ronjbase Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 my clips look good to me, what am I looking for. I've tried various unsharp mask and sharpen settings in FCP7. Still don't see much of a difference Did I get the only Mark III that's decent..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreams2movies Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 could have been hate from other cinematographers with other company's like sony, panasonic, etc. I have GH2 love it.. but I do know and show respect to the big dog 5D mk2 and mk3! I just love Panasonic and Canon too.. I wonder how NIKON's new D8000 with Full Frame and 36mp will do against the 5D mk3?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjbase Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 I have the GH2, also love it. I've been using the Mark III for more news events type of assignments. The GH2 I'm using more for feature type stories. I love using simple fast primes on the GH2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreams2movies Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 AGREED, wow, you own GH2 and 5D mk3.. Congrats! I will use this as all around but primarily features, cinematography and weddings, Which one do you choose as your photography camera? I have a nice little list of primes i have yet to buy.. the NOKTOR 12mm T1.6 is one of them.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjbase Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 I use the iPhone 4 as my personal camera. The Mark III is by default, my Mark II was stolen as was replace by the Mark III, I had no interest in getting the Mark III because of all the softness issues, I was even paying attention to cure for the softness.But I don't see it in my clips so I'm not going to worry about it. My two favorite lenses for the GH2 are the 12mm Olympus and 25mm Summicron. both are among the sharpest lenses I ever used. The 75mm Olympus is next...... dreams2movies 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreams2movies Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Kudos mate! I upgraded from the Olympus E-420 10mp beginner DSLR.. I was about to upgrade to OMD E-M5!!! I pre-ordered and everything!!! I saw that camera as dominating in photography, olympus being an underdog in photography.. It had 5 axis IBS (which I miss but for photography only), built in HDR (which I wished GH2 had but..), Olympus signature art filters (GH2 are filters are not as good, but looking better with LX7), and FULL HD video.. THIS was Olympus FRANKENSTEIN!!! The GH2 turned my head a FULL 180, when I saw it's awards and credits from its image and recording capabilities, it had 24fps, (OMD don't), Cinema mode (OMD don't), so much more for a filmmaker.. but Olympus m4/3 lenses are superb quality.. I wanted 12mm F2 but for $800, I saw the CINE lens by NOKTOR 12mm T1.6 for $550 does the Olympus 12mm AF and AE work with the GH2??? if so, that will persuade me to lean more towards their lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjbase Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 I use manually focus with all my micro43 lenses. I'm sure the GH2 works well in auto focus, just old school I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 You will see the softness big time on a huge screen - when compared to other cams on a huge screen. However, put some beautiful naked girl dancing with another beautiful naked girl and I really doubt anyone will give a shit. They'll call you the new Coppola :) Germy1979 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOONGOAT Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I thought the 5D3 looked good out of the box, but sharpened you really see how much better it can look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 [quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1345670128' post='16249'] You will see the softness big time on a huge screen - when compared to other cams on a huge screen. However, put some beautiful naked girl dancing with another beautiful naked girl and I really doubt anyone will give a shit. They'll call you the new Coppola :) [/quote] Have to agree... I highly doubt a pixel peeper would be saying, "oh man. Look at the macro blocking on those nipples. Terrible codec." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 LMAO!!! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelbb Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 That the 5D3 has a woefully soft image is just a stupid Internet myth promulgated by people who haven't used the camera. The image straight out of the camera it is no softer than the 5D2 that most everyone loves. Add a bit of sharpening in post & it looks better than the 5D2. It's not usually possible to add sharpening in post to the 5D2 due to aliasing problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjbase Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 Thanks guys, my audience is the iPad through either the NDN or Brightcove video servers, depending on how you open the video on the web. Will keep the sharpening in post in mine for any freelance work. What sharpening settings do you recommend using for FCP7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 24, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 24, 2012 [quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345811610' post='16400'] That the 5D3 has a woefully soft image is just a stupid Internet myth promulgated by people who haven't used the camera. The image straight out of the camera it is no softer than the 5D2 that most everyone loves. Add a bit of sharpening in post & it looks better than the 5D2. It's not usually possible to add sharpening in post to the 5D2 due to aliasing problems. [/quote] That it has a soft image requiring work in post isn't the only problem people have with the 5D3. 