GH2 More important: The lens, or the hack?

[DPStewart]

I would agree that lens is more important than hack, but I would also point out that most any lens can be made to look good, if used right. By the same token, expensive lenses can fail to impress if they aren't used right. Some of the best GH2 footage I've seen was shot on the kit 14-42mm lens. I've also seen some pretty mediocre footage shot on the Voigtländer.

BINGO!

Waterfalls: Dan Carter shoots stock with panny lenses and his stuff is GORGEOUS! But he knows exposure.
I have recently done some stuff with the panny 20mm pancake with the black diffusion 3 filter on it and I have been amazed by my own results...
Agree with Sangye - the lenses can have a greater altering effect but it's for better or WORSE depending on how you use it.
One simply must learn their tools.

 

[Gary Huff]

No i think they are very good,and i am saying very good footage can be taken with Panasonic lenses,or any lens good lens for that matter.Evil stock lens sounds way over the top.

Flinty, you need to take some moments to make sure what you are trying to communicate is getting across. Your first post read like the exact opposite point you just made, and the second post seemed to be saying that you thought Dan Carter's movies were terrible looking, which is obviously not what you meant.

 

[mcbob]

The most important part of any camera is what's immediately behind the viewfinder/lcd.






Yes, the loupe. That's the critical part.

 

[flinty]

Flinty, you need to take some moments to make sure what you are trying to communicate is getting across. Your first post read like the exact opposite point you just made, and the second post seemed to be saying that you thought Dan Carter's movies were terrible looking, which is obviously not what you meant.

Post 14 was clear ie saying pana lenses are EVIL is silly when there are films like Dans,
Well i admit the word do should have gone in post 16 for it to be clear for most people,but i mistakingly asumed my admimation of Dans films in the motion galleries to be known.

 

[stoneinapond]

Post 14 was clear ie saying pana lenses are EVIL is silly when there are films like Dans.

Don't worry, I understood what you were trying to say perfectly well the first time. :beer:

 

[flinty]

Not sure if that is meant as complementary or disparaging,anyhow i will drink on it for sure :beer:

 

[stoneinapond]

No, I fully understood that you were taking to task the poster who labeled the 14-42 as evil. It was a silly comment. (Complementary in case you didn't get it.)


Let's have another.


:beer:

 

[Julie_Freed]

Thanks for the terrific comments everyone. Again I wasn't suggesting this was a trade off. I was just wondering which one (the lens, or hack/unhacked) affects the footage more.

 

[Gary Huff]

You will see more of a difference with the hack than if you put on a better lens, if that puts it in perspective.

 

[stefancolson]

No i think they are very good,and i am saying very good footage can be taken with Panasonic lenses,or any lens good lens for that matter.Evil stock lens sounds way over the top.

Obviously it was an exaggeration. I don't think that the stock panny lens (14-42) is secretly plotting malfeasance behind any of our backs, or that a lens (or any inanimate object for that matter) is capable of nefarious deeds of any sort. That being said, the 14-42 all-around sucks if you're interested in a cinematic look. It is decently sharp and contrasty, and a great tool to have in your bag any time you want to make your footage look less cinematic (which, when not a product of poor or inadequate technique, I consider to be evil).

Also note that I did not condemn all Panasonic lenses to a position high atop my sh**-list. Panasonic makes some good lenses. The 7-14, 14-140, 20 1.7, 25 1.4, fisheye, etc. are all fine lenses. The 14-42 is definitely not among them.

"Havasupai" (Dan Carter's Waterfall video) is great because the exposure, composition, edit, colors, etc. are great. It does not look cinematic, and looks more like a great video shot on a small chip camcorder than it does a large sensor camera. This is (in my opinion) the fault of the lens. The same video would look much better if shot on better glass.

Dan Carter is obviously skilled and makes great videos. The fact that, wholly independent of his ability or execution, they could look much better than they do, is evil. I thusly stand by my original statement: The Panasonic 14-42 and 14-45 are EVIL!

(I would also gladly contribute a small amount to a "Buy Dan Carter Some Better Glass" fund)

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The improvement to 720P60 isn't marginal - IMHO it's barely useable unhacked.

With the right settings and framing it is fine even unhacked. It does benefit greatly when hacked but it isn't totally unusable.

Just wait till the GH3 has 1080p @ 60 FPS unhacked. Everyone will complain about that until we have a hack. I will just be glad we have 1080p @ 60 FPS and go about figuring out how to get the most out of the stock codec.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Technically, no, but in use, yes it does. The encoder has more bits to work with in representing small details in the image, details that allow us to see "resolution" in the image.

The hack makes absolutely no difference in resolution for the high bit rate standard options like 1080p @ 24 FPS and 1080p @ 30 FPS. The compression in those settings is not enough to really see a difference unless you are pixel peeping at 300%. For 720p @ 60 FPS I think the Hack does make a difference. It just isn't as big a difference as some people have lead you to believe.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Lens. Period. The hack buys you more latitude in post and helps eliminate macroblocking, compression artifacts, etc., but doesn't provide the night and day difference that a decent lens will over the especially evil stock panny kit lens. Even in 720P60.

This is all that needs to be said.

 

[Lpowell]

For shooting moderately-detailed static scenes, the GH2's unhacked 24Mbps bitrate in 24H video mode works quite well. Where the limited bitrate of the stock AVCHD encoder becomes painfully visible is when shooting highly-detailed, fast moving subjects, for example, a shaded stream of running water:



The upper half of this frame grab is an unfiltered 200% crop of an unhacked AVCHD file in 24H mode. You can clearly see rectangular macroblock artifacts due to the encoder's inadequate 24Mbps bitrate. The lower half is the same scene shot with Flow Motion v2.0 at 100Mbps (which I'm planning on releasing in the very near future). These videos were shot with a Panasonic/Leica 25mm f1.4 lens in Four Thirds mount. With this type of subject matter, the sharpest lenses require higher bitrates than the stock firmware provides.

 

[MattRobertson]

Lens absolutely.

 

[Julie_Freed]

You will see more of a difference with the hack than if you put on a better lens, if that puts it in perspective.

Interesting, you are the only one who chose the hack over the lens (or did I misunderstand?). Or maybe you're the only person who understood exactly what I was asking?

Personally from watching videos on Youtube and Vimeo, I see more of an improvement in hacked + kit lens than I do with unhacked + superior lens. Unfortunately however, not all the videos I'm watching are by the same person so it's not exactly comparing apples to apples.

 

[Ian-T]

The hack makes absolutely no difference in resolution for the high bit rate standard options like 1080p @ 24 FPS and 1080p @ 30 FPS. The compression in those settings is not enough to really see a difference unless you are pixel peeping at 300%. For 720p @ 60 FPS I think the Hack does make a difference. It just isn't as big a difference as some people have lead you to believe.

I notice you keep saying the same thing over and over again in several threads but manage to ignore what others who have used this camera (also) say. The hack most certainly DOES make a heck of a difference....especially when it comes to motion. One does not need to pixel peep to witness this. Just look at lpowell's thread above...THAT is what we see when there is motion in the image (pans. trees blowing in the wind etc.).PLUS...the fact that shadow detail with the hacks are now holding their own in terms of detail (no more smearing out fine detail in the shadows). This has been witnessed and stated over and over. Then there's the issue of noise....it's now like fine wine. If you chose to keep it...your doing well. But if you chose to remove it...Neat Video loves you for it because it makes it so much easier to discern noise from compression artifacts. It's a win-win situation. There is definitely a perceived increase in resolution. We don't just shoot static images. Why would you steer others away from that type of truth?

 

[flinty]

Obviously it was an exaggeration. I don't think that the stock panny lens (14-42) is secretly plotting malfeasance behind any of our backs, or that a lens (or any inanimate object for that matter) is capable of nefarious deeds of any sort. That being said, the 14-42 all-around sucks if you're interested in a cinematic look. It is decently sharp and contrasty, and a great tool to have in your bag any time you want to make your footage look less cinematic (which, when not a product of poor or inadequate technique, I consider to be evil).

Also note that I did not condemn all Panasonic lenses to a position high atop my sh**-list. Panasonic makes some good lenses. The 7-14, 14-140, 20 1.7, 25 1.4, fisheye, etc. are all fine lenses. The 14-42 is definitely not among them.

"Havasupai" (Dan Carter's Waterfall video) is great because the exposure, composition, edit, colors, etc. are great. It does not look cinematic, and looks more like a great video shot on a small chip camcorder than it does a large sensor camera. This is (in my opinion) the fault of the lens. The same video would look much better if shot on better glass.

