Keep in mind that an Epic Red (which is what most theater movies are shot on these days) uses a sensor that is about the same size as a APS crop DSLR and quite a bit smaller than that used by full frame cameras like the Canon 5D or Nikon D800. 35mm movie film also uses about the same exposure area as the APS cameras.
Why, you might ask, do the best movie cameras in the world use a sensor smaller than that of a 5D? Well, because it looks better, at least for moving pictures.
A full frame sensor looks great on a still where you want to be able to do things like put a persons eyes in focus and have a depth of field so shallow that their ears are already a little soft. In moving pictures, you need a little more forgiveness in the depth of field. You want somebody to be able to turn their head and still be in focus. You want them to be able to nod in agreement or lean back a little without it going soft. Believe me, when they designed the Epic Red, they were designing it for the best image, and they cose an APS sized sensor, not because it was cost effective, but because it is the best size for the bulk of shooting situations.
I have had my GH3 for a couple of weeks now, and quite frankly I wouldn't trade it for any camera including a 5Diii. Do I wish it had a full frame sensor? Every so often when I am shooting a still portrait with a prime I do, but never when I am shooting moving pictures.
If I was looking to shoot mainly stills and also video, I could see choosing a 5D. I would appreciate the larger sensor while shooting stills. For someone shooting mainly video, or video and some stills, my opinion is that the GH3 is better, even not factoring in the price difference.
By the way, the stills on my GH3 are amazingly good! No it doesn't have as shallow a depth of field available as a 5D, but none the less, the picture quality of both stills and video is really stunning.
I use an AF100, which is also a micro 4/3 format and after shooting for years on 35mm adapters (and griping about the crop factor of 4/3 for a couple of weeks) this is now my favorite format. As Laurence says, a very good balance of DOF and everyday usability without needing an A/C. An Epic would be nice, though.
>>>>Keep in mind that an Epic Red (which is what most theater movies are shot on these days)<<<<
I think only smaller budget movies are shot with Red cameras. I can pretty accurately tell when one is shot with it because it usually doesn't look all that good.
Well, I stand corrected, there are some pretty big budget films shot with it. That explains a few things.
Former user
wrote on 1/21/2013, 9:59 PM
"In addition to "The Hobbit," filmmakers have used Red cameras to shoot upcoming movies, including "The Great Gatsby" and "Oz: The Great and Powerful." Recent films include "The Amazing Spider-Man," "Prometheus," "Flight," "Dredd," "Magic Mike," "The Muppets," "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" and "The Social Network."
Hmm, seems like some pretty big budget films using Red to me.
I am using the 24Mbps compression setting on my GH3 so far (until I get a super fast SD card) and it looks fantastic. I have yet to see anything resembling a compression artifact. The image is the best I've seem yet on a camera that I own. I did an interview the other day with an Olympus micro-4/3rds 1.7 45mm prime the other day and it was just gorgeous! The audio is about the same as a Zoom recorder. Just a fantastic camera all the way around.
"Why, you might ask, do the best movie cameras in the world use a sensor smaller than that of a 5D? Well, because it looks better, at least for moving pictures."
No, they chose that sensor size because it means a very large choice of cine lenses.
Increasing the sensor size has advantages and disadvantgaes in regard to many things but how moving pictures "look" isn't one of them. Vistavision is still in use in the world of sprockets, that's 35mm full frame and it's been used simply because using a larger negative reduces grain and improves (sort of) resolution.
Canon's C300 FAQs covers this:
The EOS C300 conforms to the industry standard Super 35mm Motion Picture Film frame size. This is large enough to evoke the shallow depth-of-field characteristics moviegoers and cinematographers love, and allows legacy lenses to work well with the camera. Almost all PL Mount motion picture lenses are designed to cover Super 35-size film or digital sensors, and tend to vignette heavily on Full Frame sensors since they are not designed to cover that frame size. The EOS C300 PL is compatible with all PL mount cinema lenses that were manufactured with Super 35mm in mind, allowing the cinematographer to match the same angle-of-view as when working with a motion picture film camera.
"Wow, that Speedbooster thing looks pretty amazing! More for stills than for video but ... Wow! "
No, very much designed for movie making.
The most important aspect of sensors for movie making is latitude, sensitivity, resolution and aliasing. The rolling shutter artifact is also a consideration. Because of how a very large number of lenses were designed sticking to an academy or Super35 sized sensor makes a lot of sense.
I don't understand at all how the DOF aspect gets into the discussion. It's primarily controlled by the iris, you want more DOF you close the iris, you want less you open it. Certainly on the 5D with what is affordable fast glass you can in effect open the iris more than on the APS-C or MFT cameras but you don't have to. On the other hand if you're really wanting the ultimate shallow DOF on a APS-C camera and have deep(ish) pockets you can get lenses that go to f0.9.
None of which changes the fact that the GH3 seems a much better DSLR for movie making than the 5D but sensor size has nothing to do with why it is better. Personally I'm more in favour of using a mirrorless camera to start with because that enables things such as the Metabones Speeddoubler however other considerations become significant depending on what you're shooting, like autofocus won't :(
Loveing the GH3 and Vegas combo as well, agree about the auto focus, with the 12 - 35mm HS12035 the auto focus is frankly amazing especially with the latest firmware for that lens that gives a 25% increase in speed, I do a fair bit of point and shoot recording in crappy light poor contrast and moving subjects at low f stops and sure it might loose it every now and then but that's a rarity.
Also I think the 50Mbps IPB is less noisy than the All I 73 Mbps in low light so it's not all about just having the highest Mbps it's how it processes it as well so I've just been using that even tho it's compressed it seems to edit ok direct in vegas I was trans-coding it to ciniform first but don't bother now. the all intra is obviously smother to edit.
Point and shoot example hand held 50fps shutter priority then set everything else up as auto as I could with the view I have one mode I can just hand to anyone and they could use it, you can see it lose auto focus as I get too close to start with but apart from that it's pretty much spot on and you can see from the environment there is a total mix of light, slats dark patchs ohh and the lights go out 3:53 near the end and the auto setting compensate pretty quickly.
Here's a more staged one in the same environment
Some low light shots with the f1.4 25mm prime the auto focus on this is more what I was expecting i.e. not as good as the 12-35 but then that's not what this lens was designed for, this is all manual focus except the rac focus on the fence where I used the touch screen to refocus and slowed down the change in focus, still have a massive learning curve ahead of me with Vegas and the camera but enjoying the journey so far,
They say it will be "slower". Keep in mind so far there's no talk of making a Speedbooster for the GH3, only the Sony DSC NEX-5 / 7 for Canon EF lenses.
The Speedbooster fixes the crop factor which in the process gains 1 stop of light and in effect improves the image from the lens..
It would be impossible as far as I know to make a Speedbooster for the GH3 as like all DSLR cameras the back flange distance is too long.
Let me throw something from left field into the mix.
This was posted in a more august circle as being "with horrible artefacts".
It doesn't look at all bad to me and I'd be quite happy with the outcome under those conditions. Then again nothing I shoot is every likely to end up on the silver screen or at least not with a paying audience.
The whole conversation changes these days depending on what you're shooting, for whom and where it will be viewed There used to be a pretty good line in the sand between TV, cinema and home movie. Today that's all mixed up.
Other mount combinations will follow shortly afterwards. Leica R, ALPA, Contarex, Contax C/Y and Nikon F (with aperture control for G lenses) will be supported, as will Micro 4/3 and Fuji X-mount cameras. Support for other mounts will be added in the future.
There are more examples of the Speed Booster in action at EOSHD this morning. This adapter can have a lot of appeal for those with large investments in full frame lenses - a review worth reading. For the GH3 it's going to be a good way into the year before it's available.
Just to clarify: it looks to me like if you were using a Canon APS sensor camera and the Speedbooster, you would need to use full frame lenses. Crop lenses would lose the edges of the frame. Is that correct?
"Crop lenses would lose the edges of the frame. Is that correct? "
Yes.
The purpose of this device is to match the size of the image as projected by the lens to the sensor.
When you use a full frame lens on say a MFT sized sensor much of the image projected by the lens falls outside the sensor.
By optically shrinking the projected image so it just fills the sensor the following can be achieved:
1) The crop factor is reduced to 1
2) As more of the light ends up on the sensor the image is brighter i.e. can gain 1 stop.
3) Lens defects are reduced as a percentage of the image seen by the sensor.
From what I've read this isn't entirely an entirely new idea but it's probably the best implementation of it. As Serena pointed out in the thread I started about it this technique is common in telescopes. It's also been used to adapt a 35mm lens for use on a 16mm camera.
"So on a micro 4/3rds camera, a Speedbooster adapter would have to adapt to some other format of full frame lens. Doesn't sound very practical."
As I understand it the Speedbooster will be made specifically for a given sensor size and lens. The first units to go into production will marry the Canon EF lense to the APS NEX-7. From what I read the design of the optics in the Speedbooster is very complex, several have tried to do this before and failed.
I don't know if "practical" has much to do with it, the question I see is can they sell enough to recoup their development costs and make a profit. Given the amount of optics in the adaptor and they don't look like simple (cheap) to grind lenses it's hard to think they'll be roliing in cash.
OGUL said:
"I have GH2 and 7-14 mm f.4 lens.
Not that I know of.
"So, as a result I'll switch to GH3..."
How does that help, isn't the sensor in the GH3 the same size as the GH2.
The sensor in the GH2 is very sensitive and good in low light. I never had a GH2 so I don't know how it compares to that, but it is slightly better than my Nikon D5100 in low light with f2.8 lenses on both cameras. I have always felt that the Nikon was better in low light than Canon APS sensor cameras so I would say that in spite of the smaller micro 4/3rds sensor, that the GH3 competes well with the APS cameras in terms of low light. You can see a difference though in terms of shallow depth of field at a given f-stop (APS is shallower) though I am quite happy with the depth of field range of the GH3.
The sharpness and the amount of detail in the picture of the GH3 is simply amazing. Each frame truly looks like a still picture. The gradients in the face, the little hairs fluttering around at the edges of the face... You can see the wetness in people's eyes. It is just a completely different level of quality than my Nikon on video. Even after a downrez and a conversion for Vimeo you can see the difference.
The difference between the audio quality between the Nikon and the GH3 is huge. It's not just the convenience factors like metering, input level adjustability and headphone monitoring. When the D800 first came out, one of the first things I did was to head over to my local camera shop with a memory card and some nice DC-bias powered mics to see how the audio is on the higher end Nikons. Yes the metering, input level control and headphone monitoring was nice, but the sound quality was really no better than my D5100. I recorded a little D800 sample on my sd card and was quite disappointed when I listened to it at home. The high frequencies were still muted and the preamp was still noisy. In comparison, the GH3 sounds wonderful, every bit as good as my Zoom audio recorder. There is simply no reason to use dual system audio on a GH3, but on a 5D or D800 there is.
The crop modes are really good on this camera. You can shoot with the full sensor at 16 megapixels, half sensor (twice the zoom) at 8 megapixels, and quarter of the sensor at 4 (4x zoom) at 4 megapixels. Video is a full 1080p with no digital zoom at all of these settings. This gives you an amazing range with each lens for video at least though I think it is useful for stills as well, especially if you are looking at stills to be used within a video project,