stoneinapond
Veteran
Without absolute knowledge I would call that out. Unnecessary speculation to bolster one's view.
GH3 Great Comparison Video with GH3, GH2, BMC, Nex, etc
- Thread starter Ianscreations
- Start date
Without absolute knowledge I would call that out. Unnecessary speculation to bolster one's view.
I don't think so, I clearly see edge sharpening on GH2 footage at -2. -5 on the GH3 seems to truly turn it off completely.
Yeah that's probably true, gh2 definitely seems sharper at -2 vs -5 on the gh3. But it's worrisome that at -5 there's still some aliasing in those columns. I don't feel that -5 is turning off edge sharpness completely.
Last edited:
Interesting takes on this one 
I just assumed that everyone would agree with me on how much better the GH3 image was. LOL !!! It appears that in the end of the day most of this is simply personal preference. For me the GH3 solves all the "issues" I've ever had with the GH2. Those being overly sharpened, overly dark shadows and overly contrasty muddy colors in the bright of day. I can't wait to get my hands on one with my 600mm and the ETC for wildlife work.
Cheers,
Pete
I just assumed that everyone would agree with me on how much better the GH3 image was. LOL !!! It appears that in the end of the day most of this is simply personal preference. For me the GH3 solves all the "issues" I've ever had with the GH2. Those being overly sharpened, overly dark shadows and overly contrasty muddy colors in the bright of day. I can't wait to get my hands on one with my 600mm and the ETC for wildlife work.
Cheers,
Pete
PaPa
Major Contributor
agree to disagree.
granted i know nothing about which picture profile was used, I do notice that the GH3, although the image looks like it's slightly higher in exposure ( brighter sky ) still crushes to black too abruptly and harshly. The GH2's image looks much smoother, the sky is less bright, yet it's seeing exactly the same amount of detail in the darks - to me, that's where i mention that it appears as though the GH2's DR is better.
Anywho, my opinion.
http://www.c3di.com/images/gh2-gh3-comparison1.gif
Cheers,
PaPa
Major Contributor
You are not crazy. I have noticed the same thing. From what I've seen, which is not a ton and very unscientific, the GH3 is slightly behind the hacked GH2 in terms of DR and picture "yumminess". I will postpone my judgement until it is in the hands of more users, however, I will say this. My opinion come from unscientific tests, which to me, are the best. Real world, shoot, no charts, outside without controlled lighting. This tells me more about a camera, and what i see here is the GH2 is currently still the winner.
Here is a fun shot of how much can be retained from the GH2's highlights
* I will quickly note that i was shooting at ISO 160 ( should have been at 400 to lessen sky banding ) had to stop my panasonic lens down to F22 ( should have been at F5.6- F8 with a non panasonic/ less contrasty lens ) for optimal quality and range.
RAW:
Graded:
Better color and definition in the shadows certainly seems like something the gh3 might be capable of. However taming the sharpness and getting a nice highly detailed, smooth and aliasing-free image... Has always been a major strong suit of the gh2. Those who've used anything other than Panasonic lenses could say as much.
The GH2's black levels are raised, but there's no detail in them. I don't understand how you can be in favor of misinformation...scientific tests attempt to take out user error. The fact is there are numerous color settings on the GH3, and I'm sure there's an aesthetically pleasing one (I remember it took a while for people to find the best settings for the GH2). There is nothing objectively better about the GH2's image, it's just packaged better, probably because the user is much more proficient with the GH2 than the GH3.
PaPa
Major Contributor
Gabrobot, you're preaching to the choir here dude. I already said I have not made up my mind, but my observations are only on what's available to see now and thus the comments i made are still appropriate. So far ( yes, things may change ) there seems to be no visual benefit in the image the GH3 is achieving over the hacked GH2. I am happy to be corrected when more people have access to the camera.
But no, I will always favor unscientific tests ( run and gun shooting ) versus charts. That will never change.
And on a last note, yes, there is no information in those blacks. My eye, however, sees a difference in the way the GH2 handles the transition from darks to black as compared to the GH3.
That is all. Good day.
But no, I will always favor unscientific tests ( run and gun shooting ) versus charts. That will never change.
And on a last note, yes, there is no information in those blacks. My eye, however, sees a difference in the way the GH2 handles the transition from darks to black as compared to the GH3.
That is all. Good day.
nyvz
Veteran
Just looking at those comparisons alone, what I see is that GH3 seems to be softer, have more crushed blacks, and have worse color separation and a slight color cast compared to the GH2 which I always find to be very sharp and have very natural looking gamma/color, more so than most other cameras I've used/owned.
+ 1
I'm waiting to be convinced, in fact I'm counting on it. There shouldnt be a *good* reason why the gh3 cant out perform it's predecessor in most situations.
As to when we'll actually be able to validate that... is a matter of time and experience I suppose.
The problem with unscientific tests is that you don't know what's coming from the camera or the user. I'm confident in myself to create a pretty picture, I want the camera to hold up its end and deliver technically.
The first time I shot with a GH2, I thought its handling of contrast was hideous. Turned out to be the picture settings, and with the right settings the image looks fine. I suspect the same thing is happening here. It may also be a difference due to the GH2 shooting AVCHD .mts and the GH3 shooting H264 .mov...they're probably being processed differently, possibly with gamma shifts and even clipping. It would be nice to see the original files posted.
KINOKS
Well-known member
That was the first thing that I noticed to.
Pointing out that the GH3 seems to be softer is pointless since since it was a different sharpness setting and scale between the 2 cameras. In terms of sharpness, I have no doubt that it can probably make our eyes bleed using a Panny lens and not taking it down past 0. If there's one thing this camera will excel at, it's probably sharpness haha.
PaPa
Major Contributor
In that sense, you are completely correct. I was too quick to judge what you meant by Scientific. Apples to apples is always very important so in that sense, knowing that information is invaluable and necessary.
KINOKS
Well-known member
To me that looked like a true lack of detail so not something that digital enhancement would affect. It's quite possible that the new GH would have a lower resolution than the older GH. If
it's interpolating the pixels differently this just might be the case. Do we know how does it interpolate the pixels??
...I downloaded the full resolution version to check it out, and I don't see any obvious moire in any shots, but there is some aliasing in the fine architectural details. ( the GH2 would have had the same aliasing )
I am wondering if the lower contrast ( or larger dynamic range ) of the GH3 image is making things seem a little soft ?
aethericwave
Member
Here's some new GH3 video-- says firmware v0.4