24 p what is it good for?

[Ian-T]

come on we have every right to moan i moan about my cars faults as well is that bloody wrong as well.There is a lot of moaning about the battery[which i have no problems with]maybe people like me should have realised pal 24P is crap but never having used it is my excuse.

Not saying you can't (or shouldn't) complain but a some point it's a wash. If you complain do it the right way....to the ones who count....Panasonic. I think it sucks that this camera does not have 25p. But if enough of you let your voice be heard the right way then change might come in the form of a software update. Until then the smart thing to do is buy a camera that you know can do what you want it to do (like shoot 25p). To me it doesn't make sense to knowingly buy a product that doesn't do what you want it to do only to afterward complain about it. It's kind of like.....setting yourself up for failure....don't you think?

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, I didn't read pages 14-20, but I need to go to bed. I'll throw this out and shutdown.
I had a little conversation over at EOSHD the other day related to this, and again I see what
appears to me as a glaring oversite among everybody in this thread.

You should probably read through the entire thread before you declare anything a "glaring oversight."

So, at the risk of being
wrong (but I truly doubt it), I'll just say what I take to be an obvious thing: The broadcast TV
industry will be dead in 20 years like film is dead now. Panasonic would have left out the 24p
too if it weren't for the nostalgic hearts of industry old timers. TVs and computers will be the
same physical thing in 10 years. People will do their own weekly programming by selecting what programs
to download and cache (bought/rented/free-commercialed). Everybody will be making content and big
industry won't be so big.

With the exception of increased downloading of content, this is . . . . entirely wrong. And not just as a matter of opinion, but empirically so.

I mean, seriously, if you simply declare "film is dead," you're not exactly starting from a rock-solid foundation.

It's a huge huge huge mistake to say that the GH1/GH2 is just a still camera with video capacity.
Nikon, Canon and Olympus make still cameras with video capacity.

All of those cameras are functionally the same. There's nothing so special about the GH1/GH2 that they're bona fide pro video tools when the others aren't.

These cameras and the internet are death to
the traditional broadcasting system (and Sony), and it appears that they don't see it coming.

Do you know how many things were supposedly going to be the death of broadcasting? The death of Hollywood? The death of film?

I think
Panasonic just didn't want to waste anymore time with annoying inconsistencies, and might have
thought that just such subtle pressure on europe could help accelerate the transition, due to the
europeans predeliction to buy efficient technology/trends faster (and at disproportionately higher
prices) than americans.

I think you should take a gander at Panasonic's actual video production line.

 

[flinty]

Not saying you can't (or shouldn't) complain but a some point it's a wash. If you complain do it the right way....to the ones who count....Panasonic. I think it sucks that this camera does not have 25p. But if enough of you let your voice be heard the right way then change might come in the form of a software update. Until then the smart thing to do is buy a camera that you know can do what you want it to do (like shoot 25p). To me it doesn't make sense to knowingly buy a product that doesn't do what you want it to do only to afterward complain about it. It's kind of like.....setting yourself up for failure....don't you think?

Ian you dont get it i thought 24p on the GH2 was good even pal,i dont think pana will listen us either but i am not one of the forever wanting film look people and find the GHs 19201080i ok and i like a bit of bite with nice colors rather than the week looking soft as ---t look that many seem to strive for,still cant help missing that 25P though and if a hack ever comes heaven help me i have never done one.

 

[isle]

Now this is an exact comparison. The iPhone has a really pretty decent camera on it, and at least one filmmaker has put it to use to make a movie with it. But it doesn't shoot at 24p (or 25p), and it wasn't designed for that purpose. If you choose to use it anyway, you accept that you're putting it to a use for which it was not designed.

The GH2 is not a cinema camera. It's something that microcinema filmmakers are trying to adapt into cinema use, but that doesn't make it a cinema camera. It is perhaps the most suitable DSLR-type camera to adapt to the purpose, but it still isn't made for it -- it doesn't even have a headphone jack...

Yep, if you wan't camera for internet videos and stuff, buy GH2. If you wan't cinema camera for serious work, buy RED.

 

[mimirsan]

Yep, if you wan't camera for internet videos and stuff, buy GH2. If you wan't cinema camera for serious work, buy RED.

