2nd Philip Bloom GH2 + Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens video

Sage, I am pretty sure thats actually a photo taken with 1920x1080 scaled jpg mode, I would love to be wrong though.

However, I share the suspicion that the gh2 will out resolve an af100- but with some aliasing of course, well have to find out when someone compares them both in the same scene. (id put my money on the GH2)
 
hunter richards said:
Sage, I am pretty sure thats actually a photo taken with 1920x1080 scaled jpg mode, I would love to be wrong though.

However, I share the suspicion that the gh2 will out resolve an af100- but with some aliasing of course, well have to find out when someone compares them both in the same scene. (id put my money on the GH2)
Click to expand...

That just may be the case. I saw his video (download not allowed), and then the still, and assumed it was taken from the video.
From comparing the 1080p confirmed Gh2 material I have seen, and 65mm/MX (at 2k), I have to say that this little cam is on a whole new level. (it almost looks like an oversample)

Bloom's masterpiece, 65mm, and MX
KeynoteStill005.jpg

KeynoteStill004.jpg

KeynoteStill002.jpg
 
hunter richards said:
However, I share the suspicion that the gh2 will out resolve an af100- but with some aliasing of course
Click to expand...
Aliasing isn't resolved detail though. It's non-resolved detail. Fake detail. And of course the GH2 will have more of that than the AF100 has; the GH2 has no filtering to get rid of that fake detail.

The test between them would be to see which one resolves detail better, by pointing it at something where fake detail doesn't help. Like small text. Pointing it at blades of grass won't work because all the fake detail will look like real detail and everyone will think "wow, that's sharper" -- but when you go to actually see real resolved detail, it probably won't be as high. Even if the AF100 were to appear slightly softer, it would appear softer in a real way, with more legitimate real detail and less of the aliasing pollution.

With that said, undoubtedly people will think some shots on the GH2 are definitely sharper than some of those same shots on the AF100. People have been modifying and ripping out the anti-alias filters out of their stills cameras for years, in a quest for the "missing sharpness". All I can say is, sometimes it'll look good, and sometimes it'll bite you square in the butt when you get a nasty moire pattern all over your image.
 
Barry_Green said:
Aliasing isn't resolved detail though. It's non-resolved detail. Fake detail. And of course the GH2 will have more of that than the AF100 has; the GH2 has no filtering to get rid of that fake detail.

The test between them would be to see which one resolves detail better, by pointing it at something where fake detail doesn't help. Like small text. Pointing it at blades of grass won't work because all the fake detail will look like real detail and everyone will think "wow, that's sharper" -- but when you go to actually see real resolved detail, it probably won't be as high. Even if the AF100 were to appear slightly softer, it would appear softer in a real way, with more legitimate real detail and less of the aliasing pollution.

With that said, undoubtedly people will think some shots on the GH2 are definitely sharper than some of those same shots on the AF100. People have been modifying and ripping out the anti-alias filters out of their stills cameras for years, in a quest for the "missing sharpness". All I can say is, sometimes it'll look good, and sometimes it'll bite you square in the butt when you get a nasty moire pattern all over your image.
Click to expand...

That said the GH2 stuff still looks amazing...I actually wish Phil's video was a bit sharper, because, as he admits, he went a little overboard with the wide-open shooting on the f/0.95.
 
Barry_Green said:
Aliasing isn't resolved detail though. It's non-resolved detail. Fake detail. And of course the GH2 will have more of that than the AF100 has; the GH2 has no filtering to get rid of that fake detail.

The test between them would be to see which one resolves detail better, by pointing it at something where fake detail doesn't help. Like small text. Pointing it at blades of grass won't work because all the fake detail will look like real detail and everyone will think "wow, that's sharper" -- but when you go to actually see real resolved detail, it probably won't be as high. Even if the AF100 were to appear slightly softer, it would appear softer in a real way, with more legitimate real detail and less of the aliasing pollution.

With that said, undoubtedly people will think some shots on the GH2 are definitely sharper than some of those same shots on the AF100. People have been modifying and ripping out the anti-alias filters out of their stills cameras for years, in a quest for the "missing sharpness". All I can say is, sometimes it'll look good, and sometimes it'll bite you square in the butt when you get a nasty moire pattern all over your image.
Click to expand...

Definitely so. Though its true sampled detail, inappropriately seated in a resolution 'grid'. Our vision is not made of tiny squares, yet a digital image mimics reality in this way.
That being so, with the gh2, I have yet to see a deal breaker for me. With my Canon, the sampling frequency, coupled with a funky upscaling, leaves false detail and potential image bombs rampant. The gh2 is different with its pixel binning... its so finely sampled and averaged, that its almost to the point of getting away with murder.
I can't wait to see the comparison tests that should be out soon!
 
I am liking the look of this footage, especially for lighting scenario. Not seeing any vertical streaks and the avchd implementation looks decent.

And that 25mm f.095 lens is fantastic.
 
Barry_Green said:
This is exactly true.

But hey, at least now you have two in one...
Click to expand...

Good point. And thinking about it further, the GH2 would be an attractive camera if tele-convert was the only mode it offered. I can't think of too many other 2/3 chip, handheld camcorders with lens mounts for the price...
 
The stuff I shot of my mum cooking was not all F.095 and a lot of the stuff in the Movember party was stopped down. To be honest I found it very sharp even with the sharpness turned right down on the camera.
 
philip bloom said:
The stuff I shot of my mum cooking was not all F.095 and a lot of the stuff in the Movember party was stopped down. To be honest I found it very sharp even with the sharpness turned right down on the camera.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that stuff is nice and sharp! Just a few shots were bugging me (from Movember, all the cooking stuff looked good,) and I am guessing they were wide open...but hell it's low-light so that'll happen!

I've always actually turned the sharpness up by 1 on my GH1 because I feel like it helps more data reach the encoder in detailed areas and in tests I've done turning sharpness down doesn't really affect aliasing too much.

Thanks for all the tests and videos. Looking forward to the NanoFlash test. If that goes well I think I'll have to sell my GH13 and spring for the Ninja to go with my forthcoming GH2.
 
Philip, I imagine you're probably going to mention this in a review. Was just curious what your experience and comparison thus far was with aliasing/moire artifacts vs the Canon cameras. I've read it's much better. Do you still see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top