« Memories Are Made of These | Main | 'Superzoom' Sales Soar »

Thursday, 26 July 2012

Comments

I notice that there is no mention of depth of field...

I recently got a GH2 mainly for video. It's really excellent for this and will likely stay at the top until high fps or 4K video becomes mainstream (which will probably the next big thing to push people to upgrade their perfectly working cameras and TV).

That's a touch misleading. The real winner of the survey in question, with more than twice as many votes as the GH2, was "No favorite." Which still bodes well for the lower cost cameras.

The testing methodology, though, was intentionally rather unscientific, and the results could be as much a question of "which cinematographer lit the set the best, in my opinion" as anything to do with the cameras.

Still, in this, the organizers proved what they set out to prove: modern cameras can all be made to look quite good. Good enough to blur the line between cameras of rather different costs. But make no mistake; in use these cameras are still separated by gulfs of difference. Sure, I can cut my steak into edible, managable bites with a butter knife, but I'd never choose to do so if I didn't have to.

This test is completely bogus, not enough test charts and graphs of data.

Re the dynamic range..

Sometimes it's better for your shadows to be black, and not fifty shades of grey.

Another proof that it's not the quality of hammer that makes a house great.


Gijs
p.s. It's not the nails either...

Sure there was a mention of depth of field. Depth of field control and lack of 24p is where the *iPhone* (!!) fell down.

This test was screened at 1920x1080. As the author admits the results would have been very different at 4K.

I thought you didn't care about video!

[Who you talkin' to? There's nobody in here but us chickens. —Ed.]

I've only poked my nose over the fence into the land of video on a couple of occasions, but the one thing I notice is there is a combination of pragmatic mindset and role for artistic interpretation in cinema that I don't find so often in photography.

This article exhibits it twice - first in the highlighted quote and second by saying "maximised [...] dynamic range [..] comes at the expense of tonality, highlight roll off, contrast and so many other things". Additionally, the idea of "in post" expresses the thought and acceptance that post Will Happen.

It feels like the author's been there, analysed it all, transcended it and is now playing with it, being the driving force.

When I produce a still, I do battle with up to half a dozen applications to eke out the best image quality and I frequently compare many variations just to choose my favoured image. When I read about landscape photography or gear reviews, I always seem to get a whiff of an attitude, I dunno, a bit to resigned to the stochastic elements of photography.

It might be a trite thought, but everything photographers do, "videographers do it 24x a second".

The original post mentions "2K or 1080" projection.
1080 is home television, and 2K is the over ten-year-old, nearly worthless[except on tiny 15' width screens] early attempt at digital cinema projection.
Modern digital projection is 4K now, isn't it?

Harry Lime. Ya sayin' I can't produce a full length feature film that wows an audience with my Gh2? Them are fightin' words...BTW the Gh3 is apparently much improved on the rolling shutter, and the Gh4 will certainly be global. By that time with the hacks involved will allow us lowly indie guys will be able to make you stuffy industry fellas eat your words. Assuming the said indie guys are actually making good films. Still gotta know how to shoot and edit.

Harry Lime hits the nail on the head, so "plus-one" for him....people are confusing, budget, application, end usage, perceived quality, etc., etc. This is the same mentality that killed professional still film very rapidly in some smaller markets, like the one I live in.

I have a buddy who's a huge techno-phile, and he's done some beautiful video work on the GH-1, and he's an extreme "on-the-bus/off-the-bus" person, as in, get on the bus with modern cheap digital, or you'll be dead in the industry. Well, he's correct to a point, if you want to work for people that have no money, want to do stuff as cheaply as possible, don't really care about the "nth" degree of quality, and have you staying up all night, sitting in front of the computer in your underwear, doing color corrects and editing for no extra money, then you need to get into that business. Unfortunately, that's the ONLY business that remains in many markets. And you know, my buddy is always busy? He's always busy working night an day for practically no money, and spending what little he makes on the constant computer upgrades and camera upgrades he needs to stay competitive with the others in his business on the low end of a small market, while his wife brings home the bacon, and benefits he lives on...

While I find this type of contest interesting for personal information, it helps me select the unit I need to RENT, before I do a project, it's of very little usage to the marginally informed in the industry, who are always looking for the techno-edge to slam the competition in any market.

Stuff like this ignores the fact that good cheap video equipment that performs in a base-line professional way, has allowed many among us to get their ideas heard. Period. And for that reason, it has very real value, but does anyone think that someone who gets their indie film picked up at Sundance for limited release, isn't going to hire a crew and get bigger and better stuff when they get their first real budget? Sure, they're going to come to a set filled with lighting people and make up with their GH-2 in a bag....

Speaking from 35 years' experience as a broadcast TV technician, the audio being produced by so called videographers is atrocious!

How can anyone produce such distorted audio without being ashamed? I cite the timelapse stuff being shown all the time on Vimeo.

If anyone had produced such awful quality when I was working, I would have jumped on them. But audio just doesn't seem to count these days. I just stop viewing. Can't bear to listen. Too late once it's done.

Perhaps we have a reminder here that while the camera takes the picture, the grey blob of goo six inches behind the viewfinder makes the picture.

in praise of cameramen :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkbtn_buster-keaton-the-cameraman-2_fun

But for sure FF Coppola is only a director who don't know very well whereof he speaks :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHjWDCX1Bdw&feature=related

Look circa 8 minute, all is black, pitiful.

DR you say, who cares ?

Things this disregards the fact that good inexpensive movie devices that functions in a base-line expert way, has permitted many among us to get their concepts observed.

The comments to this entry are closed.