GH2 God i love my gh2...

Framerate said:
Well, possibly a *little* over the top (for dramatic effect, you understand?) but it is a fact that my newly purchased GH2 is a huge let-down in the noise department.

It seems safe until iso 800 - after that, put in your earplugs and hold on tight, because the noise will blow you away.

It all (imo) relates to that nasty 4/3 sensor.
Click to expand...

You've got to be doing something wrong then. ISO 1600 looks clean on my GH2... and ISO3200 looks like 1250 on my 7D. 4/3 sensors aren't as bad as you're making them sound. The GH2's 16mp 4/3 sensor is about the same pixel density as a 7D with 18mp. Try using a EX3 or 2/3" varicam if you want to see some real noise...

Framerate said:
My GH1's are better - and that's not just tossing out a statement for the sake of it, they actually are.

*What* on earth is the point of high bit rates, low GOP, removal of iso constraints in video, etc, when every effort is crippled by that horrible M4/3 sensor?
Click to expand...

You realize your GH1's are also 4/3rds? ...and worse latitude and noise right? I've worked with both. If your not getting a better image with the GH2 then again, you're doing something wrong... or it's broken.

I think you're just saying crap for the sake of saying it...
 
Last edited:
i guess noise tolerance is (also) in the eye of the beholder.
i myself find the organic sensor noise on high bitrate very nice and lively. up to a point. but i'm a retro guy so...
 
GH2user said:
You've got to be doing something wrong then. ISO 1600 looks clean on my GH2... and ISO3200 looks like 1250 on my 7D. 4/3 sensors aren't as bad as you're making them sound. The GH2's 16mp 4/3 sensor is about the same pixel density as a 7D with 18mp. Try using a EX3 or 2/3" varicam if you want to see some real noise...



You realize your GH1's are also 4/3rds? ...and worse latitude and noise right? I've worked with both. If your not getting a better image with the GH2 then again, you're doing something wrong... or it's broken.

I think you're just saying crap for the sake of saying it...
Click to expand...


Uh, huh..........so much the 'Respectful Video Community'......
 
GH2user said:
You've got to be doing something wrong then. ISO 1600 looks clean on my GH2... and ISO3200 looks like 1250 on my 7D. 4/3 sensors aren't as bad as you're making them sound. The GH2's 16mp 4/3 sensor is about the same pixel density as a 7D with 18mp. Try using a EX3 or 2/3" varicam if you want to see some real noise...



You realize your GH1's are also 4/3rds? ...and worse latitude and noise right? I've worked with both. If your not getting a better image with the GH2 then again, you're doing something wrong... or it's broken.

I think you're just saying crap for the sake of saying it...
Click to expand...

Seriously?
 
Ian-T said:
You do know that there is an ISO bug right? The bug being noisy images at certain ISO's (whether day or night). And with this bug there is a workaround. Check out personal view and see what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks, I'd taken that foible into account.

The problem is the type of noise it produces. Yes, it's finer than the GH1 - but, unlike the GH1, it's chroma noise, red and blue speckles that are a pig to remove. Neat Video doesn't do half as good a job with it as it does with GH1 files.

It's similar to the noise 'veil' produced by the Canon HG10 in low light - except that the HG10 noise is colourless, while the GH2 is a red & blue spectacular ;)

Now, here's the odd thing.

I tried the Driftwood Aquamotion patch - and the noise at iso 4000 (that's Four Thousand) is very tightly grained and virtually colour free.

The noise at iso 4000 Aquamotion is *vastly* better than the noise at iso 3200 with stock FW.

I've no idea why this is - but it's a poor show when it takes third parties t make the product of a major electronics manufacturer perform acceptably.

EDIT - forgot to mention that low light AF is also noticeably better with the AQ patch as well.
 
Framerate said:
I tried the Driftwood Aquamotion patch - and the noise at iso 4000 (that's Four Thousand) is very tightly grained and virtually colour free.

The noise at iso 4000 Aquamotion is *vastly* better than the noise at iso 3200 with stock FW.

I've no idea why this is - but it's a poor show when it takes third parties t make the product of a major electronics manufacturer perform acceptably.

EDIT - forgot to mention that low light AF is also noticeably better with the AQ patch as well.
Click to expand...

This is all very strange, those things shouldn't really happen. It's like the AQ settings are changing the way the sensor scans, but they're not suppose to
 
Dazza said:
This is all very strange, those things shouldn't really happen. It's like the AQ settings are changing the way the sensor scans, but they're not suppose to
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, it's absolutely so.

I'll see if i can post a couple of samples on Vimeo.

There really is a huge difference between stock 3200 and AQ 4000.

Which is a bit of a bummer for me, as I'm waiting for the 25p Panasonic FW update ;) - install the update and (presumably) lose the hack.
 
Framerate said:
Now, here's the odd thing.

I tried the Driftwood Aquamotion patch - and the noise at iso 4000 (that's Four Thousand) is very tightly grained and virtually colour free.

