GH4 GH4 or RED Epic ?
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
David W. Jones
Veteran
Ask 5 people, and you will get 5 different answers.
I learned that years ago during a VO session. Double phone patch with the copywriter, AE, Producer, and 2 client reps. The engineer says.. OK lets run one. I do the read, and the engineer says, OK what do you think… #1: Perfect, wouldn't change a thing, you nailed the read. #2: No, he started of great, but then lost energy during the last half of the spot. #3: I disagree, he started off slow, but the last half of the spot was perfect. #4: No the beginning and end were too down, but the middle graph was spot on. #5: I think we need to take the energy up on the whole spot.
After a half hour of this we paused, made a phone call, and found out who the real decision maker was.
Everybody sees and hears something different.
I learned that years ago during a VO session. Double phone patch with the copywriter, AE, Producer, and 2 client reps. The engineer says.. OK lets run one. I do the read, and the engineer says, OK what do you think… #1: Perfect, wouldn't change a thing, you nailed the read. #2: No, he started of great, but then lost energy during the last half of the spot. #3: I disagree, he started off slow, but the last half of the spot was perfect. #4: No the beginning and end were too down, but the middle graph was spot on. #5: I think we need to take the energy up on the whole spot.
After a half hour of this we paused, made a phone call, and found out who the real decision maker was.
Everybody sees and hears something different.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
While we have intercut ARRI(s), & GH3/4, we do not crosscut them. If we did the ARRI footage would need crushing to match the GH's.
The primary reason we use the GH in these scenarios is due to their compact form factor as this facilitates shots that be much more difficult to pull of with the larger ARRI(s).
The primary reason we use the GH in these scenarios is due to their compact form factor as this facilitates shots that be much more difficult to pull of with the larger ARRI(s).
A camera doesn't have to be 'better' if it will be adequate for conveying your message with the budget you have available.
The camera is not the problem. Of available problems in filmmaking, the camera is not one. Additionally, with regards to problems, cameras no longer factor in. A Venn diagram of 'cameras' and 'problems' would not intersect. "Shoot. Or shoot not. There is no test."
The camera is not the problem. Of available problems in filmmaking, the camera is not one. Additionally, with regards to problems, cameras no longer factor in. A Venn diagram of 'cameras' and 'problems' would not intersect. "Shoot. Or shoot not. There is no test."
I won't argue 'has to be', but I can definitely understand 'want to be' better than just 'adequate'.
It can be. Not everyone shoots in a controlled environment, where the lighting, scene and even action can be fine tuned and even redone if necessary. Event and documentary shooters have the same desire to make the work look as good as production shooters, only we often have no control over anything. We frequently have 2, maybe 3 seconds to get the shot framed up, focused, exposed and start recording or that shot is gone forever, and in such situations, the abilities of the camera system (including lenses and recording format) can easily be a limiting factor. So I very much understand the desire for them to be better.
More for the sake of argument than anything...
Except where your camera can only roll on battery power for 30 minutes of a 45-minute take or randomly crashes or other nonsense, no, I still don't think the camera is the problem. I've just seen far too much great content from far too many universally panned and obsolesced cameras to think that anybody can't convey a message with something, dare I say ANYTHING that's available today, because of the camera's shortfalls. Shortfalls in skill, planning, creativity, script/treatment, editing, execution, sure... but if my shoot fails and I blame my camera because I didn't figure out how to work with its strengths and limitations, it's not the camera's fault.
I wouldn't consider myself a world-class filmmaker, but I'm done blaming gear. It's all there, I just have to learn how to use it better.
Except where your camera can only roll on battery power for 30 minutes of a 45-minute take or randomly crashes or other nonsense, no, I still don't think the camera is the problem. I've just seen far too much great content from far too many universally panned and obsolesced cameras to think that anybody can't convey a message with something, dare I say ANYTHING that's available today, because of the camera's shortfalls. Shortfalls in skill, planning, creativity, script/treatment, editing, execution, sure... but if my shoot fails and I blame my camera because I didn't figure out how to work with its strengths and limitations, it's not the camera's fault.
I wouldn't consider myself a world-class filmmaker, but I'm done blaming gear. It's all there, I just have to learn how to use it better.
Curnsie
Well-known member
+1
To re-use the oft unearthed 'car' analogy, nobody would say they were waiting until next SEMA show to get the right car for their big road trip, or turn down a job because the right commuter wasn't available. They'd pick something, anything with enough seats that wouldn't break down, get from A to B, and have a freaking blast on the highway with some friends. Because it isn't about the car, it's about the trip.
