GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What they did was show me that the Pro vs.consumer gap nowadays is so thin there’s just no more room for excuses. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[/FONT][/SIZE]

What worries me is that the 'wonderful' Engineering management at Panasonic will hobble the next generation of GH cameras, so it is no longer a contender.

I don't have the money to 'experiment' with Black Magic until it is really proved out... but I think that may be the direction I'd go, if Panasonic fails to exploit their 'consumer' GH series. Now if Black Magic would come out with a Nikon mount... rather than that Canon thing... I may be swayed earlier to switch...

 

[Kholi]

What worries me is that the 'wonderful' Engineering management at Panasonic will hobble the next generation of GH cameras, so it is no longer a contender.

I don't have the money to 'experiment' with Black Magic until it is really proved out... but I think that may be the direction I'd go, if Panasonic fails to exploit their 'consumer' GH series. Now if Black Magic would come out with a Nikon mount... rather than that Canon thing... I may be swayed earlier to switch...

I can tell you right now that nothing about the next GH is hobbled.

The two divisions are separate, and mostly make their choices independent of each other.

As far as Magic Cam goes, well, no the next GH won't be that but it won't cost as much, either.

 

[Ian-T]

What worries me is that the 'wonderful' Engineering management at Panasonic will hobble the next generation of GH cameras, so it is no longer a contender.

Exactly...that's my concern also. I ask myself...after the hack what can they possibly offer to make me switch? Do they think they made a mistake with the GH-2 (seeing how good it is)? Or...are they going to "dumb it down" like they did with the GS400 - GS300 (remember that?)?

 

[Per Lichtman]

But, if people were to watch a well-executed movie on the big screen that was shot entirely on a 7D none of this would matter (think “28 Days Later”). Then again, it seems, that is not what this Zacuto test was all about. What they did was show me that the Pro vs.consumer gap nowadays is so thin there’s just no more room for excuses.

The funny thing for me about that example is that is one of the only movies where the image quality (not just the cinematography) was so bad in the trailers that I completely ruled out seeing it. I know they were going for a particular aesthetic, but it is difficult for me to verbalize just how difficult it would be to get me to pay for it.

I agree with your point, but I think that the baseline image quality required is much, much higher than that film. The difference is that the minimum quality required can now be achieved with several of these less expensive cameras. When that film was made, if you used a less expensive camera it looked... as bad as that film.

 

[L1N3ARX]

Hey, I just realized that part one of the shootout comes out tomorrow! Time to get the popcorn out, and maybe take a peek over at what ensues over at reduser. Twill be fun!

 

[Per Lichtman]

But part 1 is one of the more subjective ones, right? Where we get to see the results of the cameras when people were allowed to tailor the shooting conditions more to the camera?

I mainly want to see the more objective one, where the cameras are thrown into the exact same situation and we get to see the differences in how they perform. From what they describe in the preview, the other parts sound less like a "shootout" and more like a "demonstration of a paradigm" in approaching film.

The latter is cool, but I don't need to be convinced of how good a result I can get with the tools I have used. I want to know where the differences in performance lie so that I can more effectively arrange for the right tool for the each specific job without having to spend tons of time tracking down examples to do my own hands-on with.

 

[Per Lichtman]

Is anyone else having difficulty accessing the Zacuto site at the moment? I was going to check out their production blogs, but I guess I will have to go to their Vimeo account.

UPDATE: Working again now.

 

[TheDingo]

I mainly want to see the more objective one, where the cameras are thrown into the exact same situation and we get to see the differences in how they perform

I think that's the big difference with this year's Zacuto Shootout, where it's the finished results of the camera and lighting combo that is being judged, instead of just pointing different cameras at the same identically lit set-up. The idea is to mimic real-world shooting conditions where you would adapt your lighting to your camera's requirements.

i.e. You might light something completely differently if you were shooting with an Arri Alexa versus shooting the same set with a Canon C300

 

[Per Lichtman]

@TheDingo I understand and respect the paradigm, but it applies a lot less to many of the types of shooting I do (many of which involve exterior with no people, etc.)

"Excuse me, would you mind if I relit that bridge without a permit next to those condos?"

 

[Wolfenbarg]

But part 1 is one of the more subjective ones, right? Where we get to see the results of the cameras when people were allowed to tailor the shooting conditions more to the camera?

I mainly want to see the more objective one, where the cameras are thrown into the exact same situation and we get to see the differences in how they perform. From what they describe in the preview, the other parts sound less like a "shootout" and more like a "demonstration of a paradigm" in approaching film.

The latter is cool, but I don't need to be convinced of how good a result I can get with the tools I have used. I want to know where the differences in performance lie so that I can more effectively arrange for the right tool for the each specific job without having to spend tons of time tracking down examples to do my own hands-on with.

Then I think you're going to be very disappointed. Last year's shootout was a massive stress test where each camera was stretched to its limits in different fields. This shootout is about having each team's DP and colorist get the most out of their respective camera in each scene. If the DP and the colorist sucks, then that image will suck. In essence, it's not about the cameras, it's about the people using them and how they got the best possible image out of them.

 

[nathankw]

There's a bit of both. In the screening yesterday, part 1 was the "objective" test - where the same lighting is used for all cameras.
Part 2 has each camera relit and graded to its strengths. It's part 2 that we watched blind (don't know if online will be the same?)

Neither approach is perfect. With the former - any given lighting setup will be more suited to some cameras than others.
The latter inevitably introduces more subjectivity but in some ways is fairer because in real life you'd play to each cameras strengths.

