Pascal Garnier

Hi everyone, thanks for the heads up ! This is the first video I shot with a G6, I just made the switch from Canon DSLR's, but wanted the extra resolution that Pana's have. Only other options to get this with Canon is with the 5D MkIII or C100 (which are out of budget at the moment). I already had a few FD's I used on my Sony Nex, so all I needed to really make the switch to Panasonic was a wide angle. Thanks to Andy I got the Pentax 110 18 f2.8, but it doesn't focus to infinity without lowering the aperture. So I got a Pana 14 f2.5 2 days before the shoot that I used for all the Steadicam shots. I used a Steadicam JR for this video. All other footage was shot with Canon FD's : depending on the shot, a 24 f2.8, 50 f1.4 or 35-70 f4. I use a standard FD adapter from ebay, like this one http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-FL-Lens-To-Micro-4-3-M43-M4-3-Adapter-GF1-GF2-GH2-GF2-GH2-G2-G3-DC156-/191039302526?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item2c7ad46b7e. No play at all. Edit was done in FCP7, grading with the built-in Colour Corrector 3-way. Grading was fairly minimal anyway, as I shot everything with a grey card and manual white balance and tried to shoot more or less the way I wanted the final result to look. Location for the sunny outdoor shots was the French Riviera, in and round Nice, near the Italian border.

Shot with a Panasonic G6. "Natural" Profile with everything dialed down to -5. Steadicam shots with a Pana 14 2.5, all other footage with Canon FD's.

Do you have a little more info ? Which options does this lens have (from the flarefactory pdf : http://dogschidtoptiks.co.uk/pdf/flarefactory58.pdf) for aperture, tint, contrast, dirt, ... ? Which mount is it ? m4/3 (not 100% clear from the pictures) Thanks in advance !

I can recommend the G6. I come from a T2i, moved up to a T3i with Tragic Lantern (and a Nex5 for slow mo). I just shot a music video with the G6, it's a whole different world. The resolution compared to a Canon is incredible. The only downside is that you lose a bit of low light performance. However, the G6 lets you shoot up to 3200 ISO with no problem (where my Canon at 1600 ISO looked horrible). The G6's noise if much finer and grainlike, where the Canon has ugly macroblocking. I still have my T3i, but am not touching it for video anymore. For stills though, it still beats the G6. But the G6 is probably the best videohybrid you can buy right now.

OK, thanks! Just ordered a 20-40. Do you have pics of the washers, to give me an idea of the size I should use ? And do you attach them to the back of the lens or inside the adapter ? The back of the lens seems tiny on the 18mm.

Andy, thanks ! I just ordered the RJ adapter with built in iris, it sharpens up the 18mm apparently and I need deeper focus for steadicam work. You don't happen to have this adapter ? If by any chance you do, does it sharpen up the 20-40 too ? If so, it might be a little more usable as an all-purpose lens.

Hey andy, I bought the Pentax auto 110 18mm thanks to you. Splendid little lens and perfect for my steadicam shots. I was wondering if you have any experience with the Pentax auto 110 20-40 zoom ? Looking for an all-purpose lens for my G6 and since this one is 2.8 constant aperture it looks promising. However, I have no idea if it has infinity focus throughout the entire zoom range. Any idea or experience with this lens ? Thanks in advance

why would anyone buy this camera over a G6 ?

Thanks for the Pentax 110 tip Andy, just ordered one for my G6 !

I'd doubt that grading coherently is hard becos of the camera. Most likely they didn't have anyone experienced with lighting on board, or they didn't balance the camera properly or didn't have proper monitoring on set. I do wedding shoots with completely different lighting throughout the day, from sunny to overcast, from fluorescent to tungsten ... using a grey card and white balancing when the lighting changed does a lot. If I can balance properly while shooting run&gun stuff such as a wedding I really don't understand why you couldn't do that when shooting a feature. Especially as the end result suffers.

The trailer completely put me off. The lighting looks very cheap in a few scenes, and it seems to lack a coherent grade that pulls everything together.

I think the differences between both cameras are minimal, I ordered a G6. By now you know the pros and cons of both cameras, noone can make that decision for you.

@dishe : GH3 is back up to $999; I just checked.

I still edit in FCP7, so using H264 is out of the question. I use 2 500GB drives in 1 enclosure (1 work disk, the other one is backup), once the movie is completed I only keep the full res output files and delete all footage.

@ Zash : I offer the couples a highlights video (approx. 4 min.) and a 25-30 minute movie (= full movie). Converting to ProRes422 multiplies file size by a factor 6 to 9, so I probably end up with 40-50 GB of H264 @ ACVHD footage after a day's shoot.

After converting my Canon's footage to ProRes422, I usually end up with 300GB of footage. This is for a full wedding day, from 7am till 1am, shooting with 2 cameras (Canon T3i and 5D MkIII)   Unless you've shot with the BMCC for 1)an entire day 2)on a remote location prior to this wedding, I would seriously question using this camera.  As you will know, a wedding is the perfect example of a shoot where there's plenty of spontaneous moments and where offloading or recharging batteries can be a challenge (even when you're fully prepared).  For the weddings we do, our first chance to recharge batteries and offload footage is round 4pm, after the prep in the morning and ceremonies and once we get to the location for reception, dinner and party.  By then, we have 5 16GB cards filled with footage and 4 batteries flattened.  I always carry 8 16GB memory cards and 6 batteries for a full wedding day shoot.  And recharge as soon as we've reached the reception/dinner/party location.  I've never run into problems, but then again that would be a disaster on a wedding shoot.   Also, when shooting weddings you NEED a backup camera.  It doesn't have to be the same as your A-camera, but you can't risk not being able to shoot.  Even if it's a free gig.  

