Red Epic v.s. Panasonic GH-2

[Ian-T]

I understand ya'll might think the title of this thread is insane...but...someone had to do it. It's only a small comparison of each camera's image and not necessarily a resolution test. But as the video shows....they are quite comparable.

30751603

http://vimeo.com/30751603



One thing I want to note...the hack on the GH-2 in this video is from the very first P-Tools @ 32Mbps. We've come a long way since then and currently have a "stable" form of AVC-Intra @176 Mbps. So, if the shooter in this video used what is available today in this comparison...the GH-2 would have shined ever better (low light, cinematic motion, noise etc. is much better today). Either or....not bad for a $1,000 camera vs a $50,000 camera.

[1]

Watching now....is this guy EVER going to stop talking?????.....

Okay, interesting test. Goes to show that we watch content in a delivery format that [almost] can't really benefit from super high rez acquisition.

That's the reason I pushed for a 1080P Scarlet right at the beginning, before they kept changing their mind...RED could have released one of those years ago!

[Ian-T]

Yes, I agree, they could have released a Scarlet a long time ago.

I think Red focuses too much on resolution. Look at a cam like the Alexa...it is only 2k (slightly bigger than 1920x1080). But its image is superb. I think there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the benefits of a high resolution camera vs a higher resolution camera. I don't believe most peolpe watch anything higher than 2-3k at most. Don't get me wrong....a Scarlet would be nice to have but now I'm second guessing if it is really needed (for me at least).

[Dr. Benway]

But its image is superb.

And that's all we need. The highest quality sensor - then we can worry about optics.

My eyes think that the Epic had more contrast and saturation (GH-2 footage could be adjusted in post to match), and the Epic seemed to handle tonal gradation better (see the knife set and brushed metal surrounds of the power/hot point). But that the GH-2, as always, did very well.

[Randy Malone]

Well obviously both cameras serve their purpose and that purpose is a VERY different one. So basically this is to make gh-2 owners feel good about their cameras.

[Halsu]

My eyes think that the Epic had more contrast and saturation (GH-2 footage could be adjusted in post to match)

It's the other way around really - they already tried to match Epic to GH-2.

Epic doesn't have any specific look at all - that's one of it's greatest strengths. It shoots raw, you can make all the usually in-camera adjustment decisions (color balance, saturation, brightness, contrast, sharpening, noise reduction, ISO setting etc.) after you have shot the footage, in the edit.

Other strengths not apparent in a test like this are obviously the higher resolution, but also higher frame rates and much higher dynamic range, in HDR mode up to around 18 stops.

As an example, if you adjust the highlights to clip at the same point on the sensor when shooting, you could pull a perfectly usable normal full range image with Epic from the areas that are underexposed to full black with GH2. Or, alternatively, if you adjust both cameras so that the deepest shadows are the same on the sensor, you could pull a perfectly usable full range image with Epic from the areas that are full blown out white with GH2...

This all said, for regular shooting and web output, GH2 is perfectly good enough.

[Dr. Benway]

It's the other way around really - they already tried to match Epic to GH-2.

Sure, I was just commenting on what was put in front of me. And that clip, IMHO, showed Epic as having higher contrast, saturation and greater tonal range. Adjust that particular GH-2 footage slightly in post and it'd be even harder to tell them apart - as the footage stands in that test.

[drapeama]

Look at a cam like the Alexa...it is only 2k (slightly bigger than 1920x1080). But its image is superb.
Do we really need more at the moment? Max supported is 1080p for now, even a 1080p like the Thomson Viper or the Panavision Genesis did already a good job, being simply 1080p in resolution.

And that's all we need. The highest quality sensor - then we can worry about optics.
I Agree. Bigger sensor & better performance and that's about all we need.

[Gillvane]

Watching now....is this guy EVER going to stop talking?????.....

Okay, interesting test. Goes to show that we watch content in a delivery format that [almost] can't really benefit from super high rez acquisition.

That's the reason I pushed for a 1080P Scarlet right at the beginning, before they kept changing their mind...RED could have released one of those years ago!

Red really focuses on movies that are going to be shown on a big screen. That's where the higher resolution really shines. And in post when you are cropping an image, or doing some FX work.

The idea for the indie shooting with Red, is probably your film ends up on youtube. BUT! what if it actually does get a limited release? Then you've got the footage that will look great on the big screen.

