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

Hopefully we read these posts to get a different view of the world--I know I do.

EosHD has a mini blind test up for those who are interested
http://www.eoshd.com/content/6670/test-scene-name-the-camera
In this test, no one was able to identify the video from the point and shoot.
So I guess the emperor has no clothes, but he (or she) doesn't need to focus or set the white balance as that is automatic.

And Andrew, don't put the answers halfway down comments page, yikes! Spoiler alert.
 
Last edited:
DrDave said:
Hopefully we read these posts to get a different view of the world--I know I do.

EosHD has a mini blind test up for those who are interested
http://www.eoshd.com/content/6670/test-scene-name-the-camera
In this test, no one was able to identify the video from the point and shoot.
So I guess the emperor has no clothes, but he (or she) doesn't need to focus or set the white balance as that is automatic.

And Andrew, don't put the answers halfway down comments page, yikes! Spoiler alert.
Click to expand...

I'm realizing the flaw in these tests, finally, and why the Zacuto shoot out is the only way to judge cameras: we are not shooting stills, we shoot motion picture.

That's like trying to judge which shoe feels better for running by standing still in each one.
 
Last edited:
The placebo effect aka the GH2-Hack Reality Distortion Field can be seen in full force in the thread on Philip Bloom's Christmas Shootout. There are many posts trumpeting how wonderful the resolution is with the Driftwood Quantum mega-high bit rate hack. They all ignore the fact that these are static shots that will not show any of the advantages of the hack (better rendering of motion, increased shadow detail, better handling in post for colour grading etc). The hack doesn't increase the resolution of the sensor. Resolution of GH2 video is already outstanding for the price & better than the AF101. The GH2 clips would have looked just the same with stock firmware.
 
nigelbb said:
The placebo effect aka the GH2-Hack Reality Distortion Field can be seen in full force in the thread on Philip Bloom's Christmas Shootout. There are many posts trumpeting how wonderful the resolution is with the Driftwood Quantum mega-high bit rate hack. They all ignore the fact that these are static shots that will not show any of the advantages of the hack (better rendering of motion, increased shadow detail, better handling in post for colour grading etc). The hack doesn't increase the resolution of the sensor. Resolution of GH2 video is already outstanding for the price & better than the AF101. The GH2 clips would have looked just the same with stock firmware.
Click to expand...

you probably didn't check and compared raw files:

http://vimeo.com/user442745/videos

check some stock VS hack and then tell me if you still don't see any difference in static shots.
one of the major downers was the rendering of blurred backgrounds.
 
Kholi said:
I'm realizing the flaw in these tests, finally, and why the Zacuto shoot out is the only way to judge cameras: we are not shooting stills, we shoot motion picture.

That's like trying to judge which shoe feels better for running by standing still in each one.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Judging individual screenshots grabbed off the timeline doesn't make any sense with compressed footage. There is so much going on to trick the brain that what you are seeing is an illusion of real life that only by seeing the full illusion can you make a judgement. You could make some judgment if it were an individual frame of film but it isn't.

These particular photos on EOSHD are in any case a terrible example even if stills were valid for comparisons as the DoF isn't the same so e.g. photo 2 looks better because it's all in focus whereas others are either badly focused or have a shallower DoF.
 
roei z said:
you probably didn't check and compared raw files:

http://vimeo.com/user442745/videos

check some stock VS hack and then tell me if you still don't see any difference in static shots.
one of the major downers was the rendering of blurred backgrounds.
Click to expand...
mpgxsvcd who performed those most interesting tests says that all of that benefit is lost if you re-encode it at all. Basically the raw footage looks better but if you edit &/or re-encode then that advantage disappears. The video clips in Philip Blooms shootout have been edited & re-compressed. Even downloading & viewing the 1.4GB file that got uploaded to Vimeo doesn't help. The people who are swooning over how impressive the GH2 Driftwood hack video clips look in the shootout are fooling themselves into thinking that it's the hack. It's not. It's the resolution of the GH2.
 
My little ole thread resurrected from the dead. We can argue hacks, res., gop, etc until we are blue in the face but in the end we are all stubborn and no one is going to budge on their opinions. Lets just all agree that the GH2 has the most res. out of the sub 1000 dslr lineup cams (hack or no hack, 44mb hack or 176, gop 1000 or gop 1) and call it a draw. I think instead of cannabalising each other (were all under the gh2 family) we should shoot meaningful projects with this great tool that the indie gods have bestowed upon us.
 
nigelbb said:
mpgxsvcd who performed those most interesting tests says that all of that benefit is lost if you re-encode it at all. Basically the raw footage looks better but if you edit &/or re-encode then that advantage disappears. The video clips in Philip Blooms shootout have been edited & re-compressed. Even downloading & viewing the 1.4GB file that got uploaded to Vimeo doesn't help. The people who are swooning over how impressive the GH2 Driftwood hack video clips look in the shootout are fooling themselves into thinking that it's the hack. It's not. It's the resolution of the GH2.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, 'when you edit the footage'?I can re-encode those driftwood files into Avid codecAnd they'll still look better than non-hack..What's your point?
 
If i hack any advantage wil not show as much after edit possibly,unforseen problems may arise,with the simple but to me great 1.1 update i have what suits me great footage for what i do mostly film outdoors,25P HBR not a 176mbps hack but i have yet to see footage outdoors where benefits show to a great effect.
 
roei z said:
What do you mean, 'when you edit the footage'?I can re-encode those driftwood files into Avid codecAnd they'll still look better than non-hack..What's your point?
Click to expand...
But you didn't re-encode Philip Bloom's files. He did & the files were edited in FCP. My point is that all the hack enthusiasts who are swooning over the supposed quality & resolution that the Driftwood 176Mbps hack gives based on Philip Bloom's shootout are just kidding themselves. This is the placebo effect that is the whole premise that started this thread.
 
nigelbb said:
But you didn't re-encode Philip Bloom's files. He did & the files were edited in FCP. My point is that all the hack enthusiasts who are swooning over the supposed quality & resolution that the Driftwood 176Mbps hack gives based on Philip Bloom's shootout are just kidding themselves. This is the placebo effect that is the whole premise that started this thread.
Click to expand...
Ok, if it's blooms test i agree it's not all accurate.But if the detail is the same as C300, it's good enough.
 
