If you're comparing a BR on a good calibrated HDTV to a beat-up, scratched, and dirty film print weaving a little from side to side in the projector, the BR will definitely seem sharper and cleaner. Movie theater quality varies a lot--often based on how old the print is, but also on the theater's own equipment (did they replace the projector bulb when they should have? Are they projecting a 2D film with a 3D projector the wrong way with a dim resulting image?).
GH2 Did Francis Ford Coppola really prefer the Gh2 at the Zacuto shootout
- Thread starter berylium
- Start date
If you're comparing a BR on a good calibrated HDTV to a beat-up, scratched, and dirty film print weaving a little from side to side in the projector, the BR will definitely seem sharper and cleaner. Movie theater quality varies a lot--often based on how old the print is, but also on the theater's own equipment (did they replace the projector bulb when they should have? Are they projecting a 2D film with a 3D projector the wrong way with a dim resulting image?).
Nope. I went and saw the newest Batman on a big screen here in Finland. It was very soft. Projected digitally too in one of our biggest multiplexes.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
That could literally be the projector not focused well.
That shows what morons most of the human race are,BD players cost little now but still they are are happy with less than mini dv quality DVD.
All i read on here is the word hack followed by people sticking up for rubbish DVD.It amazes me people see little difference in dvd and bd but notice differences in various hacks.After hacking my GH2 and seeing little if any difference i went back to the normal 1.1 update,the difference in dvd and bd is HUGE though.
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=805644 i dont call that expensive,there is even a dvd to give one your dvd owning relatives
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
I don't use a hacked camera and think 90% of the effect of the hack on the GH2 is placebo effect.
That being said, most people aren't pixel peepers. I'm a filmmaker and sometimes (half-assed) DP and I'm not a pixel peeper. More resolution and detail is nice, better than NOT having it, but it's a really small factor in what makes a pleasing image or an interesting film. A well lit, well art directed, well framed shot on a cell phone looks better than a poorly done shot in 5K.
A point comes where the resolution is "good enough" then beyond that most people couldn't care less.
That being said, most people aren't pixel peepers. I'm a filmmaker and sometimes (half-assed) DP and I'm not a pixel peeper. More resolution and detail is nice, better than NOT having it, but it's a really small factor in what makes a pleasing image or an interesting film. A well lit, well art directed, well framed shot on a cell phone looks better than a poorly done shot in 5K.
A point comes where the resolution is "good enough" then beyond that most people couldn't care less.
Well the huge difference in BLU RAY and DVD makes me only want to watch BD,it makes me wonder why some bother with hd filming at all if they are happy with DVD.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Well, for the most part I am filming to be projected and on a 30' wide screen where, yes, the difference between SD and HD is pretty noticeable (though there were certainly successful films shot in SD like 28 days later). Also, it's always better to start from the highest resolution source possible. Most people (in 2012) listen to music via MP3, but that doesn't mean I'm going to record to a song to that crappy compressed format. I'm still going to record at least 24 bit for the source.
GrahamH
Well-known member
Except that I can't recall ever seeing home-brew miniDVD footage that looks better than a commercial DVD. Higher resolution .... sometimes. But "better" overall .... nope! The many other aspects outway the resolution difference.
Edit: "miniDVD" was miniDV mistyped.
Last edited:
That would be my response as well, except here in Austin at the Alamo Drafthouse, I noticed the picture looked soft too (on The Dark Knight Rises) on a Sony 4k digital projector, and the Alamo is known for their projection quality.
That said, I don't think it'll be much better on Blu-ray given that. I'm not sure what the deal is.
In many shooting situations, the unhacked GH2 can produce excellent motion picture quality. When it's overstressed, however, the unhacked AVCHD encoder will plunge into a coarse, low-quality Fallback Mode without alerting you that your footage has been degraded. Since this could happen at any time, even when shooting ordinary scenery, I consider the unhacked GH2 unreliable for all but consumer purposes.
For detailed GH2 comparison footage and a technical analysis of GH2 failure modes, check out this thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?283724-GH2-100Mbps-Flow-Motion-v2-Patch-Banding-amp-Blocking-Be-Gone!&p=1986152355&viewfull=1#post1986152355
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
How does the 5DMKII hold up on the big screen? I shoot (5D,GH2,AF100,EX1) for tv so I have never seen it projected on the big screen.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I have all of... DVD, HDDVD, BD... HDDVD of course is no longer in the game, but definitely I buy most new issues in BD format. I will buy a 'remastered' BD of something I have on DVD, but I haven't 'upgraded' everything.
On the other hand, the Clarks have always put our 'big screen' HD TV on 1/2 zoom for DVD media...
What we have also noticed is that there is a lot of variation between what we recall in theater presentations, and the BD in terms of color. The problem there is we don't have a theater projection system to switch back and forth between to confirm or negate such a claim.
What we've done though is switch back and forth between DVD and BD of the same film for the ones that we have upgraded, and there are considerable differences.
At the moment I'm actually ok with the current spatial resolution of a camera such as the GH1(in my case) or the GH2... the next quantum leap for me will be moving into 10/12 bit 'depth' resolution for intensity.
Sort of like the 'tremendous' difference between going from 'thousands' of colors on one's computer monitor to 'millions'... or 'billions'...
The SD DVD I made from the black&white short I shot at the beginning of the year on a hacked GH2 is some of the best material I've ever put on the format. In fact, the footage was so detailed, I had to spend time getting a proper transfer because of the "mosquito noise" that appeared around fine details.
I shot material for a live stage show at the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin, TX last year, and while I initially considered making a Blu-ray deliverable, I went to SD DVD because of the time crunch. I shot the material on a Canon 60D and I was very impressed how it held up being projected, and the Blu-ray would have undoubtedly looked better.
Of course a commercial dvd filmed probobly on 35mm film will look better than amateur mini dvd,but it does not stop mini dv being the technicaly superior format.If GH2 owners want to do their filming on their hacked cameras and put it on dvd fine ,i will stick to putting my unhacked footage on blu ray because the difference is huge.
This is something people need to realize about Blu-ray. Sometimes the studios are less-than-generous with their remastering cash, and you get a BD that uses a tired-out MPEG2 HD transfer that was initially generated for HD cable showings. Take something like Robocop. I still own the original DVD, because the Blu-ray transfer is one of those MPEG2 cable masters, and looks only marginally better, where something that got a proper re-master, like Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood, has a stunning quality that completely shows how detailed film actually can be, especially film of that age.
If you happen to have these lackluster Blu-ray transfers, I can understand how you would think that the format's not that much better. But do you research, and purchase only those that the studios took the time to get right (i.e. Total Recall...original BD release was a terrible MPEG2 cable transfer, but a new version just got released that has a proper re-mastered supervised by Verhoeven.)
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Uhhhhhh... I put my stuff on Blu Ray as well, and sometimes HDCAM, and sometimes as an HD .mov file, but some people don't have Blu ray. Some Film Festivals still project from SD DVD instead of Blu Ray. Last year was really the first year most of the festivals I submitted to or was accepted to had Blu ray as an exhibition format. Sure it generally looks better, but DVD is still largely the "standard" for delivery.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Looks great. When you are at a film festival with lots of different footage being shown the 35mm Film and the Reds/Alexas do stick out as looking a bit better than everything else, but DSLR generally looks good. Better than the HVX200 I shot my forst two films on for sure.
GrahamH
Well-known member
Im not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me ... Since I was referring to miniDV footage (SD, often interlaced). GH2 footage is in another league ...