GH2 Panasonic GH3 short film - Philip Bloom

I think we see those alternative frame rates....at least see 720/120p and over cranked . This camera definitely awaits some good material ! Getting closer every year to cocteau's dream.
 
okay, it's probably just me, but it seems with his equipment, especially glass, that the gh2 is more than capable of doing what i just saw. seems people are just focusing on the 3 after the prefix instead of the quality equipment that accompanies a good production. if you think by having a gh3 that you're going to get the same results, think again. this was a matter of a good production. i'm excited for the gh3, but it's not going to magically make movies, documentaries or any sort of good film making by itself.
 
A hack is a hack, a lot of people, especially producers are going to appreciate the new factory implemented firmware, new chip and processor to boot. For anyone happy with the GH2, it may not be enough to jump ship, but for those that want it to just work out of the box...
 
Car3o said:
okay, it's probably just me, but it seems with his equipment, especially glass, that the gh2 is more than capable of doing what i just saw. seems people are just focusing on the 3 after the prefix instead of the quality equipment that accompanies a good production. if you think by having a gh3 that you're going to get the same results, think again. this was a matter of a good production. i'm excited for the gh3, but it's not going to magically make movies, documentaries or any sort of good film making by itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is high-end stuff. Big lights, big lenses (in specs, of course). It's kind of like what Laforet managed to do with the 7D/5DMKII with "Beyond the Still" - which was to prove how cameras mean relatively little, and everything else matters a ton.
 
dop16mm said:
A hack is a hack, a lot of people, especially producers are going to appreciate the new factory implemented firmware, new chip and processor to boot. For anyone happy with the GH2, it may not be enough to jump ship, but for those that want it to just work out of the box...
Click to expand...

Agreed. GH3's will find their way onto sets as B cams if they provide GH2 hack style footage without hacking. Cameras bricking or having to watch to see record failures (or tinkering with patches etc) just doesn't work on set...

So, if a GH3 gives hacked or 'better than' hacked quality, it will attract those who don't want to go to the trouble with the hack.
 
Derek Chingwell said:
Agreed. GH3's will find their way onto sets as B cams if they provide GH2 hack style footage without hacking. Cameras bricking or having to watch to see record failures (or tinkering with patches etc) just doesn't work on set...

So, if a GH3 gives hacked or 'better than' hacked quality, it will attract those who don't want to go to the trouble with the hack.
Click to expand...

But the GH3 will become a hacked camera. :)
 
Car3o said:
okay, it's probably just me, but it seems with his equipment, especially glass, that the gh2 is more than capable of doing what i just saw. seems people are just focusing on the 3 after the prefix instead of the quality equipment that accompanies a good production. if you think by having a gh3 that you're going to get the same results, think again. this was a matter of a good production. i'm excited for the gh3, but it's not going to magically make movies, documentaries or any sort of good film making by itself.
Click to expand...
WHy do you say that? If you look closely to all the info provided, there is no big cinema lenses used here. They are all m4/3's glass. There is no hack here, it's native codec. Are you not seeing the skin tones and gradation I'm seeing? I know there is lots of night shots going on, but some of them daylight scenes look like the DR in the camera are extended. 00:42. Keep in mind that is a graded image, but look into them highlights. Look at the water towers spectral highlight. 00:50. Look at the right side sunlight street in the background. 00:52, lot's of range there. 1:00, come on man! Look at the shaded area under the fire escape and scan into the sunlight street.
I'm going to say the most expensive glass they used is the Oly 14-35 f/2. Big production?! What, some lighting? Lighting you need for any production no matter what camera! There's no tricks here. No $20,000 PL's. Just a tiny dslr, some m4/3 glass and a story. All shot natively with the on board codec.
 
...meh!

I was a bit underwhelmed. For all the time and effort spent shooting it, seeing a shot with a dirty lens makes me feel like not a lot of care actually went in to doing a good job. (At 43 seconds when the car races out onto the road.) So I'm left really wondering about the care given to make sure the camera was performing at its best.

I would have expected, given that this is the first (or one of the first) videos shot with the new camera and would undoubtedly get a lot of attention, 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.

Here's a screen grab:

meh.jpg
 
The sensor had actual marks on it, since it was still a beta camera. Some of the features weren't even enabled.

Philip offered some info parallel to this on his blog, it's easy to access.
 
keylight said:
...meh!

I was a bit underwhelmed. For all the time and effort spent shooting it, seeing a shot with a dirty lens makes me feel like not a lot of care actually went in to doing a good job. (At 43 seconds when the car races out onto the road.) So I'm left really wondering about the care given to make sure the camera was performing at its best.

I would have expected, given that this is the first (or one of the first) videos shot with the new camera and would undoubtedly get a lot of attention, 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.

Here's a screen grab:

View attachment 60176
Click to expand...
WOW.. I WILL NOT BUY THIS CAMERA BECAUSE OF A DUST SPOT ON THE SENSOR FOR 3 SECONDS! Come on man. That's all you got? Saying Philip is lazy? It's not even as you say "seeing a shot with a dirty lens". They got a shot were they probably changed lenses and a spec of dust got on the SENSOR. WOW..
 
Well this solidified my purchase even further. Whoever's complaining about a spec of dust on the sensor obviously isn't interested in the camera in the first place. However if someone can point out a REAL issue, then lets hear it. I thought it was very clean and I couldn't see a single instance of judder or exposure trail that many GH2 users along with myself experience from time to time. This is a must buy, no doubt about it.

I thought the video was a tincy bit subpar, but I'm not complaining. It's worlds ahead of what Canon does introducing their product lines.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, guys… Read his blog post. Philip says…

"We did have a few minor tech issues which I will talk about later. One you can see in the video. The sensor had a couple of tiny marks on which pop up here and there in some shots. Naturally this was down to the early nature of our camera…"
 
Stephen Mick said:
Seriously, guys… Read his blog post. Philip says…

"We did have a few minor tech issues which I will talk about later. One you can see in the video. The sensor had a couple of tiny marks on which pop up here and there in some shots. Naturally this was down to the early nature of our camera…"
Click to expand...

Then it'll be a little revision: Not sure if dust mark on lens... or on the sensor... or still on my monitor.
 
kylevant said:
Not sure if dust mark on lens... or on my monitor.
Click to expand...

Here, this should make it very easy...

It was an early pre-production camera so much of it I wasn’t able to try out…those new features I can talk about on Monday…cue smiley face
icon_smile.gif
We did have a few minor tech issues which I will talk about later. One you can see in the video. The sensor had a couple of tiny marks on which pop up here and there in some shots. Naturally this was down to the early nature of our camera…
Click to expand...

And here is the actual link, in case it's hard to spot on the vimeo page: http://philipbloom.net/2012/09/15/genesis/

Hopefully that helps.


On the other hand, I wager that most people here haven't ever seen a prototype camera before, let alone taken one out for a spin. This is pretty typical stuff, not to mention buttons not working, hatches falling off, sensors not even being the final sensors. IT's just something that the average shooter doesn't get, which makes it really hard for company's to want to release early footage. Take BMD for example, that's why we didn't get any early downloads because people just...do..not..get it.

It's like letting someone see a cut of a scene without some of the final finesse. DOesn't register. No fault of the viewer, of course, that's just why you think thrice before showing...
 
dustylense said:
WHy do you say that? If you look closely to all the info provided, there is no big cinema lenses used here. They are all m4/3's glass. There is no hack here, it's native codec. Are you not seeing the skin tones and gradation I'm seeing? I know there is lots of night shots going on, but some of them daylight scenes look like the DR in the camera are extended. 00:42. Keep in mind that is a graded image, but look into them highlights. Look at the water towers spectral highlight. 00:50. Look at the right side sunlight street in the background. 00:52, lot's of range there. 1:00, come on man! Look at the shaded area under the fire escape and scan into the sunlight street.
I'm going to say the most expensive glass they used is the Oly 14-35 f/2. Big production?! What, some lighting? Lighting you need for any production no matter what camera! There's no tricks here. No $20,000 PL's. Just a tiny dslr, some m4/3 glass and a story. All shot natively with the on board codec.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more... This is standard stuff and looks great. Not only that but it actually has a story! I'm impressed.
 
Kholi said:
The sensor had actual marks on it, since it was still a beta camera. Some of the features weren't even enabled.

Philip offered some info parallel to this on his blog, it's easy to access.
Click to expand...

Just read his blog post and the note on the sensor. I'm not sure I entirely buy the explanation. He's saying Panasonic, which spent all this money to make the short film, gave them a body with such a glaring sensor problem. And they didn't have a backup camera in case things went wrong (after all, this was an early pre-production camera so the chances of something would go wrong would be much higher than normal).

It's either B.S. or a total fail on Panasonic's part. But since it's only in some of the shots, I've got ask.... Why not work around the problem by shooting those shots differently? If PB knew about the problem, then it's his failure not to shoot around it. And if he didn't learn about the problem until the shoot was over... well, that's another kind of fail.

L1N3ARX said:
Whoever's complaining about a spec of dust on the sensor obviously isn't interested in the camera in the first place.
Click to expand...

dustylense said:
WOW.. I WILL NOT BUY THIS CAMERA BECAUSE OF A DUST SPOT ON THE SENSOR FOR 3 SECONDS! Come on man. That's all you got? Saying Philip is lazy? It's not even as you say "seeing a shot with a dirty lens". They got a shot were they probably changed lenses and a spec of dust got on the SENSOR. WOW..
Click to expand...

LOL.... I actually put in my pre-order (with a deposit) weeks ago with a camera shop I do a lot of business with. And no, I'm not saying PB is lazy. I mean the man is everywhere these days. Must be an incredibly hard working guy. But, uh... maybe he was a bit sloppy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top