GH3 Great Comparison Video with GH3, GH2, BMC, Nex, etc

[Kholi]

You'll have to spell this out to me - I'm not getting your tone.

Phrase: congratulations, you win the Internet.
Usage: when someone makes a statement that shuts down an opposing statement, or offers a fact as a counter to a comment that is either incorrect or only partially true.

Not many people win the Internet. In 2011 there were only twenty eight winners of the Internet.


And the comment about Sony and Panasonic was in response to the othe post.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

Because they're not. Blackmagic has been in business since 1984.

I meant BMCC.... the last 'C' denoting 'Camera' . Sorry for the cornfusion

 

[Zephyrnoid]

I still chuckle at the prospect that a pro would consider $3,000.00 per body as overpriced. Most video related pros even today consider $3,000.00 the starting point for a professional camera. Even then cameras typically in the $6,000.00 are considered the starting point for pros at a certain level. This isn't even considering the high end pros who buy cameras easily north of $10,000.00. My first pro level cameras were SONY DSR-300 which I think cost somewhere around $9,000.00 and we had two of them and a DSR-500 which cost I believe around $12,000.00. My whole point is that $3,000.00 for this quality point is insanely cheap already and pretty much right at the same price point as any other professional camera.

I agree, but the paradigm has and continues to shift wildly from high Price/performance expectations, to Low Price/ Performance ones instead.
The take-away I got from the Zacuto revenge shootout 2012 was that Pros no longer needed to expect the high Price/performance paradigm (AKA- What GH2 Hacked did to spoil the party).
So what some of us may consider to be laughable low price / performance is not relevant. The bottom has officially dropped out of the elitist pricing structure, especially when you consider that the majority of instaled base TV's are STILL only 4:3 SD CRTs ( crazy but true ). Finally. With camera makers pushing for product refresh every 6-8 months, the life expectancy of of 'current' gear is much shortened, resulting in a much changed mid to long term budgeting strategy for the small-time pro and aspiring pro.

After all, what is driving the falling Price/ Performance ratio, if not Moore's Law in action ?

 

[Zephyrnoid]

Interesting to think how film is one of few expressive forms of art where the average person simply cannot compete or does not have access to the same level of instrumentation that a pro does. Think anything... music, illustration, painting, visual effects, modeling... the average person can pretty much produce the same level of quality expected from a professional in any art form, given that they have the talent. With film, no matter how talented you may be, it's always been blatantly obvious what's at hollywood level and what's independent.

What this has to do with the GH3 and this thread... I don't exactly know. I'm high on exorbitant amounts thanksgiving turkey and can't think straight.

I hear your Turkey and raise you one to boot Just finished digesting so I'm good to go.

I believe that your Hollywood benchmark is reasonable. After all, if Hollywood cannot stay a few years ahead of the average 'Joe', who'd pay anything to see a movie on the silver screen ?
However, to flip that statement upside down for a moment, meditate on the fact that we all know that 90% of production value is NOT coming from the camera as a device. So in reality the gap had closed considerably as truly viable gear has been landing at an accelerated pace in the hands of brilliant amateur film makers.

When I read a statement that includes a prase such as "the same level of instrumentation that a pro does"... I cringe a bit.

It places doubt that a FFCopola could make an award winning flick with a Panasonic GH2.

Th real problem I have is that Hollywood is running out of tricks. What comes after 3D ?

4D ?

Hollographic 'Feelies' ?

 

[L1N3ARX]

When I read a statement that includes a prase such as "the same level of instrumentation that a pro does"... I cringe a bit.

It places doubt that a FFCopola could make an award winning flick with a Panasonic GH2.

Th real problem I have is that Hollywood is running out of tricks. What comes after 3D ?

No doubt in my mind that he could. What I mean to say... is that to produce a decent film, the effort is monumental; one or two people cannot produce a well rounded film that passes on a technical note in all its intricacies no matter how talented they are. It requires the expertise of so many various parties in so many capacities, that it can be overwhelming to think how films even get made on the indie scale. It requires a decent level of mastery in so many skills and types of equipment that the average joe simply cannot, no matter the talent, the ambition and motivation... create something that is comparable to anything an actual studio or an experienced group of filmmakers could make. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm only referring to superficial elements of a production, not the creative side (story, acting, good directing and all that...), but cameras, lighting, audio, set design, and everything else.

Creatively, you may be able to match or even supersede the quality of any good hollywood film without much experience, on a small budget if you're talented. On the technical side... I'm sorry, but there's simply no replacement for professional equipment and mastery of that equipment. It will always be obvious what is a professional production on a decent budget, and what was made by super ambitious Director/Writer/DP Joe. With all other forms of art, the potential is there to be every bit as good creatively and technically because you have access to the same stuff. And it doesn't require literally a crew of support members that are extremely talented in implementing a host of different duties using expensive equipment.

