Julian

@Sanveer: No, like I said, it only works with lower bitrates. Not in any 50/60 fps mode either. @galenb: I don't know what you're comparing it to, but it seems to be on par with the OM-D, which has the best m43 sensor so far. It doesn't lag behind apsc sensors anymore. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-om-d-e-m5-vs-panasonic-lumix-gh3-part-3-20502 Also, There isn't any proper raw support from the GH3 yet, I don't like judging quality on jpg.

EXTC does work. At least on my firmware 0.5 test sample it does. Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgG2v0Gq6ms For your list: 1080p60 Substantially Improved photo quality 72mbit mov Time code display I don't think bulkier/heavier is a complaint for most people. It's much better built quality.

Would love to see this on kickstarter.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1351856458' post='20863'] What the hell is the "high dynamic range" sensor doing differently here exactly... [/quote] It delivers photos with a much higher dynamic range than the GH2. Does the Nikon D800 provide 14 stops of dynamic range in video? I doubt it. It does when you shoot raw pictures at base iso.

It has exactly the same potential as a 650D, in a smaller body. Nice if you have Canon and need an extra body or if you want to use old glass with adapters on a Canon sensor. Apart from that I don't see any reason to pay that kind of money for a very basic compact system camera.

[quote name='KarimNassar' timestamp='1351760452' post='20769'] the gh3, based on what we have seen so far from preproduction models with firmware 0.5 is nothing short of a failure imo. Not only have not upgraded but they have regressed from the gh2. Regression: - apparently less detail rendition - mo more multi aspect sensor - apparently from the user guide there is no more video extended tele mode - introduces moire an aliasing And all of this for more than twice the price of the gh2... We can use caution and wait for the final production models but it is definitively not looking good at all. [/quote] According to Panasonic firmware 0.5 is representative for the final product. EXTC is there, it doesn't work in 72mbit movie recording, only at lower bitrates. Don't forget the GH3 isn't a video camera. I remember a quote from a Panasonic guy saying the GH3 is 50/50 photo/video, while the GH2 was more like 40/60. Watch the official [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-Iwpc_qdg"]promo-video[/url] for the GH3. It starts with a landscape photographer, then Macro, then people, and then Cinema... The stills quality is greatly improved over the GH2. I think Panasonic went for a Sony sensor (if they did make it in-house it'd probably still have mutli-aspect at least) to be able to keep up with the rest (OM-D, Sony NEX etc) in the stills market. And because of this they couldn't do the same magic as with the sensor in the GH2. It is a hybrid camera, the big improvements are in the photography department. Yes, it sucks for us... it's not what we want, but the GH3 is a major improvement over the GH2 overall.

Haha, nice. I hope that's not a real recipe though. Just one thing: the alignment looks a bit off.. How are the submissions so far? I'm afraid I won't be able to do something before the deadline.

Skipping the 4 probably has more to do with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia]Tetraphobia[/url]

The focus gets sharper because I changed the aperture to compensate for the higher iso. Started at f/4 iso 200, ended at f/22 iso 6400.

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1351029659' post='20198'] Julian, hope you don't mind but that's a terrible screen grab, something's not right with it, if you don't mind how did you do it? Check the histogram for the image in Photshop or something and see how combed it is. [/quote] Media Player Classic (so the levels aren't correct) > Print Screen > MS Paint > Save as PNG. I suppose there are superior ways. Just have Lightroom here and that doesn't work really well for this kinda things. Keep in mind the screen grab is a close up of a huge portrait photo, see in the video. I think the screen grab looks much better than the YouTube version btw.. Here's another screen shot (same lousy method) of the scene. Looks fine to me. [URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/130-screen-grab-2/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_2455628.png[/IMG][/URL]

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351028859' post='20195'] Oh, ok. Thats why (possibly) John's (Twigt) video seemed sharper (he set everything at '0'). But, this new video, of yours, is pretty sharp.[/quote] I also have the impression the compression on Vimeo is less harsh. Especially Vimeo 1080p looks much better than YouTube 1080p. I'll be uploading some original footage onto a ftp soon, via a helpful member here. That'll do :)

Here's a quick video of all the GH3 iso settings. The noise seems to add up as you would expect, didn't notice anything special happening at intermediate iso's for example. YouTube smooths the grain a lot and makes it look more muddy, but it gives an impression. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SniBNzz7P9k Original footage, unedited. 1080p25, 72Mbit, 1/50s. Manual mode, changed aperture with ISO. Panasonic 14-140mm lens Fixed whitebalance (K) Profile: Natural Contrast -5 Sharpness -2 Saturation -2 Noise reduction -5

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351027234' post='20189'] 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? [/quote] Thanks! The sharpness is fine indeed. At -5 it is a bit soft, so that's why I shot at -2. No sharpening artefacts but the detail is there. Some shots are around f/5.6 or maybe even lower. But I had to go for smaller apertures since I have no ND filter in my kit right now. I don't think it would make much of a difference though, at f/4-5.6 the lens is probably even sharper because diffraction kicks in pretty soon on micro four thirds. The shot from 2:08 to 2:22 might be a bit misleading, since it's a huge blow-up or a photograph. So maybe there's banding in the print ;) And the YouTube compression doesn't help. Here's a screengrab (view at full resolution): [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/129-gh3-screen-grab/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_771748.png[/img][/url] @yellow: your clip shows black and white here. Isn't it more likely that it is because of the way YouTube processes it? They re compress the files...

