Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
I doubt everyone here may even have clue wth ISO is ;-)
GH2 official discussion thread
- Thread starter Vitaliy Kiselev
- Start date
I doubt everyone here may even have clue wth ISO is ;-)
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
For free there's no soup for nobody
roei z
Veteran
Hi.. I'm on pc but can u explain a bit about this workflow?
I mean, the files remain the same size and quality? Because when
I import native mts to avid the file get x5 bigger, so if there is a way to
Avoid that and use the m4v files it great...
john deaver
Well-known member
I dont mind the log and transfer. ( i did an all HDV Tape Project the other day what a PITA. had to load 15 tapes. on top of it looking like junk compared to AVCHD)
Its the sending it back through compressor that is a pain. then you re-import them and it does that weird thing where it puts them all out of order.
To me im ether going to have to do the conversion on the front end with log and transfer OR all along the way every time I need to do any kind of color correction or effects OR try to use a software solution to edit the native AVCHD files and then do the converion on the back end on export.
I just prefer to get the heavy lifting done up front
I tried using CS5 to edit the native .mts files but was disappointed by my export options as all of the formats i saw where ether other versions of H.264 or gasp...Mpeg-2. am i missing something? Looking back on it thats why i left Premier (and PCs for that matter) as I couldn't efficiently master any project in HD in Premier Pro2
I'm ok with ISO sensitivity and noise,
it's artifacts which I don't like.
I guess it has nothing to do with noise, especially considering that
these artifacts are in bright part of the picture.
philip bloom
Veteran
it was my specific sample that was buggered, not all pre-production ones. I literally just got back to UK from Japan and I bought a GH2 out there. It's cheaper than here but the damn thing is only in Japanese. Not a huge issue but hopefully I may be able to flash it with European firmware. If not I will be learning a new language!
Well, it's also available for purchase
Would love to see your full review of the cam with unanswered questions like HDMI out frame rates in all modes, real ISO sensitivity ratings comparison (perhaps some UK users can loan a GH1(3)), presence/absence of significant FPN/banding problems and resolution test results discussed in depth. Thanks!
Danielvilliers
Veteran
In the photographic world they are considered to be very reliable authority for sensor test. The two best source are now considered to be dxomark and dpreview and you will always see those two referred time and time again for camera or more so for dxo sensor test. Yes technologies advances, it seems that canon has been privileging resolution over everything else nowadays and been stuck around the 12 stop range. Sony type of sensor and their derivative in nikon pentax etc have been from generation to generation getting better dynamic range with both dpreview and Dxo results. From the nikon d90 to the d3x and now the D7000 at 13.9 stop of Dr the sony sensors is improving every time. The sony equipped pentax k5 has the crown for now at 14.1 stop. The big discussion now is that the D7000 has an isoless sensor. What I mean is that the sensor at base iso 100 is so noiseless that you can shoot many stop underexpose with it and boost it in post to get at least as good, as if shooting 800 or 6400 iso!!!
philip bloom
Veteran
Well, it's also available for purchase
you know me. my tests will be like my AF100 and any other camera, i will simply go out and shoot with it! Don't do charts
DxO is reliable. They - as well as DP Review stated that GH1 ISO is not real ISO, but producers vision of it. And it is useful.
Some time ago, one evening - I took my GH1 and met with friend who brought 5D II. We wanted to compare noise in both cameras video. My friend proposed - "ok, let's set ISO 1600 and record". It took me few mins. to explain to him - that such approach is meaningless. Different cameras mean different by the same ISO. In the same conditions - his 5D II had to use ISO 1600, when I could set ISO 800 and our exposure was similar. But we already know - it will not happen with GH2, as it has different ISO calibration.
The same is with photos too. Comparing noise on JPGs made at the same ISO is pointless. In the same light conditions, the same aperture and shutter - cameras will use different ISOs.
It does not mean, that GH2 is not better than GH1 when looking just at noise. It just means, that we should be careful and read between lines. As I explained on G1\G2 example - enhancing ISO in G2 (or saying it shows less on corresponding ISOs, starting around 1600) was pure marketing, no real improvement in RAW. Now sometimes we hear about 2 EV improvement. But as ISO calibration has changed in GH2, maybe it is only 1 EV improvement.
I also agree, that even removal of banding is a success. But if you look at what Panasonic did with G2 and what DxO confirms about GH2 - it is not enough.
