dbp

After downloading both Genesis and that cat vid off of vimeo, my first though it that it looks like slightly softer MK III style footage at first glance. Not to say that footage like that is awful, just that the GH2 might have the edge in the detail. Could be any number of reasons, though. Hopefully when more samples come out, I'll be proven wrong.

I'll never understand people's obsession with soft, low resolving images, and equating that to the "film look". I love the sharp, fine detail rendered on the Dungeness demo. I brought the GH2 for it's resolution, which I feel is the minimum that I'd be happy with. The vast majority of Blu Rays that I watch resolve that level or higher. They might not have the harsh, over sharpened edges, but the detail is there. That Blackmagic camera has that look to me, minus the GH2 artificial sharpening, and I really like it. Frankly, I have no idea where people are concluding that hollywood film look = 5D level soft. To each their own, I suppose.

I feel bad for Zacuto. They clearly went to a great deal of effort to make this project to benefit the community, and it's getting ripped up pretty good by a lot of people. I suppose that's to be expected, though. I thought they did the best that you could hope. If the only did part 2, or only part 3... I think there'd be lots of room to complain. Giving both views is as honest an assessment of the cameras that you can give. You get to see how they work in non ideal conditions, and how they work when the stars align. Part 3 did reaffirm why the high end cost what what they do, but the price difference is so astronomical that it doesn't diminish the low end, imo. The GH2, 7D, I Phone cost the same as a small accessory on some of these other cameras. I do wish people would not get so emotional when their piece of sacred gear doesn't come out looking so favourable in a specific test.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345202214' post='15880'] Then as far as i can see part 1 and 2 are the useful parts, because the only thing I'll ever actually be doing with each camera is creating subjective interpretation of a scene with a DP (either someone else or myself). If I have a 5D MKii or a bridge camera I'm not going to shoot with it and light for it like it's an Alexa, so all part 3 does is prove that, yes, a $60,000 camera is much more forgiving and a better piece of kit, which we all already know! I know if I had unlimited budget I'd hire an Alexa for every shoot. I learn nothing from that being confirmed. The only lesson to come from this shootout [i]is [/i]that some very experienced people picked a cheap camera out of the lineup on aesthetic alone. The reason that's a good lesson is because that's your actual audience reaction, and what happens in the real world. Lighting everything the same -- in effect purposefully mis-using a less-forgiving piece of equipment -- then saying "look, cheap cameras aren't as good" is a bit of pointless academia IMHO. The spec sheet already tells me that information. [/quote] That's all true, but if we're talking about real world results....any shoot with the GH2 probably isn't getting that calibre of lens and lighting set up, nor the amount of time to tweak it to mask the camera's short comings. If they did have that, they'd almost certainly be using a higher end camera. It's kind of a double edged sword. The lower end cameras need more time and equipment to truly compete, yet in scenarios where that budget and equipment is available, those cameras would be passed over for something further up the chain. So the GH2 scenario is hardly real world either. The positive message here is that cameras are becoming like pizza... even the worst are still really, really damn good, and enough to satisfy most average viewer. I still love my GH2 for what at can do, at the price that my broke self brought it for.

The shimmering on the zebra stripped shirt girl in the back is the one thing that screams GH2,  which is in camera B's shot. I've seen that effect a lot with my GH2 footage.