Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
My dear dvxuser fellow, sharpness is far away to be everything in motion pictures.
Sensor size is apples to oranges. Videoish look to film-like, as well.
GH2 official discussion thread
- Thread starter Vitaliy Kiselev
- Start date
My dear dvxuser fellow, sharpness is far away to be everything in motion pictures.
Sensor size is apples to oranges. Videoish look to film-like, as well.
Don't forget the 750 has a wider DOF, so more of the image is in focus.
ok the answer is the size of the sensor
YES! I tried the FSH mode and didn't care for it at all, aside from the interlacing there are compression artifacts.
Thanks for that test.
I see the differences -- but I would have expected them to be more dramatically different.
Of course, and as stated, this is a far from scientific way to approach the comparison ...
...With the flat screen in the middle of the analysis.
I hope, one day, we can compare the two at a "file level" to see what's really going on.
Thanks again.
hey Emanuel, agreed. Like what you wrote.
I'm very interested in an answer to that question as well. If possible, please also check the frame-rate in Cinema Mode mode. On my Sony TV this info is reported by hitting Display button on remote.
True, resolution is not everything, but still an important aspect of equipment. To me, what is the point of buying an HD camera that resolves slightly higher than SD? Large sensor size is great for achieving cinematic DOF, but then one might as well use a 35 mm adapter or save for AG100.
Last edited:
Nope - in fact I was talking about the horizontal resolution. Note that by 1000 lines I meant 1000 line width per picture height. In other words, this means 1000 x 16/9 = 1780 vertical lines, or 1.78K as many may call it. Vertical resolution is a bit lower, around 950 lines, but still immensely impressive for a HD camera and about what you would expect from a Sony EX1 or even a F35 or Alexa in 1080p ProRes mode. Compare this to ~650 lw/ph for the 5D Mk II (and arguably even less if you consider the aliasing). GH13 is said to do much better at ~750 lw/ph. I will be delighted if GH2 can break the 800 barrier. That is plenty to give stunning HD images.
Resolution is only one of the many aspects that make a good image, of course.
Also, let's not forget interlaced virtually cuts down vertical resolution by half. Not a fair comparison comparing 60i to 60p.
My dear dvxuser fellow,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion -- I just don't happen to share it.
That aside, the issues of sharpness and detail ARE concerning even in shots where DoF is simply not a factor.
The question remains -- are the differences attributable to lens, sensor, processing/compression or bitrate -- or a combination of all three? </rhetorical question>
If I understand correctly, horizontal resolution is only halved in 3D mode, not 2D mode.
The lower lw/ph numbers for 1st generation DSLRs are what they are due to aliasing. GH2, in extended telecon mode (according to preliminary reports) should resolve close to full HD (1080) horizontal lines with the only variable being optics used.
wow! very sharp! amazingly sharp!! wonder which of the many lenses were used on the crowd in SF during the flight show?
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
As much as you've introduced it as question instead and it happens with everything, there's a minimum or a balance point that acts/works like a breakeven. The leftover has been more FUD or marketeering against the HDSLRs than anything else. Resolution is not the big deal. Do not take sharpness for resolution though. The same applies to a small sensor's characteristics. In terms of DOF, as well, yes.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
If my last post doesn't already answer you, I hope at least your rethorical question -- where the combination is likely beyond those three you simply point out, fulfills the remainder left for your own assumption/presumption that DoF (or sensor size) is out of equation there.
A lot of you would surely be amazed if you'd compare film with HD video from a 2/3" acquisition device for example... ;] But you can add it 1/3" or even smaller ala about 1/4" being the case of the little new Panasonic brought to this comparison.
Benjamin Franklin once defended something pronounced earlier by others... «Things as certain as death and taxes, can be more firmly believed»* -- none of those are related here but we don't need to certainly know the other contributions to a modern thinking in order to surely be entitled to our opinion, isn't it? ;-)
* Daniel Defoe in The Political History of the Devil, six decades before...
I view resolution as a technical term, as in ability of a camera system to resolve detail. This ability can be measured and results used to compare different cameras on this particular aspect. Now, I agree that in the grander scheme of things (all the variables that go into making a "good looking movie") resolution is only one variable. Many 1st generation DSLRs were and are chosen to produce great footage despite a well established fact that their actual resolution characteristics are lower (sometimes significantly) than those of nominal output they produce.
There is no FUD in mentioning those facts, which should be factored into decision-making process to achieve the balance point you mentioned. The good news is that with second generation aliasing appears to be less of issue and in GH2's case there is a potential to reduce it to the point insignficance when capturing the maximum amount of detail is a high priority.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Sure not. The FUD essentially comes from who has had reasons to believe the HDSLRs are a threat. They are effectively a revolution.
That is correct it will resolve somewhere near 1080 horizontal lines. However, 1080p has 1920 vertical lines and the GH2 will at most resolve about 1100 of those lines.
Has there been an appropriate test to show that the GH2 has 1780 vertical lines? Until that is done I don't believe it. No consumer camera or camcorder has ever achieved over 1100 vertical lines of resolution.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's because it's impossible. No 1920-pixel recording format will ever resolve more than 960 lines. If someone reads a chart as showing 1000 or whatever, that's a reasonable statement within the margin of error, but the fact remains -- 960 is the absolute limit that a camera recording 1920 pixels across, can cleanly resolve.
Even if you had a case where you were pointing at a perfectly-spaced grid of vertical lines, where every black line lined up on one pixel, and the space between the lines landed on the next pixel, and on and on -- if you were to encounter a theoretically possible (but wildly impractical) scenario of every line lining up with every pixel... you still can't say it's resolving 1920 lines... because what happens if you pan the camera half a pixel sideways? All of a sudden you're resolving ZERO lines. Every pixel would be seeing both black and white, and would resolve as gray. The entire frame would be a solid sheet of gray. Zero lines.
Resolved detail is when every line pair are clearly and cleanly resolved no matter what half-pixel boundary the camera sees the chart at. And that puts the absolute maximum at 960 line-pairs, for a 1920x1080 imager or recording format.