Finally saw GH2 footage first hand.. I am not upgrading. Staying with GH1.3

[Uwe Lansing]

see the faces of the guys on the bikes...they block out as they ride across. I mean the scene in general is quite resilient, you really have to hunt for it to see it ...

Hmm... maybe, maybe my eyesight is becoming a bit imperfect. I don´t see a kind of "mud"... I mean that kind of mud, what everyone has seen of the GH1. And keep in mind that we don´t know anything about the in-camera settings, in particular noise reduction. A quite heavy nr makes everything look a bit "muddy" and flat (especially faces + green grass). And don´t forget that most of the lenses are pretty unsharp at the edges...

 

[Bane]

We just have to wait and see the verdict when the GH2's become available or even hold one with our own hands and come to our own conlusion. Blackout's opinion is a valid one and it should be treated as such. I mean anything could have been a factor on the end result based on his experience with the GH2.

Lets wait and see.

 

[Ben_B]

Hmm... maybe, maybe my eyesight is becoming a bit imperfect. I don´t see a kind of "mud"... I mean that kind of mud, what everyone has seen of the GH1. And keep in mind that we don´t know anything about the in-camera settings, in particular noise reduction. A quite heavy nr makes everything look a bit "muddy" and flat (especially faces + green grass). And don´t forget that most of the lenses are pretty unsharp at the edges...

That web video is so compressed to hell as well. I saw a lot of blockiness but the file size is what, like, 80MB for a long video? I usually do 500 MB for a 3 min video.

We just have to wait and see the verdict when the GH2's become available or even hold one with our own hands and come to our own conlusion. Blackout's opinion is a valid one and it should be treated as such. I mean anything could have been a factor on the end result based on his experience.

Lets wait and see.

+1

 

[Blackout]

check out this clip blackout and tell me if it is similar to what you filmed or sighted. its a pretty good codec stress test this clip, alot of detail, moving leaves. I was surprised how well the leaves held up, i saw more evident mud in the faces of the riders riding by right at the start than the moving leaves themselves. Im guessing this is a japanese gh2 released production body though not too sure.

http://www.vimeo.com/16606700

THANK YOU! finally someone posts a damn downloadable .mts file! even if it is only about 6 seconds...

This file CONFIRMS everything I have been talking about. This is from a released GH2 in japan, and it is a native clip.. DON'T LOOK AT THE VIMEO, download the 1920 x 1080 native clip. It is a native GH2 .mts avchd file running at the gh2's 24 mbit cinema mode (which actually appears to be at about 22mbits using media info to check it) While it looks pretty good, it has A LOT of issues, ESPECIALLY on a big projected display. While most of you are probably busy looking at the leaves and going "wow - clear!" there is mud in the faces, and a lot of weird mud and blocks on the right side of the frame on the building with the shadow of the tree on the wall - this gets worse and worse the bigger your display is. It is clearly visable on my 24 inch LCD, and UGLY UGLY UGLY on my 14 foot projection system. As a matter of fact - I would call this clip 'unusable' in one of my movies, and it will surely suffer even more once it has been edited and recompressed, and this is not really even stressing the camera!

You guys think I have some motive of vendetta against the GH2... you are wrong... I was hoping for better and am actually unhappy about it. I have no wanting love for my GH1.3's to be forever better, they have issues too, but they produce FAR SUPERIOR images than the GH2 I played with, and whatever GH2 this was. 24 mbits is still NOT enough for highly complex detailed motion scenes, no matter if they improved the GOP and i or b frames or whatever. The IMAGE doesn't lie. That is my verdict.. take it or leave it but I think this clip proves it.

What I shot had a LOT more detail and movement than this - and there was a lot more mud. I now am fairly certain that the GH2 will not be for me unless someone hacks it. I hope it's possible. I would rather have three hacked GH2s than one AF-100. My 3 GH1.3 workflow is working very nice and I don't need xlr ins.. I have pro sync sound gear the way you are supposed to do it anyway. The very same scene of this clip on the GH1.3 would look A LOT better, and I think the aliasing on the GH2 looks the same....maybe ....slightly.... better, but useless with the mud issue... it also looks edge enhanced to me. People say well "hdmi out" but is it confirmed it will be recordable and not crippled in some way while live?

