Photographers Just Don't Understand.

Status
Not open for further replies.

val

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
548
Location
Australia
Real Name
William
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
I get it. Good footage will not save a bad story. I don't disagree. But maybe you should consider this...

Hollywood has a LONG history of using formats to augment a story. Shooting "How the West Was Won" in 3 camera, ultra widescreen cinerama had a huge impact on how it was seen, marketed, and remembered (recognized by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"). Hollywood in the 50s had "wars" about various widescreen formats (Panavision, CinemaScope, etc.). In addition, I remember how the washed out colors of "Three Kings" helped set tone and mood, and how the starkness of how it was shot contrasted with the humor (yes, its one of my favorites). Or how about "Raging Bull" and the impact of Scorsese's choice to shoot it in monochrome (a BIG favorite). The quality of the footage in Star Wars was one of the reasons there were lines around the block to see it (great story for sure, but the quality was groundbreaking at the time). The bad footage of "The Blair Witch Project" was a huge part of telling that story (that is NOT one of my favorites), And the orange and teal thing Michael Bay does sets the tone for his action adventure stuff (fun to watch, but not a favorite). If we are talking about a good film, I can't separate out one aspect of it and say "this is why its memorable" (I can only do that with bad films... see "Blair Witch" above). A film is the sum of its parts. And yes, the quality of the footage (color, resolution, etc.) is one of the things that contributes to the story. Without question. Good footage, and the flexibility it gives you with the visual aspects of your story, is a large part of what makes a movie memorable.
No you still dont get it... what is being filmed is more important than how its filmed

Hollywood has a history post ww2 of using 'novel' formats to fight off competition from TV... they thought that if if it was bigger /wider/in 3d then it would drag folks away from their shiny new TV

Washed out colors in 3 kings.. one of my favourite movies... has nothing to do with shot format, but with PP. Choice of colour palette is an artistic not technical choice....same for michael mann and many others

Raging Bull supposedly was shot in B/w because scorsese was concerned that colour footage from the 60's was already fading.. that maybe hype... but it was a decision artistically driven not by technology

The original star wars was shot on 35mm stock.. apparently on a panavision PSR35 which would have had an effective sensor size not dissimilar to a micro 4/3 sensor. People lined up for the effects.. the content... not the format

I am guessing I am older than you... maybe I look at the world differently.. I have lived my adult life working in the tech field... I have had the moment when I realised that the photoshop file I was working on was bigger than the hard drive on my first mac

. Access to tools is a wonderful thing and I am sure 5 years down the line all cameras will have 4K and some will have 8K.... but owning a tool and being able to make use of it are a long way apart

K
 

Livnius

Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
2,256
Location
Melbourne. Australia
Real Name
Joe
Kevin, I think GFFPhoto made it abundantly clear in his his very paragraph that he agrees that content, the narrative, the story being told, rather than the tech is what's really important....a point which I believe we all GET despite your protestations.

Having a great story to tell AND having great tech as a tool with which to aid telling it. The 2 do not have to be mutually exclusive. It really is is a very simple point people are trying to make here Kevin.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
that was excellent.. as long as people actually read the words on the screen and dont get distracted by the video quality :)

K
Exactly, understanding the effort that goes into accomplishing a coherent video is what needs to be understood. It's an excellent cheat sheet that's described in the video, but then you could do a complete video on each of the points describing how to fulfil them.
 

GFFPhoto

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,793
No you still dont get it...
Kevin, I get it. I just disagree. I don't think a bad story is saved by good footage (why do I have to keep saying that part?), but I think better footage makes a difference. Better resolution, better dynamic range, better latitude in post. All of that. Absolutely. Makes a difference. Its fine if you think it doesn't make a bit of difference... but I think it does.


But why are you harping on this point...

but owning a tool and being able to make use of it are a long way apart
If you feel you can't make use of the greater resolution, dynamic range, and latitude you get from better footage, then don't buy a GH4. But thats really about you and your assessment of your own skills. If you feel you don't have the skills that merit video better than your EM1 produces, then stick with that, but generalizing that to others doesn't really follow logically. The assumption and continuous assertion that it is somehow "more" than someone else needs or can make use of is ridiculous. Just because you feel you "can't" doesn't mean others can't.

I have no illusions about being the next Scorsese, but I can take a GH4, put it on a GorillaPod, point it out my living room window at the hummingbird feeder and make fantastic use of the 96fps and 4K video. I can then take those clips and import them into FCPX, massage them a bit, put some music behind it (Chopin? Schumann?) and in a few hours have something that will delight myself, my friends, my family, and the judges at Cannes. OK, I'm kidding about the Cannes part, but I have no illusions about being the next Scorsese, so I'm good with just delighting myself, my friends, and my family. The GH4 will make a HUGE difference over the 60fps 1080p footage I get now from my GX7. What I can do now, I can do much better with a GH4. No extra rig, no big studio lights, just what I have currently and a GH4.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,397
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Nic
Yes, but why would you consider the GH4 if your interest is primarily stills? That would be like someone who is interested primarily in video picking the E-M1 over the GH3.
I guess that is my response to the question first posed in this thread. Panasonc's top-of-the-line stills camera is also an all-singing, all-dancing video camera. If they produced a model being primarily the former and less of the latter, what would the price point be, would it have IBIS, etc. For Panasonic to sell their GH cameras to photographers as well as videographers, that is the biggest issue that I can see.
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
577
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
Actually, I'd say Pana have done the smartest thing they could - saw that Oly already has great stills bodies, but not so much in terms of video, and has filled the hole...

I still have my great stills body (EM-1) you can have a great 4k video body...

Have cake.

Eat cake.

Z...
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
577
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
Actually, I'd say Pana have done the smartest thing they could - saw that Oly already has great stills bodies, but not so much in terms of video, and has filled the hole...

I still have my great stills body (EM-1) you can have a great 4k video body...

Have cake.

Eat cake.

Z...
 

GFFPhoto

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,793
Actually, I'd say Pana have done the smartest thing they could - saw that Oly already has great stills bodies, but not so much in terms of video, and has filled the hole...

I still have my great stills body (EM-1) you can have a great 4k video body...

Have cake.

Eat cake.

Z...
The ironic thing is, aside from shooting with legacy or 43 glass, the GH4 is probably a better stills body, and if you have stabilized Panasonic glass, it is by a significant margin.
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
577
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
The ironic thing is, aside from shooting with legacy or 43 glass, the GH4 is probably a better stills body, and if you have stabilized Panasonic glass, it is by a significant margin.


I have no Pana glass, and I really like my IBIS. Ergonomics are great too - not quite as good as my old 7D, but still good. I haven't picked up the And had a good fondle yet, so can't comment there. Sensor is a step up, I hear, however. But that's ok, tech progresses, and when I get a new body again, it will have progressed more.

Z...
 

Amin Sabet

Administrator
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
10,905
Location
Boston, MA (USA)
Panasonic clearly markets the GH series as hybrid (still and video) cameras, but there is no doubt that they are some of the finest cameras around for stills. If IBIS or 4/3 glass are important to you, you may want to look elsewhere, but there are lots of stills photographers who will find other aspects of the GH4 (superior low light AF, probably superior AF period at least with Pana lenses, fully articulated rear display, etc) to be compelling reasons to pick this camera.

Some seem to this that the fact that the GH series is superior for video somehow makes them less well suited for stills. Certainly not the case!
 

fortwodriver

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
993
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
are saying the quality isn't really as spectacular as everybody says (and probably isn't when compared to really high end cameras), and a whole other group is posting about how 4K is just too much for the amateur user. I guess perspective is everything. You say "meh... I suppose its OK", they say "its too much to handle" :smile:.
All I said was that having a camera that can produce dimensionally 4k video, doesn't mean it's really outputting real resolution inside that box. It isn't. The codec just isn't strong enough.

Look at all the early DSLRs that advertised 1080p... Very few of the earlier ones actually created 1080p footage that took advantage of that high resolution. Most of the time you had blotchiness, tearing, mpeg style artifacts and poor colour depth that you can get away with more at 720p... The same is with these first generation "pro-sumer" 4k cameras. While they readily fill the 4k "window" with a moving picture, that moving picture still has a way to go in terms of clarity to show off the format. Maybe the next generation of large-sensor cams will be able to make a better go of it.

...and no I wasn't basing anything on my E-M1...
 

GFFPhoto

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,793
All I said was that having a camera that can produce dimensionally 4k video, doesn't mean it's really outputting real resolution inside that box. It isn't. The codec just isn't strong enough.

Look at all the early DSLRs that advertised 1080p... Very few of the earlier ones actually created 1080p footage that took advantage of that high resolution. Most of the time you had blotchiness, tearing, mpeg style artifacts and poor colour depth that you can get away with more at 720p... The same is with these first generation "pro-sumer" 4k cameras. While they readily fill the 4k "window" with a moving picture, that moving picture still has a way to go in terms of clarity to show off the format. Maybe the next generation of large-sensor cams will be able to make a better go of it.

...and no I wasn't basing anything on my E-M1...
Most of the reviews I have read (EOSHD, Camera Store, etc. etc.) give the codec very high marks for 4k video. In fact, they say its better than ANY other hybrid camera or DSLR (The 5D3 might have better DoF, but not a better codec). Of course, ones opinion of the codec depends on your standards and expectations. It sounds like you are using it in professional environments along with high end professional cameras. Like I said earlier, if Panasonic's flagship hybrid camera is in the same conversation as high end video cameras costing 10X more, then that speaks highly of the GH4. More artifacts than your RED epic, or EOS C500, or whatever pro camera you shoot is still very high praise for a $1700 hybrid camera that also gives the best stills performance in m43.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom