GH2 for 'Cinematic look'
- Thread starter L Fernando
- Start date
aemonk
Active member
cinematic look is a meal that consist out of so many ingredients. Mess with one and you are back in video land. Here are two images from footage I shot on a GH2 with a Iscorama 2005 anamorphic lens (skyline) and a Schneider Kreuznach Cinegon 25 f1.4 in 1:1 crop mode (candles). No grading. To me the image its self how its rendered by the GH2 and those lenses is very cinematic. The GH2 seems to give just a little bit more of detail and less aliasing(!) into post production than those Canons do.
I'm not going to upload this footage, because its hand held footage. Not only shaky footage but also the jello all the DSLRs are baking in is so not cinematic. Neither the GH2 nor any Canon will give you a cinematic look by just using them. Its the howl production pipe that needs to be consistent.
I'm not going to upload this footage, because its hand held footage. Not only shaky footage but also the jello all the DSLRs are baking in is so not cinematic. Neither the GH2 nor any Canon will give you a cinematic look by just using them. Its the howl production pipe that needs to be consistent.
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
Well... Haven't you read the thread?
What the hell is creating a cinematic look? Is it through color grading? Is it filming an amazingly lit set? Is it filming a set with insanely good art direction? Is it not being misled by digital sharpening and toning it down?
Well... It's all related and that's what we're discussing.
My view is that "filmic" is appreciated mainly because that is what we are used to for motion picures. (Lighting and other similar considerations aside.) When color was introduced to cinema there was a howl of protest from cinematographers, directors and critics alike over color's gaudy, artificial , inartistic look. I believe the same principle to be in effect with the beloved "film" look vs video. Especially 24 f/s. Look at 60 f/s Showscan and you'd never want to go back. There's nothing magical about 24f/s except it was the minimum speed requirement to sustain sound recording back in the early, early part of the last century.
Video is too sharp? What, compared to real life? Now look at your arm - now that's sharp. (It's in color too.)
All that said, I hate the video look. But aside from some of the very real DR and other lessening deficiencies, I believe that's a product of what I'm used to and my expectations. Grain? What does that have to do with real life? As mentioned above, it's an artificial thing that our bodies now seem to need to function. Like an addiction.
I was engrossed when watching Avatar on the big screen, and only much later when looking at a Blu-ray running in a TV showroom did I come to realize that the live action shots were video. I suddenly hated the scenes. Albeit, it was the best video I'd ever seen. (And now I must say, I don't actually know if it was shot using a video process, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts it was as that is what it looked like.)
So GH2 not filmic enough? We'll get over that. Eventually.
RBG
Video is too sharp? What, compared to real life? Now look at your arm - now that's sharp. (It's in color too.)
All that said, I hate the video look. But aside from some of the very real DR and other lessening deficiencies, I believe that's a product of what I'm used to and my expectations. Grain? What does that have to do with real life? As mentioned above, it's an artificial thing that our bodies now seem to need to function. Like an addiction.
I was engrossed when watching Avatar on the big screen, and only much later when looking at a Blu-ray running in a TV showroom did I come to realize that the live action shots were video. I suddenly hated the scenes. Albeit, it was the best video I'd ever seen. (And now I must say, I don't actually know if it was shot using a video process, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts it was as that is what it looked like.)
So GH2 not filmic enough? We'll get over that. Eventually.
RBG
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
There's a nice discussiong regarding FPS here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46046
SALisRaad
Member
Yes i know. I was just merely attempting to step back from the critical analyzing of the theory of "cinematic" look and hoping to get back on the topic of the technical process of a creating a fantasy like aesthetic with the GH2. Was just hoping someone had an example footage to show of the GH2 in a narrative film context.
Like my good friend said "All of the GH2 footage looks like im watching a HD Discovery channel documentary on automobiles, and not anything like watching a movie"
Hoping to see some great GH2 content that will win me over and finalize my purchase.
This good enough? Amazingly shot at an unconventional 720/60p. Looks cinematic enough to me, and it's down to the lighting and lens for me. Others may disagree.
http://vimeo.com/17989709
http://vimeo.com/17989709
SALisRaad
Member
Actually saw this vid earlier this morning off of the Vimeo GH2 group. I gotta say, this sheit looks amazing! Great work.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I know sooner or later folks are going to get tired of me dragging these out, but...
Those were shot on a GH1. A GH2 is better in every possible way. If you can't make something cinematic with the GH2, it isn't the camera's fault. As for getting the 60D -- get it if that's what you want, but don't get it if you're operating under the idea that it will somehow be "more cinematic". Anything the 60D can do, the GH2 can do and better. It's newer technology, and it just does more.
In short -- they're all perfectly capable of making very cinematic images. So buy the one you like that has the features you like and works the way you want.
someone can make this more cinematic? http://rapidshare.com/files/438345929/00004_2.avi (raw from gh1)
roei z
Veteran
the second trailer is my kind of shooting, and that's good enough for me
(still, depends on how the real movie looks on a theater screen etc..)I don't know about choppy. I can't imagine filmmakers adding the amount of trailing image that we actually see when you wave your arm in front of your face. Besides, I would think your eyes would do the same for any image swung in front of the face. Even on a movie screen. After all, we're just talking about the time it naturally takes for an image on the retina to fade out. That is the actual basis for motion picture success - persistence of vision.
So I'd let shutter speed take care of motion blur as necessary, not fps. But some things I wouldn't add in just because technically the eyes theoretically see it, like micro-eye stutter-movements as the eyes pan from one subject way over to another. There's your choppy. But we ignore such things.
And what is shakey-cam supposed to represent about the eye? Nothing. That's a whole different movie-going dynamic. Which I guess adds to the argument that filmmaking is more than just what the naked eye should see.
(BTW, I wonder when those excitable shakey-cameramen will discover the monopod or OIS?)
Shady texas trailer: some scenes looks really good like the first one while most part of it looks like a video production, well it is (0:21 and 0:31 for example)
Depth of Phil trailer: compression so poor it's hard to tell.
Both trailers looks really good but too me it's "worse" than Canon when it comes to filmlook. It's like lcd vs plasma when watching a movie. It seems like the Gh2 can do a better job than the Gh1 and I'll probably go for it as an allround camera.
(0:21 and 0:31 for example)Depth of Phil trailer: compression so poor it's hard to tell.
Both trailers looks really good but too me it's "worse" than Canon when it comes to filmlook. It's like lcd vs plasma when watching a movie. It seems like the Gh2 can do a better job than the Gh1 and I'll probably go for it as an allround camera.
Last edited:
Ian-T
Veteran
Download any trailer from appletrailers.com. Then try and find a trailer from...say..just ten years ago. My point is...even film doesn't look like film anymore (if you can understand what I'm saying). It's absolutely wrong to say that those trailers look like what we know to be the video look (IMO). Different maybe...but not like traditional video.
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
They look like really good digital (DI) manipulations of film. Now after seeing Pirates 4 trailer I can definitely say RED (and digital cinema as a whole) is heading on the right direction.