GH2 GH2 Film Modes vs. Canon CineStyle Picture Profile - GH2 Wins!

While I use a GH2 myself, this is just one opinion, there will many other opinions. None of them right, none of them wrong. Use the information to inform your decision to use a certain camera for your projects, but not to convince everyone else that they have to use that camera or they are inferior.

I'm not saying that your doing that CColton, not at all. Just that this is the type of thing that can incite unfriendly arguments, when really it's like arguing granny smith vs. macintosh. They are both delicious and the more time you argue over which is better the less time you get to eat and enjoy them!
 
OP, don't cry just because you purchased a dead-end camera system/format...

;)

JK. GH2 is cool.

The technicolor profile is incredible. You should give it a try... oh, wait. Right...


From the article: "My opinion is that the GH2 looks more ‘real’ and the 600D looks more ‘cinema’."

Hmmm... which do I want....
 
wjm said:
OP, don't cry just because you purchased a dead-end camera system/format...
Click to expand...

I'm happy with my choice; the images produced by my camera look amazing, and my recording system produces excellent audio. Whether or not the line is a dead-end line, my current setup performs superbly, and that's the most important thing for me.
 
wjm said:
OP, don't cry just because you purchased a dead-end camera system/format...

;)

JK. GH2 is cool.

The technicolor profile is incredible. You should give it a try... oh, wait. Right...


From the article: "My opinion is that the GH2 looks more ‘real’ and the 600D looks more ‘cinema’."

Hmmm... which do I want....
Click to expand...

Whoever said the GH2 was a "dead-end camera system/format"?
Are you saying the AF100 is a dead end too?
What about all those lens manufacturers that have jumped unto the m4/3 bandwagon?
Are they all investing R&D money into a dead end system?
Where are the facts for this claim man?
 
wjm said:
OP, don't cry just because you purchased a dead-end camera system/format...

;)

JK. GH2 is cool.

The technicolor profile is incredible. You should give it a try... oh, wait. Right...


From the article: "My opinion is that the GH2 looks more ‘real’ and the 600D looks more ‘cinema’."

Hmmm... which do I want....
Click to expand...

Personally I don't find moire and aliasing to be "cinematic" ;) http://www.vimeo.com/20565849

Vincent
 
the canon flat tweaking just tries to re-cook the given "ingredients",
which are problematic from the start. no 'magic' will fix that.
in that aspect, GH2 wins on most fronts.
but if Panny colors are not to your taste, all those huge specs differences won't help ;)
 
CColton said:
http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/...Aufnahmen.html

Holy #$#& that's incredible!
Click to expand...
Yes, especially impressive is how the GH2 was able to color-balance the concrete stairs with a deep layer of snow...

EDIT: In case it's not clear, my comment was meant facetiously. The two comparison shots were not even taken in the same season, much less under the same exposure conditions. I'm not convinced this was an objective comparison of GH2 versus EOS 60D color rendition.
 
Last edited:
lpowell said:
Yes, especially impressive is how the GH2 was able to color-balance the concrete stairs with a deep layer of snow...
Click to expand...

And the latitude it had to expose the sky and the shadier parts of the buildings! I wonder if there's any noticeable difference in dynamic range from the GH1 to the GH2...
 
A quick note: till now I thought the cinema mode was the best and was the best for highlights, but i was wrong and i kept sacrificing shadows for that as cinema is very contrasty . But, my opinion is that cinema film mode is garbage. go with smooth and nostalgic. the cinema profile may retain slightly more detail but it saturates the gradation in such an ugly way... it's all about highlight roll off, and smooth and nostalgic are great + you don't sacrfice your shadows! One of my major complaints about the gh2 used to be this, ugly highlight roll off, cause i was using cinema, now i'm in love again. concerning technicolor vs gh2 film modes, although it would rock if we had it too, it's not such a huge deal. the gh2 with the correct profile and settings grades beautifully for what it is, much better than canons cause the image is just so much more robust. besides people need to start understanding that there IS such a thing as TOO flat. superflat settings are awesome if you have no idea in the world what the final look should be but with everything -2 on gh you're fine. I mean let's say that with canons you have the ability to start with 10% contrast and with the gh2 at 30%, and that a normal final image starts from 50% and a very contrasty crushed look is 100%, you're never going to end up below 50% cause it looks bad, so what if the gh picks up a little later? i know this is a dumb way of putting it but this is kind a how I perceive it. + i've seen many tests that show the noise that is introduced when restoring contrast from a very flat image.
 
I have both of the cams compared, When monitoring through the gh2 lcd it looks like it's interlaced video for some reason, yes, while shooting 24p cinema mode. Do you guys see this the way I do? Maybe im used to the Canon look. Am i missing a setting or something?
 
Stefanos said:
A quick note: till now I thought the cinema mode was the best and was the best for highlights, but i was wrong and i kept sacrificing shadows for that as cinema is very contrasty . But, my opinion is that cinema film mode is garbage. go with smooth and nostalgic.
Click to expand...

Since I only have the GH-1, I can't say what the response of the GH-2 is with the modes that the GH-1 doesn't have...

But from my looking at the step wedge charts that Barry Green did of the GH-1 quite a while ago... 'smooth' was the best in terms of capturing the most in dynamic range, and without a 'cast'. Nostalgia, seems to have a 'yellowish' cast, and
when one compares the 'steps', it has a slight bit more contrast than smooth.

What this all boils down to really, is the following rule...(s)...

1) Capture the image with as much spatial and tone detail as possible. That means avoid 'modes' which increase contrast, or alter the response curve. Select a mode that records the most 'steps' on the step wedge, without a 'color cast'.
2) Do all color processing in post production using tools that if you eventually don't like the look, you can toss it and you have not corrupted your original image data.

This is for the business of 'basic image capture'...

Then there's:

3) Learn to compose a shot.
4) Learn to light a scene, with an I for using light to give depth to the image.
5) Learn to make 'creative' use of a tripod and fixed focus.

Such attributes about a camera as 'Technicolor', or what have you are pretty crappy attributes. They should be relegated to those types of shooters who put star filters on their camera and shoot those 'wommantic lovy dovy' shots that are to be found on Hallmark Cards... ok if your a spinster in Minnesota... not particularly interesting for quality filmmaking. (Then there's the 'haze' filter... but I digress...). You know what... if that's really needed a panty hose, nose grease, or vaseline will do that job just as well, and a lot cheaper... if that's the desired effect, and it's easy enough to remove when the old biddy who demands it isn't in front of the camera...

At this point, with most of the usual suspects for NLE's there is absolutely no reason to do anything in the camera, unless one doesn't want to 'work' at all...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
1) Capture the image with as much spatial and tone detail as possible. That means avoid 'modes' which increase contrast, or alter the response curve. Select a mode that records the most 'steps' on the step wedge, without a 'color cast'.
2) Do all color processing in post production using tools that if you eventually don't like the look, you can toss it and you have not corrupted your original image data.

At this point, with most of the usual suspects for NLE's there is absolutely no reason to do anything in the camera, unless one doesn't want to 'work' at all...
Click to expand...

Agreed! Smooth with contrast -2 it is. I alter things for low light to reduce noise, but mostly I just stick to smooth - 2.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
But from my looking at the step wedge charts that Barry Green did of the GH-1 quite a while ago... 'smooth' was the best in terms of capturing the most in dynamic range, and without a 'cast'. Nostalgia, seems to have a 'yellowish' cast, and when one compares the 'steps', it has a slight bit more contrast than smooth.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Where I think Nostalgic really stands out is with indoor incandescent lighting. To my eyes, Nostalgic's sepia tone produces a completely natural tungsten look at a custom white balance of 2700K (I also set M-4 to bring down any greenish tint). When I find it necessary to blow out a highlight (e.g. when a light source is in the frame), Nostalgic's wide dynamic range handles it well.
 
lpowell said:
Totally agree. Where I think Nostalgic really stands out is with indoor incandescent lighting. To my eyes, Nostalgic's sepia tone produces a completely natural tungsten look at a custom white balance of 2700K (I also set M-4 to bring down any greenish tint). When I find it necessary to blow out a highlight (e.g. when a light source is in the frame), Nostalgic's wide dynamic range handles it well.
Click to expand...

So you'd recommend Smooth in general, and Nostalgic in the lighting you described?
 
CColton said:
So you'd recommend Smooth in general, and Nostalgic in the lighting you described?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I use, with NR and Contrast at -2. For Nostalgic, I also set Saturation at -2, with Sharpness and NR at +2. I like the sparse, clean details this produces in darkly lit areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top