GH2 Are all these new hacks and patches creating a placebo effect?

A while back I did a VERY unscientific test on the forum I moderate for of all the 50mm photo lenses I had at hand (more than 10), shot wide open. I then gave a list of the lenses seperately and asked people to pick which was which and to state which one they liked the most. What was the winner? The least expensive lens of the entire bunch. Which one was the worst? The most popular lens of the bunch. NO one would have believed it unless I told them. Which is why it's a lot of hooey when people say "you get what you pay for".
Mostly what people pay a lot for is what is currently in fashion.

http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10562
 
also, people might not realize the complexity of providing a good hack differences test.


well,
even if you manage to provide a perfect complex frame and movement to stretch the patches-

1. it will have to be shot near a computer-
changing from patch to patch demands downloading each patch to the sd card, and then to the camera. there are many patches now.
and all this needed to be done with attention- takes patiance and good will, and quite some time to produce.

2. after all this, keep shooting the same shot and movement.

3. hope some of as won't sit back in our comfy chairs and say - "hey, this shot has moved to fast- FAIL"..


any volunteers? ;)
 
yoclay said:
A while back I did a VERY unscientific test on the forum I moderate for of all the 50mm photo lenses I had at hand (more than 10), shot wide open. I then gave a list of the lenses seperately and asked people to pick which was which and to state which one they liked the most. What was the winner? The least expensive lens of the entire bunch. Which one was the worst? The most popular lens of the bunch. NO one would have believed it unless I told them. Which is why it's a lot of hooey when people say "you get what you pay for".
Mostly what people pay a lot for is what is currently in fashion.

http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10562
Click to expand...


huh huh.. suckers :laugh:
the joke is on them!!
this is very true.
 
roei z said:
1. it will have to be shot near a computer- changing from patch to patch demands downloading each patch to the sd card, and then to the camera. there are many patches now.and all this needed to be done with attention- takes patiance and good will, and quite some time to produce.
Click to expand...
Not so. I travel with four patches and zero computers. Each patch sits happily on a cheap old write protected 2gb sd card.
 
OK, guys, I've been reading all this and have to say something. I'm the guy who did the HDMI/AVCHD comparisons over at PersonalView. This thread raises a valid point. The GOP1/uber-high bitrate advocates have made a lot of noise, so much so, that many people believe this is the only way to hack the camera. Not so. As a result of my testing, I came to the conclusion that a well designed GOP12 at 66M is so good, that anything beyond is not worth the expense in chips and disk space. So, when I developed my SANITY patch, I chose bkmcwd's 66M GOP12. You can get it here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ll-patch-for-GH2&highlight=introducing+sanity

For your viewing pleasure, here is a zip file containing two HDMI/AVCHD comparisons: bkmcwd's 66M GOP12 and a driftwood 176M GOP1. These are simultaneous recordings; in-camera and out the HDMI into a Blackmagic Intensity card. They are Photoshop tifs with layers. The upper layer is AVCHD. Toggle it off and on to see the HDMI image below.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/qex3zz

The advantage of using the HDMI picture is that it provides an absolute frame of reference. The camera can't be any better than it. I hope you will find this helpful in sorting out how to use the hack.

NOTE: When downloading from Sendspace, click on the line "Click here to start download from sendspace". Do not click on anything else!
 
Hi Ralph - thanks for weighing in. All, please take a look at this thread for reference to what we're talking about over on PV.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/...aximum-image-quality-settings-and-testing/p10

Agreed, C Brandon's 44 and 66 patches hold up well in the right settings, but add motion, add high ISO, and things change... quickly!

I've been making a living at this for a long time, and while I'm happy to shoot with the long GOP settings for home/family stuff, for work projects (and we are using the GH2 for fairly large jobs), I'm with Driftwood for the time being.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
Hi Ralph - thanks for weighing in. All, please take a look at this thread for reference to what we're talking about over on PV.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/...aximum-image-quality-settings-and-testing/p10

Agreed, C Brandon's 44 and 66 patches hold up well in the right settings, but add motion, add high ISO, and things change... quickly!

I've been making a living at this for a long time, and while I'm happy to shoot with the long GOP settings for home/family stuff, for work projects (and we are using the GH2 for fairly large jobs), I'm with Driftwood for the time being.
Click to expand...

Indeed, motion versus stills, not ze same kind of animal.
 
I remember being one of the first to pick up a T3i to test the 3-10x zoom feature. I posted some stuff, mostly to a positive response, but was surprised at some chastisement for not testing it the way this guy wanted. There was this unpleasant air of entitlement that I guess is easy for us to develop due to so many things these days. Uber-affordable cameras, free firmware upgrades from these hacks, free picture profiles, innumerable sample videos and tests, etc...

I had done my own testing to see if I felt the 3x zoom was feasible as a no light loss "teleconverter" of sorts. I liked what I saw. I was sold and I shared what I found. If it didn't answer what someone else wanted to see, well they could sell their T2i like I did and buy a T3i at a loss and freaking spend a half day shooting various focal lengths and then ingesting, adding titles to every shot, keeping it all straight, compressing, uploading, then posting on forums...

But to casually suggest that others haven't done this for them and therefore the test is pointless or there is no test scientifically proving some notion...well...goodness.


:cheesy:
 
Last edited:
Those of us who view the tests of others truly appreciate the work that goes in. Truly. Sure, every now and then there is someone who grouses about how the test was done, rude but sort of understandable. And people have valid issues. I'm just suggesting that people hold off on pre-announcing the results. Same test, same work, no label.
 
roei z said:
also, people might not realize the complexity of providing a good hack differences test.


well,
even if you manage to provide a perfect complex frame and movement to stretch the patches-

1. it will have to be shot near a computer-
changing from patch to patch demands downloading each patch to the sd card, and then to the camera. there are many patches now.
and all this needed to be done with attention- takes patiance and good will, and quite some time to produce.

2. after all this, keep shooting the same shot and movement.

3. hope some of as won't sit back in our comfy chairs and say - "hey, this shot has moved to fast- FAIL"..


any volunteers? ;)
Click to expand...
The simple answer is to use two GH2s & film simultaneously.
 
Ralph B said:
The advantage of using the HDMI picture is that it provides an absolute frame of reference. The camera can't be any better than it. I hope you will find this helpful in sorting out how to use the hack.
Click to expand...
Excellent but you have only compared two hacks what would be really fascinating is to see the same test with the unhacked V1.1 firmware compared with hacked firmware.

Edit: I just realised that you are comparing stills which isn't a very valid test of video. There are all sorts of complex psycho-optical things that go on with compressed video & isolating stills doesn't show much.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Do the tests yourself, draw your own conclusion. If you aren't doing those things then cool, but just because people aren't showing them to satisfy others doesn't make it any less valid, any less true.
Click to expand...
It does make it less valid & less true if they are not testing correctly. The unhacked GH2 produces excellent video & that's what the hack should be compared against. I tried the hack myself some time ago & could see no difference although as it's difficult to do double-blind testing I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that even my tests were not scientifically valid.
 
nigelbb said:
It does make it less valid & less true if they are not testing correctly. The unhacked GH2 produces excellent video & that's what the hack should be compared against. I tried the hack myself some time ago & could see no difference although as it's difficult to do double-blind testing I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that even my tests were not scientifically valid.
Click to expand...

People will see what they see. I would never use the unhacked GH2 without a ton of light (which pretty much means the sun). But others were okay with it. If you couldn't see a difference then then you probably won't see one now. Not to mention, you'd really have to get either super-well compressed files from someone or pretty much have 500MB MTS files ready to upload.

There are some people who think Canon footage looks as good as RED footage.
 
Kholi said:
There are some people who think Canon footage looks as good as RED footage.
Click to expand...

Well... I was working on a project that was shot with the Canon 7d. Edited it and was projecting it around when our second editor came in the room. Looked at the image on the big screen and asked "This was shot with the Red right?"

I turned around with my jaw on the floor. Then looked at the screen. Well... it was soft but it otherwise it looked excellent. There was no moire in that shot. Imagine his surprise when I told him "No, this is with the 7d". He was shocked.

Now granted, it doesn't always look that good. But there are times it shines if the DOP knows what he is doing.
 
dtjohns1 said:
I guess when I (big focus on I) think of the quality increasing with these hacks I'm looking for the clarity or resolution of the image to increase. My initial post is based on the idea that even tho newer hacks are providing higher bitrates, gops, etc. the videos that catch my eye the most have weirdly been from lower bitrate hacks never really going past 66mb





I'd like to see what you guys see as better footage than the listed videos that have used patches that came after the ones used in the vids. I know this is subjective but I just would like to see anyway.
Click to expand...
I also like this one that was shot with the 42mb/sec AVCHD GH2 hack @ 10,000 iso and Voigtländer 25mm/F0.95 :
 
Ralph B said:
The advantage of using the HDMI picture is that it provides an absolute frame of reference. The camera can't be any better than it. I hope you will find this helpful in sorting out how to use the hack.
Click to expand...

