ethan cooper
Well-known member
I think this video about sums it up:
GH2 Can the GH2 look as cinematic as the 5D Mark II (not a troll subject mind you)
- Thread starter Manu Delpech
- Start date
- Status
Manu Delpech
Member
Well I have a couple of Nikon lenses (new ones) to try on it: 50 mm f/1.4, 105 mm f/2.8, 28 mm f/2.8, hopefully, it'll look good. But yeah like you said, I thought the 5D just looked more movie like in most of the videos I've seen, that's it, but I'll take the GH2, I've seen a couple of videos last night that looked fantastic.
Btw, the video above is just brilliant, it's kind of frustrating in a way, but maybe the GH2 is more flexible on this point, giving you great quality out of the box.
Last edited:
wgzn
Veteran
the gh2 is way more flexible than any canon when it comes to video.
just remember you have to get an adapter to use nikon glass on a gh2. i have the rayqual m4/3 to nikon. its about $250.
another thing to remember since the gh2 is a 1.6 crop sensor. all your lenses will be nearly 2x longer than they normally would be.
just remember you have to get an adapter to use nikon glass on a gh2. i have the rayqual m4/3 to nikon. its about $250.
another thing to remember since the gh2 is a 1.6 crop sensor. all your lenses will be nearly 2x longer than they normally would be.
Last edited:
HDkilledFILM.
Burnin' down the House
It's the carpenter not the tools. It's also about dedication and how much you want to get better at making images. The above video is funny, but it brings up money too much IMHO... Money doesn't make movies good, PEOPLE WHO NEVER QUIT OR GIVE UP MAKE GOOD MOVIES. Money helps people achieve their vision, that's all. But in the absence of money (IE working with DSLR's to cut costs exc...) real film makers solve problems with creativity. Doesn't matter what camera you are using, if your a film maker you can make a PXL2000 work for you... You'll write the story to suit your means of production, because you don't have it the other way around yet. Remember, most great film makers, DP's etc all cut their teeth working with whatever they could... And don't take this as a slight, more of an observation, but if your the type of person who gives up every few months then it won't matter what camera you buy anyway. The point is, if your worried about which camera makes better images, your not taking into account the most important part of that equation=YOU. Ask yourself the following question:
What do you hope to achieve with your films?
It's something far too few people ever think about, most indie film makers never think about what they want their film to do for them. You want it to play fests? Get a distro deal? Get you a rep? You'd better be willing to sacrifice as much as the people who made the films yours will be in the market place with. I know your worried about the camera, maybe you should worry about the fact that you gave up this industry recently. Do you really want this? I know many, many people who have been literally homeless for their dreams of making films, myself included. Dedication and determination, no excuses no explanations. Think about it.-Adam
What do you hope to achieve with your films?
It's something far too few people ever think about, most indie film makers never think about what they want their film to do for them. You want it to play fests? Get a distro deal? Get you a rep? You'd better be willing to sacrifice as much as the people who made the films yours will be in the market place with. I know your worried about the camera, maybe you should worry about the fact that you gave up this industry recently. Do you really want this? I know many, many people who have been literally homeless for their dreams of making films, myself included. Dedication and determination, no excuses no explanations. Think about it.-Adam
Last edited:
Manu Delpech
Member
"homeless"?! You know, the three short movies that I've made, I've made them on one or two afternoons with my cousins in my house and the park behind it, so it's not like I actually put money in those, of course, it doesnt give me a great latitude as to the type of short I'm going for, but I'm not the type to look for actors, a team, etc, locations, I"m trying to keep it as simple as possible and if I ever succeed at getting recognized, I might move forward and do some more elaborate stuffs that I'd like to run in a fest yeah.
http://vimeo.com/1333375
Whats DOF?
Whats DOF?
Manu Delpech
Member
That doesnt look cinematic to my opinion, I think color correction looks horrendous. This looks cinematic to me:
http://www.vimeo.com/26818589
http://www.vimeo.com/23520853
http://www.vimeo.com/8165122 (the most impressive I've seen from the 5D even though some shots look videoey)
I define cinematic to mean "great movie, on a big screen, larger than life, spectacular," etc. By this definition, it doesn't matter what camera was used to shoot the movie. I judge a film on the art and technique of filmmaking - story and acting (if any), cinematography, editing, production design, etc.
Sounds to me what's most important to some is the filmic look, and they equate it with what they describe as "cinematic". what is cinematic to them equates to simply what they value. They don't like "videoy" so it's not cinematic to them. frankly that's a narrow view to judge a film.
Why not just shoot with a film camera then? That would solve the "videoy" problem. DSLRs are video cams after all.
nah youre just confusing DOF as cinematic.
reem12
Veteran
I think the gh2 can look just as cinematic as the 5d, but just like i thought back in the day the dvx looked more cinematic then the hvx when it came on the scene, it was all due to perception. there is a reason we add a little blur to our video, and its to knock off that harsh video edge enhancement. I also believe some of what you may be seeing from the 5d is an advantage in dynamic range and the way canon rolls off it's white, and overexposed areas. I personaly like the 5d for narratives but have seen some of the most cinematic of any sub $3000 cameras come from a dvx and red rock. mind you the controlled lighting and set design played a major part. Get the gh2 if you like the resolution but as one poster said, there is no excuse for making an uncinematic image with any of these cams.
Manu Delpech
Member
Why not shoot with a film camera?! Because I don't have the money nor the experience, I make short movies by myself, on my own, with my cousins as actresses, maybe some day, if I get the opportunity. Even then, I wouldn't shoot with film, why shoot with film when you have (when you can afford it) an Alexa or an Epic?!
Plus film will be dead in a couple of years, what's great with digital cameras, or DSLR's or camcorders is that you shoot, and you can see right away what it looks like ; I can't imagine how tedious it must be to shoot film, having SD feedback, you can't really know how it'll look, then wait a couple of days to have it dvped (I guess, I'm no expert on film).
Now maybe I'm confusing cinematic, filmic and all that (the first two I consider the same), it's just that I'm seeing too much of the vidoey look as I call it on user videos, maybe because some just don't care about it looking filmic or else.
Sometimes it can be an advantage, I mean even though it clearly looked vidoey in some instances, I just love the look of Miami Vice, or Collateral by Michael Mann (but it clearly doesnt work in Public Enemies), as I dig 35 mm (Super 8, delicious grain) but the look I just love is the Red look, with The Social Network, here it looks like film, or course there's practically no grain, but it's just beautiful, super sharp, stable, hyper clean, having a Red MX or an Epic must be a dream, too bad it's so expensive.
Last edited:
Thomas Smet
Veteran
To each their own. At work we have a Sony HDCAM F900, SONY F3 and one of the first RED cameras. I personally use a GH1 and another guy uses a 7D. I personally find the 7D to be the lowest quality camera out of all of the ones I just listed. Too many odd artifacts and too low of resolution. It is almost SD looking at times. My work loves some of the hacked GH1 footage I recently shot. I should mention we are getting our RED Epic camera any day now as well.
I also feel I should point out that perhaps you have seen nice 5D material but then look at the ratio of people using Canon ca,eras compared to Panasonic cameras. Just based on the ratio alone and the fact that many film makers have blindly picked the Canon because it was the first and it is well known. If these exact film makers would have used a GH1 or GH2 for the exact same projects chances are they would have ended up looking similar. Cameras today are more like film stocks then anything else. Sometimes a certain film stock may appeal to somebody over another one. They are all capable however of telling the same story.
Don't make the same mistake a lot of amateurs make when it comes to film making. The camera is just the tool and the smallest part of the equation. Film making is a fine art and it takes great skill and craftsmanship. A painter can paint with anything and typically the brush does not matter. Leonardo Da Vinci could paint with crude brushes and paints over 500 years ago better then what most of us would be able to do with the top of the line brushes today. Learn the art first and then worry about the tools. You will never do it the correct way if you worry about the tools first. You will forever be a slave to the technology instead of the art. There are thousands of other people out there using the same tools and you need to work on a way to stand out from them if you want to make it in this industry. Where I work if we meet somebody looking for work and their main focus is the fact they shoot with a 5D we tell them so what. So does a thousand other kids. What can they do better everybody else and can they do it no matter what camera they use.
My final point is that to me it looks like are not really convincing yourself the 5D is really better. If you really felt that way they you would have bought one by now and avoided this exercise of trying to have other people tell you which one is better. This alone tells me that perhaps the 5D isn't for you. Are you buying into the hype just because everybody is? If so then why even bother investigating the GH2 is you think it looks so videoish. It is up to you to make the camera look the way you want. There are so many parameters and controls that effect the look of the picture.
I also feel I should point out that perhaps you have seen nice 5D material but then look at the ratio of people using Canon ca,eras compared to Panasonic cameras. Just based on the ratio alone and the fact that many film makers have blindly picked the Canon because it was the first and it is well known. If these exact film makers would have used a GH1 or GH2 for the exact same projects chances are they would have ended up looking similar. Cameras today are more like film stocks then anything else. Sometimes a certain film stock may appeal to somebody over another one. They are all capable however of telling the same story.
Don't make the same mistake a lot of amateurs make when it comes to film making. The camera is just the tool and the smallest part of the equation. Film making is a fine art and it takes great skill and craftsmanship. A painter can paint with anything and typically the brush does not matter. Leonardo Da Vinci could paint with crude brushes and paints over 500 years ago better then what most of us would be able to do with the top of the line brushes today. Learn the art first and then worry about the tools. You will never do it the correct way if you worry about the tools first. You will forever be a slave to the technology instead of the art. There are thousands of other people out there using the same tools and you need to work on a way to stand out from them if you want to make it in this industry. Where I work if we meet somebody looking for work and their main focus is the fact they shoot with a 5D we tell them so what. So does a thousand other kids. What can they do better everybody else and can they do it no matter what camera they use.
