GH1's capable of feature films yet?

bonobored said:
Well, let's see... I've got 180 large to make a movie with. I can rent a RED or an ARRI. Or I can use the three GH1's I can get for free and do a three camera shoot. Or if I really want the "film look" I can do super 16. My LD is an artist. He can make VHS look good. Do people who actually pay to see movies really care about a rolling shutter?

What to do...?
Click to expand...

There is no reason it has to be just one or the other. The GH1 could be used for scenes that play to its strengths and short term rental of a better camera could supplement for shots that involve things like fast action or camera movements that the DSLR's don't do so well.
It doesn't matter how sensitive a camera is, you still have to light a movie if you want consistent look and quality. So I don't think ultra low light sensitivity is all that critical.
 
Homunculus said:
hey man if you choose the gh1 more power to you. notch one up on gh1's victory belt and let Red weep. truth is in good conditions, good crew and knowledgeable DP with proper lighting, GH1 can look very close to Red.
Just don't get carried away with the fast primes thing. I have a 1.4 which is about as fast as consumer/prosumer primes get and the footage is still not even usable above 800ISO in many/most cases (depending on what you're shooting)
Click to expand...

Yep, agree about the ISO800 limit on the GH1. So enter the Nikon for the dark side. Of course, some experienced and respected DOP's think I am absolutely insane and they may be right - but insanity has served me well so far.:beer:
 
Razz16mm said:
There is no reason it has to be just one or the other. The GH1 could be used for scenes that play to its strengths and short term rental of a better camera could supplement for shots that involve things like fast action or camera movements that the DSLR's don't do so well.
It doesn't matter how sensitive a camera is, you still have to light a movie if you want consistent look and quality. So I don't think ultra low light sensitivity is all that critical.
Click to expand...

Correct on all points.:thumbup:
 
Razz16mm said:
There is no reason it has to be just one or the other. The GH1 could be used for scenes that play to its strengths and short term rental of a better camera could supplement for shots that involve things like fast action or camera movements that the DSLR's don't do so well.
It doesn't matter how sensitive a camera is, you still have to light a movie if you want consistent look and quality. So I don't think ultra low light sensitivity is all that critical.
Click to expand...
THERE!! I'm glad somebody finally said it......again!!! One still has to light thier scene.

I sometimes laugh when I read about someone's frustration with this or that DSLR's low light capability. Makes me wanna ask...."what were you shooting on a year and a half ago?"
 
most films shoot in the range of F4 to F6.. ISO 320 to 400..

Now that tells me that most films use a LOT more light than most people think..

But I've been on set for a few things and know that it's a lot brighter than the finished product would lead you to believe..
 
On a side note, I was watching Miami Vice the other day and noticed in a night scene that there was FPN in the clouds behind the actors..

Thought it was funny that I never noticed this before. Pixel peeping has ruined me.
 
Svart said:
most films shoot in the range of F4 to F6.. ISO 320 to 400..

Now that tells me that most films use a LOT more light than most people think..

But I've been on set for a few things and know that it's a lot brighter than the finished product would lead you to believe..
Click to expand...
someone said that as well about the f4 to f6 but then someone else (in another thread) corrected them and said most movies are actually about t2 to t3 or so. I could be wrong. But either way it's a very valid point that film has no where near the low light capability (unless you have kubrick's nasa barry lyndon lens lol). so you guys are right in many ways I guess..........
 
Forgive my ignorance but what is the actual definition of "pixel peeping" is it LOOKING for digital artifacts OR FINDING them unexpectedly? or is it a combination of both? I guess what I'm getting at is the material people "pixel peep" so marginal that this is a passtime to go through the dreck of what we call modern entertainment.
 
F stops and T stops are related only in that they measure some amount of light. I'm not sure there is a real good way to scale them together. I come from still photography so everything I think is in F stops.

Anyway, to get such low light performance you'd need a very fast lens. However with this lens you'd get very shallow DOF and probably a slightly fuzzy picture. While it's cool to have DOF, when someone's nose is in focus but their eyes aren't, that's just too shallow to be of use. Most lenses offer their best sharpness and DOF around F4-F8 in normal lighting conditions. I suppose this is why film cameras generally shoot for these settings.

Pixel peeping does come from looking for problems. However, once you become accustomed to seeing these problems, you just sort of see them everywhere even when not really looking for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top