With all of the new camera releases and software breakthroughs of the past few years, have we seen an abundance of great content getting created and released? Nope. Far from it. If anything, I would argue the general quality level of indie productions has gone down in many respects over recent years. And this is largely due to the fact that more attention is being paid on equipment than storytelling.

Like many other film makers, in the past I have been guilty of falling into the trap of getting wrapped in gear and technology. And let’s face it, It’s hard not to when there are so many cool toys coming out. If you’re like me you might have those moments where you wonder… What’s the next best camera? The best piece of software to edit with? The fastest lens I can find on eBay? The best rig for my new camera? etc.

But then you step back and ask… Does it really matter? Is any of this going to make my film better? Not necessarily. And certainly not if you don’t have a good story to begin with. These tools should be used to enhance a great idea and a well crafted screenplay, not to take away focus that should be given to the story, the heart of any cinematic project. Film, like anything is all about balance. When all is said and done, I’ll take a poorly shot film with lots of heart and a strong identity over an eye candy piece with no substance any day. Look what Danny Boyle did with a Canon XL1 on 28 Days later. Nobody cares that was shot on Mini DV tapes. It’s a cool story and well directed film. It’s timeless. 

As much as I appreciate the digital format and what it can do for us indie film makers, I often find myself wishing we still lived in the days of film. There is something about knowing you only have a few more feet of film left that creates a sense of urgency, a sense that you have to get it right. You have to tell the right story, the right way. No deleting files if you didn’t like that last take – just focusing on a strong idea and committing to it.

Before writing this post, I had considered blogging about the new firmware hack for the Canon 5D MK III. A very exciting achievement, and for those of you that don’t know – Magic Lantern has unlocked the potential to shoot raw video (to some extent) on the 5D. Very cool and very impressive. But at the same time… I found myself not caring as much as I normally would. It seems like almost every day a new breakthrough occurs in this industry. Whether it’s a crazy new camera from Blackmagic, or a firmware hack or new software. This should be a good thing. And in many ways it is a VERY good thing. But I look around and have to wonder… Where is the work? With all the technology right at our finger tips, what are people doing with it? In many cases… Nothing. More often than not I see aspiring film makers (with loads of potential and talent) spending most of their time pixel peeping and trying to squeeze an extra couple of lines of resolution out of their camera, when they should be focusing on the lines on their screenplay. I myself have been guilty of this in the past and will be the first to admit it. But after all, no matter how good you think your camera is today – tomorrow it will be second best. And next year it will be worthless. But a good story will stand the test of time.

The importance of a good story doesn’t only apply if your goal is to direct a feature film or even a short. It is of course, important across the board. It transcends all forms of the medium. Your commercials will be more impactful, documentaries more satisfying and narratives more touching. It seems so simple… But it’s not. Like anything, the more you learn about it, the more you realize you don’t know.

After several years of studying the complex art of screenwriting, the one thing I’ve learned is that I’ll never stop learning. There are an infinite amount of films you can watch, books you can read, screenplays to dissect and lectures to attend. And there are just as many sects within the art form that are paramount in getting your story told well: structure, pacing, dialogue, subtext, format, etc. The point is, being the best film maker you can be is all about having a strong skill set in many areas. Not just perfecting your knowledge you have of your camera today, but your insight into story telling as a whole. Because after all, that’s why we’re in this business. To tell stories. This applies not only to Directors but also Cinematographers, Editors, Producers and anyone else involved in the process. Fundamental understanding of story can only enhance your ability to create powerful art.

Look at “Upstream Color” as an example. This feature film was shot on a GH2 and distributed world wide theatrically. And this by a director who could have easily afforded to shoot on any number of different formats. I can’t count how many films shot on RED/Alexa never see the light of day, but at the end of the day it is the story and the message that will get your film seen. Not the gear. If you can have both, go for it. But always choose story first.

Learning cinematography, editing and gear is essential to being a successful film maker. There are no two ways about it. But my point is that these skills are there to support your idea. Not the other way around. If you’re new to film making or screen writing, start with the basics. Read some books and do some homework. A personal favorite of mine and an all time cornerstone for many is “Story” by Robert McKee.

I’ll leave you with a trailer from one of the films referenced in this blog; Upstream Color

For those of you that don’t know yet. The two new cameras that came out were the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera and the Blackmagic Production Camera 4K. Neither of these two new cameras are set out to replace the current Blackmagic Digital Cinema Camera, but rather round off their lineup – presumably in hopes to satisfy a wider demographic after having some backlash over choices they have made with the original version in regards to sensor size and mount. Currently, I own the original EF model and am extremely happy with it. It’s far from perfect, and I’m working around it’s limitations as I do with any camera I own, but the results are truly remarkable. I can only assume that the same DNA will be present in these new cameras and that they too will continue to dazzle indie film makers around the globe.

The specs for both cameras are readily available on www.blackmagicdesign.com, but in a nutshell, the Pocket Camera shoots a maximum resolution of 1080p onto SD cards from a S16mm sensor and uses a MFT mount. The Production Camera 4K shoots at 4K resolution onto SSD’s from a near Super 35mm sensor and has an EF mount (PL to come in the future). Both cameras can shoot ProRes currently, but in future firmware updates will be able to shoot a new compressed version of Cinema DNG which will be a huge relief for those of us that want to keep file sizes down without losing the flexibility of a raw workflow.

What I love about Blackmagic is that they cause disruption within the industry. They create (or in some cases, re-create) tools that are of extremely high quality but also very affordable. They’ve done this with DaVinci Resolve, Teranex, and most recently with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera – amongst other things. But out of their entire lineup, I would speculate that the Pocket Camera will be the most disruptive of any of their cameras, and probably out of any of their products period. The big reasons being affordability and quality. Right now, most ultra low budget productions lean towards shooting on DSLR’s which may very well become a thing of the past for many shooters soon. Although no images have been released as of yet from the Pocket Camera, based on the specs alone it will blow just about any DSLR out of the water. And the camera is under $1000. Based on these two factors, there is no doubt that Blackmagic will sell these things like they’re go-pro’s and we’ll soon see them flying off the shelf (that is if they manage to get them on the shelf in the first place). Just like with the original Blackmagic Cinema Camera, there is going to be a HUGE market for these little cameras, and in capable hands they will be able to bring dramatically better results to no-budget productions, bringing them that much closer in look and feel to budgeted films. This will directly affect the DSLR manufacturers that are catering to the video market.

