GH2 Is the Gh2 capable of the film look?

stip said:
I remember that thread also. Right now, the only thing that makes DSLRs look 'filmic' is shallow depth of field, which is something you don't even see that much in real films. The more shallow DoF you go, the more you trick the brain to think it's filmic.
Click to expand...


In "real films" you obviously see shallow DOF a lot and you probably always, with good reason. It is an invaluable technique for targeting the audience's attention where you want it. It is NOT just stylistic.
 
To clarify; there's a difference between shallow and short DOF. The former has been overused with HDSLRs, especially the 5DmkII, whereas short DOF is knocking off the sharpness of the background just enough to make the subject of the shot stand out without falling out of focus all the time ...

As for 'film look' I don't worry about it, I just work to make my images look good and my GH13 allows me to do that rather easily compared to traditional camcorders.
 
tealseal said:
In "real films" you obviously see shallow DOF a lot and you probably always, with good reason. It is an invaluable technique for targeting the audience's attention where you want it. It is NOT just stylistic.
Click to expand...

I think what stip was saying is that the hyper shallow look often used in DSLR vids is actually not utilized AS much in a lot of films. (of course this depends on the style of the film and/or the cinematographer) I do think there is something else that gives the DSLR's a "film like" quality, even with deeper DOF shots, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe their flawed method of deriving a 1080 signal actually lends to this "look"......and maybe that's why people say the GH2 doesen't look AS filmic as the Canon's. (right out of the box that is, after post - people have shown they can be made to look very similar)
Panasonic is getting a sharper measured resolution from the sensor and maybe that makes it appear more "digital". Maybe I'm talking crazy....who knows.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
To clarify; there's a difference between shallow and short DOF. The former has been overused with HDSLRs, especially the 5DmkII, whereas short DOF is knocking off the sharpness of the background just enough to make the subject of the shot stand out without falling out of focus all the time ...
Click to expand...

I've never heard of "short" DOF as distinct from shallow DOF. If "short" DOF is blurring the background, what's shallow DOF?
 
Hmmm...I guess just think of "short" as medium well to well done...whereas "shallow" is often overcooked to burnt. :)
 
Jester2138 said:
I've never heard of "short" DOF as distinct from shallow DOF. If "short" DOF is blurring the background, what's shallow DOF?
Click to expand...
You don't read American Cinematographer often enough then. Shallow: razorthin, almost impossible to keep the actor in focus DOF - used mainly in feature films for give a sense of horror, alienation and/or dislocation.

Famous example; Ripley climbing up through a ladder hole in the final of 'Alien' - at first her fingers in foreground are in focus, then focus is pulled to her eyes, fear has made them bigger than a cow's - everything else in frame is blurred to abstraction. Perfect usage, still not bested. Films made with 5DmkII are full of takes like that with no purpose what so ever except to say 'hey, look at that awesome film look!' despite actually neither operator nor actor never ever hitting the marks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top