GH1's capable of feature films yet?

But WHY would you shoot film over digital in a heartbeat? Because you perceive it has a better 'look' than digital capture currently.. whether that be latitude, gamma curves, grain, resolution, whatever it be. Soon that will all be a moot point and digital chips will far surpass all of those things. So if you can get better latitude, better color,better control, better light sensitivity, and better resolution,and then apply ANY film stock look you want in post, ALL without the hassle of 'developing' it would be a moot point, and that is what is happening... the chips are getting better and better at an incredible speed and now they can mostly almost equal film, and soon will surpass it.

The GH1 and EX1 can pretty much equal the look of the f900... and those are crappy consumer/prosumer cameras.... the f900 shot Star Wars and released it nationally...imagine what digital film technology the military has... they probably shoot **** 10x imax resolution on digital chips from space already.

They are probably watching me type these conspiracy theories right now and out to get me... I must go....
 
Last edited:
i'm not saying digital isn't eventually going to take over. it's inevitable, but film is like the manual transmission of cars, it'll take a long time for it to eventually "fade" away. if ever. with how technology growing so fast, 5ive years is when film will be second to digital, but not obsolete.


ohh and btw:
Predators = Uhm, yeah, it's Rodriguez who's behind the whole production. i'd be disappointed it were shot on anything else.
2012 = yes, and most of Emerich's movie's will be shot on digital from here on out because he sucks, and won't get the financing, so why not?
Zombieland = perfect example for the budget, not a major blockbuster, but not a bust either.
Paul Blart: Mall Cop = of course it was shot in digital, nobody wanted to give tjhis piece of **** movie any money
Alice in Wonderland = Burton's just a washed up director, he probably chose digital for the shitty 3d and producer's are tired of his lack of idea's.
Avatar = digital? more like a whole new ball game of filmmaking. couldn't have done it film even it was an option. reason why it took 200 years for it to get made.
Balls of Fury = just like Zombieland, no reason to put the money toward film when it can be done cheaper and still look good.

But the best example of digital which was just crafted amazingly was Benjamin Button. Whomever the DP was on that project could've probably shot the movie on a Gh1 and it would've looked awesome, but it's a good example of how awesome digital can look. Fincher is an advocate for digital filmmaking so I can see why he chose it over film.
 
Blackout said:
But WHY would you shoot film over digital in a heartbeat? Because you perceive it has a better 'look' than digital capture currently.. whether that be latitude, gamma curves, grain, resolution, whatever it be. Soon that will all be a moot point and digital chips will far surpass all of those things. So if you can get better latitude, better color,better control, better light sensitivity, and better resolution,and then apply ANY film stock look you want in post, ALL without the hassle of 'developing' it would be a moot point, and that is what is happening... the chips are getting better and better at an incredible speed and now they can mostly almost equal film, and soon will surpass it.

The GH1 and EX1 can pretty much equal the look of the f900... and those are crappy consumer/prosumer cameras.... the f900 shot Star Wars and released it nationally...imagine what digital film technology the military has... they probably shoot shi* 10x imax resolution on digital chips from space already.

They are probably watching me type these conspiracy theories right now and out to get me... I must go....
Click to expand...

I like digital a lot, I'm shooting a feature on the GH1 - but given the choice/money I would go film, but I'd say that's just my preference - I'd happily shoot on either - I'm just a film guy at heart, I guess and I just don't believe applying film stock looks in post is the same as shooting on those different stocks to begin with, that's something you can never fully duplicate. Would somebody else notice? Probably not, but if I had my choice and I were in control I'd like to have the option. But again, I grew up on film and love it - others may not feel that way and I'll freely admit that I'm probably a dying breed.
 
blackout is exactly right. digital will soon over take film in latitude and everything else. why would anyone want to shoot in film after that? higher end digitals are already almost indistinguishable from film and most of them are already several years old. imagine they are developing now and which will be released in a year or two give or take. upcoming high end digitals will probably be on par with film if not blow it away entirely.

film requires you to shoot it on film, then laborously scan it into digital to color correct it. then laborously (and expensively) print it back on film for projection. why would anyone want to go through that whole process when future digitals with superior image quality will cut out the middle man so to speak.
 
There are still purely analog music studios and big name producers who cut only to tape. And to my ears a Moog still sounds better than a Nord Lead. I'll believe the "in the future everything will be digital" argument when I see it.
 
vcassel said:
There are still purely analog music studios and big name producers who cut only to tape. And to my ears a Moog still sounds better than a Nord Lead. I'll believe the "in the future everything will be digital" argument when I see it.
Click to expand...


Yeah but I could also argue that there are plenty of antique car collectors out there who still own restored Ford Model-Ts. But it doesn’t mean those cars aren’t dead for practical use. They went the way of the dinosaur and are now ‘drivable’ museums. I’m an audio guy also and I know of DJs who still like to cut to Vinyl…but that is only a small niche group. Film will still be around for a bit…but I’m of the opinion that’s where it is all heading.
 
