5D replacement announcement next week

[squig]

That's what I mean to say; has anyone seen the HDMI out from the Nikon? If not, why?

The guys that shot with it didn't know in advance that it was capable. We'll see some stuff when it hits the streets. I suspect Bloom, Hunter, Kholi and a few of the other usual suspects will be all over it. I'll probably hire or beg Nikon for a loaner to shoot a test scene.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I hear you, but something smalls fishy about this. If the HDMI looks great, give us just a tease! But I can't find a frame of this one the web.

 

[Cory Braun]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but re the F3, one already is: the GH2 with Driftwoods best patches. I'm a fanboy in that I'm having such fun with this very small, instant-on wonder, but I also have a RED, an HVX, and a 5d, so a lot to compare with. No, at its best, the GH2 is not as good as the RED 4k downsampled to 1080... but lord does it get close sometimes!

As a previous GH2 owner, and a current F3 owner, I disagree. In terms of resolution, yes the GH2 is great but there are so many different areas (and I am talking purely visual) where the F3 dominates the GH2. Dynamic Range being a key one.

Trust me, as soon as a DSLR comes close to the F3 I will sell the F3 and get that DSLR. I much prefer the small size of the DSLR to a full video camera (you can rig it and put it in so many more places) and even with my F3 I still do separate audio. And no matter whether I am using the F3 or a DSLR I still have to "frankenrig" it, for it to be usable to my likings. I'm actually at in the opposite camp from Barry. Give me the F3 picture quality in a DSLR body and I am sold, which is why I am considering the C300. The only thing I want from video cameras is the built in ND filters. Do not need XLRs, and my monitors provide me with all of the exposure and focusing tools that I need.

 

[Kholi]

The guys that shot with it didn't know in advance that it was capable. We'll see some stuff when it hits the streets. I suspect Bloom, Hunter, Kholi and a few of the other usual suspects will be all over it. I'll probably hire or beg Nikon for a loaner to shoot a test scene.

If someone around me gets one I'll test with an hdmi recorder. Truth be told I am only a fan of the features, not the image at least from what I've seen online. I'm not all that interested until they start doing away with Moire and aliasing. GH2 is stupid cheap, it performs way beyond its class and it's here now.

I'm more looking forward to more GH updates than anything else. That can change if Canon goes "hey here check out the lack of Moire on this thing" or "hey we also have an attachment that allows you to record the 22mp signal but only at 24/30P no slow mo."

Cool. Only full frame camera that offers that. Let's go.

 

[squig]

I hear you, but something smalls fishy about this. If the HDMI looks great, give us just a tease! But I can't find a frame of this one the web.

Canon and Nikon are playing games and not allowing anyone to scrutinise their new cameras. In their defence these are pre-release cameras and they might have needed some more tweaking but they should post some uncompressed files or in Canons case compressed out of the camera files when the cameras are released.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

With respect Cory (seriously, with respect, not trying to be a dick), did you have a chance with your GH2 to mess around with Driftwood's Seaquake or Quantum 7 or 9?

That's the thing about the GH2 that's so addictive right now; the camera you wake up with is not always the one you went to sleep with, such is the very rapid pace of the hack. Please don't get me wrong, I LOVE the look of the F3, just a saying, if you sold your GH2 a while ago, you might want to come back and take another look (also, post methodology has improved, as has a sense of what M4/3 lenses are doing to the image, etc.).

 

[squig]

If someone around me gets one I'll test with an hdmi recorder. Truth be told I am only a fan of the features, not the image at least from what I've seen online.

wotchewtalkinabout willis? The post vimeo compressed resolution in that promo vid looks really good. The 5D wouldn't look anywhere near as good and the dudes that shot it said the same. It should have 1 to 2 stops of dynamic range over the 5D and 2 to 3 stops in useable ISO. Reportedly rolling shutter, aliasing, and moire are under control. What's not to like except the price tag? It could be a serious contender. Plus it has 3 crop modes, you get a GH2, a 7D, and a 5D in the one body!

 

[Kholi]

Guess I'm picky. Didnt look at all impressive to me aside from the rolling shutter and features.

