AF100 shows more aliasing and less resolution than Panasonic GH2 ?

If you really want to see the affects of sharpening and intelligent resolution for the GH2 then go to the link below and let it buffer most of the video. Then display it full screen without scaling. Go to 1:07 and pause it then slowly move the time code slider through to 2:18. You will see the aliasing and artifacts go from almost zero to almost unbearable.

http://vimeo.com/20058475


If the German site tested the GH2 with no sharpening and no intelligent resolution then it would definitely have less artifacts than if they tested the AF100 with a higher resolution setting.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
Best to test any camera without sharpening, I'd think.
Click to expand...

It is best to test the cameras from zero sharpness all the way to max sharpness which we did in those videos. Using the resolution setting in the AF100 and the sharpness setting in the GH2 is not always bad. It does exactly what it implies. It will give the image the appearance of being sharper at the expense of creating more artifacts.

The Intelligent resolution feature on the other hand should never be used in video on the GH2. It does nothing but produce more artifacts for videos. It might help with pictures but I always shoot RAW so I have turned it off completely.
 
I'm still five feet under with this nasty virus and haven't felt like doing anything.

But if people are having trouble sleeping because some other camera shows slightly different performance on one tester's chart, they seriously need to re-examine their priorities... I can't imagine anyone choosing between two such disparate camera systems, and making their buying decision based on something like this. I've got them both, they're both great, but they're so very different in operation (and price) that it should be painfully, patently obvious to you which one you should get.

Just get whichever one does what you need, at the price point that you can afford. The decision is between you and your wallet, nobody else will know or care which one you went with. Either of these cameras will destroy a 5D in terms of image fidelity, yet the 5D has been used in some pretty major productions. So why worry about it? If you need variable frame rates, pro audio, the ND filter, timecode, and all the other four dozen things that the AF100 does and the GH2 doesn't, then get the AF100. If you can't afford the AF100 and don't need all the things that it does over the GH2, or if you need stills, then get the GH2. Done. Who cares if one has fifty more pixels of resolution than another one? Are you buying something for "bragging rights" or are you buying something to put it to work?

I've got both of them. I love them both. And I'd never ever use the GH2 instead of the AF100 on a paid shoot, because the AF100 is simply so much better to use. Except a few months from now I'm doing some doc work on a pioneer trek, where we're walking like 24 miles through some dusty desert terrain documenting this trip these kids are making, and they want stills too. For that, no doubt, I'm taking the GH2. I'll have stills, and video, and it'll be infinitely smaller and lighter and all the support equipment will be smaller and lighter, so it's the right choice for that job.
 
HVXguy said:
Panasonic should just throw in a GH2 body with every AF100 purchase.
Click to expand...

Hmm, might be onto something... a one-time-use discount code for a GH2 and/or some glass would be very nice. I'll be getting a GH2 soon as a B cam and for stills with that amazing f/0.95 25mm.
 
No....it just means they will receive their "B" cams a year from now.

By the way....just called PD. Their warehouses were restocked within the last couple of days.
 
Get better Barry. I always take some Oil of Oregano to fight off colds.

http://www.oreganocures.com/articles49.html


Barry_Green said:
I'm still five feet under with this nasty virus and haven't felt like doing anything.

But if people are having trouble sleeping because some other camera shows slightly different performance on one tester's chart, they seriously need to re-examine their priorities... I can't imagine anyone choosing between two such disparate camera systems, and making their buying decision based on something like this. I've got them both, they're both great, but they're so very different in operation (and price) that it should be painfully, patently obvious to you which one you should get.

Just get whichever one does what you need, at the price point that you can afford. The decision is between you and your wallet, nobody else will know or care which one you went with. Either of these cameras will destroy a 5D in terms of image fidelity, yet the 5D has been used in some pretty major productions. So why worry about it? If you need variable frame rates, pro audio, the ND filter, timecode, and all the other four dozen things that the AF100 does and the GH2 doesn't, then get the AF100. If you can't afford the AF100 and don't need all the things that it does over the GH2, or if you need stills, then get the GH2. Done. Who cares if one has fifty more pixels of resolution than another one? Are you buying something for "bragging rights" or are you buying something to put it to work?

I've got both of them. I love them both. And I'd never ever use the GH2 instead of the AF100 on a paid shoot, because the AF100 is simply so much better to use. Except a few months from now I'm doing some doc work on a pioneer trek, where we're walking like 24 miles through some dusty desert terrain documenting this trip these kids are making, and they want stills too. For that, no doubt, I'm taking the GH2. I'll have stills, and video, and it'll be infinitely smaller and lighter and all the support equipment will be smaller and lighter, so it's the right choice for that job.
Click to expand...
 
mpgxsvcd said:
It is best to test the cameras from zero sharpness all the way to max sharpness which we did in those videos... It will give the image the appearance of being sharper at the expense of creating more artifacts.

The Intelligent resolution feature on the other hand should never be used in video on the GH2. It does nothing but produce more artifacts for videos.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting the video of your results, mpg, however, I can't tell which sharpness settings were used at different points in the video. Could you perhaps make a list of the timecodes where each setting was applied?
 
lpowell said:
Thanks for posting the video of your results, mpg, however, I can't tell which sharpness settings were used at different points in the video. Could you perhaps make a list of the timecodes where each setting was applied?
Click to expand...

Yea I don't know what happened. The original file has audio. I will try to upload it again.
 
Everyone says shoot bricks and boom show your GH13 fall apart well I have http://blackout.com/clients/top-of-ghostbusters-building.MTS and
http://vimeo.com/18320760 which have EVERY sort of horrible real world aliasing producing pattern possible in them and look gorgeous so I just don't get it. Sure.... there is a teensy tinsy bit, but BARELY if at all noticeable - even on a huge screen

Being that I am getting ready to plunk on a af-100.. I am now wondering if I should just wait, and if like the hvx200a over the hvx200 the af-100 is still getting its bugs worked out and the af-100a will be a far superior product. I also see no need to purchase a GH2 for superior resolution that only shows its face when the camera is not moving - which no one here is talking about. The 900 supposed lines of your test chart is bull crap goes that goes right out the window if you start moving the camera cause the codec can't handle it - EVEN though it is a good 24mbit codec, 24mbit is simply not enough. Period.

Shake your chart around and say bye bye to that nice res.

And so I continue to shoot on what works while I wait for all this new stuff to find and fix itself. I am only a bleeding edger on a few things as it never seems to pay.
 
Blackout writes:

I also see no need to purchase a GH2 for superior resolution that only shows its face when the camera is not moving - which no one here is talking about. The 900 supposed lines of your test chart is bull crap goes that goes right out the window if you start moving the camera cause the codec can't handle it - EVEN though it is a good 24mbit codec, 24mbit is simply not enough. Period.

Shake your chart around and say bye bye to that nice res.
Click to expand...
Partially correct: static and moving chart tests, test different characteristics of the camera.
The result of the static test show the maximum possible resolution and aliasing. The moving test shows how the temporal resolution is handled by the cam.
While, possibly, perhaps, hypothetically the GH2 has a better static resolution and aliasing, it may have a worse, or much worse temporal resolution than the AF100 in many real life shooting situations.
 
Regardless of which is better, Panasonic published that the AF100 resolves 800 lines, which doesn't seem to be the case in my own testing and others are reporting the same.
 
ASG said:
Regardless of which is better, Panasonic published that the AF100 resolves 800 lines, which doesn't seem to be the case in my own testing and others are reporting the same.
Click to expand...

If it is the case that Panasonic advertises a pro camera with resolved 800 lines, and if it is the case beyond doubt the camera resolves only 700 lines, this is then a clear trespassing of the marketing laws in the EU. The client is then allowed to return the product and get his or her money back. Moreover the consumer authorities may take separate action against the producer for false advertisement.

It would be, therefore, wise of Panasonic to publish an independent test with full documentation showing how they operate with 800 lines resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top