GH2 Excessive colour noise / grain on GH2

Well, I don't think anyone's getting footage that is less contrasty than the Canons on the Gh2, from the tests I've seen, it's merely a sharpness advantage. However, when getting a product to look cinematic or professional, audiences expect unblown highlights and uncrushed blacks - these mistakes can both be attributed to bad cinematography OR too much camera contrast. I've seen Canons handle natural situations where the Gh2's contrast causes it to look like video aesthetically. And again, with the odd ISO rules, the white balances that (on my camera) seem to shift and blend after pressing record, and the lack of some features I relied on with my Canon (viewfinder) to compose and focus a subject, I don't feel like my Gh2 ever added up to a camera that was practical to use on a video shoot - hardly any more suitable for photography, IMO. I'm no more a fan of Canon, I've been dying to switch cameras for years, but at least the Canon's are stable and the technology is set-in-stone - you're not going to get a white balance shift when pressing record or an ISO that spikes in noise depending on if you go up or down. Plus, the picture style controls give you all the control the camera is possible of doing.

Now, I personally can't wait to test the FujiFilm Pro coming out, it seems to promise all the sharpness of the Gh2 with the stability and controls of the Canon's - and it's new color bayer sensor sounds super exciting. Bit of a price tag, though, around $1,600.

The reality is that just for the tests I've seen online, every Gh2 vs. Canon test seems to have a bad bias toward Canon. The Canon videos are always set to some weird white balance while the user set the perfect one on the Gh2. The users never account for how the Canon has a shallower depth of field, which always puts many objects out of focus, causing a "blurry" look. However, no matter what they try to mess up, the Canons always have so much better highlight control and detail in the blacks - and this is even with the Canon picture styles being Neutral and stuff. Thing is, I won't deny that the Gh2's are much sharper (yet without a "sharp video" look) and have extremely minimal moire or aliasing, which can be beneficial depending on wether you're shooting sweaters or scenes with extreme detail. So far, I'd say the Gh2 is a good camera to use in some situations outdoors (balanced situations with tons of detail and moire possibilities), where the Canon's work better indoors and in situations that present a more troublesome contrast. With the proper editing though (something that seems to fail most of all from user to user), both cameras can probably give around the same product. I just wish the Gh2's weren't so finicky internally!
 
How many times do you plan on reposting the same thing?

RPLace said:
Well, I don't think anyone's getting footage that is less contrasty than the Canons on the Gh2, from the tests I've seen, it's merely a sharpness advantage. However, when getting a product to look cinematic or professional, audiences expect unblown highlights and uncrushed blacks - these mistakes can both be attributed to bad cinematography OR too much camera contrast. I've seen Canons handle natural situations where the Gh2's contrast causes it to look like video aesthetically. And again, with the odd ISO rules, the white balances that (on my camera) seem to shift and blend after pressing record, and the lack of some features I relied on with my Canon (viewfinder) to compose and focus a subject, I don't feel like my Gh2 ever added up to a camera that was practical to use on a video shoot - hardly any more suitable for photography, IMO. I'm no more a fan of Canon, I've been dying to switch cameras for years, but at least the Canon's are stable and the technology is set-in-stone - you're not going to get a white balance shift when pressing record or an ISO that spikes in noise depending on if you go up or down. Plus, the picture style controls give you all the control the camera is possible of doing.

Now, I personally can't wait to test the FujiFilm Pro coming out, it seems to promise all the sharpness of the Gh2 with the stability and controls of the Canon's - and it's new color bayer sensor sounds super exciting. Bit of a price tag, though, around $1,600.

The reality is that just for the tests I've seen online, every Gh2 vs. Canon test seems to have a bad bias toward Canon. The Canon videos are always set to some weird white balance while the user set the perfect one on the Gh2. The users never account for how the Canon has a shallower depth of field, which always puts many objects out of focus, causing a "blurry" look. However, no matter what they try to mess up, the Canons always have so much better highlight control and detail in the blacks - and this is even with the Canon picture styles being Neutral and stuff. Thing is, I won't deny that the Gh2's are much sharper (yet without a "sharp video" look) and have extremely minimal moire or aliasing, which can be beneficial depending on wether you're shooting sweaters or scenes with extreme detail. So far, I'd say the Gh2 is a good camera to use in some situations outdoors (balanced situations with tons of detail and moire possibilities), where the Canon's work better indoors and in situations that present a more troublesome contrast. With the proper editing though (something that seems to fail most of all from user to user), both cameras can probably give around the same product. I just wish the Gh2's weren't so finicky internally!
Click to expand...
Third time you've posted this.

You don't like your T2i, you don't like your GH2, spend money and get a better camera. You've said your piece (many times, started two threads with the same exact posts), you're on the verge of trolling.

Move on.
 
Last edited:
Just curious, is there a point where the higher bit rate hacks add nothing but noise?
There has to be a point where it's just not getting more useful information right?

I have Q7 on my GH2, granted I admit I barely know this thing so take this image with a grain of salt but
messing around today and importing some footage into premiere.
I have a heck of a lot of unappealing noise.
Smooth, -2-2-2-2, 400iso.
In the photo it might actually look like a pleasing grain but once it's a moving image it's dancing around in a very very bad way.

I've seen amazing footage with lower bitrate hacks so I'm just curious if there really is a point where it's just not worth it to go higher and higher in bitrate.
I mean even varicam's are 100mb.
Just trying to learn.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5858/00012mtsstill002.jpg
 
Rippie said:
Just curious, is there a point where the higher bit rate hacks add nothing but noise?
There has to be a point where it's just not getting more useful information right?
Click to expand...

Well, the reason you're seeing the noise is because it's the useful information being retained. This is the kinda grain/noise I see when I deal with uncompressed footage from higher end cameras. RED has plenty of it, just when it gets crushed to 2K a lot of it damned-near vanishes.

It seems so apparent and foreign because we're used to, at this level, seeing mush and low detail.

So, I think Quantum V9B is about the limit of what we're gonna get out of the GH2 + Hack project, and if the noise is bothering people you have to lower the bitrate and let the camera do its thing to the image. Try the 66mb patch.
I have Q7 on my GH2, granted I admit I barely know this thing so take this image with a grain of salt but
messing around today and importing some footage into premiere.
I have a heck of a lot of unappealing noise.
Smooth, -2-2-2-2, 400iso.
In the photo it might actually look like a pleasing grain but once it's a moving image it's dancing around in a very very bad way.
Click to expand...

I think Smooth is the noisiest gamma, but retains the most detail in certain situations, or is the go to profile to lower contrast. Right now, I don't feel like I need to rely on it anymore if I'm using 5DtoRGB (which I am, so.)

If you want less noise, also try Cinema or Standard. They aren't bad, but you'll have to run it through 5DtoRGB or similar to balance the contrast before the grade.

Extra work indeed, but they're all a set of trade offs right? Blerg.

I've seen amazing footage with lower bitrate hacks so I'm just curious if there really is a point where it's just not worth it to go higher and higher in bitrate.
I mean even varicam's are 100mb.
Just trying to learn.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5858/00012mtsstill002.jpg
Click to expand...

I think that it's worth it. V9B's a 150mb/s patch, costs me as much disk space as shooting RED (MX or Epic) so I'm used to it but mileage may vary based on experience.

Sadly, it's definitely a test-and-see sort of thing. If you like the look of 66mb better then maybe that's where you sit? The noise is pretty sweet to my eyes, even without a denoise if you're not going above 1250~1600 then it's all good.

If anything, the major limitaiton is being pinned to 4:2:0 =T If the next iteration of the GH series somehow gives us 4:2:2 and a new sensor that would be pretty incredibutt.
 
I agree that the noise went crazy with Quantum 7. That's when I started having a problem with it.
I'm not talking pleasing grain like "The French Connection" or 16mm, I'm talking dancing colour noise like a 2nd generation VHS tape.

It looks like a mistake on my footage.

I'm going to take the advice here and go back to the stock firmware, before trying Quantum 9b.
If that's the same, I'll wipe again and revert to cbrandin 44 or 66
 
The noise is definitely an issue for me, perhaps it's time to take a step backwards. Only thing is there are now so many patches out there I just can't keep track of them all anymore.

