Where We May Be Going With Camera Choices & Options

[Bif]

What I think sets the GH2 apart (leaving aside the sharpness) is that you can adapt pretty much any lens in existence to it. And, the camera responds according to the lens. You can change the character of the camera immediately by changing the lens. This is not true of the Canons which have too much softness built into the camera itself.

Also, the Canon's have sensors that are too large in my opinion. I like the micro 4/3 much better. Very close to Academy.

Look at these examples (and this is just the GH1):

Lomo anamorphic:


Canon FD:


Nikon 35mm Prime:


Helios (Russian lens) and Sankor 16C anamorphic:

I thought it might be a good idea to move this discussion from the "Footage" forum to this one. It is getting interesting, has good participation, and I will respect ALL opinions whether or not I agree with them.

Bruce Foreman

[drapeama]

I will respect ALL opinions whether or not I agree with them.

I think it all comes down to taste and personal preferences. We could discuss about it for weeks and weeks, that we would still be at the same point!
Seriously, some people can do great videos, with great visuals with very minimal gear/lens and not so expensive cameras...Best and usual example: 28 Days Later shot on miniDV.

I think the technology is now enough affordable that pretty much everyone will be able to make movies. Is that a good thing? Yes and no because it will kind of kill the essence of the industry. Some people, from years to years, seems to forget what true cinema is. Most people nowadays thinks that Michael Bay or JJ Abbrams is "the" reference...
I don't know.

[Bif]

What I think sets the GH2 apart (leaving aside the sharpness) is that you can adapt pretty much any lens in existence to it. And, the camera responds according to the lens. You can change the character of the camera immediately by changing the lens.

Not always for the better, though. Some have been using "legacy" lenses from other brand cameras with the Canon's ever since Canon came out with the 5D MkII. I used a 50mm Nikkor f1.8 AI-s in order to get manual aperture control with the T1i (had very crippled video). I liked it but having used Nikkors for a couple of decades I pretty much knew it's color personality. I think many go that route due to cost of modern Canon EOS lenses and the cost of Olympus and Lumix glass for the m4/3rds.

Also, the Canon's have sensors that are too large in my opinion. I like the micro 4/3 much better. Very close to Academy.

I still have a 60D, while the APS-C is a tad larger than the 4/3 sensor (both are close to Academy) I see little practical difference (other than camera image characteristics). I can work with either but prefer the 4/3rds myself.

Look at these examples (and this is just the GH1):

I think what the operator behind the camera did in the way of exposure, framing, and visual judgement with some of these lenses stood out more to me than the lens "personality".

With the Lomo anamorphic and the Helios I found that footage to lack a bit of inherent contrast (perhaps just my taste), both videos seemed over "flarey" and lingered on that effect too long. The color "personality" of those lenses tended a bit too yellowish (beyond the golden effect of setting sun), and both seemed to lack enough dynamic range.

These are characteristics we saw with the Russian version of the Hasselblad and the lenses made for it in the old Soviet Union. When the price of Hasselblad jumped from the $600 level to just under a Grand, some guys trying to break into weddings got the Zenit (I believe that was the brand) and tried to use those professionally. Didn't work well for them.

With the videos done with the Nikkor I felt like the operator underexposed too much especially faces on backlit people. The Nikkor glass has a fairly solid color and inherent contrast personality in properly exposed work and does a beautiful image. The properly exposed segments looked great.

The FD footage: This impressed me an awful LOT! But again I ascribe this to operator(s) who knew their craft, how to expose, light, and choose "found" lighting situations. I love what they did on "short" lighting some of those models even if all they did was turn them into the light. Those lenses have a reputation for being sharp but somewhat gentle in the way they render things.

My choice was to (for now) work with Panasonic and Olympus lenses made for the m4/3rds system. The ones I've chosen tend to be "razor sharp" for the most part, but I've got a "graduated" set of Cokin diffusion filters (left over from my studio days) ranging from so subtle you can't see diffusion to "don't even try focusing through this one".

In addition I ordered a Tiffen "black diffusion" #3 based on advice from over on dvxuser, supposedly it works a subtle softening on skin tones that overcomes the perhaps too sharp quality of lenses like the Lumix 20mm f1.7. Can't test it though until a 46-52mm stepup ring gets here in a few days.

Bruce Foreman

[MalfunctioningHuman]

I think it all comes down to taste and personal preferences. We could discuss about it for weeks and weeks, that we would still be at the same point!
Seriously, some people can do great videos, with great visuals with very minimal gear/lens and not so expensive cameras...Best and usual example: 28 Days Later shot on miniDV.

I think the technology is now enough affordable that pretty much everyone will be able to make movies. Is that a good thing? Yes and no because it will kind of kill the essence of the industry. Some people, from years to years, seems to forget what true cinema is. Most people nowadays thinks that Michael Bay or JJ Abbrams is "the" reference...
I don't know.

I kind of see what you mean there, Draps. But I think any advancements in technology that lower the theshold for entry are a good thing. Sure, a lot more people will feel empowered to create substandard products, but so what? It takes about 30 seconds to figure out that a 90 minute feature is not worth it.

The way I see it is: There is a lot of crap that is written nowadays, or even 30 years ago. Making pens, paper, and typewriters a luxury by increasing their prices astronomically ("Twilight tax" anyone?) would have prevented a lot of substandard and meaningless drivel from being produced, but it would have also probably caused many great works to never have been made.

I also completely agree with your comment about J.J. Abrahams and Michael Bay (especially the latter). I think that the fact they are so successful is just because 90% of people are just overgrown teenagers who like shiny objects (to vaguely quote a line from The Simpsons). CGI is the real culprit for the exponential decrease in cinema quality at the top of the box office. Explosions, huge contraptions flying through the sky, visual acrobatics if you will. The form has suplanted the story and how it's told at the top of the importance scale. The rewards of visual and auditory stimulation are direct and require very little thinking. The market for that type of stuff has proven to be incredibly profitable, as that's what the masses crave.

Pixar is, I think, one of the few exceptions that has used technology to create new amazing movies without forgetting the story. For the most part, CGI and technological advances in reproduction, has made it way easier to create good looking crap that is craved by millions of people.

However, tying in with my previous point, I don't think that the success of that type of moviemaking has prevented good movies from being made. They may be less successful in the box office comparatively, but they are still being made. Thankg God for people like Clint Eastwood and the Cohen brothers.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

Not always for the better, though. Some have been using "legacy" lenses from other brand cameras with the Canon's ever since Canon came out with the 5D MkII. I used a 50mm Nikkor f1.8 AI-s in order to get manual aperture control with the T1i (had very crippled video). I liked it but having used Nikkors for a couple of decades I pretty much knew it's color personality. I think many go that route due to cost of modern Canon EOS lenses and the cost of Olympus and Lumix glass for the m4/3rds.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, Bruce.

Yeah, I guess many people will use cheap vintage lenses out of necessity like you say. In my case it's a happy coincidence that I like what you can get from the GH cameras with FD glass, and that FD glass is, for the most part, really cheap!

But the cool thing about GH1/GH2 is that you have the freedom to pretty much use whatever lens you will, from C-Mount CCTV lenses (with slight vignetting in some cases) to PL Mount, and going through anything in between. It's that freedom, and the fact that the character of the image produced by the camera can be changed so dramatically, that I value.

I still have a 60D, while the APS-C is a tad larger than the 4/3 sensor (both are close to Academy) I see little practical difference (other than camera image characteristics). I can work with either but prefer the 4/3rds myself.

You are right, I guess I was thinking more of the 5D, which has a noticeable larger sensor. I have grown to dislike the way DOF is used in DSLR productions, and how it's used as a crutch to attempt to conceal lack of production values. To me it has just become an inside joke. Judicious use of DOF is good, but when a feature is 90% like that, it's just tacky.

I think what the operator behind the camera did in the way of exposure, framing, and visual judgement with some of these lenses stood out more to me than the lens "personality".

With the Lomo anamorphic and the Helios I found that footage to lack a bit of inherent contrast (perhaps just my taste), both videos seemed over "flarey" and lingered on that effect too long. The color "personality" of those lenses tended a bit too yellowish (beyond the golden effect of setting sun), and both seemed to lack enough dynamic range.

These are characteristics we saw with the Russian version of the Hasselblad and the lenses made for it in the old Soviet Union. When the price of Hasselblad jumped from the $600 level to just under a Grand, some guys trying to break into weddings got the Zenit (I believe that was the brand) and tried to use those professionally. Didn't work well for them.

I understand what you are saying. I like that kind of character though, although I agree that it's not desirable in most (or even a majority) of the situations. I think I personally am more drawn towards less contrasty lenses in the GH1/GH2 because those cameras are so darn sharp, and I think lenses that render a more muted representation of the image in them are a good compliment. To use the "F" word, it makes the video look more "Filmic"? All of this is wildly subjective, of course. For you, coming from the Canons, the sharpness and resolving power of the GH2 sensor must have been a revelation, as if a veil was lifted (both figuratively and literally).

With the videos done with the Nikkor I felt like the operator underexposed too much especially faces on backlit people. The Nikkor glass has a fairly solid color and inherent contrast personality in properly exposed work and does a beautiful image. The properly exposed segments looked great.

Funny that you say that, as I don't consider any of the shots underexposed (maybe technically you could say that, but I see it as a pleasing artistic decision). All this is so subjective! That video with the 35mm Nikkor prime is so filmic. It makes me get an adapter and get that lens just to try.

The FD footage: This impressed me an awful LOT! But again I ascribe this to operator(s) who knew their craft, how to expose, light, and choose "found" lighting situations. I love what they did on "short" lighting some of those models even if all they did was turn them into the light. Those lenses have a reputation for being sharp but somewhat gentle in the way they render things.

Yeah, I agree. That film was really, really good. And, like you say, the lens is just a very small part of why it is so good.

My choice was to (for now) work with Panasonic and Olympus lenses made for the m4/3rds system. The ones I've chosen tend to be "razor sharp" for the most part, but I've got a "graduated" set of Cokin diffusion filters (left over from my studio days) ranging from so subtle you can't see diffusion to "don't even try focusing through this one".

In addition I ordered a Tiffen "black diffusion" #3 based on advice from over on dvxuser, supposedly it works a subtle softening on skin tones that overcomes the perhaps too sharp quality of lenses like the Lumix 20mm f1.7. Can't test it though until a 46-52mm stepup ring gets here in a few days.

Those lenses are sharp on the GH2. How did the black diffusion filter work for you? Did you find it toned down the sharpness of the image without making it too dull?

I like the Cokin system myself. I have an adapter I got for my (now sold) HV40 that I converted into a makeshift matte box with one of their add-ons and some creativity (cut off a mask with some plastic I scavenged from a DVD box), I think Draps gave me the idea, but I may be wrong. The setup looked quite good on the little HV40.

I think I have a #2 Cokin difussion filter but haven't used it much. I should probably give it a try with my GH1. I've seen a use of it with that camera that I really liked and gave the image a dreamy surreal quality:

[Bif]

Sorry it took me so long to respond, Bruce.


Those lenses are sharp on the GH2. How did the black diffusion filter work for you? Did you find it toned down the sharpness of the image without making it too dull?

Toned down the sharpness just the right amount. Skin tones did go a tad dull but I had the camera set for "Cinema" profile with all parameters set at -2 which tends a little "flat" for my taste. I was able to easily correct dull skin tones in post but next test I'll bring Brightness and maybe Saturation up to 0 or neutral.

The Cokins did just fine.

I think I have a #2 Cokin difussion filter but haven't used it much. I should probably give it a try with my GH1. I've seen a use of it with that camera that I really liked and gave the image a dreamy surreal quality:

The Cokins I have were purchased a few decades ago (1970's) and then the strength could vary quite a bit, that's how I wound up with the "graduated" set. I had one #2 that was even softer than in that B&W video you linked. I bought 2 other #2's and they were all different in strength and effect. Even the #1's varied some.

I don't know if the current ones are the same, they may have gotten a better handle on consistency now. I may find myself using the Black Diffusion most, may even order other strengths.

Bruce Foreman