HDkilledFILM.
Burnin' down the House
That had everything to do with the shooter(s) and not the camera(s) though.
Yessir!!! It's the carpenter, NOT the tools!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That had everything to do with the shooter(s) and not the camera(s) though.
That had everything to do with the shooter(s) and not the camera(s) though.
I'm not sure that anyone looking at the GH2 is considering shooting 65mm film as an alternative.
Hey, it seems you overlooked this one posted above:
http://vimeo.com/32563119
I find it strange that anyone would pick the gh2 over the f3, especially with s-log, Go to Timur's vimeo channel and watch the s-log footage in Vegas, it's holds the highlights like no other camera other than the Alexa. It's simply beautiful. I have a gh2, I like it alot, but it's no where near the f3 with log. it really isn't.
Not strange at all. Maybe that person wants to use those extra dollars on other parts of the production. If you are making a micro budget film, then the GH2 maybe your only option and to say it's no where near an F3 is debatable. Can the average audience member see the difference? I'm of the opinion that if the story is right and you have a talented group surrounding you, the GH2 will hold up against all these higher priced cameras. The good new is that it's a great time to be a filmmaker.
exactly, then there's no point in these "I love my camera threads" It should be " I love my script" insteadCan the average audience member see the difference? I'm of the opinion that if the story is right and you have a talented group surrounding you, the GH2 will hold up against all these higher priced cameras
I'm just going by what the post stated, he said he has access to an f3, so I was taking that as it wouldn't cost anything to use. Of course if your renting, then anyone has access to an f3. My point is the F3 has a better image, with better latitude, xlr's, nd filters, s-log, 4,4,4, ect... I'm not saying the gh2 cant produce cinema quality footage, it can easily. I just dont think it compares to the f3 image, thats all I'm saying. Yes of course the dp, plays a major role, as does the gaffer, set production, location, ect...
exactly, then there's no point in these "I love my camera threads" It should be " I love my script" instead![]()
Sorry, missed the bit about having access to a F3. Although, there are other advantages to using GH2 such as size, which opens up a lot of possibilities in terms of shot selection. The steathy nature also may play a role especially when working outside permits.
Touche :grin:
The most important thing for me when it comes to choosing a camera for my feature, is that when used right, it will illicit a great response from the average movie goer (ascetically speaking). I've shown some of the best gh2 videos I could find on Vimeo along with some of my own footage to peers and acquaintances, and the general reaction is that they think that the footage looks "like a movie". Once you reach that point... It's almost hard to ignore that. I've owned an HV40, 7D, a Mark II and a few other cameras over the years and they've all been great. But the general perception that it looks like film, has not come until now with the GH2-X. So if I've pleased my audience in that regard, it makes it so much easier to focus getting other equipment I'll need for the film on / under budget. I guess it's just hard for me to watch a small portion of RED and higher priced camera buyers go into debt or be severely limited as to what they can produce based on the price of the camera alone. Then again, getting stuck in a pixel peeping feedback loop of camera owners battling it out, it's hard not to be looking at everything under a microscope as "we do" and yearn for the next best thing every 5 minutes. We're all camera nerds to a certain degree, but if we step back and just look at it like the average person would, they wouldn't or perhaps couldn't tell the difference at all. Not that they don't care, or a GH2 is just "good enough" to please the audience.. it's that, quite literally most will never actually perceive any real difference.
The most important thing for me when it comes to choosing a camera for my feature, is that when used right, it will illicit a great response from the average movie goer (ascetically speaking). I've shown some of the best gh2 videos I could find on Vimeo along with some of my own footage to peers and acquaintances, and the general reaction is that they think that the footage looks "like a movie". Once you reach that point... It's almost hard to ignore that. I've owned an HV40, 7D, a Mark II and a few other cameras over the years and they've all been great. But the general perception that it looks like film, has not come until now with the GH2-X. So if I've pleased my audience in that regard, it makes it so much easier to focus getting other equipment I'll need for the film on / under budget. I guess it's just hard for me to watch a small portion of RED and higher priced camera buyers go into debt or be severely limited as to what they can produce based on the price of the camera alone. Then again, getting stuck in a pixel peeping feedback loop of camera owners battling it out, it's hard not to be looking at everything under a microscope as "we do" and yearn for the next best thing every 5 minutes. We're all camera nerds to a certain degree, but if we step back and just look at it like the average person would, they wouldn't or perhaps couldn't tell the difference at all. Not that they don't care, or a GH2 is just "good enough" to please the audience.. it's that, quite literally most will never actually perceive any real difference.
The time for "we have no excuses" was over 3 months ago
It's time to deliver
I've found two types of DP's in my "career": those who love cameras and those who love images.
I mean, I paid over 10k for my HVX200 and she never ever said that about that camera..
Why not both?rogar-Happy(DBG):