GH2 GH-2: Overexpose or Underexpose? Votes.

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Had a chance to use the camera for a few days. Everything looks pretty good, not having to deal with the hack and whatever the sensor's doing is pretty awesome. If I had to choose a camera to buy (that goes for all sizes and formats) I'm pretty sure it'd either be a pair of GH-2's and PL mounts or one 5D MKII (or III if it comes out soon enough).

Wanted to get thoughts from GH-2 users/owners about overexposure versus underexposure.

I remember the GH-1 looked a little better underexposed, but after using the GH-2 in some lit scenarios (we were lighting for RED MX), It seemed like slightly overexposing would have been the better choice, then dragging it back in post.

Experiences? examples?
 
Shoot Cinema Mode and then properly expose. It has the best highlight retention when properly exposed (using histogram/light meter.)

Anyway I'd say don't underexpose because the GH2 codec isn't quite as good as GH13 and needs all the detail you can show it...if something is a little dark the codec might not get it.
 
Kholi said:
It seemed like slightly overexposing would have been the better choice, then dragging it back in post.
Click to expand...

I find that i have to slightly overexpose if I'm taking notice of the exposure metering. So far I've only worked with the Smooth setting, so that may not be applicable in other modes. As to post, I'm still acquiring footage so I can't comment there.
 
underexposing the GH2 codec can look quite terrible in dark areas.
and overexposing is always dangerous in digital video...
so with those limitations, finding a sweet spot (with any accessory possible) for every shot is extra important, otherwise try to avoid unsolved shots.
 
roei z said:
underexposing the GH2 codec can look quite terrible in dark areas.
and overexposing is always dangerous in digital video...
so with those limitations, finding a sweet spot (with any accessory possible) for every shot is extra important, otherwise try to avoid unsolved shots.
Click to expand...

I think so, as well. But, I'm a newbie with the camera and didn't want to come off as definitive. Seems like I'm mirrored here, though.

It almost feels like you need to either nail it by the meter's reading on the camera, or roll to the right slightly.

What that entails, though, is always having the ability to tame light or highlights where they matter most: skin, prime objects, etc.

Video: http://www.vimeo.com/20378865 (ignore the voice behind the camera, haha.)

In this case, still green with the camera, I think I should have just left it over exposed slightly then tamed it afterward. Being so used to working with the MX, that scenario (I have footage from the exact same setup) I could handle by exposing exactly how I wanted it to look.

Any more examples and thoughts greatly welcomed. So close to just buying one but I'm broke! haha.
 
Great sample clip Kholi. Being GH2 noobie myself this thread is very important to me also. Out of curiosity could you please post Red clip of the same scene that you said you had? That would be extremely cool to see how the exposure differs. (or any clips you might have of similar/same setup with gh2/red)
 
roei z said:
underexposing the GH2 codec can look quite terrible in dark areas.
and overexposing is always dangerous in digital video...
so with those limitations, finding a sweet spot (with any accessory possible) for every shot is extra important, otherwise try to avoid unsolved shots.
Click to expand...

+1

Diagnosing your exposures holistically is dangerous to your individual shots. Exposure should be determined in regards to mood, skin tone, lighting ratio, camera position, setting, etc., and that's always going to be different. Invest in a quality monitor, calibrate it accordingly, and then determine your exposures on an individual basis.
 
vcassel said:
+1

Diagnosing your exposures holistically is dangerous to your individual shots. Exposure should be determined in regards to mood, skin tone, lighting ratio, camera position, setting, etc., and that's always going to be different. Invest in a quality monitor, calibrate it accordingly, and then determine your exposures on an individual basis.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't think you need a monitor, the onboard LCD was pretty accurate as far as what I'd expect shooting digital formats. It's no less useless than the 7" RED LCD, which I've gotten accustomed to to the point where I ignore the waveform, etc, and light and expose by eye.

It's just a matter of knowing your camera inside and out, me thinks.

I do know that individual scenarios require a certain sort of measuring, and it all depends on what you want to sacrifice with these little gems. I'm curious as if, for GH-2 users, the more common resolution is to roll slightly over exposed and then adjusting later.
 
Most of my projects are landscape in bright sun. My other Panasonic video cameras are usually set to -1. I find the GH2, in my case, does best at 0 to -1/3.

This project was shot under varying outdoor light conditions at 0:

 
If I am outdoors at daytime I expose for the highlights but at night I will expose for the shadow detail. The GH2 dose not like to be under exposed. This is something I just did were I overexposed most of the time to keep the FPN and banding down as much as posable.
 
Matthew P said:
I thought that banding and FPN were none existent on the GH2?
Click to expand...

Its there at iso 2500 and above in under exposed areas with low detail. Compared to the GH1 its nonexistent. I have not used any canons before but I would think that if you push it as far you would see something similar.
 
bitcrusher said:
Its there at iso 2500 and above in under exposed areas with low detail. Compared to the GH1 its nonexistent. I have not used any canons before but I would think that if you push it as far you would see something similar.
Click to expand...
yes, I remember getting the same on my 7D when I pushed the ISOs in not so great light.
 
Slight underexposure, but not too far as the codec starts to dive when not fed enough information. If you shoot in cinema mode only go into overexposure if you don't have to worry about shoulder. +1.5 or so. The cinema mode brings out the worst in the camera in most uncontrolled lighting situations.

Oh! The camera metering is way off with non panasonic lenses in comparison to the gh1. Don't trust the histogram, hook it up to a calibrated monitor and test out your lenses. My nikkors are .5 to -1.0 ev on the gh2 compared to the gh1. craziness.
 
plasmasmp said:
Slight underexposure, but not too far as the codec starts to dive when not fed enough information. If you shoot in cinema mode only go into overexposure if you don't have to worry about shoulder. +1.5 or so. The cinema mode brings out the worst in the camera in most uncontrolled lighting situations.

Oh! The camera metering is way off with non panasonic lenses in comparison to the gh1. Don't trust the histogram, hook it up to a calibrated monitor and test out your lenses. My nikkors are .5 to -1.0 ev on the gh2 compared to the gh1. craziness.
Click to expand...

the highlight 'zebra' is pretty accurate on different lenses
 
I'm on slightly overexposed side. Relying solely on the camera's exposure reading didn't work for me. Instead of relying on my gut feeling, I've been using Kodak Gray Scale. Then I lowered midtone gray during post-processing. It's definitely better, but having a good ext monitor like Cineroid EVF or Marshall 6.5" would be ideal solution. But not cheap...
 
Every exposure is a compromise with any camera. It's about knowing your axe and knowing what you need from that exposure. No specific formula.
 
A warning there are 2 different definitions of "over- and underexposure" at play in this thread. Some are referring to overexposure as anything that reads above the "correct" meter setting on the GH2. The other definition is that something is, in fact, overexposed regardless of whether the meter is correct or not. Confusing these 2 separate definitions might not be good.

The former definition is based upon the accuracy of the built-in reflective meter or upon how much the scene deviates from 18% neutral gray.
The latter definition assumes the camera operator knows how to use the camera's meter and then also makes a conscious choice to expose the image brighter or darker with the intention of adjusting it later to get the intended look.

With regard to the former definition, I've found I like Center-Weighted Averaging meter mode on the GH2, vs. the multi-area mode. I've just learned to interpret center weighted readings better.

With regard to the latter definition, I've found that underexposing is better in the GH2 than the GH1. I used to advocate exposing "dark" scenes brighter (then bringing them down in post) on the GH1 because the noise and FPN in the shadows was so bad. The GH2 can stand a lot more brightening than the GH1 (at least an unhacked GH1), especially at low ISOs.
As a shameless plug, here's a vidcap from a shot made the GH2 a few days ago that has a considerable amount of color-correction thrown at it. I metered the scene for proper exposure, but of course I let the light flaring the lens overexpose. Shot on Cinema mode at 200 ISO and f4. Didn't want to open up to f2.8 because I had to pull focus and needed more DOF.

Iota-1.jpg

And here's the original, uncorrected shot:

Before2.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top