Anyway.. I am just reporting to other film makers my findings... and if you download this clip and pop it on a 60 inch screen, you will surely see the mud on the people and all over the wall and shadow detail on the left walls and right walls of the tree shadow on the wall on the right side of the frame. The sign on the wall is nearly breaking apart! if you do not see it, you are probably coming from VHS or DVD to this.. and don't have an eye for detail... or you are on a tinsy tiny monitor. I don't mean that to be insulting, but we have people posting here that I am nuts who haven't even hacked their GH1, so how could you possibly say I am incorrect when you have been shooting with an unhacked GH1 which in my opinion might as well be a totally different camera! The GH1.3 hacked produces images twice to 4 times as good as the unhacked GH1, and I would say at least twice as good as the GH2 I played with, and this clip only proves it to me. That's my opinion, with a very criticle eye, on high end display systems. Take it or leave it, but don't scream at me because you want to believe GOD has touched your GH2 because you bought early.

 

[dcloud]

i guess im getting a gf2 then...
too bad
im getting an af100 anyway

 

[mpgxsvcd]

THANK YOU! finally someone posts a damn downloadable .mts file! even if it is only about 6 seconds...

This file CONFIRMS everything I have been talking about. While it looks pretty good, it has a lot of issues, ESPECIALLY on a big projected display. While most of you are probably busy looking at the leaves and going "wow - clear!" there is mud in the faces, and a lot of weird mud and blocks on the right side of the frame on the building with the shadow of the tree on the wall. As a matter of fact - I would call this clip unusable in one of my movies, and it will surely suffer even more once it has been edited and recompressed, and this is not really even stressing the camera!

What I shot had a LOT more detail and movement than this - and there was a lot more mud. I now am fairly certain that the GH2 will not be for me unless someone hacks it. The very same scene on the GH1.3 would have been handled A LOT better than this clip, and I think the aliasing looks the same....maybe slightly better, but useless with the mud issue... it also looks edge enhanced to me. People say well "hdmi out" but is it confirmed it will be recordable and not crippled in some way?

Man I think you blow everything way out of proportion. Your clips look fine and so does this one. However, calling that clip unusable is laughable. I think you have been staring at the pixels on your “big projected display” too long.

Step back to a normal viewing distance and try to realize that not everything is going to be pixel perfect.

And I know you claim your video is the “Clearest Youtube HD Video Encode Ever”. That may or may not be true. However, the fact that youtube quality appears to be good enough for your work indicates to me that the GH2 footage will be good enough for you as well.

And yes it has been confirmed the final firmware allows the HDMI output to appear without any icons. However, are you really going to record uncompressed 1080p @ 24 FPS? That is going to require a ridiculous amount of storage space for arguably minimal gain.

I guess what I am trying to say is chill out. A GH13 is a fine camera. However, it still only has about ¾ of the resolution that the Panasonic HDC-SDT750 has. So if the GH2 isn’t good enough for you why is the GH13 good enough? If quality is that important to you then you would have the T750 or even a RED.

 

[Blackout]

In my eyes, 720p is going to be quite useful, especially when YouTube goes 60p. Not everything has to be 24p you know. I'd find it most exciting to watch a film that has been shot at 60p (I think it's going to be the film format of the future... but that's another thread).

720p on hacked GH1s is beautiful, but it is HALF the resolution of 1080p - so it's not really for film making other than what U stated - slowmo. It's use is for corporate video where one needs that 'live' look of a reporter or presentation. I completely disagree with you on 60p being the film format of the future... 60p is too close to the motion cadence of real life, so while it is interesting in terms of smoothness, and fine for live news or sporting events.. live events.. ect... it destroys narrative film making by making everything look cheap and like a soap opera. There is something hypnotic about 24p. Yes, it is a little stroby sometimes and you have to shoot carefully for it, but there is a reason other than "film cost" that is has remained a standard for almost 100 years and video camera that always shot 60 changes of motion per second finally actually slowed DOWN to match 24p progressive - because it holds a certain magic for narrative film making.. the lack of "temporal resolution" actually makes the imaginary world of the film you create more believable and story like - where as the increased temporal resolution of 60p makes you think you are just watching live footage right now. They both have there uses, but I'll take the lower temporal resolution and higher spatial resolution of 1080 24p over the faster temporal resolution yet lower spatial resolution of 720 60p for narrative film making every time.

I have actually seen showscan film at a ride.. it was 48 fps projected 70mm film... and while it was neat... it was too 'live' it would be cool for a theme park ride, but it loses some of the magic of narrative film making.