Sure, there will always be shooters that need a 5D or a GH3 – in most cases because they also shoot stills. But strictly talking about the true indie film maker, why spend thousands more on a 5D MKIII, when you can buy one of these, use the rest of your camera budget for beautiful MFT glass and get far superior results with a few bucks left over. It’s a no brainer for many. Again, there will always be those that need a DSLR, but I don’t doubt this camera will put a massive dent in that market, as it will with other prosumer level camcorders that are being used on indie productions. This camera really has so much going for it, and in such a small package. That in itself is also one of the biggest benefits. For guerilla film makers or documentary shooters, the ability to hold raw 1080p image capture in your pocket is exceptionally powerful. And on the high end, I don’t doubt we will start to see this used regularly on Hollywood level productions as a crash cam or C-cam to hide in small spaces.

Now, let’s talk about the Production Camera 4K. Another absolutely amazing piece of technology. It is essentially the same design/build as the original EF camera but with a Super35mm sized sensor and the ability to capture 4K. The very fact that you can get a camera like this for under $4000 is nothing short of astonishing. But although in some ways it has a leg up over the original Cinema Camera, in other ways it has taken a step back. It has 1 stop less of Dynamic Range and a lower base ISO, which will mean it will be less sensitive in low light. These aren’t by any means deal breakers, but in the context of how this camera will change the market – I don’t see it affecting things any differently than the original camera did. I think it will essentially appeal to the same market, and depending on what your needs are, some buyers may still opt for the 2.5K version. For bigger budget productions, the biggest upside to this camera (the price) won’t necessarily be a selling point. Camera rental price is such a small fraction of an overall production budget, that typically shooting on an Alexa or a Blackmagic wouldn’t make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. So ultimately, I believe that this camera will appeal to the same demographic as the current 2.5K model. That’s not to say that in many ways it may be a better camera for many scenarios (especially if you want the S35mm look), but simply to state the fact that I don’t think it’s affect on the industry will be as large as the Pocket Camera.

For me personally, I have already pre-ordered both of the new cameras, but may very well cancel my order for the 4K model. My current BMCC is working beautifully and in some ways I still have a hunch that it may lend itself better to the type of film look I am after. 4K is absolutely the future, but more often than not when shooting 4K on RED I end up with footage that looks overly sharp and starts to feel more like video again. Until I see some footage from the new 4K Blackmagic Camera, I’m not sure I want to commit to it. I’m sure it will have its place, but I’m not certain if that will align with my purposes as much as the current model. It is possible that it will be best suited for episodic/live TV or documentary work for all I know at this point. After all, even in RAW mode, the Alexa still only shoots 2.7K and we all know how nice that looks. Resolution certainly isn’t everything. Conversely though, it may be a necessary step up from the current model, but at this point – If it ain’t broke, why fix it. I think I may just love the 13 stops of DR and 800 base ISO too much to take a step back. We’ll see though – I need a few days to digest!

Regardless of who adopts what, the one thing that’s certain is this will cause a disruption on the industry. How can Canon get away with charging $15,000 or more for a C300 that only shoots 8bit when for $995 you can get a raw image out of a Pocket Camera. Obviously these are for different markets, but still there is a point to be made. The customers that enjoy the form factor of a traditional video camera will surely start to question why they need to pay an extra $14,000 for XLR inputs and built in ND’s.

I’m shocked that Canon, Sony, Panasonic and the rest of the major camera manufacturers haven’t come up with anything this year to rival the Blackmagic camera, but then again it would probably throw the rest of their product lines off course. I look forward to seeing the ripple effect that this causes, and I’m sure NAB 2014 will be just as exciting.

While in development for the film, I had initially decided on using the Blackmagic camera to shoot it on. It made the most sense as the image quality from it is astonishing, the price was right and the size and usability of it seemed perfect for a bare bones setup. As the months went on and my BMCC never arrived, I had to start thinking of other options. I still hadn’t made a decision on the camera until about a week or two before our first shoot day. At the time of pre-production and into production, I had a colleagues RED MX package sitting in my closet. In fact it was the same camera I shot my first feature with. An amazing camera, but massive and difficult to operate without both a first and second AC. I was extremely tempted to just use the RED MX and deal with all of the headaches in production that would be associated with trying to use that camera with a minimal camera crew. As tempting as it was though, I quickly realized that even if I could pull if off, the end result of the film would suffer. Sure, I would have a feature shot in 4.5K, but it would mean missing a lot of shots, longer days, less takes and a longer post process.

So I was back to square one, with no camera in mind still. After a lot of back and forth – considering rental options or purchasing other cameras (such as an FS100), I ended up realizing the answer was in front of me the whole time. The GH2. I had used it on so many really low budget projects, films, commercials, etc., that I didn’t even think about it initially. I almost had a stigma attached to the camera and believed I should only use it for quick turnaround, small jobs. But a lightbulb went off at some point and I said to myself that I had to commit to shooting on this camera. It would mean more money for other aspects of production that were more important than added lines of resolution, and it also meant a simplified post workflow.

In the end, it was the right choice. I managed to move ahead with the GH2, attempting to pull out every last bit of detail from the sensor as possible. I knew it’s limitations and it’s strong points going into the shoot and that really helped as I planned many shots around the camera, making sure I didn’t push it too hard in low light or create too many intricate pans/slides.

