Audience reaction to Revenge Of The Great Camera Shootout puts GH2 in 3rd place behind Alexa and F65

[jaybirch]

I've used the C300 and Scarlet... the resolution is better, especially with a touch of sharpening, in post... From what I have seen from the F3, i'd say the same (the Gh2 is very close though)

I think the C300 codec is better. 4:2:2 and 50mbps beats 4:2:0 and mega high kbps. Of course, that is just my opinion. The other cams beat the Gh2... goes without saying (assuming you use an external recorder with the F3)

I haven't seen this zacuto test, but unless they lit the whole scene for around 9 stops, then latitude and rolloff becomes a major limitation of the Gh2 (in my eyes). Even Joe Public will respond well to nice latitude, roll off and colour (more so than resolution). This is why I would like to hear far more opinions on this shoot out before the internet starts toasting the GH2. Maybe this guy was pixel peeping for a certain aspect (say, noise)... and didn't take in the whole aesthetic.

I love everything about the GH2, for the price and size.... But it suffers big time for latitude and rolloff. In controlled lighting though, I would happily use it on a bigger job.

[MANYHANDS]

Great see the option is there for people who can only afford the GH2 - but if this test is anything like the others, they will have spent a fortune on lights and rigs to keep the cameras steady. Whatever happened to handheld! The lowest budget film-making technique of them all. We don't have much budget for our feature "The Redistributors" - but by using the C300 we have been able to save on lights and rigs etc.

It has been a joy to be able to include "Bourne" style wobbles - as you see in this concept trailer (shot by Marek Mysicka):

https://vimeo.com/42199857

[MaxAperture Films]

MH,

Nice shots.  Post that trailer over at Zero Hedge and you may get a fair amount of exposure and even some financial backing for the feature.

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=MANYHANDS link=topic=738.msg5472#msg5472 date=1337345021]
Whatever happened to handheld! The lowest budget film-making technique of them all.
[/quote]

I think you mean "laziest" technique of them all. But it's put to good use in your trailer. What type of stabilizer did you use?

I actually watched the clip thinking it was the GH2, and I was halfway to b&h before I noticed it was done on the c300.  I love that camera, but I'm waiting for it to come down in price a bit.

As far as 4K projection and RED goes, this 4k nonsense needs to stop. Red can't even do true 1080 (24bit pixels, like our screens). Let's get 1080 done right before we move on to 3K and 4K.

[Sean Cunningham]

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5475#msg5475 date=1337358835]
[quote author=MANYHANDS link=topic=738.msg5472#msg5472 date=1337345021]
Whatever happened to handheld! The lowest budget film-making technique of them all.
[/quote]

I think you mean "laziest" technique of them all. But it's put to good use in your trailer.
...
[/quote]

Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy.  It's part of the grammar of visual storytelling and as appropriate or out-of-place as a dolly shot.  Successful camera technique is arguably more dependent on its thoughtful pairing with content than it is on its specific technical execution.

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002]
Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy. 
[/quote]

I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective.

[PAVP]

I'm a longtime Audio Pro that is a now a Newbie Video guy and for years i've been very keen to the virtues of using gear within it's range of strength.  So long as you know the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of gear you can work within that range and get some very surprisingly high quality results.  The same goes for a camera like the GH2 or GH1 or any DSLR for that matter.  If you go in knowing how far you can push the camera before it reaches it's limits then you can make a great film that no audience member would be distracted by the quality of the image.  OF COURSE an Epic or Alexa is better!  Those guys bashing the GH2 over at Reduser are funny.  Why be so dismissive?

There isn't ONE acceptable film look or quality level!!!  So why is it that some talk as if you simply can't make a good film with a camera as cheap as the GH2?  I just watched a movie called "Haywire" which was done by Steven Soderbergh using a Red One.  I don't know what lens he was using but you could see that all the straight lines in the movie were curved which for me was quite noticeable and somewhat distracting and on top of that he did some strange things with the Color Grading.  He used pretty much only available light.  Mind you this was a $23 million dollar movie!!! 

He made specific aesthetic decisions that I may not have liked and that certainly didn't give the film a very high end look, but he wasn't trying to make it look like a high res modern sci fi movie.  He wanted a very specific look that fit the story he was telling which was a kind of gritty action spy movie.  He wanted to give the movie an Art House look and he did accomplish that.  Surely an independent guy looking to make a movie with a unique look could use a low cost DSLR to get the job done so long as it serves to tell the story and give him the look he's looking for. 

