@bwhitz : directing actors (and their oversized egos) can be a real painful job on its own....but i agree with you that a real director should at least understand all the technical processes and keep authority on them, or else he ends up nodding to whatever his technical directors tell him. (And i'm saying, keep authority, not doing the whole work themselves, that's the point of forming specialized technics).

I always use the boat analogy : who is the boss on a boat ? It's the captain..... but i never see the captain holding the wheel, or powering up the engines, he's only there to give orders and chat with the passengers. (His real job is being the captain, maintaining authority and taking tough decisions when needed).

But in my country we know of directors who are only people full of money and who pay the best technics and actors to play in a movie that they paid the best screenwriters to write. And those directors don't do anything, not even directing actors, they have people to do that. All they do is say "ok to this idea" "not ok to that idea", and shout "action". That's disgusting, but it's how it works, and they sit on the top of a pyramid of power, deciding over the careers of these technics, and they get interviewed on TV, get all the credit...

@brianluce : i wish it were so easy, but in my country there is very little money for films, so we often have to put up with what we find... on my first short movie, production appointed a chief operator who forgot his glasses on the first day.... and i had no way to change this choice.

@bwhitz Vanity credit for directors is not the topic. Seems like you have issues with Directors. Working with writers, casting, then working with actors is soul consuming, I don't think many directors want to pacing around the cyclorama with a light meter checking for hot spots.

Real directors see movies shot, edited, a scored in their heads.

Come on b, now they're supposed to edit and score the damn thing too? You're out of control.

If anything DSLRs actually allow for a more pure directing style. As you don't have to rely on a cinematographer, camera op, ect.

Nope, absolutely false. This is not a matter of opinion, it's just false. Directing, operating, and Dp'ing are discreet jobs, no matter what camera a person has.

@Zeko, If you're paying people and they're acting all skeptical and superior because they don't like the looks of your gear, FIRE their pathetic lazy a$$e$ and find some people committed to the project. You don't want people like that.

And there's nothing big time about the way a EX1 looks or performs. Pimp out your GH2 bro! I once put a $99 monitor on my GH2 and wrapped it in black foil to shade sunlight. First comment I got from an actor was "Wow, what kind of camera is that? Looks expensive..."

@Zeko "i didn't say "fake" camera, i just mean that a photocamera wouldn't be suited for the use that someone directing a 4K film needs."

Why not? The odds of the GH3 having 4k RAW is about .05%. But... if it did... why would it not be suitable for a 4k feature?

If anything DSLRs actually allow for a more pure directing style. As you don't have to rely on a cinematographer, camera op, ect. The camera becomes an extension of the director and not a piece of equipment that takes a whole team to run it. Hand-held, light weight, instantly reviewable footage! Just you and the actors! :) DSLRs are a directors dream! I'd shoot on a GH2 8 times out of 10 over something like an Epic or Alexa. Image is 70% as good and all I need it me. Set is just more intimate and controllable, more set-ups per day, ect...

I don't see how 4K would be too much more expensive on. GH3, it's a processor upgrade / codec change, the current sensor is fully capable of 4K resolution. It would make a great marketing point to catch everyone's attention if Panny could deliver 4K.

@Zeko "If someone shoots 4K, it's for a high-end professional use, then he'd just get a real camera"

So you're implying that a 4k GH3 would be a "fake" camera?

All of this "real" and "professional" camera talk is getting old. Some cameras just have better specs. They aren't any more "real" or "fake" than others. This is just FUD talk that is being thrown around by old industry guys jealous of new tools... and people that simply just like "big cameras" to feel special.

Why not have 4k on a GH3? Maybe it'll have RAW too. And then maybe they'll shoot the next Pirates of The Caribbean movie on $900 GH3's. Who cares? There is just nothing magical about big expensive cameras, or "real" cameras. A camera is just a sensor, processor, and storage. That's it.

Also, I'm not talking about you in particular, just this kind of talk in general... :p

I hope GH3 has this : - Weather sealed (should be anyway, seems the latest lens is sealed) - Better LCD - OLED EVF (like some complain up there, my eyes don't see the best colors in the EVF, it's a bit painful using it to focus) - Possibility for native higher bitrates (24p 25p) - USB 3 - Dual card slot - Better battery than GH2 - Microphone exit - XLR ? - Timecode - And overall image improvement (banding, rolling shutter, movements in 24p)

if Santa works for Panasonic..... :)

Also, i read somewhere that the GH3 kit lens could be the new 12-35 mm f/2.8 , any confirmation on this ?

I'm sceptical about the notes from TS, i would think it would be released on PhotoKina, atleast it would make more sense then October.

Wishlist: 1080p50/60 720p100/120 better VF, banding resolved 4:2:2 AVC Ultra (2.0) or better handling of the codec (see Sony FS 100 - shadow detail etc) dual card slots higher rates for 25fps

Are you saying you think the GH-3 MAY have the ability to write to some form of external drive? USB3? That would be so cheap to implement and so incredibly powerful. You can get a 128gb SSD on sale for around $90.

I think by the nature of technology, a CMOS sensor today can have greater dynamic range, less noise than the technology available 2 years ago. So, GH-3 with a bit more DR is expected. I like the Panasonic Engineers. They clearly like to implement some cool features. So I can imagine some new stuff. The Wi-Fi would be nice if we could use it like tethering on Can/Nikon.

Remember, The GH-3, which most likely won't be in regular people's hands until December or January. Will have a life span into 2014 or 2015. So 1080p 60p would really need to be included to be competitive over the life cycle of the GH-3.

Also, there will be more powerful processors.

My guess, like Canon raising the price on the 5D III, A GH-3 will have a higher starting price point.

Understanding the market will give better clues as to the GH-3s specs. The Olympus M43 is a mighty attractive package, lacking the super duper video ability of the GH-x. I can imagine Panny doesn't want Olympus to stay on top of the M43 market. The Gh-3 will try to surpass most of the specs of the Oly.

I wish we could have a Micro SATA connector and go right out to a SSD. In the menu you can choose ext SSD or internal SD recoding

If it's true Wi-Fi direct, then that will be awsome. That means you don't have to connect to a wireless access point to talk to the camera. Just use a compatable device with the camera then you're good to go. My big 720p display smartphone will now be of a good use.

Little previews of GH3 features:

Panasonic is the latest camera manufacturer to get in on the Wi-Fi app game — it's just launched Lumix Remote for iOS and Android. The app only works with the FX90 compact camera for now, which will need a firmware upgrade in order to talk to Lumix Remote, but once that's done you'll have a few more ways to use the camera's Wi-Fi chip. Your phone's screen can be used as both a zooming viewfinder and a shutter release, and there's a separate mode designed to help you take a self portrait.

Via: http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/28/3047720/panasonic-lumix-remote-app-fx90

I am 98% sure that we'll see Wi-Fi direct in GH3, also most probably we'll get USB 3.0.