GH2 Panasonic GH3 short film - Philip Bloom

atarijedi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, the "Engrish" is pretty strong with this one. Note the "ornamental" video modes (as opposed to "editing" modes) on the table halfway down this page: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh3/video_capability.html

There's a few others like that too, but the "ornamental" video modes cracked me up. Anyway, for all we know "eye sensor focus" could be referring to the viewfinder diopter adjustment. :)
 
Oh don't worry, I won't get screwed because I know how to use my camera. Many times I shoot scenes on auto when warranted and then on manual to cover all the bases. As far as me posting here its not your call.
 
Last edited:
So... updated opinion after having downloaded and watched this again... I have to say, I'm not so sure anymore about the image... I don't know what caught my eye the first time, but this isn't really doing it for me now. The image is surprisingly soft, even more so than my own videos which use cheap ND faders and soften the hell out of everything. I'm debating whether this would have looked not just better but actually more cinematic, (which was the obvious intent behind the video) had it been shot with the GH2 and a nice high bit rate patch. I dunno... may actually take a back seat on the GH3 hype train and see how it fairs in the hands of some indie folk around here.
 
L1N3ARX said:
So... updated opinion after having downloaded and watched this again... I have to say, I'm not so sure anymore about the image... I don't know what caught my eye the first time, but this isn't really doing it for me now. The image is surprisingly soft, even more so than my own videos which use cheap ND faders and soften the hell out of everything. I'm debating whether this would have looked not just better but actually more cinematic, (which was the obvious intent behind the video) had it been shot with the GH2 and a nice high bit rate patch. I dunno... may actually take a back seat on the GH3 hype train and see how it fairs in the hands of some indie folk around here.
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this promo video is (hopefully, in the end) a lackluster demonstration of this camera's capabilities. It just isn't...captivating. I'm hoping that more material will start to pop up now that the media embargos have been lifted, because it's certainly unfair to judge a camera's true character from one film alone.

On paper, the GH3 looks like a dream. But I've yet to see anything that visually confirms those improvements.
 
Count me as another who was never excited about Panny's color palette (kinda muddy like some one said). Was really wishing for OM-D colors, but everyone here has crazy different opinions! IMO Panny listened very very hard to give what was asked for... a better GH2 with more options. They didn't change the picture drastically but imagine the complaints had they done so. Complaining about the acting and stuff in a 4 minute promo video seems silly.
 
Can anyone direct me to a good promotional video?

I'd like to know what's considered good, just so I get it.
 
After watching Bloom's video, I checked out a whole bunch of NEX 5n footage, and even shot some of my own. I have to say, there do seem to be some similarities. The GH3 certainly looks to be more detailed, but the softness is very similar. The overall feel of the motion cadence is very much like a 5n as well. Call me crazy, but I really think Sony had a part in making the heart of the GH3... The colors between the 2 cameras are vastly different, but to me at least there's some undeniable similarities.

I guess no matter what happens, I'm definitely hanging on to my GH2. Whether I move on to both the GH3 and BMCC... is gonna be an interesting decision to say the least. Funny enough, I have a strange inkling to look hard at the 6D as well. With simple sharpening, it could really put out some nice images for certain kinds of shots... not to mention having an FF stills cam once again. AAAAAAAH, so many choices; we're all spoiled I think.
 
Minor said:
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...
Click to expand...
I have to agree. I was not impressed with the sharpness. I'd like to upgrade my D7000 and am considering the D600, the BMC and the GH3.
I understand that they were trying to shoot in challenging situations (low light, etc.) but the images just don't pop out like I've seen on the
Nikon and BMC. I'm sure future examples will reveal just how good the GH3 really is. It's got a lot going for it.
 
Philip had mentioned this in his blogpost. Something about a marked sensor, so not a dirty lens but more like a dirty/broken sensor.
 
Kholi said:
Can anyone direct me to a good promotional video?

I'd like to know what's considered good, just so I get it.
Click to expand...

Of course, everyone's opinion of good is completely subjective, but I thought the subject matter, story, and style of the Nikon D600 video made for a great promo, noisy shots and all. I also feel like the D600 video was closer to a real world demo of compression. As I wrote in an earlier post, the data rates on the downloaded originals were:

keylight said:
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.
Click to expand...

The massive size and data rate of the GH3 promo isn't typical of what gets put out there, although maybe it should be. In that way, Logan, Bloom, et al. were smart about how they encoded for vimeo. I'd still love to see the Nikon footage with the same kind of data rates (and of course, without the dirt on the lens/sensor they also had in some shots)!
 
You know, the more I think about the D600 and GH3 videos, the more I feel like the GH3 video really missed the mark. If geared towards low-budget storytellers, filmmakers, indies... I think the BTS video which they later released was a better promo than the short film. Of course the promo wasn't shot on a GH3. Anyone know what that was shot on?

That's where the Nikon video really excelled as a promo. It was shot with a D600 and told a story of 2 photographers using the D600 - how it inspired them to go new places. Where was that for the GH3 promo? In the BTS video if anywhere. So I think Panasonic missed the mark with their promo, and Nikon hit it almost head on.

Of course, I still have my GH3 on pre-order. I don't have any intention right now of getting a D600, but that could change after it has been out for a while.
 
I'm impressed at how much this video just looks like something that would have been shot on the GH2. The day exteriors look nice, but there is no evidence of higher dynamic range or sharpness than the GH2 which always looks quite nice in day exteriors. The stuff that stood out to me was the night exteriors which looked quite ugly, probably because no lights were used. The fact that the shadows looked crushed and the appearance of ugly color noise seemed a bit telling of the minimal improvement over the GH2 for low light shooting. The use of unmatched lenses, some of which had significant halation and strange bokeh, didn't help the case either. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't just use a proper set of matched lenses without huge IQ issues and didnt just avoid high ISOs since they seemed to have the budget to light it, but perhaps not, or perhaps they were stress testing it, not trying to sell the camera. It looks a bit amateurish, though, considering the names on the video. I have trouble coming up with any reason to be interested in the GH3 over my hacked GH2 given that it costs twice as much and appears to have nearly identical image quality and functionality. Then again my GH2 is primarily a B-cam for me, so maybe its audio and codec features will be of interest to people using these cameras as their A-cam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top