Dan Carter is obviously skilled and makes great videos. The fact that, wholly independent of his ability or execution, they could look much better than they do, is evil. I thusly stand by my original statement: The Panasonic 14-42 and 14-45 are EVIL!

(I would also gladly contribute a small amount to a "Buy Dan Carter Some Better Glass" fund)

Dan i suspect is too much of a gentleman to respond to your comments,
Regarding Pnasonic lenses i have the 14-42 as well as the 14-140 which you say is better than the EVIL 14-42 and is nonsense.
Mine at the same settings f stop/ shutter/ picture settings give identical video,as do my other Pana lenses and olympus lenses,it is in lower light that i can see differences.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I notice you keep saying the same thing over and over again in several threads but manage to ignore what others who have used this camera (also) say. The hack most certainly DOES make a heck of a difference....especially when it comes to motion. One does not need to pixel peep to witness this. Just look at lpowell's thread above...THAT is what we see when there is motion in the image (pans. trees blowing in the wind etc.).PLUS...the fact that shadow detail with the hacks are now holding their own in terms of detail (no more smearing out fine detail in the shadows). This has been witnessed and stated over and over. Then there's the issue of noise....it's now like fine wine. If you chose to keep it...your doing well. But if you chose to remove it...Neat Video loves you for it because it makes it so much easier to discern noise from compression artifacts. It's a win-win situation. There is definitely a perceived increase in resolution. We don't just shoot static images. Why would you steer others away from that type of truth?

If all you ever shoot is flowing water at close range then by all means hack away. If you shoot pretty much anything but fooliage blowing in the wind and running water then compression artifacts really won't ruin your shot.

The hack definitely has its place and has its merits. In some cases those merrits are essential. The problem is that so many people portray it as an absolute must have for any shot. That simply isn't true.

Good lenses on the other hand are essential for just about every shot. Try to shoot with the 14-140mm in anything but bright light. The noise in it will ruin even a static shot with a 189 mb/sec hack. That is not to say that there is a single lens that fits every scenario.

However, given the choice to have the right lenses or the right hack settings but not both I will choose the right lenses every time. I can work around the limitations that the stock bit rate offers. However, I cannot overcome the fact that many of the lenses are simply too slow to use for the things most of us shoot.

The good thing is that we don't have to choose one or the other. We can use whatever works best for our individual situations. If we need perfectly stable settings with moderate bit rates we have a hack for that. If we need extreme settings with fast memory cards we have a hack for that. If we need super fast prime lenses and moderately fast zoom lenses we have that(Soon will have the 12-35mm F2.8 and 35-100mm F2.8) as well.

I am not trying to disparage the hack. I just want to express to everyone that ridiculously high bit rates are not essential for anything but test shots. They may help and they may not actually help. That doesn't mean you are doing it wrong if you are not shooting at 100+ mb/sec.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I notice you keep saying the same thing over and over again in several threads but manage to ignore what others who have used this camera (also) say. The hack most certainly DOES make a heck of a difference....especially when it comes to motion. One does not need to pixel peep to witness this. Just look at lpowell's thread above...THAT is what we see when there is motion in the image (pans. trees blowing in the wind etc.).PLUS...the fact that shadow detail with the hacks are now holding their own in terms of detail (no more smearing out fine detail in the shadows). This has been witnessed and stated over and over. Then there's the issue of noise....it's now like fine wine. If you chose to keep it...your doing well. But if you chose to remove it...Neat Video loves you for it because it makes it so much easier to discern noise from compression artifacts. It's a win-win situation. There is definitely a perceived increase in resolution. We don't just shoot static images. Why would you steer others away from that type of truth?

Your arguments are full of emotional comparisons and lack any empirical data. It is a lot like when someone tries to explain religion to a scientist. If you simply don’t have faith then there really isn’t any evidence to prove your point.

Llpowell’s example does show a good use of the high bit rates. If I am shooting flowing water I would definitely consider those settings to be necessary for a good shot. However, I can’t recall ever wanting to shoot water like that.

As far as shadow detail and resolution go. Show me examples of that. Here is my example of how it doesn’t affect those things at all. I really think the Placebo affect has more to do with this than actual differences do.