Lots of people, outdoors. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIV0xXQa8A[/media] 1080p25, 1/50 fps Original footage, unedited. Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 X Auto White Balance Inside footage max. iso 1600 Outside footage everything iso 200 Aperture stopped down around f/8-11 most of the time Profile: Natural Contrast -5 Sharpness -2 Saturation -5 Noise reduction -5

You should be able to get a Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 for about €30/GBP. I enjoy mine. It's a pretty simple optical design, the built quality is very good.

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1350941912' post='20136'] If you import the 16-235_flagon.mp4 into Vegas and/or Media Player Classic as long as you see the 16 & 235 text rather than just white and black horizontal bars then the GH3 / Canon MOV's are getting handled correctly and contrast should be correct, shadows will appear less crushed, highlights will appear less blown, depending on decent exposure at time of shooting. [/quote] Media Player Classic shows black and white, I can just make out the numbers in the white part very faintly. Vegas and Resolve handle it fine, it shows exactly the same as the PNG's. I noticed the video's have a lot more shadow detail when watching them in Vegas, good to know I can't judge Media Player. What happens if I upload a mov out of the camera straight away to Youtube? Will it be the crushed version?

I found my minolta adapters and lenses! will do some moire tests comparing the 12-35 at 35mm to my classic minolta 35mm for example. On my Hexar 40mm test it showed moire anyway..

Thanks, will check ASAP. Shot some comparisons in low light on both the GH2 and GH3 tonight. Impossible to get the same picture from both cams since the profiles are so different. And especially the colors on the camera displays are a world apart. The GH2 lcd is purple-ish and shows black as grey (being a TFT LCD), the GH3 oled is greenish and shows blacks so dark it looks very crushed (but that could be the high contrast of the oled screen as well). I'll have time to put something online tomorrow evening. Also shot my 'moire' lamp again at different bitrates. As far as I can see on the camera screen there is not really a difference. And did a test at every Iso setting, I'm curious if intermediate settings will perform better. Anyone know a good hacked vs unhacked GH2 iso test? Might be useful for reference.

Petty funny. Good acting. I like the encounters with random people, improvised I suppose? Looking forward to the anamorphic comedy!

To be honest, I have no idea. I kinda get what you're saying, but I have no idea what to do about it or how to check it. I'm a photographer. Relatively new to video :) I have the feeling I see the files just like they are in camera in Vegas and in media player classic. I'm on a windows 7 pc. Is there a way to check if the software is handling the files right?

Thanks!

Shot at 72 Mbps. I'll do a comparison between different bitrates and avchd!

What was the magic trick?

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350917712' post='20119'] Okay... That's just weird... If you look at the fare video, it's the un-graded clips that come from the camera that are messed up but the ones from Resolve seem just fine... [/quote] That is because I mixed 25p footage (originals) with the 24p footage (edited in resolve) into a 24p project in Vegas... @Axel: Thanks for the kind words! No hard feelings on the tip, although i'm well aware of what you are saying :) I'm always protecting my highlights during recording and looking at the histogram. Most of the original clips shot at the fairground aren't blown out, there may be one or two.. But I added more contrast in post and more yellows in the highlights, thats why it looks and sometimes is overexposed... I just felt like playing with the clips a bit, I'll show more original footage (properly exposed) for sure! Actually if you take a screengrab and look at the histogram, the highlights don't clip (much). I agree it looks overexposed though. Also it's annoying that the Live View on the GH3 shows more detail. I set the exposure and the histogram looks fine, then I press record an BAM, the image starts clipping. I'll have to see if the GH2 shows the same behaviour. If it does no news..

Did you notice it in the other video as well? It could be something with the exported video. It looks weird too. I'm using Sony Vegas Pro 11, struggling a bit with the export options as it won't export to H264 for some reason (crashes..). I'll reupload a single clip straight from the camera. It was shot in Manual, 1080p25 1/50s /Edit: maybe I f*cked up the framerate settings in the Moire videoproject.. It could be that I put the 25p files in a 24p project. If you look at the Fair video, the original cuts in the end show the same problem (it's 25p on a 24p project).