Some time ago, one evening - I took my GH1 and met with friend who brought 5D II. We wanted to compare noise in both cameras video. My friend proposed - "ok, let's set ISO 1600 and record". It took me few mins. to explain to him - that such approach is meaningless. Different cameras mean different by the same ISO. In the same conditions - his 5D II had to use ISO 1600, when I could set ISO 800 and our exposure was similar. But we already know - it will not happen with GH2, as it has different ISO calibration.
The same is with photos too. Comparing noise on JPGs made at the same ISO is pointless. In the same light conditions, the same aperture and shutter - cameras will use different ISOs.
It does not mean, that GH2 is not better than GH1 when looking just at noise. It just means, that we should be careful and read between lines. As I explained on G1\G2 example - enhancing ISO in G2 (or saying it shows less on corresponding ISOs, starting around 1600) was pure marketing, no real improvement in RAW. Now sometimes we hear about 2 EV improvement. But as ISO calibration has changed in GH2, maybe it is only 1 EV improvement.
I also agree, that even removal of banding is a success. But if you look at what Panasonic did with G2 and what DxO confirms about GH2 - it is not enough.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
you know me. my tests will be like my AF100 and any other camera, i will simply go out and shoot with it! Don't do charts
I'm curious how well the crop footage mixes with the AF100 footage. Some of the crop footage I have seen so far looks really good. The one thing I notice with water shots is the compression seems to struggle a little with the changing water, I see a bunch of artifacting. But, I've not seen the original files, so I am not sure how much of that is with things like youtube compression.
To me it sounds like the GH2 and AF100 would work well together in this capacity.
GrahamH
Well-known member
> DxO is reliable.
Two questions. 1) The GH1 and GH2 scores are close - are we sure they are genuinely different, rather than just individual sample/testing variation? 2) More importantly, given that this is a video forum and we will not be using raw sensor data, why should we give a hoot about the scores at the sensor? We will be using post-camera-processed footage, and the GH2 clearly has more processing oompph - it will produce better processed footage than a GH1.
Two questions. 1) The GH1 and GH2 scores are close - are we sure they are genuinely different, rather than just individual sample/testing variation? 2) More importantly, given that this is a video forum and we will not be using raw sensor data, why should we give a hoot about the scores at the sensor? We will be using post-camera-processed footage, and the GH2 clearly has more processing oompph - it will produce better processed footage than a GH1.
Last edited:
Hi Graham!
I fully agree with what you write, in fact I asked the same question few days ago on different forum - we know sensor has not changed a lot, probably just data processing (including noise, banding removal, proper sharpening, etc.) has been improved. You say " it will produce better"...
Few days ago I was not so sure. Now after watching more samples - I start to believe it more and more. Thanks for important reminding of JPG\VIDEO vs RAW!
To my eyes 60D and D7000 are about equal with GH2 about a full-stop behind, which is understandable I guess given the sensor size differences. In TokyoSSTD2's Candelight clip comparison I can see a slightly brighter image with GH1 compared to GH2. Which correlates with DXOMark observations that GH1 sensitivity numbers are slightly above nominal with GH2 in line with nominal
I'm not sure why you are railing against DXO.
In raw?, I think 1 stop is a bit of an over-exageration detail in gh2 is beyond d7k all the way!, now, according to dxo, GH2 is well behind GH1 for iso, no way on this planet, and this is the problem, they are measurements, just that, they mean didly squat in the real world and they are their measurements, honestly they are marketing front for their software, its complete XXXX all this overall rating, as for GH1 sensitivity above GH2, it is miniscual and not 1 stop. upto you believe dxo but it is meaningless and equates to nothing.
Absolutely not. You just need to understand what they test.
In fact all their findings with different ISO calibration - were also found by DP Review.
tflak
Veteran
you know me. my tests will be like my AF100 and any other camera, i will simply go out and shoot with it! Don't do charts
Hi Philip - just watched your Hirano San piece for the third time - the regrade is beautiful stuff - if only we could all "simply go out and shoot" as you do! What a wonderful eye for composition and fluid sense of timing you have. It's always a treat to watch your work. Thanks for taking the time to post here and share your knowledge. I followed the threads in the AF100 forum and admire your unending professionalism and ability to shrug off the rubbish that was floating around over there and yet continue to contribute to the advancement of the craft. My hat is off to you.
Its bench testing for the sake of it, use your eyes? if you believe dxo upto you, cool, honestly I think they are a joke, how can gh1 have better iso capability than gh2, its just not accurrate, at all:shocked: