D.L. Watson

  I understand more now what you are saying now. I agree, I don't care much about charts. And I totally understand that one doesn't always have reflectors and lights. And yes, Journalist do not shoot in controlled environments, but usually, journalists wont shoot with at least a portable light kit or some-kind of low-light solution. I shoot with a crew of 8 for our show and we shoot with Canon 7D and 5D Mark II. I shoot with a GH3 because I find it superior to the canon cameras in many ways. We may shoot our fourth season with GH3 because according to myself and our colorist, it yields so much more information in the shadows we can work with.  My shorts are just my own personal hobby thing. I'm totally indie with what I do, and for the price and features, the GH3 is a pro camera - but I still try and use lighting to enhance the image. You don't have to be James Cameron to set up three point lighting. James Cameron would rather just create the light digitally in a computer. :P   But again, I get your point and agree that Andrew's test is perfectly fine - but that is my opinion. If someone else likes charts, that's their preference and opinion and I'm sure someone will do a chart test to satisfy them. But considering this is an open forum, it's well within their rights to state their opinion - just as Andrew has with his blogs. 

  I could be wrong, but no one here is arguing Andrews tests. And just because someone shares their test freely doesn't mean that a person shouldn't 'dare' offer an alternative look.    And shouldn't you always work in a controlled environment? That is the purpose of having a crew, is it not?

I think the problem is so many people think that if you remind folks that you can get a great image out of a 8-bit camera, that means we are saying one is better than the other. Not the case. For me, I just wanted to remind people that in the end - a camera is a tool - and while the BMPCC has more DR and a better codec - the camera doesnt make the filmmaker. (And I'm speaking from as a filmmaker).   Personally, I feel like we can't get wrapped up in the gear envy consumerism that has increased expotentially over the last few years. I've worked with alot of gear and equipment that might have provided great features but at the sacrifice of other key options. For me, I'll wait and see what comes out of the Pocket Cam over the next year.   Everyone has their opinion. From my experience, Magic Lantern RAW is awesome. Produces beautiful clean image, but to really take advantage of it, you need to get the 5D Mark III. And the files are very large. Even for narrative short films like I do on a small scale - this would be highly expensive: hard-drives, CF cards, and the time to process such data on a massive scale. I'm an Executive Producer for a Discovery TV Show and to shoot in RAW at the amount of footage we capture during an 10 hour day would be rediculous. We'd have to have to expand our building to just accommodate the harddrive-farm.   Pocket Cam has a beautiful film-like image. And I'll probably end up purchasing one if it can stand the test of time. While it has a wider dynamic range and in a 10bit ProRes file - it comes at the cost of a lack of audio meters, a lack of a hot-shoe mount, a lack of anykind of weather resistant design, the lack of a full white-balance control, equipped with a viewscreen that reflects everything, equipped with a firmware that doesn't allow you to control your iris (without a ND filter), and riddled with SD card compatibility issues. Definitely not something I would want to buy on a run and gun shooting like I do for a living or even for narrative when every minute you are spending money on cast and crew. I'd like to know the tool that I use is going to work. Not randomly drop frames or not even read a card.   Additionally, I would hate to spend that 'easy' $1k and then Blackmagic devalue the product next year at NAB like they did with it's big-brother.   I'd also like to just say that everything you watch on the internet, either Vimeo, Netflix, Youtube, DVD, and most HDTV's are in 8-Bit.   

hmm

  Absolutely beautiful imagery. Not a question - definitely the best of the RAW recording cameras.

  I shot with Natural picture profile with everything set to -5. Some shots had i.Dynamic turned on. I exposed to keep highlights from clipping without severely under exposing. I'm right there with you on the color-correction. I usually hire a colorist to handle my short films so - with that - this quick test I did after working 10 hours on set was crude and as some pointed out, may not do the camera justice.     This is beautiful! Absolutely amazing that such high-quality images can come from an 8-Bit camera. If I did not know it came from a GH3 - I would have assumed it was shot on RED.     lol It's all a learning experience really. Helps create a thicker skin and a drive to keep doing more and better. Not sure about chopping mangos though. :)     That's kinda my point. For me, the GH3 provides an ease of use which - in my opinion - evens the playing field a little more with the RAW 50D, 5D, 7D, and Pocket. I was trying to say that the GH3 can be pushed suprisingly far and I believe it could be mistaken for a much high-quality camera (with proper lighting and shooting conditions).   Thanks for the support!

  Hey man. I totally understand that. The 5D Mark III is the perfect cinema camera in my opinion. It produces the best RAW images I've seen out of any camera. There is not question about that. I guess my point I was trying to make failed to resonate about the GH3. I've worked with RAW, Blackmagic, and RED, and for the price, the functionality, and lack of needed accessories - the GH3 holds up fairly well.    But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. I just create images that look like they had been molested by Trey Ratcliff. :P

  Manfrotto with a 502 head.      Oh I get it, you think Trey Ratcliff is a talentless photographic molester. Well, at least he's successful at what he loves.   You may not consider this footage to look very cinematic and that is your subjective opinion. In my opinion, I could grade Canon footage the same way and the image would fall apart.   But you are right, using the Blackmagic Cinema Camera will tell the story of any film much better.      I understand perfectly what Dynamic Range is. I know the BMPCC has wonderful graduations between highlights, shadows, and mid-tones. And I agree, the mid-tones are a little flat in my video. My point is, I graded that video in like 20 minutes in resolve. I believe with a little more time (and more talented colorist), one could produce extremely beautiful cinematic video from the GH3 and would be a great alternative to the BMPCC.   It's a nice camera to buy until Blackmagic gives us proper audio metering, compressed RAW, and oh yeah - make them available to buy and shipped within a week. 

If you expose for blown out highlights, push shadows, clean with neat video, you can capture just as much dynamic range from the GH3 as you can from Magic Lantern RAW.   https://vimeo.com/76030718