Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

fivepoint

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 28, 2007
1,175
7
IOWA
Very interested in opinions regarding the new GH2 and it's 1:1 cropping feature. Looks pretty exciting for still/video combo enthusiasts.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/457

I am seriously excited about this feature. Here are the bare facts sans sugar:
True 1080p resolution for first time on a DSLR
No moire
No aliasing
No scaling
No binning
No line skipping

With that, we introduce the GH2's secret weapon - 1:1 crop mode...

1:1 crop mode is a tap directly into the sensor, it takes a 1920x1080 window from the centre of the sensor so no scaling or image processing is required. It then takes this RAW sensor data and bypasses the usual image processor completely, sending it direct & uncompressed to the encoder chip. It's stored in AVCHD 24Mbit, 24p but unlike the GH1 this is a decent rock steady implementation of AVCHD - a bit like the AF100, with b-frames and just more advanced all round. It looks better than the GH1's hacked 44Mbit AVCHD.

The big gain comes not from the GH2's sensor (though that is excellent, banding is totally fixed it's cleaner than the Canon 60D at ISO 3200 - a big surprise) but it's oomph under the hood, CPU wise. Image processing is now where the Lumix team in Japan have a clear lead over their compatriots in another building at Canon. 2 year old DIGIC 4, thanks to the next chip's rather long gestation is now significantly long in the tooth especially for video, and the new Lumix Venus HD 2 engine is just flat out more advanced in every single way - 2010 versus 2008, simple as that.

Venus HD 2 is a 3 core CPU and new architecture. The 7D has a dual core CPU, 60D & 5DMk2 just traditional single core DIGIC 4 which explains the reduced res HDMI output whilst recording on the 60D / 5D - just not enough power. The dual core DIGIC 4 though does nothing to improve video processing & encoding, because Canon are saving it all for a big leap with v5.

The GH2's speed boost is noticeable in other ways. Manual focus assist is very snappy, zipping across the screen compared to it's sometimes sluggish behaviour on the GH1 and any sign of operational lag is absolutely gone. This is a FAST camera. And very usable too, but I'll save all the details for my review later.

So to the crop feature... the resolution is superb - 1:1. Like the Alexa. Like the Sony F3. No scaling from silly high resolutions and binning half the data!

The effective size of the sensor is smaller, more like RED Scarlet, but can still achieve a very shallow depth of field with a fast lens. The crop magnifies the focus plane, making it less narrow relative to the whole video frame. But it doesn't change the characteristic of the lens, only the camera's interpretation of said lens.

It is quite a significant magnification, exactly what factor I'm yet to determine. So crop mode is not for wide shots in cramped spaces! An 85mm for example, portrait length on the 5DMk2 is already telephoto on the smaller GH2 sensor (think 170mm-ish). With crop mode that goes crazy long but also minimum focus distance gets shorter which is an advantage.

1:1 crop mode makes macro lenses obsolete in a stroke. Crop mode turns even a middling 1m minimum focus 50mm prime into a super duper macro lens able to resolve individual pieces of dust from a good few metres away, or a human face full-shot close up from across a wide street, with a mere 85mm Zeiss.

For telephoto video, wide and fast c-mount lenses, and macro - this is a huge benefit. In effect you're getting a ultra long telephoto (800mm plus) from a standard DSLR lens at F1.4 with no sacrifice to image quality, or a ultra cheap cinema prime - think 13mm c-mount, which behaves on the GH2 in crop mode like a 50mm standard lens on the 5D Mark II.

Canon users can best imagine the image as focus assist mode in live view, but double the resolution and projected onto a huge screen... the output is astonishingly high quality.

It is the best feature in a video DSLR yet. It's also a glimpse into the future, image quality wise. It's pretty close to what RAW will look like on a DSLR in terms of detail, resolution and the clean uncompressed feel of the image.

