GH2 Panasonic GH3 short film - Philip Bloom
- Thread starter MattLazz
- Start date
Ian-T
Veteran
Ha....now that's all I'm going to see everytime I watch a Canon video. Thanks a lot.
maranfilms
Veteran
Jaundice isn't so bad really, just proves you can drink with the best of um:beer:
keylight
Veteran
VMT, funny dude. Keylite. Love it!
I think PB gives great tech info & perspective, and I always search before buying to see if he's reviewed a piece of gear. So he deserves his rep for his reviews. My problem isn't with PB, it's with the freaking spot in the shot! When there's a clear problem with a shot that falls under the DPs responsibility, then it is the DP is who I criticize. PB wrote at the top of his blog post: "ETHICS STATEMENT: I was paid to DP this film but that is all." So, PB gets the blame (although I see in the credits that Logan was a co-DP with Bloom, so they both should get the blame). Doesn't matter if the DP was running the camera for that particular shot or not - it was his responsibility.
I wrote in my first post, "I would have expected... that PB would have taken a bit more time to make sure he was working with gear in good operating condition, not gear that was dirty." I could have (and given that I now realize Logan was co-DP, should have) replaced "PB" with "the DP". In my first post I also said that overall I was a bit underwhelmed with the results. Seeing that spot in the shot may be indicative as to WHY I felt underwhelmed: seems like the film-makers were more concerned about telling a story than showing off the camera.
In my last post I wrote, "I think PB is s a bit overrated on these and other boards." I do think that. But that isn't his fault. It's the fault of those who do the overrating. I think the term is... fanboys? You know, those who fawn everything he does (good and, well to fanboys there can be no bad). I also wrote, "But I understand why Panasonic asked him to be a part of this... there's a lot of talent out there that can shoot great looking stuff, but they weren't just buying a guy who can shoot, they were buying the name." Panasonic was going after the PB fanboy base that is heavily invested in Canon and other non-Panasonic gear.
I agree with Danielvilliers:
Cheers!
Last edited:
DrDave, here are the lenses used, straight from Philip Bloom's blog post:
So, in other words, no crazy fancy glass. No PL, no Zeiss, no lenses that cost 5x to 10x as much as the camera.
The Voigtlander is no slouch, but maybe it was wide open.... "Lots of Lumix" could mean anything. Well, we shall see!
keylight
Veteran
I just looked at the D600 video. Nice! But.... There was freaking dirt (3-4 specs) in some of the shots! Arrrgggghhhhhh...... Though strangely, I "feel" more accepting of the dirt given the style (documentary) and location (nature/wild) than the GH3 video which was very planned and controlled.)where the GH3 was fiction. Doesn't mean it should have been there in a big PR video (it shouldn't have and they were careless), just that the doc format is more forgiving than a short narrative.
Anyway, as to the discussion people have comparing the GH3 and D600 videos, my opinion is that it's just not possible because of the massive difference in data rates of the original files they uploaded to Vimeo.
GH3 is 20,188 kbps @24fps and 4:45 long
D600 is 4,745 kbps @30fps and 5:13 long
That's a massive difference.
And compare the HD videos that Vimeo is streaming (for those who don't want to download the originals):
GH3 is 4,655 kbps
D600 is 2,663 kbps
That too is a giant difference. So there's no doubt that the GH3 should have less noise and artifacts. I'd love to see what the D600 looks like at the GH3's data rate (and vice-versa).
Anyway, as to the discussion people have comparing the GH3 and D600 videos, my opinion is that it's just not possible because of the massive difference in data rates of the original files they uploaded to Vimeo.
GH3 is 20,188 kbps @24fps and 4:45 long
D600 is 4,745 kbps @30fps and 5:13 long
That's a massive difference.
And compare the HD videos that Vimeo is streaming (for those who don't want to download the originals):
GH3 is 4,655 kbps
D600 is 2,663 kbps
That too is a giant difference. So there's no doubt that the GH3 should have less noise and artifacts. I'd love to see what the D600 looks like at the GH3's data rate (and vice-versa).
Downloaded the 1080 MP4. Still crazy soft, no telling if that's from ALL I or it being heavily compressed... but, at the core, I still feel like there's GH2 mojo there.
Announcement's in a few hours, but even then I don't think there'll be any definitive answers until the camera's in a few people's hands. And, maybe it'll just need an external or a hack.
Announcement's in a few hours, but even then I don't think there'll be any definitive answers until the camera's in a few people's hands. And, maybe it'll just need an external or a hack.
bitcrusher
Well-known member
Just check out the download. Looks good!
Low light stuff has a lot less noise then the gh2 could do. Also the shot @ 1:35 looks like it has a good amount of DR, looks like they brought up the shadows in post and it still looks clean. The softer shots look like the 12mm hyperprime shot wide open. The 14-35 oly looks crazy good.
Take my money now!
Low light stuff has a lot less noise then the gh2 could do. Also the shot @ 1:35 looks like it has a good amount of DR, looks like they brought up the shadows in post and it still looks clean. The softer shots look like the 12mm hyperprime shot wide open. The 14-35 oly looks crazy good.
Take my money now!
maranfilms
Veteran
Really? I always thought Canon had the best auto white balance in the biz. Not that I use it much, but when in a rush, I have always been satisfied with it. It's pani's auto white balance I think is horrid. Just goes to show, we all have different taste.
Last edited:
Why are you people using AWB in the first place?!???
bitcrusher
Well-known member
Seriously.... AWB no way. If you are in a hurry use a preset.
Did you download the original MP4, the 600MB version? Looked pretty close to me.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Have you seen this one yet?
https://vimeo.com/49558910
Download the original file. It looks quite sharp, though I do see some aliasing. Not any worse than the GH2, though.
Mark Williams
Veteran
Geez.. here we go again.."don't use AWB don't use auto-focus". I say just use what you want because there are no iron-clad rules.
Last edited:
Maybe it's just me, but that raw clip looks slightly softer than what I'm used to with the GH2. Could be the lens, but that looks more on par with the 5D Mark III. Not that I find it terrible, still a very pleasing image.
Sometimes none of the presets look perfect. And sometimes even dialing in a value doesn't make it look right. For those times... AWB suddenly works.
Hmmm, it sounds like you folks may be talking about different things. Auto white balance is when you just leave it on auto and it decides on its own what the WB should be depending on the current lighting, so in one shot going from indoors to outdoors it will change the WB on the fly. Are you referring to manual white balance, that you have to set with a white card and store it?
The new GH3 seems to have an Eye Tracking Autofocus which Pani calls "Eye Sensor AutoFocus", just like the Canon AE2 had. I think that will be very interesting to play around with.
Although, I could just be reading much more into "Eye Sensor Focus" than what is really there. But I don't think I am.