[markm]

[quote author=jaybirch link=topic=738.msg5471#msg5471 date=1337343248]
I've used the C300 and Scarlet... the resolution is better, especially with a touch of sharpening, in post... From what I have seen from the F3, i'd say the same (the Gh2 is very close though)

I think the C300 codec is better. 4:2:2 and 50mbps beats 4:2:0 and mega high kbps. Of course, that is just my opinion. The other cams beat the Gh2... goes without saying (assuming you use an external recorder with the F3)

I haven't seen this zacuto test, but unless they lit the whole scene for around 9 stops, then latitude and rolloff becomes a major limitation of the Gh2 (in my eyes). Even Joe Public will respond well to nice latitude, roll off and colour (more so than resolution). This is why I would like to hear far more opinions on this shoot out before the internet starts toasting the GH2. Maybe this guy was pixel peeping for a certain aspect (say, noise)... and didn't take in the whole aesthetic.

I love everything about the GH2, for the price and size.... But it suffers big time for latitude and rolloff. In controlled lighting though, I would happily use it on a bigger job.
[/quote]

Jay that's why in my opinion the GH2 is semi pro and for what £600??? You could still get decent results that no one will notice the difference between the higher end cams.

But in any case if you want the last word in PRO get the BMC Thats certainly what I want and cant wait to relegate my GH2 to crash cam or backup. Personally I dont like the way the GH2 handles. I know you get a stonking picture but to me it doesnt feel like a video camera. which it isnt.

I wouldn't place the GH2 over the C300 or the F3 but you can get near or sometimes even better results. I certainly couldnt justify buying the C300 or the F3 over a GH2 and now with the BMC youd have to be plain mental.

[Caleb Genheimer]

I say wait and see on the BMC, or even wait till the 3rd generation. The important thing about the BMC is not necessarily the cam itself, but what it is hopefully going to push the whole camera industry to start doing . . . move to the next level (RAW). I hope it is an amazing camera, I really do. But it is a first product, remember that. I suspect it might have its fair share of shortcomings. RED did when those first started, and look where they are now. Wait, trust me.

[jaybirch]

The GH2 can be used in a professional capacity... No doubt about it. I've paid for mine many, many times over.

I was very close to jumping in with the BMCC.... But realised I don't [b]need[/b] to buy right now, so will be patient and see the results of the first batch. Sounds very interesting though.

I care mainly about DR, rolloff and skin tone... It seems to check all the boxes.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5477#msg5477 date=1337366303]
[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002]
Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy. 
[/quote]

I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective.
[/quote]

You are not understanding this. It isn't about effort, it is about choosing the style for the scene.

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5484#msg5484 date=1337380811]
[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5477#msg5477 date=1337366303]
[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002]
Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy. 
[/quote]

I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective.
[/quote]

You are not understanding this. It isn't about effort, it is about choosing the style for the scene.
[/quote]

You mean making art involves choosing styles? No way?!

I got it. I was informally digging on handheld shots because another poster called it the lowest-budget method of all. The truth is, a lot of people use hand held shots because it's a hell of a lot easier (in most cases), and not because it's the best style for the scene.   

[Jon]

.

[Jon]

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5485#msg5485 date=1337383990]
[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5484#msg5484 date=1337380811]
[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5477#msg5477 date=1337366303]
[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002]
Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy. 
[/quote]

I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective.
[/quote]

You are not understanding this. It isn't about effort, it is about choosing the style for the scene.
[/quote]

You mean making art involves choosing styles? No way?!

I got it. I was informally digging on handheld shots because another poster called it the lowest-budget method of all. The truth is, a lot of people use hand held shots because it's a hell of a lot easier (in most cases), and not because it's the best style for the scene. 
[/quote]


Whether you shoot handheld or on a tripod/dolly does not make something harder/easier. It is all about the right style for the story. Handheld when done properly takes incredible skill, just watch some of Barry Ackroyd's work. Lazyness is bad visual storytelling, it has nothing to do with handheld. I think you very much underestimate the difficulty and skill required to create great visual storytelling whatever the style.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5485#msg5485 date=1337383990]I got it. I was informally digging on handheld shots because another poster called it the lowest-budget method of all. The truth is, a lot of people use hand held shots because it's a hell of a lot easier (in most cases), and not because it's the best style for the scene. 
[/quote]

That didn't come across.

Anyway... so what if most people shoot handheld because it is convenient? If it works it works. Not everything needs to be shot on a slider.

[Illya Friedman]

I was at the Hollywood screening.  To say that it evoked a strong reaction in some is to put it mildly.  That being said, during the "blind" portion of the test, several people brave enough to give their "best of" picks, named the still unnamed GH2 as one of their favorites. 