5D3 sits on my desk in front of me. It is soft. Yes it does sharpen up a bit in post. But still not as much resolving power as a $700 GH2. The codec on the FS100 is better. I could go on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelbb Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345824305' post='16421'] That it has a soft image requiring work in post isn't the only problem people have with the 5D3. 5D3 sits on my desk in front of me. It is soft. Yes it does sharpen up a bit in post. But still not as much resolving power as a $700 GH2. The codec on the FS100 is better. I could go on...[/quote]You choose to ignore the point that I made that straight out of the camera the 5D3 is no softer than the 5D2. It doesn't have the moire & aliasing of the 5D2 either. With a bit of sharpening in post it looks even better. It doesn't necessarily require work in post as it's all a matter of taste. All these cameras have good & bad points. The soft look of the 5Ds can either good or bad depending on the shot. The GH2 has horrible ergonomics & the FS100 isn't a shining example either unless you are used to the overcomplicated fussiness of Sony cameras covered with little buttons. The 5D3 is a perfectly decent camera for shooting video. It is in all ways better than the 5D2 that everyone knows & (mostly) loves. I don't care if the image out of the GH2 has a higher resolution as people don't look as nice as they do when filmed with a 5D2/5D3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonjak2 Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 [quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345826566' post='16426'] You choose to ignore the point that I made that straight out of the camera the 5D3 is no softer than the 5D2. It doesn't have the moire & aliasing of the 5D2 either. With a bit of sharpening in post it looks even better. It doesn't necessarily require work in post as it's all a matter of taste. All these cameras have good & bad points. The soft look of the 5Ds can either good or bad depending on the shot. The GH2 has horrible ergonomics & the FS100 isn't a shining example either unless you are used to the overcomplicated fussiness of Sony cameras covered with little buttons. The 5D3 is a perfectly decent camera for shooting video. It is in all ways better than the 5D2 that everyone knows & (mostly) loves. I don't care if the image out of the GH2 has a higher resolution as people don't look as nice as they do when filmed with a 5D2/5D3. [/quote] Andrew is biased towards the GH2, and has a real bitterness towards Canon for not producing the camera he wanted. He seems to prefer resolution over most things. It's an aesthetic taste. Surprising because the 5D3 can produce wonderful images that cut in really nicely with an Alexa. When this point is brought up by people who actually do this, it is ignored, so take that for what it's worth. This might be my last post, because people are also banned from this forum for voicing this opinion and accused of trolling. JHines 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markm Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 If you can sharpen the image then my question is Is it really soft? OR have canon simply left it unsharpened. If so that should be more filmic as a 35mm movie camera doesn't add sharpening either. Sharpening adds a black line around objects. I'd be more happy with a mark 3 that doesn't add sharpening. The Mark 3 is the easiest to get a film look with its dof control but without the background out of focus the images to me don't look that great and not as good as the GH2. Another problem area is the 8 bits and for that reason see it as a very nice tool that is a bit of a luxury for me as it can only do one thing albeit very very well. The GH2 to my mind has more resolution. So resolution with cheap price OR better dof control with 4 times the price on two still compromised cameras that for me are just placeholders till a proper camera like the BMC is here. Why waste money in the manufacturers game of now you have it now you dont crippling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonjak2 Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 [quote name='markm' timestamp='1345995782' post='16507'] If you can sharpen the image then my question is Is it really soft? OR have canon simply left it