GH2 Panasonic GH3 short film - Philip Bloom

keylight said:
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.
Click to expand...
I bet that the problem will be that the self cleaning sensor function was not activated or not working. That's IT! Ever have a deadline? That is why they gave a pre production camera so they can make this for NEXT WEEKS Photokina. IT"S A CONSPIRACY!!!!
Self cleaning mode not activated: YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
 
It's times like these that I wish you could just tell people to calm down smh. I mean were really talking about a dust mark! I've shot on the gh2 and had a little speck of dirt get on the sensor and had this same problem happen to me. I didn't realize it until I went to edit. Doesn't really reflect on the cameras perfomance tho. This could happen on any camera.
 
Last edited:
The footage certainly didn't blow me away, and frankly, it doesn't look noticeably different than what we've seen from the GH2. Then again, that may be more of a complement to the capabilities of the GH2. And it means the GH2's will continue to be excellent B-cams.

Still, the codec/ergonomic/feature improvements would make the GH3 a no-brainer upgrade.
 
Hi
As just a normal regular DVXUser member my reaction is WOW. I thought every aspect was really well done. Congratulations to all involved. I think my reaction is just what you were aiming for and I am happy to offer it. Makes me want to pick up a GH3 or saimilar camera and shoot. Also makes me think I had better keep my day job a while longer...

Best Regards to all on the forum
 
Noticing a number of wide shots that are just softer than everything else in the piece... for instance, the night wide shots as Dude runs from the car and then as he enters the train station... softer with lots of halos on the lights. I can see the CV25 characteristics elsewhere, those shots didn't seem to jibe with that... so much of the piece was very, very crisp otherwise.

Did you work on this project? Am I completely wrong?
 
mcbob said:
Noticing a number of wide shots that are just softer than everything else in the piece... for instance, the night wide shots as Dude runs from the car and then as he enters the train station... softer with lots of halos on the lights. I can see the CV25 characteristics elsewhere, those shots didn't seem to jibe with that... so much of the piece was very, very crisp otherwise.

Did you work on this project? Am I completely wrong?
Click to expand...

Oh nah, I was just wondering which were which. I've got the 12/1.6 (version 2) but I haven't used it a ton just yet, still looking for the time. I'd be curious to see a rundown of which shots used what lens, though. Thinking that most of the interior vehicle stuff had to have been the 12/1.6, as the close focus and FOV seem to be the best match for any vehicle interior work. Also, in my experience with the 0.95, you get those halos of light wide open at night. I think those are the 0.95 wide open. Being a wide exterior, with little light, having the option between the 25/0.95 and moving back to get the wide versus 12/1.6 wide open, I probably would've grabbed the 0.95 and fed the sensor as much light as possible.

Maybe they'll tell us exactly which lens was which.
 
You know what - the whole thing for me just says what a great eye Philip Bloom has. I've watched his material for years trying to decide what to buy, and I like the ethic he has, but it has to be said the man could make the most dreadful camera produce beautiful images in exactly the same way mine always just look ..... average, even when I get a nice bit of kit to use.

He understands composition, lighting and movement.

People give him new kit and he always produces something quite special. It's the man, not the machine. I for one would love to be a tenth as good as he is.

I don't usually like these kinds of shorts - but damn it looks good.
 
I guess I'm reposting but...

To be fair, Bruce Logan has done a lot of work here. You can see his lighting style, down to camera work and action in most scenes in this footage. Just, Philip is the more popular name within the very low budget community.


Not saying that Philip didn't do anything, just that Bruce Logan has done a lot here, and at least I can see a lot of his style here.
 
Quite dissapointing actually.
The image detail (I suppose it's too much compression? and some not so good lenses?), the grading and the editing seem quite subpar for names like Logan and Bloom.
We sure have seen much better gh2 footage in every aspect.
I mean, what's up with the crushed blacks, the missing detail, the badly handshaken footage, the skippy slow mo?
I still can't wait to preorder it and I'm so enthousiastic about the gh3, but I suspect this short, to my surprise, doesn't do it justice.
Hm...
 
