GH2 comparison between GH2Stalin GOP3 "kae" and Original GH2

adammada

adammada

Well-known member
comparison between GH2Stalin GOP3 "kae-hype" and Original GH2

what is what???

No. 1 - 4 . . .???

which is GOP3 Camera: No. 1, 2, 3, 4 ????

 
Well-exposed, static head shots will look good on pretty much any Panasonic G-series camera, hacked or not...
 
I say No. 1 and No. 4 are the hack.

Great idea for a test.
Maybe take it further; sit someone down in front of a monitor, (someone who has no interest in video/cameras, etc.), and ask them if they see the difference between clips, without mentioning anything like "one is hacked", etc.
And film them watching the videos as to see their reaction. Would be interesting to see if a random "audience" member could even tell.
 
are 3 and 4 the same exposure values and lighting? the white blanket and part of his paw are clipping in 4 but not in 3.
 
Whats the point of this test? It dosent push the camera or codec, also 2 are different shots then the other 2. What the heck??!?
....I find this a silly waste of cigars.
 
Original: 1 and 4
Hack: 2 and 3

Not many differences except a slight difference the clipping.
Film something with much more contrast and details (foliage, cat's hair [the dog was close to it but not enough]) give it some action (zoom and pan)
 
Ian-T said:
Exactly.

Make a video that challenges the codec and you'll see a difference.
Click to expand...

I find the "test" a good idea. More likely to film a head in a documentary than a bunch of leaves. But then again the GH1 and GH2 are mostly "testing" and home video blog cameras. : )
 
Ian-T said:
Exactly.

Make a video that challenges the codec and you'll see a difference.
Click to expand...

Or maybe even a video that challenges the codec still won't show a difference? 65 mb/sec AVC-HD with B-frames is a lot. I wouldn't ever encode that high after editing so is it really worth it in the camera?
 
I'd like to be able to see a huge difference and people keep talking that it resolves motion better.. but not seeing it. I'd like for someone to be able to show something that clearly shows the reason for even doing this like there was on the GH1. So far, Im' not seeing it or considering the hack... IF someone has some footage that clearly shows a signifigant difference then I'd be interested in seeing that...
 
Good test for me.

If there is no detectable difference then I'd stick with the lower data rates.

For me, this test is better than the last one I saw which consisted of mostly panning and out of focus shots.
 
I’ll just say this, if you are planning on doing a lot of color grading…hack it. If not…it’s probably not worth it.

So, IMO, If you want to conduct a “real” test of the differences between the two codecs….do a before and after “in the exact same conditions” and then….color grade the Sugar-Honey-Iced-Tea out of it. :)

But like lpowell said earlier “Well-exposed, static head shots will look good on pretty much any Panasonic G-series camera, hacked or not.”

In a way I can’t believe we are still having this discussion about the benefits of increasing the data rate when it comes to the stock AVCHD. Shoot before and after with a bit of contrast where there are dark and light areas. Look at the differences in detail you get in the dark areas with a higher data rate vs the stock ACVHD. That’s the very first thing that sticks out to me. This makes the camera better than before in low light shooting.
 
The test was carried out under the same conditions without taking any grading!!!!!!

Settings for hackingGH2 and OriginalGH2: Nostalgic -2, -2, -2, -2

where is the problem???
 
The images you shot are good. The problem is that it does not push the limit of the encoder to its boundaries. You need to create a stress test. To see up to where the encoder is able to function properly and where it will stop. The known limitations of the AVCHD are in high contrast and full of details moving images. A still image will not stress the encoder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top