GH2 official discussion thread

But doesn't that translate to "less resolving power?" If I were to blow up a 1920x1080 photo it will be less detailed than the original. But I do get your point about no pixel bining (or whatever method they use) which could "possibly" mean the resolution could be the same...???
 
When you use the full sensor, you get an (ostensibly) 1920x1080 image off of a sensor about the size of 35mm cinema film.

When you use the extended tele conversion feature, you get a 1920x1080 image off of a sensor about the size of 16mm film.

The scan of the full sensor is most likely inherently compromised because the chip technology, at this price point, doesn't likely support full-frame rate scans of the entire sensor, so all DSLRs do some manner of pixel-binning and/or line-skipping or some other technique to reduce the amount of data that they have to read. And skipping pixels or lines or binning pixels together leads to issues such as aliasing and downconversion artifacts.

With a direct scan of the sensor at native 1920x1080 pixel size, they can avoid any necessity for binning pixels or for skipping lines, and get the sharpest, cleanest, artifact-free image that the sensor can deliver. The downside is that it's only a small portion of the larger chip, so all your lenses will appear to be substantially more telephoto. It's like having a 2/3" video camera and a full cinema-sensor-sized camera, all in one.

Part of the excitement over the extended teleconversion feature is that it's not a digital zoom, it's strictly optical, and so therefore there's no quality compromise as there would be with a digital zoom. And because it's scanning a smaller portion of the sensor, that means you can use smaller, cheaper lenses (like some c-mount security camera lenses, or 16mm cinema lenses) and they'll work properly, and cover the entire scanned area.

You won't get the shallow DOF of the full mode, obviously. You put up with the skipping/binning/downconversion artifacts to get the lush shallow DOF. But if you don't need the lush shallow DOF, you can instead use 16mm lenses and get even crisper, sharper images out of the extended teleconversion feature.
 
I'm exited about the fact it will sort of allow some of my curent lenses to do double duty

my Pani 20 f/1.7 is now that and a 52 f/1.7

my Minolta 50mm f/1.4 is now that and a 130 f/1.4 ( how much would that cost if it even existed)

my 135 f/2.8 is now a 351 f/2.8

if Panasonic ever does a faster zoom like a 28-75 f/2.8 it becomes that and a 72-195 f/2.8 and combined thats a do it all lens for 95% of what i shoot.

its like panasonic just doubled everyones lens collection and made some extremely fast telephotos that i don't even think are posable optically.

i cant wait
 
Danielvilliers said:
Doesn't the tele mode give the same dof as a small sensor camera and defeat the idea of shallow death of field of large sensor camera?
Click to expand...
Yes...sort of. That is basically what Barry mentions a couple posts up. But it's not necessarily a small sensor like what we were all used to before these DSLRs surfaced. It would be about the size of a 16mm film camera sensor (or Scarlet 2/3). Which would still make it much bigger than 1/3, 1/4, 1/8 etc. that we were all accustomed to....and still have a respectable amount of shallow DOF.

By the way thanks Barry for that explanation.
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
Yes...sort of. That is basically what Barry mentions a couple posts up. But it's not necessarily a small sensor like what we were all used to before these DSLRs surfaced. It would be about the size of a 16mm film camera sensor (or Scarlet 2/3). Which would still make it much bigger than 1/3, 1/4, 1/8 etc. that we were all accustomed to....and still have a respectable amount of shallow DOF.

By the way thanks Barry for that explanation.
Click to expand...

Respectfully i think the answer is yes and no.

Yes if your using lenses designed for 16mm or 2/3 inch cameras

and No if your using lenses for 35mm still cameras, we have increased the crop factor (opticly) but not changed the characteristics of the lens or its DOF. the 50mm f/1.4 with razor thin DOF will still be the same 50mm with razor thin Dof but we will just be looking at a small portion down the middle.

I suppose you could argue that a 50mm lens with a 2.6 crop on top of a 2x crop (from still camera world) that were already dealing with give a end result of 260mm (35mm still equivalent) will have grater DOF than a straight/conventional 260mm f/1.4 lens would but again i don't think a 260mm f/1.4 exist and i don't see how the DOF could get much shallow-er.
 
Here's another video of the crop mode in action that you can download. I posted this before but I'll do it again since any minute now, Vimeo will destroy the native file and replace it with the web streaming version so if you want to download it, you better hurry.
http://vimeo.com/17031789
 
Dan Clark said:
I believe he was using the 561BHDV-1 monopod for the shots: http://akehi.hi-clutch.com/images/manfrot.jpg. From Manfrotto:
http://www.manfrotto.com/product/8374.76909.76924.0.0/561BHDV-1/_/FLUID_VIDEO_MONOPOD_WHEAD. $270 from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618351-REG/Manfrotto_561BHDV_561BHDV_Video_Monopod_with.html.

Assuming that's true, this is the first video I've seen shot with one of those and the results are pretty impressive for a monopod. It looks like a very good, portable support for the GH2 (which I'm ordering this weekend).

Regards,

Dan.
Click to expand...

I have a pair of 561Bs and they are my weapon of choice and have been since I got the first one. They aren't a tripod, but for shooting B Roll or action, I love using mine.
 
1080p 60 fps going to be possible?

1080p 60 fps going to be possible?

Sorry I'm not taking the time to read through the 200+ pages of this thread, but could somebody tell me if it is to be expected that the GH2 will be hackable to Full HD at 60p?
 
What I got from previous posts is that no one can say if the GH2 is hackable yet until they have one and attempt such. I believe there was even money collected to buy a GH2 for just that purpose.

Now isn't it true that while the GH1 was hacked, Panasonic managed to change the firmware so that subsequent camera versions were not? That being the case, I wonder why anyone might think that the GH2 would be any different?

While the GH2 sensor is apparently capable of 1080p 60fps, it is not clear whether there is hackable access to this. Someone tell me how 1080p 60fps would practically be used anyway. As a stand alone output from a computer? "Practical" is the key word here as my understanding is that the Blu-ray standard does not allow for 60 fps 1080p. Maybe one of the KiPro/Nano/Ninja machines records 60 fps? Saved for a future generation of Blu-ray spec... an UltraViolet-ray?

RBG
 
1080/60p will be used for slow motion. It will be outputted to 1080/24p instead of the current 720/24p (slowed down from 720/60p). The bottom line....it's just a higher resolution slow motion....that's all.
 
We need to wait until the first firmware update gets online and then it'll be determined if it's hackable.


Their is absolutely no negatives about having 1080 60p as an option only positives. For people who wants to use the GH2 for slow motion, it's infinite times better to be using 1080p and slowing that down to. Plus 1080 60p is actually native to a 1080p TV unlike 60i. I do have my computer hooked up to the TV and 1080 60p footage from the TM700 looks truly incredible. Did a lot of people have Blu-Ray players when the Z1u came out? Are Blu-Ray players capable of playing back footage with higher resolution than 1920x1080p?, If not then why are a lot of people are looking forward to a Scarlet especially people who's not aiming to have their footage on a movie screen.
 
If the AG-AF101 is not getting 1080p60 output then I would not expect Panasonic to have it on the GH2 even with it recording at 1080p60. I am sure they want to sell as many AG-AF101 Pro camcorders as possible since the profit margins are much higher than a consumer product like the GH2.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. 1080 60p would help the cause of slo-mo. In addition, there are some pretty good programs that can interpolate frames to give impressive slomo.

RBG
 
But... though the AF100 records 1080/60p, from what I understand, it only plays that recording back at 24p (already slowed down). Meaning...you don't get back an actual 60p file after it's recorded. Me personally...I think that's absolutely cool especially since that's all I would use the 1080/60p for anyways.

I guess one could always speed up the final footage 200% and get an actual 1080/60p file in real time....if they wanted though. But...why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top