While shooting, I primarily was on sticks and used a Sachtler ACE tripod. I would estimate about 70% of the film is on the tripod. This is a really great tripod and fluid head for the price. The legs aren’t amazing, but I could live with that – it just meant adding some weight to the bottom on certain shots. But the fluid head worked wonders for me. It really helped to get some beautiful camera moves relatively easily. On the last day of production, one of the legs of the tripod just fell off (apparently there is some type of glue on there that didn’t hold up well in the cold weather). But it was repaired for me the next day and has been working beautifully ever since.

For the shots that weren’t on the tripod, I would either use a small shoulder rig (from jag35), or have it on my Cinevate Slider. Both of these products worked perfectly for the shoot. The jag35 shoulder rig is actually quite well built considering the price/size, but I had wished that I purchased the extra counterweight for the rig as it was often quite front heavy, especially with a big lens on there. I would typically have the rig attached to the tripod directly so I was able to easily pop it off to use on my shoulder when needed. The Cinevate slider was amazing. I’ve written about it in previous blog posts, but it really was a workhorse and possibly the best piece of gear I used on the shoot. I didn’t do any steadicam or dolly shots as I knew going into the production that our budget/crew could not accomodate for it and as such I blocked out the scenes in a way to avoid needing that type of support.

My girlfriend with the camera:

While shooting, I used a pretty large mix of lenses. I have my own kit (which is very eclectic to begin with), but also rented some Zeiss EF mount lenses throughout the shoot that were used for about half of the scenes. I found the GH2 to work beautifully with almost any lens I threw on it. Although they of course all have their own unique properties, the GH2 does a great job of making everything feel very uniform. Right now I am in the DI/Color Grading stage of post and I’m finding it a breeze to match shots from scenes, even when I used three completely different lenses.

When selecting lenses to rent or use from my own kit, the most important element was that they were really fast. I think the slowest lens I used may have been a 2.8, but almost everything was a 1.4, 1.2 or 1.8. This was because I wanted to move quickly and minimize the need for lots of lighting. I shot the entire film with a small lowell lighting kit. The kit consists of 4 lights ranging from 250w to 750w. I did use a china ball on a few shots as well (which worked beautifully), but for the most part I aimed to use mostly natural lighting and just use the minimal amount of lights necessary to emphasize the existing lighting conditions. By doing this, it allowed us to stay light on our feet which was one of my primarily goals going into production. I literally was able to fit all of our production gear into the trunk of my car, and I’ve got a 2 door.

So after a few weeks of shooting continuously with the camera in all sorts of conditions – interiors, exteriors, low light, freezing cold, underwater, etc. I was really able to understand just how capable this camera really is. All in all, one of the biggest pro’s to using this camera were the fact that I was able to be extremely spontaneous when shooting. That was really important to me going into production as I wanted to do lots of montages and we shot at many locations guerilla style without permits, so having the ability to move quickly was essential. The cost of it was another huge benefit as it is practically free to shoot on this camera as the camera itself is so low cost and the memory cards it shoots on are very inexpensive as well. Another huge plus was that our DMT had it really easy. The entire film fits onto a small two terabyte drive that sits on my desk right now, and that is a pleasure after working off of multiple externals from my last film shot on RED.

There were a few negatives to shooting with this camera as you would imagine. Possibly the biggest negative was unfortunately the perception of the camera by cast and crew. Although no one questioned the camera at any point and in fact everyone seemed impressed with the footage, there was a noticeable difference in the feeling on set between this and my last feature. And I attribute a lot of that to the camera. When you have a skeleton crew and small cast with little or no experience with the camera, it can look to them like a very amateur tool. This really shouldn’t matter and it doesn’t matter to me, but the reality is that when people see a 30lb RED camera in front of them, all of a sudden they feel like their on a film set, where as when theres an SLR smaller than the one their parents probably own, it is a cause for concern for some cast/crew. Again this is a point that shouldn’t matter, but sadly those that don’t have an understanding of cameras are often unaware of what is possible with any camera if you know how to work it. The only other main downside to the camera is the fact that there isn’t much room to grade the footage in post. The GH3 in this respect, I find to be quite superior to the GH2. The GH2 makes a great image that looks phenomenal out of the camera, and while you can tweak the colors a certain amount in post – you really can’t push it that far or it starts to fall apart. Had I not been spoiled by shooting/grading lots of RED and Alexa footage this past year, I would have been more careful about my white balance as there are some scenes that were shot warm that are now a little tricky to cool down and get looking the way I want them to. So in that one respect, the GH2 can actually increase your time on set and in post as on set you may want to take more time setting the look and in post you’ll need to work extra hard to correct it.

Here are a couple of stills from the film:

No camera is perfect and every camera has its positives and negatives, but if I had to go back, I would have chosen the GH2 all over again. Most people that have seen both of my films notice no quality difference to their eye between this and my last film shot on RED. The trained eye can of course spot the differences, but the audience is concerned with story over resolution. Tt really goes to show that it isn’t the camera, it is what is in front and behind of it. And sometimes working with a camera like the GH2 is a great excercise because it forces you to make important, detailed conscious choices about what you’re doing. And when you move onto a RED or Blackmagic for another shoot, all of a sudden it seems unnaturally easy to get the look you want – especially in post.

Here is the teaser trailer that was released last month:

The film was in 14 days over the course of a month this past fall. All principal photography was completed using a single hacked GH2 with a variety of lenses. In particular I utilized a nice set of Zeiss Primes as well as many lenses from my own kit including the SLR Magic 12mm 1.6. It was an interesting experience as I DP’d the film while directing, which I haven’t done before on a feature film.

Both the trailer and the film itself were cut on FCPX and I had an excellent experience using the software. More on that in a future blog.

Here is the teaser:

My GH2 would have been virtually unusable in these conditions. Even shooting in temperature several degrees above what it is here, the camera would seriously lag. Any Panasonic lenses would have a huge delay when focusing, the LCD screen would start to ghost and the overall functionality of the camera was very poor. I always found that to be one of the weak points of the GH2.

Over the past 4 days, I have been shooting with the GH3 outside constantly in these conditions and have had absolutely no issues. The camera runs as it would at room temperature. Even when bringing it inside and outside rapidly, there are no fogging issues and it works as advertised. Again, this is a feature that most buyers of the product are aware of from the get-go, but I really had to see it to believe it.

