GH2 GH2 hack vs stock comparision ???

C

c3hammer

Well-known member
Looking at a GH2 and wanted to see some direct comparison footage between hacked footage and stock footage.

I've been running some tests on a Canon T3i between 45mbps and 98mbps Magic Lantern footage and after rendering back to a suitable Blu-Ray or 20mbps footage there is zero difference to my eye. Raw footage is virtually idestinguishable and there seems to be no advantage in grading.

I'd love to see some direct comparison between the stock and hacked footage. GH2 Hacked vs. GH2 stock vs a Canon's 45mbps stock side by side would be even better.

Anyone have a few minutes to do a comparison video?

There's no question the resolution of the GH2 is mighty appealing, but I'd love to see the hack/stock compared on the same scene.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQDmLjNG9U

Even at the low 360p with youtube compression, you can clearly see the stock settings crushing the highlights from the candle on the Eiffel tower. The fact that you can see such a clear difference in a static shot compressed in youtube is good enough reason to use the hack.
 
If your pixel peeping, you will notice, but if your just watching a video without looking for it, I highly doubt your going to notice the difference between the hack and non hack. Thats just me, others might feel differently than I do on this.
 
The difference between the hack and the non hack are subtle when viewing a video reencoded for vimeo or youtube. The real difference is when you are color grading, you will realize that a lot of your footage is saved by a better encoding, preventing mud in dark areas, allowing you to push the color correction further without any problem.

Making a side by side video has been done and have not shown much success in showing a significant result.
 
Great test. Thank you for posting this. However, I could not tell a difference between any of the top and bottom pairs even at 1080p except for when the flame flickered.

Could you point to a specific area where we should be looking for a difference? If there is such a big difference between 176 mb/sec and 17 mb/sec why do you think we would still be able to see that difference on youtube where both files have been recompressed at least twice and down to less than 8 mb/sec in the end?

I saw absolutely no indication that dynamic range was being affected in any of those clips.
 
In the first shot, look at how the candle illuminates the bars of the Eiffel tower. In the top hacked video you can clearly see the glow on the bars whereas on the bottom stock settings the glow is not there. This is visible at youtube's default resolution. While there is less detail, the stock image still looks excellent.
 
If you select the 1080p option and fullscreen them, you can see the hacked version holds up to the 2 generations of encoding (NLE --> youtube) waaaaaaaaaaaay better.
 
Thanks a bunch Trucci !!!

That is a great test. There is no question the hack retains much more dynamic range. The Driftwood 132m GOP3 AQ2 version looks unbelievable!

I'll have to say I wasn't a believer in all this hacking, but this test has me singing a bit of a different tune.

Looking forward to a GH3 with 1080-60p and these advanced codec/bit rates if it might ever happen. How amazing would 40% speed overcranking back to 24p be at that type of quality :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
its pretty obvious in this video that the higher bitrate patches are pulling much more detail out of the shadows. the most obvious differences i see are on the glass of the candle and the back of the eiffel tower where its in the shadows.
 
I haven't hacked my camera yet but have been reading the forum for a while. I see different hacks mentioned in different places and what even seems to be different Driftwood hacks.

Are there indeed different "current" hacks and if so, what are they and how do you choose?
Rob
 
c3hammer said:
Thanks a bunch Trucci !!!

That is a great test. There is no question the hack retains much more dynamic range. The Driftwood 132m GOP3 AQ2 version looks unbelievable!

I'll have to say I wasn't a believer in all this hacking, but this test has me singing a bit of a different tune.

Looking forward to a GH3 with 1080-60p and these advanced codec/bit rates if it might ever happen. How amazing would 40% speed overcranking back to 24p be at that type of quality :)

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

I think I need some sleep(I have been up for 36 hours straight editing video). However, I don’t see what you guys are seeing. They look identical at full screen with 1080p. Have you guys ever tried the I.dynamic range feature?

When that works you see an obvious difference. Are you guys seeing that kind of difference?
 
I can't take credit for that test and I apologize to the creator and readers if my post made it seem like I did. The original posting is here.

I.Dynamic has tremendous potential and right now Vitaliy may be working on a way to have it enabled all the time instead of just specific instances.
 
For a while I had 2 GH2's and each one had a 14mm F/2.5 lens. I hacked one of them and not the other, and certainly couldn't tell a difference on a high end Sony 60" LED/LCD TV.
I did notice the "hacked" GH2 having trouble playing back the files in camera (if the audio was above 192k), problems spanning past the 4GB mark, the camera would lock up sometimes, and I certainly couldn't record very much time before I ran out of SD card. Also, I had a very noticeable blip in the beginning of all my recordings.

So, let's just say it's unhacked now, awaiting Panny's new firmware for the GH2 next month.
 
Blip in the begining? You sound like you used the very first hack (a couple of iterations ago). That was the only one with a "blip' in the beginning. We've come a long way since then.
 
Ian-T said:
Blip in the begining? You sound like you used the very first hack (a couple of iterations ago). That was the only one with a "blip' in the beginning. We've come a long way since then.
Click to expand...

++
Well said.
 
Though I can see quite a bit of difference in that video, colours are fuller, everything is more detailed, far less macroblocking especially in the shadows when the light flickers. I don't think it's quite fair to the stock clips as the candle is burning less when it was filmed thus not giving as much light to the darkside of the frame
 
The benefits of even the most modest hack are very apparent in 720p60 mode, and require no pixel-peeping to see. I'll try and post a comparison sometime, when I have 'a few minutes'.
 
hack add some goodness to your movie.
1) you can use 12800 in video
2) your noise is clear and more sharp, then you can remove easier anda faster than damaged noise with standard compression
3) low light have more dectails than standard compression
4) more info in highlights for color grading and recovering in post
5) more bitrate, more dectails in motion.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
I don’t see what you guys are seeing. They look identical at full screen with 1080p.
Click to expand...
Except for the candle, and the parts that the candle illuminates, which is a big variable, I don't see a difference that exceeds normal sample variation. Maybe I need a drink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top