LanceOregon
Well-known member
Why would one want to have a shallow depth of field when the subject is architecture? I cannot think of any possible benefit. In fact, it would be a detriment, in my opinion.
GH3 Arizona Biltmore Resort
- Thread starter dan.carter
- Start date
Why would one want to have a shallow depth of field when the subject is architecture? I cannot think of any possible benefit. In fact, it would be a detriment, in my opinion.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Which is exactly what J.F.R did. Not sure what your problem is with people expressing an opinion that is less than adulation. We're all big boys/girls here and should be able to take criticism, valid or not.
LanceOregon
Well-known member
I agree with his comments that some camera movement would have definitely improved the video. What I don't understand is why he thinks that a shallow depth of field would be so beneficial when the subject is architecture. That puzzles me.
Just just like in photography, having a deep depth of field can sometimes be desirable.
Chris Adler
Veteran
So my statement that everyone can have an opinion and share it makes you think I have a problem with his opinion? I don't get it.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Perhaps I misinterpreted your reply. If so, I apologize.
Chris Adler
Veteran
No worries.
wgzn
Veteran
Most of the comments here are really unrelated to the intent of the post - at least as laid out in the OPs original explanation.
It was described as an example for moire propensity. And there simply wasn't a lot going on that would cause typical video moire.
If the OP had simply said "check out this footage I shot" I don't think anyone would have anything negative to say.
and I don't think anyone said anything negative. Just that what was shot simply isn't a prime example of usual moire scenarioss
It was described as an example for moire propensity. And there simply wasn't a lot going on that would cause typical video moire.
If the OP had simply said "check out this footage I shot" I don't think anyone would have anything negative to say.
and I don't think anyone said anything negative. Just that what was shot simply isn't a prime example of usual moire scenarioss
Last edited:
dan.carter
Well-known member
Thought I'd clear some confusion with more detail.
This project was intended to test for GH3 moire (and general performance) on a structure which resulted in the issue with a Canon 7D and Panasonic TM700. Because management at this resort is wary of professional photographers, I used only a small tripod and ball-head the first day for static shots. Having no management issues the first day, on the second I chose a larger tripod and fluid-head. Though I don't personally believe in camera movement unless something significant is added or revealed, the second day resulted in a collection of pans, tilts and various angles. In the end, only one tilt survived the edit, as I felt the only emotion the others would produce was boredom.
Relative to shallow DOF, there are technically 4 clips that demonstrate this. Since most of my projects are landscape or structural, this isn't a priority for me. Though I've used the GH2 & GH3 with the Lumix 20mm f1.7 (and 12-35 f2.8) to produce good examples of shallow DOF, these cameras appeal to me most for their ability to handle detail extremely well.
As a result of this project, I was able to determine that working as I usually do (minimal, slow camera movement), moire is no more prevalent in the GH3 than it is in the GH2. This is my own personal experience, other's mileage may vary.
I am truly thankful for all the comments relative to this video. When it comes to different styles, I'm always looking for something new that catches my eye and can be integrated into my own personal style.
This project was intended to test for GH3 moire (and general performance) on a structure which resulted in the issue with a Canon 7D and Panasonic TM700. Because management at this resort is wary of professional photographers, I used only a small tripod and ball-head the first day for static shots. Having no management issues the first day, on the second I chose a larger tripod and fluid-head. Though I don't personally believe in camera movement unless something significant is added or revealed, the second day resulted in a collection of pans, tilts and various angles. In the end, only one tilt survived the edit, as I felt the only emotion the others would produce was boredom.
Relative to shallow DOF, there are technically 4 clips that demonstrate this. Since most of my projects are landscape or structural, this isn't a priority for me. Though I've used the GH2 & GH3 with the Lumix 20mm f1.7 (and 12-35 f2.8) to produce good examples of shallow DOF, these cameras appeal to me most for their ability to handle detail extremely well.
As a result of this project, I was able to determine that working as I usually do (minimal, slow camera movement), moire is no more prevalent in the GH3 than it is in the GH2. This is my own personal experience, other's mileage may vary.
I am truly thankful for all the comments relative to this video. When it comes to different styles, I'm always looking for something new that catches my eye and can be integrated into my own personal style.
Last edited:
Spectacularly sharp landscape footage, Dan. Sorry if this is a naive question, but I've been wondering if the big "pro" video cameras like the Panasonic AC160, AC130, AC90, etc. can deliver (when the in-camera saturation and sharpening is bumped up) as sharp or sharper landscape footage as your GH3 + 12-35mm combo? I have no personal experience with these "pro" models and the video samples I've seen on Youtube and Vimeo look much softer than your GH3 + 12-35mm combo.
dan.carter
Well-known member
Unfortunately, the last prosumer Panasonic video camera I owned was the HMC-40 and it doesn't compare with the GH2 & GH3. However, it is now at least 5 years dated. I replaced the HMC-40 with a Panasonic TM-700 which at 60p produces the sharpest image I've seen. Though it is slightly sharper than the GH2 & GH3, it's near impossible to match their color. Also, the GH units are infinitely more adjustable.
Good luck with your selection.