 

[squig]

Guess I'm picky. Didnt look at all impressive to me aside from the rolling shutter and features.

You'll be pleased to hear Nikon are going to do a pink body.

 

[Kholi]

If the pink body had an image I liked and a great price, then absolutely.

Good thing GH2 is all black.

 

[alpi69]

If Nikon or Canon want to make a real pro video camera with a large sensor, I'll be very interested in it, but any slow-refresh-rate, no-audio-monitoring, no-headphone-jack, no-ND-filter, no-scopes, stick-on-loupe, frankenrigged, 2nd-system-audio, HDMI-only DSLR? There is nothing that they could do to that type of product that would make me be interested in it.

+1

I was happy with the DSLRs for a few years now. But on EVERY shoot I am swearing at them.
I am very impressed with the GH2 and there is no reason to use the 5D at all anymore, when you watch the hacked GH2. But their DR and their sensitivity are going to look outdated in a very short while.
One year ago people would have been drooling over the D4 and D800 footage. But now with the F3 and C300 everyone realizes their weaknesses imagewise. Still a nice image, though.
But to make compromises in workflow, post and imagequaility....I am with Barry, comfort on set has to count also ;-)

 

[Kholi]

But to make compromises in workflow, post and imagequaility....I am with Barry, comfort on set has to count also ;-)

That's my next blog post. The biggest realization I've come to is that I really don't care what an audience thinks (or what people think an audience doesn't care about), I care about what I think and how comfortable I am when I shoot.

GH2, for all of it's awesomeness, has too many gotchas to not be on pins and needles the entire time. I don't give a damned if the audience "won't notice" that I forgot to reset the ISO thanks to the ISO bug, I want the peace of mind knowing I don't have to worry about it. T

 

[alpi69]

"as long as it sits in that DSLR form factor, no thanks."

So the 'shape' is the problem?

As far as codecs go, what Driftwood is doing with the GH2 is now years ahead of many pro cameras... My guess is that they won't catch up soon, making for a really strange marketplace where an $800 body is blowing away (imagewise, yes, I understand the enormous problem of no headphone jack) all other cameras until the 10k range, and leaving some very strange reasoning as to why not to use the GH2... like its shape, for example.

I don´t think Barry means shape and I do neither. The C300 (which I ordered) has a similar shape. But it has film-features. Well maybe video-features: first of all A USABLE VIEWFINDER+LCD, ND, Audio, proper output-connections, a decent in-cam codec. Things that make life at work so much easier - on set and in post. But I see the budget can be an issue for many productions that in the end say DSLR is "good enough" image wise.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I don´t think Barry means shape and I do neither. The C300 (which I ordered) has a similar shape. But it has film-features. Well maybe video-features: first of all A USABLE VIEWFINDER+LCD, ND, Audio, proper output-connections, a decent in-cam codec. Things that make life at work so much easier - on set and in post. But I see the budget can be an issue for many productions that in the end say DSLR is "good enough" image wise.

Have to chime in. This is what we used to shoot with (and I'm talking about as recently as a few years ago):

http://www.videouniversity.com/files/EclairNPR.JPG
http://www.intervalometers.com/arri/images/sb-front.jpg

Look comfy? They weren't! No headphone jack. No sharp viewfinder. No freakin built in NDs (for the love of christ, people, built in NDs are a VIDEO thing, not a film thing).

And there where 4 million ways to screw up the take. The GH2 iso bug is the smallest inconvenience in the history of mankind compared with hairs in the gate after getting a perfect take, or freaking loading mags in a crowded nightclub with beer being spilled on you.

I sound like an old sack of s$%t, and I'm not even *that* old, but I've used every camera you can imagine, and - yes, this is going to sound really old and curmugionly - but you kids are SOFT! Go shoot some freaking film and them come back to see how unbelievably easy we have it with all of these cameras in comparison.

Form factor?? I swear our old Aaton was designed by maniacal engineers to be UNHOLDABLE!!!

- end rant -

 

[squig]

That's my next blog post. The biggest realization I've come to is that I really don't care what an audience thinks (or what people think an audience doesn't care about), I care about what I think and how comfortable I am when I shoot.

