550D/GH13 comparision shot

[JoeJITSU]

Well put, .friend! .

very well put.

 

[Ian-T]

Since I go uncontested a lot in my following statement I'll continue to be the odd man out and say this... I'm still not convinced that the GH1(3)'s image is the "better" or um...sharper image. Straight out of the camera....yeah....but..... I can tell you its sharpness is over-exaggerate by harsh in-cam sharpness. I almost gave up my 7D in the last few days to get one...but here's what I see:

The 7D's image, when turned all the way down in sharpness, is soft....soft like....film. Yes...film is very soft...yet has more details. The GH-1's image, when sharpness is turned down all the way looks more harsh in its sharpness than the 5Dll is when sharpness is past the mid-point. That has to say something to folks...that what we seein the Panasonics image is way oversharpened.

I almost gave up my 7D this week to get a hacked GH-1 (I'm still planning on getting one) but in terms of image quality (this is my opinion) the 7D looks more pleasing (less harsh) while the Panasonics colors look more filmic. When I turn up my sharpness in post with the 7D it is on par with the GH-1. ANd that is after cranking the sharpness all the way up.

Likw I mentioned in another thread what did it for me was when re-watching the Zacuto shootout... You can see when they went through the line-up of footage starting with the film all the way to the GH-1...the GH-1's image was like sharpened video in comparison to the film. It stuck out big time. I'm still suprised not many commented on this.

I guess my main point for writing this is I look at all of the enthusiasm for the GH-1 hack...which is well deserved. But many folks claim the GH-1's image is better because of how sharp it looks. I thought we were mostly filmakers here trying to run away from that nasty in-camera sharpness that screams video? We keep being told that we need to turn in camera sharpness all the way down to avoid the ugly halos and artifacts but it seems there are those saying screw that.. they don't care about those rules anymore. To each his own I guess. Trust me when I say that I don't think the GH-1's image is ugly...but you can most certainly get that same type of image with the Canons (better in post from what I've been experimenting with). But as we all know.....once you shoot that way.....it's almost impossible to remove it in post where as the other way around is much easier.

Don't hate me please..

 

[Kholi]

Since I go uncontested a lot in my following statement I'll continue to be the odd man out and say this... I'm still not convinced that the GH1(3)'s image is the "better" or um...sharper image. Straight out of the camera....yeah....but..... I can tell you its sharpness is over-exaggerate by harsh in-cam sharpness. I almost gave up my 7D in the last few days to get one...but here's what I see:

The 7D's image, when turned all the way down in sharpness, is soft....soft like....film. Yes...film is very soft...yet has more details. The GH-1's image, when sharpness is turned down all the way looks more harsh in its sharpness than the 5Dll is when sharpness is past the mid-point. That has to say something to folks...that what we seein the Panasonics image is way oversharpened.

GO ahead and check out what I posted in the GH13 forum. The gyst of it is: yes, the image from the GH13 is better TECHNICALLY. Like how the EX1's image is technically better looking than the HVX200s. That's exactly how it is.

The GH1 looks HD, high-res, and not uprezzed SD like the Canons.

The Canon's can't compete here, IMO. But they may not have to.

I almost gave up my 7D this week to get a hacked GH-1 (I'm still planning on getting one) but in terms of image quality (this is my opinion) the 7D looks more pleasing (less harsh) while the Panasonics colors look more filmic. When I turn up my sharpness in post with the 7D it is on par with the GH-1. ANd that is after cranking the sharpness all the way up.

From my experience, there's no amount of sharpening that can be done with the Canon footage to get it to look like REAL HD footage. It always still looks like uprezzed SD, which is fine because thats its own look and it works.

The GH1 dialed down to -2 on Nostalgic isn't giving me the same oversharepend look. And its STILL resolving an insane amount. Take a look at the part in the video where I'm on the 75/1.3 and pretty much macro focused. The pattern of the jeans would've gone to hell on any of the Canons. This from experience.

Likw I mentioned in another thread what did it for me was when re-watching the Zacuto shootout... You can see when they went through the line-up of footage starting with the film all the way to the GH-1...the GH-1's image was like sharpened video in comparison to the film. It stuck out big time. I'm still suprised not many commented on this.

They weren't dealing with the hack. That shoot out is officially outdated as of now.

I guess my main point for writing this is I look at all of the enthusiasm for the GH-1 hack...which is well deserved. But many folks claim the GH-1's image is better because of how sharp it looks. I thought we were mostly filmakers here trying to run away from that nasty in-camera sharpness that screams video? We keep being told that we need to turn in camera sharpness all the way down to avoid the ugly halos and artifacts but it seems there are those saying screw that.. they don't care about those rules anymore. To each his own I guess. Trust me when I say that I don't think the GH-1's image is ugly...but you can most certainly get that same type of image with the Canons (better in post from what I've been experimenting with). But as we all know.....once you shoot that way.....it's almost impossible to remove it in post where as the other way around is much easier.

Don't hate me please..

It's better on a technical level. Another shootout would reveal this in severe detail. I dunno how other people are shooting, but my material DEFINITELY does not look oversharpened.

At the same time, I've seen plenty of Canon footage that looked the same way. So it's not the camera, it's the operator for the most part. What you CANNOT correct in post is the effect of fine detail moire and aliasing. You can make ANY image look "Sharper" but "resolved detail" is a different thing. The Canon's simply suck at resolving fine detail, the GH1 has aliasing but the characteristics are different, it will undoubtedly resolve MORE detail than any of the Canon's will in the same situation. And that's where the image is better or "sharper". People are just using the wrong term.

The canon's, on a technical level, simply cannot compete. You can't change that until they get rid of the moire and aliasing.

That doesn't mean that its BETTER though. For some people, the upscaled SD image is a great look, for others, the REAL HD look is better.

I actually sold my GH13 because I didn't like the super HD look that the hack is putting out. Then I went and looked at some of my best canon stuff, shot with ZMPs on the GH13 and I'm having sellers remorse.

=T Different strokes.

 

[Ian-T]

GO ahead and check out what I posted in the GH13 forum. The gyst of it is: yes, the image from the GH13 is better TECHNICALLY. Like how the EX1's image is technically better looking than the HVX200s. That's exactly how it is.

In terms of moire I agree but not the aliasing. They exhibit the same amount to me except for 60p where the GH-1 is the winner.

The GH1 looks HD, high-res, and not uprezzed SD like the Canons.

You think so? I always thought the GH-1 had an edge in resolving detail (I remember telling you that a year ago) but really...not that much difference. It's that stinkin color moire of the Canons that meeses with it in comparison.

From my experience, there's no amount of sharpening that can be done with the Canon footage to get it to look like REAL HD footage. It always still looks like uprezzed SD, which is fine because thats its own look and it works.

I still think it's a difference of in cam sharpening that we see. Try it in post...crank up the 5Dll's image with artificial sharpenoing to where you see some halos start to form....and you can duplicate what the GH-1 does at its lowest setting.

The GH1 dialed down to -2 on Nostalgic isn't giving me the same oversharepend look.

I looked at Hunter's sample of the 5Dll vs GH-1 with the GH-1 dialed down to -2. That is where I'm coming up with my conclusion actually.

They weren't dealing with the hack. That shoot out is officially outdated as of now.

but the GH-1 never had a problem with static shots. As far as sharpness is concerned nothing looks different with the new hack. It was when movement occured that you saw the weakness of the codec before the hack. Still though...the same sharpness before and after IMO.

 

[Kholi]

In terms of moire I agree but not the aliasing. They exhibit the same amount to me except for 60p where the GH-1 is the winner.

The same amount, yes. The same TYPE? No. Absolutely not. The Aliasing charactersitics of the GH1 are completely different. Straight lines look "jagged" or broken on the GH1 and on the 7D, T2i and MKii they look like shifted pixels.

Take the same shot of powerlines with a 7D/T2i and a GH1, the powerlines will look jagged on the GH1 shot, almost as if the powerlines are braided and on the T2i they'll look a lot smoother.

It takes a larger surface to see the GH1's aliasing. Which means on fine patterns, it's much MUCH less apparent or if there at all. Fine patterns on the Canon get picked up. Hair, knit, etc. The aliasing turns it to moire, turns it to color shifting.

Just look at the two cameras side by side. I've done it, that's the difference.

[quote[
You think so? I always thought the GH-1 had an edge in resolving detail but really...not that much difference. It's that stinkin color moire of the Canons that meeses with it in comparison.[/quote]

There is a difference, and to me it's pretty much exactly what I outlined above. The difference is enough to be seen, so is that much of a difference? Of course. Haha. If it can be seen, it's enough of a difference to matter.

It really hurts you when you try to pull off a wide shot with the Canons. The fine detail turns to crap. GH1 had an issue because of the compression, but not aliasing/moire. Now that the 13 hack is here, well, you've seen the wide shots. Just blow them up and look at all of the detail still standing.

Compare to a Canon DSLR video image. It's not the compression doing it, it's the inability to resolve fine detail properly due to aliasing etc.

Remember that comparison of the guys face? He looked "Sharper" in the video still from the MKii versus the actual photo still. Why? Because of all the aliasing showing up on his face. The actual photo still resolved WAY more true detail.

I still think it's a difference of in cam sharpening that we see. Try it in post...crank up the 5Dll's image with artificial sharpenoing to where you see some halos start to form....and you can duplicate what the GH-1 does at its lowest setting.

Where? That's a video still from the GH1 + Zeiss Master Prime 14/T1.3.

Now, I've shot extensively with all of these cameras, I can tell you that I've never seen a pristine video still like that from the 7D or 5D. There's no trace of over sharpening there, just detail detail detail.

I looked at Hunter's sample of the 5Dll vs GH-1 with the GH-1 dialed down to -2. That is where I'm coming up with my conclusion actually.

I'll have to look again. I didn't notice any halos in his stills.

but the GH-1 never had a problem with static shots. Nothing looks different with the new hack. It was when movement occured that you saw the weakness of the codec before the hack. Still though...the same sharpness before and after.

Yes it did. The compression broke down even on static shots with lots of detail which made it look as though it didn't resolve well. Ask any owner, they'll tell you the same deal.

 

[Futchibon]

Hey Kholi, in your opinion, which DSLR should I get for shooting in lowlight? Am going to be using a 1.8 or 1.4 lens a lot, and was leaning for a 550d, but would a GH13 be worth it? I heard lowlight is its weak point?

Really value your input, thanks.

 

[Kholi]

Wish I had a clear cut answer. Here's what I do know:

The more lowlight the image from a Canon gets, the worse the colors get. They're already bad as it is and take time to tweak in camera. Furthermore, the ISOs aren't incredibly clean in between the 160, 320, 640 and 1250 mains. 550D? I forget what ISOs that has, are they just as clean as the 7Ds?

The more lowlight the GH1 has to deal with, the quicker FPN shows up. You wouldn't really want to roll above 800 ISO with the GH1. And, preferably, you would shoot EVERYTHING (including broad daylight) at about 320, 400 or 500 ISO for the best image.

So, if I only had to do lowlight it would be a doozy for me. I would probably go with the GH13 for PL mount + ZMPs or CS4s, but I'm sure the 550D would probably be up to spec.

If the 5D were an option, that would be a topper for me, simply because you can go wider with slower glass and get great lowlight results. Sub 5D, they all need massaging.

Sub RED MX... well... hehehehehe

 

[Grunf]

I own both Panny GH13 and 550D. I did some more shots with Panny today. Picture quality is just stunning. At same bitrate, Panny blows Canons out of the water. Plus the auto focus actually works. I'm using 14-140 Panny lens. GH1 looks/feels like a toy though. Menus are not intuitive and feel like something from 100 bucks consumer camera.

But swing-type LCD is really handy when it comes to doing shots where you hang above camera. AF is smooth, quick and feels like normal video camera focus I'm used to.

Regarding image quality: I'm not making this up! If you don't believe me, borrow the Panny and do the tests. Difference is very noticeable if you shoot HD and display it on 1080p hardware (not downscaled for SD or web). For SD production, Canon low light capabilities come handy as moire isn't such an issue after downscaling. But Canon beats the encoder to death trying to compress aliased "colors all singing and dancing" image. Panny gets clean low-entropy pixel-binned image from it's chip and compressor can do much more with same bitrate.

Will you be able to do interesting project with both cameras? Sure. Is Canon GUI better? Sure. Is Canon more light sensitive? Sure. Is Canon casing sturdier (even 550D)? Sure.

But as soon as you start shooting something that's actually in focus, has lot's of details or has repeating texture (as many of us are forced to do in real life despite shallow-DOF craze) the Panny delivers. In spades.

 

[Ian-T]

Where? That's a video still from the GH1 + Zeiss Master Prime 14/T1.3.

Now, I've shot extensively with all of these cameras, I can tell you that I've never seen a pristine video still like that from the 7D or 5D. There's no trace of over sharpening there, just detail detail detail.

I undrsatnd your point kholi but that picture IMO is not a good example. 95% of what we are looking at here is out of focus. Plus you have it wide open....which shows that even what little that's in focus actually looks kinda soft.

In regards to Hunters example in the other thread I had pointed out something strange about the 5Dll's image. It looks soft when close up with Hunter in the image vs the GH-1....but when you look further out in the background (buildings, tress etc.) it shows the 5Dll was more detailed. I think that is strange.

Oh...and remember...I'm not questioning the resolution of the GH-1....it's the artificial sharpening. In Hunter's example it shows all around the leaves of the plant in his warehouse (which he was focused on). As far as resolution each of these cameras are different....heck...even the T1i (or the cam before the T2i) resolves more than the 7D/T2i.

 

[Kholi]

Actually! It's not worth it, really.

Shoot it up!

 

[Futchibon]

Wish I had a clear cut answer. Here's what I do know:

The more lowlight the image from a Canon gets, the worse the colors get. They're already bad as it is and take time to tweak in camera. Furthermore, the ISOs aren't incredibly clean in between the 160, 320, 640 and 1250 mains. 550D? I forget what ISOs that has, are they just as clean as the 7Ds?