Sample Video:
http://www.vimeo.com/17217169

EOSHD Says GH2 produces better video than 60D and 5DMarkII!
http://www.eoshd.com/content/460-Canon-60D-versus-Panasonic-GH2-Full-Review-Part-1
http://www.eoshd.com/content/465-Canon-60D-versus-Panasonic-GH2-Full-Review-Part-2
 
It's certainly less aggressive, but I've seen aliasing in clips. There's also the issue that the image doesn't look like that of the 5D. "Well, duh", you say; but I'm not just meaning in terms of the obvious depth of field difference. From what I've seen, the GH2 is also lacking in dynamic range and tonal smoothness compared to the Canons. That plus the lens length awkwardness will be enough to scare a fair few off, despite this being the biggest step forward since the 5D.

On a side note, I don't think I've ever seen anything by this EOSHD chap that isn't strewn with inaccuracies. Is it just that he's bothering to do the write-ups that people want to see?
 
It's certainly less aggressive, but I've seen aliasing in clips. There's also the issue that the image doesn't look like that of the 5D. "Well, duh", you say; but I'm not just meaning in terms of the obvious depth of field difference. From what I've seen, the GH2 is also lacking in dynamic range and tonal smoothness compared to the Canons. That plus the lens length awkwardness will be enough to scare a fair few off, despite this being the biggest step forward since the 5D.

On a side note, I don't think I've ever seen anything by this EOSHD chap that isn't strewn with inaccuracies. Is it just that he's bothering to do the write-ups that people want to see?

Interesting. For a secondary view on the video quality of the GH2, check out this beautiful video (http://vimeo.com/17062701) Phillip Bloom shot using the GH2 - in which the DOF is just striking - along with some of his comments below. He didn't seem to notice any aliasing? May I ask where you saw it?

It has an excellent feature called 1:1 sampling. It samples the centre of the sensor in which equates to 1920×1080 and records that meaning NO moire or aliasing and gives you a nice extra boost on your lenses with no loss in quality.
 
There were a couple of videos in a thread over at DVXUser. Can't remember the thread title, but it wasn't about aliasing. The bit I remember was a slightly bitchy debate over the GH2's AVCHD versus a hacked GH1.

The aliasing was better than it would be on one of the Canons, but it was noticeable nonetheless.
 
Off and on I've been following the GH2. I'm more interested Panasonic's AF100 though. At the time it comes out the GH2 might be the best video shooting stills camera out there but it's still a stills camera first and a video camera second. This is just assumption on my part but I doubt the GH2, or any stills-first camera, is going to be as alias free as a dedicated video camera because of the different strength of optical low pass filter each system needs.


Lethal
 
Off and on I've been following the GH2. I'm more interested Panasonic's AF100 though. At the time it comes out the GH2 might be the best video shooting stills camera out there but it's still a stills camera first and a video camera second. This is just assumption on my part but I doubt the GH2, or any stills-first camera, is going to be as alias free as a dedicated video camera because of the different strength of optical low pass filter each system needs.


Lethal

With the demand of DSLR video, I wonder why they don't produce a camera that is video only instead of a hybrid? This would solve the problem of having to share the CMOS for the high resolution required for stills - then having to do the down conversion required for video. If they could engineer a sensor that does what the GH2 does, but give more control so that you don't have to deal with the doubling of focal length, that would be awesome. They might even be able to use 3 CCD's instead of CMOS and that would practically eliminate rolling shutter or jello in pans. It would also lower the manufacturing cost because they wouldn't have to cram two different features into one camera. If it were possible, it would be like taking the video features of a high-end 3 ccd video camera and putting it into a DSLR form factor.

Anyway, I thought the GH2 ETC was an interesting concept. But there was quite a bit of noise introduced at ISO's higher than 160. Noticeable noise is a deal breaker for me. And in order to use the feature, you would be forced into doubling focal lengths, which is not always a good thing unless you need distance from subject. This ETC feature is unusable for wide and extreme wide-angle shots. Yeah.. you could choose to not use it, but how would ETC footage look cut into non-ETC?