unsharpened. If so that should be more filmic as a 35mm movie camera doesn't add sharpening either. Sharpening adds a black line around objects. I'd be more happy with a mark 3 that doesn't add sharpening. The Mark 3 is the easiest to get a film look with its dof control but without the background out of focus the images to me don't look that great and not as good as the GH2. Another problem area is the 8 bits and for that reason see it as a very nice tool that is a bit of a luxury for me as it can only do one thing albeit very very well. The GH2 to my mind has more resolution. So resolution with cheap price OR better dof control with 4 times the price on two still compromised cameras that for me are just placeholders till a proper camera like the BMC is here. Why waste money in the manufacturers game of now you have it now you dont crippling [/quote] I would say Canon left it unsharpened, and rightly so, because generally in camera sharpening is poor. I would also say that until someone has the skill to create images like we've seen the mark II capable of (House etc), isn't it better to focus on lighting, composition, visual storytelling before looking for the next camera? The MKII, as Gale Tattersall (House DoP) pronounced, is capable of cinema quality images, so why not get to the point where you can make it look as good as he did, before criticising its failings. So many people trash cameras like the 5D MKII/III, but they can't even make it look as good as it's capable of. These days, cameras are way ahead of us and we need to catch up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markm Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 [i]I'm just voicing my opinion here and not trying to be argumentative.[/i] [i]Yes I agree the mark 3 is capable of cinema like images but ONLY because of its dof control and what the camera does with it. [/i] [i]I don't agree I need to catch up and I'm not buying into a one trick pony like the mark 3 Or make another of the endless demo shorts puportedly showing the mark 3 as a cinema camera because oh look the background is out of focus better than everyone elses.. I need a camera that can do it all. Thats not to say the mark 3 isn't good though it's just the GH2 can do certain things better at a lower cost. But lets face it both cameras on face value can take cinema quality images if you work around their shortcomings. The real problems turn into a nightmare when you have a cast and crew and a camera thats driving you nuts and then in post the 8 bit workflow means your colour correction or/and exposure is screwed.[/i] [i]We have lots of highly rated cameras out there that are crippled compromised and overpriced. At last we have a proper camera now that can make cinema images and that is the BMC and if the Kinefinity does get realised then the pro end will be open to all. [/i] [i]A camera like the GH2 or the mark 3 will either have to sell at about the £600 mark or find that people will go for the Kinefinity or BMC OR a cheap camera perhaps even a future i phone.[/i] [i]LONG LIVE THE BMC![/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 26, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 26, 2012 [quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1345999712' post='16510']The MKII, as Gale Tattersall (House DoP) pronounced, is capable of cinema quality images, so why not get to the point where you can make it look as good as he did, before criticising its failings. So many people trash cameras like the 5D MKII/III, but they can't even make it look as good as it's capable of. These days, cameras are way ahead of us and we need to catch up. [/quote] Undeniably Gale did a great job on House. There are also some very nice cut aways in modern blockbusters to 5D footage, usually as a crash cam. However why cripple yourself now better cameras are out for the same money? Look at what you gain vs what you lose, if you went for the 5D Mark III over the BMC. You'd gain: Wide angle faster than F2.8 Stills Usable ISO above 3200 You'd lose: 12 bit colour 4-2-2 sampling Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+) Raw codec Larger built in screen HD-SDI XLR Da Vinci Resolve (it comes in the box) $500 cheaper I believe the BMC is by far the better deal. We don't need to catch up to Canon, we need to catch up to Blackmagic and so do they. What people don't realise very often about the large sensor in the 5D Mark III is that it only has ONE advantage - the way it renders a lens. Shallower DOF all else equal (which is not actually what you always want on every shoot, every scene, every shot) and more choice of lenses at wide angle. It doesn't give any of the dynamic range, resolution or low light advantage in video mode that the sensor is capable of in stills mode. The Blackmagic's image shits all over the 5D Mark III. The only thing it can't do by comparison is 24mm F1.4 and ISO above 3200. 13 stops of dynamic range for $3000 is a much bigger deal than a full frame sensor which is crippled by a dreadful image processor and dated codec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.