Yep,Stunningly pretentious...See Monsters,Black swan. Two recent "serious" works....any RED involvement?

2 things people foolishly beleive...4k makes films...expensive equipment makes films. Absolute nonsense!

Very simply put....CREATIVITY MAKES FILMS!

There is plenty of people out there who have shot films with dslr's that have been serious work,documentaries,broadcasted media,Independant films,etc etc.

You can pay out $$$ for a RED and your final film can turn out to be only good enough for you tube.

A DSLR is no less a filmaking tool than any other.

 

[Barry_Green]

A DSLR is no less a filmaking tool than any other.

I can agree with a lot of what you said, but definitely can't agree with that last line. A DSLR is much less of a filmmaking tool than an AF100, which is less of a filmmaking tool than a Red One, which is less of a filmmaking tool than an Alexa.

In each case, the lesser product... just does "less." Therefore it is inherently lesser.

Can films be made with a DSLR? Of course they can. But they can also be made on a DVX100 (multiple Oscar-nominated films have been made on the DVX) and they can also be made on Super 8 film and they can also be made on BetaSP 60i video. However, I don't think there's anyone around who would argue that a 60i BetaSP camcorder is as much of a filmmaking tool as an Arri Alexa. Some products are just better at doing certain jobs than others are. You can unscrew screws with a coin, but that doesn't mean a coin is a screwdriver.

 

[David Jimerson]

Yep,Stunningly pretentious...See Monsters,Black swan. Two recent "serious" works....any RED involvement?

2 things people foolishly beleive...4k makes films...expensive equipment makes films. Absolute nonsense!

Very simply put....CREATIVITY MAKES FILMS!

There is plenty of people out there who have shot films with dslr's that have been serious work,documentaries,broadcasted media,Independant films,etc etc.

You can pay out $$$ for a RED and your final film can turn out to be only good enough for you tube.

A DSLR is no less a filmaking tool than any other.

Obviously, RED isn't the only game in town.

Obviously, a talented and skilled cinematographer can make something with a Pixelvision which is more film-like and more pleasing than someone who has no clue can with a Varicam.

But a Pixelvision is still not "just as good" as a Varicam because of it.

And a DSLR IS significantly less a "filmmaking tool" than an actual cinema camera. (I mean, come ON -- if it weren't you'd have no cause to complain about its shortcomings AS a filmmaking tool.)

If you can make a good film with it, then more power to you. But pretending it's something it's not doesn't do anyone any good, least of all YOU if you wish to advance your own skill and product in the craft.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

This is liking walking onto a car lot and wanting a certain car but then getting upset it isn't available as a 4 wheel drive.

Entertaining read though.

 

[mimirsan]

I can agree with a lot of what you said, but definitely can't agree with that last line. A DSLR is much less of a filmmaking tool than an AF100, which is less of a filmmaking tool than a Red One, which is less of a filmmaking tool than an Alexa.

In each case, the lesser product... just does "less." Therefore it is inherently lesser.

Can films be made with a DSLR? Of course they can. But they can also be made on a DVX100 (multiple Oscar-nominated films have been made on the DVX) and they can also be made on Super 8 film and they can also be made on BetaSP 60i video. However, I don't think there's anyone around who would argue that a 60i BetaSP camcorder is as much of a filmmaking tool as an Arri Alexa. Some products are just better at doing certain jobs than others are. You can unscrew screws with a coin, but that doesn't mean a coin is a screwdriver.

But how is one perceived inferior? Because its cheaper? Im addressing a point that ANYTHING that shoots a moving image IS a filmaking tool.

Dude. Look.

Obviously, RED isn't the only game in town.

Obviously, a talented and skilled cinematographer can make something with a Pixelvision which is more film-like and more pleasing than someone who has no clue can with a Varicam.

But a Pixelvision is still not "just as good" as a Varicam because of it.

And a DSLR IS significantly less a "filmmaking tool" than an actual cinema camera. (I mean, come ON -- if it weren't you'd have no cause to complain about its shortcomings AS a filmmaking tool.)

You may WISH it was "no less" a filmmaking tool. You may BEG for it to be "no less" a filmmaking tool. But it's a still camera which shoots video. If you can make a good film with it, then more power to you. But pretending it's something it's not doesn't do anyone any good, least of all YOU if you wish to advance your own skill and product in the craft.