It's going to be interesting to see what Canon and Nikon do this coming year. They know there is a lot of money in the DSLR market and I'm sure they are throwing a ton of money at the research and development. As for me, I'm holding my breath for RAW video output that can be custom converted depending on need. When that shows up, it's going to give film a true run for it's money. Imagine a DSLR that could shoot 24/30/60 frames a second of raw stills (not video). Then being take that those raw images and convert them to the resolution you need with minimum or no degradation?
 
With the demand of DSLR video, I wonder why they don't produce a camera that is video only instead of a hybrid?
That's basically what Panasonic is doing with the AF100 and Sony is doing with F3 and the still under wraps 35mm NXCAM. They are taking the 'front end' of stills cameras and combining them with the 'back end' of video cameras.

As for me, I'm holding my breath for RAW video output that can be custom converted depending on need. When that shows up, it's going to give film a true run for it's money. Imagine a DSLR that could shoot 24/30/60 frames a second of raw stills (not video). Then being take that those raw images and convert them to the resolution you need with minimum or no degradation?
That sounds a lot like what you can do w/a Red camera. For example, you shoot 4k RedCode RAW, brings those files into a computer for adjustment and then either work w/the files native (depending on NLE) or transcode them to whatever size and codec you need.

All of these options are obviously more expensive than a DSLR (even a DSLR properly rigged to shoot video) but like they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch. ;)


Lethal
 
That sounds a lot like what you can do w/a Red camera. For example, you shoot 4k RedCode RAW, brings those files into a computer for adjustment and then either work w/the files native (depending on NLE) or transcode them to whatever size and codec you need.

Lethal

This is what I was going to say. The only problem with this is that the RAW files are huge and struggle for playback on most systems!

Whilst it would be nice to have 60fps of RAW frames you would need a very good computer to playback and edit with!
 
Here's another good read on the subject. I think I want this camera!!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_11_mode_revealed.shtml

Great article!



Off and on I've been following the GH2. I'm more interested Panasonic's AF100 though. At the time it comes out the GH2 might be the best video shooting stills camera out there but it's still a stills camera first and a video camera second. This is just assumption on my part but I doubt the GH2, or any stills-first camera, is going to be as alias free as a dedicated video camera because of the different strength of optical low pass filter each system needs.


Lethal

the AF100 looks great! If I was looking for a video-only camera that would be the one I'd get for sure. Personally, I'm hoping to get the best of both worlds with the GH2. One device do all of my creative work - video and still. Looking very promising so far... thinking about pulling the trigger soon.
 
http://dslrhd.com/2010/12/panasonic-gh2-vs-canon-60d/

GH2-60D-winner1.jpg


Adding up the score we get five points for the GH2 and one for the Canon 60D. I didn’t even get into the “intelligent” GH2 features that may help you shoot better video. And then there’s Panasonic’s Cinema Mode which not only shoots 24p, it sets up the camera for a very film-like profile. There’s just no other DLSR that comes close if you’re planning to use it for shooting video.
 
I just read up on the GH2 and it looks very intriguing. I was pretty much sold on getting the 60D, but the reviews are giving me pause. I would jump on the GH2 but I noticed on some of the test videos that the blacks were clipping and losing detail. The only work around seems to be hitting the subject with a bit of fill light to even-out the contrast. However, if you are looking to shoot high contrast and hoping for a smooth tonal shift, it's not going to happen. Those blacks look dark as ink. After I started noticing how the blacks in some of the videos lacked any detail, I did a bit of research and found a few forums of people talking about it and trying to find a solution. But a well lit lower contrast scene is stunning. Comparable or better than the top of the line Canons. Not bad for a camera that sells for less than a $1000.

The other issue that bothers me about the camera is that it's pretty tough to get wide-angle if you plan to shoot 1:1 etc mode. That's pretty much a deal breaker for that feature.

One of the things that really had me excited was that you could capture 1080 Apple Prores via HDMI to a Ki Pro Mini device and not have to transcode. But then I looked up the price - twice as much as the camera. Yikes!
 
For all it does have going for it, the GH2 doesn't do 25p, doesn't have any fast ultra wide angles, and doesn't seem to have the dynamic range of the Canons. So it's not quite the camera to lord it over all the other HDSLRs.
 
