fuzzynormal

As an owner of the GX7, I'd be surprised if it was as bad as what I'm used to. It would really be unacceptable on a 4K camera. Heck, it's unacceptable on a 1080 camera.

I don't have a mustache I can wax nor do I live in Echo Park and visit NAB on trust fund money. Am I still allowed to buy the camera?

So, who here would rather watch a GH1 video in the hands of someone with talent --than a hack neophyte running around with a GH4? What's it all about, after all? (...I ask on a blog forum specifically about the latest and greatest gear...) Films like this easily challenge the wishful conception that great equipment make a great filmmaker. Thanks for the inspiration mojo.

Not many seem to appreciate M43 photos. Steve Huff is about the only one making a mark evangelizing for M43 as a photo format. Personally, I like it. It doesn't feel limiting to me.

I'm typically a "smaller is better" sort of guy. As such, I've found the GX7 and GM1 to be a very capable motion picture cameras. Similar to what you're looking for, they're also a stop-gap video camera for me. I also bought 'em to use as my go-to stills cameras once the video needs are overtaken by the next camera buy. I think they're great stills cameras. Also, the GM1 works well as a "fly" video cam and I expect it'll specialize in that capacity for a long stretch.

Like it or not, they do have to make money selling their stuff. As a business decision, it makes sense. Lots of rinky-dink "TV studios" around the world would appreciate a decent low-cost camera(s). For example: if you're reading this from Europe, you might be surprised how many American religious organizations build small/big studios to proselytize their opinions. It's a good market to sell to. On the other hand, even if the indy film market does't offer great profit potential, they have product in that sector. They have to maintain, and even lead, in that arena if they want the "Black Magic" brand to mean anything. Since all lines are blurred between various production disciplines these days, they'll take a big hit with their reputation if they fail in any of them. I do wonder if they're too small to suffer that sort of collapse.

Yes. Although I do tend to use nice and small m43 prime lenses most of the time. Still, occasionally, having a zoom is productive. Depends on the shoot.

Well, ultimately, it's always been that. But getting through the production door and into the VIP room where the dude named "really-good-technical-imaging" hangs out is getting a lot easier.

If you want more DR this should tickle your jewels: As a documentarian that's actually done that sort of shot on numerous occasions, seeing a camera make it work so well is quite encouraging. I'm partial to keeping things small when on the road, so the self-contained ability of the GH4 appeals to me. It's ultimately about the image though... Looks like a really good/busy year for serious imaging development.

The big lens/smallcam set-up either looks incredibly silly or kind of goofy-cool. I can't make up my mind which. Either way, images look good from it.

Yeah, but the beats getting dropped were dope.

Hey Sony. You're sweet and all. I just think we're in different places right now. I know you'll meet someone that'll love you for who you are, (*cough* high maintenance *cough*) but I need a more down to earth camera to hang out with and accepts me for who am am and what I want. I just need simple and easy 4K, you know? Don't worry though, lots of fish in the sea. Call me again sometime.

ISO 50 is nice for video.

Club music! Let's dance!

Grey/Silver suit guy needs a tailor.

Well, I've shot with my Canon red band 24-70mm lens on the GX7 and GM1. It looks ridiculous using it this way, but it does work well. In fact the mass of the glass assists with hand held shooting. Anyway... the main thing: there's no aperture control, but since the lens is a f2.8 wide open (which translates into a perfect-for-cinema f5.6 on a m43 sensor) I just use a very basic "dummy" adapter on the Canon glass and call it good. It only makes sense to shoot motion pictures in manual focus, so no need for the camera body to deal with that either. Exposure control is then handled with ND filters and ISO, while shutter speed remains constant. Keep in mind, for whatever f-stop you wanna use, you need to mount the Canon glass on a Canon body, adjust/set the iris, then do the body swap switcheroo.

Sensor size means more maths.

Yes indeed. Full Frame is really nice for low light stuff, but has a unique quality to is that's unlike most motion picture footage...especially when you shoot full open iris. Anything below a f4 on FF is too exaggerated for me. Looks cool, but it's not always appropriate. So unless you're going for that dramatically shallow DOF for creative purposes, best to keep the DOF under tighter control. Which is good for you because: The sensor size(s) of various APS-C cameras are close to 35mm motion picture (not stills) film.

Yes, everything except I'd shoot around f4-f5.6. That's where most cinematographers do their shots. BTW, I'm in San Diego as well. What part of town are you doing stuff?

There's plenty of digital effect techniques to emulate film stock, such as the one Aaron mentions, but the processes used in camera are the bigger step, I think, for getting one's footage to appear to have been shot on stock. Make sure you don't over look that part of the equation. You have to emulate, as best you can, the kind of cameras those film stocks would have been run through. DOF, but not too much. The correct shutter speed. Proper lens selection. It's a big recipe with a lot of ingredients to make the meal you're considering. You can't just pop something into the microwave and heat it up if you want it to be satisfying.

I'd be interested, but it only shoots 60p and at a low bit rate...so, "meh."

Fujio Mitarai says: "We match products to the needs of the times, and we concentrate our resources on what we do best. Our forte is hardware, but not every kind of hardware. We focus on value-added input and output technologies."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of various Look-Up-Table applications, but (unless I'm wrong?) many people are basically turning a LUT into a glorified color correction filter, which is not what it’s intended to be...? I come from a broadcasting background rather than cinema, so I'm unfamiliar with the more intricate details (such as LUT's) that, as I know of it, relate to the processing of actual film.

Absolutely right. I'm not fond of some of your color choices to be honest, but that's fine. You're doing what you like and that's all that's important. BTW, were you shooting some footage at a higher shutter speed, maybe for exposure compensation?

Seems like an indy programmer with ambition to do a hack might be more likely...?