The noise at iso 4000 Aquamotion is *vastly* better than the noise at iso 3200 with stock FW.
Click to expand...
I think that's plausible. Higher data rate should mean finer noise. It sounds like the quality of the noise which you find so annoying is not a function of the sensor as much as it is of the compression algorithm.

You seem very annoyed with Panasonic, but I think you are being overly harsh. This is not a professional video camera, it is a prosumer hybrid. That being said, it is the best prosumer hybrid there is. Some perspective doesn't hurt sometimes. :thumbsup:
 
Kholi said:
Awesome, thanks. I have been doing it right. Right now, though, I am only shooting 400ISO. Hesitant to go any lower, as well, because it seems like that's where the banding begins to show up.

Still need to do more tests with 800 and 1000.

Maybe 320 is the right one, though. Gonna check soon.
Click to expand...

320 and its divisions/multipliers are definitely the native ones.

I've tested and the non-native ISOs have worse colorimetry and noise.

But nice to know you can get banding below ISO 320.

karapetkov said:
:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Can't wait to get mine.

And it might get a lot better, mind you. ;)
Click to expand...

Make Sure 2! :D
 
Last edited:
So, I was wondering... was anyone underwhelmed by their GH2, before they tried "non-panasonic" glass? Can't say that there was a time I didn't "like" the GH2, it just surprised me how much difference the lens made with this camera. It's almost uncanny how different the footage looks with say canon FD, Sigma, or old Nikkor glass. The 7D and Mark II looked different to an extent, but man with the GH2, it's like wiping sand from your eyes and seeing for the first time what the footage is "supposed" to look like haha. I know it's all pretty subjective, but it's almost a disservice to this camera to not at least have 1 good "non-panasonic" prime lens.
 
L1N3ARX said:
So, I was wondering... was anyone underwhelmed by their GH2, before they tried "non-panasonic" glass? Can't say that there was a time I didn't "like" the GH2, it just surprised me how much difference the lens made with this camera. It's almost uncanny how different the footage looks with say canon FD, Sigma, or old Nikkor glass. The 7D and Mark II looked different to an extent, but man with the GH2, it's like wiping sand from your eyes and seeing for the first time what the footage is "supposed" to look like haha. I know it's all pretty subjective, but it's almost a disservice to this camera to not at least have 1 good "non-panasonic" prime lens.
Click to expand...

Having shot extensively with the Canon t2i for a year and now the Gh2 for 4 months I can agree with you that the Gh2 clarity is like wiping sand from the eyes. Compared the the Gh2, the Canon footage just look soft and out of focus.

But I find the Panny lenses ( 20mm 1.7, 14mm 2.5 ) and even the Olympus kit lens 14-42 very sharp... maybe too sharp when compared to the Canon FD's I have (canon fd 50mm 1.4, 28 2.8).

Someone in this forum suggested that Panny software adjusts the picture before it is stored in camera, and one of the adjustments is sharpening.

In any case, I was delighted with the GH2 picture from the moment I picked it up. The first thing I did was to apply the hack so I never actually got to examine any original unhacked footage.
 
Dazza said:
This is all very strange, those things shouldn't really happen. It's like the AQ settings are changing the way the sensor scans, but they're not suppose to
Click to expand...

I wrote on the general dslr forum about the hacked gh2 being the king in low light. The reason is that even if it looks in theory improbable, the hack (I have use mostly the 1 gop version) does makes a huge difference. The noise is here but the quality is completely different, much finer and not colored, making for higher detail and less distracting noise. Very film like.
 
People see what they want to see ,i have 6 lenses all micro four thirds fast and slow pancake and zoom,outdoors the picture is the same no matter which lens is on.
 
flinty said:
People see what they want to see ,i have 6 lenses all micro four thirds fast and slow pancake and zoom,outdoors the picture is the same no matter which lens is on.
Click to expand...

What? A "digitally" sharp 20mm 1.7 looks completely different than a more soft Nikon glass.

Glass choice matters. Perhaps in this day of digital acquisition choosing glass is like choosing stock.
 
Danielvilliers said:
I wrote on the general dslr forum about the hacked gh2 being the king in low light. The reason is that even if it looks in theory improbable, the hack (I have use mostly the 1 gop version) does makes a huge difference. The noise is here but the quality is completely different, much finer and not colored, making for higher detail and less distracting noise. Very film like.
Click to expand...


Agreed about the noise (although I'm not entirely sure what 'film like' is supposed to look like ;) )

I had the AQ2 patch on, and it transformed the noise characteristic - from red & blue spodges to a very fine (mostly colour free) mist.

The main advantage for me was the ability to use high bit rates (about 56Mbps) in the 'band-free' 50i mode.

Now I've installed the FW update I'm back to red & blue splodges (can't see any NR improvement) , and the same band in 25p as in the previous 24p.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
What? A "digitally" sharp 20mm 1.7 looks completely different than a more soft Nikon glass.

Glass choice matters. Perhaps in this day of digital acquisition choosing glass is like choosing stock.
Click to expand...

The GH2 may resolve more detail than Canon equivalents but resolution is still moderate for HD,softer glass :Drogar-SunGlass(DBG :undecided na
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top