the lens is a J15 IRS...I used a mount made by a guy in Poland......I actually used the 2x on the lens to cover the sensor , and I had a cable made by a guy in Chicago who sells on ebay...its a 12 pin to 2.1mm coax cable , so any 12v 2.1 mm coax supply will power the lens, there are lots of options for that...I have a li ion brick for a broadcast camera that I use, 8 ah 120 wh, will run the cam for days.....run it thru a 9v auto transformer I got on ebay for $4, sends perfect voltage to the dc coupler (about 9.3 v unloaded)....there is a tiny bit of CA at the most extreme zoom when wide open, dissappears at around f4....but its barely noticeable anyway, you need hard edges in the shot to see it....as for mics...I used an AT4073a for audience applause and a pair of Heil PR30's on the podiums......I set the trim on my mixer to 0db for the heil , and -20db for the AT, its a really hot mic...

for anyone who want s to see what that canon zoom looks like, this is the first video I shot with it, 1080i stock firmware , low bitrate , uncorrected , smooth preset....the wide shots are as wide as I can go , rough equivalent to a 35mm lens, I guess around 32 mm-35mm

Tried to upload a new test with Sanity 5 and Pasedena Pulse along with a test of some Tiffen Fx filters on the kit lens but Vimeo screwed up the upload. Will have to try again when I get home tonight. It's the first time I've rendered it out in 1080p and I was really pleased with the results of both the Sanity settings as well as the audio.

Did a music vidclip with Sanity V5. 1080p 24p H Footage could not be played in camera lot´s of times! GH2 just stopped after a few seconds. No write errors while filming though and everything looks great in the editor and players. Has anyone else encountered the same problem?

@ishvar in what mode did you shoot, HBR?
Try 720 pal, much smoother, and sharper image.
In post when you upscale it to 1080, it still will look better then HBR...

IMHO, in most situations, one can achieve better effects in post (AE) with a flat profile image at the stage of acquisition, rather than to bake-in the look with filters and heavier in-camera processing.

Subjectively, warm black diffusion 1/4 looked best for me. However, since white balance was set to auto and overall exposure was not kept the same test-to-test, it is almost impossible to draw any conclusions because there were more variables on each test than just filter change...

@tcarretti Thanks for that filter test. Very useful. The warm black diffusion 1/4 is indeed a pleasant surprise. It makes everything look more three dimensional. However, the thing to keep in mind with filters is that the subject matter plays a big role in the final result. For example, if you did the same test outdoors in direct sunlight with deep shadows, we might come to a different conclusion about which one is "best".

@mo7ies,

Actually, ISO, exposure, and F-Stop are identical on all those clips. All I did was change out the filters between clips. I was using a pretty flat profile to begin with at -2,-2,-1,0.

Again, just a test to see if the kit lens could be made to look a little less "video-ish"

Thanks for the suggestions though, greatly appreciated.

I understand that exposure was locked, however one is suppose to adjust it when a filter is added, to compensate for the light loss in the filter. Then the actual (measured) exposure between the scenes will equalize.

I've never heard of anyone doing any sort of exposure compensation with a pro mist or most "diffusion" filters, but certainly like Ralph said they can act differently depending on lighting, like if you had hard direct sun the halo-ing around highlights could bother you, so you'd stop down perhaps. I know going post for everything seems to be the trend, but I'm not crazy about it, and it's not like using the actual glass filters has been bugging Janusz Kaminski, Robert Richardson, blah blah blah... (meaning that black pro mist exactly for many Richardson features)

I don't know, maybe it looks "darker", but it certainly looks like it's doing what a black pro mist does, which is to say it lightens the shadows a bit and darkens highlights a bit, all dependent on how hard or directional your lighting is. Again, though, I've never heard of a DP using any exposure compensation for one of those unless they wanted more or less halo-ing, bumping up the exposure gives you more of course (obvious example all the hot lighting in a "JFK" or "Casino" blowing out hands and what-not), and I used to be OBSESSED with Robert Richardson and reading A.C. articles, and following David Mullen on Cinematography.com and all that jazz, taking in all these diffusion discussions (although I am famous for not remembering anything I read (seriously though if you have an idle hour or five, reading up on the long exhaustive history of diffusion filters is kinda interesting (and then like me you might get obsessed with Nestor Almendros and do away with any diffusion at all, and then swing this and way and that willy nilly, and get mostly obsessed with parentheticals)).... All that said, first and foremost trust your eyes, which you're doing and are way in the right to do I'd say, so if you would prefer an exposure bump, go for it, but to say you can't draw ANY conclusion from those shots doesn't sound right to me.

Oh lordy no! I'm obsessive but in that annoying autodidact way where I think everything I hear is some great rare discovery, but actually I know NOTHING (which is good, then I can actually maybe learn something... and then get it all wrong anyway)