GH2 Anyone else looking to upgrade their GH2 for the Blackmagic Camera?

David W. Jones said:
Hmmm... intriguing camera, but if you can't compose a good image with an 8bit 10 stop camera, 12bit raw and 13 stops are not going to make that much of a difference. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Which camera are you referring too? Can't be a GH2, because it records nowhere near 10 stops.

DR isn't the GH2's strong point. And it records a hefty amount of video noise, and tends to record gradient banding artifacts, too. Hack or no hack.

But I still love my GH2, warts and all: Its weaknesses aren't necessarily a significant barrier to successful filmmaking. Cheers.
 
I keep going back and forth on if I want to move to the BM camera. I happen to really like Panasonic DSLRs and I love shooting stills as well as great video in a single package. With that said I currently use a GH1 and while it can look stellar if you use it right it does have its limitations. The reason why the BM camera may be back in the running again is because of the rumor that BM may be considering a M4/3 mount in the future. I'm not really sure what this means yet. I don't mind EF lenses and would have no problem using them since I prefer to shoot 20mm on my Gh1 but I have so much invested in M4/3 glass that it is hard to bring myself to start over again. As I said I love shooting stills but hate Canon DSLRs for video so that isn't really an option either.

The one thing that does have me excited even if BM doesn't add a direct mount is the prospect of an 3rd party adapter. We already have cheap $20.00 adapters to mount EF lenses on M4/3 cameras. It should be very easy for somebody to make the opposite. This adapter would never work on a Canon camera of course due to the sensor size but it should work perfectly on the BM camera. That has me excited once again about possible moving to the camera. Anybody see a reason why this wouldn't work? The sensor is small enough.
 
Thomas Smet said:
It should be very easy for somebody to make the opposite.
Click to expand...
No, in fact quite the opposite -- it would be impossible to make an adapter to put m43 lenses on an EF camera. Well, at least without an optical element, which would degrade the image quality.

If you want an m43 mount, wait for the m43 version (if it's ever produced; they seem open to the idea, but as far as I understand it they're not going to actually do any work towards such a version until they have the existing EF model finished and shipping).
 
I dunno, I feel like I need to play devil's advocate a bit here.
I'm also just not feeling the same enthusiasm that everyone else seems to. I've been holding off on commenting thus far because I wanted to see if there was perhaps something I was missing or maybe others who felt the same way I did (we appear to be an alarming minority).

The following is a rant I'd just like to get off my chest, you can choose to ignore it and I won't be insulted at all.
<BEGIN RANT>

To be fair, I really am excited to hear about this- believe me, I'm a gear head and I love being excited for new things to come out... but are we all so very unhappy with the performance of what we have currently to desire dropping it for this? Is that even a healthy perspective to have (especially for a first generation product that isn't out yet)?

Granted, I think this is a fantastic achievement and will no doubt shake up the budget film making community considering what you can get versus what you can afford. I'm very excited to see what it does for the rest of the market as well, now that there is a serious competitor in the ring who appears to be catering to what users want (rather than how much they can give before cutting into their higher end equipment profits).

But maybe I'm still missing something- I mean, aside from the occasional chroma key shot or times that I was suffering through trying to match color from multiple cameras, I've never really wished that my camera shot RAW. I've toyed with RAW footage for a sequence once- it was very cool, I'll admit, but I can't imagine needing to go through all that on a regular basis. Shooting directly to ProRes and DNxHD does not appeal to me because I'm not using Final Cut, and often not using an Apple-based editing system at all.

To be fair, I guess I'm a bad example because I'm not primarily shooting narratives these days. So aside from the occasional keyed shot, most of what I do does not benefit enough from shooting RAW to really warrant the extra hassle and resources in the workflow it requires. My clients like projects that move quickly and efficiently, and are finished within tight deadlines. That means shooting RAW is often an added expense I/they can't afford. I like that the BMC shoots other formats as well, but it sort of irks me that the whole box feels very catered to Apple users specifically.
I used to be a big Apple user, but I'm very platform agnostic these days. My main editing workstations at home and work are PCs at the moment (mostly because I needed the fastest rendering boxes money could buy), and would much prefer eSATA or USB3 to thunderbolt. Not to mention ProRes and DNxHD are both Quicktime based codecs, and don't always play nicely in PC-based editing suites.

