PappasArts
Veteran
First...Nice!
As to scripts, there always in rewrite, and never finished even when principal photography begins. At least that's how it's done in LA.......
GH1 sample footy and pricing
- Thread starter squig
- Start date
First...Nice!
As to scripts, there always in rewrite, and never finished even when principal photography begins. At least that's how it's done in LA.......
I just saw the trailer in theaters and for a consumer camera it looked very good bumped to film. It wasn't distracting and resolution wise it looked more than adequate.
squig
Veteran
she's not a bad scriptwriter either
yeah I've noticed how most of the stuff out of hollywood looks unfinished. But I expect we'll be improvising dialogue as we shoot.....that's the beauty of using a HDSLR and a skeleton crew.
Thanks for pointing me to the scriptwriting thread, I needed to get back on track. I've been spending far too much time dicking around in the D90 dungeon.
haha, thanks. well, most of that was shot on film, a lot on quite crappy super 8 reversal, one was shot to look like "pro video" for sarcastic purposes. i know what you mean, but i'm trying to bring the cheesy industrial into the equation. those often look pristine, crisp, colorful, slick, sharp, high res, but they *do* make me sick. so is it really the production value that draws us in?
/matt
i thought we had already established that the d90 fortunately doesn't shoot professional video so you're in the clear.
/matt
Ian-T
Veteran
Yes....and that's why the "Crank 2" movie is such a good example. I saw the trailer in theaters the other day also and it fit perfectly right in there with all the other trailers. As you already know...it's so much more than a silly camera.
DavidNJ
Carbonite Member
Put an Intensity card in your computer, attach a 25' HDMI cable to the GH-1, and record at 160Mb/sec Cineform wavelet compression to 10-bit (8 from the camera) 4:2:2 with I-frame editing ease.
Or a Rebel T1i for 720p30, a 50D Mark II or 5D Mark IIs for 1080p30, either of which can be down converted. I don't see anything else coming from Nikon for a while, but maybe the Samsung APS-C later this year or the Olympus mFT hinted at for the summer will do the trick. Sony could also have something coming. The Olympus or Sony would have the IS on the sensor allowing any lens to benefit.
Or a Rebel T1i for 720p30, a 50D Mark II or 5D Mark IIs for 1080p30, either of which can be down converted. I don't see anything else coming from Nikon for a while, but maybe the Samsung APS-C later this year or the Olympus mFT hinted at for the summer will do the trick. Sony could also have something coming. The Olympus or Sony would have the IS on the sensor allowing any lens to benefit.
so why are so many high production value films/clips so disgusting while so many crappy minidv movies are fantastic? i'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with crisp footage, even though i'm not so fond of it myself, but to me it's always been secondary. i'm not talking aesthetics by the way, just technical quality. a well made film is usually better than the same film would be if not so well made (no ****).
/matt
DavidNJ
Carbonite Member
The original idea by a filmmaker is often something that comes from deep within, leverages many real world experiences, and has been developed over years or even decades. A little like the people driven by their alien encounters in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. At that point, they often lack resources. THX1138 was originally a film made in college (shot in the halls of UCLA) before George Lucas was able to 'remake' it as a studio feature. He kept in subsequent films, here as a plate number in American Graffiti.
Boy this discussion went way south.
Just know that you already had the tools to shoot a marketable feature when the DVX came out. And not just a one-trick pony Blair Witch sort, either.
Let's not forget that NOVEMBER won several cinematography awards, and it sold, got distro'd, played in theaters etc etc.
35mm Adapters just made it all the easier. See: THE SIGNAL.
The GH-1 will be more than adequate to shoot a feature with so long as the compression isn't as horrific as the D90's, which it isn't looking so.
David-- Did you confirm the HDMI is Live?
Just know that you already had the tools to shoot a marketable feature when the DVX came out. And not just a one-trick pony Blair Witch sort, either.
Let's not forget that NOVEMBER won several cinematography awards, and it sold, got distro'd, played in theaters etc etc.
35mm Adapters just made it all the easier. See: THE SIGNAL.
The GH-1 will be more than adequate to shoot a feature with so long as the compression isn't as horrific as the D90's, which it isn't looking so.
David-- Did you confirm the HDMI is Live?
compression is the least of your worries when shooting a feature on the d90, believe me (i have). i'm more worried about manual control, overheating, and jello. looks like the first two are "solved" but we'll see.
/matt
It's true. I'm sure there are those that could work around it, just wouldn't be me. The end product isn't enough for me to commit to that camera. Mines is going on the chopping block really soon here and I'll be back to shooting stills with the D70s until something else comes out.
All things said, though, there's plenty enough to shoot a feature on right now without money.
The hard part is finding an okay/decent script. =D
Ian-T
Veteran
Well….for me, depending on the type of movie, production value can be the only factor that draws me in. I know you’re not talking aesthetics, but the original “Crank” is a good example of a mindless, unrealistic, hodgepodge of a story …but…it looked good, had good music, which didn’t seem different from any other type of high action movie that I’ve seen...and that was enough for me to enjoy myself (really…I’m not shallow).
Yes…there are many DV movies that are fantastic….even really low resolution ones…but…if you go beyond the point where it is technically distracting (Splotchy looking, bad sound etc.) then sometimes the story is just not good enough to keep your attention. But if you keep those things in check then I could easily enjoy it as much as the other “well made” high budget movies I like. Still though…it all depends on the “type” of movie. Also What you consider crappy might be regarded as fantastic to another.
DavidNJ
Carbonite Member
Not yet...waiting to hear back on the HDMI.
I agree with the camera. HD isn't necessary, and may even be a detrement. All the talk about compression is HD related. DV was all I-frame at 5:1 compression. Our issue de jeur is black compression. On the HDV and early AVCHD cameras it was compression. DV was a 5:1 compression, HDV was 28.5:1, and early AVCHD was 42:1. While they added GOP and AVCHD had better encoding...there is a lot lost. The 5DM2 has 16:1 compression with AVCHD and long GOP bring it close to DV, with a better chroma map for progressive frames. The HMC150 at 720p24 native is 10.6:1 with AVCHD and long GOP. Probably better than DV. The HPX300/200 with 100Mb/s AVC Intra (AVC I-frame) is 10:1, with less chroma but more spatial compression than the HMC150.
Add that for the most part, until very recently, nearly all HD was not only hammered on compression but also undersampled and the reason for upgrading hasn't been all that compelling.
The most recent cameras have been changing that with less compression, 1:1 or oversampling, and better sensors, glass, and processing. The 5DM2 took it to a new level, which is why most of us are having this GH-1 discussion IMHO.
The 35mm adapters give you more control over telling the story. However, you can often get a similar affect with color or lighting. This is an shot from Notorious:
I agree with the camera. HD isn't necessary, and may even be a detrement. All the talk about compression is HD related. DV was all I-frame at 5:1 compression. Our issue de jeur is black compression. On the HDV and early AVCHD cameras it was compression. DV was a 5:1 compression, HDV was 28.5:1, and early AVCHD was 42:1. While they added GOP and AVCHD had better encoding...there is a lot lost. The 5DM2 has 16:1 compression with AVCHD and long GOP bring it close to DV, with a better chroma map for progressive frames. The HMC150 at 720p24 native is 10.6:1 with AVCHD and long GOP. Probably better than DV. The HPX300/200 with 100Mb/s AVC Intra (AVC I-frame) is 10:1, with less chroma but more spatial compression than the HMC150.
Add that for the most part, until very recently, nearly all HD was not only hammered on compression but also undersampled and the reason for upgrading hasn't been all that compelling.
The most recent cameras have been changing that with less compression, 1:1 or oversampling, and better sensors, glass, and processing. The 5DM2 took it to a new level, which is why most of us are having this GH-1 discussion IMHO.
The 35mm adapters give you more control over telling the story. However, you can often get a similar affect with color or lighting. This is an shot from Notorious:
Eddy Robinson
Well-known member
I am immune from this particular Panasonic sales technique, since I get my cross-cultural experience as soon as open my eyes every morning.
Anyway, I agree, it looks very very nice - at least, the first link did, I thought the compression on the second one was pretty trashy (ropes on the boat and edges of the model's silhouette)...but this is likely the result of overzealous web compression.
The color, latitutde and DoF all hit my personal sweet spot - I'm OK with trading some depth for ease of focus by a single operator. It probably Means Something that we haven't seen any night footage whatsoever from this camera so far, but I guess that'll be rectified by this time next month. What the hell, unless it's truly awful I'll probably manage with practicals or a small lighting kit for anything I'm likely to do.
Eddy Robinson
Well-known member
Drooool...oh wait, we're supposed to be talking about the camera.
Interesting...note the flash photography as they enter doesn't seem to causing any major rolling shutter issues. Hard to tell from this context of course, but even on a video-of-another-camera's-LCD the shadows in the background look OK too. It's encouraging.
Eddy Robinson
Well-known member
I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit, considering the total unavailability of raw footage samples right now. 17 vs 21 Mb/s is higher, but what I'd call extremely high. And after many years of programmer-level experience with virtually every kind of compression, my feeling is that the quality of compressed output depends very heavily on the quality of the original uncompressed data.
I don't think it's realistic to assume that a higher compression ratio is automatically going to result in poorer final output than stuff shot on a much smaller sensor to begin with, even with a lower compression ratio. This is not give the GH1 a free pass on the 17 Mb/s bitrate (we'll have to wait and see...) but to suppose that the starting image from a 4/3" sensor is equivalent to that from a 1/5" sensor is unreasonable.
For those ringing the footage on Panasonic's website, check out Hunter Richards' Vimeo footage here:
http://vimeo.com/2975796?pg=embed&sec=
It's NOT GH-1 footage, but it's 16mm Film transferred to proRes 4:2:2. I'm pretty sure the web compression is at fault for some of the image degradation. You sure as hell probably wouldn't see it in the original ProRes transfer.
Give it some time. Make final judgements on some uncompressed footage.
http://vimeo.com/2975796?pg=embed&sec=
It's NOT GH-1 footage, but it's 16mm Film transferred to proRes 4:2:2. I'm pretty sure the web compression is at fault for some of the image degradation. You sure as hell probably wouldn't see it in the original ProRes transfer.
Give it some time. Make final judgements on some uncompressed footage.
Park Edwards
Veteran
yeah, i saw that a long time ago when I was searching for 16mm film. just to think the gh1's dof is better than that.
squig
Veteran
Surely panasonic have a 4/3 pro camera in development. In the meantime the GH1 to prores is going to have to do. Sure I'd like to shoot the film uncompressed on a red but that would cost as much as I have budgeted for the whole film.
Unfortunately the D90 doesn't quite cut it. If Nikon were to give it manual shutter control and double the bit rate it would be a serious contender with a 2nd camera to compensate for the overheating.
I too am living the cross-cultural experience but I have no immunity.
Unfortunately the D90 doesn't quite cut it. If Nikon were to give it manual shutter control and double the bit rate it would be a serious contender with a 2nd camera to compensate for the overheating.
I too am living the cross-cultural experience but I have no immunity.