GH2, for all of it's awesomeness, has too many gotchas to not be on pins and needles the entire time. I don't give a damned if the audience "won't notice" that I forgot to reset the ISO thanks to the ISO bug, I want the peace of mind knowing I don't have to worry about it. T

It goes back to what I was saying about cameras that are ok in a controlled environment. There's so much on a feature that gets out of control you don't want to have issues with the gear. The C300 certainly looks the business for low budget features but if one of these new DSLRs can produce an image in the same ballpark without any major issues I'll be all over it.

The audience doesn't give a damn about resolution etc....However I've seen posts on TV forums where people talk about which TV has the best judder reduction! We went to all the trouble of lobbying for 24p and they want less judder! If the audience notices a camera issue it's your script that sux not your DSLR. I just don't want to invest 4 years of my life into making a film and look at it in 10 years and curse the moire!

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

But I see the budget can be an issue for many productions that in the end say DSLR is "good enough" image wise.

And btw, this sounds really pedantic. Many of us are regularly using the GH2 and we also own cameras well past the resolution or price point of your coming C300 (with a codec 1/4 the bit rate of Driftwood's 176 Quantun btw). Everyone keeps telling themselves the GH2 is being used becsuse of budget considerations. I'm telling you, that's just wrong and that assumption needs to stop.

 

[alpi69]

I sound like an old sack of s$%t, and I'm not even *that* old, but I've used every camera you can imagine, and - yes, this is going to sound really old and curmugionly - but you kids are SOFT! Go shoot some freaking film and them come back to see how unbelievably easy we have it with all of these cameras in comparison.
- end rant -

Haha, Cosimo, I agree. I also said they are rather video features than film features. But you have to agree it is nicer to change the ISO with a wheel instead of changing film stock.

I shot film (but also am not *that* old) and in those days there was no other option. so your rant is indeed old-fashioned. Now there are options and in the end as Kholi said, the audience/client won´t care how we shoot with what. What counts nowadays is how it looks (to the outside) and how do I achieve that look (the inside of the production). And in fact we should still shoot with film, because it looks better. But times have changed. Call me soft, I can live with that ;-)

 

[Kholi]

If the audience notices a camera issue it's your script that sux not your DSLR. I just don't want to invest 4 years of my life into making a film and look at it in 10 years and curse the moire!

Let me know when you finish a feature, get it distro'd. Then come back and tell me that. =]

The idea that an audience noticing your crappy image "because your script sucks" is one of the most ridiculous filmmaker diatribes I hear. They're gonna notice an image sucks because they just saw a 15 Million dollar movie shooting with the best money can buy last weekend, and exhibit c looks like "good youtube video" to them at best.

 

[squig]

I sound like an old sack of s$%t, and I'm not even *that* old, but I've used every camera you can imagine, and - yes, this is going to sound really old and curmugionly - but you kids are SOFT! Go shoot some freaking film and them come back to see how unbelievably easy we have it with all of these cameras in comparison.

I have the greatest respect for analogue old-timers...hehe I'm 41 but I cut my teeth in the music world for 20 years before I took on this filmmaking madness. Soft? maybe, but consider how we're pushing the envelope with these things and do things that just couldn't be done with film and the learning curve is just as high. The attractive thing about DSLR cinematography is that there are some similarities to shooting film like using vintage prime lenses and filters, setting ISO instead of gain, dual system sound. And getting correct exposure is just as crucial as it's ever been and digital isn't quite as forgiving in that department.

 

[alpi69]

And btw, this sounds really pedantic. Many of us are regularly using the GH2 and we also own cameras well past the resolution or price point of your coming C300 (with a codec 1/4 the bit rate of Driftwood's 176 Quantun btw). Everyone keeps telling themselves the GH2 is being used becsuse of budget considerations. I'm telling you, that's just wrong and that assumption needs to stop.

I am sorry, I didn´t want to troll. I agree the GH2 is ridiculous good with that hack. And if I would only shoot features with crew it would probably be the way to go, but my work is so variant from quick-turnaround docs to commercials that I need a cam that works in one-man-mode just like in rigged mode. And the DSLRs are simply not effortless enough anymore.