I've used the MTF adaptor...namely the m4/3 adaptor (which i think they aim at the GH2 AF100 market) and I have to say it didn't work at all. It was a generic m4/3 adaptor they do and it wouldn't mount to my m4/3 BMCC. I have the Hot Rod PL--m4/3 adaptor on there now and it fits perfectly. I wouldn't be rushing to get an MTF in a hurry...

jb

@johnbrawley

what wasn't working with it? a lens woldn't lock in, or vignette?

@GravitateMediaGroup

Wouldn't even fit the mount

JB.

Vaporware would denote a product not existing. 2/3" Scarlet = Vaporware

Blackmagic Camera = Shipping, in limited quantities currently.

GH3 = Shipping, in limited quantities currently.

+1 That is why i'm sticking to gh2 for the next 2 yrs.

Hair and Skin Tone Testing by Adam Roberts

Thanks all

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/5854/more-micro-four-thirds-members#Item_1

It looks like active m43 is very near future. Fun thing is that people jumped from EF to passive m43 and it could be that they'll need to jump to active m43. Especially considering upcoming active metabones adapters.

I can't imagine why BM would buy into the MFT coalition unless they intend on making an active m43, and then why would they make a "dumb" m43 if they could sell a "smart" one. Or maybe this is going to be the BMCC 2 that will be announced at NAB 2013?

I'm sort of glad I cancelled my preorder back in August, but I would really really like a m43 BMCC, smart or dumb some day.

I rented one through LensRentals last weekend. It definitely made me want one, hah.

Shooting RAW is kind of a rude awakening in terms of the hard disk space you chew through - and dealing with it on the back end isn't the easiest thing ever (making one-light proxies from Resolve, etc).

The camera is also a lot heavier than I was expecting, and ergonomically of course the less said the better (although I understand it's meant to be accessorized).

There's a few in-camera limitations that seem like they should be no-brainers to sort out (displaying how much disk space or recording time is remaining on a drive, allowing drives to be formatted in-camera, allowing clips o be deleted in-camera, more flexible white balance adjustments; anamorphic squeeze on the LCD would be great too but not a must-have). I'd also like an option to disable the clip metadata controls from displaying, as I would sometimes bring them up by accident when trying to activate 1:1 focus.

The m4/3 model (plus Metabones Speed Booster) is the camera for me, and I hope we get an announcement of an active mount variant at NAB or sooner. Toss in the possibility of shooting higher frame rates, even if it's at 1080 prores only, and this is the last camera I'll want to own for a long time.

That all having been said, there's still something about a GH2 with a lightweight lens on the front that I find really compelling, the image/weight/price ratio is still super compelling (plus stills!).

i'm sure mosaic engineering will come up with a nice $400 filter for it lol

@SuperSet, I settled on DaVinci but I actually tried Lightroom first. I was more pleased at first with the images I could get just developing the DNG files individually in LR4. I would import a shot as a catalog folder, go to the frame I wanted to use as my guide, grade it, and then apply that correction to the rest of the frames. Then afterwards, export as JPG files to use as an image sequence in my NLE of choice.

Lightroom is awesome for grading shots, but it's a slog to do very many this way because of the import/export time. Resolve on the other hand handles the RAW files much more handily but the actual image manipulation process feels less friendly and intuitive. And note - I'm saying this as someone who's been using Resolve since version 8 and has done several extensive music video grading jobs with it and like it a lot.

RAW in Resolve is a whole different matter. I don't doubt it has every bit as much power as Lightroom, but I had to spend a lot more time tweaking the image before I started liking the results. Using the included LUTs makes it better, but there's still a lot left to be desired. For one thing, in Resolve you have to do certain operations in the RAW tab, especially with regard to setting exposure and 'recovering' highlights. That is to say, if you set your RAW exposure at +1.0 and blow out some highlights, you can't just pull them down with the gain control or a power window. It's effectively clipped before the rest of Resolve sees it. So you have to go back to the RAW tab and darken your overall shot to dig out what you threw away. In my way of thinking, and in the way LR works, you want to be always working off the RAW data, so you can recover information at any given step of the way in a non-destructive manner.

The good thing is, once you're happy with your Resolve grade, the render/export time isn't bad at all. This is where it really shines over LR. And of course there's no way to get an EDL or XML file into LR to conform your edit, so if you did go that route you would be managing all your clips and grades by hand and reconnecting it all somehow in your NLE.

I also experimented with just pulling the DNG files into After Effects as an image sequence. This also works; you get access to the Camera RAW developer, the same one from Photoshop, and you can then add all the effects and adjustment layers you want to the footage inside AE. Again, rendering times are sloooooow. And like in Resolve, if you want to recover artificially clipped detail, you have to reinterpret your image sequence to pull up Camera RAW again and change your develop settings.

On the plus side, using LR and AE will let you export full 2.5K files whereas Resolve Lite (which is all you'd have renting the camera) is limited to 1080p for output.

@Oedipax

You experience with Resolve is not my experience.

Yes you do need to go to the DNG tab to slide the exposure up and down to set the range of control available in the colour correction tab, even if you don't, ALL of the highlight information is still there. It will appear to be clipped, but if you pull the Y highlights gain down you'll be able to recover all of it. unless of course it's cipped in the original exposure. You might need to move the slider a long way to do it though and that's why it's better to kind of calibrate your tool range coarsely with the exposure tab.

To reiterate, Resolve has ALL the exposure information available no matter where you set the exposure tab. it just affects how the scales work in the CC area.

The other important advantage over LR is you can animate and motion track windows and apply node based corrections to them all. LR produces a nice result, especially when you know how to use it. But is sucks for motion. Resolve takes a while to get the hang of, but it does have very nice MOTION oriented tools.

jb