 444 via 3G Single Link [*]329fps at Full 4k resolution [*]PL Lens Mount for Cooke or Zeiss [*]PL Lens Autofocus and IS [/list] They removed the links from the various sites. hmmmm ...

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1350312158' post='19784'] The Magic Lantern guys have been investigating codec improvements and higher bitrates, and that's the figures they've discovered. That's the capture resolution, and then the footage is upscaled to 1080p. That also explains why HDMI out is lower resolution. [url="http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=2764.0"]http://www.magiclant...hp?topic=2764.0[/url] [/quote] [quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1350550871' post='19890'] According to a1ex who should know what is fed to the H.264 encode is 1720x974 (550D) and 1904x1072 (5D3). [/quote] I am not sure the figures are accurate. Also, upscaling and dealing with line skipping must be cause some lines to mysterious appear, or dissapear. Since the Mark III doesn't apparently have any line skipping (or much lesser), so the resolution would be a more. Actually, I remember reading that the Mark II resolves around 590 lines, and that the Mark III adds another 200-250 lines, at least. I'll have to search for the sources, cause I read it a while ago. Anyways, I guess, I should go look. :angry:

[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1350550412' post='19888'] ???? An extra couple of stops of usable exposure counts as no improvement? The only full frame sensor that doesn't exhibit moire or aliasing counts as no improvement? The 5D3 is a roaring success particularly among its target market of professional & serious amateur photographers. [/quote] I am not sure whether the Mark III is noticeably better than the Mark II in low light. Though, yes, the Moire and Aliasing has been handled quite well. And, the picture profile is also much flatter.

I [b]HOPE[/b] its worth the wait (and the Hype).

[quote name='Chrad' timestamp='1350568124' post='19916'] I think it's only a matter of time until GoPro leverage CineForm Raw with a cinema camera of their own. I'd say it will be their next product line. They're much more likely to put up a serious fight for BMD's market than any of the Japanese giants. [/quote] Wow, I was gonna say, that, its High Time, that GoPro moved to Raw and serious Pro work. Maybe, this should push everyone else to pull up their socks, and start giving us something worth buying. [quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1350567705' post='19914'] saveer, I am thinking the same thing as you. By the way, I think the GoPro video footage is amazing. The price is amazing too. DSLR camera manufacturers could give us way more. They'll try to get as much from the consumer before offering more. Throw a few crumbs at a time so they can profit more. Part of the game. What GoPro shows is competition will be fierce in the near future. [/quote] Seriously dude. The competition is Just heating up

This is the site URL (for the Models): [url="http://gopro.com/hd-hero3-cameras"]http://gopro.com/hd-hero3-cameras[/url] There are different videos, for the different models. I am guessing, that, the comparisons will come in, through people who buy them, rather than the company.

Btw, the 2.7k @ 30 and 24/ 25 fps (on the GoPro 3 Black Edition), makes one ask, another Important question. Why are DSLR makers, ever since 2008 (when the 5D Mark II came out), STILL only giving us 1080p (Full HD), when they can bloody well, give us, high resolution (2.5k and OVER) video in DSLRs. hmmm ... maybe, no one should buy DSLRs for video, for a month, in Protest :P