+1
This.
A few years ago it was not the case. But now- "Shoot. Or shoot not. There is no test." (My new fave quote, will be using it a lot).
I shot a film recently with my RED, 7D, GoPro and iPhone 5s all intercut. All are cheerfully adequate for my delivery medium (full HD for the web). It might not hold up in the cinema but- hands up here who GENUINELY shoots for cine projection routinely but finds camera choice the limiting factor?
If the action is paced well, you keep your action lines through the edits and the story is gripping your target audience, you can get away with wild jumps. If the leap in depth-of-field going from a running iPhone shot to a closeup on the RED is the thing you notice- rather than wondering who the hell the sexy girl in the catsuit is and who's about to be on the receiving end of those scary handcuffs- it isn't the fault of the cameras. It's the fault of my film-making.
We're on to the next stage of camera evolution: workflow, form-factor and ergonomics.
I don't need a camera that's "better" than the RED, just ones with different form factors.
I could rig some complex system to shoot POV shots from inside antique desk drawers. Or I can pop in an iPhone and get the shot in 30 seconds, knowing it'll cut together just fine at the right pace.
I can and do use the RED on a Gimbal rig, but it's damn heavy and it needs two crew as someone needs to pull focus. So I bought a GH4 to fill the gap - lighter, usable autofocus, doesn't overheat like 7D, long battery life. It's output image is entirely fine and intercuts happily with all the other cameras I have so long as the story is moving ahead shot by shot.
Cheers, Hywel.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
:thumbsup:
I shoot nothing but corporate stuff where a lot of things like available lighting are out of my control, and have been shooting mostly on my AF100. None of my clients care that the occasional highlight is blown out because the lighting in the room stinks and the camera doesn't have 47 stops of DR. They do care if the overall white balance is terrible, or the picture overall is blown out, or it sounds like it was recorded in a bathroom stall, or if my framing looks like I was drunk while recording it.
I should be finished today with a project for a division of a HUGE corporate client. Shot it with a GH4 to the internal 8bit 4:2:0 100mb/s 1080 codec. Image quality has never been an issue. Not noticing the specks of makeup powder that got on a subject's shoulder has (it should be an easy fix in After Effects... also, always shoot lot's of B-roll :huh
Having Raw or 4:4:4 or more dynamic range or S35 wouldn't have changed that.
stoneinapond
Veteran
The camera and lens sure make a difference when they can't hit the f-stop/ISO combo you need to make the shot.
Yeah, but that's not the camera's fault...... that's a user failing to either not set up the correct lighting, or choosing the wrong tools (lens) for the job.
only if I insist I need that shot to use that f-stop and ISO. Being creative and flexible enough to substitute a different shot, cheat angles, or sneak in lights is what filmmakers have done for over a century.
Probably the best bit of storytelling I've managed to date was a documentary in Africa, with a number of night shots, all verite, all on a light-insensitive Canon HV30 supported (sometimes) with a rice bag. It still had/has many many problems and areas for improvement, but the camera wasn't in of them. I've shot pieces with C300's that have absolutely sucked in comparison. The camera wasn't the reason they sucked.
Watch "Inland Empire" (shot w/ Sony PD150), then watch "The Time Machine I Found At A Yard Sale" (shot w/ RED). The camera has nothing to do with the success/failure of either.
Probably the best bit of storytelling I've managed to date was a documentary in Africa, with a number of night shots, all verite, all on a light-insensitive Canon HV30 supported (sometimes) with a rice bag. It still had/has many many problems and areas for improvement, but the camera wasn't in of them. I've shot pieces with C300's that have absolutely sucked in comparison. The camera wasn't the reason they sucked.
Watch "Inland Empire" (shot w/ Sony PD150), then watch "The Time Machine I Found At A Yard Sale" (shot w/ RED). The camera has nothing to do with the success/failure of either.
I'm talking about live event shooting with available light, but yeah, nothing beats proper lighting.
Conveying the message isn't the issue. Making it look like it came from Hollywood while using a $2000 camera, no crew, no time to 'set up' or redo the shot is the issue. Under those conditions, the hardware (or lack thereof) can very easily be a limitation.
Agreed, but neither should you criticize the guy who wants a car that can get 100 miles/gallon. Saving that much money on fuel would certainly allow for a better overall experience, with things like hotel and restaurant upgrades, additional site seeing along the way, a longer stay at your favorite places, more trips in the year, etc.