Assuming we're all the creative geniuses that we think we are... the BMC is just kind of a neat step in the right direction as far as getting closer to "hollywood" level production value.

 

[Rolf Silber]

?.... the BMC is just kind of a neat step in the right direction as far as getting closer to "hollywood" level production value.

Even for an avarage German TV-Movie, budget is about 1.3 Million Euros. Camera related costs are about 3 - 5 %. So, yes, while it is indeed revolutionary in this segment, to be able to shoot technically nearly big-boy-pro-level with a small camera, this will not change things production wise as much as a lot of people may want in the pro sector of movie / tv-productio for narrative films. The changes will happen in the low-budget or no budget area. But the camera is not the or not even a decisive factor in becoming more "hollywood'ish". 90 % of costs are retated to things and people in front of the camera, organisation and post.

 

[Postmaster]

This is how most sensors work with video. That is why raw video from RED or BMCC tends to be soft. It has no electronic sharpness added.

Since the BMC has no OLPF it is super sharp out of the box.
Sometimes I even tend to blur it a bit in post, to give it a more pleasant look.

Frank

 

[Fresno Bob]

Phrase: congratulations, you win the Internet.
Usage: when someone makes a statement that shuts down an opposing statement, or offers a fact as a counter to a comment that is either incorrect or only partially true.

Not many people win the Internet. In 2011 there were only twenty eight winners of the Internet.

I see.

 

[Fresno Bob]

No doubt in my mind that he could. What I mean to say... is that to produce a decent film, the effort is monumental; one or two people cannot produce a well rounded film that passes on a technical note in all its intricacies no matter how talented they are. It requires the expertise of so many various parties in so many capacities, that it can be overwhelming to think how films even get made on the indie scale. It requires a decent level of mastery in so many skills and types of equipment that the average joe simply cannot, no matter the talent, the ambition and motivation... create something that is comparable to anything an actual studio or an experienced group of filmmakers could make. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm only referring to superficial elements of a production, not the creative side (story, acting, good directing and all that...), but cameras, lighting, audio, set design, and everything else.

Creatively, you may be able to match or even supersede the quality of any good hollywood film without much experience, on a small budget if you're talented. On the technical side... I'm sorry, but there's simply no replacement for professional equipment and mastery of that equipment. It will always be obvious what is a professional production on a decent budget, and what was made by super ambitious Director/Writer/DP Joe. With all other forms of art, the potential is there to be every bit as good creatively and technically because you have access to the same stuff. And it doesn't require literally a crew of support members that are extremely talented in implementing a host of different duties using expensive equipment.

Assuming we're all the creative geniuses that we think we are... the BMC is just kind of a neat step in the right direction as far as getting closer to "hollywood" level production value.

I think people get hung up on the equipment too much.
If you have extraordinary talent and drive, you should get noticed. No matter what you shoot on.

BUT, where I will agree with you - I used to make VHS short films, and they looked like total crap visually because it's such a horrible format. That would seriously depress and deflate me as it just didn't look professional. Now with the GH2 and MKII etc, you can get close enough to 'the look' for that attitude to no longer be a barrier.

The flipside of that is - with access to these cameras and industry standard 3D tools etc, the playing field is atronomically flooded with talented people, producing incredible work that just doesn't make an impact due to the sheer amount of people out there doing the same.

In short, "it [is] the best of times, it [is] the worst of times"!

 

[Sage]

camera is not the or not even a decisive factor in becoming more "hollywood'ish". 90 % of costs are retated to things and people in front of the camera, organisation and post.

+

 

[L1N3ARX]

Well I hope people don't read into what I wrote as "depending" on good or pro equipment. I think it would be an extremely foolish mistake to wait until you had "just the right tool" to do the job, constantly dreaming but never doing.

At the end of the day, equipment matters NOTHING to me, I will always use what I have and be satisfied as hell. If it were any other way, I'd give up on my dream of making a film.

What I'm trying to say, is that on a technical level, nothing more- the DISTINCTION between the amateur (me) and Hollywood is always there, no matter my talent or ambition or desire... it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to make up for a large crew of extremely talented people using top of the line equipment to make a film. The BMC is just a tool that helps in a very very small way to reach out and get closer to a professional level of production... NOTHING more.

In other forms of art, talent is really the only distinction between amateur and pro, not equipment. It's not about equipment or tools allowing you to make a "good" film, just taking note that what's done on pro equipment with lots of talent will always be different in some way, but not necessarily "better".

 

[L1N3ARX]

But the camera is not the or not even a decisive factor in becoming more "hollywood'ish". 90 % of costs are retated to things and people in front of the camera, organisation and post.

I agree completely, since I would never dare say that a camera is a "DECISIVE" factor in anything... because it's not, and should never be.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

I agree completely, since I would never dare say that a camera is a "DECISIVE" factor in anything... because it's not, and should never be.

...and yet the vast majority of activity on this forum is heavily focused on remarks related to the Camera and secondly to the lenses with the balance related to production and and sample files.

 

[Kholi]

It is, definitely. And I also notice that the people who talk the most about craft being more important have very-little-to-nothing to do with the craft subsections. USer Films is almost a ghost town right now as far as discussion goes, and there are members doing pretty great things.

So yeah, clearly camera's more interesting to most here, just how it goes. And it really is very important, to be honest. Nothing wrong with wanting to be completely confident in the tool you choose, is there?

 

[Rolf Silber]

IAnd it really is very important, to be honest. Nothing wrong with wanting to be completely confident in the tool you choose, is there?

Absolutely right. Yet the idea that filmmaking would only or most distinctively be defined by the technics of camera so a new camera could somehow define the ability to break into the upper levels of the production market is something that I find a bit off at times - even when under certain circumstances it may happen.

But, yes, clearly, knowledge of tools is incredibly important and this is a camera forum.... And for me personally it was and is a great help for having made the transition from film to digital (sniff, sob, sigh....).

What is both funny and breathtaking is the speed of things and how expectations grow asymetrical - BMC just about coming to the market and people already start discussing their next (assumed) model, GH3 not out and it get's roughened. This is a bit mad, imho.

I wait meanwhile patiently for my GH3 to arrive. Intesting times.

 

[Sage]

Since the BMC has no OLPF it is super sharp out of the box.
Sometimes I even tend to blur it a bit in post, to give it a more pleasant look.

Frank

Consider glass filtration behind the lens. Very impressive

 

[Zephyrnoid]

I'd have ordered a GH3 for myself sooner but in all honesty, I want S35 and I want a diminutive S35 or at worse, a different form-factor MFT. As a longtime still shooter, I now detest the 'Leica' form-factor. Sorry to rant, but that's the message I really want the camera makers to understand.

 

[Rolf Silber]

As a longtime still shooter, I now detest the 'Leica' form-factor.

Yes, but if you want a video camera, take an AG-AF. Or the marvellous BMC. Or a nice Sony. Those are clearly cameras build for video and video alone. Panasonic brings us with the GH3 a very good to excellent photo camera with - for the price - absolutely excellent video capabilities.

Why does this need to be "be-ranted"? It's a different product altogether. Do you shout at a four wheeler because it is no sports car? For me the GH3 is the nearly perfect product (ahem ... focus peaking, please....!?!?) because it works in both areas. Are there compromises to be expected? For about 1.200 € I'd say that's logical. If I look at the features I have no clue why some people are upset.

And, maybe, in half a year the camera get's Vitaly'sed anyhow....

 

[Kholi]

Yes, but if you want a video camera, take an AG-AF. Or the marvellous BMC. Or a nice Sony. Those are clearly cameras build for video and video alone. Panasonic brings us with the GH3 a very good to excellent photo camera with - for the price - absolutely excellent video capabilities.

Why does this need to be "be-ranted"? It's a different product altogether. Do you shout at a four wheeler because it is no sports car? For me the GH3 is the nearly perfect product (ahem ... focus peaking, please....!?!?) because it works in both areas. Are there compromises to be expected? For about 1.200 € I'd say that's logical. If I look at the features I have no clue why some people are upset.

And, maybe, in half a year the camera get's Vitaly'sed anyhow....

Indeed to every point above.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

Yes, but if you want a video camera, take an AG-AF. Or the marvellous BMC. Or a nice Sony. Those are clearly cameras build for video and video alone. Panasonic brings us with the GH3 a very good to excellent photo camera with - for the price - absolutely excellent video capabilities.

Why does this need to be "be-ranted"? It's a different product altogether. Do you shout at a four wheeler because it is no sports car? For me the GH3 is the nearly perfect product (ahem ... focus peaking, please....!?!?) because it works in both areas. Are there compromises to be expected? For about 1.200 € I'd say that's logical. If I look at the features I have no clue why some people are upset.

And, maybe, in half a year the camera get's Vitaly'sed anyhow....

Seems my communication has failed again. See the GH3? Ok. What is the net 'volume' of this device? Let's say it's 'X'.
Ok. All I want is Volume X GHX with the same features as GH3 (+ focus peaking, please....!?!?, DC In socket and 4:2:2 color in DIFFERENT shape. The Leica form factor is great if you shoot single handed, always holding the device to your face and the camera is not in a cage.

Watch in 2013- Someone will do this and upset the apple cart completely.