AF100 w/ Nanoflash VS hacked GH2?

Kindredmachine

Kindredmachine

Well-known member
Has anyone compared using an AF100 w/ Nanoflash VS a hacked GH2? Does the higher nanoflash bitrate actually increase significant resolution and detail with the AF100? I’m curious because I recently came across this article by Phillip Bloom regarding the Driftwood hack for the GH2 and the results blew me away. He’s claiming the resolution is on par with the C300. After looking at this I don’t think I can bring myself to shoot with the AF100 any longer without a method for implementing a significant image boost.
This has probably already been discussed here, but here’s his results…

http://www.eoshd.com/content/6681/shootout-reveals-panasonic-gh2-resolution-at-canon-c300-level

What do you all think?
 
Well i feel that gh2 camera can't handle motion good. If you dont pan or move camera medium or fast, gh2 is good camera. But af100 much better for action movement especially with external recorder. Also af100 as little more latitude and less contrasty when grading.
 
Thanks robbin, we actually shoot all of our scenes with very little motion so there's no worries here regarding "action shots" but still, does anyone know how much resolution/detail is gained from shooting with a nanoflash compared to a hacked GH2? I'm wondering if anyone has actually compared those specific setups against eachother since I can find very little online. for exmaple, the difference between using a default GH2 and a Driftwood GH2 is night and day.
 
Don't think you gain any resolution using external recorder on af100. If you zoom in 400% it is a little like comparing gh2 with and without hack. Fine detail is recorded better with external recorder on af100 but it won't resolve more lines on a resolution chart.
 
The main benefit from going with an external recorder like the NanoFlash is to get 4:2:2 color and uncompressed footage. The color resolution is substantially increased over the native recording, but overall resolution isn't really any different.
 
I wouldn't be so insecure about your camera. I honestly think if you know what your doing, the stock af100 will be perfectly fine. Now say your not so good at what you do, and your trying to hide crappy work with great image quality, then it's pretty much a moot point regardless. The audience might percieve it like this. "wow, look how sharp those mountains are, so crisp, now if the guy holding the camera knew how to frame a fkn shot it just might be beneficial. Not saying this is your case. just saying its little res syndrome. VERY similar to the 5'3" bodybuilder.
 
Thank Barry, I know there's a big benefit for getting 4:2:2 color but I was hoping with the uncompressed footage that possibly the image would be less soft and artifacty; thereby, giving the impressions of increased resolution, but I guess not.

Maranfilms, thanks for the input but I'm pretty sure our cinemetrographers know what they're doing; it's not a question of insecurity but obtaining a better image because you can. We have a couple of Scarlets approved for production in 2013 and 2014 but my issue are for the shoots we have remaining through 2012. I ask about the AF100/nanoflash vs hacked GH2 because the AF100 has always looked very soft to me, too soft. The AF100 footage is "OK" but after comparing it with these recent GH2 driftwood hack you have to admit it's a touch discouraging. We have 2 AF100s and 2 GH2s and lately it seems that we're filming with our GH2s more often... it just seems wrong . :-)
 
Last edited:
Might as well see in person if all of the fuss is true or not. I took one of our GH2 cams and rigged it up with some spare accessories and slapped on a 50mm Zeiss prime. I'll implement the driftwood hack and do comparison shots with one of our AF100... I'll let ya know what my experience is.

securedownload[1].jpg
 
What detail level you have on af100 camera? I don't notice huge diffrence in resolution except maybe on a wide nature shoot. I have detail level and vertical detail around 0 sometimes 2
 
robbin said:
What detail level you have on af100 camera? I don't notice huge diffrence in resolution except maybe on a wide nature shoot. I have detail level and vertical detail around 0 sometimes 2
Click to expand...

I think the artifical sharpening of the AF100 looks terrible so to keep it more natice to what's really coming in from the sensor, I have the detail at -4 and vert at -3. To just how much better the GH2 is in terms of resolution, check out the link in the initial posting.
 
Well i don't like the af100 with those settings. It's way to soft. I find the gh2 at -2 and af100 at 2 is pretty close match when looking at footage on big screen
 
I've had a Nanoflash on my AF100 since the camera came out. So far so good. I use the internal recording for back up and the Nano for post. It's nice to have a variety of bitrates to choose from as well as a very good internal codec. Nano's are running about $1900 minus media, I think it is a very choice.
 
James, does the nanoflash footage hold up noticably better for grading in post over the native AVCHD codec?

FYI: Just ran some quick and dirty tests with an AF100 and a GH2. The GH2 is definately higher resolution but overall, I thought the AF100 produced a far better film-like image. The GH2 was just too contrasty (no matter what I did with settings) and more video-like than the AF100.
 
Kindredmachine said:
James, does the nanoflash footage hold up noticably better for grading in post over the native AVCHD codec?
Click to expand...
Depends on the bitrate, of course. You have to go to a bare minimum of 50mbps long-GOP to even bother, and I would recommend no less than 100mbps as a minimum. I normally use 180. If you give mpeg2 a lot of bandwidth it can do a nice job.

FYI: Just ran some quick and dirty tests with an AF100 and a GH2. The GH2 is definately higher resolution but overall, I thought the AF100 produced a far better film-like image. The GH2 was just too contrasty (no matter what I did with settings) and more video-like than the AF100.
Click to expand...
I agree the hacked gh2 is indeed sharper, but just about everything else I prefer on the AF100. Especially in terms of operation and connectivity with pro gear.
 
Yep - the GH2 has a sharper image, and with the hack can have a finer grain than the stock GH2.

But that's about it. Got really exhausted from all the hacks and didn't really want to waste valuable time trying to keep up, so sold my GH2 after a year of use and bought an AF100 so cheap its almost criminal considering how much camera you are getting for the money these days.

Also - the GH2 has far too much digital edge enhancement and is too contrasty as you stated in your previous post - even with everything dialed down. I also had a really hard time with skin tones on the GH2 - the AF100 seems to stomp all over the GH2 in that regard.

Its really a well thought out camera and a joy to use - which matters to me far more than res charts.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised how many people are finding the GH2 too contrasty. Not just in this thread either. With smooth -2 to everything, that's still too contrasty for everyone? How flat are you shooting?

Also, that link in the first post is a great example of how an external recorder (or a hack) can improve things.
 
DBP said:
I'm surprised how many people are finding the GH2 too contrasty. Not just in this thread either. With smooth -2 to everything, that's still too contrasty for everyone? How flat are you shooting?

Also, that link in the first post is a great example of how an external recorder (or a hack) can improve things.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of folks want to grade the image and if its too contrasty you are limited. The GH2 is a great camera but not one that has settings for a flat log type look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top