Isn't the HDMI output limited to 1080i? It couldn't be an "an absolute frame of reference" if that is true.
 
I kind of feel like this has transformed into a type of theological debate. On one side you have people who claim something that sounds impossible and cannot be accurately tested. Therefore, the conclusions just have to be accepted with near blind faith.

Then you have people doing scientific tests for portions of the claims(Color, Resolution, Dynamic Range). However, things like how the video handles complex motion cannot be accurately tested. So the critics claim that the Color, Resolution, and Dynamic Range tests are not correct because they didn’t test motion with them.

The truth is that the Color, Resolution, and Dynamic Range claims can be tested for entirely static scenes. I completed the data gathering phase of those tests last night. I will be uploading the files as they came out of the camera over the next 1-2 days(The darn high bit rate files take forever to upload).

Then I will create my video analysis of what I think of the samples for anyone who is interested in what I have to say about it. For everyone else I will give you the tools to accurately judge Color, Resolution, and Dynamic Range for yourself.

I know there will be many people that claim the high bit rate hacks only “do their thing” when there is motion. That may or may not be true for how it deals with the motion. I do not have the time to develop and accurate test for that. However, Color, Resolution, and Dynamic Range are the same whether there is motion or not.

Honestly, I really don’t care if someone looks at the samples and claims based on them that there is a pot of gold that was not there with the original firmware. If they see that in a very accurate test then that is their impression. What I don’t like is someone making completely baseless claims without ever really comparing them.

Didn’t we all ever learn anything when we did Science projects as a kid? It wasn’t really about the conclusion you came up with. It was all about the thought and research you put into your Hypothesis and your testing procedures.

Please be patient with me getting the data up there. It took a long time to shoot it all and it takes even longer to edit the conclusion video and post these gigantic files. Trust me in the end you will want to see these tests. I believe they will conclusively show that there is a difference between hacked and not hacked footage. However, it will also show that some of the claims that have been made are completely unsubstantiated and that others are indeed valid.

The hack is not the Panacea that some people have made it out to be. However, when it is used to remedy specific issues that it is designed to fix it can be extremely affective.

On top of showing the differences between hacked and not hacked I will also show the differences between Cinema, Smooth, and Nostalgic. None of them are perfect. They all have strengths and weaknesses. However, with these samples you will have the knowledge you need to determine which one is best to use in specific situations.
 
dtjohns1 said:
the videos that catch my eye the most have weirdly been from lower bitrate hacks never really going past 66mb
Click to expand...

In most cases it's because the higher bit-rate hacks weren't out when these videos were shot, or the operator did not have the memory cards required to span when shooting at high bit-rates.

In terms of comparing higher bit-rate vs lower bit-rate hacks, the differences will only be visible when viewing native footage at full resolution ( i.e. 1080p ) or from full resolution screen grabs.

...And of course there is the law-of-diminishing-returns, where a 44 Mbit hack may get you 90 percent of the way to ideal image quality, and a 176 Mbit hack may get you 96 percent of the way to ideal image quality, it's going to be tough to empirically notice that extra 6 percent without very careful observation.

Rule of thumb: If you don't see any advantage in using higher bit-rates ( or the hacks themselves ) then don't use them. But don't expect everyone to agree with how you see things.
 
TheDingo said:
In most cases it's because the higher bit-rate hacks weren't out when these videos were shot, or the operator did not have the memory cards required to span when shooting at high bit-rates.

In terms of comparing higher bit-rate vs lower bit-rate hacks, the differences will only be visible when viewing native footage at full resolution ( i.e. 1080p ) or from full resolution screen grabs.

...And of course there is the law-of-diminishing-returns, where a 44 Mbit hack may get you 90 percent of the way to ideal image quality, and a 176 Mbit hack may get you 96 percent of the way to ideal image quality, it's going to be tough to empirically notice that extra 6 percent without very careful observation.

Rule of thumb: If you don't see any advantage in using higher bit-rates ( or the hacks themselves ) then don't use them. But don't expect everyone to agree with how you see things.
Click to expand...


+1

Bout time the voice of reason showed up.

People, you are not going to see any difference especially if all you do is view these images on a small computer screen. If you are not shooting for a 40ft screen, broadcast of just large TV screens then you probably are wasting your time by hacking your camera. Those reasons are why a Red, Alexa and other expensive cameras exist. But the fact that we can eck out "similar" (not necessarily the same) kind of quality out of this $700.00 camera is a bonus. If you don't see the difference then more power to you. As the Dingo suggests....there is a point of diminishing returns. You will not see those small differences on a computer screen. So, as is, the camera might be "good enough" for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top