Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Panasonic 4:3  (Read 6690 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7903



WWW
« on: June 22, 2010, 06:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The new Panasonic 4:3 camera is clearly interesting.

Now, it also appears to be marking the end of the short dual still/movie trend as people have finally realized that both domains have very different ergonomics requirements.

Are the combo camera in essence already dead?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4810



« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2010, 08:37:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that we'll continue to see video capability on a great many cameras, but pros and serious amateurs will switch to the new large format sensor cameras pretty quickly. The days of the 5DMKII as a serious video product will, I believe, be eclipsed within a year or so by this new generation of dedicated camcorders with interchangeable lenses, large sensors and proper video features.

Here's another insight.

Michael
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 09:35:03 PM by michael » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2010, 10:11:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

There was a great series on DSLR based motion picture photography on http://www.zacuto.com/shootout . They even discussed RAW!

Now, I don't see that DSLR digital sensors are optimally used for motion. In the third installment on the Zacuto series they compare film scanned at 2K with 4K and digital. One of the issues with motion pictures on DSLRs is that the data is much compressed and  in very low resolution, full HD is about two MPixels, like the earliest Canon Digital Elphs. I guess that the new movie cameras will have new processing pipelines optimized for movie.

In short, DSLR based video is good enough to impress seasoned professionals in the business but is far from realizing the true potential of digital capture.


Quote from: michael
I think that we'll continue to see video capability on a great many cameras, but pros and serious amateurs will switch to the new large format sensor cameras pretty quickly. The days of the 5DMKII as a serious video product will, I believe, be eclipsed within a year or so by this new generation of dedicated camcorders with interchangeable lenses, large sensors and proper video features.

Here's another insight.

Michael
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2010, 06:37:51 AM »
ReplyReply

It truly is an awe-inspiring age of imaging to be living in. What is curious is that unlike the usual revolutionary ages, this revolution has seen an increasing difficulty in making money rather than the usual opposite. Someone will write a book on this age one day exploring how fast the changes came and how vastly it effected the industry in such a unique way.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2010, 07:02:16 AM »
ReplyReply

oh oh...but that would also put in the unemployment cues some people who did make money selling all those accesories in order to facilitate the dslr video poor usability...
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2010, 04:05:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
oh oh...but that would also put in the unemployment cues some people who did make money selling all those accesories in order to facilitate the dslr video poor usability...


I don't necessarily agree with this assumption that a 4:3 or Aps C dedicated video camera is going to bury the dslrs for film making and motion imagery.

Honestly, I've owned and worked about a half dozen of these video cameras and other than dedicated xlr inputs and the ability to preview sound, the ergonomics are not that much better than a properly equipment dslr and the menu system of a camera like an xha1 or any of the Canon xl series is just maddening in comparison to a 5d2.

As far as the frame size of the 5d2 being less favorable due to depth of field, film makers of all levels, budget and genre's have embraced the full 24x36 frame (well once cropped 16x9) and used it more to their advantage than disadvantage.  In fact Red's plans once they get the kinks worked out of their current systems is to go to larger and larger frame sizes.

If the 5d2 has any shortcomings it's the fact that it does alaise and moire on certain subjects given the fact that a 2k file is approx 2mpx, but for high iso, ease of manual focus, the ability to make the camera system huge or helmet wearing small is an advantage that most of the dedicated "video" cameras are going to have a difficult time matching.

There is some fascinating work coming from talented people with the dslrs and I don't think they're going to give them up over almost any video camera.

Now for me, I'd contemplate a aps C sony, or 4/3's panasonic if it went to high iso, it had accurate autofocus for some fast moving imagery and the icing on the cake would be the ability to shoot raw.

That is the thing Red has going for it with their X sensor, that and the fact it goes to high iso very well with tremendous detail.

Yes, the dslrs for video are far from perfect, but then again no camera is, but if any one camera has changed the way we work in the professional arena it is the 5d2.

BC
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2010, 04:46:34 AM »
ReplyReply

If you're referring the micro four thirds AG-AF100, hopefully it means Panasonic and other MFT manufacturers start finally making quality primes.

When it was announced a Panny rep said in an interview that they know what they're doing when it comes to motion - and they sure do -, which to me implies gone that rolling shutter and other problems arising from decimation are gone, it will have reasonable DOF putting a welcome end to the shallow DOF fetish, will have a usable microphone, and lenses which allow for proper follow-focus and matte box without turning it into a frankencamera.

I agree with Michael that this camera marks the end of the brief reign of hybrid dSLRs. I'm sure 5DIII will have improved video capabilities, but most serious videographers will move back to dedicated motion cameras.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 04:48:49 AM by feppe » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2010, 09:11:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm in between a Rock and a Hard place.

I understand Michael's statement, but at the same time I disagree in part and I explain why.

The hybrid nature of combocam and the reallity of the profession now makes me think that the days of the combocams are not so much counted, unless you are a pure videographer and in that case I agree with Michael.
In other words, if Red or the m4/3 videocam could come with pro stills capability then that would really be another story.

I'm talking of course for the photographer's case that has now a divided time with some movie prod.

The question is that with a more than reasonable investment, and we should not forget that this is specially important today, the Canon's gives access to both worlds with some usability downsides, yes, but with enough quality in video, as BC pointed specially in low light and an universality unmatched.
This is very difficult to beat.

How much will cost the Pana? I guess more expensive no?

What is really unbeatable with the Canon, is that whatever you buy, it will serves dramatically well for any purpose. You can shoot pro fashion with the 5D and then make a pro video. But you can not shoot pro fashion with the m4/3 investment glasses.
All your investment stays in the same house and there are every accessory available that you can imagine.
This monopoly is nearly insulting but very truth.

You have full frame, cheap, universal, professional, relaible, capable of producing the best imagery of both worlds and with all the available accessories the usability in part resolved.
mmm...got the feeling that the Canon's videos are not dead yet.




Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4810



« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2010, 10:19:20 AM »
ReplyReply

It's both difficult and dangerous to generalize, particularly about tools used by photographers. We all have differing needs. The run-and-gun event shooter's needs are quite different than those of the indy film producer who needs to do accurate focus pulls with primes.

But I think it's fair to say that a DSLR is simply a lousy video camera operationally. Image quality is one thing, but without the controls and features of a true video camera there are large user constituencies that will be thrilled when they can have a "proper" video camera with a large sensor, high ISO capability, a PL mount, XLR connectors, SDI out and the rest of it.

Video capable DSLRs will continue to evolve, but mainstream videographers will flock to LSVCs. (Large Sensor Video Cameras), or whatever they're eventually called.

Michael
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2010, 11:00:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
It's both difficult and dangerous to generalize, particularly about tools used by photographers. We all have differing needs. The run-and-gun event shooter's needs are quite different than those of the indy film producer who needs to do accurate focus pulls with primes.

But I think it's fair to say that a DSLR is simply a lousy video camera operationally. Image quality is one thing, but without the controls and features of a true video camera there are large user constituencies that will be thrilled when they can have a "proper" video camera with a large sensor, high ISO capability, a PL mount, XLR connectors, SDI out and the rest of it.

Video capable DSLRs will continue to evolve, but mainstream videographers will flock to LSVCs. (Large Sensor Video Cameras), or whatever they're eventually called.

Michael
What will really be exciting IMO Michael, and I applaude the Pana step anyway and agree that m4/3 has a lot of sense there, is when the video cameras will be able to do pro stills imagery as well. In the meantime, the stills manufacturers will also have done steps towards video, hoppefully with better usability.
So your wishes about convergence will finally become the reality.

I suppose than in a question of years, we will have more choice than ever, and maybe strange but revolutionnary devices will emerge.

Exiting time that is about to come.


Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2010, 06:45:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
........snip............

Video capable DSLRs will continue to evolve, but mainstream videographers will flock to LSVCs. (Large Sensor Video Cameras), or whatever they're eventually called.

Michael


Maybe, but some generalities are very close to true, though there are exceptions to every rule.

It's funny, Videographers seem to like video cameras, actually they seem to love them.  Give a video guy a sony with a 2/3 " chip, a viewfinder with peaking, zebras and a fast zoom and he/she is in hog heaven.

Hand the same camera to a film guy and he screams don't make me shoot video, God don't make me shoot video.

Then hand a 5d2 to a film guy with a bunch of Red Rock or Zaguto stuff hanging off of it and he'll say, film's dead man, now just give me a raw file for 3 more stops of range and I'm set.

I think part of it is the previous small video cameras hated low light.    But the 5d2, at 2000 iso works.  Yea it's kind of smooth, and yea it takes about 5 grand worth of stuff to make it really workable, but one small arri kit and a visit to home depot for some incandesents opens up a world of film making that nobody could get to previously without spending 20 grand in rentals and a call to the teamsters.

Every time I see a new "video" camera my butt tightens because I've been down that road of pdf's that promise but in reality the more high def dedicated video cameras got, the more video like the image looked . . .(IMO).

 They grained up, noised up, and pulled focus from the front of the lens to the horizon.  Film guys just cringe at 400' of focus, video guys go yea baby that's a sharp image.

Also video cameras at least the two xha1's I have are about as durable as a 7-11 cell phone.  You can look at them and parts break off and you live in complete fear that the operator accidently hits auto gain, or doesn't lock in 24p on the menu (though it's a faux 24p). or  some other silly little button on the side and wrecks the whole production.

I'd love to see a 24x36 "video" camera made of metal, had a evf that you could look and focus through, had the iso of a 5d2, the build quality of a 1ds3, a 13 stop raw file,  but at that stage we're talking about Red, not Panasonic and a 4:3 chip.

Video guys are probably gonna love it.  Film guys are still gonna scream "please don't make me shoot video".

BC

P.S.   Now once again, IMO, but the one thing Canons have is great skin tones.  The best I've seen still or video and the 5d2, 1dMark4 etc. follow that tradition.   The first time I used a 1d (not s but just a 1d) and fired it at 10fps, dropped it into the editor and played it I thought yep, this is where motion imagery should go.  Just tack on a big honking processor and some storage space, lock that mirror up and let's us shoot.

They're getting closer to this all the time.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 06:54:11 PM by bcooter » Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2010, 01:37:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Whatever.  Real artists realize that everything is just a tool to get the job done.  And the lines are finally blurring between all of the technologies to where in a decade or so, you'll just buy one device and it'll do everything.  Then of course, the nay-sayers won't have any excuses.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2010, 02:16:15 AM »
ReplyReply

The point is that pros buy and use equipment which makes their lives easier unless it's something which is hard to use but will give them a specific edge when they are willing to compromise. That is the case at present with the 5D mkII as far as I can see but if I know pros in pretty much any field, the moment they don't have to compromise on ease of use, boy are they going to jump on it.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2010, 03:30:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
... film makers of all levels, budget and genre's have embraced the full 24x36 frame (well once cropped 16x9) and used it more to their advantage than disadvantage.
I am a bit puzzled by that comment, since even big budget film makers using actual film have almost entirely standardized on cine-35mm formats with frame width 25mm or less, in favor of larger formats like vista-vision and 70mm.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2010, 03:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I am a bit puzzled by that comment, since even big budget film makers using actual film have almost entirely standardized on cine-35mm formats with frame width 25mm or less, in favor of larger formats like vista-vision and 70mm.


My point, or better put a DP's point about the frame size of a 5d2 is you can always stop down to achieve more depth of focus, but with a smaller cine style frame you need expensive and fast primes in the 1.2 range.

Also we're talking digital not film, so 2000 iso on the 5d2 is not a stretch, like it was with film.

I'm not advocating shooting everything wide open where only an eyelash is in focus, but remember one of the main reasons the cine frame sized moved to where it is was not because of want, but due to economics and size.

Big film at 800,000 frames was expensive, smaller film is/was cheaper.

Now, I really don't believe we're going to have one single sensor size in motion cameras, dslrs or not as the film industry has always played around with gating and widescreen with different sizes and effects, though now the standard display format seems to be 16x9.

In digital there is room for the RED, 7d, and 5d2, depending on style, preference and use.

What I was saying was a 5d2 with an F 2.8 lens is cheap compared to any cine alternative for some effects.

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2010, 05:35:32 AM »
ReplyReply

What is impressive is for example the 1D MK4. It is built like a tank. I personally love by far more the handling of the 1D's series than the 5D that just don't feel right in my hand. The 1D is a tool I would take in any unfriendly environement without preocupations.
For the press reporter it might be unbeatable. Shoot both video and stills to very high standards in an undestructible package.

But at least (at least Canon), if they could implement a screen like the in the Pana GH1. I find pretty ridiculous that Canon's stucks with the fixed lcd in their "movie gears". It is part of the paranormal phenomenons of the industry, like the silly lcd of the backs.

Why the 16x9 has become the standard ? Is there a specific reason for that? or just fashionable.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2010, 06:23:54 AM »
ReplyReply

bcooter,

    of course I understand the familiar bromide that a larger format, when paired with lenses of equally low minimum f-stop, can give shallower DOF, and that this can occasionally be of value. My point was that the history of even big-budget movie making on film, where reducing film costs is not a dominant cost factor, has shown no evidence of interest in the shallow DOF advantages of formats larger than cine-35mm: the larger formats were adopted solely for advantages in resolution, grain and such (particularly when film-makers were going wide-screen and seeking a visible advantage over TV), and the larger formats were largely  abandoned as improved film resolution made those advantages insignificant. (The use of larger film formats like VistaVision persisted longer for special effects work, where lots of "post" work degrades IQ more.)

In summary: larger format usage in film movie making was all about resolution and related IQ advantages, with no sign of shallower DOF being a significant motivation. (Aside: I tend to think the same about still photography formats, at least when it comes to 35mm vs anything larger. With both still and motion, the eventual dominance of 35mm formats (different ones!) and major decline in use of larger formats probably had a lot to do with "35mm" offering sufficient DOF control for almost all purposes, and was not due to photographers getting "cheaper" over time and abandoning greater DOF choices offered by those larger formats.)

Which is not to deny that there are occasional uses for the extremely shallow DOF of a 36x24mm format digital still/motion camera, now that these are vastly smaller and cheaper than film equivalents like VistaVision or 70mm. Maybe more so for TV work, where the image is typically not viewed as large as in a cinema, so desired dramatic OOF effects are a bit less noticeable.

P.S. RED vaporware does not carry much weight with me as evidence of future trends! RED mke cine-35mm, more or less.

Quote from: bcooter
My point, or better put a DP's point about the frame size of a 5d2 is you can always stop down to achieve more depth of focus, but with a smaller cine style frame you need expensive and fast primes in the 1.2 range.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 07:52:55 AM by BJL » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2010, 05:56:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Here some "independent" test footage which looks very good - not much high-speed motion or pans going on, though. DOF is cinematic, as expected.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2010, 05:19:05 AM »
ReplyReply

But I think it's fair to say that a DSLR is simply a lousy video camera operationally. Image quality is one thing, but without the controls and features of a true video camera there are large user constituencies that will be thrilled when they can have a "proper" video camera with a large sensor, high ISO capability, a PL mount, XLR connectors, SDI out and the rest of it.
I think a DSLR may indeed make a really crappy point and shoot video camera, but for doing serious work, it is just fine. Why? Just like every other feature film quality video/film camera, it needs a bunch of accessories to make it work and in fact it can be even better as you can set it up to be really small, not just big and bulky.
I just did a shoot with a 7D with Red Rock accessories and separate sound recording and then the next week another shoot, this time with a pro quality, small chip HD Sony with Zebras, XLRs and all the usual pro video camera features. Both were superior than the other for the jobs they were being used for respectively. 7D for a commercial with staged shots, the Sony for more documentary work.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2010, 05:24:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Whatever.  Real artists realize that everything is just a tool to get the job done.  And the lines are finally blurring between all of the technologies to where in a decade or so, you'll just buy one device and it'll do everything.  Then of course, the nay-sayers won't have any excuses.
There is no device that can do everything in any area and never will be. Even in just photography, One wouldn't use a Phase One to do snapshots at a mate's party or a pocket P+S camera to produce billboard advertising.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad