GH4 (GH5) Is it me or the GH5 image is softer?

C

CustomerGH4

Well-known member
When I compare the two cameras the Gh5 image looks softer, it has this anti-alias, /noise reduction feel to it.. I thougth they got rid of the low pass filter,, I have put all the automatic settings off..Maybe the difference comes from using 10bit on GH5?
Anybody else prefers gh4 and thinks its better or is it just in my head and I just need to get used to the better image??
 
I think the GH5 image is far superior to the GH4, but I'm not using 10 bit much yet. I've been shooting 4K-60p and FHD VFR 120 fps. Those modes are incredible.

It also begs a question, how are you viewing your 10 bit footage? I was seeing some serious aliasing in 4K 10 bit footage, but as TheDingo pointed out, it was due to viewing on a 2.5k monitor. 4K via hdmi from the GH5 and 1080 8 bit display the 10 bit perfectly for me using MPC-HC 64 bit 1.7.11

I believe there is also an issue with frame blending on some players with 4K-60p that could be causing some softening.

Curious what your pipeline is when comparing the two images?

Cheers, Pete
 
c3hammer said:
I think the GH5 image is far superior to the GH4, but I'm not using 10 bit much yet. I've been shooting 4K-60p and FHD VFR 120 fps. Those modes are incredible.

It also begs a question, how are you viewing your 10 bit footage? I was seeing some serious aliasing in 4K 10 bit footage, but as TheDingo pointed out, it was due to viewing on a 2.5k monitor. 4K via hdmi from the GH5 and 1080 8 bit display the 10 bit perfectly for me using MPC-HC 64 bit 1.7.11

I believe there is also an issue with frame blending on some players with 4K-60p that could be causing some softening.

Curious what your pipeline is when comparing the two images?

Cheers, Pete
Click to expand...

I view it on a DELL P2415Q monitor. The websites says : " This monitor uses a 23.8” ‘4K’ UHD panel, which is an AH-IPS (Advanced High-Performance In-Plane Switching) model manufactured by LG Display. This model has a 10-bit panel, using 8-bits per subpixel plus fine FRC (Frame Rate Control) dithering. " On vlc and on adobe..

Hmm. the website for the dell says it has 10bit panel but uses 8bits per subpixel??? Im not a native english speaker so is it 10bit or no..??
 
CustomerGH4 said:
When I compare the two cameras the Gh5 image looks softer, it has this anti-alias, /noise reduction feel to it.. I thougth they got rid of the low pass filter,, I have put all the automatic settings off..Maybe the difference comes from using 10bit on GH5?
Anybody else prefers gh4 and thinks its better or is it just in my head and I just need to get used to the better image??
Click to expand...

It's your head..... BTW, my initial feelings about the GH5 were mixed as I was trying to use it as a super GH4. That was a mistake. Treat it as a new camera and be prepared to be amazed. 10-bit, 60p, it's all good. I did lower sharpness by one.
 
stoneinapond said:
It's your head..... BTW, my initial feelings about the GH5 were mixed as I was trying to use it as a super GH4. That was a mistake. Treat it as a new camera and be prepared to be amazed. 10-bit, 60p, it's all good. I did lower sharpness by one.
Click to expand...

Did you also lower noise reduction?
 
I had a GH4 that I returned for various reasons when it came out. I can't say I was ever wowed by the PQ. To my eyes the GH5, when viewed on a UHD TV, is razor sharp, with the overall PQ breathtaking. I find 4K footage, from any camera, less impressive on my 5K IMac.

But yes, I'd agree with others, it's in your mind. :)
 
Taking using my 100-400 with my GH5 out of the equation they dont work together [for now],i find the GH5 pq with my other lenses good nice colour contast etc but it cant resolve as much detail as my Sony RX10 MKiii,i will be shot down for saying this but its a fact,BUT i still prefer the overall GH5 picture.As for the GH4 i had one but never realy liked it,very poor AF.
 
I had seen that video before, but a couple of comments. First, the NX1 was always a more detailed camera than the RX10iii. Some still think it was the most detailed consumer/prosumer 4K camera ever.

Second, the test utilizes 2 totally different lenses, making comparisons difficult, if not impossible. Next the guy who did the comparison used MF and said he might not always have nailed focus at times. Great.

Third, if you look at the enlargements, it's clear there is quite a bit more in-camera sharpening in the NX1, leading to edge enhancement artifacts.

What's also clear is that the GH5 has more DR than the NX1.

All in all, as the shooter admits, not a real scientific test. There are better tests that I linked that prove the GH5 has better resolution than the RX10iii. It's easy to confuse in-camera sharpening with real detail. They're different.
 
