Awakenings

John Foundas

John Foundas

Well-known member
Either my AF100 has some sort of issue or the GH2 simply has a far superior image quality.
I have used the AF for a year now and have been fortunate enough to have paid it off 10x over.

caqm pic.jpg

While the images are good, they have never been "wow". I have used virtually every scene file, various lenses including Voight/Zeiss etc… and never really had the camera "pop".
Yesterday I used a GH2 for the first time, and was astounded by the results in comparison. The quality was vastly superior especially with exteriors. I even accidentally shot in 24p low mode (17mbs) and was able to grade it a bit and color correct with nice results (IMO).

I cant imagine the quality with the 144mb hack installed. I realize that there are key features lacking on the GH2 (No ND/XLR etc…) but really?

This was shot with the new Noktor 12mm 1.6 lens and GH2 (first time) http://vimeo.com/34702930


My AF always looks washed out somehow. To the lay person it might look good. However to my eye something is off (besides the flicker LOL).
Here are some clips with the AF in natural kitchen light and the same 12mm lens with what I believe is a low noise profile…mmmm?

http://vimeo.com/34703652


Even when I shoot a properly lit sit down with 4 light heads, there's no MOJO.
I'm not much of a engineer with scene files etc…but something seems wrong. I haven't done extensive side by side comparisons but right out of the box the GH2 really jumped. Im hoping that there is some issue and perhaps I will send it to Panny to get some sense of sanity and or piece of mind. I'm not bashing the cam, just looking for some opinions or validation that something could be wrong here.

If my AF officially checks out ok, I'd be hard pressed not to simply purchase a GH2 and a HPX250 and call it a day.


Thanks as always
 
Both of the ladies are not in focus. I wouldn’t use a 12mm lens for an interview if you're looking for that separation with SDOF it’s to wide to achieve it.

The rooms are bright and the lighting on the first lady is almost the same as the BG so that makes it look flat.

Look back at other stuff you shot that you liked. Your favorite pieces and see if you still like the look of them.
 
Well the GH2 is by default pretty contrasty anyways. If that's the pop you're talking about, then you'd be right...unless you have proper scene file settings turned on in the AF100, it's not going to have as much contrast as the GH2. Contrast can be added in post though, so not sure what the issue is here.

However, the GH2 does have a much sharper and detailed image than the AF100, no doubt. It's better with aliasing as well. BUT, these are only parts of what make an image or camera good/bad, and the GH2's missing a lot.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Well the GH2 is by default pretty contrasty anyways. If that's the pop you're talking about, then you'd be right...unless you have proper scene file settings turned on in the AF100, it's not going to have as much contrast as the GH2. Contrast can be added in post though, so not sure what the issue is here.

However, the GH2 does have a much sharper and detailed image than the AF100, no doubt. It's better with aliasing as well. BUT, these are only parts of what make an image or camera good/bad, and the GH2's missing a lot.
Click to expand...

Yep, GH2 has a stronger image, but the workflow is much more difficult. Sync sound in post ( generally speaking ) hack uses large storage space. Converting files through 5DtoRGB and then you're ready to edit. Time = money.
 
I've seen AF100 footage that looked AMAZING and GH2 footage that looked HORRID. It's the person behind the camera, not the camera. Both the AF100 and GH2 can look good, IF, they are shot with the right eye for it and the right knowledge on how to get the most out of each one. Try posting your entire work flow, scene files used, lenses, transcoding method etc... and people may be able to help you get better results. Also post some footage that you would like yours to resemble and maybe you'll get some good tips on how you can emulate it.
 
00021.MTS.Still001.jpg00025.MTS.Still001.jpg00014.MTS.Still001.jpg

I own both the AF100 and GH2 and I'm not sure what you want out of your AF100? I understand you want more pop and I'm asking this not knowing how you light and compose your images, here are some stills from a recent job I did, this video was projected on a 20' screen and looked fantastic.!?
All this footage was shot with my cheap Nikon 50mm using the Abel Cine 5DMII scene file for the AF.
IMO It's not the wand it the magician.
 