In any case - this has been covered and debated over and over and over again in other threads... this thread is about the GH2's 1080p image quality - and I say it again... better than the GH1 unhacked, but not better than the GH1.3.. not even close in my opinion.

 

[dcloud]

no icons on final firmware? thats awesome.
im considering in buying a gh2 with the 14-140.. but its just too pricey. the footage aint too bad. not best for all situations though.
but i really want a cam i can bring along on casual occassions like the gf2

 

[Blackout]

Man I think you blow everything way out of proportion. Your clips look fine and so does this one. However, calling that clip unusable is laughable. I think you have been staring at the pixels on your “big projected display” too long.

Step back to a normal viewing distance and try to realize that not everything is going to be pixel perfect.

And I know you claim your video is the “Clearest Youtube HD Video Encode Ever”. That may or may not be true. However, the fact that youtube quality appears to be good enough for your work indicates to me that the GH2 footage will be good enough for you as well.

And yes it has been confirmed the final firmware allows the HDMI output to appear without any icons. However, are you really going to record uncompressed 1080p @ 24 FPS? That is going to require a ridiculous amount of storage space for arguably minimal gain.

I guess what I am trying to say is chill out. A GH13 is a fine camera. However, it still only has about ¾ of the resolution that the Panasonic HDC-SDT750 has. So if the GH2 isn’t good enough for you why is the GH13 good enough? If quality is that important to you then you would have the T750 or even a RED.

The clip you speak of - is exactly that, it was a breakthough in terms of youtube encoding... at least for me. It was not what I would consider film quality. It was the absolute best HD quality I could squeeze out of youtube after doing an extensive amount of tests with the hacked GH1s and various codecs. I would not project that onto a movie screen, however my native file looks beaitiful on a movie screen.

I don't know how many times I have to say this.... what I am doing with these cameras is projecting them onto actual movie theaters... I am trying to make a film that can actually be released... I have been chasing this dream since I was a kid with the video toaster flyer... I chased it with the HVX and it was clse.. but still not there... I had the Canon slrs and was not happy with them.... The GH1.3 was the first time, that with my budget, I shot and projected something and I said to myself "this is close enough... this can do it if you are careful!" I run film fests and tote around industrial HD projectors and have also ran the GH1.3 through Christie projectors in REGAL in times square.

So let me get this straight... you are upset at me that I am trying to squeeze every single ounce of quality out of these inexpensive cameras to get them as close to looking like a nationally released movie as possible, and that I am reporting my results as best and as accurately I can - with attention to every single detail? I am reporting that the GH2 does not do it according to my eyes, and I AM watching on very high end, very well calibrated displays, at a normal viewing distance, and I am watching them projected - which is what is really important to me and I would think important to anyone trying to make a film and enter it into festivals that digitally project onto large format screens. I am watching this native clip RIGHT now, projected, and it is messed up.. the white sign on the right side and shadows are breaking apart.. this clip will not survive editing for a film.

Is this not a film makers forum? Or is this "anything digital looks good" like the scam stores on 42nd street that will sell you a bottle of water and tell you it's 'digital water'

(I'm not even kidding)

 

[e.oelberg]

Hi
i post because i think everybody gets excited about things which are very vage and in two months everybody can join this discussion.
Blackout posted a personal experience with the GH2 not a review. This is great and in soon everybody may checkout if he is right. He sounds pretty reasonable
to me

 

[Xian]

I finally got to toy with a GH2 here in NYC. I am not allowed to say by who or how... .

Wow, last time I checked which was last week, you could buy the camera at B&H photo.
Opps, I take that back. They probably never had it in stock. It has also been available for a while where I live but I agree, I wouldn't upgrade until a hack is available.

 

[richtrav]

THANK YOU! finally someone posts a damn downloadable .mts file! even if it is only about 6 seconds...

This file CONFIRMS everything I have been talking about. This is from a released GH2 in japan, and it is a native clip.. DON'T LOOK AT THE VIMEO, download the 1920 x 1080 native clip. It is a native GH2 .mts avchd file running at the gh2's 24 mbit cinema mode (which actually appears to be at about 22mbits using media info to check it) While it looks pretty good, it has A LOT of issues, ESPECIALLY on a big projected display. While most of you are probably busy looking at the leaves and going "wow - clear!" there is mud in the faces, and a lot of weird mud and blocks on the right side of the frame on the building with the shadow of the tree on the wall - this gets worse and worse the bigger your display is. It is clearly visable on my 24 inch LCD, and UGLY UGLY UGLY on my 14 foot projection system. As a matter of fact - I would call this clip 'unusable' in one of my movies, and it will surely suffer even more once it has been edited and recompressed, and this is not really even stressing the camera!

You guys think I have some motive of vendetta against the GH2... you are wrong... I was hoping for better and am actually unhappy about it. I have no wanting love for my GH1.3's to be forever better, they have issues too, but they produce FAR SUPERIOR images than the GH2 I played with, and whatever GH2 this was. 24 mbits is still NOT enough for highly complex detailed motion scenes, no matter if they improved the GOP and i or b frames or whatever. The IMAGE doesn't lie. That is my verdict.. take it or leave it but I think this clip proves it.

What I shot had a LOT more detail and movement than this - and there was a lot more mud. I now am fairly certain that the GH2 will not be for me unless someone hacks it. I hope it's possible. I would rather have three hacked GH2s than one AF-100. My 3 GH1.3 workflow is working very nice and I don't need xlr ins.. I have pro sync sound gear the way you are supposed to do it anyway. The very same scene of this clip on the GH1.3 would look A LOT better, and I think the aliasing on the GH2 looks the same....maybe ....slightly.... better, but useless with the mud issue... it also looks edge enhanced to me. People say well "hdmi out" but is it confirmed it will be recordable and not crippled in some way while live?

Anyway.. I am just reporting to other film makers my findings... and if you download this clip and pop it on a 60 inch screen, you will surely see the mud on the people and all over the wall and shadow detail on the left walls and right walls of the tree shadow on the wall on the right side of the frame. The sign on the wall is nearly breaking apart! if you do not see it, you are probably coming from VHS or DVD to this.. and don't have an eye for detail... or you are on a tinsy tiny monitor. I don't mean that to be insulting, but we have people posting here that I am nuts who haven't even hacked their GH1, so how could you possibly say I am incorrect when you have been shooting with an unhacked GH1 which in my opinion might as well be a totally different camera! The GH1.3 hacked produces images twice to 4 times as good as the unhacked GH1, and I would say at least twice as good as the GH2 I played with, and this clip only proves it to me. That's my opinion, with a very criticle eye, on high end display systems. Take it or leave it, but don't scream at me because you want to believe GOD has touched your GH2 because you bought early.

I saw that clip and I have seen similar "mud" in some darker areas of my cinema footage but when I go back and look at the shots I took with the old GH13 they were there too. I think a lot of it is noise reduction. And as you asked, here is a quick mts file I pulled off my harddrive (most I deleted after running through rewrap2m4v):

http://vimeo.com/16623372

 

[mpgxsvcd]

There is one simple problem with your logic. You seem to think that 1920x1080 video means it actually can resolve 1920x1080. The fact is that no consumer HD camera has ever achieved more than 1000 lw/ph of horizontal sharpness and 900 lw/ph of vertical sharpness. Both of those numbers were achieved with the Panasonic HDC-SDT750.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...r-Review/Motion-amp-Sharpness-Performance.htm

The GH1 could only achieve 750 lw/ph of horizontal sharpness and 650 lw/ph of vertical sharpness. What you need for quality on a big screen is resolution not just bit rate. If you are really that serious about filming for a big screen then the Panasonic HDC-SDT750 is a far better choice because of its much much higher resolvable resolution and its higher bit rate. However, I do agree that 24 FPS will never die. It is just too engrained in our brains that movies should look like that.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-EOS-7D-DSLR-Camera-Review-37365.htm

I have never seen any tests that show the GH1’s 1080p resolution versus its 720p resolution. However, from the examples I have seen I believe they are a lot closer than you think.

 

[Blackout]

Maybe not the best example of codec stress scenes, but this was the first video I've seen that makes me want to buy a Gh2. http://www.vimeo.com/16497211

Ahh.. another native MTS file - thank you! Interestingly enough - this footage is running at EXACTLY 24.000 mbit... I will have to check if it is constant or not but I believe it is... interesting.. perhaps the other footage was shot in normal FHD mode and this is the 24 cinema mode....

Now this is very beautiful - and usable in a film, however, there is little to no movement. These are like the first shots that wowed everyone off of the original GH1 - and then everyone got home and started shooting complex movement and went WHAAAT?

So... again, I stand by my verdict.. the GH2 will shoot some incredible images if there is not a lot of detail or movement, but the codec can not handle what the GH1.3 hacked can - high amounts of detail moving.. so if you buy a GH2 just be aware of that. While bitrate is NOT everything, it does matter - it's extra space to store the data of the movement, and when that space runs out - which it can pretty quickly at 24 mbit.. you will get mush. Not as bad as the original gh1 mud.. but mud none the less. The GH1.3 hacked still uses a very intelligent avchd codec - so many time even if you are set for 50mbit, it still only is running at 20 or 25 on close ups, lock down shots with little movement.. ect.. it isn't a constant bitrate setting.. it only uses the bitrate when it needs it for movement, so shooting a shot of moving whiskers and fur, and rustling leaves in fall, I have gotten it up to about 52 mbits.... and THAT is where it makes a HUGE difference... the GH2 has nowhere to go for all that extra detail, and so you are gonna get mush. Now if the hdmi out is uncompressed and usable, I guess you could compress to a better codec.. but thats a whole other ballgame and hassle. I am reporting on the camera as is, not with other weird hookups.

 

[Blackout]

There is one simple problem with your logic. You seem to think that 1920x1080 video means it actually can resolve 1920x1080. The fact is that no consumer HD camera has ever achieved more than 1000 lw/ph of horizontal sharpness and 900 lw/ph of vertical sharpness. Both of those numbers were achieved with the Panasonic HDC-SDT750.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...r-Review/Motion-amp-Sharpness-Performance.htm

The GH1 could only achieve 750 lw/ph of horizontal sharpness and 650 lw/ph of vertical sharpness. What you need for quality on a big screen is resolution not just bit rate. If you are really that serious about filming for a big screen then the Panasonic HDC-SDT750 is a far better choice because of its much much higher resolvable resolution and its higher bit rate. However, I do agree that 24 FPS will never die. It is just too engrained in our brains that movies should look like that.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-EOS-7D-DSLR-Camera-Review-37365.htm

I have never seen any tests that show the GH1’s 1080p resolution versus its 720p resolution. However, from the examples I have seen I believe they are a lot closer than you think.

MPG I am well aware of Barry's original resolution chart tests, and while I don't know the actual numbers, I do know that the hacked GH1.3 APPEARS to resolve a lot more resolution than the unhacked GH1, and definately resolves more resolution than all of the Canon dslrs - as is shown here in another resolution chart test (this one using the hacked GH1):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1BMugSQl1I&fmt=37

Again... numbers and tech spec are just that... what counts it how the image looks on a real screen, and that is my primary concern. I don't care what the equations are, or if there are magical fairies or little dinosaurs from the flintstones inside the camera making it work.... I care about how it looks on a big screen, and that is what I am reporting on.

 

[Blackout]

So Vitali.. where are you? Are you going to be able to hack this thing so we need not even wory about this? or did they include some form of encryption that recongnizes your dna as soon as you touch the camera and tazers you?

 

[mpgxsvcd]

So Vitali.. where are you? Are you going to be able to hack this thing so we need not even wory about this? or did they include some form of encryption that recongnizes your dna as soon as you touch the camera and tazers you?

Now that is one video I would like to see on a big screen. I can see it now "Dude, don't taze me man!". ZZZZZaaaaaPPP!

 

[Blackout]

Maybe not the best example of codec stress scenes, but this was the first video I've seen that makes me want to buy a Gh2. http://www.vimeo.com/16497211

Ok.. did some more scanning of this clip. Media info reports it averaging 24mbit.... vlc shows that it is in fact variable not constant...

An interesting aside... it is running at exactly 24fps.. not 23.976

I don't know if that effects anything or not... just letting everyone know.

 

[stonebat]

For film-making GH13 might work better for u. But different strokes for different folks. I hated GH13's FPN at ISO 800. I see no banding at ISO 3200 from GH2. So it's good for me.

Only small number of people use GH13 for film making. When GH2 becomes widely available, more people would wanna sell GH1 hacked, unhacked, or unhackable. If I need GH13 as B cam, I can buy it from ebay at dirt cheap price next year. Not a problem.

 

[stonebat]

Blackout, if you are into filming, why even waste your time on this issue? If you think GH1.3 is so great, just keep making good films while others are selling their GH13. But thanks for sharing what you found.