If in camera sharpening is needed to see detail in birds feathers etc thats no problem with me,Ken i am getting rid of my 100-400mm i am considering a Canon 100-400mm mk11,i am a bit warry of adaptors,anyONE who uses this with a GH4/5,any advise.
 
flinty said:
If in camera sharpening is needed to see detail in birds feathers etc thats no problem with me,Ken i am getting rid of my 100-400mm i am considering a Canon 100-400mm mk11,i am a bit warry of adaptors,anyONE who uses this with a GH4/5,any advise.
Click to expand...
My advice is not to use a full frame lens on a m43 sensor even after applying a speedbooster.
A crop frame lens is much more suitable.

I completely agree with Tony Northrup on this:

 
The GH5 is super sharp. I have Sharpness dialed down to -5 with a Speed Booster and I still wish I could pull it down one or two more notches.

This is simply because it's oversampling the whole sensor this time (in a very well controlled way I might add).

If you aren't seeing a sharp image from the GH5, then it's the lens in front of the camera that is to blame. Bear in mind I'm talking real sharpness, not artificial detail like the RX10 eta al seem to do.

HTH!

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
As far as sharpness goes my GH5 must be the runt of the litter,i am not blind,if i dialed mine down -5 the content would be ultra soft,its strange about the the Canon lens i have read that some use and get good results with it but i am cautious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf_LiBWEFro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MFT18GK8zI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdGi3Q_HEvM
The results using the 14-140mm lens are acceptable but it is wildlife i film most and i personaly cant get decent material with the lumix 100-400mm
 
Last edited:
I'll have to try and watch this at home, my computer at work can't handle the 4k version. The 1080 version looked good in this junk computer system at work.
 
Chris, I don't have that lens, but without any doubt whatsoever, as I and others have told you, the problem is not the GH5. It just isn't. I've provided you the professional test results, from a very well respected site, that proves the GH5 has more resolution than the RX10iii. If you choose not to believe those results, that's fine. It is what it is. I just don't know what else to say, but I know you will forever doubt that. In-camera sharpening is simply not the same as true resolution.

The in-camera sharpening of the NX1, in the test you posted, was very obvious. The edginess in the 400% enlargement was obvious and not particularly pretty. The GH5's in-camera sharpening was obviously significantly less than it was in the NX1. However, anyone can simply dial the sharpening up to +5 if they like those results. That would have made the NX1 vs GH5 test look quite different.

Whatever it is, I'm really thinking you may be better off sticking with the RX10iii or the Panasonic super-zoom equivalent. I think you'll be happier. I feel this is the case after seeing you call the 14-140 lens results only 'acceptable', when I find the results to be truly excellent. My results are extremely sharp & detailed. The word 'acceptable' just wouldn't come to mind.

But hey, whatever I think is irrelevant. What you think is what's relevant. You don't have the confidence in this system being able to produce sharp results. If I felt like you, I'd abandon the system. But that's me.

I shot the entire video below with the 14-140 lens. I've also provided multiple videos from other shooters, shot with the 100-400, that are absolutely razor sharp. That's what prompted me to tell you to take the lens in for inspection. If I hadn't seen video after video, with this same lens, producing such sharp results, I would never have told you to have it inspected:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlI_xkRIulg&t=85s
 
Last edited:
flinty said:
The results using the 14-140mm lens are acceptable but it is wildlife i film most and i personaly cant get decent material with the lumix 100-400mm
Click to expand...
Except for some of their Leica-branded lenses, Lumix zooms are not very sharp, they are artificially sharpened by in-camera firmware that automatically corrects geometric distortion. I'd suggest trying a pro third-party lens, particularly at 4K resolution.
 
flinty said:
As far as sharpness goes my GH5 must be the runt of the litter,i am not blind,if i dialed mine down -5 the content would be ultra soft,its strange about the the Canon lens i have read that some use and get good results with it but i am cautious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf_LiBWEFro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MFT18GK8zI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdGi3Q_HEvM
The results using the 14-140mm lens are acceptable but it is wildlife i film most and i personaly cant get decent material with the lumix 100-400mm
Click to expand...
Did you change any of the settings, use additional noise reduction or made changes to the levels?
All your detail seems crushed below 25-30 IRE.

The other concern I have is that almost everything is in focus which suggest a very narrow aperture.
For m43 you would not want to close much beyond f/8 due to diffraction.
 
Last edited:
visceralpsyche said:
The GH5 is super sharp. I have Sharpness dialed down to -5 with a Speed Booster and I still wish I could pull it down one or two more notches.

This is simply because it's oversampling the whole sensor this time (in a very well controlled way I might add).

If you aren't seeing a sharp image from the GH5, then it's the lens in front of the camera that is to blame. Bear in mind I'm talking real sharpness, not artificial detail like the RX10 eta al seem to do.

HTH!

Cheers,

Paul :)
Click to expand...

Do you still have any native lenses to compare the adapted with, in terms of artificial sharpness? I really hoped that there was no additional sharpness applied by sharpness -5 and using non-native lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top