adammada
Well-known member
Rick agree - but I see in the patched version 42MBit 3.61D just more noise, but not more details - that's the problem
GH2 GH2 hack vs. GH13
- Thread starter adammada
- Start date
Rick agree - but I see in the patched version 42MBit 3.61D just more noise, but not more details - that's the problem
The Canon DSLRs do not use B-Frames, so the GH-2 easily outperforms the Canon at the same or lower bit-rates.
moviemaykr
Active member
So does that mean that the overall image from the GH2 Hack is better quality than the full frame image from Canon? Which would hold up better on a 40 foot screen?
Everyone has their own opinion on this. My opinion is that the GH-2 camera produces a higher quality video image than any of the current Canon DSLRs do, but all this may change with the next generation of cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony.
As far as displaying on a 40 foot screen, I think a lot depends on the projector and process used. ( i.e. Digital or Film projector ? )
Last edited:
adammada
Well-known member
View attachment setb.zip my new GOP3 patch
after some changes, even in the tester tool, it now looks much better with the 3.61D and 1080/24pN
after some changes, even in the tester tool, it now looks much better with the 3.61D and 1080/24pN
Attachments
Last edited:
I have used both cameras side by side, and as far as image quality goes I prefer the GH13 indoors, and outdoors they are even, or perhaps the GH2 has slightly better apparent sharpness, if you don't mind a few artifacts. I don't like haloing, so I don't see it as big advantage, but if you don't want to grade your video, the GH2 can dial up sharpness and saturation in cam. The GH2 is clearly noisier.
As far as ease of use, the GH2 is easier to use.
Plasmashd did a very good side by side of an outdoor scene, and the edge detail is to my eye more accurate in the GH13. However, the difference is so slight you could get the results by shooting the same scene with two cameras of the same model, or two lenses of the same model.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/426/gh2-stalin-samples-topic/p1
I think as far as the noise goes, the GH1 has a slightly better sensor, and when using lpowell's settings the IQ is amazing.
I also think that at some point the GH2 when hacked will have a slight advantage, but I don't see that yet.
For now, indoors, I'm using the GH1 as the main cam when I need ISO 800 with a sharp prime. The sharp prime gives me all the detail I need, without all the haloing and artifacts from the GH2.
I don't see the hack taking the noise out of the sensor, as Mr V says, "garbage in, garbage out". But hey, maybe it can be done
But really, there is very little visible difference. If you can get a GH1 cheap, it is a steal and comes with a superior battery and a free AC power supply.
As far as ease of use, the GH2 is easier to use.
Plasmashd did a very good side by side of an outdoor scene, and the edge detail is to my eye more accurate in the GH13. However, the difference is so slight you could get the results by shooting the same scene with two cameras of the same model, or two lenses of the same model.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/426/gh2-stalin-samples-topic/p1
I think as far as the noise goes, the GH1 has a slightly better sensor, and when using lpowell's settings the IQ is amazing.
I also think that at some point the GH2 when hacked will have a slight advantage, but I don't see that yet.
For now, indoors, I'm using the GH1 as the main cam when I need ISO 800 with a sharp prime. The sharp prime gives me all the detail I need, without all the haloing and artifacts from the GH2.
I don't see the hack taking the noise out of the sensor, as Mr V says, "garbage in, garbage out". But hey, maybe it can be done
But really, there is very little visible difference. If you can get a GH1 cheap, it is a steal and comes with a superior battery and a free AC power supply.
John Caballero
Veteran
If you enjoy your image indoor with that awful noise pattern in high ISO and low light by all means use the GH13 indoor. It adds an interesting FX to your images. If you enjoy micro shakes when used handheld without proper stabilization, image softness and focus chasing by all means use a non Panasonic prime lens.
The GH2 is obviously a much improved camera over the GH13. The hack makes it even more robust. It won't be suddenly magical but better overall.
The GH2 is obviously a much improved camera over the GH13. The hack makes it even more robust. It won't be suddenly magical but better overall.
Last edited:
Ian-T
Veteran
DrDave, I really don't see what you see. What haloing are you talking about? Is that the "artifacts" you are referring to?
You make it sound like the image on the GH-2 is flustered with a great amount of terrible looking noise. I had the GH-1 hacked for a great deal of time using those high bit rates. You still had issues a higher ISOs. But when shooting with the GH-2 at high ISO's (under the latest hack) it kept its detail...even with noise. It is a "filmic" type of noise...not artifacted noise from compression. There's a huge difference IMO. Now...the noise looks great. Who would have ever thought "noise" and "great" would go together in the same sentence when it come to compressed video? The noise is nowhere the same as from "typical" cameras IMO. It's welcomed as a matter of fact. Go ahead and shoot some high ISO's. You'll see a difference in how it holds the details and especially colors. Try that with "typical" compressed cameras you'll find colors washed out and details either missing or having that "smoothing" effect in the shadow areas. How is that a disadvantage?
EDIT: No, it's not a night and day difference from the factory to the hacked settings. But when pixel peeping....one can see the difference. One of the things I always liked about those expensive digital cinema cameras Michael Mann and George Lucas etc., used was the noise. When the image got noisy...it stayed finely detailed and colorful (and was not distracting). I always equated that with higher end digital capture (compared to anything under $10,000 (or thereabouts). I called it "Clean Noise" (Oxymorn for the day...lol). "Dirty Noise" is what we were getting before (loss of contrast, smoothing effect, loss of detail etc.). Those higher end cameras had little to no compression....and you basically got everything the sensor had to offer. That's how I look at this hack. Goodness/garbage in goodness/garbage out.
EDIT 2: Check out this low light footage. Even watching on Vimeo it looks good.
http://vimeo.com/26818589
You make it sound like the image on the GH-2 is flustered with a great amount of terrible looking noise. I had the GH-1 hacked for a great deal of time using those high bit rates. You still had issues a higher ISOs. But when shooting with the GH-2 at high ISO's (under the latest hack) it kept its detail...even with noise. It is a "filmic" type of noise...not artifacted noise from compression. There's a huge difference IMO. Now...the noise looks great. Who would have ever thought "noise" and "great" would go together in the same sentence when it come to compressed video? The noise is nowhere the same as from "typical" cameras IMO. It's welcomed as a matter of fact. Go ahead and shoot some high ISO's. You'll see a difference in how it holds the details and especially colors. Try that with "typical" compressed cameras you'll find colors washed out and details either missing or having that "smoothing" effect in the shadow areas. How is that a disadvantage?
EDIT: No, it's not a night and day difference from the factory to the hacked settings. But when pixel peeping....one can see the difference. One of the things I always liked about those expensive digital cinema cameras Michael Mann and George Lucas etc., used was the noise. When the image got noisy...it stayed finely detailed and colorful (and was not distracting). I always equated that with higher end digital capture (compared to anything under $10,000 (or thereabouts). I called it "Clean Noise" (Oxymorn for the day...lol). "Dirty Noise" is what we were getting before (loss of contrast, smoothing effect, loss of detail etc.). Those higher end cameras had little to no compression....and you basically got everything the sensor had to offer. That's how I look at this hack. Goodness/garbage in goodness/garbage out.
EDIT 2: Check out this low light footage. Even watching on Vimeo it looks good.
http://vimeo.com/26818589
Last edited:
I have both cameras, and at ISO 800 I prefer the GH1 indoors. Super clean, no haloing and artifacts, less aliasing. I don't see any awful noise pattern. In fact, I don't see any noise unless I watch the big TV from one foot away, which is, well, maybe a waste of my time. And even if I did see an awful noise pattern, it still is less noisy at ISO 800 than my GH2. I've tested them for over a hundred hours on res charts, rooms, books, foliage, people, and so on. But it isn't really a big difference. Time after time, gig after gig, the GH13 with lpowell's patch delivers at ISO 800, F/2 to F/3. Maybe I have a good sample, but I doubt it.
Outdoors, they seem even. The stock GH2 setting is a tad oversharpened. Subtle motion, like the thrill of a violinists fingers rippling along the fingerboard, or a soft wind in an Aspen tree look slightly better on the GH1 to me. But the difference is small; perhaps it is preference, but I doubt if it is imagination.
Scientifically, the only way to know is to do a double blind test, and I doubt that will happen. When AES finally did a double blind and no one could tell the difference between HD audio and regular audio, no one could believe it. But there it was. Until that happens, we are just operating in the realm of perception. Although the DXO mark shows it to be a better sensor, that's just a number. Only a double blind would show if there is a perceived difference. I have microphones that don't have the "specs" of some of the newer, surface mount models, but they sound better. I have a russian mic that beat out my Neumann KM140s in a blind test, so I sold the Neumanns.
Look at all the conflicting opinions on this forum, people see differently, and value different things in an image. I can surely see that some may have better perception than me, but in the end, I have to use the gear. I see a noise difference; perhaps others do not.
As for my prime lenses, I believe they produce better video, and the difference in lenses, whether it is Leica, the super sharp Panny 20mm, or an ancient Vivitar Series 1 90mm, those lenses make a bigger difference than the change in cameras. Set the mega zoom to 85, and compare it to the Nikkor 85, or even the Samyang 85, and, hey, I see a substantial difference. Sure, I miss the IS (Olympus, I'm waiting for you to go 24p with your 16 bit audio and in cam IS) I personally think that certain lenses match up with each camera. The 14-45 on the GH2 gives me fabulous photos, less than perfect video--it works better on the GH1, for me, for some reason. The 20mm looks great on both. Outdoors, the Nikkor 85mm F/2 looks a tiny bit better on the GH2. All these lenses have different contrast, color and micro edge characteristics that are impossible to quantify. But hey, both cams are cheap.
When the GH2 came out, I read several reviews that said it was a big step up in IQ. Well, as far as photos go, it is better. As far as video, I just don't see it. Maybe I need new glasses! But as with all my gear, I tested it, and I decided to keep it since it *seems* a bit better in the venues I use it in.
I also think, and maybe I'm in the real minority here, that the GH13 can still be improved. Hey, lpowell just gave me (thanks lpowell) a couple of new hacks to use that are "fabulous". Is that the limit? Hoping not.
Who is to say there isn't another tweak around the corner for the ol' GH13?
OTOH, in a year, maybe less, there will be the Canon MK3, or something like it (hopefully something I can fit my lenses to): a real, full frame noise monster. Oink!
Ian~totally agree--just my GH13 has less noise than my GH2 at ISO 800. Just that one notch, which is a sweet spot with a prime lens indoors. Can't explain it, but it isn't the type of noise, it is just that the noise just goes away. Now, if you say the GH2 is better, more filmic, I'll keep trying different settings. And of course, at 3200 that is a different ballgame. But you know, I don't shoot that much at 3200, and if I did, I would probably borrow my friends 5D Mark 2.
As for haloing, my GH2 has more slightly (pixel peeping warning) more artifacts and haloing on sharp edge material. You can dial down the sharpness, but it is still there. Now, my cam may be a tiny bit noisier, and my GH13 may be a tiny bit less noisy, just as samples in a production run.
For me, after seeing Plasmashd video, I stopped testing. I mean, what is the point? On my TV, from four or more feet away, they look the same, or slightest preference to GH13 in the far detail, top of the picture. Other may see the GH2 better, I can't see it. But would I bet money I could pick the right cam in a blind test if the colors were matched? No way. Of course, 50/50--better than roulette.
Last edited:
John Caballero
Veteran
If you don't see the awful fixed noise pattern on low light high ISO on the GH13, well, congratulations. It was inherent to the sensor on the GH1. Perhaps yours has a different sensor.
sammysammy
Well-known member
+1 John
I didn't say that, I said at ISO 800 the GH13 was, to my eye, better--less noise, less artifacts, less moire. "Low light high ISO" could refer to any number of situations. I see a slight difference when I click the ISO button up a notch. Each notch has its own character. At 3200, I prefer the GH2, but of course 3200 is pretty dreadful. At 1600 I have a slight preference for the GH2 not because of the noise, which I see as pretty close, but because at 1600 the GH2 pulls a bit more color out of the scene. I haven't used 1600 enough to say which will grade better--rather than shoot 1600, I usually prefer to open the aperture. At 800 ISO, different picture, I prefer the GH1, which is unfortunate because I would prefer to sell the GH1. I stand firmly by my statement that only a double blind study would reveal points of perceived quality differences. I say this because I think that the differences, if any, are slight. Others may see huge, gulf-like chasms separating the two; still others may have views in between. You are also welcome to post the definitive ISO 800 comparison which shows the big difference--I just reached a point, after days of testing, where I simply could not convince myself that the GH2 was better up to ISO 800, no matter how many times I tweaked the settings. I also did not want to judge the image by looking at it from one foot away from the TV or relying solely on test charts.
Of course, my camera may be different, but which is more likely, sample variation or perceptual variation? I don't have an answer for that, but the biggest differences I see in the hundreds of samples that have been posted are the variations within the tests in the settings and the conditions--lighting, F stop, ISO, WB, and so on. Even doing a test with high CRI (95) lamps, I found it very hard to match the two cameras--the sensitivity, contrast and color balance are all off by just enough to make a direct comparison problematic. I think Plasmashd did a great job of matching the cameras (kudos), but there are still obvious differences--the grass is greener on one side of the fence.
Image softness: I don't see any image softness when using a non-Panasonic prime lens. What I see is image sharpness. And there are a whole lot of people using non Panasonic prime lenses, and many of their videos look pretty sharp to me.
I totally respect the opinions of those who prefer the GH2; I still have to do my own tests, and then interpret the results. I look forward to seeing your tests, and the tests of others.
John Caballero
Veteran
Totally agree. It is important to find out by ourselves how this whole new hack phenomenon benefits or not our own work.