What you won't get is an answer to the "which camera is best" question. They state this pretty clearly - the aim of this test is to see whether all of those cameras can, with the correct use, produce great images. In my view, the answer is no. The Iphone and 7D produced reasonable images. But all the other cameras, including the GH2, did produce great a image.

Philip Bloom's blog has a good short summary of his thoughts on the test.

 

[TheDingo]

@TheDingo I understand and respect the paradigm, but it applies a lot less to many of the types of shooting I do (many of which involve exterior with no people, etc.)

...This reminds me of architectural shoots in the 80's with Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 large format cameras, where the transparency film that we shot with ( Fuji RDP 100 ) had a limited contrast range so we had a fairly extensive low-contrast filter kit that we used to tame the subject contrast in order to produce a good shot. I don't see why the same couldn't be done with a high contrast ( limited dynamic range ) camera like the GH2. Once you know the limitations of your camera, you adapt and work within what the camera can do.

 

[maranfilms]

...This reminds me of architectural shoots in the 80's with Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 large format cameras, where the transparency film that we shot with ( Fuji RDP 100 ) had a limited contrast range so we had a fairly extensive low-contrast filter kit that we used to tame the subject contrast in order to produce a good shot. I don't see why the same couldn't be done with a high contrast ( limited dynamic range ) camera like the GH2. Once you know the limitations of your camera, you adapt and work within what the camera can do.

+1

 

[Cavemandude]

Has anyone tried using a low contrast filter on the GH2? What strength low contrast filter would be a good starter point? Here is a list of them in 62mm filter size:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...Ultra+Contrast&ci=159&N=4256189586+4294955267

Randy

 

[Per Lichtman]

@TheDingo @Cavemandude I already use Low Contrast, Ultra Contrast and Warm Black Promist filters. I was referring specifically to changing the lighting, not using filtering on the camera itself.

But it doesn't compare to the 11 exposure bracketing sequences that I will sometimes do my timelapses in, so any additional DR is always welcome.

I will try to find the links to some of contrast filter testing I did, but it was more from the perspective of use with a human subject.

 

[Per Lichtman]

Here we have some of them, but the contrast of the scene is not very wide compared to what I would use them for normally.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/62717#Comment_62717

Tested Ultra Contrast 1 and 3, Low Contrast 2 and Warm Black Promist 1.

This is a light starved scene, where the test was to see how each would perform in that scenario and the effect on the skin.

In addition, there is a very noticeable loss of detail when extending the dynamic range that cannot be recovered in post. This can give a very pleasant look (that I love for some scenes) but is not the right one for others.

 

[Per Lichtman]

And to be clear - my point is not that you cannot do things to change a camera, my point is that the world can provide scenes that extend beyond the limits of your camera. So since the camera can very easily become the limiting factor, I want to know where those limits are and whether the difference is great enough to affect the way I do my work.

For example - the noise level shooting JPEG stills with a GH2 at ISO 1600 can often look better than ISO 100 on a compact like the ZS10 - 4 stops of difference. If you are shooting RAW with a GH2 at ISO 1600, you would have to go to ISO 200 to match that noise level on an FZ100.

That sort of noise performance difference can really change the way you shoot night scenes, and that's before you get into the option to use faster lenses.

Now I know we were talking about dynamic range as opposed to overall noise performance, but my point is that I do care about the way that different cameras can change the way I have to shoot.

That said - I would love to learn to shoot film-based medium format or large format. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those that demonstrate mastery of that, whether it be the legacy of Ansel Adams or modern masters like Clyde Butcher (who has done more to raise my interest in the Everglades than anyone else).

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I think that's the big difference with this year's Zacuto Shootout, where it's the finished results of the camera and lighting combo that is being judged, instead of just pointing different cameras at the same identically lit set-up. The idea is to mimic real-world shooting conditions where you would adapt your lighting to your camera's requirements.

i.e. You might light something completely differently if you were shooting with an Arri Alexa versus shooting the same set with a Canon C300

In point of fact, I'd never use Film Film under 'identical' conditions. Each film had a strength or less than... I tended to use still film Tri-X, or similar 400 ISO rated film, despite the fact that Plus X (may it rest in peace) or Panatomic X, had 'better' contrast/resolution for some set of subjects...

I'm sure it's the same for color and people who shot moving pictures Film Film...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

That said - I would love to learn to shoot film-based medium format or large format. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those that demonstrate mastery of that, whether it be the legacy of Ansel Adams or modern masters like Clyde Butcher (who has done more to raise my interest in the Everglades than anyone else).

I would bet that were Ansel Adams alive today, he would be working with digital... just as he worked with Polaroid, a 'new innovation' in photographic processing, and may I add, with a very limited exposure range...

His "Polaroid Land Photography" would probably be worth a reprint, as it is useful in 'understanding' how to apply the Zone System to a medium of limited range.

 

[Per Lichtman]

@j1clark@ucsd.edu I in no way shape or form meant to limit Ansel Adams genius to his work in that format, anymore than I would limit it to black and white. I used to have beautiful posters of his color work in my room as a kid as well.

But what I meant was that he brought out the best in the format and that in doing so helped to inspire me to its strengths and possibilities. When I saw Clyde Butcher's prints up alongside some of the very best nature photographers using digital today, printed to be similar to myself in size, I was continually struck by the texture and detail of his work and despite my own affinity for digital, I could not help but say that they were the works that had made the greatest impression on me out of all the ones at the exhibit (including several pieces by one of my favorite National Geographic photographers).