Watch this

Started by yossam, August 22, 2013, 12:02:53 pm

Previous topic - Next topic



The first one would flip me out if I was on drugs. The 2nd one would freak me out anyway. Dont think I have ever seen something like in the 2nd video.
It has been eaten.


August 23, 2013, 06:26:36 pm #2 Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 06:32:58 pm by PabloMack
I recorded something like the second one in Cardon National Park in Argentina. Those clouds weren't coming toward me though. I've never seen the northern lights. It reminds me that I've been drooling over another camera. The Lumix GH3 can take my old Minolta lenses if used with an adaptor. This will give me the option of a narrow field of focus as well as shooting with dim ambient lighting. It also has a nice time lapse mode on it, something none of my other cameras have.


Nice links Yossam.Especially the second is great.

Sorry off topic:
Pablo i will buy a camera that can shot good photos and better video .
Do you like your Lumix GH3 video capabilities?
I kinda want to buy it from what i read on the internet all over, but as a user of that camera i want to hear what you think too?


August 24, 2013, 06:15:04 pm #4 Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 06:25:46 pm by PabloMack
I'm still just drooling and I haven't made a purchase for one yet. I've been reading a lot of reviews and YouTube demos. Everything I've read indicates that it does both great video and stills. Besides having lots of video modes going all the way to 1920X1080p @60FPS, being a 4/3 format you can get an adaptor for almost any of the old film SLR lenses and a whole lot of quality glass is available for real cheap (though you will not have autofocus or auto exposure with most of those). Right now I have MoCap on the brain and will probably get a Kinect camera next.


Thanks Pablo.
I am still not sure which one to buy.
But that GH3 looks really good for video capabilities.
There are many new photo cameras and new video cameras (4k etc. ).
Hard to pick one.


I thought that mainstream resolution would level off at HD for a few years before going beyond. But it looks like it is going to 4K faster than I thought. Holdups were monitors/TVs, disk players, video editors etc. It looks like 4K monitors/TVs are already here and Ultra HD seems to be just about as inexpensive as HD:

I read somewhere that HDMI 2.0 has been finalized and it supports Ultra HD without the need to change cables. Also, Blu Ray will soon be supporting Ultra HD with disks storing 100 GB. I just bought the Hitfilm 2 NLE and it supports video up to 4K. Blu Ray needs to go beyond cable/broadcast in order to compete. Since the bandwidth probably won't be there for supporting true 4K over cable this will give Blu Ray an edge and a reason to get people to use physical disks instead of cable for watching movies. It looks like Ultra HD is going to be twice the single dimension resolution of HD instead of a true 4096 horizontal resolution at 3840 X 2160 like the JVC GY-HMQ10U. It looks like theaters may have a hard time trying to stay in business.

Because of these developments, I will probably be holding off for 4K video.


The issue I have with 4k isn't the display devices, or even storage (though storage and streaming are certainly a concern). It's that pretty much nobody will actually notice the difference. Unless you have a theater-sized screen, 4k is pretty much imperceptibly different from 1080p at normal viewing distances and standard display sizes. Even when the technical issues get solved I'm not sure there will be much appeal for me. I'd frankly rather have less compressed content than higher resolution content (and this is particularly true of cable TV which, last time I saw it, was an ugly compressed mess even for "HD", particularly in high motion situations).

- Oshyan


The worst part of it is that if your 4K video camera is the least bit out of focus and/or your lens isn't up to the job, then you've lost the extra resolution anyway but still have to deal with four times the video data in post...very sad indeed.