Panasonic GH2 w/ 1:1 Cropping, etc. = Ultimate Still/Video Hybrid

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by fivepoint, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    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

    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
     
  2. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #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?
     
  3. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #3
    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?

     
  4. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Arch Stanton macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
  6. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    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
     
  7. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #7
    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?
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    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.

    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
     
  9. acearchie macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #9
    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!
     
  10. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #10
    Great article!



    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.
     
  11. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #11
    Could Sandisk hurry up with those 500GB 500MB/s Compact Flash cards...
     
  12. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    http://dslrhd.com/2010/12/panasonic-gh2-vs-canon-60d/

     
  13. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #13
    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!
     
  14. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #14
    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.
     
  15. martinX, Jan 9, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011

    martinX macrumors 6502a

    martinX

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
  16. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #16
    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/
     
  17. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #17
    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.
     
  18. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #18
    Oh yeah, 25mm on a micro-four-thirds is actually like 50mm, right? You always double it, correct?
     
  19. smokescreen76 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    #19
    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.
     
  20. akdj macrumors 65816

    akdj

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #20
    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
     
  21. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
    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.

    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
     
  22. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #22
    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.
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    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
     
  24. FroColin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #24
    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)?
     
  25. martinX, Jan 13, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2011

    martinX macrumors 6502a

    martinX

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #25

Share This Page