And that mindset is just as limited.

 

[Barry_Green]

But how is one perceived inferior? Because its cheaper?

Well, "inferior" and "superior" would be based on -- does one do everything the other does, just as well? If it doesn't do everything that the other one does, it is inferior. If it does everything the other one does, but not as well, then it is also inferior.

A lightbulb and a candle are both lights. One is obviously far superior to the other. Lightbulbs are far brighter, more convenient, less of a hazard, can be used in windy environments, etc. The candle is also a lighting instrument, but any rational person would have to say that it is, generally speaking, an inferior lighting instrument as compared to a lightbulb.

So it is with the DLSR vs. others. It has nothing to do with price point. I happen to believe that the GH2 is a vastly superior filmmaking tool as compared to the Canon 5D, yet the GH2 is 1/3 the price. But I also think the GH2 is a supremely inferior filmmaking tool as compared to the AF100 -- and the AF100 is almost 5x the price. It's not about pricetag, it's about capability.

Im addressing a point that ANYTHING that shoots a moving image IS a filmaking tool

Well, that's a different statement, and one I could agree with. Had you said "The DSLR is a filmmaking tool", that would have been understandable. But when you say "it is no less than any other", then that's just something that doesn't make sense. Of course it's less. It's far less. And, it's also extremely less expensive, which compensates for it.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

But how is one perceived inferior? Because its cheaper? Im addressing a point that ANYTHING that shoots a moving image IS a filmaking tool.



And that mindset is just as limited.

Your point is valid but surely you get Barry and David's point ?

You're not going to talk anyone into agreeing that a DSLR is as good as a RED for filmmaking. Yes, we can make films with anything, but come now.

 

[David Jimerson]

But how is one perceived inferior? Because its cheaper? Im addressing a point that ANYTHING that shoots a moving image IS a filmaking tool.

A paper towel can spread paint, but you're not going to paint a wall with one. If you insist that a paper towel is "no less" a professional painter's tool, then you're not going to get very far in the painting biz.

And that mindset is just as limited.

The "mindset" that some tools are better than others for specific purposes? See above.

 

[roei z]

GH2 is very limited and demand a limited way of film making. doesn't mean you cannot make a feature with it.

 

[mimirsan]

Hey guys dont get me wrong here I do get the point your making in that the RED is "designed" for filmmaking and I dont want this to manifest somekind of stupid RED vs DSLR debate...but can you really agree with what Ilse stated that only a RED is a serious filmmaking tool REALLY?!
Its insulting to those guys who shoot great films with what they have.

C'mon paper towel? The RED does not cost the price of a paintbrush and wont neccesarily make you paint better either. Its not that a affordable option for Indie filmakers.

New young filmakers for example should be encouraged to shoot with what they can with...going with this "unless its a Aston martin then its not a car" attitude just isnt productive to filmaking as a whole....not to mention worrying from guys in the industry.

Dont cling to technology too much.

Technology is changing fast. Its even easier now to get yourself a great camera,decent editing/FX tools and make a polished final output on a very limited budget...its going to get even easier...Tv's are getting bigger at lower cost. Direct downloading to your tv is becoming the norm and y'know 4k cameras for prosumers is around the corner. This is just the way its going to go. The future of Cinema? Who knows.

BTW if the coin does the job well enough then nothing wrong with it ...plus its more portable ;-)

Back to 24p debate...Im not moaning myself I'll just stick with my GH1 for now...my paper towel ;-)

Peace!

 

[isle]

Lets face it, if people could shoot with any camera they want, everyone would be shooting with RED EPIC.

 

[memphishills]

Lets face it, if people could shoot with any camera they want, everyone would be shooting with RED EPIC.

I disagree, I'd probably shoot with an Alexa.

 

[David Jimerson]

mimirsan, we specifically said that RED wasn't the only camera you can make movies with, and you could make movies with a DSLR.

What we take issue with is the idea that a DSLR is "no less" of a tool than other, dedicated, specific tools. It's significantly less.

