GH2 + Atomos Ninja?
- Thread starter kprince
- Start date
Sage
Well-known member
For what its worth, if the 24 frames could be isolated before storage to Prores within the Ninja, I would be forced (utterly, helplessly forced by threat of death) to buy the Ninja immediately and tell all my contacts to do likewise.
David Shapton
Well-known member
For what its worth, if the 24 frames could be isolated before storage to Prores within the Ninja, I would be forced (utterly, helplessly forced by threat of death) to buy the Ninja immediately and tell all my contacts to do likewise.
Don't want to raise false hopes - we can't do pulldown removal in the Ninja; it's one of the things that distinguishes the Ninja from the Samurai. It's different hardware.
We are simply looking at ways to get the best results from the GH2. I won't do a running commentary here, but if we do manage to improve the results, I'll certainly post something on this forum.
Amazing how many people want the GH2 to work well with external recorders. I'm sure Panasonic are listening to this!
Dave Shapton
Atomos
photonashville
Well-known member
Dave,
The issue with the Samurai is that it doesn't have HDMI input, so regardless of the additional processing it can do, it doesn't help GH2 owners. Seems that there is a gap in the 2 products, one with HDMI and lesser firmware ability and then HD-SDI and more firmware ability. But what about those users who want and need HDMI and the higher capability firmware? That missing product is what we want. I think all on this GH2 board would agree.
Personally I don't want anything to do with interlaced footage. I am better off with shooting the 24p to SD card in camera than all the extra workflow to do the 3:2 stuff which I have no desire in doing or complicating workflow. I also have to think about the times I need to hand off footage when I am not editing. 24p ProRes straight from an Atomos device would be ideal. The GH2 is honestly the best bang for buck camera that currently exists. I am a 3 year Canon shooter and love working with the GH2 moreso.
The issue with the Samurai is that it doesn't have HDMI input, so regardless of the additional processing it can do, it doesn't help GH2 owners. Seems that there is a gap in the 2 products, one with HDMI and lesser firmware ability and then HD-SDI and more firmware ability. But what about those users who want and need HDMI and the higher capability firmware? That missing product is what we want. I think all on this GH2 board would agree.
Personally I don't want anything to do with interlaced footage. I am better off with shooting the 24p to SD card in camera than all the extra workflow to do the 3:2 stuff which I have no desire in doing or complicating workflow. I also have to think about the times I need to hand off footage when I am not editing. 24p ProRes straight from an Atomos device would be ideal. The GH2 is honestly the best bang for buck camera that currently exists. I am a 3 year Canon shooter and love working with the GH2 moreso.
David Shapton
Well-known member
Thanks for this feedback. We take note of all the comments we see and we are open to suggestions for future products.
Dave Shapton
Atomos
kprince
Well-known member
If this marriage does happen, atomos has my money too
I'll probably have to jump on that bandwagon too. What a delicate ballet this is...
David Shapton
Well-known member
It will improve it by bypassing the internal compression and recording direct to visually-lossless Apple ProRes. Adding an extra two bits (ie - two additional zeros) doesn't improve quality per se, but it does give extra flexibility when you want to do colour grading or even simple dissolves. You get extra steps and hence finer gradations between colours. It's well worth doing with all 8-bit material.
Dave Shapton
Atomos
Ian-T
Veteran
Amen. That's what I've mentioned before. I think the AVCHD is oversaturating the image which probably affects the image's overall contrast and dynamic range. The side by side sample that one user provided showed that as clear as day. I'm sure a hack that allows a higher data rate can help with the loss of shadow detail...but in terms of the DR I believe the HDMI capture would prove superior. IMO
Ian-T
Veteran
A great deal when color correcting.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Hi kprince: I have an off-topic product question/suggestion concerning your company's RedHead windscreens: Does one of your windscreens fit securely over the GH2's built-in stereo mic? I noticed the mic works even when the flash is popped-up (the mic is attached to the flash). I've love to have a black "fur" windscreen for my GH2's built-in mic when I'm using the camera in relatively stripped-down mode (e.g.: w/o an external mic attached). Please advise.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Hi Dave: Thanks for participating in these forums. Much appreciated!
I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate a feature request for the Samurai: If possible, the Samurai would support both HDMI and HD-SDI inputs, perhaps as an extra-cost build-to-order option?
For myself, a device that works with both types of input sources is more valuable than one which only works with one or the other.
But I certainly understand if this flexibility might increase the price, or delay release, or both. Cheers.
photonashville
Well-known member
+1
That's the product that should exist no matter what. An either or situation is never a product I want to dive into. A product needs options built in. A GH2 with Ninja this year won't help me if I move to an HD-SDI cam or rent one soon.
Barry_Green
Moderator
You do realize this makes no sense whatsoever though, right? In fact, it's pretty much diametrically opposed to anything and everything to do with how a codec would be designed.
A codec is designed to faithfully capture and reproduce an image, as best it can. To think that a codec is oversaturating the colors is just backwards thinking. There are no color saturation parameters in a codec, it just captures the digital data and stores it.
In my testing I came to the absolute conclusion that the codec is storing the accurate image, and the monitor output is pale, flat, muted and blech, as compared to what the camera is generating. Now, if you happen to like the monitor output, that's a whole different question, and feel free to enjoy whichever you prefer.
But the codec is capturing the accurate representation of what the camera is generating. The monitor output is the one that's creating the inaccurate representation.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Mildly interesting followup just to further verify what I was saying before -- I just did a chroma key test on the AF100 with the Nano, wanting to demonstrate the difference so folks can determine for themselves how much of an improvement an external recorder makes (if any difference at all, or if a huge difference, or whether it's worth the cost based on the amount of improvement, etc...) so I recorded in-camera and also to the Nano. And the results, color-wise, are absolutely identical. I dropped them on the timeline and seriously they look exactly the same; only difference is some blockiness in the hair. I would dare anyone to be able to tell them apart, from color. And that's what a codec is supposed to do, is accurately record what it's given. And that's what a monitor output port is supposed to do -- accurately represent the images that the camera is making.
This contrasts quite a bit with what I experienced with the exact same NanoFlash when used on the GH2; in that case there was a quite substantial color shift between the on-camera and the HDMI-recorded output. I don't think there's any mystery as to why; I believe the Nano recorded exactly what it was given, and I believe the onboard recorder recorded exactly what it was given; that means that the difference is that the GH2's HDMI output is inaccurate. Which, while disappointing, shouldn't be all that surprising - it's a feature that the competing SLRs don't have at all in any worthwhile manner (a clean full 1080p output) so it shouldn't be surprising that some corners were cut in an $899 body. I still think the GH2 is an amazing steal, but you should recognize what it can do and what it can't. There are limits.
Not saying you shouldn't pursue whatever you want to, or record whatever you want to -- just pointing out where the actual fault is. I guess I could actually make an argument for recording the HDMI output, because at least then it will match what the monitor is displaying, as opposed to recording onboard where the monitor doesn't match what the camera is recording. With the understanding that the monitor doesn't display accurately when not recording, so if you're using a monitor with a GH2 you really can't use it to make lighting or color decisions unless you start the recording, and even then those decisions will only be truly accurate if you're using an HDMI recorder to record that monitor output since it won't match what the camera is actually seeing or recording to its onboard codec.
There are tradeoffs here. The GH2's HDMI output has a nonstandard field rate and pulldown patterns that mean you'll have to run Ralph's script to turn it into something editable, and it won't have real 4:2:2 chroma, and the color (at least) will be off and quite muted as compared to the in-camera recording. But, the monitor output is free of compression artifacts, and if you use a high-quality external recorder you can avoid the appearance of compression artifacts. Whereas the onboard codec will take up 1/10th the space and will have about the same amount of color info (4:2:0) and will be recording the actual color detail the camera is imaging, but the onboard codec isn't nearly as robust as it could otherwise be so compression artifacts (especially in highly-detailed scenes) may degrade the image whereas the external recorder wouldn't be degraded in the same way. Pick your preference; there is no slam-dunk obvious solution here.
This contrasts quite a bit with what I experienced with the exact same NanoFlash when used on the GH2; in that case there was a quite substantial color shift between the on-camera and the HDMI-recorded output. I don't think there's any mystery as to why; I believe the Nano recorded exactly what it was given, and I believe the onboard recorder recorded exactly what it was given; that means that the difference is that the GH2's HDMI output is inaccurate. Which, while disappointing, shouldn't be all that surprising - it's a feature that the competing SLRs don't have at all in any worthwhile manner (a clean full 1080p output) so it shouldn't be surprising that some corners were cut in an $899 body. I still think the GH2 is an amazing steal, but you should recognize what it can do and what it can't. There are limits.
Not saying you shouldn't pursue whatever you want to, or record whatever you want to -- just pointing out where the actual fault is. I guess I could actually make an argument for recording the HDMI output, because at least then it will match what the monitor is displaying, as opposed to recording onboard where the monitor doesn't match what the camera is recording. With the understanding that the monitor doesn't display accurately when not recording, so if you're using a monitor with a GH2 you really can't use it to make lighting or color decisions unless you start the recording, and even then those decisions will only be truly accurate if you're using an HDMI recorder to record that monitor output since it won't match what the camera is actually seeing or recording to its onboard codec.
There are tradeoffs here. The GH2's HDMI output has a nonstandard field rate and pulldown patterns that mean you'll have to run Ralph's script to turn it into something editable, and it won't have real 4:2:2 chroma, and the color (at least) will be off and quite muted as compared to the in-camera recording. But, the monitor output is free of compression artifacts, and if you use a high-quality external recorder you can avoid the appearance of compression artifacts. Whereas the onboard codec will take up 1/10th the space and will have about the same amount of color info (4:2:0) and will be recording the actual color detail the camera is imaging, but the onboard codec isn't nearly as robust as it could otherwise be so compression artifacts (especially in highly-detailed scenes) may degrade the image whereas the external recorder wouldn't be degraded in the same way. Pick your preference; there is no slam-dunk obvious solution here.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, last word on this, because this has been one of those curiosities so I decided to get totally to the bottom of it...
Without a doubt, unquestionably, and absolutely verified -- the GH2's HDMI output is inaccurate. It absolutely does not represent the footage as recorded or the camera's image as being generated.
Here's the testing methodology -- I shot on the GH2 to native recording, and to the Nano through the GH2's HDMI output, recording when the GH2 was recording. The result is a substantial difference in color. Conclusion -- either the onboard recording is messed up, or the monitoring is messed up (or, potentially, both I guess).
I then recorded on the AF100 and simultaneously through to the Nano and the result is identical color. Conclusion: this tells me that the AF100's monitor output is completely accurate and is absolutely accurately displaying what the cards are recording.
I then took the GH2 footage over to the AF100. I played the footage off the AF100 and recorded it to the Nano. Results -- identical color. This tells me that when using absolutely accurate monitoring hardware, you will get accurate results, and therefore, the reason we get differences on the GH2 is due to inaccurate monitoring hardware. The image it outputs is simply not "up to snuff" and is not the same as what gets recorded.
Do with this information what you will -- just don't get distracted following red herrings. The problem is absolutely not in the GH2's onboard codec, the monitor output is most definitely not more accurate. The monitor output is simply inaccurate. Whether you find it acceptable or not is obviously your own choice, and more power to you whichever way you choose to go. I just don't want to see Dave or his team chasing after red herrings, the thing is what it is and it will have to be dealt with however is deemed appropriate.
Without a doubt, unquestionably, and absolutely verified -- the GH2's HDMI output is inaccurate. It absolutely does not represent the footage as recorded or the camera's image as being generated.
Here's the testing methodology -- I shot on the GH2 to native recording, and to the Nano through the GH2's HDMI output, recording when the GH2 was recording. The result is a substantial difference in color. Conclusion -- either the onboard recording is messed up, or the monitoring is messed up (or, potentially, both I guess).
I then recorded on the AF100 and simultaneously through to the Nano and the result is identical color. Conclusion: this tells me that the AF100's monitor output is completely accurate and is absolutely accurately displaying what the cards are recording.
I then took the GH2 footage over to the AF100. I played the footage off the AF100 and recorded it to the Nano. Results -- identical color. This tells me that when using absolutely accurate monitoring hardware, you will get accurate results, and therefore, the reason we get differences on the GH2 is due to inaccurate monitoring hardware. The image it outputs is simply not "up to snuff" and is not the same as what gets recorded.
Do with this information what you will -- just don't get distracted following red herrings. The problem is absolutely not in the GH2's onboard codec, the monitor output is most definitely not more accurate. The monitor output is simply inaccurate. Whether you find it acceptable or not is obviously your own choice, and more power to you whichever way you choose to go. I just don't want to see Dave or his team chasing after red herrings, the thing is what it is and it will have to be dealt with however is deemed appropriate.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, yes, that's what I'm saying -- it's inaccurate, but that doesn't have to be the death knell. If you like what you're seeing, and you want to record it, go right ahead. Just understand where the difference is.
As for DR -- I'm waiting on a last piece of the puzzle to be able to do some DR tests, that should prove interesting.
As for DR -- I'm waiting on a last piece of the puzzle to be able to do some DR tests, that should prove interesting.
plasmasmp
Well-known member
It is inaccurate to the picture that is recorded to the SD card. I doubt there will ever be a firmware fix that will change the HDMI output of the GH2.
But is it a worse picture, and how can it be dealt with best in a production setting? I've been testing the differences on a calibrated monitor, but I'd really like to test it with the Atmos to see it if can really be workable or usable over recording to sd.
But is it a worse picture, and how can it be dealt with best in a production setting? I've been testing the differences on a calibrated monitor, but I'd really like to test it with the Atmos to see it if can really be workable or usable over recording to sd.