GH2 Have a feeling the 5D Mark III's video quality won't come close to the hacked GH2s

righteous. said:
You're right, 4/3 isn't equal to FF, which is what I love about it. Unless you meant that FF is somehow superior, which would be just plain silly; it's a preference thing. If we ASSUME the 5d3 is moiré-free (not likely), it's still a camera that is over three times the price of a GH2. Yes it is a kick ass photo camera, but what if i don't like FF for photography either? As long as the Tokina 11-16 exists, FF has no wide angle advantages that I can see. Low noise? The D7000 has far less than the 5d2, with the added bonus of being a crop sensor. Best of both worlds!

My point being that if i'm going to depart from an s35 sensor, i'd rather go down a smidge than go up a ton. I don't see how 4/3 can possibly be a hinderance to landscape work? Most of my work is telephoto, so a 4/3 sensor with crop mode is fully welcome. Again, the trade off of a tiny bit of width between the s35 sensor in exchange for no moiré and rich colors is fine by me.
Click to expand...
Sure it is a personal thing. For some reason I placed that "to me" in the beginning of my liking :-)

Nonetheless, it is not silly at all when we can have the best of both worlds, exactly in the FF. I can't easily get the same DOF look (type of bokeh, quality, variety, etc) going smaller. Any try is plain that, a try ;) But I can have both going with larger.

Of course, if you are looking for telephoto, you'd rather like to end with a crop format. Even though, you can find a solution just adding some other glass options to your choice. They are available. Only much more expensive. In that case, 4/3" series complies. I have both. Nothing replaces FF to my book.
 
brunerww said:
It's a preference thing. But if you want "cinematic" DoF, you want to use a sensor that's about the same size as the S35 frame that moviemakers have used for about a hundred years. To my eyes (not saying this is true for anyone else) - 1/4" to 1/2" camcorder sensors are too small -- and FF is too big.

For me, m4/3, APS-C and S35 are in the sensor "Goldilocks zone" - just right :-)
Click to expand...
I think I already answered above. I generally agree with you, except for the case that...in much you can have the less. The opposite is not true. But it costs money for sure.

We need to balance what we like, have and can :-) It is not necessary to have FF to get it fine. GH series are great cameras. I have three of them and probably will buy more two. I just wouldn't compare them with FF, not even would dare to replace FF with them. Even if it is true the motion 35mm has been a crop format for decades, this doesn't mean FF may not show up as even more 'cinematic' to some eyes. Or deep DOF with a 4/3" may not be as much 'cinematic' as well, if proper done. Just with a different look or harder to mimic.
 
Emanuel said:
I can't easily get the same DOF look (type of bokeh, quality, variety, etc) going smaller. Any try is plain that, a try ;) But I can have both going with larger.

Of course, if you are looking for telephoto, you'd rather like to end with a crop format. Even though, you can find a solution just adding some other glass options to your choice. They are available. Only much more expensive. In that case, 4/3" series complies. I have both. Nothing replaces FF to my book.
Click to expand...

Very true. I think the reason I love 4/3 is because the bokeh is so much more subtle than FF. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the 5D bokeh on all fronts. Much too shallow and distracting for my liking. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been wowed by FF footage the way I have with 2/3" footage.
 
righteous. said:
Very true. I think the reason I love 4/3 is because the bokeh is so much more subtle than FF. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the 5D bokeh on all fronts. Much too shallow and distracting for my liking. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been wowed by FF footage the way I have with 2/3" footage.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding the problem here. You should be able to make FF look the same as a smaller sensor by shooting with a stopped down iris and adding more light / higher ISO (which is cleaner on the 5D, not to mention larger photocells capture more light). The reverse, however, isn't true. If you are shooting a scene outdoors with an aperture that makes everything look flat, you can't ADD bokeh to the smaller FOV without considerable difficulty.

People like to shoot very shallow with the 5D, mostly because they CAN, and think it looks cool. But you most certainly don't need to always have it look like that. Having options is important, however.
 
M. Gilden said:
... adding more light / higher ISO (which is cleaner on the 5D, not to mention larger photocells capture more light).
Click to expand...

By cleaner you mean the bad compression hides noise that should be present in a mess of macro blocking and softness? Because my 5D certainly wasn't cleaner, just mushy/smooth on further inspection. xD
 
Kholi said:
By cleaner you mean the bad compression hides noise that should be present in a mess of macro blocking and softness? Because my 5D certainly wasn't cleaner, just mushy/smooth on further inspection. xD
Click to expand...

If the sensors use the same sort of technology, a larger pixel will capture more light. The 5D2 is more sensitive to the 7D. However, not all sensors are the same so having this argument is difficult.
 
Rick Burnett said:
If the sensors use the same sort of technology, a larger pixel will capture more light. The 5D2 is more sensitive to the 7D. However, not all sensors are the same so having this argument is difficult.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant that it wasn't cleaner because the compression was garbage. It just appeared cleaner, but the same results can be had by denoising in post or just shoving the GH2 image into a 540~600 frame, then stretching it back to 1080.

Should look just like 5D footage (as far as cleanliness)
 
The biggest problem to me is that if you want to really compare low level, you need to compare detail as well. The FS100 shoots REALLY well at +30dB of gain, but, there is detail loss. It's pretty easy to see, but I still don't mind it myself. I see the same thing in a lot of cameras. I've used noise removal in post at different levels as you probably have and you can easily see what it does to an image as you push the algorithm.

Where I have issue is when someone posts a Red grab low light with NO noise reduction, and then posts say an FS100 and just on that alone says one is superior. I can't turn off the noise reduction on the FS100, so I can't really compare what both cameras are doing at the sensor level. I can conclude that Sony has a pretty darn good algorithm, to me, but I believe the RED algorithm is usable in redcine-x or what have you (I don't shoot on RED so I don't know). So in order to really know what usability the footage has, you've got to look at both.

And the biggest difference, with RED, I could add as much noise reduction as I wanted. With the FS100, I have no choice, if it's too much I just have to deal with it.

I guess in the end it all depends on what you prefer as quality.
 
Rick Burnett said:
The biggest problem to me is that if you want to really compare low level, you need to compare detail as well. The FS100 shoots REALLY well at +30dB of gain, but, there is detail loss. It's pretty easy to see, but I still don't mind it myself. I see the same thing in a lot of cameras. I've used noise removal in post at different levels as you probably have and you can easily see what it does to an image as you push the algorithm.

Where I have issue is when someone posts a Red grab low light with NO noise reduction, and then posts say an FS100 and just on that alone says one is superior. I can't turn off the noise reduction on the FS100, so I can't really compare what both cameras are doing at the sensor level. I can conclude that Sony has a pretty darn good algorithm, to me, but I believe the RED algorithm is usable in redcine-x or what have you (I don't shoot on RED so I don't know). So in order to really know what usability the footage has, you've got to look at both.

And the biggest difference, with RED, I could add as much noise reduction as I wanted. With the FS100, I have no choice, if it's too much I just have to deal with it.

I guess in the end it all depends on what you prefer as quality.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.

I can denoise my Gh2 footage healthily and still retain detail. There isn't any detail in 5D footage to begin with. xD

Denoising RED footage is sick, because there's so much detail to begin with, if you're going to 1080 or so then you can get away with a lot.

I haven't done much denoising of 5K but it's already so damned clean, I can't imagine having an issue.
 
No, our noisy 4kHD RED footage usually cleans up nicely just by being converted to 1080... 4 into 1 means a smoothing of everything.
 
M. Gilden said:
Maybe I'm not understanding the problem here. You should be able to make FF look the same as a smaller sensor by shooting with a stopped down iris and adding more light / higher ISO (which is cleaner on the 5D, not to mention larger photocells capture more light).
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. You SHOULD be able to stop down for a deeper focus, but in return I get horrible moiré (with sharpness turned all the way down). It was tolerable at first, but as I became more proficient at pulling focus, the problem only increased.

Light wise, the cleanliness of the 5D's sensor means nothing when the bad compression ruins it. From what I've seen, the GH2 in low light looks much nicer than the 5D simply because its A/D conversion allows it to be cleaner. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I have yet to be impressed by low light 5D footage, whereas much of the GH2 lowlight I've seen looks gorgeous.
 
If the arguments for a FF sensor boil down to "bigger is better" then why shouldn't we just make even bigger sensors than FF?

Because, of course, bigger is better only to a point. I put that point at where cinematographers have put it for a century: right around 4/3 and APS-C. FF video shooting is a fad that will fade.
 
M. Gilden said:
Maybe I'm not understanding the problem here. You should be able to make FF look the same as a smaller sensor by shooting with a stopped down iris and adding more light / higher ISO (which is cleaner on the 5D, not to mention larger photocells capture more light). The reverse, however, isn't true. If you are shooting a scene outdoors with an aperture that makes everything look flat, you can't ADD bokeh to the smaller FOV without considerable difficulty.

People like to shoot very shallow with the 5D, mostly because they CAN, and think it looks cool. But you most certainly don't need to always have it look like that. Having options is important, however.
Click to expand...
Reason enough for my last posts in this thread.
 
righteous. said:
That's exactly my point. You SHOULD be able to stop down for a deeper focus, but in return I get horrible moiré (with sharpness turned all the way down). It was tolerable at first, but as I became more proficient at pulling focus, the problem only increased.

Light wise, the cleanliness of the 5D's sensor means nothing when the bad compression ruins it. From what I've seen, the GH2 in low light looks much nicer than the 5D simply because its A/D conversion allows it to be cleaner. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I have yet to be impressed by low light 5D footage, whereas much of the GH2 lowlight I've seen looks gorgeous.
Click to expand...
Reason enough for my middle posts in this thread : D 5DIII will address the issue, believe me! ;-)
 
Kholi said:
By cleaner you mean the bad compression hides noise that should be present in a mess of macro blocking and softness? Because my 5D certainly wasn't cleaner, just mushy/smooth on further inspection. xD
Click to expand...

No, no- you misunderstood. Why are we comparing to the 5DmII? (there's already plent of threads like that anyway).
The entire Canon DSLR line up until now has quality-destructing resolution problems. But this has nothing to do with the fact that it is full frame, but more to do with the fact that Canon made some poor choices regarding movie mode. These supposedly are no longer an issue with the m3 (although I reserve judgement until further testing).
My reply was answering Righteous' comment about full frame not being worth much because of the shallower DOF and often out-of-control bokeh.
I was trying to say that technically having a full frame sized sensor should not be a hindrance. You could stop it down for DOF, and the size of the cells should allow more light than a higher density one which means you have more wiggle room in ISO values. You technically have more options and therefore more control of your bokeh versus a smaller sensor.

In other words, you could make the larger one look like a smaller sensor, but not vice versa.
If Panasonic offered a GHx with a FF sensor, I think plenty of us would totally jump on that. And, apparently, that's what the 5DmIII might be.

Jester2138 said:
If the arguments for a FF sensor boil down to "bigger is better" then why shouldn't we just make even bigger sensors than FF?

Because, of course, bigger is better only to a point. I put that point at where cinematographers have put it for a century: right around 4/3 and APS-C. FF video shooting is a fad that will fade.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Maybe you should go tell that to Emmanuel Lubezki, who got an academy award nomination for his cinematography in The Tree Of Life while shooting with 65mm film.
35mm is the standard and therefore most widely available to film studios. Unless there is reason to shoot on anything bigger, that's the film stock they reach for. But that doesn't mean there isn't merit to shooting bigger- in this case, it gave a stunning result that immediately struck a chord with audiences. My mom went to see it one night, came back from the movies, knowing nothing of cinematography, and said "I can't put my finger on what it was, but everything looked so dreamlike and beautiful!". Obviously, you don't want to overuse it, and the added expense of shooting with 65 or IMAX sized film is not worthwhile in standard situations. But when it comes to shooting digital, where there isn't an added expense beyond buying a slightly higher priced camera, why would you want to limit yourself?

The truth is, larger than Full Frame would be difficult, since most of us are only using photography lenses designed to fill a 35mm frame. You'd have to be limited to specialty lenses as well as a unique body to go larger than that, and with the added benefits arguable for most situations, it seems hardly worth it. But full frame? All things being equal, why not!
 
So what ever happened to 70mm?

That was THE BEST!

I used to go see films at Chicago's 1 70mm theater MClurg Court and there was NOTHING LIKE IT!
I saw a few of the same films the next week or so at regular 35mm theaters and it was like watching an old video cassette the image lost so darn much.

What a loss to the world when these theaters all closed up.
 
M. Gilden said:
No, no- you misunderstood. Why are we comparing to the 5DmII?
Click to expand...

You said "which is cleaner on the 5D" in reference to lowlight.

I misunderstood what you were saying, because the existing 5D MKII surely is not cleaner. When MKIII actually comes out, THEN we can see what that means for that camera.
 
Just looks like extreme denoising to me (whether in-camera or in post), it's not a look I would aim for most of the time. For most people though I can readily admit it's better than spitting out a super noisy (albeit truer) image and saying 'deal with it in post.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top