I am currently learning how to use my GH2 and see where I can fit it into my work. ( and I find the GH2 quite a challenge and learning curve.)

So my thoughts on the AF100 vs the GH2

The AF , like any production cinema camera, requires post to make it really "pop".

The GH2 is "tricked" to work straight out of the box because that is the market for the camera. That is why it has all the easy Film Mode Presets - Nostalgia, Smooth, Dynamic, Nature etc..

(A consumer would be freaked to playback to the telly and get dissapointing images where as pros expect to do post on their footage - eg Alexa, Red, AF100...)

FWIW: bgundus comment when he used an AF100 and the GH2 on his India Feature was ..the skew sucks on the GH2 in comparison to the AF100.

My own opinon regarding GH2 and AF100 for shooting video. If I had either one only ... AF100 no argument.

I am looking forward to creating opportunities for the GH2 though ( because I do have one)

@johnf: those images from the GH2 were very nice ( but you did do so some CC/grade on them as well , which I am sure was part of the "pop") The AF100 images with post could have popped as well I believe.
 
Erik Naso said:
Both of the ladies are not in focus. I wouldn’t use a 12mm lens for an interview if you're looking for that separation with SDOF it’s to wide to achieve it.

The rooms are bright and the lighting on the first lady is almost the same as the BG so that makes it look flat.

Look back at other stuff you shot that you liked. Your favorite pieces and see if you still like the look of them.
Click to expand...

Thanks E,

I am getting into bi-focal age!
The first MS of the lady was with the Voght 25 and the last two were with the 12mm.
I just can't seem to get continuity with the camera.
 
Last edited:
tazza said:
View attachment 45847View attachment 45848View attachment 45849

I own both the AF100 and GH2 and I'm not sure what you want out of your AF100? I understand you want more pop and I'm asking this not knowing how you light and compose your images, here are some stills from a recent job I did, this video was projected on a 20' screen and looked fantastic.!?
All this footage was shot with my cheap Nikon 50mm using the Abel Cine 5DMII scene file for the AF.

IMO It's not the wand it the magician.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have used an assortment of scene files from the Sticky!
I am not a specialist in grading, coloring etc...I use MBL and don't have time when I'm delivering to multiple clients.
I have tried the 5D setting and it looked dreadful. You're clearly a masterful magician (eye roll) :)
Thanks for posting your frame grabs.
 
Erik Naso said:
Both of the ladies are not in focus. I wouldn’t use a 12mm lens for an interview if you're looking for that separation with SDOF it’s to wide to achieve it.
The rooms are bright and the lighting on the first lady is almost the same as the BG so that makes it look flat.
Look back at other stuff you shot that you liked. Your favorite pieces and see if you still like the look of them.
Click to expand...

Agree totally with Erik. It's the shooter's responsibility to make any camera 'pop' through a choice of scene files, lighting, lens selection and staging.

I've seen dozens of examples here from members who know to make the AF100 look exceptional and view the GH2 as an affordable, well-suited b-roll camera but not as a primary cam1.
 
Thanks everyone for the comments. Much appreciated. I think I'm going to do a side by side comparison with a fellow owner.
Same files, lens, lighting etc...and see what shakes out. Also, I use an i5 Mac with FC7>log and trans etc... Going to do a workflow
through CS4 and see how that effects the image as well. I seem to remember a thread where noise/grain may be introduced blah blah.

Thanks again and have a happy and prosperous new year!
 
I am not a specialist in grading, coloring etc...I use MBL and don't have time when I'm delivering to multiple clients.
Click to expand...

Hey John.

FWIW: I am concentrating a bit more in this area this year for 2 main reasons.

1. Its profitable to do it myself in certain situations.
2. If you make time to make your work look great ("pop") you get more work (and more profit).

So I have started honing my CC/Grade skills thru learning the CC apps and reading the manuals and practice.