It's not a matter of "clinging" to technology. It's a matter of choosing a tool which makes your job easier and more productive, or one which makes your job much, much, much harder, but costs a lot less. And yes, shooting with a DSLR is a much more difficult and much more laborious thing than shooting with an actual video or digital cinema camera. The point isn't that you can't make a film with a DSLR. The point is that it's a comparatively miserable process full of compromises and involving much more time and effort to do it -- and indeed, there are still things you simply cannot do with a DSLR that you can with a tool designed for the purpose.

So, yes, paper towels -- or let's say the foam edging brushes. Edging brushes are meant to carry and spread paint. But are you really going to choose one to paint a whole wall, just because they're 60 cents each, or are you going to get yourself a roller, a pole, and a pan? That is absolutely the same kind of choice you're making, and you're accusing others of "clinging" or having a "limited mindset" because they're telling you that yes, the roller is better for the job.

As for "the future" -- no one's arguing that things will change, even in ways we can't imagine.

But that doesn't change anything about the present and what exists now. A GH2 isn't on a filmmaking par with a Varicam, or even the AF100, simply because in the future, technology will change.

 

[VideoDSLR]

A slightly tiresome view David, one that is quite outdated actually.

DSLRs made the production of Danfung Dennis's To Hell and Back possible, let alone easier. Made the job harder? Not in all cases I think you'll find.

There are also ENG crews and journalists being hauled off into dark alleys in Egypt right at this very moment. Had they been shooting with GH2s and Lumix lenses, they'd still be news-gathering.

And you might then say, 'why not just use a compact / camcorder then'? Well, go and watch To Hell and Back or Undercity to see why a 35mm photographic sensor in a small basic consumer camera is the right tool for the job.

 

[hazna]

Reading about Black Swan I realize the filming and post production process was on a level miles above all of us.
Next time I hear "black swan" being called an INDY film I will trow up.

Yep,Stunningly pretentious...See Monsters,Black swan. Two recent "serious" works....any RED involvement?

2 things people foolishly beleive...4k makes films...expensive equipment makes films. Absolute nonsense!

Very simply put....CREATIVITY MAKES FILMS!

There is plenty of people out there who have shot films with dslr's that have been serious work,documentaries,broadcasted media,Independant films,etc etc.

You can pay out $$$ for a RED and your final film can turn out to be only good enough for you tube.

A DSLR is no less a filmaking tool than any other.

 

[Barry_Green]

but can you really agree with what Ilse stated that only a RED is a serious filmmaking tool REALLY?!

Of course not. Red One's pretty good, but there are many, many other products out there, some of them substantially better. There's the Genesis, the F35, the Alexa, and ... oh, yeah, there's also that thing called 35mm film. There are many filmmaking tools out there, at a variety of price points.

New young filmakers for example should be encouraged to shoot with what they can with...

Absolutely and unquestionably agreed with. Of course they shoud. But what they should NOT be taught is "a 7D is just as good as a Red". That kind of attitude is ... well, not only is it wrong, and incorrect, and outrageous, but it doesn't do the student any favors.

Back in the old days, we used to shoot on 8mm film, and we all knew that 8mm wasn't 16, and 16 wasn't 35. When we could upgrade we got 16mm, but we still knew it wasn't 35. Nowadays, it seems like we see all this talk about how "the 5D is equal to the Red" and it's just ... farcical.

Dont cling to technology too much.

I don't think anyone here is clinging to technology -- we're clinging to reality.

I mean, be realistic -- you're talking about the Red One as if it's an elitist, unapproachable tool. It wasn't a couple of years ago that the Red One was "the" revolution, and the elitist/unapproachable product was 35mm film.

Technology is changing fast. Its even easier now to get yourself a great camera,decent editing/FX tools and make a polished final output on a very limited budget...

This is absolutely true. And it is amazing what someone can accomplish -- look at Marlon Ladd's film "Badd to the Jones". It looks fantastic, and it's all shot on a little T2i. But Marlon will be the first to tell you that he's run headlong into the limitations of DSLR shooting. It can look great, but the image can have serious problems too.

Nobody ever said "it can't be done." In fact, we're not even disputing whether you (or any particular shooter) would find it "good enough." (like the coin/screwdriver argument, if you think it's good enough, then use it). The only objection here is "the $799 consumer stills camera is just as good as the real thing". That it is not.