What are the differences between Seaquake, Aquamotion, Terraquake, Span-my-*****-up and Quantum 2 again?

Sanity is defiinitely needed here. Oh, Hang on, that's a patch too.

My god.
 
yoclay said:
The noise is definitely an issue for me, perhaps it's time to take a step backwards. Only thing is there are now so many patches out there I just can't keep track of them all anymore.

What are the differences between Seaquake, Aquamotion, Terraquake, Span-my-*****-up and Quantum 2 again?

Sanity is defiinitely needed here. Oh, Hang on, that's a patch too.

My god.
Click to expand...

I think just as you said, it's time for me to at least experiment with the older patches.
Just like you, there are so many out there I'm really not sure of the differences.

All this noise in the newer hacks though makes me think about Philip Blooms recent test. We all know the GH2 failed pretty hard in the low light test.
I have to think at least a part of the noise we all saw was because of the hack (where other cameras were stock).
 
Last edited:
Okay...

This is all I have to offer you guys. I went from Sage's patch to QV9b from Driftwood and I'm staying there. When we get a B-Cam I'll have to decide whether or not to do the same, because I need to be able to span 1080/60i or just span in general, and buying two more 64gb cards is not gonna happen. I think we'll go to something like AQ2 for b-camera.

After some rough tests, where I composed a frame of very red objects, shadow, and highlights, here's my conclusion: Jumping between ETC and non ETC, between V7 and V9, I DID notice a change in the noise patterns and V9B is definitely worth the trouble. Noise detail is slightly finer, which is great for me. If you want less noise in camera, you need to move away from smooth and go to cinema or standard.

I am danr near 100 percent sure that Smooth and Nostalgic have extra sharpening applied in their film mode settings, even when you dial them down. That's why Nostalgic and Smooth appear to resolve more, but it's really not. A 200 percent blow up reveals that you get the same results with a slight unsharp mask on Cinema footage.

It'll be hard to make the full switch to Standard or Cinema, because Smooth does seem to hold a VERY VERY SLIGHT advantage in DR on both ends, but that can be overcome by exposing cinema properly.

So take it or leave it, but Standard and Smooth are the least noisiest and still pleasant enough.

Also, don't forget to white balance. I don't trust the Kelvin slider anymore, take the time to grey card if you can, it'll make a big difference.
 
I've been a strong proponent of Cinema from day 1, but I do see where there could be times when Smooth is a good option. I've never liked Nostalgic much personally because of the change to the colors. I also agree about manual white balance. Because there's no color bars, there's really no way to be sure about what the LCD or EVF are showing you. The only way to be sure you're white balance is correct is to use a white or 18% gray card and manual white balance.
 
TheDingo said:
I am curious why you say this ? I've been using Kelvin since I bought a Sekonic C-500 color meter, and it's always bang on now.
Click to expand...

I'll run a quick test with a meter, but kelvin (at least by eye to external monitor) just doesn't seem to produce the right results in comparison to a quick grey card snap.
 
I don't own a good field monitor, so I'm judging the color balance shot when I bring the footage in to my NLE. ( Vegas Pro 9 / Vegas Pro 10 / Vegas Pro 11 )

I don't trust the GH-2 EVF or LCD, or the HDMI out for color. ( because of my crappy cheap field monitor )
 
TheDingo said:
I don't own a good field monitor, so I'm judging the color balance shot when I bring the footage in to my NLE. ( Vegas Pro 9 / Vegas Pro 10 / Vegas Pro 11 )

I don't trust the GH-2 EVF or LCD, or the HDMI out for color. ( because of my crappy cheap field monitor )
Click to expand...

I checked HdMi out on two different production monitors and the tv logic, it's accurate to what you get in post so if you do end up getting a better one it's good money spent.

Sister Cities - I meant doing a custome white balance to a grey card that's all.
 
Kholi said:
I checked HdMi out on two different production monitors and the tv logic, it's accurate to what you get in post so if you do end up getting a better one it's good money spent.
Click to expand...

I am looking at the SmallHD DP4 ( EVF version ) for the size, cost, and build quality. I'm guessing that the DP4 costs about half of what a TV Logic monitor would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top