The more lowlight the GH1 has to deal with, the quicker FPN shows up. You wouldn't really want to roll above 800 ISO with the GH1. And, preferably, you would shoot EVERYTHING (including broad daylight) at about 320, 400 or 500 ISO for the best image.

So, if I only had to do lowlight it would be a doozy for me. I would probably go with the GH13 for PL mount + ZMPs or CS4s, but I'm sure the 550D would probably be up to spec.

If the 5D were an option, that would be a topper for me, simply because you can go wider with slower glass and get great lowlight results. Sub 5D, they all need massaging.

Sub RED MX... well... hehehehehe

Thanks a lot Kholi. Appreciate it!

 

[Futchibon]

P.S what lens and ISO would you shoot this with?

 

[Futchibon]

Could the GH13 get similar lowlight results to this? If so, it seems like a no brainer to get it. Thanks.

 

[Ben_B]

Could the GH13 get similar lowlight results to this? If so, it seems like a no brainer to get it. Thanks.

Second Night, a film I did, all night street stuff is available light...and this is in downtown Santa Cruz, not as well lit as most cities...it's just a little California tourist town.



Closing time, a fabulous video by Martti.


A fast paced video of New York City I did that has some good low light stuff in it...well, as low as NYC gets. There's a bokeh rack focus early on I am quite fond of.

 

[dcloud]

weird about the lowlight stuff...

wouldnt the issue be about noise?

since ISOs are a standard. a gh1 at iso 800 would have the same sensitivity as a 5d mk II at 800.. only difference is the noise.

so IF the gh1 performs noise free at 1600 then its pretty much equals the 5d mk II at 1600. (550d isnt totally great at 1600... it has acceptable noise level)

 

[Gene Sung]

I don't doubt that the GH1 has the better resolution, but what some of you are forgetting is that aesthetics are an equally important part of the equation, and you have to choose what fits your aesthetics. Sorry to sound like a Philip Bloom whore, since I already quote him once in this thread, but he makes a good point. When asked if he's switching to the GH1, he said: "not for me as it doesn’t have the aesthetic or the low light of the Canons….especially the 5Dmkii but it’s still making me use my GH1 again"

And I think that is a good point. I think the reason why many people (including myself) choose the Canon's over the GH1 in the first place was the aesthetics. The Canon's renders light and colors in a very, very pleasing way. Perhaps it's because of the low light capabilities of the Canon, but the colors and the image from the Canons just feel deeper and richer than the GH1 (even the hacked version). For my tastes, even the RED with all it's bone crushing pixel abilities, just does not render colors in as eye pleasing or vivid a manner as the Canons do. From what I've seen the GH1 tends to have a cooler palette, while the Canon's tend to have the warmer palette. My personal choice is warmer colors, but others might like the GH1 aesthetic better.

When you first look at an image, you don't initially pay attention to the pixel detail as you do to the colors and the intangibles. The aesthetics of the Canons are just really nice, and that's why so many of my work colleagues were just floored by the image when they first saw it. It was probably because of this initial reaction that cause people to say that the 7D is better than the RED (which it's not), but it is aesthetically different. I think the GH1 and RED's image is technically more sound, I don't think colors are their strongest point, at least for my needs.

So I suppose that in the end, the pixel factor is important, but how a camera fits into your artistic vision is equally important, and that is not something you can measure by shooting a chart.

But damn, now I do want a Canon hack to up the pixel crushing abilities. Hehe.....

 

[dcloud]

colors are always graded and corrected in post. For me, the color of the footage (warmer, cooler) that i get from the camera comes in second (unless its fully ungradable) whats more important? dynamic range. less noise on shadow area is better

lets say gh1 resolves a bit more than the canon dslrs... so what? I dont care if its better. just shoot with what you have. better cams always come out every year.

its more important to shoot something with nothing than shooting nothing with something.

 

[Gene Sung]

I asked my friend who is a top notch coder who coded for the original Commador 64 and about a million things since then, about hacking the 7D and he said: "These firmware hackers have to have a serious amount of time on their hand. I probably could do it, but it would be like a full time job. So the short answer is NO."

LOL. So even more power to Tester 13. That guy is talented and dedicated.

 

[Ian-T]

I asked my friend who is a top notch coder who coded for the original Commador 64 and about a million things since then, about hacking the 7D and he said: "These firmware hackers have to have a serious amount of time on their hand. I probably could do it, but it would be like a full time job. So the short answer is NO."

LOL. So even more power to Tester 13. That guy is talented and dedicated.

...what if folks made it worth his while?

 

[Grunf]

Panny GH13 full frame grab:
http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y306/grunf12/pannygh13.jpg

Canon 550D full frame grab:
http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y306/grunf12/550d.jpg

Same place, both shot with tripod. No post-grading, just frame-grab.