For vimeo and youtube, yes, 3k or 4k is unnecessary.

Hey, Birdemic got a limited release showing in theaters. It could happen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwSTDzaZ234

[Ian-T]

Well obviously both cameras serve their purpose and that purpose is a VERY different one. So basically this is to make gh-2 owners feel good about their cameras.

It's just a comparison video with real world examples that's all. I often wonder why people make comments like this. The guy has access to both and needs to use them for a particular purpose that fits his needs. Why would anyone want to waste their time comparing cameras if they only wanted to make a silly point? Sounds kind of expensive to me.

I've posted this before (I think) but here's one guy's impression when using this camera alongside an F3 and an Alexa:

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1030/gh2-versus-arri-alexa-and-f3-real-world-testing#Item_26

Everyone knows what the "better" camera is for their particular purpose but for some folks not everythig is so cut and dry. It's great to have more options today.


This all said, for regular shooting and web output, GH2 is perfectly good enough.

That's funny. If this camera were out let's say 5 or 6 years ago (whether as is or in the form of a camcorder) it would have been worth a hell of a lot more. And, professional shooters would have jumped all over it easily for "big screen" work (IMO). It would have been a cheaper alternative to those expensive hundred thousand dollar cameras. So...I guess if someone were to come out with a 20k camera the 4k, 5k Epic will suddenly only be good enough for the Web? Sounds silly don't you think?

Question to you....is the IQ output of a camera like the EX-1 only good enough for the Web (not functionality or controls but pure Image Quality)?

[Janke]

AFAIK, most digital cinemas today are only 2k resolution... at least here in Finland. We have one 4k theatre at our film archive, and I've seen 4k stuff there... wow!

[Gillvane]

It's just a comparison video with real world examples that's all. I often wonder why people make comments like this. The guy has access to both and needs to use them for a particular purpose that fits his needs. Why would anyone want to waste their time comparing cameras if they only wanted to make a silly point? Sounds kind of expensive to me.

I've posted this before (I think) but here's one guy's impression when using this camera alongside an F3 and an Alexa:

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1030/gh2-versus-arri-alexa-and-f3-real-world-testing#Item_26

Everyone knows what the "better" camera is for their particular purpose but for some folks not everythig is so cut and dry. It's great to have more options today.



That's funny. If this camera were out let's say 5 or 6 years ago (whether as is or in the form of a camcorder) it would have been worth a hell of a lot more. And, professional shooters would have jumped all over it easily for "big screen" work (IMO). It would have been a cheaper alternative to those expensive hundred thousand dollar cameras. So...I guess if someone were to come out with a 20k camera the 4k, 5k Epic will suddenly only be good enough for the Web? Sounds silly don't you think?

Question to you....is the IQ output of a camera like the EX-1 only good enough for the Web (not functionality or controls but pure Image Quality)?

1080p is good for the web. You get diminishing returns as you increase resolution because of the screen size, and the compression needed to effectively stream the video. Red footage looks good on teh web, but it doesn't look 2x or 3x as good as 1080p. It cant' really, because of the limitations. It still has the contrast ratio, and things like that which make for a pleasing image, but you can only get so much IQ out of a computer screen.

It works the other way as well. 20k resolution can't be seen by the naked eye on a standard size movie screen. You can make a bigger screen, but then you start to run into problems having to push enough light to create such a large screen...

But for the most part on your standard movie screen, you're not gonna see a big difference between 4k and more k unless you look at the screen with a microscope, which kinda defeats the purpose of having a big screen.

I would say with the current options available, yes the EX-1 is only good for teh web. I wouldnt' shoot for the big screen with it.

28 days later is shot in the XL-1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_digital

I mean, you can go for any sort of aesthetic you want. Maybe you WANT that look for your film, which is fine.

My philosophy is, you can always degrade digital footage and make it look worse. I'm sure I can take Red footage into after effects and make it look like an XL-1. Btu the reverse isn't going to happen.

So, given the option, you have more flexibility with the better IQ.

On a related note, Kodak has a new laser projector scalable to 4k.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Laser_Projection_Technology/index.htm

[Janke]

Kodak has a new laser projector scalable to 4k.

They say: "2K resolution scalable to 4K" - so they don't have 4k, yet...

[Halsu]

Question to you....is the IQ output of a camera like the EX-1 only good enough for the Web (not functionality or controls but pure Image Quality)?

What i wrote came out a bit differently than what i intended... i was in a bit of a rush. By regular shooting i meant "most normal shooting conditions", the situations where the advantages of a higher end camera do not come into play much if at all. Most shoots won't need 4K, ultra high dynamic range, radical color correction or slomo etc.

And the web comment just referred to the fact that tube / vimeo act as "equalizers" - a lot of the subtle quality differences get lost (so does television broadcast, especially SD, and bluray/DVD, by the way).

Though i have no pesonal experience with it, based on what i've read i'd be perfectly happy to shoot GH2 just the same as i.e. EX1, for pretty much any medium - including the big screen if better options are not available (i'll actually be shooting EX1 for movie theaters soon, though it's just a low budget pre-movie commercial). As said, even though neither is technically nearly as good as Epic, both are perfectly good enough in many cases.

[Halsu]

My philosophy is, you can always degrade digital footage and make it look worse. I'm sure I can take Red footage into after effects and make it look like an XL-1. Btu the reverse isn't going to happen.

Exactly.

[Ian-T]

They say: "2K resolution scalable to 4K" - so they don't have 4k, yet...

ha...I was thinking the same thing when I read that.

But, with that said, it makes me think about some of the movies I watch on my Blueray. I've been buying a lot of movies on Bluray lately but when I can't find a selection in HD I opt for the standard definition movie. In most cases, if I'm not pixel peeping too much, the SD looks great when blown up to HD. There are occassions when it's obviously a blown up SD to HD image however but for the most part they look good.

It's examples like this that makes me think tht if one were to shoot an entire film with the same camera (no matter how detailed or not it resolves its image), as long as everything else falls into place (story, attention to detail etc.) then nothing else matters. I think the problem with some folks is they try and match up cameras that are very different from each other. So, when they put a camera that was once considered "good enough" next to a more expensive camera....all of a sudden the old camera sucks.


What i wrote came out a bit differently than what i intended... .Ok...got it Halsu.

I should have remembered that you are more of a proponent for using these...um..."lesser cameras." I remember some of those cool points you made a few years back about dynamic range and post production (when you put up those samples of an HV20 vs 16mm film).

[Ian-T]

I would say with the current options available, yes the EX-1 is only good for teh web. I wouldnt' shoot for the big screen with it.
I hate to say it....but I disagree here. I understand the point you are making though. But for me...I just look at these different flavors of HD cameras like different stocks of film.



28 days later is shot in the XL-1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_digital

I mean, you can go for any sort of aesthetic you want. Maybe you WANT that look for your film, which is fine. Yeah I know about that film. It looked great when I was watching it in theaters back then. Matter of fact....that digital look is what helped to sell it. But in rewatching it a couple years back (online) I realize how over sharpened and rough it looks. We've come a long way since then. I just don't see that type of a huge "difference" today when it comes to a (hacked or unhacked) GH-2 vs an F3 for example.


My philosophy is, you can always degrade digital footage and make it look worse. I'm sure I can take Red footage into after effects and make it look like an XL-1. Btu the reverse isn't going to happen.

Werd. :)

[Ian-T]

I know this is old news but I expect this Sundance winner, "LIKE CRAZY" (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount_vantage/likecrazy/), to do well in its theatrical release this week (at least when viewing in theaters). Sure I know it was shot completely on a 7D and the image is soft...but as long as you are not cutting the footage with a Red or Alexa then by itself it should look great (especially due to the fact that it has a great story, great actors and acting etc.). It actually looks good.

Makes one wonder why they chose to use a camera "made for the internet" with a cast like this....hmmm. :)


As a matter of fact here's a growing list of DSLR feature films (via DVXUser).

A BEAUTIFUL BELLY
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440110/
Official site: http://www.abeautifulbelly.com/

A LOVE THAT HURTS
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII and Canon 7D
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Alovethathurts

ABSENTIA
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1610996/

ALÉM DE TI
Shot with: Canon T2i
Official Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Alem.de.Ti.Longa.Metragem

BAD IS BAD
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official Website: www.badisbad.com

BETWEEN FLOORS
Shot with: Panasonic GH1
Production company website: www.lakefilms.com

COW
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Official website: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/103/275

DESPERATA
Shot with: Nikon D90
Official website: www.desperata.se

DONGALA MUTHA (A GANG OF THIEVES)
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII

FARM
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://farmthemovie.com
Official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/...1467100?ref=tscamerachargers

FOLKLORE
Shot with: Canon 7D
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/682zzza
Teaser (Vimeo): http://vimeo.com/14445196
Official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FOLKLORE/370536311135
Official Website: http://www.folklorefilm.com/

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE APOCALYPSE
Shot with: Panasonic GH1
Official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/For-the-Love-of-God-Movie/124072424290726?ref=tssonycameracharger
FUERTEVENTURA
Shot with: Nikon D90
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1388437/

GHOST SHARK 2: URBAN JAWS
Shot with: Canon T2i
Official Website: http://ghostshark2.com/
First teaser: http://youtu.be/bbx29aQMNdE
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYIXtfEu5NU
Official Twitter: @GhostSharkMovie
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1732651/

HAUNTED CHANGI
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official Website: http://hauntedchangi.com/

HILLS GREEN
Shot with: Panasonic GH1
Official Production Journal: http://hillsgreen.blogspot.com/
Trailer: http://www.vimeo.com/18766884
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/3xg7txz

HOLODAD
Shot with: Canon T2i
Official website: www.holodad.com
Official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/HoloDad/108302342522370

HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII and Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1690140/
Trailer (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eocrxg20LD4

I DIDN'T COME HERE TO DIE
Shot with: Panasonic GH1
Official website: http://ididntcomeheretodie.com/

INKUBUS
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
IMDb: http: //www.imdb.com/title/tt1650537/

JANELLE
Shot with: Panasonic GH1, Canon 5DmkII

LA CASA MUDA
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Official website: www.lacasamuda.com
Official twitter: @Lacasamuda

L.A. PARANORMAL
Shot with Canon 7D, Canon 5DmkII
Official website: http://www.laparanormalmovie.com/
Official Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/369r4rj
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1621445/
YouTube page (with trailer): http://www.youtube.com/user/laparanormalmovie
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bwclmr

LEAP: RISE OF THE BEAST
Shot with: Canon T2i
Official Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/2vlwlq4
Production Company website: www.starspictures.info
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/3xlhg88

LIKE CRAZY
Shot with: Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758692/

LOVE MAGICAL
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/LoveMagical

LOW
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://www.lowmovie.com/

MANDIE AND THE CHEROKEE TREASURE
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://www.mandieandthecherokeetreasure.com/

MARIANNE
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://www.mariannemovie.com
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1756615/
Official twitter: @MarianneMovie
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/2fl5cf3
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MarianneMovie
Official YouTube channel (with trailers): http://www.youtube.com/MarianneMovie

MIRACLE MAN
Shot with: Canon 7D

MUCKMAN
Shot with Canon 5D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1460014/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp91C4ssGvo

MY SUCKY TEEN ROMANCE
Shot with: Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1707821/
Official site: http://www.cheesynuggets.com/mstr/mstr.html
Official Twitter: @MSTRMovie

NEW
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Official website: http://www.themovienew.com
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/themovienew

NIGHTHAWKS
Shot with: Panasonic GH1
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1651918/
Official Blog: http://nighthawksonline.blogspot.com/

OPEN WHEN JOHNNY CAN READ
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://johnnysletter.com/

PERCEPTION
Shot with: Canon 7D
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/4fjcght

ROAD TO NOWHERE
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Trailer: http://bit.ly/9oJEZj

RUBBER
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/6a8hmna
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1612774/
Official Website: http://www.rubberfilm.com/

SEARCHING FOR ANGELS (Formerly JANE DOE)
Shot with: Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1836010/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fswr3lgX6G0&hd=1
Official website: www.janedoemovie.com
Official Facebook page: www.facebook.com/janedoemovie
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/38fcjyfsamsungcameracharger
Mailing List: http://janedoethemovie.fanbridge.com/
Indie GoGo: http://www.indiegogo.com/jane-doe-the-movie

SEARCHING FOR SONNY
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Official website: http://searchingforsonny.com/

SENSORY PERCEPTION
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1618473/
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sensor...0547164?ref=ts
Official MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/sensoryperception
Official Website: http://www.sensoryperceptionmovie.com/

SIX LOVERS
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://www.wix.com/joelmielle/six-lovers#

STRIPPERLAND
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://stripperlandthemovie.com/

SUBJECTIVE EXPRESSIONS
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Official trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJGpTeShsgccamerabatteries
Blog: http://grotafilm.wordpress.com/reflection/
IndieGoGo: http://www.indiegogo.com/Subjective-Expressions
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Grota.Film

SYBIL LUDINGTON
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645934/
Official website: http://www.sybilludingtonmovie.com
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/sybilludingtonmovie
Distributed by: http://www.gobmg.com

THE DEAD INSIDE
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official Website: http://thedeadinside.com
Official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-De...56387377710413
imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1582270/

THE JONES'
Shot with: Canon T2i
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/32vdqdh

THE KING OF BALTIMORE
Shot with: Canon 7D, Canon T2I

THE LAND OF EB
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official Website: http://www.thelandofeb.com/

THE LOUISIANA CONVERSATION
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII

THE LURK
Shot with: Canon 7D
Official website: http://www.farmofdreams.net/thelurk/thelurk.html

THE NIGHT
Shot with: Canon 7D, Canon T2i

THE OFF HOURS
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII
Official website: http://www.theoffhoursfilm.com/
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1646981/

THE PASSING PLACE
Shot with: Canon 5DmkII and Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1967632/

TILT
Shot with: Canon T2i
YouTube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/TiltTheMovie

TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE
Shot with: Canon 5D mk I
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121164/

TINY FURNITURE
Shot with: Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1570989/
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/2dxyest

WHERE I BEGIN
Shot with: Canon 7D
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675441
Official Website: http://www.whereibeginmovie.com/
Trailer (Vimeo): http://vimeo.com/18351709

WHITE OUT
Shot with: Canon T2i
Official Website: http://www.whiteoutthemovie.co.uk/
DVXUser Thread: http://tinyurl.com/6ckrwdz

WINTER NIGHTS
Shot with: Canon 7D

[Ian-T]

You'll notice most of them were shot on Canon DSLRs. I believe that has to do with the fact that many of them have been in production for the last couple of years (long before the GH-2 came out). I'd say...this time next year (if not already) you'll start to see a lot more done on the GH-2 (just a hunch).

EDIT: Check out the trailer for the movie "Searchng for Sonny." It looks very funny. You can see a little of Ashton Kutcher in there. I remember when they started filmning this a couple or few years ago on the 5Dll.

[Gillvane]

Wow, that's quite a list. A little something for everyone. A lot of them I wouldn't sit through no matter what it was shot on, but some of them look very interesting.

[Almohada]

One hour!

[antman]

Do we really need more at the moment? Max supported is 1080p for now, even a 1080p like the Thomson Viper or the Panavision Genesis did already a good job, being simply 1080p in resolution.

I Agree. Bigger sensor & better performance and that's about all we need.

couldn't agree more, Take me for example, I have a 12" penis, but only use 9" hehehe

[MalfunctioningHuman]

couldn't agree more, Take me for example, I have a 12" penis, but only use 9" hehehe
MWAHAHAHA. Antman, I see you continue being your charming self, all restrained and proper.

Good to see you are still posting on the forum. I am trying to make a comeback (hopefully I have more success than bell bottom pants.) Catch you sometime, and be careful you don't trip on that thing. LOL

[argonaut]

The idea for the indie shooting with Red, is probably your film ends up on youtube. BUT! what if it actually does get a limited release? Then you've got the footage that will look great on the big screen.
For vimeo and youtube, yes, 3k or 4k is unnecessary.


Well, I agree with you on some things: What's the point of spending so much money on the hardware when you can invest it on your production values. Having said this, regardless of the final format your content would be distributed at, you should aim for the highest-resolution/quality possible.
Danny Boyle shot most of 28 days later (2002) with a SD Canon XL-1S. Regardless of the format you can see the production value throughout the movie. Still, you see the limitations of SD video.

IMHO a 15k or 20k camera is only worth it if you ARE shooting a project that requires it. I don't believe it's such a great investment to record family and social gatherings unless money isn't an issue.
Best Regards

[azmyth]

that 7D film "Like Crazy" looked awesome.

it "felt" like a big budget movie to me. Thats why I think the camera has little to do with that "feeling" you get, when you watch something hollywood does.. because its the combination of things that creates it. I want to see it now, despite the fact that I hate those kinds of movies.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

What's in front of the camera and how it's presented (framing, lighting), not to mention story, acting, etc, are infinitely more important than the camera (once a certain threshold for minimum quality has been satisfied.) I guarantee you that if you film a fat fly land on a turd on an Alexa it will be far less impressing than if you film Angelina Jolie watching a sunset in the middle of a corn field while the wind moves her hair so, filmed with a GH2.