Ian-T said:
Yeah but I could also argue that there are plenty of antique car collectors out there who still own restored Ford Model-Ts. But it doesn’t mean those cars aren’t dead for practical use.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Then there are bands and producers like Radiohead and Nigel Godrich who always master to tape in a hybrid workflow.

They went the way of the dinosaur and are now ‘drivable’ museums. I’m an audio guy also and I know of DJs who still like to cut to Vinyl…but that is only a small niche group. Film will still be around for a bit…but I’m of the opinion that’s where it is all heading.
Click to expand...

I'm one of them. I beg to differ on it being a small niche group. Where I live (South Florida) vinyl only stores have prospered counter to the economy. Take a walk down Haight. I'd say that roughly half the DJs I see spin vinyl only. The rest use a mix of stuff, but mostly Serato.
 
Compared to what the general mass public is buying (who annoyingly downloads lower quality MP3s) record stores are very small. DJs are their biggest patrons (maybe not in South FLA...I dunno).
 
It's funny when someone complains about the steps it takes for film to get through post, as if digital doesn't have several steps to it as well. Either way photographers still shoot film and they still shoot digital. They use what works best for the project at hand. I don't see film dying out as a capturing device for a good while because film works better for the project at hand while digital would work better for other projects. A good DP should be able to shoot on either very well and picks the one that works for the project at hand.
 
it's whatever is most cost effective is what's going to get picked. producers don't sit around going "oh yeah, it would look magical and pretty on digital or so much more natural and realistic on film." more like "whatever is going to make me a billion dollars is what we're going to shoot with."
 
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...?
 
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...

uh was this a hypothetical thing or are you actually asking?


if it's for real, well it depends on what type of movie. what is your story, setting etc? For example if the movie is a thriller with mostly night shots or a lot of creepy low light scenes then it would be pretty pointless to go with GH1 if you have that much money because GH1 is relatively poor in low light.
 
Yes a GH1 is capable if not preferable. I saw a movie today that was shot in the late 70's. Last Night at the Alamo by Eagle Pernell was shot on an Eclair NPR, in B&W. The Picture was grainy the sound was awful but the direction acting and writing were beyond excellent. Point is, the camera really makes very little difference. Talent is what counts.
 
yeah if you have a good story and good actors, all that doesn't even matter. you guys heard of the sundance film Ballast?

how about the sundance short film Window Breaker by Tze Chun that got turned into Children of Invention. Window Breaker was shot on dvx (looked like 100a but I wasn't sure if it was A or B) and mostly looked like crap with nasty blow outs everywhere and super low resolution yet it was heralded for its story and acting etc.
many other such stories as well
 
There are three things to worry about before worrying about if the camera is good enough.

The script.

The script.

And the script.


Now I can answer the question of the thread.

Yes, it is.
 
Homunculus said:
uh was this a hypothetical thing or are you actually asking?


if it's for real, well it depends on what type of movie. what is your story, setting etc? For example if the movie is a thriller with mostly night shots or a lot of creepy low light scenes then it would be pretty pointless to go with GH1 if you have that much money because GH1 is relatively poor in low light.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. The question was rhetorical actually although the situation is not hypothetical. Your point of matching the camera to the situation is well taken. Why use a screwdriver when you really need a wrench?

I think the GH1 with fast primes is capable of low light although there are other cameras that are better in that situation like the Nikon D3S. I like to put the money on the screen so for less the price of renting the excellent RED or ARRI I can actually buy the DSLR that will excel in certain areas with the proper lens combination. Renting excellent prime lenses is cost effective so I see the DSLR as tools I can actually own which is preferable to me.

On this venture I am blessed with an excellent script and a savvy, experienced crew so I will boldly venture forth with the little DSLR's after burning joss sticks at the alter of luck.:thumbsup: That is a necessary element no matter what the budget or tools.

BTW, it's always bugged me calling the GH1 an SLR - because it ain't. It just looks like one.
 
bonobored said:
Thanks for your response. The question was rhetorical actually although the situation is not hypothetical. Your point of matching the camera to the situation is well taken. Why use a screwdriver when you really need a wrench?

I think the GH1 with fast primes is capable of low light although there are other cameras that are better in that situation like the Nikon D3S. I like to put the money on the screen so for less the price of renting the excellent RED or ARRI I can actually buy the DSLR that will excel in certain areas with the proper lens combination. Renting excellent prime lenses is cost effective so I see the DSLR as tools I can actually own which is preferable to me.

On this venture I am blessed with an excellent script and a savvy, experienced crew so I will boldly venture forth with the little DSLR's after burning joss sticks at the alter of luck.:thumbsup: That is a necessary element no matter what the budget or tools.

BTW, it's always bugged me calling the GH1 an SLR - because it ain't. It just looks like one.
Click to expand...
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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top