For all it does have going for it, the GH2 doesn't do 25p, doesn't have any fast ultra wide angles, and doesn't seem to have the dynamic range of the Canons. So it's not quite the camera to lord it over all the other HDSLRs.

The lack of 25p will be a problem for a few, but I'm not sure I understand your issue with their lack of fast wide angles... wouldn't the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 count? Or the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 (1.4 coming soon)?

Here's some beautiful footage shot by Philip Bloom using the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 on a GH2:
http://philipbloom.net/2010/11/27/movembergala/
 
The lack of 25p will be a problem for a few, but I'm not sure I understand your issue with their lack of fast wide angles... wouldn't the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 count? Or the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 (1.4 coming soon)?

They're mediums on the GH2, not ultra wides. And as most of the world runs at 50Hz, it's going to be more than a few put out by the lack of 25p.
 
They're mediums on the GH2, not ultra wides. And as most of the world runs at 50Hz, it's going to be more than a few put out by the lack of 25p.

Oh yeah, 25mm on a micro-four-thirds is actually like 50mm, right? You always double it, correct?
 
I've shot a bit of test material on both the AF100 and the GH2 and found the pictures to be very crisp with practically no moiring or aliasing in good light. The same subject in the same conditions had awful aliasing on the Canon 5D.

I found the GH2 to be too small as a video camera though - I could barely fit 3 fingers on the hand grip. It also has a very video-like image - almost too crisp. One of the nice things about the 5D is how the images have a film-like softness to them.

The AF100 is a very good camera and has taken everything from the DSLR world and finally put into the body of a video camera. The AVCHD codec might be low bitrate but it's the most advanced codec available at the moment which is supported by the majority of NLE's. It looks great.

The Sony F3 is just too expensive to be taken seriously. It's not that much different to the AF100 but it's 3 times the price. As in the past they have gone with a great sensor and then ruined it with their highly compressed codecs - just like they did with the Z1 (HDV) and the EX1 (XDCAM EX). Sony have really messed up there.

But the Scarlet (or Epic-S or whatever it's going to be called) will shake things up. This is everything the AF100 is but it records to Raw data and is built like a tank. And it also has all the other cool interchangable parts that makes it RED like the wireless remote, handles with built in batteries, SSD recorders, touch screen monitors and an array of grips, cages and rods.
 
But the Scarlet (or Epic-S or whatever it's going to be called) will shake things up. This is everything the AF100 is but it records to Raw data and is built like a tank. And it also has all the other cool interchangable parts that makes it RED like the wireless remote, handles with built in batteries, SSD recorders, touch screen monitors and an array of grips, cages and rods.

All of which cost about as much as the GH2 alone;)

Don't get me wrong! I'm a huge fan of reading about the future, forth-coming Red Scar....whatever the name will be...BUT, it's never here! They've been talking about it for ages...and still, nothing! Seems as though there was a proto running around CES that I read about, looks awesome...but, still, one can't order it.

I've got an AF100 on order and hope to have it by the end of the month. I think we've seen a new breed of video capturing devices with the introduction of the D90, followed by the 5d2. Primarily due to price and the massive indie market that must work under tight budgets (if there even is such a thing). It's awesome that everyone is jumping on board...as someone mentioned earlier, it's a MASSIVE market. Video (thanks to youtube, vimeo, facebook, et al) is everywhere...as the still market continues to grow with social and sharing websites...and I guess that's my question...UNLESS one is going to produce a Big Screen premier...how much more is needed than what we have available now?

