Very cool - congrats. Please post links to watch once it's made available online - will definitely check it out.

@radikalfilms - I didn't say I didn't see a difference but for me, at this point, it's a matter f diminishing returns. I'd rather spend the $3k for a BMCC body only on financing my next short film. A good craftsman doesn't blame his tools. The GH2s picture is incredibly pleasing to me and actually the GH3 and GH2 were my two favorite pictures in terms of character.

@artiswar: are you serious? What about the extended DR if nothing else? Just look at the talent's forehead...blown out on GH2/GH3. Yes it can be lit up within range if you have time and resources, but you just have it easier with the BMCC.

@shian: what is it that you don't like about operating the BMCC? Just curious, I haven't touched the thing and I intend to get it when it comes out in m43.

the details are in the 2nd vid. We shot both Prores and Raw but at different times.

Resolution wise I think that #2 really looks like poop.

@shian

Please, keep discussion about your good tests in proper topics - GH3 and BMC ones.

Yep, I agree with Vitaliy except that he's a dumb Mother.

I depend way too much on presets because I simply don't know any other way. It's been a busy winter and I haven't kept up with what you're doing so I have some catching up to do.

i hate canon glass, I really do. And the other thing was time - we had to blow through the tests pretty quickly, and identical framing was not high on our priority list, especially since we expected the 5D to eliminate itself pretty quickly. Which it initially did, but the made a strong comeback.

We did the one test to satisfy the "it's not the same lens" people, but once we got into the simul-shot test we didn't have enough canon glass to go around, so we put the Nikkor glass on the GH's for that, and the head-to-head GH2 vs. GH3 shoot and then just left them on. I said it's not very scientific, but despite the different lenses, all the footage cuts together rather well.

Another camera testing with different lenses.... nonsense. How can one differ is it a lens or camera performance? Nikkor 35mm... (Non-? Ai? -S? AF? f/2.8? f/2.5 f/2.0? f/1.4?) there have been 51 different types of Nikon 35mm produced so far, with many significant changes: number of elements and groups, number of blades, coating, etc. Different types perform very different considering contrasts, color rendition, sharpness and differ in flare-prone, bokeh etc.

Thank you for this test nevertheless. Don't take this personal, it is just a fact and I regret the time losing with different lenses, especially when it was possible to mount the same lens on all 4 cameras. It costs so much time to do such test shooting, no?

Only 2nd part of the test with the same lens is usable (rotating in the chair), my first impression on this poor PC screen where I could watch it (quite oldie one) right now is:

1: the cinematic one, less contrasts but retained excellent shadow details without peaking
2: good detail in the well-lit areas, shadows tends to get too dark
3: the sharpest contrasty one, the digital looking one, highlights peaking
4: the balanced one, good shadow details without peaking well-lit areas

I don't know any other camera but the GH2, my impression and pure guessing is in order of camera numbers is: BMCC, 5Dmk3, GH2, GH3. All cameras are excellent, though also very different. For cinema-like film making: No.4 than No.1

@shian I agree with Vitaliy as well.

@shian I agree with Vitaliy. A nice small "basics of color correcting and grading for dummies" would be excellent. Then that acts as the free intro class to an advanced series that is paid.

Part 1 tonight.

@spacewig "...like you've given us insight into the uncertainty principle."

Haven't I? :)