When the spots are done I will release them on the blog, but for now here are a few very lightly graded stills:

I’ve now been converted though thanks to the GoPro Hero3 (a generous gift my my girlfriend Jen!). Earlier this year I wrote a blog about the Sony Action Cam. It seemed to do what I was looking for in a small camera. 120fps at 720p, nice clean build, wifi built in, great price, etc. But after buying it, I quickly realized the quality was simply not up to my standards. It was returned the next day and it wasn’t until the Hero3 that I considered giving another action cam a chance.

This write up is by no means a full review of the product as I haven’t had enough time with it yet to do so. But it is a review based on my initial thoughts and impressions of the camera using it in test scenarios as well as on a music video last weekend.

I’ll start by saying this – By in large this is the single best action camera I have ever used. It is also the most professional “feeling” action cam as it has a lot of features and modes that are exceptionally useful in a professional production environment.

Here are some of the highlights:

Resolution and Frame Rates

This camera beats any other action cam in regards to resolution – in fact it shoots up to 4K! (Although 4K is only 12FPS), but still useful for time-lapse purposes or to pull stills off of. Other notable resolutions are 2.7K at up to 30fps, 1080/60p and 720/120p.

Not only do you have a ton of options in terms of resolutions and frame rates, but they are all exceptionally detailed. I have shot with all four modes listed above and they all look fantastic. Of course as you go up in resolution, the higher res videos are sharper, but I will say that even at 720p this camera holds up really well. And at 1080 (which is what I have used most so far). It looks absolutely incredible.

Build Quality

For those of you familiar with previous GoPro’s this has a very similar build, although it has been refined in many ways. When out of the case you quickly realize how much smaller it is than the previous models. I would guess it is about two thirds of the size of the previous model. It also sports a wifi button on the side panel (which we’ll get to soon).

ProTune

This is simply an amazing feature of the GoPro. For me, if there is one reason to buy this camera it is ProTune. When in ProTune mode, it allows you to record at significantly higher bitrates (with less compression). It also records in a log-curve that allows you to have a lot of room in post to do color grading. Seeing as a lot of my day to day work involves color grading, this feature is nearly always set to “on” on my GoPro.

With that said, there are some slight limitations. When in ProTune mode, certain fields of view or frame rates are disabled. I would assume this is because there is too much information to process at that data rate. With that said, any of the modes I have ever needed to use have all been available in ProTune.

If you aren’t wanting to color correct your footage much in post, you may want to stay away from this feature. It is an amazing option, but it also means that the images coming off of the camera look muddy. Similar to cinestyle on a Canon DSLR or Log-C on the ARRI Alexa. I would imagine some people may get confused when they first see the muddy image and don’t realize it is that way for a reason! With that said, for many people it may be better to keep ProTune off depending on their specific usage.

Cam RAW

This is another way to take your ProTune footage to the next level. While in ProTune mode, you can turn on the Cam RAW setting which allows for an even less processed image. Essentially your white balance is recorded in a compressed “raw” (type) of format and it allows for more flexibility in post.

I have always shot with this feature on, so I can not compare to using ProTune without Cam Raw on, but anything that gives me more options in the edit suite is always a good thing, which is why I can’t see myself shooting without it!

Wi-Fi

The built in wi-fi capability of this camera is remarkable. Essentially you have the ability to either use the wi-fi remote (which is also waterproof) that is bundled with the camera (which syncs very easily), or you can remote control the camera via your smart phone or tablet. As of December 14th, GoPro updated the firmware on their cameras to allow for seamless integration with the GoPro app. This means that with the click of a button, you can send your GoPro video signal wirelessly to your smartphone to use as a monitor or to control the camera with.

You can even change camera settings such as resolution and frame rates from directly within the app. This is great news as one of the big challenges for many with the GoPro is the difficulty to navigate and change menu items. The menu itself (like the old versions) is a bit rigid, but having the ability to change settings more easily on your smartphone is a life saver, especially when the camera is rigged up into a tight space.

Wi-Fi is also a great way to save money if you were going to need to invest in an LCD backpack for your gopro. Now you can just use your iPhone!

Low Light

The low light capability on this camera is better than other action cameras, but not by a huge amount. At the end of the day, the sensor size is still very small, so without a lot of light, your images are going to look noisy. This is especially noticeable when shooting in ProTune Raw mode as it isn’t processed with noise reduction and as a result the grain is more visible.

This isn’t a deal breaker for me as I wouldn’t expect a camera of this size to be useable in very low light. By the way, when I am refererring to low light, I mean very low light. Like shooting on the street under one lamp. At sunset/sunrise or other types of low light scenarios, the camera performs very well. And the extra boost in performance past the previous version and other action cams is noticeable and appreciated, although I would have loved if it was just a bit cleaner!

Stills

I haven’t shot stills with the GoPro yet, but the specs are impressive. It shoots up to 12MP stills and can do a burst mode of up to 30 stills per second. I’m sure this is good news for many!

Sample

Below is a shot that I used the GoPro for on a music video last weekend. The camera was rigged up to a showerhead using three elastics and pointed straight down as you can see here:

This clip was shot in 1080/60p in medium FOV and obviously has a black and white color grade on it already with a power window:

Summary

This is the best action cam out there hands down. Nothing else on the market even comes close. Those with similar specs, don’t deliver with actual quality and competitors seem to be trying to catch up more with the Hero2 than the Hero3. Other competing products are innovating and pushing the boundaries like GoPro which is why I really respect what they are doing.

This is also the first GoPro that really feels professional. It has all sorts of professional features and modes that you have the option of using or disabling, but it gives pros a reason to use this camera over any of the competitors.

Looking forward to 2013 in anticipation of what these guys may bring next.

Before I get into my camera comparison there are a few things I’d like to note.

First off, the range in cost of some of these cameras is quite large (anywhere from $1300 – $10,000). While for some film makers the cameras on the higher end of the cost bracket may not be affordable, I still wanted to lump them in with the less expensive cameras as the fact is there isn’t always a massive drop in quality and when choosing a camera even on a tight budget, it is still quite relevant to know how it holds up to more expensive cameras.

Also, because there are SO many cameras out there in this price range, I have selected only a handful of the most popular/relevant. The camera you have your eye on may not be on this list, but something similar (and probably in the same lineup) will likely be on this list, so please use this as a reference, do your homework on the camera you have your eye on and make a decision accordingly. The cameras on this list are by no means the only decent options in this price range, however in many cases they are likely to be some of the most widely used.

Canon C100 - $6500

Highlights

• Super 35mm sensor
• Uncompressed HDMI out
• Great low light performance
• Solid build quality
• XLR input
• Built in ND filters
• Canon Log Gamma

I’ve shot a little bit with this camera and had an overall positive experience with it. The image quality right out of the camera is quite nice, and it retains a lot of the benefits from the C300 in regards to low light performance and a nice grain structure. The fact that it has built in XLR’s and ND’s is a huge plus for many. With that said, it is quite limited in other ways – still only 8 bit, no slow motion option AT ALL, and a heavily compressed codec that shoots only up to 24mbps. This wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me if the camera wasn’t so expensive, but in my opinion it is really overpriced. The C100 is objectively a very nice camera, but at that $6500 it is a bit of a slap in the face that you can’t shoot more than 30fps and are stuck with 8bit 4:2:0. Ultimately I have the same issue with this as the C300 (which I very much like), which is that the price is simply wrong. I would anticipate that this camera would be best suited for documentary film makers and event videographers. I say this because it has a lot of important video camera style features that allow you to run n gun with it, but doesn’t attempt to push boundaries in regards to image quality. While the image coming out of this camera can be beautiful, it really can’t be manipulated much in post as the camera is crippled in many ways.

Sony A99 - $2800

Highlights

• Full Frame
• Rotating LCD Screen
• 1080/60p
• Internal Image Stabilization
• Solid Low-Light Performance
• 24MP Stills

This is one camera that I have not had an opportunity to shoot with, but wanted to include it on this list as it has quite a bit of buzz around it. It is a reasonably priced full frame camera that takes great stills and some really nice video from what I’ve seen so far. It has a 1080/60p mode which is crucial and loads of other video-related features. Unfortunately there are a few options left out that I would have liked to see on the camera (such as a headphone jack), but all in all it is a solid camera. The E mount is fairly adaptable so most Canon, Nikon or even PL mount lenses can be adapted to the camera. In regards to the market for this camera, I would put it in the same category as the 5D. Roughly in the same price bracket, full frame and with excellent stills capabilities. With that said, if you are a shooter that also takes a lot of stills, the 5D will have a leg up in that department, but if you are strictly shooting video – this one is a winner between the two in my opinion.

Canon 5D MKIII - $3500

Highlights

• Recognized name which is still in demand for DSLR video
• Fantastic low light performance
• NTSC/PAL switchable
• Great build quality
• Full Frame
• All-I video recording
• Time-coded video

For those of you that have shot on the Mark II, there is no huge change here in video image quality. One of my biggest letdowns with this camera is the fact that while the image has slightly improved over the Mark II, the difference is marginal. All of the benefits of the Mark II are still here – Great lowlight performance, build quality, name, etc. But I really feel that Canon dropped the ball on this one. I can only assume that they have been focusing more efforts on the C100/300/500 in regards to video and have left the Mark III to be a great stills camera, with a fairly capable video option. I would recommend this camera to users that want to primarily shoot stills, or shoot a 50/50 mix of stills and videos – such as a photo journalist. The image quality in video mode is probably the worst of all of the cameras on this list, so if that is the deciding factor for you, this is not your camera. All in all, it is more than capable of producing some great images (and has a big leg up over many cameras in regards to low-light performance), but is not the best bang for your buck unless you plan to shoot a lot of still photography.

Nikon D800  – $3000

Highlights

• Full Frame
• Excellent 1080/24p mode
• Uses SD or Compact Flash
• 36MP sensor
• Excellent Stills
• Solid Build Quality
• D800E option available with no anti-aliasing

On Friday, my GH3 arrived and I’ve already put it to use on a television commercial where I pushed its limits quite hard. Specifically the 1080/60p mode. All in all my experience so far has been overwhelmingly positive. There was a lot of hype surrounding this camera and that kind of hype is seldom lived up to, but in this case the GH3 truly exceeded my expectations.

Since many current GH2 users will likely be adopters of the GH3 down the line, I wanted to share my thoughts on how the cameras compare to each other. For some, the choice will be clear that the GH3 is a definite necessity, while for others – the GH2 may still be more than enough. It really comes down to what you want to use it for and what your needs are.

An important thing to note is that this comparison is currently only based on the video functionality. I rarely shoot stills and my primary usage with this camera is video as will be the case will many that purchase this product. With that said, down the line I would like to add a stills comparison as well.

I have shot a bunch of small test shots and they are embedded throughout this post. These videos will likely be updated as the weeks go on and I have time to shoot more footage. Today it was quite rainy and I was unable to get some of the shots I was looking for (specifically slow motion with people). But for now, these have provided some valuable insight already into the new camera and how it stacks up to the GH2.

For the test shots the GH3 was set to it’s Standard color profile with all settings at -5, except saturation which was at 0. The GH2 (which is hacked with Flowmotion v2), was set to Smooth with all settings at -2.

I’ll start by breaking down some of the basics and most relevant functionality of the camera. There is a lot to cover so some details and features will likely be left out. If anyone has specific questions about the camera that aren’t presented here, please add a comment and I will be happy to address any questions.

The Build

Unboxing the GH3 reveals a camera that feels truly refined, more professional and robust. The magnesium alloy exterior of the camera and larger size make it feel strong in your hands. The body is weather sealed which is a huge deal for many shooters that need to take this camera on location. I also really like how clean everything looks. It’s all black. No chrome trim. No gimmicky “Full HD” badge. Just black metal, rubber and plastic sealed together in an ergonomically sound package.