[mark84j]

that 7D film "Like Crazy" looked awesome.

it "felt" like a big budget movie to me. Thats why I think the camera has little to do with that "feeling" you get, when you watch something hollywood does.. because its the combination of things that creates it. I want to see it now, despite the fact that I hate those kinds of movies.

"Like Crazy" looked like any other 7d footage you can easily find on Youtube in 5 seconds. Overexposed, handheld shots that could pass for a well-done commercial... but a movie? No. I'm just utterly disdainful towards this look, and IMO it's not good to have these kind of movies be so commonplace these days. I still think the footage itself is beautiful, but not as a feature length film.

Just me.

[azmyth]

I think that really is "just you".

[dop16mm]

All things being equal, lighting, talent, eye candy. I doubt most people in the audience would know or care what it is shot on. The GH2 would do the job if not intercut with something better.

A fully budgeted production with all the resources will shoot Alexa or Red or Genesis or Film, its not that big of a line item relative to salaries and all the other rentals.

A minimal budget film stretching to secure enough gas and peanut butter to get through the shoot should absolutely not be spending money on RED thinking it will make for a better film. GH2 or t2i or Hv20 will be more than good enough given the money you have to put on the screen.

[Bif]

"Like Crazy" looked like any other 7d footage you can easily find on Youtube in 5 seconds. Overexposed, handheld shots that could pass for a well-done commercial... but a movie? No.

I just looked at the trailers for "Like Crazy" again.

"Overexposed?"

I can't see any overexposure in the trailer, exposure looks about right for the mood portrayed in each of the scenes. I've got 33 years experience as a professional photographer; studio work, engineering record documentary, forensic, commercial/industrial, catalog illustration, and more - so I think I know exposure.

"Handheld"?

In "The Bourne Ultimatum", the crazy paced fast handheld footage was a problem for me, I had a hard time following the action, seeing what was going on. But I watched it a few more times and realized that pretty much fit what the film makers were trying to do with the story. So despite the fact I still didn't like the technique (I do want to see what was happening) I accepted the film maker's choice of technique and enjoyed the movie.

What I saw in the trailers for "Like Crazy" looked appropriate for the way they were trying to tell the story.



I'm just utterly disdainful towards this look, and IMO it's not good to have these kind of movies be so commonplace these days. I still think the footage itself is beautiful, but not as a feature length film.

Just me.

I don't think anybody is "forcing" you into the same mold. Each film maker has his own style. The fact that these kind of movies are becoming so commonplace means the viewing public is finding them appealing.

What you might want to look at is the question of whether you are so "closed minded" that you might be limiting your development as a film maker. I don't mean this as any kind of "slam" or "insult", but I've done enough teaching in various subjects, and helped people learn to "see" photographically to sometimes sense these things.

Attitude can be everything.

Each one of these techniques, uses of certain gear are all individual "tools" in the film maker's toolbox.

Bruce Foreman

[mark84j]

You're right, Bif. Though I do think more film makers are migrating towards handheld over steady shots a lot more compared to 5-6 years ago. These days, it's not bringing attitude, it's bringing blandness.

[Bif]

I've noticed that, too. Steady shots show things very clearly if done right and that's what we like. The quality. However handheld allows following action and rolling with it in a way that can bring the viewer right into the middle of it.

I watched the Blu-Ray of "The marine II" the other night, lots of action and one "hand to hand" sequence that they used a mix of Steadicam and handheld footage. The edit pace was just right and I think it was very well done. Locked down steady shots even with panning could not have shown the action anywhere near as effectively.

It was anything but bland.

Of great interest are the special features on the disk where they show all of the steadicam "takes" and many of the handheld. I saw more clearly how that works than on any other film's "bonus features".

My age and physical condition won't let me work true steadicam, that stuff is just too heavy. I've tried a few affordable "steadicamlike" stabilizers but never could get them balanced. So I depend on a shoulder unit, the SpiderBrace, which allows me some movement with practice.

What we dislike may be worth trying. What if we find we can make it "sing"?

Bruce Foreman

[Dr. Benway]

My age and physical condition won't let me work true steadicam, that stuff is just too heavy.


Very heavy. Very tiring.