jonpais Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I first saw this video over at 43 rumors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varicam Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Very nice! I wonder what kind of lens it was shot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sudopera Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 It was part of a review at Cinema5D, you can find more info there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varicam Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Thanks. Wow. 98% was shot on the G X Vario 12-35mm. That's the same lens I ordered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 Very nice! I wonder what kind of lens it was shot on. At first I thought Johnnie Behiri was using some fantastically expensive cine lenses or something, but it turns out he used the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and 7-14mm f/4 lenses. Some viewers commented on the Vimeo website about rolling shutter, underexposure and how the clip looks like video, not film, which I think just goes to show how insane some of these pixel peepers have become. I never would have guessed footage like this would be possible on a camera costing less than $2,000. I think the skin tones are beautiful, detail in the outdoor shots is wonderful, and close ups have bokeh that is satisfying enough for my eyes. And I was viewing this at 2.5K, with all of the problems associated with compression. Again, I guess you don't need to have umpteen zillion lenses to do good work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Looks great. Goes to show how much a beautiful set can instantly skyrocket production value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varicam Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 If I could shoot like that, I'll be happy for quite a while. jonpais 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damphousse Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Some viewers commented on the Vimeo website about rolling shutter, underexposure and how the clip looks like video, not film, which I think just goes to show how insane some of these pixel peepers have become. Pixel peepers? You are using that word but I don't think you know what it means. This was a test video and it did have rolling shutter artificats. You don't have to observe the video in 4k on a pixel level to see that and it is a valid observation. Again, I guess you don't need to have umpteen zillion lenses to do good work. The aforementioned rolling shutter is one of the reasons I prefer OEM stabilized lenses to exotic all manual primes. I reach for primes when I need apetures of 1.4 or larger. If 2.8 works then I use my zoom that lives on my Canon. All these people looking to spend a fortune on a bunch of primes when they are starting out baffles me. I dropped $800 on a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS and it lives on my T3i. I break out the 50mm 1.4 for night filming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rndmtsk Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Is the aliasing in the bookshelves due to his compression or the size I'm viewing it at or something? Downloaded the file but it's still present in the first and second shot at fullscreen. Don't have a 4K monitor, but hoping/assuming this isn't being introduced by camera..? edit: first and third shot. also seeing a little on the organs later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Is the aliasing in the bookshelves due to his compression or the size I'm viewing it at or something? Downloaded the file but it's still present in the first and second shot at fullscreen. Don't have a 4K monitor, but hoping/assuming this isn't being introduced by camera..? edit: first and third shot. also seeing a little on the organs later on. People who downloaded the 4k file and watched it on their 4k monitor reported it was still there. My guess is, this is caused by in-camera sharpness, making the edges of the books come alive during pans. As AaronChicago pointed out in another thread, 'incredible sharpness' is just that: incredible. The higher the resolution, the more an image suffers from irrelevant details, you shouldn't then accentuate that further. Had they dialed down sharpness, there probably wouldn't have been this aliasing. EDIT: I see. They say: "Camera settings used in this video:• Photo style: Cinelike D (all set to 0)" The GH4 may indeed be in need of a Digital Diffusion filter. We have seen good resolution in digital cinema, but never did the image burst apart into individual pixels. Watch the famous Nolan examples, there very often is some kind of fog smoothing the edges and adding depth to the 2D image. What's also causing a videoish look is the harsh clipping of the windows, another reason for using a soft filter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 A viewer mentioned seeing moire (I assume they were referring to the aliasing on the books but I could be mistaken) and Johnnie replied that when they projected the original, it was virtually free of moire. 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.