Doesn't matter what you watch on cable these days, or dish for that matter in HD. All of it has aliasing and some sort of moire...and the layman would never notice (watch playoff football this weekend...). But now, with these cameras pressing the envelope, we continue to nitpick the fine details...and overall, the end product is phenomenal compared to where we were just a few short years ago (I started my business we three DVX 100s)! It's an awesome time to be enjoying the hobby...or making money with image capture...regardless of whether or not it's still or motion! If you're in the market for a DSLR, the GH2 is definitely worth a look....but as others have mentioned, the body is only a small part of the equation....Lens selection is HUGE!!! so is sound capture, ergonomics, bit-rate/codec, storage, the computer necessary for post production, the software to post produce, stabilization, lighting, the list goes on. One area that Canon easily bests Panasonic in this area is lens selection...and the cottage industry that has erupted with pieces and parts to overcome some of the ergonomic challenges that go with shooting a DSLR. Keep in mind, by the time you've spent the money to have a truly workable video system...it might have not been a bad idea to have looked at the AF100 or the future Red product:)

J
 
The Sony F3 is just too expensive to be taken seriously. It's not that much different to the AF100 but it's 3 times the price. As in the past they have gone with a great sensor and then ruined it with their highly compressed codecs - just like they did with the Z1 (HDV) and the EX1 (XDCAM EX). Sony have really messed up there.
The F3 is aiming for a different demographic than the AF100 and is priced accordingly. The F3 has a better imager, has the PL mount for lens, S-log gamma curves, onboard LUTs, 10-bit 4:2:2 via SDI w/the option of adding a Dual Link SDI to get 10-bit 4:4:4, etc.,. The F3 is more in line to be a 'budget' Red or Alexa than an 'overpriced' AF100.

But the Scarlet (or Epic-S or whatever it's going to be called) will shake things up. This is everything the AF100 is but it records to Raw data and is built like a tank. And it also has all the other cool interchangable parts that makes it RED like the wireless remote, handles with built in batteries, SSD recorders, touch screen monitors and an array of grips, cages and rods.
The Epic-S is going to cost about the same as an F3 and the Scarlet (which now only comes in the 2/3" fixed lens version) is most likely going to be more than the AF100. Of course I haven't followed up on Red in the past couple of days so everything could've changed by now. ;)


Lethal
 
I've not liked the AF100 footage I've seen. It's seemed lacking in dynamic range. Part of that could be that the operators have been a little too punch-happy with the colours, though.

I've only seen a tiny bit of sample footage from the F3, but what I have seen has been a step up from the AF100. It's going to be a pain to have to tether it so as not to feel like you're wasting that image.
 
I've only seen a tiny bit of sample footage from the F3, but what I have seen has been a step up from the AF100. It's going to be a pain to have to tether it so as not to feel like you're wasting that image.
If you 'only' need 10-bit 4:2:2 the Ki Pro Mini is small enough that it should be easy to rig onto the camera and for those needing the full 10-bit 4:4:4 Sony has announced the SR Memory Portable Recorder. Other than the name I haven't read anything about it but I bet they will show it off at NAB.

Even though recording to the XDCAM EX codec sells the hardware short I think given the dynamic range of the sensor and all of the internal processing options you'll be able to create stunning images with it even when recording to the SxS cards. I feel kinda the same way w/the AF100. When it was first announced I was like AVCHD, really?


Lethal
 
Wait. Okay so this 1:1 thing. Is this really able to be useful? I mean, it's obviously very very cool. But.... I mean this is 2.6 times with the 1:1. So... Say you have a 20mm... That's over 50mm. I just looked it up and found a 7-14mm which would be 18mm which actually is pretty good. But it's like 900 bucks and it's at 4 and isn't that going to start to look fish eyed? (Not totally sure about that). So not that fast but I suppose it's not that bad. And as for the 24 at F .95 this is going to be insanely expensive right? And.... It seems that if you don't use the 1:1 there is virtually no improvement over the 60D (aside from the HDMI output at 4.2.2 which is so so so cool but I can't afford the recorder). So if I were picking between the two which should I pick? (I'm not and if I were it's an easy choice seeing as I have 5 really nice canon lens) I mean... seems to me I would still pick the canon, at least if I were doing a lot of indoor stuff... Or actually no. For anything. If you want wide shots at least. Or am I missing something here. Is there something about high ISO performance? I thought it was mentioned in one of the articles. Any really smooth facial recognition focus pulling that's auto (I think that would be really cool enough though I probably wouldn't use it)?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.