REJOUER - Film being made with GH1!

Ian-T said:
Umm....I've seen actual amateur 'FILM' (shot on 35mm) that looked like video. I'm talking stuff that did not give me that WOW factor that professionally shot movies do. I have to believe that HOW it's shot makes a heck of a difference.

Edit: I wish I could find it but the most recent exampe I seen was an actual pilot for a TV show. It did look good but a lot of folks thought it was a video camera with an a adapter. SOme of the scenes looked...videoish.
Click to expand...
I've also seen RED camera shot so that it looks like ENG Video.
 
PappasArts said:
What! Somewhere between a EX1 and Red would cost you around 15,000.

GH1 ====> $1499.00

GH1 Head ====> $949.00 JP market!


Uuuuu funny guy! You were kidding, I hope!

:-D

.
Click to expand...

i get that for a lot of people that it's f-ing amazing!!!!!! i don't care about resolution or noise or artefacts or dof. i only care about that feeling you get when you watch celluloid. but for my tastes and the need for that elusive texture, i think i'd rather shoot with a dvx/sgpro combo at the moment.... i'd hoped the gh1 would be a cheap, compact, HD, good in lowlight version of that.... :(

jack... kholi's clip looks good. really good. the other looked like ex1 footage.... and that's what i mean when i say this cam is inconsistant...

jack, if you've forgoten how awesome the dvx/sgpro combo looks here's a refresher -
http://vimeo.com/5450481 - smettli awesomeness :)
http://vimeo.com/1362266 - my own sub par work :)
 
Last edited:
jenningsp said:
[FONT=&quot]jack... kholi's clip looks good. really good. the other looked like ex1 footage.... and that's what i mean when i say this cam is inconsistant...
Click to expand...

Dude! The camera doesn't have a life of it's own.

If you have seen the look you like, it's repeatable and all adjustable to taste!

Holy Christ! That couldn't be more apparent; that i actual had to explain that to you! ?


.
 
Yeah. It's not the cam. It's the operator. It doesn't give one guy the same latitude under one setting in one lighting condition, then spin a random wheel inside to give a different look for someone else under the same conditions.

And I remember how SGpro and DVX footage looks.

But let's keep things civil here whatever our opinions.
 
PappasArts said:
Dude! The camera doesn't have a life of it's own.

If you have seen the look you like, it's repeatable and all adjustable to taste!

Holy Christ! That couldn't be more apparent; that i actual had to explain that to you! ?


.
Click to expand...

i get that. you can repeat super low con, super shallow close-ups all day long and have awesome footage... but my point was, if you have any variety of lighting/composition only 30% is gonna look filmic. as seen in the teaser and other footage.

but other cams (red, adapter combos, 16mm etc) seem to have more consistency in their "filmicness" under different conditions... don't know why? that's what i was asking i think?

just my observation.
 
Last edited:
jenningsp said:
i get that. you can repeat super low con, super shallow close-ups all day long and have awesome footage... but my point was, if you have any variety of lighting/composition only 30% is gonna look filmic. as seen in the teaser and other footage.

but other cams (red, adapter combos, 16mm etc) seem to have more consistency in their "filmicness" under different conditions... don't know why? that's what i was asking i think?

just my observation.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you. Give Macgregor this camer and it will all look filmmic.
 
I am so not continuing this " Ground Hog Day " debate!


This topic is so old, as well overrun its allowed existence; it makes a 2010 Mercedes-Benz SLR 722 feel like a Jalopy automobile!


.
 
i can consistently get great filmic imagery out of my dvx/sgpro combo. even with bad lighting and bad composition it looks like film 99% of the time. but this gh1 seems to only look like film 30% of the time.... it's not consistent....
Click to expand...

LOL! What a joke. It is not about what people can say with their mouth but about what people are actually doing. This piece looks very very good so far. And this guys are actually making stuff happen and no doubt garnering attention as they do. That is part of the game and whoever plays it best wins. Look at Vincent Laforet, a doer not a talker. The GH1 is gonna make a lot of news, sit down watch and see. Thanks Panasonic once again.
 
Now on to better discussions which pertain to the positive side of the use of the GH1 in production..

So was this 1080/24 or 720/60p? In playback I notice notice repeat frames. Every fourth frame is repeated....

Any ideas/speculation?
 
Just got some info from Liam Finn about the production...


Quote:
"""The movie was shot at 1080/24. We used a set Dalsa Digital lens: 19, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 180mm. Yes, we used a steadicam rig. We also shot in handheld mode. Bright red can be of concern and to much fast motion can cause the image to have a ghosting effect."""


.
 
Interesting. I too got a strange reddish/ amber ghosting effect with an old Canon FL 50mm 1.4 lens in low light. It didn't look like the infamous 'mud' and the camera movement was quite subtle. I thought it might have to do with the older lens coating in some way. I haven't seen anything like that with my other lenses. Too bad as the static image was gorgeous. I've got a newer 50mm lens coming and will do another test with it.
 
Ozpeter said:
I just don't get how that smooth quality was achieved with so much motion happening. My initial tests with 1080 and 720 (PAL) AVCHD, compared with Panasonic consumer camcorder lower bitrate AVCHD, were all judder and no fluid, and jumps at missing (?) frames - nothing like this trailer's smoothness..
Click to expand...

And when I too see stuff like this, I'm also confused how you get this kind of fluid motion from the Panny's 1920X1080. Anything I've shot at this setting isn't even close, but 720p IS buttery smooth. The 1920X1080 is beautifully sharp and detailed, but motion smoothness is not the strong point at this setting. It will forever remain a mystery to me how some guys are getting butter at this framerate! :)
 
Ken7 said:
It will forever remain a mystery to me how some guys are getting butter at this framerate! :)
Click to expand...


Your kidding right?

Babe! Hollywood secret for years.


You rub butter on everything, I mean everything; even the female college interns... Personally my favorite part. ;-)

Oh one thing; except the glass. NO butter on the glass. You want to record that buttery smoothness in all its sharp glory!

Shhhh, keep it a secret!


Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84
Facebook & Myspace:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
Ken7 said:
And when I too see stuff like this, I'm also confused how you get this kind of fluid motion from the Panny's 1920X1080. Anything I've shot at this setting isn't even close, but 720p IS buttery smooth. The 1920X1080 is beautifully sharp and detailed, but motion smoothness is not the strong point at this setting. It will forever remain a mystery to me how some guys are getting butter at this framerate! :)
Click to expand...

not to jump to conclusions, but those guys or him, probably know how to properly remove pulldown. shot at the correct shutter speed and so forth.
 
Ken7 said:
And when I too see stuff like this, I'm also confused how you get this kind of fluid motion from the Panny's 1920X1080. Anything I've shot at this setting isn't even close, but 720p IS buttery smooth. The 1920X1080 is beautifully sharp and detailed, but motion smoothness is not the strong point at this setting. It will forever remain a mystery to me how some guys are getting butter at this framerate! :)
Click to expand...

Car3o said:
not to jump to conclusions, but those guys or him, probably know how to properly remove pulldown. shot at the correct shutter speed and so forth.
Click to expand...
Deja Vu :eek:
:)
 
"Yes, we used a steadicam rig."

Egads...it really doesn't look like it. I even watched the BTS footage and didn't see one being used. A cam mount with some handles doesn't constitute a Stedicam. The walking shots are really obvious and are what instantly bugged me.

Other than that, I think it's looking pretty good. Thumbs up.
 
A camera as a professional tool will take months for the user community to master and understand. If you are seeing 30% filmic (I hate that word) shots, it is probably because they were still learning to use the camera and its impossible to have a 100% success rate with a brand new camera.

For the DVX, red, or sony, MK2 - these cameras have been tested thoroughly and understood to such a degree that we can benefit from other peoples mistakes and avoid situations that arent condusive to the look we want in our own footage. If you don't think you have to do this with a DVX, then please sell me your magical camera because it takes a lot of time, effort and planning for me to pull off a good shot with any camera.

It's not really a valid comparison to compare the first pro footage from the GH1 to a camera that professionals have already learned to use properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top