GH2: The "CHOF" look: Truly possible with a GH2?

That filter reminds me of a promist black. I know some guys stretch black panty hose over the lens. It too creates a diffused look, with lower contrast, and sharpening.
 
No secrets guys, just get a low sharpened low contrast set-up in camera- overexpose the scene overall if you can (without under or over exposing skin too much). Time of day and lower contrast lenses help the most (I like using the canon FD lenses on the gh1/2 for that kinda look or old screw mount lenses for canon EOS cameras).

BTW- Thanks a lot guys for the comments.

(I rarely use them but I figured Id mention, if you dont have low contrast lenses- Try putting a tiffen "ULTRACON" filter in front of your current lenses - I have a set and they work really well on modern glass)
 
I got this look recently. low contrast, milky-ness, etc, with just a single lens out of my set.

Turns out the lens has fungus.

So there, go get yourself some fungus and let it go wild in your lens.

Instant milky-ness and low contrast.

:costumed-smiley-047
 
The filter Peter is showing tests of might be a good choice for someone (like me) using Panasonic (and other newer) lenses that a have more punchy contrasty feel.

taubkin said:
There is something absolutely going on in some clips than in others, and Canon always made me wonder. Even their DV camcorders had some qualities to their color system that were pretty unique. That said, I do believe you can get there with the right handling of the image in post, and if you have a better signal to work with (like the sharper GH2) you have something that can't be substituted by post processing.

Surely, we're here to find out what it is, so we can actually do it in post! :) I think this discussion is pretty relevant, for the future GH2 or even AF-100 owners.
Click to expand...

taubkin said:
It's not just flaring, it's something else. It's what makes the flares look so good and natural, and it's happening after the light hit's the sensor. Sure we have to compensate for the different subjects, for the differences in light, or even the haze that is visible in one of the clips posted, but there is some procedure not everybody is doing that is making some of the images different. In the canons this sort of look seems to be more common.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with you.

XH A1 and HV20 are good examples of it... When you compare to other cameras in the same league, the Canons had always more soft, creamy detail and colors.

Svart said:
I got this look recently. low contrast, milky-ness, etc, with just a single lens out of my set.

Turns out the lens has fungus.

So there, go get yourself some fungus and let it go wild in your lens.

Instant milky-ness and low contrast.

:costumed-smiley-047
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Last edited:
hunter richards said:
(I rarely use them but I figured Id mention, if you dont have low contrast lenses- Try putting a tiffen "ULTRACON" filter in front of your current lenses - I have a set and they work really well on modern glass)
Click to expand...

interesting... do you know of any difference between Formatt and Tiffen ? and what's the difference in "grades"? (3, 1, 1/2, 1/8 etc..) is it the amount of the "effect"?
what exact grade you're using and is there a Vimeo example on some sharp lens please ? (will this match with the canon FD's?)

thanks
 
steventimothy said:
Can you tell me what species the fungus is?
Click to expand...


according to some random website on lens fungus:

"Phycomycetes, Ascomycetes and Fungi Imperfecti, to name a few."

The problem is that fungus, when left too long can actually damage the glass since some of the byproducts of the fungii are acidic. It looks like my glass is etched and can't be saved.

EDIT:

oh and I was kidding, you don't want fungus in your lens. It can spread to other lenses too and ruin your whole kit if you aren't careful. Always make sure your lenses are always dry. Even put desiccant packs in the cases with them, especially if you work in humid places.
 
Last edited:
Don't know the difference between the two, I have a whole set in 4x4, seems like the 1/2 is a good staring point. Cool thing though is that they literally lower the highlights but they don't takeaway any resolution or add a glow effect. Nothing specific on vimeo, sorry, maybe ill do an ultra con filter test after the holidays.

roei z said:
interesting... do you know of any difference between Formatt and Tiffen ? and what's the difference in "grades"? (3, 1, 1/2, 1/8 etc..) is it the amount of the "effect"?
what exact grade you're using and is there a Vimeo example on some sharp lens please ? (will this match with the canon FD's?)

thanks
Click to expand...
 
hunter richards said:
Don't know the difference between the two, I have a whole set in 4x4, seems like the 1/2 is a good staring point. Cool thing though is that they literally lower the highlights but they don't takeaway any resolution or add a glow effect. Nothing specific on vimeo, sorry, maybe ill do an ultra con filter test after the holidays.
Click to expand...

thanks!
 
I want to say thank you so much to everyone to replied for your input and info. I especially found Peter's tests and Hunter's and Benr's comments very helpful and enlightening. I have not been able to continue on this thread or research for quite some time since before posting this as I have had some family emergencies put this camera learning on the back burner. I want to say that I'm beginning to think that the FD lenses are playing a much bigger part that i first thought in the look of the over exposed areas as I am seeing some more videos (albeit quick limited tests) with a vaguely similar look that seems to be quite unintentional. Examples and info like this is the first time the GH2 has begun to gain traction in this style of aesthetic. It's becoming more an more likely that this will be the camera I spring for due to money and timing. If anyone is interested look at these simple tests (that I found, and did not shoot), they show some more nice creamy highlights and midtones (not all shots were with FD lenses btw): http://vimeo.com/18357962 and http://vimeo.com/groups/gh2/videos/18419436
 
Last edited:
Jenga said:
I want to say that I'm beginning to think that the FD lenses are playing a much bigger part that i first thought in the look of the over exposed areas as I am seeing some more videos (albeit quick limited tests) with a vaguely similar look that seems to quite unintentional.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point. I recently started using the Canon FD 28mm and 50mm lenses. They drop off some of that 'video' sharpness with the 20mm and 14-140mm panny. I'm excited to start using these lenses more and more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top