Personal View site logo
GH2 at Sundance!
  • 77 Replies sorted by
  • While I´m looking forward to seeing it, I find Carruth´s way of working pretty inspirational!

  • Gonna see this tomorrow- definitely excited to see the film as well as a bit of GH2 pixel peeping.

  • @dingeroz, I agree with your comment.

    About a decade ago, cameras with the performance of the GH2 were beyond the reach of most, today's technology has democratized access to the gear, but the important thing is always the story and not the camera, but for relatively little money, we can do what was a dream a decade ago.

  • So, saw the movie this afternoon. I'll reserve comment on the film itself since it would take a page or 2 to even get into it.

    The GH2 looked pretty darn good on the big screen. Out of the films I've seen shot on the AF100, FS100, F3, C300, 5D2/3 or other DSLRS (All the "budget" cameras essentially), the GH2 was probably the most favorable. All these cameras produce a distinct image... but the GH2 definitely suited the material- it came out incredibly cinematic. It has a look that fits cinema undeniably well.

    It was a pretty neutral grade, with little to no noise issues. Some nice macro shots, but perhaps too much Steadicam with super shallow DOF. Unfortunately there were quite a few out-of-focus shots that didn't seem like artistic decisions. Nothing too overwhelming, but it was obvious they were either getting used to the camera, or were shooting most of what they could wide-open.

  • @L1N3ARX, you're wrong, GH2 its very videoish, lol (ironic mode on).

    Beyond technical aspects, what grade would you give to the movie on a scale of 1-10?I look forward to seeing it, First I burn several neurons. But I doubt that hits theaters in my country, so I'll have to wait until it goes on sale on DVD or Blu Ray.

  • Sorry, but in the head-to-head, blind, Pepsi-challenge tests basic GH2 never produces the most video-looking result, hacked or not. To assert otherwise is rubbish.

  • @Manu4Vendetta - Sorry, but disagree and I have sat in on many a telecine/ color correct, smoke, DaVinci etc etc session. With the right glass, it does not look "very videoish". I'm fairly certain that people like @Shian Storm would be jumping on the GH bandwagon, if it were. I'm a professional shooter, not as experienced as some in post manipulation, but I will put myself in that category with 20 years in the production biz.

  • On a somewhat related note, are any of the Sundance attendees planning to hit Slamdance to check out Musgo? I'd love to hear some thoughts/reviews.

  • @rockroadpix, I said that was an ironic comment trying to mimic the typical responses canonboys.

  • @Manu4Vendetta - Ahh sorry ! I think you mean sarcastic. Makes more sense...

  • @rockroadpix, I tried to get tickets to musgo the other day but it was sold out. I totally didn't realize it was premiering at slamdance until a few days ago... I would have totally bought advance tickets if I knew.

  • In IMDB confirms that use the GH2. In addition, users now between 56 lowers its rating to 6.9

    563 x 244 - 93K
  • Saw that it didn't sell at sundance. Think that's because no one wanted it or because director didn't want to sell?

  • @christianhubbard, you"ll find the answer to this question by wading though the results of this google news search: "upstream color" distribution.

  • @christianhubbard I think it's because he's planning to self-distribute.

  • I was also at Sundance and saw this film (partly because I liked Primer, mostly because I wanted to see a projected GH2 film) and ironically, I sat right next to L1N3ARX (who I didn't know) and this forum came up in conversation.

    The guys in the audience behind us helped Shane Carruth in the post process and confirmed it was shot on a hacked GH2 (and they said Shane was not happy with the experience but didn't elaborate further).

    My thoughts:

    1. This film is NOT for everyone, but if you liked Primer and can handle a film that gives you more questions than answers, then I found it interesting and enjoyable.

    2. I was pleasantly surprised that a GH2 cinematographer was able to achieve super shallow DOF shots (I don't think they are always necessary, obviously, and I think they over-used the effect, but it was good to see it was very achievable)

    3. The GH2 image was very nice: the detail was there but not "over sharp", the 24P cadence looked natural, the colors were graded to be muted, but were still pleasant, and I did not see any banding.

    4. Only on a couple shots inside of moving cars did I see CMOS jello, I was looking and it was almost never present.

    5. The shadow detail was nice, not muddy.

    6. I saw Act of Valor in theaters in order to see what a 5D Mark II looked like projected, and I liked the image from the GH2 WAAAAAAAAAY better (the 5D lacked detail and overall the image was very muddy).

    Disclaimer: the movie screen was 15 feet across, not 40 ft like a multiplex

    Also, I am not a GH owner (nor have I ever shot on one), so excuse me if some of my observations are old news to you guys, but I am a professional videographer who has used DSLRs and the Sony F3, and after seeing Upstream Color I am SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING getting a GH3 to shoot my upcoming feature.

  • (and they said Shane was not happy with the experience but didn't elaborate further)

    hmm, that's interesting. I wonder in what aspect?

    I mainly love shooting with the GH2 because Red and bigger cameras are more of a pain in the ass and cost about 20x more for grip gear and take twice as long to setup. I can also direct/shoot myself, which is again, about 20x easier and faster. The grade also didn't seem like in would have required RAW or anything, even though it looks great. I wish he would elaborate further, as he's one of those directors that really knows all aspects of the craft...

  • They didn't want to get into too much detail because Shane was there at the screening and had said he didn't want the focus to be on the "how" of the movie, rather on the movie itself (which I understand). But having recently re-watched Primer (his first feature shot on 16mm film), I liked the look of Upstream Color more.

  • @Brian_Mills "I saw Act of Valor in theaters in order to see what a 5D Mark II looked like projected, and I liked the image from the GH2 WAAAAAAAAAY better (the 5D lacked detail and overall the image was very muddy)."

    The digital post on AoV wasn't the highest caliber, and really heavy handed. They could have seriously used Shian's help. There have been plenty of films with 5D footage intercut with all sorts of other cameras and they go by mostly undetected.

    That night conversation scene, through one of the location towns or villages, etc., I forget the specifics, I just remember it was amazingly bad to look at. Compared with something like Monsters, you'd never guess the same camera was used.

  • Super curious which hacked was used.

  • The technical specification were deleted from IMDB.

  • It's pretty annoying that they're playing coy with the technical information of the camera but it could be that some "exclusive" article is in preparation. It could also be that there's so much information on the subject they don't want the issue affecting either sales or review of the film.

    Given any information on budget or technique ahead of time viewers can make certain judgments prematurely. Worse, they will presume to speak about the film on some sort of knowledgeable level simply because they're familiar with some aspect of how it was made. A subset of these folks desperately want a platform to share their musings with the world and go out of their way to write reviews at places like IMDB, personal blogs, etc.

    This is a phenomenon musicians aren't totally immune from but I'm betting that Slash doesn't have to deal with your average wannabe second guessing every phrase and every riff of every verse of every song he plays by Joe I-Just-Bought-a-Fender.

  • I just got a notification on my facebok, is available at Amazon. :)

    408 x 241 - 73K
    914 x 387 - 194K