Canon's recent announcement. Will it hurt GH1?

Nitsuj said:
Good discussions here but I guarantee you that somebody is going to make a theatrical length movie on the GH1 and prove its disadvantages can't stop somebody from making a great film or a great quality production.
Click to expand...

I start in July. I'd like to think I don't need it but wish me luck. Originally going to be shot on ultra 16mm 'til I started to hear of this camera. 2 days after the start of principal something is going to be announced that's going to make me go 'D'oh' but these are the times we live in.

Good thread Nitsuj, thanks.
 
Nitsuj said:
And I really do not understand how anybody can say the D90 video image is better. I have yet to see a comparison that proves that... on top of it's jello shiznit.

Good discussions here but I guarantee you that somebody is going to make a theatrical length movie on the GH1 and prove its disadvantages can't stop somebody from making a great film or a great quality production.
Click to expand...

The D90 has a warm pleasing filmic aesthetic that is easy to obtain just walking around and shooting without any filters or post tweaking but it is heavily compressed. I've yet to see anybody get that kind of warmth from the GH1.

I've been having a close look at raw footage from the GH1 converted to prores and cineform compared to re-compressed H.264 from the MKII. The GH1 720p footage looks more compressed than the re-compressed MKII footage. It's particularly noticeable in solid grey areas.

If I was going to start shooting my feature tomorrow I'd shoot it on the MKII and do 24p in post. Jello is not really a major concern because I've used a D90 with a stablizer and wide glass and I know how to tame it and I'm told the MKII jello isn't quite as bad.

I still can't decide either way, I need a cam for 6 months of film school and to make a couple of shorts so the GH1 would do nicely but the compression isn't acceptable for my feature but that's just me. A few guys have shot films with the D90 and they look good so each to his own.
 
squig said:
I still can't decide either way, I need a cam for 6 months of film school and to make a couple of shorts so the GH1 would do nicely but the compression isn't acceptable for my feature but that's just me. A few guys have shot films with the D90 and they look good so each to his own.
Click to expand...

Whoops, somebody's back on the fence ;) Gh1 while at film school will blow fellow students and faculty away being such a new concept. Probably a good choice for school and by the time they're finished warping your mind there is likely going to be a few other choices out there for your feature. 6-9 months from now the Gh1 v 5D is probably going to be a non-issue with what we hear might be lurking just around the corner.
 
puredrifting said:
Other than this vague website, where can one actually buy this film stock, rent the camera, do the lab and telecine for this format?
http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Dan
Click to expand...

I belong to a filmmakers co-op here in Victoria. They recently converted an Eclair to ultra. Rental for me is free. I just get whatever 16mm film stock is the best for the particular project. We were using a lab in Vancouver but recently things have changed a bit so we're using a lab in Seattle. After developing we send it to the following people: www.cinelicious.tv for everything else. Did our test on some shorts with pretty good results and our biggest fears of scratched negatives were put to rest.

My DP has a work flow, price break down and addresses for the labs (not in front of me at the moment, sorry) that I'd gladly send you if your looking into this for a project of your own. Just don't laugh when you see how 'brave' he was with his shot ratio. Just wanted to save me money.
 
Nighthawk said:
Whoops, somebody's back on the fence ;) Gh1 while at film school will blow fellow students and faculty away being such a new concept. Probably a good choice for school and by the time they're finished warping your mind there is likely going to be a few other choices out there for your feature. 6-9 months from now the Gh1 v 5D is probably going to be a non-issue with what we hear might be lurking just around the corner.
Click to expand...

yeah it's perfect for school. they have a bunch of hvx's. There might even be something with a global shutter in 6 months time. I'm still in the GH1 camp today primarily because I have a c-mount 10mm anamorphic lens that I want to try out and the MKII 24p update hasn't been confirmed. I can also get money back on a GH1 but I'd take a hit selling the MKII if nikon or samsung have a worthy contender.
 
Finding an ultra 16mm camera for rental is tough. I have a S16mm Arri SR and a R16mm BL (which I'm trying to sell). I thought of converting the BL to ultra 16mm myself by filing and polishing out the gates, but the problem is that there's only two labs I know of that does the telecine: cinelicious and bono labs.
It's important for me to trust the lab and telecine place - and I want to be there for telecine, so I dont see the point of it anymore.

