I wish we could have a Micro SATA connector and go right out to a SSD.
802.11n Wi-Fi direct will be enough, if pair it with USB 3.0 micro connector with host ability :-)
And I think GH3 will have both.
No, I just saying that most probably it'll have USB 3.0 connection.
Otherwise I am all for camera that have 5 USB only connectors with full host capabilities for each, so you can connect soundcards, HID controls, monitors, etc
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
Yeah I am thinking it will have 1080p50/60, I mean the TM700 has had it for years. It appears that the electronic global shutter is not going to be on it...and thats disappointing. It would also be nice if there were some anamorphic ratios available on it, I think the Olympus has this, that would be great!
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 ?
BTW, what do you guys think of 4K in a photocamera (like the canon 1D-C) ? At first i thought "woooaa", but then I gave it a bit more thought, and I think it's just about this wooaa issue. If someone shoots 4K, it's for a high-end professional use, then he'd just get a real camera. 4K shouldn't be put on DSLR and hybrids just like that, the point is only to sell more of them 4K captors and keep the price of their C500 a bit down. (But they might get blow away by the sony FS700, if the 4K upgrade really holds its promises).
So i hope Panasonic won't put 4K in the GH3.
Talking about that, my instinct says the retail price of the GH3 could be around 1500$ (or 1400 € or so).
@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
@bwhitz : 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. 4K is big cinema, not tv, not blu ray, not internet.... and if one works for a professional movie (feature film), and invests in a 4K dslr, he could just as well have invested in a GH2 or a Mark3, and put the rest of the money in lighting, sound, effects, accessories, decors, and so on...
That's just my opinion as beginner in the industry (in a crappy country).
And why i say the GH3 shouldn't have 4K is a price reason : with 4K it would be more expensive, and i'd rather use that money to get the best out of 1080p and sound options.
With such progress we could end up with 8K 3D raw camera to the release date :-)
@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...
@bwhitz : that's the point, in my backward-thinking country (and from comments i've read on so many forums of other countries), you're just not taken seriously if you want to direct a big professional project with a pocket-sized photocamera in your hand...... that's why so many people buy rigs, who cares about matte boxes inside, it's just about making the whole stuff look serious. If the crew feels it's just a hobby movie, they won't give a 100%.... not to mention the actors. When i prepared my first short movie, i used my fuji HS10 to shoot castings and rehearsals (for those who don't know, it was a 400€ photocam with ultrazoom, full HD 30p, HD 60p). When the actors saw it they asked "what, are you also going to shoot the movie with that ?" (on the tone of "you're kidding me , righto ?" ) , i had to reassure them, production would use sony EX1, which looks a lot more serious.
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..."
@brianluce "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."
Nope. This is absolutely false. :) DP's were born out of necessity of shooting on the celluloid format, and the process it required. Digital is bypassing this process now. Besides, a director that cannot get the right look without a DP is not a real director. Real directors see movies shot, edited, a scored in their heads. There's no reason that they can't shoot their own movies now if they truly have "a vision" and the technology allows it to be completed in a timely manner.
Film is a visual medium. If a director only works with "drama" and "actors" they should stick to live theater. Nobody see's the performances an actor gives on set, only the performances that were captured through the lens count. The directors job is holistic, not separate.
If you still think they should be separate, and a directors only role is to guide the actors, then they should absolutely not be credited with the creative authorship of the film. It's just illogical and disrespectful to the crew that the director is basically now taking credit for. The title should be changed to something along the lines of "performance supervisor" and put after editing and cinematography.
I just sick of hearing of film constantly being called a "collaborative art" but then only the director being credited with the "vision" and authorship. It's just sickening. Either it's fully collaborative and NOBODY gets complete control and authorship of the product. Or it's an auteur medium, where the director could, and pending the time/schedule limits of the film, does perform all of the major creative film crafts (him/her)self. You can't have both and say it's collaborative, then have people pour their talents into your film, and turn around and take credit for it. It's BS.
@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.
Real directors must do it all by themselfs. Yep, including music (not just score, but play it on all instruments), special effects, stunts.
@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.
