Interesting. It was a well done video, but it did look soft. Actually it reminded me of my own GH2 stuff when I have a cheap Fader on the lens softening up the image. I wonder if a vari ND was used? Still, nothing the GH2 couldn't do every bit as good or maybe even better in some instances... just my opinion.
GH3 Great Comparison Video with GH3, GH2, BMC, Nex, etc
- Thread starter Ianscreations
- Start date
Interesting. It was a well done video, but it did look soft. Actually it reminded me of my own GH2 stuff when I have a cheap Fader on the lens softening up the image. I wonder if a vari ND was used? Still, nothing the GH2 couldn't do every bit as good or maybe even better in some instances... just my opinion.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Genus ND.
And yeah, I get your opinion. No need to keep repeating it.
rogar-Shock(DBG):Genus ND.
And yeah, I get your opinion. No need to keep repeating it.
Okie Dokie.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
This is how most sensors work with video. That is why raw video from RED or BMCC tends to be soft. It has no electronic sharpness added. The look of the GH3 is exactly what you would expect from a camera with the sharpness dialed down. Many have complained in the past that the sharpness of the GH2 could not be dialed down enough. Some people prefer this look. With the GH2 you just can't do it in camera. With the GH3 you can shoot soft, normal, sharp and super sharp. Almost any professional video camera with the detail dialed all the way down or turned off will look this way.
Download the raw 2.5k sample and add a bit of sharpness and you will see the GH3 shots take on the same level of detail as the GH2 shots. Works exactly how I would expect it to work.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Aw man, that's no fun. I had all my arguments lined up...... :happy:
Anyway, one of my points is that we all seem to be talking as if the cameras are absolute standalone objects that can be compared one to another, when there are so many other things that go into the equation. Lenses, the operators and their preferences and in the case of the GH3, unfinished firmware. Plus our own preconceptions and hopes which subtly "color" our experience of a presentation. Now I do agree that from the little I could make out, Reid's test did show some amazing GH2 footage in places. But his presentation was not very useful for me, with different FOVs and non repeatable sequences which made a deeper consideration difficult. I spent half my time looking to the left to see what I was looking at by which time the clip had passed.
And what is soft? Is it an amorphous term like filmic that has no inherent meaning? Please help me out here. Is it a lack of sharpness? A lack of definition? A serious question in case you think I jest.....
I agree, all it takes is literally a flick of a dial and any comparison used to infer qualitative differences is a pointless exercise. I get that... I guess I was just pretending that the settings were close enough on each camera to make the Andrews video objective enough for that purpose. I mean, just a slight adjustment on a vari nd is enough to spoil the image and throw out important detail in the highlights.
No not at all, I guess in the case of that GH3 video, it was simply a lack of definition (I'm not sure if I can describe what soft is beyond that... I guess just when the details start to fall apart and lose continuity / shape). Artistically, it was beautiful and reminds me of how I like to do my own stuff. But if I were to give an example of how the GH3 performs in those situations, I would definitely try to capture an image as nominal as possible. No Vari, maybe just a normal ND and no grading etc. I actually used the Genus myself for a short while and I don't know if you can believe this, but I found it to be softer on my Sigma 30mm, than the $10 Neewer ND that I purchased before it. It essentially created this curtain or haze that simply wiped out detail. Now I use a Heliopan, just got it the other day actually and it's a major eye-opener to see what I was throwing away before (outdoors at least).
Folks, please read the article that Andrew posted along with this video, to get some of his observations (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9214/the-eoshd-blackmagic-cinema-camera-shootout). Of particular note to the discussion at hand, he had this to say:
I interpret that to say that -5 and +5 settings on the GH3 will probably be equivalent to about 3 steps higher or lower than the -2 and +2 of the GH2, as if they were on the same scale. More control can only be a good thing.
I interpret that to say that -5 and +5 settings on the GH3 will probably be equivalent to about 3 steps higher or lower than the -2 and +2 of the GH2, as if they were on the same scale. More control can only be a good thing.
aethericwave
Member
Thank you for linking to that article- it was a good read.
When Black Magic adds a model focused on more traditional handheld ergonomics coupled with that beautiful 4:2:2 12bit RAW quality, it's going to be the new starting point for everyone- me included.
Even though I'm not willing to be a customer for the first model, I'm totally hot for what that company will produce. They have a special formula- let's hope they broaden that appeal!
I think the GH3 will serve me very well over the next three years or so between now and the next generations...