You can use any 16mm film out now for it - it doesn't require special film just special telecine (and maybe handling during processing - correct me someone if Im wrong).

I often give people the option to shoot with my film cameras for a nominal added fee basically just to conver my insurance - I don't care, I'll shoot film any chance I get. They are very excited at first but when we break down the costs they realize it would take away from a lot of other important costs.

Film can be great for short showpieces, but for low budget features, it usually is prohibitively costly, which is why so many people are considering the alternatives of course. Film ain't dead - it just too expensive for most low low budget features. :(

puredrifting said:
Other than this vague website, where can one actually buy this film stock, rent the camera, do the lab and telecine for this format?
http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Dan
Click to expand...
 
dadoboy said:
Film can be great for short showpieces, but for low budget features, it usually is prohibitively costly, which is why so many people are considering the alternatives of course. Film ain't dead - it just too expensive for most low low budget features. :(
Click to expand...

Word. That's why the 'gamble' on the Gh1. If shooting film my craft services would have been a 1 ton box of Kraft Dinner. If it wasn't for the trust I have in my DP I wouldn't have gone this route but the work this kid (I'm old enough to be his Pa) has done with sooo little is phenomenal. Man, I can't wait to get out of the gate.
 
I was looking at Hunters A-Minima shots on Vimeo the other day, the stuff of his family. Just beautiful, heartfelt footage, I do miss shooting S16. I sold off my SR, I just have my old Russian K3 which frankly is a piece of junk. It is tempting, there are some great deals on S16 packages out there and with the economy the way it is, you can get some screaming deals on transfers.

I would love to shoot a nice, tightly scripted short on S16 these days, but with an HPX170 and a 5D MKII laying around, I should shoot shorts on one or both of them. And I agree, neither of my cameras truly look like film, although they both have some film characteristics. But film still looks better and much more organic overall.

Dan
 
The D90 looked very organic not as good as film but the closest I've seen, it was just let down by the heavy compression. The MKII is a little too sharp/clean but I think it looks really filmic with some post work.
 
I used the VX2000 on a lot of shorts in film school. The school I went to had 2 options, film or the new program, video. I chose video because I knew it was heading in that direction. Plus I had always shot video growing up. I shot 2 shorts on 8mm because it was a class requirement but after that I never looked back. The VX2000 didn't look as good as film then but I knew it wouldn't be long so I kept on trucking along. While the majority film students were cracking jokes at us minority video guys we were knocking out impressive stuff making them scratch their heads. Then when we kept pushing more and more out to show at the school theatre every Friday night to the public they were still working on scrapping up money to finish their projects. I loved to see the look on their face when they asked "What was your budget?". I said "What budget? $0 man... it's all about creativity." My fellow video peeps would also look in shock sometimes because our projects didn't look like video. It was all about lighting that took you away from the video feel and brought you into the story. Lighting goes such a long way.
So we were looked down and laughed at because of image quality however when it came down to it we were learning a whole lot more in less time by pushing out 10 times more videos then they could on top of making it look less like video. It is what film school is for if you ask me. Learn as much as you can while you are there and what better way to learn than by shooting a lot of projects? I'm wondering if there are any of them still in debt cause of their learning projects. ;)

Video has always been my medium. I really haven't understood the fascination for the film look. I understand it looks good and I always strive to make video cinematic but I would never say "This doesn't look enough like film" then shoot it all on film and raise the budget 5 or more times higher! That is what I don't understand. If the story is good and it is told in a good way then that will carry itself no matter what medium you use. If I had the chance to use the GH1 in film school I wouldn't think twice. Just think of the looks you would get telling them you shot it on a DSLR. ;)
 
squig said:
The D90 looked very organic not as good as film but the closest I've seen, it was just let down by the heavy compression. The MKII is a little too sharp/clean but I think it looks really filmic with some post work.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
If D90 had the resolution and sharpness of 5DmkII and better compression I bet it'll provide the nicest, smoothest video on the DSLR market...actually I'm so sure, I'd even bet 1 $ on that!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top