The metal dial and on off switch both feel solid and require a bit of a push to get them set just right. Which is good as it prevents you from accidentally turning on or off the camera or changing other important settings. A lot of other smaller details go a long way as well. One example is the locking function on the battery door. Little changes like this are important as they allow this camera to function that extra bit more securely on a professional shoot. The GH2 often (especially on rigs) would have issues with the battery door popping open, so this change was a nice added touch.

One of the biggest issues I had with the GH2 was it’s build quality. The camera feels a bit dinky and because it isn’t weather sealed, it is hard to trust it in sub-optimal weather conditions. The buttons and dials always felt a bit delicate for my taste. Not so much that it would be a deal breaker for anyone, but it does add a sense of worry when handling the camera in some on set environments. When shooting with the GH3 in the freezing cold all day yesterday, the camera was functioning perfectly. This wouldn’t be the case with the GH2. Any time I’ve tried to shoot with it in the cold the screen suffers from a delay and it doesn’t operate properly.

The GH3 is obviously a massive improvement over the GH2 in this department. Does this directly translate to a better image? Of course not. But it is very important for many shooters – especially if you are using it day in and day out. Only time will tell, but I can only assume these cameras will have a longer average lifespan than the GH2′s.

Battery

There is a new battery on the GH3 which was no big surprise. Initially, I had hoped for the same battery as the GH2 as that would mean I would already have a few spares. In the end I’m happy Panasonic changed it.

The new battery is better. Hands down. It charges in approximately the same time as the previous battery, but seems to have a much longer lasting charge. I haven’t timed how long it lasts from start to finish, nor would it be an accurate test if I compared with my current GH2 battery as those have been used many times. With that said though, the battery life has been improved to some degree. When I first got the camera there was a 1/3 charge on the battery. I let it continuously record to drain it and even that took a couple of hours.

Again, an improvement in this department but not necessarily the most important change in comparison to some of the other updates.

Menus

The menu on the GH3 is slicker than the GH2, although the GH2′s menu wasn’t too horrible to begin with.

My main problem with the GH2 menu was that the terminology and short form used to label resolution and quality settings didn’t really make any sense. You have to step into several different menu items if you want 720/60p vs 1080/24p for example, and once there you are presented by “FSH’, “FH”, etc. All I ever wanted was for the camera to say – 1080/24p – high quality, 720/60p, etc.

On the GH3 this is exactly what it does. All of the frame rate and quality options are clear and it even states what mbps the camera will record at. This is great as there is no room for confusion. Also on the topic of changing frame rates – on the GH2 it is not possible to monitor video externally at 720/60p. On the GH3 you can monitor video with an external monitor using any setting.

The rest of the menu is just as functional. It’s really intuitive and clean looking. A pleasure to work with in comparison to the old menu, and in fact in comparison to most other cameras. Panasonic really seemed to get it right this time.

EVF/LCD/OLED

On the GH2 the EVF is very nice and crisp. The LCD, not so much. I always found the LCD on the GH2 to be very soft (low resolution) and have inaccurate colours. On the GH3 the OLED is once again vastly improved. It has a glossy finish which I was initially worried about – but it somehow seems more visible in daylight than the GH2′s matte finished LCD. The touch sensitivity on the new OLED is also improved. It is extremely accurate and perfectly sensitive.

A really great feature is the focus/zoom area. Either by using one of the function keys or touching the screen you can magnify an area of the image to focus on. The GH2 does have this functionality as well but it is much more primitive. On the GH2, your only option is to fill the entire screen with the punched in image, and when plugged into an external monitor this function is disabled. On the GH3 you have the option of either punching in all the way or just displaying a small zoom window that is overlaid over the regular sized image.

Most importantly to me though, the punched in image on the GH3 appears on an external monitor just as it does on the camera. This is great as I often use an external monitor as a framing reference but due to their low-ish resolution it is not ideal to use them for pulling focus (at least the particular monitors I own).

The EVF is really crisp on the GH3 as well. Side by side with the GH2 there wouldn’t be a gigantic difference in quality, but again there is an improvement there.

ISO Settings

The GH2 has a well documented bug that makes certain ISO’s very grainy, unless they are selected from an ISO value higher than them. For example, ISO 320 is very grainy if you select it right away when powering up the camera. But if you step down to it from ISO 400, it is okay. Panasonic seem to have avoided this problem with the GH2 by defaulting to base ISO multiples for shooting video.

Out of the box, the ISO options on the GH3 are: 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. Only 5 of them. But if you dig deeper into the photo menu, there is an option to turn on 1/3 increments for ISO’s that will open up all the intermediate ranges.

Personally, I am happy to mainly stick with the 5 base ISO’s. They all work as they should. No bugs and no workarounds. And I rarely (if ever) used any non base ISO’s on the GH2 anyways. With that said, it is good to know the 1/3 step increments are there if you need them in a pinch. I’d like to do a full ISO test down the road and see how the non-base ISO’s compare to the base ISO’s, but to my eye there doesn’t seem to be any sort of bug as there was in the GH2, which is a nice relief.

Frame Rates & Image Quality

If I had to name the single reason why I was compelled to purchase the GH3, it would have to be the ability to shoot 1080/60p. With the exception of a couple of other DSLR’s, for the most part you’re only going to get 720/60p from the majority of DSLR’s out there.

On the GH2, the 720/60p mode is quite nice. In fact I’ve always found 720p on the GH2 to be as sharp as some other cameras at 1080p. With that said though, the 1080/60p on the GH3 is a welcome addition and a feature that I will surely be utilizing often. I was hoping for a 720/120fps mode, but that didn’t happen – perhaps down the line with a firmware hack. Just yesterday I shot all day with the GH3 in 1080/60p mode and the footage coming out of the camera was truly excellent. Here is a very rough edit of a couple shots. It’s all 60p except for the first shot which is 24:

Also, here is a quick comparison test between the two cameras in 60p (GH3 in 1080 and GH2 in 720). As you would imagine, the 1080 is of course sharper, but the 720p still holds up quite well. I shot a lot of 720p on the GH2 on my recent feature and have no regrets. It all looks great.

Also, the GH3 now has the ability to shoot in All-I (Intra Frame), which means each frame is being created from scratch. With the exception of the 5D MKIII On any other DSLR as far as I know (not including the hacked GH2), you can not record in All-I. This allows for a much higher quality final image as the motion is rendered more smoothly and other variations in the shot are more true to form.

The bit rates have been upped significantly as well. The stock GH2 shoots a max of 24mbps at 1080p (without the hack). The GH3 shoots 72mbps. A huge jump. I have been shooting with my GH2 hacked to allow for a higher bit rate, but the image quality from the un-hacked GH3 is better. It isn’t a night and day difference, but the difference is there. And comparing to the hacked GH2, the file sizes are actually smaller while the image quality is better.

Here is a wide shot comparison of the two cameras. Note the more defined detail on the trees when punched in to 400%. There is definitely a difference here. Not gigantic, and in all honestly not a reason worth switching cameras over in my opinion. But it is there and it’s nice to know that there is at least a small step up in this department.

The other revelation I had when watching much of today’s footage was the fact that I had grown accustomed to the green cast the GH2 puts on everything. I white balanced both cameras manually to either 3200 or 5600, but the GH3 is much more neutral coming off the card. This is something I noticed long ago but was never too concerned with as it can be reversed easily by color correcting. It will be a nice change though to not have to take that into account anymore.

Moire

As far as moire goes, this has never been a huge concern for me as I rarely have had issues with moire on the GH2 unless I am looking for it. With that said, the GH3 actually seems to exhibit slightly more moire in certain scenarios but not in others. I will need to test in more depth, but for now here is a side by side test. It should be noted that I was completely unable to get either camera to exhibit moire with any of my usual lenses. It was only with the Panasonic lens that I had any issue, and even then I really had to look for it.With that said though, I do still believe the GH2 comes out on top here:

Rolling Shutter

Here is a side by side comparison. As expected, the rolling shutter is noticeable and not much different from that of the GH2, although I sense a slight reduction in it’s effect. Where I really seem to notice a positive difference in the GH3 is in the micro jitters. Here is a comparison between the two:

Ex. Tele Conversion

I haven’t spent a great deal of time with this feature, as I never really used it with the GH2. It never seemed to look right to me and was always grainy, even at low ISO’s. Nevertheless, I did a test comparing it with the GH3 and the GH3 does again come out on top. There were some issues with the GH2 during this test in that the micro jitters really had a bad effect on the GH2′s footage when shooting on that long of a lens (I had on a Nikon 300mm telephoto). It is hard to tell if the Ex. Tele Conversion feature on the GH3 is that much better, or if it is more of a combination of better overall IQ/resolution and slightly less rolling shutter. Here is the comparison:

As you can see in the shot below, I was able to get in really tight on a 300mm lens. These are the scenarios where the crop factor is great. The car I was shooting was on the roof of the building on the left of this image.

Low Light

The low light capability of the GH3 surpasses the GH2.

On the GH2, ISO 800 is the max that I will use unless I plan on doing some heavy noise reduction in post. With the GH3, even ISO 1600 material looks fantastic. In fact to my eye it seems like it has about the same amount of grain as it does at ISO 800, which is very minimal. By ISO 3200 the grain is there in full force and I would rarely, if ever use it at this setting.

The grain coming off of this camera is quite pleasing. It resembles a film grain that is refined and adds a beautiful character and texture to the image. It almost looks like the grain you see when 4K sensors are down sampled to 1080p  (such as in the case of the Canon c300).

I’ve now actually found myself cranking up the ISO to 800 and stopping the iris down a bit to bring some of that grain into shots that otherwise may almost look too clean. On the GH2, this isn’t a technique I would employ as the grain (although better than many other DSLRs), still didn’t quite look right to me.

What I found interesting when testing the high ISO’s on both cameras was how little compression appears on the GH3 footage. Even at ISO 6400 which is quite grainy, the grain structure is quite easy to remove with neat video. Because the GH2 has more heavy in camera noise reduction, even with the hack it gets pretty blotchy at high ISO’s. It also seems to exhibit a lot of color shifting with high ISO shots. Here is a small comparison video:

Dynamic Range

Possibly the largest issue that most GH2 users have with the camera is the lack of Dynamic range. The camera is known to produce fairly contrasty images that blow out quite easily. As long as you light for it and work around its limitations, things are always fine – but there are sometimes those scenarios where you just don’t have the time to light the way you need to, and extra DR is essential.

On the GH3 the DR is a step up. I’m sure there will be some more “scientific” tests done in the near future that should yield some specific numbers in regards to how many stops of DR we are actually getting with this camera, but for now here is a small clip that compares the two. Same lens, settings, etc:

It is quite apparent that the GH3 maintains more highlight and shadow detail. While it’s still in the DSLR category and not going to have the DR of a Blackmagic Camera or an Alexa, it is certainly still nice to have that extra bit of stretch that it is giving us.

Image Profiles

Both the GH3 and GH2 have similar types of image profiles, although they have different names. The GH3 does not have any sort of cinestyle or log setting, which I was hoping for. Regardless though, it does give you more detailed control over contrast, saturation and noise reduction settings. Where the GH2 would only let you set the contrast for example from – 2 to +2, the GH3 will range from -5 to + 5. This is nice as it gives the user more control over their own custom settings.

24p Judder

I’ve alway felt the GH2 had a more noticeable motion judder when panning in 24p mode as compared to most other DSLR’s. This was one of my biggest disappointments with the camera. The issue was never so bad that it prevented me from getting a shot I needed, but it was just something else to be aware of on a shoot. After comparing the two cameras panning it looks like they both have a very similar amount of judder, which was a bit of a let down.

Audio

The GH3 has a headphone jack. Enough said! This alone makes the camera a worthy investment for many shooters that want to avoid going to a dual system.

