bwhitz Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=494.msg3245#msg3245 date=1333131808] GH2 has great resolution but resolves around 780 lines ... [/quote] The GH2 certainly resolves much higher than 780 lines. I just did a comparison between the GH2 and the EX3 (proven 1000 line camera) and the GH2 still had more detail. The 5DII and 5DIII have about 700-750 lines of resolution... You have to remember... allot of these tests have ulterior motives. A 1000 line camera with 100mb/s and Intra frame motion for $800 is a serious threat to allot of people. Most C300 owners just don't want to believe there are cheaper cameras that have the same resolving power. It's all mind games they're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 i own gh2 and i think that c300 overpriced... 16000$ without 10 bit not in 2012 ... but its sharpest s35 1080p camera on market ... 780 line is lot of resolution (its sony f35 league) ... af100 mesure 680 .... and i dont think that canons go beyond 450- 500 lines... on dvx forum there people who claim 1000 line of canoon 5d mark III :) gh2 dont need that kind of defense ... it beats 7x more expensive camera it will take care of itself ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=MediaMan link=topic=494.msg3252#msg3252 date=1333138290] I'm a gearhead just like many of us here, but if it was only about charts and measurements most DSLRs would never have been embraced by filmmakers. Our audiences don't have the benefit of charts and react to the image striking their eyes . . . and their hearts :)[/quote] [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=494.msg3253#msg3253 date=1333139853]yeah ... i hate charts ... but i love details... ... there is reason why Christopher Nolan use 65 mm film ... we cant afford that but we should do best we can... [/quote] You are both right. Only two or three years ago there was[i] The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo[/i] in the swedish original, as a trilogy. Enormously successful in Europe. All the copies in the cinemas were really of extremely poor quality. Finchers american remake was mastered in 4k, and I saw it in 4k. Who saw both versions would have to admit, that the best quality there ever was didn't make the copy any better. Another film I saw in native 4k was Christopher Nolans [i]Inception[/i]. I am a fan, I like all his films, but this dream-action didn't convince me at all. Films transport ideas and emotions. If you rely on detail, you will instead produce wallpapers Do you remember diCaprio explaining, that an idea is the most powerful virus, because once you become aware of it, you can't get rid of it? I recommend [i]Drive[/i]. Clean 2D, 2k (sometimes lower, see 5D), first rate acting, cinematography, sound, music, action, emotion, suspence. It draws you into the story, it makes you aware of its ideas and developes them almost together with you. And all this has nothing to do with resolution. How much in percent is the contribution of relative resolution - as long as it is enough and not so bad that it distracts your attention - to the success of a film? Zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay shay Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Andrew, way to break the story of the FS700 on the net. Source comes from Taiwan... Well, who better to reveal an island's secrets than another island? 4K is great. Resolution matters. The GH2 is a perfect example. Undoubtedly superior to any stills camera's video mode and many dedicated video cameras. I know we all appreciate the still frame grabs and video streams from different cameras that Andrew comparatively exhibits. It's one of the unique points of this site. Resolution matters. And at a certain point, one in the near future, resolution will cease to be the bottleneck in the push for a better image. At a certain point most cameras and display devices will exceed what the human eye can take. Soon increased framerate will be realized and touted as the next holy grail in digital video imagery. Increased framerate will increase storage rates, but increase brightness, the integrity or stability of the Naturally, this is controversial: 30/60 is broadcast, news, it's VIDEO....24fps looks like....FILM. On most cameras today I agree with this argument. I shoot 24 frames per second on my GH2. But need it be this way. Is super 24 frames per second necessarily a death knell to good image quality? 24 fps was a standard designed for sound. And yet, on a phantom camera...640x480 (Remember Windows 3.x) at 2000 frames per second...looks beautiful. It is the frame rates, not the resolution, that is the true potential of the FS700. Say I, for whatever that is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riccardocovino Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 FS700 can be a real competitor, althought we have to see real resolution, dynamic range, noise, etc... What I don't really understand is why people in such comparisons never put RED Scarlet in the arena: 4K RAW is that bad?!? A base kit with canon mount is priced as a C300, and if I can spend 8-9k for Sony FS100 probably I can afford also a 13k RED Scarlet Kit. On the paper 4K RAW (and high speed frame rates at FullHD) is better than anything else, so what's wrong with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 red scarlet is a great camera but its not that user friendly ... batteries last less than 30 min .... red ssd are insanely expensive (cheapest ssd can recorde 55MB/s max red scarlet bitrate)... overpriced accessories not that good low light possibilities ... need more logistics ... basically is not run&gun camera.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote author=jay shay link=topic=494.msg3272#msg3272 date=1333178635]And at a certain point, one in the near future, resolution will cease to be the bottleneck in the push for a better image. At a certain point most cameras and display devices will exceed what the human eye can take.[/quote] You'd need about 8-10k to let no trace of any pixel-structure remain visible (or rather subliminally perceptible). When we [i]now[/i] talk about "detail" that needs to be depicted through high resolution, we no longer refer to the smallest distinguishable forms in the image (i.e. letters in a newspaper on the desk). This is achieved by 720p within the distance/image size we are used to (and was achieved with SD also because of the relatively small image). We are now talking about an aesthetic sensation of having less technical detail than ever before. The technical layer is less prominent. Will you confirm this: Adding more resolution than we already have, adds not one bit of information to the image (okay, it says "smoother"). Unless you belong to the X-Men, there is [i]no more detail[/i] to be recognized. Future further pixelgrowth will not change anything. But with the image sizes that become possible with 4k and beyond come big spaces in the image that spread a colour using only a few tonal steps, if everything is limited to 8-bit. If Christopher Nolan had to decide between higher than [i]normal[/i] resolution ([i]Avatar[/i] and almost every film until now was mastered in 2k only, see technical details on imdb) and lower bit-depth, I doubt very much he would choose the first. Christopher [i]who[/i]? [quote author=jay shay link=topic=494.msg3272#msg3272 date=1333178635]Soon increased framerate will be realized and touted as the next holy grail in digital video imagery. (...) Naturally, this is controversial: 30/60 is broadcast, news, it's VIDEO....24fps looks like....FILM. On most cameras today I agree with this argument. I shoot 24 frames per second on my GH2. But need it be this way. Is super 24 frames per second necessarily a death knell to good image quality?[/quote] I love controversies. But you are right, and you put it very well. One can hardly be against better quality. The point is, that the industry tells us that megapixels and quality mean the same, and this simply isn't true. Who subscribes to this lie, is prone to forget about why we like to watch motion pictures in the first place. There was an old paper about cinema resolutions ([url=http://etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf][u]here[/u][/url], right click save as) that concluded: [i]"If the ultimate end goal of cinema is to visually replicate the real world, then very high requirements result. The practical solutions will come from making intelligent compromises. There is also an element which states that a visual story telling medium will break down if it fully models the real world, and that there needs to be a gap for the imagination to fill."[/i] I agree. Only that the goal of cinema [i]can't[/i] be to replicate the real world. I'd never endure two hours in an uncomfortable seat for some superficial, banal crap. And here is a quote from Orson Welles: [i]"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations"[/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schol Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Panasonic found a solution against Canon & Sony. [b]Vitaly, the well knowed hacker of Lumix GH2 and Co is officialy recruited to collaborate on new Panasonic firmwares.[/b] A great news ! [url=http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2739/the-big-thing]http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2739/the-big-thing[/url] :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmMan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Vitaliy_Kiselev5:51PM Can you talk about the technical limits of the GH2? It need some research, as no one made it fully, as I understand. I know more about next Venus LSI limitations. [color=red][size=14pt][u][i][b]Thing is I don't know how Canon and Nikon are planning to sell their video DSLR after upcoming releases.[/b][/i][/u][/size][/color] 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmMan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Hopefully not an April Fools gag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 [quote author=FilmMan link=topic=494.msg3304#msg3304 date=1333235998] Hopefully not an April Fools gag.[/quote] Yes, actually Vitaly resurrected uncle Joes mummy. To be announced tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Its officially announced! [url=http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/sony-nex-fs700-cinema-camera/]http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/sony-nex-fs700-cinema-camera/[/url] Nice job on getting the accurate tip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Yep, it is official and will be here in June, just two months away. Last week I commented here that Canon should have priced the C300 at $8000 and released a 4k camera at the $16000 mark. Well, I was totally wrong. Now $5k looks too much for the C300 and they need to release a 4k res camera for $8000 which can also shoot super slowmo. Sony have shown us just how outrageous Canon's price gouging really is. 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.