Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member ydgmdlu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,922
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by bwwd View Post
    I didnt saw any filmic attempts yet but instead i was kinda disappointed that most of the footage looks like regular video with DOF ,maybe cause its mostly handheld and plants/animal tests.Still waiting for something nice...
    You might not realize this, but there's plenty of high quality 35mm film that "looks like regular video with DOF." We need to get over these biases. Digital video technology has progressed to the point where I have difficulty distinguishing film from video sometimes, except maybe that video looks a bit cleaner and sharper. Only a couple of years ago, the difference was easy to spot.

    I'm saying that Philip's footage looks plenty "filmic" to me.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member Isaac_Brody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7,897
    Default
    Most of the available footage has only used natural light and without much control. I'm sure this camera can look much more "filmic" with reflectors and silks and flags and gels. I plan on breaking out my lights when I get mine.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by bwwd View Post
    with DOF
    You mean lack hereof.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member Jim Klatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    571
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Isaac_Brody View Post
    Most of the available footage has only used natural light and without much control.
    Natural light does not inhibit something from looking like it was shot on film.

    I also think that is part of my point, in the way that it handles situations where there is less control like the light blowing out a little. That is part of the look. I don't want to have to be in certain situations for it to sell the look that I like.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member Isaac_Brody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7,897
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Klatt View Post
    Natural light does not inhibit something from looking like it was shot on film.
    Obviously, however there are techniques that filmmakers use when shooting in natural light. Such as using reflectors to provide fill on an actors face, 12x12 silks, or staging action so sunlight acts as a rim light. The footage available right now isn't doing much to control natural light. And if you shoot film without control in bright sunlight it's very easy to bake the latitude and get video results. I think Phillip Bloom has gotten the most filmic results in natural light because he knows how to stage his action and compositions to take advantage of available light.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C.
    Posts
    2,832
    Default
    If anybody doesn't want to use the camera because it doesn't look "filmic" they don't have to buy it. That simple. Who cares who doesn't like the look? I am going to buy it, shoot with it and make money from it. Thats what matters to me. Kholi is already on his way to that. A music video will make your investment back! And it is a perfect camera for that. The footage will look as "filmic" as the capabilities of the cinematographer to make it look like so. Whoever is not capable of doing that should put his/her money somewhere else.


    BTW: I just put both Phiip Bloom's videos, in Austin and on Joshua Tree, on a DVD and check it out on my TV and I just have to say Wow! I can't wait to get mine.
    Last edited by John Caballero; 05-21-2009 at 02:41 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member Jim Klatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    571
    Default
    No doubt, Isaac. I know Kholi was using ultracon filters to attempt to flatten the contrast. So there are no settings in the camera that would let you lessen the contrast to a level similar to the range he is reaching with the ultracon filter? I suppose that is a better question for Kholi.

    The other thing that has me concerned is the 24p motion via pulldown. I will have to wait until there are more NTSC footage examples with movement from people etc, somewhere down the line when more people have the camera. All of the nature stuff is great, but it is more revealing to see people.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member Jim Klatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    571
    Default
    I would kill for the Gh1's ability to step a Nikon micro lense way down to get more DOF. I am dp on documentary and have been using the D90 for macro cutaways, but cannot step the lense down beyond 8 or so, which leaves a very thin focal plane for moving critters.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member Isaac_Brody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7,897
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Klatt View Post
    I would kill for the Gh1's ability to step a Nikon micro lense way down to get more DOF. I am dp on documentary and have been using the D90 for macro cutaways, but cannot step the lense down beyond 8 or so, which leaves a very thin focal plane for moving critters.
    How does the footage look? I would think the bigger challenge would be the skew on a D90 to follow those moving critters.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member Jim Klatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    571
    Default
    I am very happy with the footage. The skew is absent when I am able to use a heavier tripod. But when I am on the ground, I haven't really been able to move very much at all. It's not really in the budget to invest in a tiny tripod with a good head for macro work at this point.

    The focus is a killer if the object is moving to or from the focal place. I am pretending it is part of the style to have objects go in and out of focus, lol. It actually looks pretty cool regardless. I will post some stuff up in the d90 section when I have time.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •