Panasonic unveiled G1-HD...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got hands on with the 5DMkII and I'll have to see if I can restrain myself from getting one before I can see more from the GH1. That and to see what NAB has in store for the industry. But wow the 5D has so much massive creative potential. Works killer with my Nikon lenses. The groundbreaker for me is usability in low light - that throws the "found visual" approach into hyperdrive. I think any of these video-fortified DSLRs are far beyond what's needed to get uber creative.

Back to the DOF... From what I found, I basically retract my statement. I love the 5Ds ability to give you as shallow as you'd want - aka, Nikon 55mm f1.2. But it's light sensitivity makes it easy to stop it down and get more DOF.

Question is.. what is f4-5.6 DOF like on the GH1? Shallow enough? If not, i guess I'd be picking up the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 for $800 and selling off at least a few of my Nikon lenses.
 
DavidNJ said:
Disagree
Click to expand...

Actually you don't. Which way you talk about it isn't so important, the point is that you as a storyteller choose how to tell the story, it's not important or even wanted that the audience sees your technique. If shallow dof shows what you want it's working even if few people can tell.
 
holyzoo said:
Got hands on with the 5DMkII and I'll have to see if I can restrain myself from getting one before I can see more from the GH1. That and to see what NAB has in store for the industry. But wow the 5D has so much massive creative potential. Works killer with my Nikon lenses. The groundbreaker for me is usability in low light - that throws the "found visual" approach into hyperdrive. I think any of these video-fortified DSLRs are far beyond what's needed to get uber creative.

Back to the DOF... From what I found, I basically retract my statement. I love the 5Ds ability to give you as shallow as you'd want - aka, Nikon 55mm f1.2. But it's light sensitivity makes it easy to stop it down and get more DOF.

Question is.. what is f4-5.6 DOF like on the GH1? Shallow enough? If not, i guess I'd be picking up the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 for $800 and selling off at least a few of my Nikon lenses.
Click to expand...


Good to hear you got to use the Mark II. I have gigs and gigs of footage from the mark II and that
camera blows me away every time. Such a large, super clean dense image is very hard to beat. After the 5D MII
you need to go to Red for the closest thing. 30P doesn't bother me, I was always thought Iwerks and Todd-AO
were on the right track with 30FPS.






.
Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
 
Kholi said:
I still can't see anything in the night clips.

And I do still see the attempt at a shallow depth of field. I.E moving the camera back and zooming in on those daylight exteriors. You pretty much prove my point by saying "didn't have an option", though. If we all had the option to employ selective focus then we would...
Click to expand...

Of course, more money buys you more control over your image quality, who wouldn't want that? If we had the option to shoot this film with the Canon 5D we probably would have done it for the very reason of getting better DOF. As DP its a huge deal. As a producer or distributor its importance in the grand scheme of things is a lot smaller.

I was merely answering your question of who would commit to making a feature with a naked HVX200. For low budget indies you have to use the tools, actors, crew and locations available to you. Creativity and talent will help overcome most technical shortcomings.

Now that this film is done would it be any more attractive to distributors if we had used an 35mm adapter? I don't think so, the feedback is not " this looks too much like video " but rather " do I really care about these characters?" "is this story a thriller or a horror?", and "who will we market it to?" or "How come there are no stars in it?"
 
PappasArts said:
Good to hear you got to use the Mark II. I have gigs and gigs of footage from the mark II and that
camera blows me away every time. Such a large, super clean dense image is very hard to beat. After the 5D MII
you need to go to Red for the closest thing. 30P doesn't bother me, I was always thought Iwerks and Todd-AO
were on the right track with 30FPS.






.
Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
Click to expand...


Actually, you could use the SI2k and probably beat it. The 2/3rd sensor uses fast 16mm glass for DOF. It captures 12-bit RAW footage with wavelet compression just as the RED does. However, since it is only a 2k non-oversampled sensor, you do lose a little to the optical low-pass filter. The good part about that is the bandwidth is only 750Mb/s from the sensor, and can be output with an Ethernet cable to a laptop. You could have a complete working system for the cost of a regular 2/3rds camera.
 
Imaginate said:
Of course, more money buys you more control over your image quality, who wouldn't want that? If we had the option to shoot this film with the Canon 5D we probably would have done it for the very reason of getting better DOF. As DP its a huge deal. As a producer or distributor its importance in the grand scheme of things is a lot smaller.

I was merely answering your question of who would commit to making a feature with a naked HVX200. For low budget indies you have to use the tools, actors, crew and locations available to you. Creativity and talent will help overcome most technical shortcomings.

Now that this film is done would it be any more attractive to distributors if we had used an 35mm adapter? I don't think so, the feedback is not " this looks too much like video " but rather " do I really care about these characters?" "is this story a thriller or a horror?", and "who will we market it to?" or "How come there are no stars in it?"
Click to expand...

Bold is the only statement I can agree with. The more you deviate from a traditionalized aesthetic, the more the story needs to be engaging. That is, the more the image needs to work in conjunction with your story.

Blair Witch is no cinematography award winner, so the look works exactly for the story that's being told.

If you're going for a traditional approach to a traditional genre, well there are SEVERAL others just like you with much better tools to do the job vying for the Distributors money. They're gonna "see" the movie before any other senses kick in and if it doesn't look professional, the chances of getting it sold will decline.

What I'm saying isn't just jibber jabber. I've had the privilege of having dinner, lunch and all sorts of meetings with people in the last three months about my own feature and trust me, your movie needs to LOOK like a movie if it's not hyper-stylized to fit the content.

But I digress, because again, you can only do with what you have.
 
Imaginate said:
For low budget indies
Click to expand...
low budget means you have a budget, i've read it's $200,000 on average and that's around where my film lands too, do you mean "no budget"? i've no idea what your budget was and i'm not trying to split hairs, the distinction is necessary. low budget films need to be just as creative but you can usually get the equipmen you need, within limits.

maybe i'm just old school, i've heard kids with video cameras shooting music vids say they make indies, while for me it has always meant films made outside the studio system, or later within it but with less money and more creative control.

/matt
 
"If we had the option to shoot this film with the Canon 5D we probably would have done it for the very reason of getting better DOF."

The Canon is far more than DOF. What makes the pictures pop are a high MTF (contrast) right through high spatial frequencies and much less chroma noise in spite of a relatively large amount of gain (2/3rs of the photo sites aren't used). The three factors there are oversampling, a very good sensor, and minimal compression artifacts from a combination of algorithm (H.264 long GOP) and bandwidth. The SX1 has the same recording algorithm and is oversampled, but with a small 1/2.3" sensor. The inexpensive lens and sensor just can't capture the same high contrast.
 
i would probably call that low budget. it becomes no budget when you don't have any money at all, except what the filmmakers got in their pockets any given day to pay for gas, tape stock and food. ;-) i maintain that if you have a budget, even if it's small, there's no reason to shoot on whatever you got, you can always find what you need. i was offered a red one from two different places pretty much for free for my film, but that wouldn't have worked.

/matt
 
mattsand said:
low budget means you have a budget, i've read it's $200,000 on average and that's around where my film lands too, do you mean "no budget"? i've no idea what your budget was and i'm not trying to split hairs, the distinction is necessary. low budget films need to be just as creative but you can usually get the equipmen you need, within limits.

maybe i'm just old school, i've heard kids with video cameras shooting music vids say they make indies, while for me it has always meant films made outside the studio system, or later within it but with less money and more creative control.

/matt
Click to expand...

You and me both. No budget to me sounds like 7000.00 or less.
 
mattsand said:
i would probably call that low budget. it becomes no budget when you don't have any money at all, except what the filmmakers got in their pockets any given day to pay for gas, tape stock and food. ;-) i maintain that if you have a budget, even if it's small, there's no reason to shoot on whatever you got, you can always find what you need. i was offered a red one from two different places pretty much for free for my film, but that wouldn't have worked.

/matt
Click to expand...

Yuuup! If you have something decnt you can and should get what you need to make it worth the effort. My own definition of worth is a decent sized check on sale day!
 
$25k can be alot...depends on location, staffing, and equipment. If you are paying for everything it doesn't go far. If you are shooting at just a few sites...especially indoor ones you don't pay for...if the actors are inexpensive and you are doing the editing...it can be reasonable.

That video didn't do much for me...very few shots that weren't transparency overlays, and those were not much more than what you could do with an Hv30 with lens adapter. I'd figure out who was going to be the DP and the grips and what their experience was. If possible, I'd capture from the camera to a computer encoding in Cineform.

This is an example of an EX1 with adapter and Zeiss lenses: http://www.cinevate.com/images/allbreviswedding.m4v

This is another on 5DM2s: http://vimeo.com/3458829


And of course you could put a lens adapter on an HV20/SR11/etc and record to Cineform: http://vimeo.com/3760053

I'd love to see the EX1 with adapter, Zeiss lenses, HD-SDI to Cineform but no one has posted.

To my eye, the Canon wins, the lens adapter on an inexpensive cam to Cineform second.

The EX1 with adapter to XDCAM EX third. To Cineform it may be number one and scertainly has more control then any of the other alternatives.

Are you shooting in a controled environment? Lighting can make more of a difference than the camera.

However, all would be acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Just an interesting FYI on what equipment you "need" for a feature--

In the latest American Cinematographer Mag there is a description of filming the movie Crank High Voltage--

Filmed ENTIRELY in HDV with the Canon XH-A1(prosumer) and HF10(consumer)! No 35mm adapters were used.

I am not planning on seeing the movie--but they obviously got the look they were looking for with this equipment.
 
I think zero budget and low budget is relative to the kind of film your making ... for some films 10K could be quite a comfortable budget. In our case 20K was very uncomfortable. We were very fortunate to have a lot of the gear and labor donated but even with that, it was hard. I would say almost impossible to repeat.

The nice thing about the no or ultra-low budget films is that if you already know your niche audience, its a lot easier to recoup that investment. I would consider 200K a dream to work with. Hollywood probably says that is Ultra-low. I think once your in that range of budget you better have a distribution plan and contacts in place before you start filming and not just hoping it will get picked up.
 
Robert Altman said:
Just an interesting FYI on what equipment you "need" for a feature--

In the latest American Cinematographer Mag there is a description of filming the movie Crank High Voltage--

Filmed ENTIRELY in HDV with the Canon XH-A1(prosumer) and HF10(consumer)! No 35mm adapters were used.

I am not planning on seeing the movie--but they obviously got the look they were looking for with this equipment.
Click to expand...


That's a 20 Million dollar movie. Not only does it have A-Listers, it also probably had several pre-distribution deals in place. They used SEVERAL cameras. That's like saying you can go out and do a Cloverfield just because they used an HVX200 for SOME parts of the movie.
 
Actually, according to the AC article those were the ONLY cameras used!! I was also surprised.

Of course, I am not suggesting that you can go out with those cameras and make a similar movie--scripts/actors/sets/lighting/locations are just a few of the other ingredients. I just thought that the 2 cameras used exclusively for filming were interesting for such a big movie.
 
Robert Altman said:
Actually, according to the AC article those were the ONLY cameras used!! I was also surprised.

Of course, I am not suggesting that you can go out with those cameras and make a similar movie--scripts/actors/sets/lighting/locations are just a few of the other ingredients. I just thought that the 2 cameras used exclusively for filming were interesting for such a big movie.
Click to expand...

I meant several of those cameras. Not just one. They smashed and destroyed those things. It was a specific look for a specific story that had multiple millions behind it.

it's interesting, just not a hero story to look up to.

If you want a real hero story for our "generation" it would be The Signal. I call it the hero story because it broke the 1 Million dollar mark on sale day and had less than 10 percent of that for production.

They did use a 35mm Adapter.
 
20 million dollar movie and they shot it in HDV? What a waste.

I have the same gripe with 28 days later. You get to shut downtown london intersections and you waste that on an XL1?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top