Last edited:
He did write and direct plus do a lot of the camera work, after all.

From Panasonic's leaked video BTS stuff, it looks like Mr. Logan was handholding the GH+Oly 14-35 combo for the car interiors with a 35-100/2.8 pulling hood cam duty.
 
Minor said:
Quite dissapointing actually.
The image detail (I suppose it's too much compression?), the grading and the editing seem quite subpar for names like Logan and Bloom.
Click to expand...

well, it is a 720p24 web version. Hard for anything to survive that intact.

If my casual web-stalking is correct, Logan and Bloom shot this barely a month ago... meaning the edit was probably finalized a week or two ago.

Even considering someone else did the edit and Logan colored it, that's a heck of a little piece to crank out in a couple of weeks. I don't think it's going to take home an Oscar and my life wasn't eternally bettered by the message and it won't spawn an extensive merchandising campaign, but it's pretty damn good for what it is - a quick, bare-bones short.
 
ras815 said:
The footage certainly didn't blow me away, and frankly, it doesn't look noticeably different than what we've seen from the GH2. Then again, that may be more of a complement to the capabilities of the GH2. And it means the GH2's will continue to be excellent B-cams.

Still, the codec/ergonomic/feature improvements would make the GH3 a no-brainer upgrade.
Click to expand...

The same could have been said between the GH1 hacked and the GH2 when the GH2 was first leaked. Many argued the GH1 hacked was better then the GH2 unhacked and it turned into a giant pi$$ing match taking up hundreds of threads. Even if the GH3 is only marginally better that doesn't mean overall it isn't a better camera. Certain features alone like audio support and higher datarates without crashing could make the camera worth the upgrade. There are also a lot of aspects of a camera in terms of image quality we will never see in a web video. What if it does have 4:2:2 and 10bit by using avc-LongG? What if it does have higher dynamic range? These are things we may not see in even the best compressed web video.
 
I'm just simply stating that buying a gh3, out of the box or not, will NOT make you a better filmmaker. hell, it doesn't even make you anything but a person who just bought another camera. You know how many people on this forum have said "i can't wait till the next big camera comes out because it's exactly what i've been looking for." -- a lot. 20 to 1 odds, the majority of footage shot with the gh3 will be test footage of flowers and kittens.
 
The film looks okey or good but i can't see nothing trully brillant to be honest. Now speaking about the GH3, i still keep or BMC order, it's really difficult to tell with only this and considering as well, the serious efforts it has been made behind this film which probably go above most budget of indie filmakers. But yes, hope to see in the next days!
 
Phillip's comments in his blog lead me to believe this will be a big improvement over the GH2. He's very positive on the new cam and that's good enough for me.

cheers
JohnG
 
paulears said:
You know what - the whole thing for me just says what a great eye Philip Bloom has. I've watched his material for years trying to decide what to buy, and I like the ethic he has, but it has to be said the man could make the most dreadful camera produce beautiful images in exactly the same way mine always just look ..... average, even when I get a nice bit of kit to use.

He understands composition, lighting and movement.

People give him new kit and he always produces something quite special. It's the man, not the machine. I for one would love to be a tenth as good as he is.

I don't usually like these kinds of shorts - but damn it looks good.
Click to expand...

I think PB has done a heck of a lot for low budget film making with his reviews on all kinds of gear, and I think the advice he gives on tech can be very helpful. But I don't think he has a particularly good eye. A man who understands gear, yes. An auteur, no. I'm with Kholi in that this piece probably has a lot of Bruce Logan in it.
 
Ok. The people complaining and saying the usual blah, blah, blah here. Nothing new there. Of course the GH3 offers improvements. Excellent improvements. If people here can't see that they are in the wrong business. The short is excellent. But of course the people that weren't involved in the making might see it different. Big companies go for the Logans and the Blooms of the business. Pro's that have proven themselves. Kudos to them. Great job with the camera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top