And will be investing in a dedicated CC suite (actually a standalone Windows PC running Da Vinci Resolve and a new Monitor for that)

Side benefit...the more I learn about CC ...the better my lighting and camera work becomes and I also really enjoy "digital lighting" in post.
 
Last edited:
I have an Af101 and a GH2, so I'm a fan of them both. This argument comes up again and again - Philip Bloom just posted his Christmas shootout and the GH2 blew absolutely everything away, even the C300. It's an amazing little camera. BUT - I have yet to see a side by side comparison with an AF101 and a NON hacked GH2. Neither have I ever seen a comparison between a hacked GH2 and an AF102 (Hint hint Shooter!) running through a Samurai or similar. If you're using different codecs and bitrates, they're bound to look different. Has anyone seen a genuinely fair comparison? I'd love to see if you know where one is - I'd make one myself but I appear to be too lazy. However good the GH2 is, it still doesn't make up for the lack of ND, XLR, SDI etc etc - basically the reasons we all chose AF100's over a 5DII in the first place!
 
I would be grateful to learn what folks are doing in post to make the GH2 and AF100 work together. I'm mostly using Fast Color Corrector in Premiere Pro CS5.5 at the time. BTW my GH2 is not hacked but has the latest firmware. I will happily show my side to sides once I get them to look any good at all!

I find the GH2 sharp, sort of too sharp, contrasty as everyone says and saturated heading more towards magenta than the AF100. I really like the cinematic look and flexibility of the AF-100. It just looks better to me. I have to work more on matching them. I really want to fly that GH2 as a b cam on the blackbird. Then I can run the AF100 wide or something and run sound into it as usual. I don't mind syncing sound for the GH2

If someone has a hacked GH2, will they run on the same timeline in Premiere Pro?
 
hscully said:
I would be grateful to learn what folks are doing in post to make the GH2 and AF100 work together. I'm mostly using Fast Color Corrector in Premiere Pro CS5.5 at the time. BTW my GH2 is not hacked but has the latest firmware. I will happily show my side to sides once I get them to look any good at all!

I find the GH2 sharp, sort of too sharp, contrasty as everyone says and saturated heading more towards magenta than the AF100. I really like the cinematic look and flexibility of the AF-100. It just looks better to me. I have to work more on matching them. I really want to fly that GH2 as a b cam on the blackbird. Then I can run the AF100 wide or something and run sound into it as usual. I don't mind syncing sound for the GH2

If someone has a hacked GH2, will they run on the same timeline in Premiere Pro?
Click to expand...

I guess that is what I'm really after with the AF. I want it to look very sharp and contrasty.
Most of my clients want the razor edged, Discovery HD look. I just can't seem to dial it in with this camera.
 
When I want a really contrasty look from the AF100 I use the BPress or Cine V gammas. I like BPress for that look. It sort of crushes the blacks and is really clean. I like to shoot flat and put a curve in in post, like HDNorm or Cine D
 
Most of my clients want the razor edged, Discovery HD look. I just can't seem to dial it in with this camera.
Click to expand...

You will have more chance of that with a CC Suite (such as Da Vinci Resolve) than with Magic Bullets.... and no chance at all if they dont give you the time and dollars to do so.

Employ a Colorist who can rise to the challenge ..".Discovery HD look"... as a test.

Even try interlaced footage instead of progressive.

I dont shoot the type of subject matter or content that suits "Discovery HD look" but its an interesting request from any client in a commercial world. (ie as opposed to documentary)
 
At work I use Magic Bullet looks all the time for sweeps promos. That’s about it. Even FCP’s color correct three way can work very well for grading. Put the waveform scope up and adjust the blacks so they touch the bottom. Kinda crush them a little then mess around with saturation and such. It takes time and practice. A good external monitor is required to get it right but the scopes help a bunch.

Red Giant has some very good tutorials for Colorista on Vimeo. Colorista II is a great tool and I use that primarily when I have the time to spend on grading. Very powerful masks. Check em out. This is where you make good shots great. I never use a frame of video that hasn’t been CC. Its just part of the process for me and I enjoy grading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top