FS100 1080p resolution vs GH2 720p

A

andycorleone

Member
Hi, I'm seriously considering the FS100 mostly because for the 1080p 60fps feacture. I'm do a lot of Slowmotions and most of the time handheld, so is always nice to have some extra room in the borders for stabilization in AE. I read someone who said that FS100 resolve around 600-700 lines. and the GH2 around 850 lines.

What does it means? that in terms of Resolution a 1080p from the FS100 will look very similar to a 720p from a GH2? thanks
 
It resolves almost 800 lines. The GH2 indeed has superior resolution at about 850 lines (which is a punch in the face for the FS100 since a cheap consumer photo camera can do it better).
So I suppose you can intercut them without problems regarding image resolution.
 
Resolution smesalution... If you need extra room at the borders for stabllization in AE then frame a little wider with any camera.
For what it's worth, if you can't get a good image out of either of these cameras, it's not for lack of resolution.

All the Best!

Dave
 
FelixGER said:
It resolves almost 800 lines. The GH2 indeed has superior resolution at about 850 lines (which is a punch in the face for the FS100 since a cheap consumer photo camera can do it better).
So I suppose you can intercut them without problems regarding image resolution.
Click to expand...

I swear I read somewhere that the FS100 had 1000 lines or resolution.
 
FelixGER said:
It resolves almost 800 lines. The GH2 indeed has superior resolution at about 850 lines
Click to expand...

If we are talking about vertical resolution, seems 720p in the GH2 would be limited to at most 720 lines no matter how it does in 1080p. The GH2 does produce very sharp video, and it does look quite nice at 720p60, but the FS100 most likely has a significant resolution and compression advantage for overcranking. 720p60 oh the GH2 is recorded at 17Mbps, whereas 60fps overcrank recorded to 1080p24 in the fs100 should record 60Mbps, that is 4times more data, not to mention the fs100 uses an optimized codec and is cleaner (it collects ~11x more light for the same f-stop, so it should have a low light advantage of about 3.5 stops), so with the 1/120th shutter you'd want for 60fps material, that could make a big difference in image quality and noise performance for shooting interiors.

I could test this since I have an FS100 arriving today and I have a GH2 in front of me.
 
nyvz said:
the fs100 uses an optimized codec and is cleaner (it collects ~11x more light for the same f-stop
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't get that one, what you means by collet more light? that the image will be cleaner or brighter?
 
Last edited:
I've shot on a GH2 and I have an FS100 that I shot on, believe me, I would NOT be worried. I will take the FS100 ANY DAY over the GH2. I love the image quality. Also, which I have not tried yet, the FS100 has a 120fps mode where it does 3 seconds and converts that into 12 seconds. I am not sure what the resolution actually is but I *think* it is like 1440 x something.

What is also amazing on the FS100 is the rolling shutter, it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the GH2.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Also, which I have not tried yet, the FS100 has a 120fps mode where it does 3 seconds and converts that into 12 seconds. I am not sure what the resolution actually is but I *think* it is like 1440 x something.
Click to expand...

I believe it's SD from what I remember hearing. By the way, from someone who has owned both the af-100 and the fs-100, what are your initial thoughts on the sharpness + IQ between them?
 
I'm waiting for my AF100 to get back to me, I needed something fixed on it, so I'll have to defer that question till I can shoot both at the same time. I thought the AF100 did have a great image in decent light, no question. Resolution/sharpness was never a huge concern of mine. Because of that, I'll need to compare them shooting the same thing with the same lens in a situation I set up to really know. :)

What I will say is the FS100 has less noise, period, in less than ideal situations. The noise in the AF100 was similar in that it was luma, not chroma, so it looked grain like when I got it. I also want to compare what the highlights do. I need to tune the picture preferences on my FS100 first to match closer to what my AF100 has, then it will be easier to compare (as well).
 
Rick Burnett said:
I'm waiting for my AF100 to get back to me, I needed something fixed on it, so I'll have to defer that question till I can shoot both at the same time. I thought the AF100 did have a great image in decent light, no question. Resolution/sharpness was never a huge concern of mine. Because of that, I'll need to compare them shooting the same thing with the same lens in a situation I set up to really know. :)

What I will say is the FS100 has less noise, period, in less than ideal situations. The noise in the AF100 was similar in that it was luma, not chroma, so it looked grain like when I got it. I also want to compare what the highlights do. I need to tune the picture preferences on my FS100 first to match closer to what my AF100 has, then it will be easier to compare (as well).
Click to expand...

Fair enough :) I'm happy with my AF, just interested to see the thoughts of someone unbiased that has both
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top