When you start recording it outputs in the format that you are recording in. ie at 1080p24 it outputs on the HDMI at 1080p24. Are you hoping that when recording at 1080i60 it actually outputs to the HDMI at 1080p60? Would be nice but the Atomos Ninja doesn't support that format.
GH2 official discussion thread
- Thread starter Vitaliy Kiselev
- Start date
When you start recording it outputs in the format that you are recording in. ie at 1080p24 it outputs on the HDMI at 1080p24. Are you hoping that when recording at 1080i60 it actually outputs to the HDMI at 1080p60? Would be nice but the Atomos Ninja doesn't support that format.
roei z
Veteran
this is some crazy warzone **** (forgot about the quality halfway through...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRKEB41u8MQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRKEB41u8MQ
SonicStates
Well-known member
I just remembered why I hate people's videos of Disney Sea...ah hell forget "videos"...
For those interested in stills too, seems that there is nothing in it noise wise between any of the new generation aps-c sensor, especially Canon 60d vs GH2, OK, may be subtle differences but ahead, I dont think so. Panasonic have really done the business with this sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page11.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page11.asp
Jesse Brauning
Well-known member
That crazy video with the 500mm lens... lol.
But one thing I noticed is that the jello seems well controlled, considering the focal-length.
Seems no worse than the jello my gh1 displays handheld at 140mm.
But one thing I noticed is that the jello seems well controlled, considering the focal-length.
Seems no worse than the jello my gh1 displays handheld at 140mm.
I have got a question regarding the TeleCrop
I have seen how some people calculated, and is the 2.6 Telecrop in 1080 and the 3.9 in the 720 additional to the crop factor 2 of the GH2?
So would it be with the tele of the kit lens like that?
1080: 140 x 2 x 2.6 = 728
720: 140 x 2 x 3.9 = 1092
Or would it be only
1080: 140 x 2.6 = 364
720: 140 x 3.9 = 546
Which calculation is correct?
I have seen how some people calculated, and is the 2.6 Telecrop in 1080 and the 3.9 in the 720 additional to the crop factor 2 of the GH2?
So would it be with the tele of the kit lens like that?
1080: 140 x 2 x 2.6 = 728
720: 140 x 2 x 3.9 = 1092
Or would it be only
1080: 140 x 2.6 = 364
720: 140 x 3.9 = 546
Which calculation is correct?
roei z
Veteran
This clip was the reason why I ask.
It does not really help, because I do not know if it correct.
He took the 2nd calculation with the results of the 1st.
With the 400mm he writes (at about 1:00)
400 x 3.9 = 3120
But 400 x 3.9 is only = 1560
If you add the normal crop factor of 2 then the calculation is correct.
This is why I ask:
Which is correct?
It does not really help, because I do not know if it correct.
He took the 2nd calculation with the results of the 1st.
With the 400mm he writes (at about 1:00)
400 x 3.9 = 3120
But 400 x 3.9 is only = 1560
If you add the normal crop factor of 2 then the calculation is correct.
This is why I ask:
Which is correct?
I am referring to the equivalent of 35mm.
So the Kit lens will be 1092 in 35mm.
Wow.
Thanks svecher
Actually its 1.8 crop in 16:9 format, so for a 140mm lens(ie the 14-140) its
140x1.8x2.6 for 1080
140x1.8x3.9 for 720
Anybody know if the digital options work with the ex tele too? the old 2x digital wasnt too bad at x2 in 1080, especially with the hack. if you added it to the new set-up you have a 1200mm reach with the x2 digi added in 1080. In 720p its not so good but for down res. to 640 doable too for a 2000mm reach, all with the std 14-140 zoom! incredible.
First time I hear that.
It always was referred to, that the Micro 4/3 system has a x2 crop.
Ok, one never stops learning.
Yes, it is is because the the crop factors are calculated for the 4:3 std of the sensor, GH sensors are wider than normal 43 sensors so that in 16:9 mode its not a crop, its actually a 19mm+ wider sensor. Now the field of view in 16:9 stills and video mode is visibly wider than the 4:3 ratio in fact nearly 10% wider. There is some argument over if it behaves like a 1.8 crop because of the circle dia. of the lens, but anyway, crop or FOV it is 1.8 as the equivalent width or tele you will see in 16:9 ratio. So for example the 20mm f1.7 is more like a 35mm lens than a 40mm lens in video and the new 14mm 2.5 will be more like a 25mm(well it is) than a 28mm in video mode. Note, for landscape where I really want the wide factor in stills I always use 16:9 or 3:2(which is also about 3or4% wider than 4:3). This is why you dont want to listen to all these Canon guys about how much bigger their sensor are, in fact they are about 3mm wider than the GH sensor and they need to crop their sensor to get real 16:9, no wonder they have a nightmare with aliasing.
stonebat
Veteran
Gotta love 20mm pancake. 36mm/35 is just perfect.
Sorry. This is off the topic. How to include the 20mm pancake as a set of primes?
85mm * .6 = 51mm
51mm * .6 = 31mm
31mm * .6 = 19mm
19mm * .6 = 11mm
Thus a set of 85/50/30/20/12 primes where 30mm can be skipped. But Panny made 14mm instead of 12mm
Sorry. This is off the topic. How to include the 20mm pancake as a set of primes?
85mm * .6 = 51mm
51mm * .6 = 31mm
31mm * .6 = 19mm
19mm * .6 = 11mm
Thus a set of 85/50/30/20/12 primes where 30mm can be skipped. But Panny made 14mm instead of 12mm
No. 60i / 24p
Eimulis
Active member
that's bad, because PAL version will have 30 min limit...