Bruges on the gh3
 

I thought I'd share my second video I made in Bruges, other camera this time, my gh3 and a set of primes, the Samyang 7,5mm, panasonic 25mm f1.4, Omympus 12mm f2.0 and 75mm f1.8.

I also used a variable nd filter but I"m utterly annoyed that I damaged it because of something that's supposed to makes switching nd filters easier, I have these magnetic adapters (don't recall the name) which makes it easy just to swap nd filters, so I was dragging my camera which was attached to a slider and which was attached to a tripod on my shoulder throughout town when I accidentally bumped the filter with my shoulder and it just popped off and smacked against the floor. There is a small crack in the glass near the edge of the ring which is no issue because it's a much larger filter in diameter then my small lumix lenses so that doesn't show up in the camera's frame but turning the ring had become very hard, I have to take it off each time now and force it to set a nd value. I"m not using those "handy" magnetic adapters anymore, that was a bloody expensive nd filter, rather just screw it on tight each time.
Anyways, it's interesting to see the difference between both camera's if you look at the older rx10 video.


I took my rx10 to Bruges mainly for hands on experience as I needed to use it on a paid job, setting exposure on the rx10 is much easier then on my gh3 where I"m not always 100% sure if I set it right (I use the histogram) but still find it a bit of a guessinggame, the rx10 has much better exposure aids, other then that they both perform great and I enjoy using both camera's, even if both have some functionality quirks, hopefully I"ll find some more time available soon to do another scenery video, they are fun to do :)

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Great work Noa. I haven't been to Bruges for ages but I loved seeing the daffodils out in the park. Both times I went there the park was a sea of yellow. I think I preferred the first video as it was more fluid. The music for the second was less peaceful.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

The second video with the rx10 was actually more of a test video to get to know the camera, I just threw some license free music under it which I could find back online but you are right it doesn't fit, the first one however with the gh3 is not a test :) The daffodils where nice, they just started to bloom but gave a nice accent.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Some really nice shots in that first video. Well done!

What other gear was used on that shoot? (sticks,slider, etc...)

Thanks for sharing.

SB

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Thanks for sharing Noa. This may sound strange, but preferred the look of the RX10 over the GH3.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Preferred the RX10 look my self ...

You could probably achieve the same colour with a bit of grading on the GH3.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Thx for the responses, one big difference between the gh3 and the rx10 is shallow dof that I can get more with the faster primes, the rx10 has a more front to back sharpness, I included some framegrabs from similar shots between 2 camera's. When I was shooting with the gh3 it was also a sunny almost cloudless day so sun intensity was about the same. Only the time of shooting was different as you can see from the shades on the building in the first shot.

What also needs to be considered is presets ofcourse, both camera's where set to standard with the contrast dialed down completely so I could get more info from the shadows, both camera's look different in that way, I do prefer to shoot with the contrast dialed down as this should give me more room to match camera's but I still need to test to see which presets between the gh3 and rx10 match best.

Had my tripod with a 501hdv manfrottohead with me and the slider was home made with a older 701rc2 manfrotto head attached to it, see attached image. That slider consists of a rail and sled that I ordered directly from the supplier for about 100 dollar and the feet I took from my Konova k2 as that one doesn't work and attached those to the rail I got.

Think both the rx10 and gh3 look good, both have their distinctive looks and which cameralook you prefer is personal preference, I like the gh3 image better as it has a more cinematic look to it.

My body still hurts from dragging the tripod, slider and backpack along all day :) Good thing those m4/3 lenses times are so tiny and light or else I wouldn't have made it through the end of day.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Noa, your slider is looking great for being homemade. It really adds to the finished work.

I don't think DOF plays a part in the screen grab shots you posted between the two cameras. The Sony is just representing more detail in my view. I think they put a really nice lens on the front of the RX10. If it had better codec options I would be checking them out but I am tired of AVCHD!

Was the GH3 video sharpened? I think one reason I am choosing the Sony is that the GH3 looks a little digital in comparison to me. The GH3 has some of the same color shifts that I noticed when I owned GH2s as well. There is an overall green tint to the frame as well as blue in the shadows. The Sony, as often Sony's are has an overall trend towards blue. As James stated, this can all be ironed out with color correction, but given the codecs are not the strongest point of stills cameras, it is probably worthwhile to correct in-camera.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

No, not in the framegrabs, those where with a large dof, there are several shots in there which would have not been possible with the RX10 at the same focal length though. In terms of sharpness the rx10 isn't sharper then the GH3, the Vimeo samples are not a good example for that. From looking at the raw files I"d say they both perform the same with the GH3 providing a sharper image at high ISO's, something I did test recently, if I find the time I will shoot a high detail scene to see how they match up resolutionwise.
The only shots that where sharpened on the gh3 where the fisheye ones, that samyang lens was a lot softer then my other panasonic lenses and I had to sharpen it by 30% to make them match.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Nicely done Noa, the motion really enhances the shots. I prefer the GH3 personally, but I'm not a fan of the fish-eye lens. It tends to draw attention to itself, rather than to the subject. Makes me look forward to visiting Bruges one day. I'll be taking my Panny G6 to Paris soon, but won't have the luxury of taking a slider. They are great travel cameras and a light alternative to DSLRs.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Lovely Noa, as usual; you always deliver. Yes, seems not a lot between the RX10 and the GH3 when it comes to the end result. I might need to acquire a GH3 as I am having problems with the RX10 AVCHD codec under certain shooting conditions.

Good stuff. Cheers...

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

I do admit you have to be carefully not to overuse it, it can be very nice to use if you need to get a large environment in one image, it's a specialty lens to be used with care, I was planning to get the panny 7-14 but that was 3 times the price but actually more usefull, this lens will be used a very few times at a wedding for some creative shots or to capture a very large place, like a church, a venue etc but those will be short shots but I can think of a moment where it can be useful in cramped spaces for continuous coverage and when you want to have it all in frame. It's a fun lens for sure.

About the luxury to take the slider, well, I can tell it was not luxury at all, my back still hurts from dragging my backpack, tripod and slider along all day, won't be doing that again for these type of shoots. If I"m all day in one place and if I don't need to move around that much then sure but otherwise these sliders are a pain to carry and setup. But they do make your videos more dynamic, especially when there is no other movement in the frame. With my personal videos I like to experiment with motion or often don't move the camera at all and let the image speak for itself.

Bruges is a very nice place, they have something what they call "the golden triangle" which has all the old buidlings, the canals with the bridges etc, in the summer though only that area is swamped with tourists, thousands of people shooting photo's like crazy, I did a weddingshoot there last year and the tourists kept following us taking pictures, asking if they could stand next to the bride for a picture as well, each time a boat passed you saw everyone holding smartphones and tablets up high to shoot the couple, funny stuff :)

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Is that with a lot of detail and movement? I have not seen this in my footage yet.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

In Bruges with Colin Farrell ... one of my fav films.

Makes me want to visit Bruges one day as well. Your video definitely helps too. Looks like a photogenic place ideal for some great shots.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Here is a screen cap that shows the breakdown of the codec. Zoom in on the jpg to view the blockiness. It doesn't look too bad here but in the MP4 file when playing it is unacceptable. This is the kind of shot where I am having problems. The original footage out of the camera is fine but after light grading - color correction, light sharpening and levels adjustment - and then rendering off to AVCHD this is what I see. The bush in the foreground is also unacceptably noisy but of course you won't see that in this jpg.

So yes, it is with a lot of detail but not a lot of movement, in fact the bush in the background is totally still (like the sail on the sailboat); barely a breeze when I shot that. When I render off to XDCAM 35mbps the problem is not so obvious. Speaking of which it was precisely this kind of shot that when shooting with the EX1 the footage was unacceptably noisy.

Generally the codec holds up just fine. I don't think it is surprising that AVCHD graded and rendered off to AVCHD again is pushing it and under some conditions it just doesn't cut it. Maybe the XAVC S codec deployed in the FDR-AX100 will fare better. We shall see...

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

If you don't do any post processing and just render the file out untouched, do you also get this kind of artifacts? Not sure if what I am seeing is the result of the adjustments you make in post but rather due to something not right during rendering.

I am curious though, do you think you can make the raw clip directly from the card, which displays the problem, available for download, if it's not too big? Just to see what happens if I push it around in Edius and render it out, to see if the same problem occurs?

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Thanks, that would be great. Tell you what; I will trim out a section in Play Memories Home and save without rendering. The original clip is way to large to upload (given my less than wonderful Internet connection) and upload to my Vimeo page. Should be done in an hour or so.

I might mention that the distance from the camera to the bush in the background is just over 3 kilometers and it was a hot day with lots of atmospheric interference as you will see.

I'm still playing around with Vegas Pro 12 to find the best render option. You input with Edius will be most appreciated.

Cheers...

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

I downloaded the clip and did some colorcorrection and added 15% sharpness, must say that was allready a very taxing image, the moving water and distorting air by the heat, so any adjustment you"d make will magnify any artifact, especially if you sharpen, here I think incamera sharpening would be a better option, but not sure about that, have a look and tell me what you think. I exported to a 17mb mp4.

Can you pm me a emailadres I should send the video to?

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Done, thanks Noa. Yes, not an easy scene to shoot. I shall certainly give in-camera sharpening a go and see if that helps. The artifacts that bother me are really only the blockiness in the distant bush. Thus far the best fix is to render as XDCAM 35mpbp 29.97p.

I might just pull out and crank up the BMPCC and see how ProRes handles that stuff...

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

File has been send, interested to know what you think.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Thanks again, Noa. I see in the distant bush a pulsing at a frequency of about one second not unlike with my render though perhaps not as severe. I played your file on both my computers using two different media players and the artifacts were consistent. I believe it is a function of the AVCHD re-encoding though I really don't know for sure.

Further experimentation and I find the Sony XDCAM 35mbps overcomes this problem and the file looks as good in every other way.

I also rendered off a version using the XAVC S codec and it looked good however the file size is 2x the regular AVCHD file size. The XDCAM render might be the best option overall at about half the file size of the XAVC S file.

I shot a similar scene using the BMPCC using the ProRes codec and while the blockiness is not visible those same areas are quite noisy, too noisy in fact, but I'm not done experimenting yet.

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

Noa, my apologies for taking this thread off-topic even if you were somewhat complicit, for which I am grateful :-) and this post is to share what appears to be good news: Seems the in-camera sharpening did the trick. Today I went a-shooting once more and this time I set the in-camera sharpening to plus 2 following Dan Carter's approach. I know one swallow does not a summer make and today was not exactly high science however no sign of of the terrible blockiness after color correcting and levels adjustment in post. No sharpening in post means no problems perhaps, or at least much reduced.

I shall pursue this approach and report in due course, in a new thread.

Many thanks again for your help.

And now back to your lovely GH3 video shot in such a delightful setting so far away in time and space from the Marlborough Sounds of New Zealand.

Maybe there is a GH4 in my future...

Re: Bruges on the gh3
 

I just also looked at the boat footage on a big screen before and after correction and like you said the 15% sharpening I applied to it caused "pulsing" of that fine detail, so it appears in post sharpening is something you definitely would do do with this camera, avchd codec camera settings are best set in camera for best results to get the most artifact free image to start with if you plan on correcting further in post.