Then there's the mount- L-series EOS lenses are awesome. One of my biggest gripes with M4/3rds is that fast native glass with IS is very lacking at the moment, so having access to the wide variety of native EOS lenses and S-glass is very cool (assuming IS will be supported?). It does seem kind of strange however, to be pairing it up with such a small sensor while forcing the EOS mounts. Not that the sensor is too small- I'm not having that argument, I'm very much aware of how capable 16mm is, and with this being a bit bigger it should be more than capable. But then why are we limited to APS-C sized lenses on the EOS mount? I love that the M4/3rds mount can support C-mount lenses and other glass, which more than makes up for the fact that the sensor is smaller than my other APS-C cameras.
So this sort of feels like a weird neither here nor there option- smaller sensor, but you still can't use lenses made for a tighter FOV. 16mm, C-mount, and even M4/3rds have glass that tend to go a bit wider to compensate for the additional crop, but aren't compatible with EF. Again, this isn't a huge problem, but it sort of makes me feel like "why did they do that?" and just sort of leaves me thinking these aren't the droids I've been waiting for.

The rest of the stuff is all silly details... I prefer buttons to touchscreens, and the design doesn't seem very inspired. These are personal things. Not that either of those would make or break how much I like a product, but it just doesn't seem to illicit the emotional response that it seems to in others. I'm sure that as the the production model gets closer to fruition, we'll also see better examples of the footage it outputs (I think the general consensus of the example we've seen were mostly that it was soft, but had potential).

But all that leads me to my initial impression- the samples didn't make me say "wow", the design doesn't make me say "wow", the proposed features DO, however the actual specs don't (if that makes sense). Yet, folks are going gaga over the proposed spec sheet alone.

I do like this concept and perhaps version 2 will wow me enough to share the overwhelming enthusiasm. But right now, I see this as an excellent proof of concept, and I can't wait to see what comes after it!
A mantra often repeated around here is that "the best tools for the job are the ones you already have". If I were starting over as a new film maker, I would probably recommend this camera. But as someone who is relatively happy with their tools, my response to the title of this thread would have to be:
Probably not.
</END RANT>
 
@M. Gilden

I hear you. For many folks the BMC won't be a good match. It's great that there are now so many good camera choices out there. The BMC is just the most recent example. And of course, there'll always be more cams in future.

Myself I plan to primarily use the BMC to shoot 10-bit 1080p ProRes 422 HQ, and switch between its "Film" (log) & "Video" (Rec. 709) gamma modes depending on the project. I may occasionally use the cam's DNxHD or 12-bit RAW 2.5K mode as projects warrant it.

I really like the cam's ability to record with very high quality compressed codecs (ProRes & DNxHD). Although these 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs have obvious benefits for things like pulling keys & CC, I especially like that they should record smooth gradients and handle motion with essentially no visible artifacts. As this is the GH2 forum, we know what a bugaboo gradients & motion artifacts can be, and to what lengths some of us go via hacks, etc. in an attempt to minimize them ...

I use FCP v7.2, so shooting ProRes 422 HQ means I don't have to upgrade to FCPX, or switch to a completely different NLE, or buy expensive disk arrays, etc.

My understanding is that DnxHD is well-supported on Windows-based NLEs, too, but I haven't researched that thoroughly yet.

Although it's great that BmD includes Resolve & UltraScope with the BMC, I probably won't use either much initially. My MacBook Pro 17" is recent-vintage, but not new enough to include a T-Bolt port. I'll probably get a (relatively inexpensive) Express34-to-eSATA adapter to attach a SSD dock.
 
Barry_Green said:
No, in fact quite the opposite -- it would be impossible to make an adapter to put m43 lenses on an EF camera. Well, at least without an optical element, which would degrade the image quality.

If you want an m43 mount, wait for the m43 version (if it's ever produced; they seem open to the idea, but as far as I understand it they're not going to actually do any work towards such a version until they have the existing EF model finished and shipping).
Click to expand...

Thanks Barry I wasn't aware it would not work. I figured since most adapters are hollow tubes it would work either direction. I guess I'm back to sticking with my GH1 for now or upgrading to the GH2.
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
@M. Gilden

I hear you. For many folks the BMC won't be a good match. It's great that there are now so many good camera choices out there. The BMC is just the most recent example. And of course, there'll always be more cams in future.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and if they all need to compete with this kind of pricing per feature set, very exciting times are ahead indeed.

My understanding is that DnxHD is well-supported on Windows-based NLEs, too, but I haven't researched that thoroughly yet.
Click to expand...

It technically should be, however I have some bad experiences with it. Adobe After Effects started randomly spitting out black frames here and there when working with DNxHD footage. I thought there was something wrong with this workstation, but then it started happening on a new one as well. Other systems here seemed to work fine with it, so its rather hit-or-miss. Either way, removing it from the system and avoiding quicktime in general has really kept my workflow smooth and error free. I currently mostly use AVCHD and Cineform as an intermediate, and have been very happy with it. IMHO, Quicktime really is best left on Apple based systems.
 
@M. Gilden

I've shared mostly the same concerns as you, and like Peter, I probably won't shoot RAW all that often and stick to DNxHD or ProRes most of the time. I wasn't nearly as excited about its RAW capabilities as I was with its dynamic range. If it were RAW and only shot 9 stops, I would probably be $3k richer in July. It's really the 13 stops that's exciting to me.

When the DVX-100 came out, one of the hurdles for digital to be more like film was overcome with its 24p feature at a $3k price point. It was such a big deal that it completely changed the indie film community. The other hurdles were resolution, depth of field/bigger sensor, latitude, compression, overcranking, and interchangeable lenses. People made workarounds like mini35 adapters, Andromeda for latitude, etc. As time went on, each of these hurdles were overcome with some compromises. Red came in and overcame nearly everything in one swoop, but of course wasn't remotely close to a $3k price point. Even the then promised $3k Scarlet had too small of a sensor for many people. When the 5dmk2 came out, interchangeable lenses with a large sensor size/shallow DOF at HD resolution (well, sort of) was attained at sub-$3k and sub-$1k with the GH1 (with 60p to boot). At this point, we had nearly everything a filmmaker could want at under $3k, except for the latitude of film. Most of us thought that 13+ stops was reserved only for the big guns (Alexa, Epic, F3 with S-Log etc.). I mean after all, the camera that was used to shoot the president's official portrait (5dmk2) stops just short of 12 stops in RAW mode. Then BMD comes along and sideswipes the sub-$3k film market with 13-stops RAW/ProRes/DNxHD and says "not good enough? Here, have a copy of Resolve too then".

So yeah, I'm pretty stoked, but I need to get back to work so I can pay for this thing lol.
 
Still having a difficult time with the battery being built in. Does this bother anyone else? Since I film wildlife---this puts a damper on this camera for now.
 
Steve Harryman said:
Still having a difficult time with the battery being built in. Does this bother anyone else? Since I film wildlife---this puts a damper on this camera for now.
Click to expand...

Don't even think of the battery. It is really there as a bonus or backup power supply. You will still use external batteries like you would with most professional cameras. On our Red we use V mount batteries all the time. With the BM camera you will still want to use some kind of external battery system. Now this doesn't have to mean an expensive top of the line battery system. The BM camera a very wide range of voltage values so many different systems can be adapter for the camera.

The internal battery is really just a bonus so you can swap batteries without stopping the camera. For wildlife this should be perfect.
 
Steve Harryman said:
Still having a difficult time with the battery being built in. Does this bother anyone else? Since I film wildlife---this puts a damper on this camera for now.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you carry batteries with you for any other camera? Same situation, basically. The batteries you plug into the camera charge the internal battery, you never lose power, it's continuous.

We work the same way with the Bebob Battery Plate on RED. No downtime unless someone forgets to change the battery before the bebob's internal battery dies.
 
Trucci said:
@M. Gilden

I've shared mostly the same concerns as you, and like Peter, I probably won't shoot RAW all that often and stick to DNxHD or ProRes most of the time. I wasn't nearly as excited about its RAW capabilities as I was with its dynamic range. If it were RAW and only shot 9 stops, I would probably be $3k richer in July. It's really the 13 stops that's exciting to me.

When the DVX-100 came out, one of the hurdles for digital to be more like film was overcome with its 24p feature at a $3k price point. It was such a big deal that it completely changed the indie film community. The other hurdles were resolution, depth of field/bigger sensor, latitude, compression, overcranking, and interchangeable lenses. People made workarounds like mini35 adapters, Andromeda for latitude, etc. As time went on, each of these hurdles were overcome with some compromises. Red came in and overcame nearly everything in one swoop, but of course wasn't remotely close to a $3k price point. Even the then promised $3k Scarlet had too small of a sensor for many people. When the 5dmk2 came out, interchangeable lenses with a large sensor size/shallow DOF at HD resolution (well, sort of) was attained at sub-$3k and sub-$1k with the GH1 (with 60p to boot). At this point, we had nearly everything a filmmaker could want at under $3k, except for the latitude of film. Most of us thought that 13+ stops was reserved only for the big guns (Alexa, Epic, F3 with S-Log etc.). I mean after all, the camera that was used to shoot the president's official portrait (5dmk2) stops just short of 12 stops in RAW mode. Then BMD comes along and sideswipes the sub-$3k film market with 13-stops RAW/ProRes/DNxHD and says "not good enough? Here, have a copy of Resolve too then".

So yeah, I'm pretty stoked, but I need to get back to work so I can pay for this thing lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear that Trucci. And that is definitely something to be excited about. But not everyone has the same priorities, and personally I don't think the dynamic range has been our biggest limitation.

I've shot footage for network TV, covered live events and documentaries, and to me the biggest hurdles with DSLRs have been their rolling shutter, relatively weak codec, ergonomics and lack of quality audio (in that order). I still keep around a small chip camcorder for those times my DSLR proves inadequate to work with, and I'm longing for the day there will be an affordable model that handles the job of both equally well.

I've seen rumors that perhaps the chip inside the BMC is capable of global shutter (with the right hardware to support it, that is), but it seems like BMC is not aiming to include that kind of circuitry at this price point. The ergonomics for documentary work seem worse than current DSLRs models, and the 5DmIII and GH2 hacks seem to have really pushed up the codec to reveal far more detail than much more expensive cameras (especially more than what we've seen so far from the admittedly pre-release model BMC). The audio doesn't seem to be anything all that exciting on any of these cameras, but I think most of us have just learned to deal with that by now. I'm sure internal audio will be OK, and anything super serious will have a sound guy anyway.

But you'll have to excuse me if I still feel like back when the DVX100 was the *IT* camera for $3k, it felt like we were being offered the world on a silver platter. It packed a lot more to a professional right out of the box. The BMC feels like we're still compromising certain things to help with other things that cater to a specific demographic of users (narrative film makers who work with Apple editing systems and require more dynamic range).

Don't get me wrong, I think this will prove to be a very important camera to the future of budget cinematography, but I'm still pretty critical of the overwhelming enthusiasm. I'll reserve judgement until they are out in the field.
 
Disagree about detail in GH2 footage and detail in the pre-release BMC.

It's clearly outpacing GH2, just without the aliasing to make it look sharper.
 
Kholi said:
Disagree about detail in GH2 footage and detail in the pre-release BMC.

It's clearly outpacing GH2, just without the aliasing to make it look sharper.
Click to expand...

Clearly? To you, perhaps. Wasn't so clear to me. But I don't think we have enough to judge by yet.
 
M. Gilden said:
Clearly? To you, perhaps. Wasn't so clear to me. But I don't think we have enough to judge by yet.
Click to expand...

You're right, to me. Apologies. I have plenty enough to judge by, personally. If that's what compressed Vimeo footage looks like with poor glass, then it's definitely outdone GH2. again, just without the aliasing.
 
As a new owner of a hacked GH2 (past two months ) and as someone who always seems to be shooting outdoors in bright sunshine I think this camera will interest me. Dealing with transcoding is a pain and the dynamic range of this camera looks fantastic. Those two things alone may turn me into a believer but I'm learning why some of us really dislike the DSLR video craze as I'm use to somewhat better ergonomic and real sound on my HMC40 but it's low light sucks and no interchangeable lenses -!

Rip apart the GH2 and fashion it into a nice ergonomic box with a sound recorder and aja recorder and we've got the perfect camera.

Sure I could have all of than on a FS700 or F3 but those are not in my budget.
 
Kholi said:
You're right, to me. Apologies. I have plenty enough to judge by, personally. If that's what compressed Vimeo footage looks like with poor glass, then it's definitely outdone GH2. again, just without the aliasing.
Click to expand...

Really? You have plenty of what, BMC footage (anything you're hiding from us?? ha!)?
I mean, I'll admit that I've only worked with RED RAW on a rare occasion, but I recall the image being plenty sharp, even without aliasing or artificial sharpening. Looked better than what I'm seeing now, but this is hardly a scientific conclusion. All I know is that this footage didn't wow me as much as I wanted it to. But, granted, it was a single test on a pre-production camera, so I really don't have any strong opinions yet.

Looking forward to seeing what a finished model is capable of!
 
thabo said:
As a new owner of a hacked GH2 (past two months ) and as someone who always seems to be shooting outdoors in bright sunshine I think this camera will interest me. Dealing with transcoding is a pain and the dynamic range of this camera looks fantastic. Those two things alone may turn me into a believer but I'm learning why some of us really dislike the DSLR video craze as I'm use to somewhat better ergonomic and real sound on my HMC40 but it's low light sucks and no interchangeable lenses -!

Rip apart the GH2 and fashion it into a nice ergonomic box with a sound recorder and aja recorder and we've got the perfect camera.

Sure I could have all of than on a FS700 or F3 but those are not in my budget.
Click to expand...

Would love to see something like this designed to fit a GH2:
http://techcitement.com/hardware/viztools-wants-to-turn-your-dslr-into-a-camcorder/#.T5YSdatYvE0

But Panasonic is already starting to come out with servo zoom lenses (nothing to get excited about yet, but potential is there). A GH3 with global shutter and decent servo zoom X lenses would win me over in a heartbeat.
 
Kholi said:
Disagree about detail in GH2 footage and detail in the pre-release BMC.

It's clearly outpacing GH2, just without the aliasing to make it look sharper.
Click to expand...


I really don't want to go into the math here and you're a really great guy kholi, but it seems pretty apparent the gh2 is out resolving this camera. There's just something about the gh2, spatial resolution wise. I shot with an ex1 for years, shoot with an f3 at work. I picked up a gh2 last month and even after turning sharpening all the way down in camera, I still cannot get over the uncomfortable fact it is quite clearly resolving more information, and looking smoother at the same time, than a $7k 3 chip camera that I have been so close to for so long. On top of that, BM, like red, is providing the count of all the total photosites on their sensor. That is before debayer. As great as this camera is and the things it's going to do to this market, due to simple math it cannot resolve anywhere near 2k of information. People automatically associate reds "5k" and BM's "2.5k" numbers with the resolution of the finished, debayered film, but these are bayer pattern cameras, and that is not how it works. Have you seen 4k or 5k red footage at 100% zoom? Not much to say about it, other than there's plenty of detail once you use Sinc or Lanczos and scale it down to 2k/1080. It's pretty apparent on wide shots in regards to the BM. I'm not talking about vimeo footage, I'm talking about the full res stills provided. But blackmagic went with the sensor they could source, and it should make a great camera. On top of that, dynamic range is far, far more important than resolution, and this camera is worlds ahead of the gh2 in that area


And as for the batteries - Just pick up some bricks like everyone else! then remind yourself BM even nicely included a little failsafe backup battery inside the thing! It's like wizardry!

Of course I am all ears and all eyes to any first hand experience, or any other full resolution frames I may have missed around the web!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top