I don't understand something in this threat. If somebody read it, did you not see the example where mpgxsvcd (god damn that is hard as a name) theories where completely bashed and the threat on personal-view with test from his own footage here http://www.personal-view.com./talks...or-profile-and-hacked-vs.-not-hacked-shootout. So people come back and use the same argument which has already been rebuffed some pages ago. Please take the time to read and see the example where the person who did it had to admit of his errors.


Now when you have a better file to work with you can do much more in terms of color correction/grading etc, and the example are on static scene, see them in motion and the hack will make even a bigger difference. Just one example about what the hack bring you is here... http://www.personal-view.com./talks/discussion/1795/dynamic-range-test-between-gh2-and-7d/p1 This is a subject I posted on the Dynamic range of the gh2 compared to the 60D but beyond that on the DR and detail in the shadows that the hack footage brings. I should do one for the hack and unhacked, but you can already see the difference in macro blocking in the fist like to personal-view I posted. The hacked gh2 would give you a good one to two stop more DR in the shadows than the stock one, for example in the philip Bloom test he could have underexposed by 1 to 2 stop and preserve the highlight in the clouds behind and then boost the curve in post. But it was not the aim of this test for sure.

For me I have been working in advertising and graphic design and photography the last 20 years, I have manipulated all type of files from scans to now digital files in RAW format. The hack gh2 files are definitely not raw files quality, but they are much better than the stock file to work with. The stock one is a macro-block mess, it is good to the eye but just try to manipulate it a little bit and it falls apart. I want to do commercial, short and eventually films, so I want to be able to grade my footage to my taste and hack gives me much better file to work with. I can understand that some people want to shoot as is and it is ok for them, but for me their is no placebo effect. The hack does bring true benefit.

P.S It would be nice if mpgxsvcd could edit his video, because if everybody who is going to use it as a reference for hack vs stock gh2 footage, more so that his findings have been clearly shown to be flawed.
 
but my point is the same when watching mpgsvcd's raw files About your same macro-blocking argument.
i see it with my own eyes..
What's wrong with that? Do you hate each other or something?
 
roei z said:
but my point is the same when watching mpgsvcd's raw files About your same macro-blocking argument.
i see it with my own eyes..
What's wrong with that? Do you hate each other or something?
Click to expand...

I don't understand, is it meant as an answer for my post above because mine was for the poster before you.
 
Oh sorry Daniel..Got too confused with those arguments.But anyway- what's wrong with mpgsvcd(?)'s Test? I mean at least to check macroblocking improvement?
 
nigelbb said:
These particular photos on EOSHD are in any case a terrible example even if stills were valid for comparisons as the DoF isn't the same so e.g. photo 2 looks better because it's all in focus whereas others are either badly focused or have a shallower DoF.
Click to expand...

...Or more likely, the other cameras cannot record the same amount of detail as the GH-2. This was the most obvious take-away point from Philip Bloom's Xmas shoot. The GH-2 rocks at recording detail, and the hacks only improve this especially when it comes to motion.

This is the real "placebo" effect, where Canon video shooters are in denial about how bad the video image the Canon cameras produce. I used to be a Canon shooter, and I sold everything after buying a GH-2. Canon cameras produce great in camera color, but the video image they record is so soft and the aliasing and moire are a pain in the *ss to have to live with.

For still photos, yes Canon and Nikon are the ones to match. But for large sensor video image, right now it's the Panasonic GH-2 in the under $10K category. All of this might change next year as new cameras are introduced.
 
roei z said:
Oh sorry Daniel..Got too confused with those arguments.But anyway- what's wrong with mpgsvcd(?)'s Test? I mean at least to check macroblocking improvement?
Click to expand...

Look here http://www.personal-view.com./talks...profile-and-hacked-vs.-not-hacked-shootout/p1 where you will see some frame grabs that have been boosted in post that clearly showed the macro blocking is much better in the hacked footage. I don't know if you can see it if you are not registered. It is like post six frome white rabbit. If you read below he himself admits that he was in error whan saying that he did not saw any improvement in the hacked footage. Now these are static I am sure that the result would even be greater in motion.
 
Danielvilliers said:
Look here http://www.personal-view.com./talks...profile-and-hacked-vs.-not-hacked-shootout/p1 where you will see some frame grabs that have been boosted in post that clearly showed the macro blocking is much better in the hacked footage. I don't know if you can see it if you are not registered. It is like post six frome white rabbit. If you read below he himself admits that he was in error whan saying that he did not saw any improvement in the hacked footage. Now these are static I am sure that the result would even be greater in motion.
Click to expand...
Let’s get a few things straight. I never contended that the hacked footage showed no improvement in compression artifacts. It cleary is capable of doing that over the stock settings. Whether it improves compression over medium settings is still debatable.

The test white rabbit did showed the compression in the unhacked footage. However, that is only visible after massive editing. I still contend that there is no discernable compression difference in the original files.

I think you are really misguided on what you are saying. The hack does not affect dynamic range at all. The test files are there and not a single person has shown any differently. There are differences but dynamic range is not one of them.

The whole point of the video was to give everyone a chance to judge for themselves if they saw a dynamic range difference. I would love for someone to show a difference in that. Until then I will leave the video as is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top