When Black Magic adds a model focused on more traditional handheld ergonomics coupled with that beautiful 4:2:2 12bit RAW quality, it's going to be the new starting point for everyone- me included.
Even though I'm not willing to be a customer for the first model, I'm totally hot for what that company will produce. They have a special formula- let's hope they broaden that appeal!
I think the GH3 will serve me very well over the next three years or so between now and the next generations...
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
It will be too late. Panasonic or Olympus/Sony will have done it and current SSD form factor will be gone and replaced with the same capacity in a CF card form factor, ie, BMCC will be toast.
I marvel that no one cares that BMC is totally new as a company. Look at the angst RED must be feeling.
Further, I as a pro, cannot deal with single camera shooting. I must have two identical bods. So cost per unit matter a lot!
Fresno Bob
Well-known member
Because they're not. Blackmagic has been in business since 1984.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
lol
KINOKS
Well-known member
He was probably talking about them being in the camera business not a long time and not in imaging business pre-se...
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Perhaps they are new to cameras but they also are not new to the concept of making high quality video related equipment. The concept of a camera was a natural progression for Blackmagic and outside of the imageblock itself they are using tried and true technology for themselves. Is it perfect? perhaps not but for a first attempt it has blown the door quality wise off of a lot of other solutions out there.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I still chuckle at the prospect that a pro would consider $3,000.00 per body as overpriced. Most video related pros even today consider $3,000.00 the starting point for a professional camera. Even then cameras typically in the $6,000.00 are considered the starting point for pros at a certain level. This isn't even considering the high end pros who buy cameras easily north of $10,000.00. My first pro level cameras were SONY DSR-300 which I think cost somewhere around $9,000.00 and we had two of them and a DSR-500 which cost I believe around $12,000.00. My whole point is that $3,000.00 for this quality point is insanely cheap already and pretty much right at the same price point as any other professional camera.
No kidding... this is like an expenditure you make once you JUST invested in a Pro camera and realize that you should probably have this one as well. At 3k, it doesn't matter what the competition has or may be bringing out... this is essentially a stripped down, mini Alexa for 3k... it's mind boggling. I don't have tons of money laying around to spend on anything and everything... but if this camera were any price- up to 10k, there's not a single doubt in my mind I would own it.
Sage
Well-known member
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:
That's a great grade. What did you use? What was your process?
I agree with you. It looks to be the same scale, and -2 give the same level we see in the GH2 -2. I remember when it was a common request to be able to dial down further on the hacked GH2s. It looks like we have that ability now, but people don't like it?? If you want it as sharp as the GH2 set it to -2
Speaking in generalities, I think we're closing in on a time where upgrades and newer versions of cameras are just not going to bring the kind of improvements we've gotten used to. I think it's more about features now, then an actual level of discernible difference in iq. Not that it's a bad thing... some things can really only go so far. Once the kind of sensors that are in the BMC are found in your average Sony cybershot... It'll plateau, but in a good way.
Interesting to think how film is one of few expressive forms of art where the average person simply cannot compete or does not have access to the same level of instrumentation that a pro does. Think anything... music, illustration, painting, visual effects, modeling... the average person can pretty much produce the same level of quality expected from a professional in any art form, given that they have the talent. With film, no matter how talented you may be, it's always been blatantly obvious what's at hollywood level and what's independent. Not better or worse, just superficially- what's been done by seasoned pros vs by amateurs. Just kind of cool to see this gap closing more and more every day.
What this has to do with the GH3 and this thread... I don't exactly know. I'm high on exorbitant amounts thanksgiving turkey and can't think straight.
Interesting to think how film is one of few expressive forms of art where the average person simply cannot compete or does not have access to the same level of instrumentation that a pro does. Think anything... music, illustration, painting, visual effects, modeling... the average person can pretty much produce the same level of quality expected from a professional in any art form, given that they have the talent. With film, no matter how talented you may be, it's always been blatantly obvious what's at hollywood level and what's independent. Not better or worse, just superficially- what's been done by seasoned pros vs by amateurs. Just kind of cool to see this gap closing more and more every day.
What this has to do with the GH3 and this thread... I don't exactly know. I'm high on exorbitant amounts thanksgiving turkey and can't think straight.
Fresno Bob, I present to you one gold Internet. Congratulations, you are the winner of the the www.
And lol at Sony and Panasonic offering anything similar before 2014. I guess ssome people were born to wait.
Fresno Bob
Well-known member
You'll have to spell this out to me - I'm not getting your tone.