Anyway, back on topic : 4K in a photocamera is a marketing issue. It won't cost more "technically", but because a camera is gifted with 4K, marketeers might make us pay twice as much.
Same as canon C300....how much better is it compared to Mark3 or GH2 ? it has more possibilities, but still a comparable image quality....for a price that is in a completely different league, because Canon marketeers feel that this is the price to pay for these advantages.
So, if Panasonic markets a 4K capable GH3....either it totally blows up the market by selling it around 1500 $, or it aligns on the competition and sells it above 3000 $ (which is still very cheap compared to C500, FS700 and Scarlet).
Or it can gift it with a hidden 4K potential, marketed as a 2K camera, and wait for Vitaliy to hack it so that only the real "pros" can benefit from the 4K without blowing up the market. (I wonder if there are any statistics about which percentage of sold GH2's have been hacked).
@Vitaliy_Kiselev said: "Real directors must do it all by themselfs. Yep, including music (not just score, but play it on all instruments), special effects, stunts."
The last I heard he died in 1977: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Chaplin
For me, what I would like to see on GH3 is better photo capabilities. I find the photos taken with GH1 or GH2 subpar even to the Ricoh GRDx or the decade old E-1, let alone competing against OM-D or the likes of Canon and Nikon. I hate lugging one camera for photos and an another camera for video. I would add weather sealed and 1080/60p or 50p (since even the Sony HX9v or RX100 can do that already). And how about some digital filter presets to emulate Kodak Vision 3 and Fuji film looks? The market for DSLR is sure getting crowded, the performance bar keeps improving, and Panasonic is going to need some true differentiators.
Come on b, now they're supposed to edit and score the damn thing too? You're out of control.
Yes I am. This is true. :) But yea, I do believe the director should be the final editor. Having an assistant editor to assemble the footage is logical. But how can you properly direct actors if you don't know the rhythm of the edit and where the cuts are going to go? The beats and pauses in acting and editing are crucial for the tone of the scene.
And for scoring, yea, that's probably a stretch... but Reason isn't too hard to learn. There's no reason a director couldn't bang out a few rough chords and melody though. Even myself, being as amateur status as I am, can't help not hearing the score when writing scenes. Shouldn't the "big guys" have developed this even further?
Real directors must do it all by themselfs. Yep, including music (not just score, but play it on all instruments), special effects, stunts.
haha. This is why I specifically said "all of the major creative film crafts (him/her)self". I meant all the jobs that encompass film-making. You can make films without SPX, stunts, and costumes. But you cannot make films (in the traditional sense) without camera work and editing. :)
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...
So... you're in the US and live in Los Angeles then? ;)
It won't cost more "technically", but because a camera is gifted with 4K, marketeers might make us pay twice as much.
Yea, this pretty much the reason we'll never see it. Unless they name it something new like 4k constant-photo mode. But we all know they really don't care this much...
I can think of a couple of ways they have their cake and eat it too. One would be to have different purchasable firmware configurations or an appstore of sorts, but consumers generally don't like the idea of paying twice as much for something that is just software limited, I would like it myself because you would only pay for the features that you needed.
The other way would be to have 2 battery grips, one a conventional photography based vertical grip that would be cheap, two a video focused grip/module attachment, that could have things like XLR inputs, microphone monitoring, highspeed bus to SSD or multi memory cards, pure HDMI output, higher colorspacing. People are generally more tolerant of hardware based expansion.
Either option would let them aim at multi markets and price brackets
@Dazza... that battery grip idea is GENIUS.
@bwhitz : nah, Belgium, and i'm educated in the french-speaking side, where no movie can be bankable, they all rely heavily on state-sponsored subsidies and tax shelters, which are all in the hands of the socialists. These people spit on entertainment, all they want are pseudo-artistic poor filmmaking about crappy poor depressing people. Most of their high ranking officials have zero understanding of any technical aspect in cinema.... if you want the job, you must show a big camera or a rig, so they think "uhm, looks professional enough", but usually sucking up to the right people and defending socialist ideas should be enough :D
On the flemish side, they are building a real film industry, with american-style filming. I'm trying to work my way into there as screenwriter first.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!