The audio input is a standard 3.5mm size as opposed to the GH2′s 2.5mm size. Again I appreciate this small detail as 2.5mm is a much rarer size and therefore requires a small adapter to be used with a regular sized 3.5mm input. Not a huge deal, but it’s nice to not worry about that.

Another improved feature on the GH3 is the ability to fine tune audio input levels in a much more detailed way than with the GH2.

Wi-Fi

This has to be one of the best features of the GH3 (not available on the GH2).

You can now remotely control your camera from your tablet or smartphone. By downloading the Lumix Link app on your mobile device and transmitting a Wi-Fi signal from your GH3, you can instantly use your phone, tablet, etc. as a wireless monitor, hit the record button, change focus by tapping (on electronic lenses) and much more! I will personally be using this function soon for an underwater shoot, where I will operate the camera from above ground… That is if the app that is required starts to work properly.

Currently, the Lumix Link app (which is required to connect to the camera on your smartphone) is quite buggy and the functionality is not there yet. But I’m certain once it does get where it needs to be that this will be a big selling point for some people.

The Wi-Fi function can also be used to transfer your files wirelessly from the card to your device, amongst other things.

Other Improvements

I have found that there are a lot of little hidden features in the GH3 that are really useful:

The new layout of the buttons is more user friendly and makes the camera quicker to operate.

The camera now records timecode which is a huge plus for many users.

While on the touchscreen you can pull out a little menu from the right side of the screen that allows you to toggle on or off a histogram and virtual level. The level I find particularly useful, especially if you are using a tripod without a built in level.

On the GH2 there is a big color shift that appears once you hit the record button which sometimes can make it hard to get the right lighting set up unless you do it while the camera is recording and use the live recording as your preview. This has been completely eliminated with the GH3 thankfully!

There are loads of other small improvements too. It is only my second day with the camera and am still discovering new things, but it truly feels like so much has been packed in and added to this camera.

Summary

All in all the GH3 is an incredible successor to the GH2 and a better camera in most ways – even when compared to a hacked GH2. With that said it does potentially suffer from more moire than the GH2 and the jump in image quality isn’t drastically different.

The biggest and most notable improvements are: a stronger body, slightly better image all round, 1080/60p, ability to record proper timecode, better audio control and usability, added dynamic range, and Wi-Fi remote controlling.

It feels likePanasonic have actually listened to what their customers wanted and came through with a great product. The camera is not perfect, but no camera is.

The price of the camera is significantly higher than the GH2. Currently you can purchase a GH2 body with a kit lens for as low as $600 – $700 online, which is an absolute steal. The GH3′s body alone goes for $1299.

So is it for everyone that owns a GH2? I don’t think so. Although the camera is a great improvement over the GH2 in many ways, the GH2 is still a remarkable little camera that produces beautiful images. For those that may prefer the slightly smaller body, lower cost and other positives on the GH2 side, I wouldn’t be surprised if many people still stick with the GH2. Many of the noticeable improvements on the GH3 are in the construction and functionality of the camera. The differences in image quality are there, but they are not overwhelmingly different from the GH2. A well composed shot will look great on either camera and they will both do the job well.

I wouldn’t be surprised with the drop in GH2 cost, many opt to purchase two GH2′s rather than a single GH3 body ( for the same cost). For some, having two cameras for events or multi-cam low budget narrative, etc. may be more beneficial than the added quality from a single camera.

As a long term investment, I think the GH3 does have more longevity especially with new features such as Wi-Fi that really bring it into the next generation of cameras. It really feels like Panasonic have officially hit their stride with this one and understand who they are making it for.

About a month ago I figured I would pick up the neat video plugin for FCP X as I had a lot of narrative and documentary themed projects upcoming (that I was producing in addition to posting), and wanted some more flexibility in camera when shooting as I typically will use fair amount of lighting to avoid bumping the ISO up too high.

Right out of the box, Neat video works exceptionally well. While you can apply it directly within your NLE, many of the necessary settings are only accessible once you step into a separate window that features the full control of the plugin. It works with two separate modes (one simple and one advanced)  that allow you as the user to de-noise according to your needs and skill level.

On the simple end of things, all you need to do is select a noisy area of your footage (preferably without much detail, a wall for example would work well), and Neat video creates a profile for your camera/iso setting based on the noise that is visible. It then subtracts that pattern from your video and you are left with an amazingly clean final image. Still working in the simple (or standard) mode, you have control over the amount of noise reduction on luminance and chrominance separately, as well as having a slider for the amount of sharpening required. For the majority of basic de-noising work – you may not need any other settings. However, for more complex shots or specific issues (let’s say a camera has noise only in the red channel for example), you can have much more control by using the advanced mode which allows you to fine tune the nose reduction settings with many additional sliders related to the shadow, midtone and highlight grain.

Once you have found the settings that work for your shot and have applied them, within your NLE you still have control over how the de-noising is applied. For example, you can change the temporal radius to pull noise data from up to 5 frames before and after the current frame being sampled. That essentially means you will have a more accurate representation of the noise that needs to be removed. You can also control how much reduction takes place, but be careful not to over do it as the image can start to look synthetic very quickly.

For the purpose of this post, I stretched the contrast on a shot to expose some grain in the shadows/midtones. I then denoised it using neat video – but only using the automated presets. This image could have had an even cleaner result if more time was spent refining the process, but I wanted to demonstrate what can be achieved even with full automation. The top half of this image is untouched and the bottom has been de-noised. Please click on the image to view at full size.

All in all, I am extremely happy with this plugin. It does a better job than After Effects or any grading software that I currently use and it is relatively simple to use while still giving you a professional level of control. It means I can have more flexibility grading DSLR footage and shooting at higher ISO’s. It can also be used to soften overly sharp images. My only issue with using it is that it slows down your system immensely. It can an hour just to de-noise a few minutes of video, and as such I will usually drop the plugin on any necessary shots at the very end of my post pipeline and let it render overnight.

For more information visit www.neatvideo.com