GH1's capable of feature films yet?

Svart said:
That's because they weren't shot cinematic. There is a LOT of work behind the scenes that make things look like a movie. If you've ever been on set somewhere you'd know that things don't look natural at all on a set. They look natural when you watch the movie later but what you see is NOT what you get.

Remember, movies are make-believe.

I've seen the trailers for that GH1 feature and it does look video. That's just the way it was shot. I'm fairly certain you could make the GH1 look a lot better.

There have been some of the DVXfests that have used the GH1 in more studio-ish production and those look much more like real features.
Click to expand...


yea, but the difference is when you shoot with film, besides the production, it will ALWAYS look like film ...
 
this wasn't a thread about whether something looks like "film". Plenty of BIG budget features shot on the RED ONE, which isn't a film camera.
 
"Dispatch" is still my all time favorite "can't tell the GH1 from film" project ever...THAT movie, though only a few minutes long, shows you what the GH1 can do...and that was BEFORE the hack.
 
Azmyth said:
this wasn't a thread about whether something looks like "film". Plenty of BIG budget features shot on the RED ONE, which isn't a film camera.
Click to expand...

ok, with RED 1 you can get as close to film as you can, and it works..
but that's the difference between RED and DSLR's at the moment.
only about 10% of the footage i saw from hacked GH1 reminded me of film.
and i'm talking ONLY about the basic camera video image capability.
i think it's not enough for a feature at the moment.
(unless you WANT it to look like video.. that's fine)


maybe the GH2 will get closer..
 
roei z said:
ok, with RED 1 you can get as close to film as you can, and it works..
but that's the difference between RED and DSLR's at the moment.
only about 10% of the footage i saw from hacked GH1 reminded me of film.
and i'm talking ONLY about the basic camera video image capability.
i think it's not enough for a feature at the moment.
(unless you WANT it to look like video.. that's fine)
Click to expand...
I saw Red one 120fps footage that looked like garbage. It's all about the right lenses, good light conditions and a sense for good color grading and nobody will tell the difference between real film and a GH1 if done properly.
The difference is this: Most Red one footage available is done by professionals and that's what it looks like in most of the cases. However, most of the GH1 is done mostly by amateurs and that's what it looks like. It certainly doesn't look bad in all cases, but hey it's all about some bitrate and mud tests I wouldn't expect any of this stuff to look like film or whatever.

roei z said:
maybe the GH2 will get closer..
Click to expand...
The GH1 is a consumer camera. Panasonic is not going to make the GH2 sensor output look more like 35mm film. A typical consumer does not care about that.
 
Last edited:
The GH1 is a consumer camera. Panasonic is not going to make the GH2 sensor output look more like 35mm film. A typical consumer does not care about that.[/quote said:
bummer :(

so why are people eagerly waiting for it?
a more stable native 24p workflow?
Click to expand...
 
roei z said:
yea, but the difference is when you shoot with film, besides the production, it will ALWAYS look like film ...
Click to expand...
....Not true at all. What about a project's image are you saying makes it look like film? Whatever your answer is to that question...THAT is what you use to measure it.

Basically....just about anything can be emulated...to a degree.
 
Ian-T said:
....Not true at all. What about a project's image are you saying makes it look like film? Whatever your answer is to that question...THAT is what you use to measure it.

Basically....just about anything can be emulated...to a degree.
Click to expand...


so why does 16mm footage looks just right to me?
no matter how bad it's shot ?
you would probably say the we have to get used to digital and say goodbye to the film processing magic, and the old argument that we're all too used to the film look..

but for me it's still frustrating.. see none of the current DSLR come even close to that, no matter how much you try to post process it. it look like FX to me. that makes it even worse visual experience.. otherwise just shoot it with DSLR, call it HD video, and make a film that's video motivated.. (i had no problem with Lynch's Inland Empire )
 
roei z said:
so why does 16mm footage looks just right to me?
no matter how bad it's shot ?
you would probably say the we have to get used to digital and say goodbye to the film processing magic, and the old argument that we're all too used to the film look..

but for me it's still frustrating.. see none of the current DSLR come even close to that, no matter how much you try to post process it. it look like FX to me. that makes it even worse visual experience.. otherwise just shoot it with DSLR, call it HD video, and make a film that's video motivated.. (i had no problem with Lynch's Inland Empire )
Click to expand...
I’m only asking because you stated that “film will always look like film” which I don’t necessarily agree with especially with today’s 35mm films showing in theaters. To me those types of footage look cleaner than film footage of a few years back. I think dynamic range is the only thing video cams have to conquer (but we are very close). Also, I do recall “Showscan” from many years back looking more videoish than a lot of today’s video cameras. So, I’m just asking you…what characteristic about 16mm makes you think its film? Is it the grain? The colors? The light falloff? Are you saying all 16mm or 35mm stocks look alike?
 
Ian-T said:
I’m only asking because you stated that “film will always look like film” which I don’t necessarily agree with especially with today’s 35mm films showing in theaters. To me those types of footage look cleaner than film footage of a few years back. I think dynamic range is the only thing video cams have to conquer (but we are very close). Also, I do recall “Showscan” from many years back looking more videoish than a lot of today’s video cameras. So, I’m just asking you…what characteristic about 16mm makes you think its film? Is it the grain? The colors? The light falloff? Are you saying all 16mm or 35mm stocks look alike?
Click to expand...

well, you're right about today's blockbuster films.. that's not what i meant.

of course all film stocks don't look the same.. some of them still look like ****..
i guess the basic fact is the unpredictable effect of light that creates the film image.. and also the colors of film.. especially the 16mm.. but the beauty is still there also in B/W..
i can't tell what will happen when we'll abandon film forever.. will we just get used to digital image? maybe.. but i don't think my brain will ever let go of it ;)
 
roei z said:
bummer :(

so why are people eagerly waiting for it?
a more stable native 24p workflow?
Click to expand...
Can't tell you whether people are waiting for the GH2. I'm owning a GH1 for one year now and I have been quite satisfied, but I also shoot in 720p with double frame rate most of the time.

Digital cameras will never produce images that look like 35mm/16mm film "out of the box". A sensor isn't film, film is a chemical process, a sensor is something completely different.
 
If people want their projects to look like "film" they should shoot it with real "film". Why waste their time waiting for the GH2 to come out if they wouldn't be able to make the footage look like film mostly because they wouldn't be capable to make it look like so. The cameras are as good as the people that use them.
 
roei z said:
i guess the basic fact is the unpredictable effect of light that creates the film image.. and also the colors of film.. especially the 16mm.. but the beauty is still there also in B/W..
Click to expand...
yeah…I can understand all of this.

i can't tell what will happen when we'll abandon film forever.. will we just get used to digital image? maybe.. but i don't think my brain will ever let go of it ;)
Click to expand...
I think it’ll be more difficult for die hard film enthusiasts to let go….but most folks would probably adapt quickly. With that said though I still think film will be around for a long time. In some areas I think digital will have to make more of a jump (not necessarily a quantum leap) to convince those enthusiasts to put down their film cameras for a video cam (or digital cinema cam). Reminds me of CDs vs Vinyl.
 
Quote:
i can't tell what will happen when we'll abandon film forever.. will we just get used to digital image? maybe.. but i don't think my brain will ever let go of it ;)
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. Motion picture film will be gone very soon. The same way photo film is basically gone forever. Thank you lords of technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top