When the cameras were revealed I noticed at least two people who named the GH2 flip-flopped and slammed it as inferior to the others, which was ridiculous, the GH2 did do very, very, well in the test.

I think that the ranking given by the Australian author got it right when he named the order of F65, Alexa and then GH2---for that test.  But the ranking doesn't tell you everything, in this test it was not about just the camera, but how everything contributed to the final image- including time.

No one involved in the test is claiming that the GH2 is a "better" camera than the more expensive cameras that placed lower- only that the GH2 shot looked better over some of the other cameras- and that has a lot to do with the PEOPLE and CHOICES made during the re-light and grade- not just the technology.

Now the screen for Hollywood was not that big, I sat in the front row about 1x screen height away, and I managed to pick out 7 of 9 cameras correctly.  There were many people (particularly critical people) sitting in the far back area of the theater.  For a point of reference in this theater sitting in the back row would be akin to watching a movie at the Cinerama Dome not from a theater seat or even the lobby, but from all the way across Sunset Blvd.  You can't make good judgement calls particularly from such a distance, particularly about resolution.

I do have a critical eye, so I'm not totally surprised that I was able to pick the cameras with such accuracy.  However, I think it's interesting to note that the two camera I picked incorrectly was the Red Epic and the Sony FS100 (I switched the two).

Perhaps the last thing that's worth mentioning is that Canon requested that the Canon cameras use a Canon zoom, while all the other cameras (save the iPhone) used a beautiful Fujinon Premeir Zoom- including the GH2 courtesy of a Hot Rod PL adapter that I loaned Zacuto for the test.

Even though the GH2 did look extremely good, it was not without fault.  The only reason I could pick it out from the other cameras was a particular telltale GH2 artifact that is in the shot.  Anyone sitting back much further than I was sitting probably wouldn't even be able to see the artifact.

From the 7D to the F65 there was probably about a 15% range of  of the qualitative difference in the subjective images appearance- that means in the test the F65 probably looked about 15% better than the 7D.  Now the F65 is about 100,000x a better motion picture camera than the 7D, but that was about the apparent difference in the test.  All the other cameras fell somewhere between the 7D and the F65 with the exception of the iPhone, which clearly looked inferior to the others.  Of course it was given an impressed grade, that did a good job in masking the iPhone's lack of resolution, poor frame rate and dynamic range, but it could not completely hide all of the iPhone faults.

Even though the test angered some people (for both respectable, and not so respectable rasons/beliefs) I think the test is simply wonderful.  If anyone had done a competent test like this before, they would know that this results were not any big surprised.  I thought it was well known that it is 100% possible to make most formats look like each other if care is taken at the time of shooting (and the short is short enough).  However, for folks who haven't done this sort of thing before, (more people than I thought) the Zacuto test proves to be a real eye opener.

I cant wait for it to hit the web.  I expect the difference to be far more subtle watching on the we- but still that the F65, Alexa and GH2 will still look like the "best" of the test.

Illya Friedman
President
Hot Rod Cameras
Hollywood, CA
www.hotrodcameras.com

[tttulio]

Great, They just finished it and it is now irrelevant as it is missing the BlackMagic Design Camera...

[Caleb Genheimer]

Hey, @Illya Friedman! You gotta hit up the LA rental houses and get one of them to buy one of your tuner S-kits. I was in LA last semester, and I advised (I still stand by this advice, it made the film) our director to use PL mount SuperSpeeds. So our DP rented the 18 and 50mm, and what he thought was an S-kit from a rental house where I was interning. I stopped the presses on the supposed "S-kit" when I discovered it was being sub rented and was actually an AF100 kit. Long story short, after hours of phone calls, nobody in town has the S-kit AFAIK. Thank God that I rented the adaptor for my GH2 just for the heck of it, (Who wouldn't with two unused SuperSpeeds), and that I was smart enough to look up M4/3 and E-mount flange distances. With a little gaff tape to block light and a lot of careful setup, we got the AF100 kit in front of the FS100 (I think think in the end what had happened was the similar names confused the rental agent over the phone).

[Caleb Genheimer]

[quote author=tttulio link=topic=738.msg5496#msg5496 date=1337434884]
Great, They just finished it and it is now irrelevant as it is missing the BlackMagic Design Camera...
[/quote]

AHA! I see what you did there  ;D

Gosh, they'll just have to make another one  ;)

[eosjames]

@Illya:
Thanks for the great summary. Its nice to know about the 15% qualitative difference and that you confirmed the GH2 results. I met you one time at a meeting in Mountain View at a nice Studio. Canon was there as well. That was literally the first day i wanted to buy a dSLR and go forward in filmmaking.