@ TJB : I'd beg to differ.  "The consumer" doesn't see the difference between AVCHD and 422, especially considering the moment they get to see footage it's been edited and graded and either converted to DVD or online streaming.  I challenge you to go out in any street in any big city and ask people at random what the difference is between AVCHD and 422.   To make things even more complicated : the implementation of AVCHD by Sony differs from that by Panasonic.  And Canon's 8-bit codec with relatively slow Mbps can sometimes look better than another manufacturer's 10-bit codec with higher bitrates ...   If DSLR sales have halved, there's a very simple and logical reason : most people who are interested in shooting with a DSLR (and the majority of people still use 'm for pictures) have one by now and are perfectly happy with it.  As long as it doesn't break down, they see no need to replace it. And rightfully so.  The boom that started 3 years ago had to slow down one day.

@PAVP :   I would call Apple anything but modular, except for the Mac Pro line.  But every other product they make, is a closed system with very few tweaking options for the user (especially compared to Windows). However, I think this is Apple's strength, cos it allows you to focus on what you want to do, and not how you want to do it (since Apple has more or less decided that for you).   Furthermore, I don't think you understand the difference between developing and engineering things, and actually making them.  There's a huge difference between something like Magic Lantern, which is purely development and a much more horizontal process, and mass-scale production, which by definition has a more vertical and hierarchic structure.  It's the only way to keep production as cheap as it is.  If you want your production to be more modular and flexible, this will increase your costs exponentially (and people are already up in arms about camera's costing too much today).   Also, you say you want manufacturers to poll users so they can make the cameras that you and me want.  Problem is that we all want different things : you might need 4-track audio when shooting, while I don't need a mic nor headphone port.  Or I might want 50p while you'd rather have a built-in vectorscope.  I might want RAW, while ProRes is fine for you.  I might want a built-in viewfinder, while you prefer uncluttered HDMI so you can attach an external screen.  The only way to make everyone happy, is to include ALL possible demands from users.  Which increases costs and has clients skip the camera cos it has way more features than what they need.

I see it differently : we're all spoiled without even realising it.  For 98% of my work (commercials, music videos, documentaries and wedding videos) my T3i and Nex5N give me all I need.  I've never had any complaints whatsoever from any clients, nor TV-stations (my music videos are broadcast on national TV) that the image quality of my work wouldn't be good enough.   Only 3 years ago, all of the people who complain about Canon today, would've given up both of their legs for a camera that you can buy today for a little over 400 EUR.    Last year I was in the market for a new camera.  I was considering a second hand 5D MkII, but opted for a T3i and a NEX 5N.  Both cost me less than 700 EUR.   That's even cheaper than my very first HDV camera (a Canon HV30).    I can shoot whatever I want, and the NEX gives me wonderful slowmotion when I need it.  On top of that, both cameras are extremely good photo cameras, which has allowed me to do more photo assignments.   I'm not even talking about the Mosaic Engineering AA filter for the T3i (which significantly improves the footage and gets rid of 90% of moiré and aliasing) or Tragic Lantern for the T3i (which allows you to increase the bitrate to >120Mbps).   What I'm trying to say is that today even the cheaper DSLR's are no longer limiting filmmakers.  All this talk about dynamic range, sensors, ... is interesting for people who like to indulge in the technical side of things, but the vast majority of the audience and clients couldn't care less, as long as the result looks great.

What you said about Denzel Washington and Malcolm X is completely false : The film was critically acclaimed and garnered 91% on Rotten Tomatoes. Denzel's portrayal of Malcolm X was widely praised and he was nominated for Academy Award for Best Actor. He lost to Al Pacino (who finally got his long overdue Oscar for Scent Of A Woman). Denzel did win the Silver Bear for Best Actor at the 43rd Berlin International Film Festival and the movie received a number of awards at other festivals. The film grossed $9,871,125 in its opening weekend and finished third after Home Alone 2: Lost in New York ($30 million) and Bram Stoker's Dracula ($15 million). The film ended its run with a gross of $48,169,610. The film was widely praised upon its release. Roger Ebert ranked it No. 1 on his Top 10 list for 1992 and described the film as "one of the great screen biographies, celebrating the sweep of an American life that bottomed out in prison before its hero reinvented himself."  Ebert and Martin Scorsese both rankedMalcolm X among the ten best films of the 1990s. In 2010, Malcolm X was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".  

co-sign with peederj.   first of all, I have no doubt that RAW is always going to look better than any other format, but the stills from H264 footage posted here look awful and are not an honest comparison.   one rule of thumb for shooting with DSLR's (and digital in general) is to expose for the highlights.  all highlights are severly blown out in these stills, so this makes no sense at all.   furthermore, if you're going to compare a very flat still (which RAW is), you should compare with a flat video still.  using a flat picture style such as Visioncolor, flaat, Cinestyle or even neutral with contrast and sharpness turned down.   even stills from a T2i which were exposed for the highlights and shot with a flat picture style will look better than what we got here.