boomieAs far as quality with the GH2, does it compare to the GH3? I've heard of people that hack the GH2 to get good quality. Wondering what your process is.
Off the top of my head, the only advantages of the GH3 over the GH2 are:
1. Smoother gradients (better sampling within the same 8-bit framework)
2. Timecode sync
3. Ergonomics/menu aren't complete garbage like they are with the GH2
However, the GH2 is actually better in one very important regard: moiré. As far as I know, the GH2 is the only SLR-form factor video camera that doesn't have a moiré problem (Canon is the worst at this). I've even
tried inducing moiré to test the limits of the camera and was unable to. The GH3 has it on fine details unfortunately, but not nearly to the same magnitude as the Canon or Nikon DSLRs.
The hack is incredibly easy and takes 5 minutes to figure out how to do. You might have to demo a couple to find one you like, but after trying 3 I found one I settled on one and never had to touch it again. Don't get too caught up on bitrates - the important thing is stability and frame modes.
boomieTrue, it's just very tempting when it seems that all the great filmmakers on newschoolers use the GH3 ha. I also don't see 4k video taking off within the next 3 years, but I could be wrong. It's just a tossup if I want to sacrifice the photo abilities of my 7D for better video.
It took me almost 10 years to learn that the gear other people use doesn't fucking matter. A tool is only as useful as its ability to function transparently in YOUR hands, not someone else's. Specs are suggestive at best and say nothing about the utilitarian value of any given tool because that is highly subjective and dependent on a variety of inimitable factors that are unique to YOUR circumstances at that particular moment in that particular place. I've seen gorgeous videos shot with Canon DSLRs, but that doesn't mean that you could pay me to use one because I hate them. They aren't bad
per se, I just think they're shit. Likewise, a RED is probably the last camera I'd choose to pick most of what I shoot because they are not adequate tools for my purpose. Bottom line - who gives a shit what other people are using. Instead you should look for qualities that YOU find useful and figure out the best way to fulfill those needs. If that means using an Olympus point and shoot, so be it. Just smile at all the victims of the Dunning-Kreuger effect who are amateur enough to give a rat's ass about the logo on their camera.
EliHarkTrue talk,
At this point, unless you are showing videos on 4k TVs or 4k Projectors in festivals or something, the need is not there.
While you may be one step ahead when 4k becomes the standard, it is unneeded at this point.
Until monitors standard resolution is closer to 4k, it is pointless...
Plus, Youtube and Vimeo dont really support 4k Video yet, (Because it takes massive amounts of space)
Shooting RAW 1080p (ML) and grading that will look better than 4k that is compressed...
Just my 2 cents
Not true. 4k footage displayed at 1080p actually looks better than 1080p footage displayed at 1080p. The reason is that 4k, by definition, "over samples" (that is, beyond the bounds necessitated by 1080p) from the sensor and in doing so, provides a surplus of luma and color data for the 1080p image to "grab" from. In essence, you can convert 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 to 2k 10-bit 4:4:4.
What's really interesting is that none of that shit matters, and that 4k is the least impressive feature of the GH4. Furthermore, shooting Magic Lantern RAW means fuck-all when none of the Canon DSLRs can even shoot "true" 1080p yet. Talk about putting a turd under a microscope...
