I don't have a GH3. But you can see it compared to BMCC, 5D, and GH2 here.

no the yellow is just part of it, it's that the skin looks (waxy is not the right word, but it's close)... not like flesh

re: plasticine skin tones from Sony cameras.

I see this same quality in GH3 footage.

This is my observation and opinion - doesn't look like film, or an acceptable film alternative to me. Just my personal view :)

GH3 = Crappy sensor that gives you plasticine skin tones (a la all Sony Cameras) and an image that is difficult to grade in that it skews blue in an inordinate amount

Can we make some scientific test to show this? As I am not so good with generalisations (all Sony Cameras) and literature comparisons (plasticine skin tones).

GH3 = Crappy sensor that gives you plasticine skin tones (a la all Sony Cameras) and an image that is difficult to grade in that it skews blue in an inordinate amount - and you pay $1300 for the privilege of shooting with a shitty camera and struggling with the footage in post. Still not as good as a hacked GH2.

BMCC = Blackmagic has essentially said, for if you buy a copy of DaVinci Resolve (the world's most reliable and robust grading package) and a copy of Ultrascope (an invaluable tool for any colorist and anyone who wants to check their cams calibration), for $2000 and we'll throw in a 13 stop RAW camera for free. You'll have to add a quite a few things to make it an amazing camera, but it doesn't matter what you add to the GH3, it's still gonna suck..

BMCC out of the box last year was junk - they've since added M43 and fixed many of the issues. Would I buy one? Probably not. I have a RED MX, so I don't need it, and I don't like the jello. but if I had to choose between 2 jello cams and the price difference is only $700 - I'm choosing the BMCC.

can you please share your issues with the GH3 in detail?

Just, please in GH3 issues topic :-)

I also think that BM is so love/hate for @shian (if you look back in history) so it can be quite emotional.

Not after using it in the real world... piece of junk.

@shain is always in extremes :-)

But you must have in your head that for people like @shian, who are good at grading and have all the time, money and skills BM made good present. For many others it is not so.

@shian Maybe I've been away the forums for too long, but I thought you liked the GH3?

We were telling stories for years with audio, before pictures got their act together.

Many experienced film makers argue that the four most important people in a feature are the writer, the boom operator, the audio recordist, the mixer. After all, the story is told in the center speaker. Everything else is just supporting that story...

Invest in preproduction. It's the biggest return on investment. Pay the actors one day labor to do a table read. Have your sound crew record it. Have your DP record it with three camera and clap/slate it. Then go back and edit the recordings into your draft movie script, with spacing and maybe add still shots to present locations. That's a only a one day production investment. Do that well and people will be itching to help you make the real movie, and you can shoot a far better movie in much less time, at much lower price. (And if you finish your preproduction and you "have no movie, no story", you just saved a lot of money. And you will have one more bad movie out of you without losing all your savings.)

Film making is about climbing ladders. Multiple ladders in real time. With a team climbing with you. It's story telling. You just need enough dynamic range and resolution to get the audience to understand the script.

and also think about the blair witch proyect, cloverfield, or no (even though those are extreme examples, just to clearly ilustrate my point), those movies worked with the audience even though the image wasn´t perfect (in technical ways), but the camera style supported the story behind, also in the same line of thinking, you can play with the image to extremes if they support the story somehow, but the audio must always be perfect, otherwise the audience will reject the movie

I'd say if you're getting great images with the GH3 that you like, stay with that for all the reasons mentioned. If you don't like the images coming out of the GH3, get something else, whether it's a BMCC or a GH2 or whatever. If you're only 4 months away from shooting, you could possibly get up to speed on a new camera, but if you really have the GH3 mastered and are getting great images from it, I would go with that. As you can imagine, once you get onto set, you really want all your camera/technical stuff fully mastered to minimize problems and maximize your team's ability to focus on the scenes themselves. (If you really love the BMCC look, perhaps you could rent one if that's an option, and do some test shooting, which will maybe give you a feel for the difference in looks.) Best of luck with your film shoot.

I'd only use the GH3 as a doorstop - so I think it goes without saying.

Yes, what vicharris said – SOUND. Once you get into the GH3 and above territory with camera bodies, the differences in the end product become less and less notable. While if you put that money towards sound... well, an audience will notice if you don't.

Even if you already have a sound guy and his/her gear, use it to buy access to locations that aren't next to freeways, airports, etc.