GH2 GH2 hack a placebo?

I just watched that. I was pretty surprised with how minimal the differences were, even in the blow up crops. The vimeo source file is pretty compressed though. 16mbps. Which may be smearing out a lot of the differences from the higher bitrate. I asked the OP if he could host a better source file, Avid DNXHD or Pro Res, somewheres. I'd really like to see it.

I'd also be curious to see a heavy color grade comparison.
 
I'm sure there are certain things you can shoot that the hack won't make a whole lot of difference with generally speaking.

But it's funny the video purports that there's no difference. I can easily see the compression in the comparison vs the actual detail with the hack.
 
As a unhacked GH2 owner...I tend to stay away from the "dark side" simply because I don't see the point. Yes there are some macroblocks in unhacked, yes the flag is tearing up and smudging up with that 600% crop zoom....but I have never encountered (yet) a job where the footage must be cropped at 500%.

It's not worth it in my opinion.

I know it's been played out to say this but - I'll try to learn how to shoot, how to cut, how to color correct and how to make a good story in 24 frames per second. Macroblocks will never hold me back, no matter how huge they are on stock GH2.
 
It's been compressed for vimeo. Granted, that may be the end delivery for many of us anyway.

But what happens when you color grade it? I'm sure the hacked footage will respond much better to level adjustments and such.
 
-Tom- said:
As a unhacked GH2 owner...I tend to stay away from the "dark side" simply because I don't see the point. Yes there are some macroblocks in unhacked, yes the flag is tearing up and smudging up with that 600% crop zoom....but I have never encountered (yet) a job where the footage must be cropped at 500%.

It's not worth it in my opinion.

I know it's been played out to say this but - I'll try to learn how to shoot, how to cut, how to color correct and how to make a good story in 24 frames per second. Macroblocks will never hold me back, no matter how huge they are on stock GH2.
Click to expand...

What isn't worth it? I have yet to hear of anyone having any camera failures while using the latest patches for the latest hack. It isn't any more risky to use the time tested patches than using stock.
 
atarijedi said:
...It isn't any more risky to use the time tested patches than using stock.
Click to expand...

Actually, my tests indicate that it's quite risky to use an unhacked GH2 for any shot that may overtax its restricted bitrate. With stock firmware, the GH2 may plunge into a low-quality Fallback Mode in situations where it cannot handle the amount of image detail required. The hazard is that when the unhacked GH2 fails, it does so surreptitiously without alerting you to the fact that it recorded degraded, low-quality footage.

At present, the only way to confirm that your unhacked GH2 footage has been recorded at the intended quality level is to examine it with H.264 technical analysis tools. Even if I had the time to do this, it would be an impractical burden to scan all of my footage for recording flaws. Of all the benefits that a well-tested patch provides, the assurance that your completed takes are recorded reliably at the highest practical levels of quality is one of most crucial.
 
Thank you for the link, I always was looking for a video with a good comparison. Actually Iam using the 44mbit hack and think that it reduces a bit the sky banding. Maybe this happens not only due to higher bit but because of the fine grain you see in the images. Is it possible that this type of grain is covering the blockiness ? The video cant show aswell every situation you encounter.

When I watch the posted video and compare it, I see very tiny differences i.e. in the green of the trees and the flag of the ship...its not a huge difference for my eyes like some claim in the comments on vimeo. On the other hand you see in the crop the noise/grain from the hack.
I can understand that it is interesting for professionals to get the best out of the cam, but I dont see ..at least on this showed video...any use of the very high bit hacks for private use as a hobby filmer. The people who did develope the hacks have my respect of course and thank you for the community support.

By the way, I did notice that the hacked GH2 has less blacks i.e. in the trees.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry but I can't take this test at all seriously. Who posts a test comparing two vastly different bitrates using a highly compressed presentation bitrate? And who uses a monaural soundtrack (and very low quality track at that)?

The guy who did this has a bunch of other videos which demonstrates he can shoot good stuff, but somehow this video is a big fail.

Until the source clips are available for examination, the test is just a put on.
 
It is very simple...More information is always better. AVCHD at the "normal" bitrates is pretty restrictive. The bare minimum to get a decent image imho. I prefer not to do anything at the bare minimum so the hack gives one the opportunity to move the GH2 out of the that category.

Frustrating to me how camera makers and some shooters want to limit the information recorded saying we don't need it. Well if we don't need why do the folks who make the "big" movies want/need it? - Because more information is always better.
 
Speaking of sky banding and the 44Mbit patch, which I assume is the same one I'm using, I had installed the Flowmotion patch and had too much sky banding and when I reinstalled the 44Mbit patch the sky banding was gone. Both patches were recording at about the same data rate for the same shot.

Randy
 
On Philip Bloom's Christmas Shootout test, the hack appeared to make quite a difference. Granted, it was compared to other cameras at their stock bitrates, but still... much less muddy compression than the stock AF100, 7D, Nex-5 on that wide shot.
 
I'm sorry, but the hack has obvious benefits to both the camera operator and the person enjoying the footage. Not to cast my finger down at you from my high horse, but haven't you ever seen one of the myriad of examples comparing stock and hacked footage? The patches that increase the bit-rate and provide these iq advantages are reactionary... they come out / are seen in situations that require them. Low light, outdoor sky, moving water, anything with detail...

Hell, I even purchased the GH2 based on a video from hacked footage and not knowing that it was a higher bit rate. I was definitely sensing something I had never seen the GH2 do before. There is certainly a very conspicuous difference between hacked / unhacked.
 
Cavemandude said:
I had installed the Flowmotion patch and had too much sky banding and when I reinstalled the 44Mbit patch the sky banding was gone.
Click to expand...

Cavemandude, in your post Personal-View, you mentioned that your footage was shot in interlaced FH video mode, which uses a reduced bitrate to insure file-spanning on slower Class 10 SD cards. I'd be interested to examine some of your original GH2 footage if you can make it available for download? It's hard to comment on your observations without an example to evaluate.
 
Last edited:
atarijedi said:
What isn't worth it? I have yet to hear of anyone having any camera failures while using the latest patches for the latest hack. It isn't any more risky to use the time tested patches than using stock.
Click to expand...

I can give you lots of examples. All of them are with less than 90 mb/sec cards though. Not all of us have the funds to shell out for a pocket full of those cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top