Comments on: UPDATE – Lumix GH1, Canon 5Dmk2 and Red Intercut Test Notes From DP Byron Shah

By: admin

admin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:28:56 +0000

I didn’t know it hit YouTube also, thanks for the link. YouTube’s “1080p” for this is surprisingly good.

Illya Friedman
President
Hot Rod Cameras

By: GotMotion

GotMotion — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:10:02 +0000

Red One, Canon 5D MkII, and Panasonic Lumix GH1 Side by Side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lqUxnI47tE

By: admin

admin — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:37:43 +0000

Hi Justin,

I know that Liam and Frank (Editor of REJOUER) have been very happy with the CineForm workflow. I catch a compression artifact now and again, but I am extremely critical. My recommendation is to not preview the clips in the finder at any resolution other than full. That’s when I’ve noticed seeing artifacts the most, the good news is that these artifacts you see in preview, are existing only on this scaled playback and not actually in the images themselves. Check the images on a big screen a full resolution for confidence in the transcoding method. If you see artifacts there, they are in the captured image.

By: Justin Demeere

Justin Demeere — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:51:36 +0000

This is such a great test. I have the GH1 and this along with your other info has helped me greatly. Are there any tips on getting the best image transcoded? I have been using log and tansfer>compressor pulldown removal>proresHQ – however it seems a little weak at times. I’ll see compression artifacts at time. Is cineform going to help on that you think?

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:15:58 +0000

I will say this is very exciting and thank you for doing these tests…..

I really would have liked to have seen the exact same shots with all three cameras trying to match each other…..that too me would have been a really good test to see how the three cameras stack up side by side

but that said this is a great test and I am shocked how good they look together….that said I am watching this on a little monitor on my computer…I think the real test is to watch it on the big screen or even on a big tv…..Have you done that and what do you feel is the final results. I don’t think we really got your final feelings words on the three different cameras.

but none the less good stuff!

Ron

By: admin

admin — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:11:44 +0000

Link is added and Photo bug is fixed. Hopefully this won’t be a problem again.

By: Barry Gilbert

Barry Gilbert — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:15:53 +0000

I’m looking for a link to the test described above and am not seeing it. Maybe I’m squinting, but is the test posted online?

By: admin

admin — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:59:56 +0000

I agree. The barrier to entry has never been lower. However, there is no substitute for talent (digital or analog). Your insightful comments remind me of some of the changes that occurred in publishing when “desktop publishing” exploded a couple decades ago now. There was a lot of concern that the industry (as the world knew it), would go away completely- that failed to happen. The recording studio industry too got scared when a top quality room could be build for only $30K, years before it was $100K, and before that is was $1M. Granted there was turmoil in both these industries. However, they were not “over” as prophesied. Talented people continued to thrive, no matter the technology.

On many big commercials the least expensive portion of the budget is already the 35mm film and camera rental. While some producers will never understand this and look for anyway possible to make something for less, the ones looking for quality and working at the highest levels already do.

By: scotty

scotty — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:33:48 +0000

I guess we joined the business at about the same time then, perhaps I joined it slightly earlier. And having worked all over the world and still having only done a hand full of digital jobs in the past 10 years – I do stand by my comment about the death knell. Television advertising which has been the mainstay of the motion picture industry in many markets has changed. Products such as yours are tremendous equalisers in what has been up until now a very expensive industry to enter. The rule of thumb was too give television commercial work to people with experience, because the cost of producing television commercials was so high you didn’t want young creative people screwing up. Now of course, the cost of producing television commercials particularly in terms of cinematography and in postproduction has plummeted. The savvy producer could make five commercials for the price of the one they made 10 years ago and some now are. They can capitalise on the youthful intellectual optimism of the newly franchised and if truth be known their clients do benefit.

keep up the good work – for as far as I am concerned maintaining a visual reference like familiar 35mm (equivalent) depth of field characteristics and using good quality glass and manual focusing have really been the missing link between a filmic style and digital film making.

Cheers

By: admin

admin — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:25:38 +0000

Thanks for the compliments Scotty. As someone who got started in this business in the ealy 90s, I’m going to disagree 100% about a death knell. I’ve heard that so many times before, most recently it was CGI, DV, and then HD.

Really, my product and others that have come before it are just tools to help people realize their cinematic vision. Amazingly, Super-8 is still kicking around, and I would have thought it would have been discontinued 10+ years ago. Instead new technology has emerged to make Super-8 better than it has ever been in the past (2K scans, anyone?)