My final point is that to me it looks like are not really convincing yourself the 5D is really better. If you really felt that way they you would have bought one by now and avoided this exercise of trying to have other people tell you which one is better. This alone tells me that perhaps the 5D isn't for you. Are you buying into the hype just because everybody is? If so then why even bother investigating the GH2 is you think it looks so videoish. It is up to you to make the camera look the way you want. There are so many parameters and controls that effect the look of the picture.
Manu Delpech
Member
I'm buying the GH2, it's decided, I've seen some footage that convinced me, plus I want the resolution, flexibility, and its a thousand bucks cheaper.
james thorpe
Active member
I believe its the Sigma and Voigtlander lenses that are giving more the 'cinematic' look you are liking more then the camera body (GH2).
I also have the Sigma with the Kipon. I am real happy with the GH2 compared to my Canon.
When I hear people use the term 'film look' I just have to ask which film ? I mean, 'Ben Hur' or 'Mirror' or 'Resevoir Dogs'. Its a really dumb, wholly subjective, usually wholly inaccurate set of undefinable states gathered together into two words. Unless like me you go to experiemental film festivals that still use mechanical projectors you're not actually seeing the 'film look'. Digital cannot, and hopefully will not (because its pointless) create the flicker of the old mechanical shutter systems. Film also has a dynamic range that is wholly different to digital, and reacts to light and colour in different ways. Digital film has more in common with old analog video than it does film, understandably. Also digital noise looks nothing like film grain, and doesn't behave in anyway the same way. Manu you say you like the delicious grain of super 8, but which stock are you talking about ? See what I mean ? This is all a bit silly.
The other term 'cinematic' makes a lot more sense, in that it can define more of an overall tone, a structure, and even an editing style, and a whole lot of possible things all which relate to the mindset you are in at each stage of producing work. There is no reason why you can't achieve this with a lot of the current crop of digital cameras (and even some of a few years back). I've shot 8mm, 16mm film (and very, very occasionally 35mm film) and then moved into analog video (U-Matic, Betacam, Hi8, S-VHS), and then onto digital video (when sony were nice enough to give me a VX1000 to use). At each step I've worked with the aesthetic of the medium, and each specific camera, to create a look of my own. It took me a long time to like the look of the digital medium, although I've always loved its flexibility, and now I really do love it. I also love this little GH2 and how I can mess with it with the hack.
What bugs me is that this obsession with this imaginary subjective 'film look' is distracting from the possibility that we can now all create very unique looks thanks to the flexibility that digital gives us. I shoot entirely with 24p at the moment, but purely because thats where you're going to get the best bitrate, and therefore the best image, and therefore the most flexibility in post. But my god why on earth should I have to be running at 24fps ? but.. stray.. 'film look'. But it isn't a bloody 'film look'. Why the hell should I be trying to work at the framerate of a dying medium when I can't hope to accurately recreate every other (frankly more important) aspect of it ? If we all keep chasing this mythical look we'll end up with some odd bastardisation of the two that is neither film like or truly offers us what digital can.
The issue of lenses though, thats a different matter, I wouldn't go as far to say that some lenses are 'film look' thats silly too, but more cinematic ? mehh.. I'll allow it. But some perfectly good old video lenses have that too, and are frankly easier to shoot with than the much sought after SLR lenses.
The other term 'cinematic' makes a lot more sense, in that it can define more of an overall tone, a structure, and even an editing style, and a whole lot of possible things all which relate to the mindset you are in at each stage of producing work. There is no reason why you can't achieve this with a lot of the current crop of digital cameras (and even some of a few years back). I've shot 8mm, 16mm film (and very, very occasionally 35mm film) and then moved into analog video (U-Matic, Betacam, Hi8, S-VHS), and then onto digital video (when sony were nice enough to give me a VX1000 to use). At each step I've worked with the aesthetic of the medium, and each specific camera, to create a look of my own. It took me a long time to like the look of the digital medium, although I've always loved its flexibility, and now I really do love it. I also love this little GH2 and how I can mess with it with the hack.
What bugs me is that this obsession with this imaginary subjective 'film look' is distracting from the possibility that we can now all create very unique looks thanks to the flexibility that digital gives us. I shoot entirely with 24p at the moment, but purely because thats where you're going to get the best bitrate, and therefore the best image, and therefore the most flexibility in post. But my god why on earth should I have to be running at 24fps ? but.. stray.. 'film look'. But it isn't a bloody 'film look'. Why the hell should I be trying to work at the framerate of a dying medium when I can't hope to accurately recreate every other (frankly more important) aspect of it ? If we all keep chasing this mythical look we'll end up with some odd bastardisation of the two that is neither film like or truly offers us what digital can.
The issue of lenses though, thats a different matter, I wouldn't go as far to say that some lenses are 'film look' thats silly too, but more cinematic ? mehh.. I'll allow it. But some perfectly good old video lenses have that too, and are frankly easier to shoot with than the much sought after SLR lenses.
Last edited:
Manu Delpech
Member
I was talking about the movie Super 8.
Jester2138
Well-known member
Totally a troll subject
Ian-T
Veteran
DITTO!!!
I've been trying to get this same message out there for the last few years. The proper term to use is "cinematic." Digital cinema has a look of its own that I like.
- Status