GH2 More important: The lens, or the hack?

[Lpowell]

Is that the Flow Motion Patch in your sig? I will try that one now as well.

No, the patch I shot the flowing water test with is a major update - Flow Motion v2.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-hack&p=1986148324&viewfull=1#post1986148324

Tested on Class 10 SD cards, 30Mb/sec and up, at bitrates up to 135Mbps peak. I plan on releasing it in the very near future, once reliability testing is complete.

Here's another comparison between the unhacked GH2 and Flow Motion v2, in SH 720p50 mode. This was a static tripod shot of a placid creek bed, with some gentle ripples on the surface of the water. In the upper half of the unfiltered 200% crop frame grab, the unhacked GH2's limited bitrate fails to capture the details in the submerged brown moss. The lower half of the frame grab shows what the GH2 can do with Flow Motion v2's 100Mbps peak bitrate.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Then you can't expect to get reliable 180Mbps recording when you don't want to pay the price to get there.

You are right I don't want to pay the price to get there. We shouldn't have to pay 2x-3x the price for a 2% increase in functionality.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

No, the patch I shot the flowing water test with is a major update - Flow Motion v2.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-hack&p=1986148324&viewfull=1#post1986148324

Tested on Class 10 SD cards, 30Mb/sec and up. I plan on releasing it in the very near future, once reliability testing is complete.

I would be glad to do some testing on it. I have 30 mb/sec cards. Just let me know if I can get access to it and I will fully test it.

I tried the Flow Motion v1.11 and Sedna A settings just now. The V1.11 flow motion failed after 56 seconds with ETC and 720p SH mode. The Sedna A settings failed instantly with 720p ETC mode. Both were tested with a Sandisk 30 mb/sec class 10 card.

I stand by my claim that they are not reliable even with moderately fast cards. I hope someone prooves me wrong though.

 

[stefancolson]

You are right I don't want to pay the price to get there. We shouldn't have to pay 2x-3x the price for a 2% increase in functionality.

But that's exactly how almost everything works. It's the law of diminishing returns. A $60 bottle of wine is typically only slightly better than a $20 bottle of wine. The same can be said of cars, consumer electronics, clothing, food, musical instruments, and even cameras. 95%+ of the maximum possible quality/functionality of a product is available at a low-mid pricepoint. If you want the best you will have to pay a disproportionately higher price to get it. What does the Epic offer over the Scarlet for 3x the price? The F3 over the FS100?

 

[Gary Huff]

We shouldn't have to pay 2x-3x the price for a 2% increase in functionality.

In your personal opinion. I have paying clients and a level of quality that I wish to achieve. The Sandisk card and the GH2 encoder patches have helped me in both categories.

 

[DPStewart]

Then you can't expect to get reliable 180Mbps recording when you don't want to pay the price to get there.

Howdee Gary,

You mentioned "recommended Sandisk 64GB 95MBps SD card. I just used Sedna AQ1 on a long-form shoot using Nikon and Lumix G glass and 24L Sedna AQ1 on the Sandisk and then a Transcend 32GB Class 10 card and a Patriot LX 32GB Class 10 card and clips spanned without error."

I am only familiar with the Sandisk Extreme 64GB 95MBps cards as that's all I've seen for sale locally - Are the Transcends and Patriots you mentioned also 95MBps? And what's their price generally? I would love to get into some killin' cards without needing to buy the Sandisk 64 every time.
Thanks Sir!

 

[DPStewart]

Hey MPGXSVCD - love your instructional videos!

As for cards and reliability: I have seen a lot of users report that they must use the big Sandisk Extreme 64GB 95MBps cards to get reliable performance on the ~100mps hacks...but then some cats get no errors using only more standard class-10 cards. I don't know why...not sure anyone knows why. I do NOT seem to be one of the lucky guys when it comes to cards... I ponied-up for one of the big cards but man I WISH I could get away with ones that are less expensive too.
I'll google it all of course...but I tend to get more useful reports from users here who really put the stuff to the test and can be more specific with us.

Driftwood's hacks have been ground-breaking to say the least...but right now I'm on hold waiting for LPOWELL's V.2 too... he has quite a rep for stable hacks.

 

[Ian-T]

Your arguments are full of emotional comparisons and lack any empirical data.

Ok, if you say so. But really one does not have to look far for evidence...it's everywhere.

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.

Ha ha... Been there done that. You must be referring to my posts over at hv20.com.
Though I don't think this comparison adds up.... that was a nice jab.

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.

I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

But really, the GH2 is no different from the GH-1 with it's bad implementation of AVCHD. Both cameras were notorious for the footage breaking apart with just about every type of moderate to fast motion. The GH-1's 60p was a bit better than its 24p...but still had issues.

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.

As someone mentioned earlier...you really have to take that camera out of the studio and do some real world tests. Given the right circumstances I can probably make just about any camera out there look good.

Look, I initially responded because to me it seems like you often overstate your POV (IMO). If the hack doesn't make that much of a difference to you I can understand. But on the same token I have not seen you shoot anything that really challenges the codec. I admit I have not been to your site (in a while) but the plethera of (other) test videos on sites like Vimeo etc. and my own shooting are enough to convince me (and others) that the hack is more than just a placebo effect. As I've said earlier we don't have to pixel peep to see a difference.

Oh...and there's nothing wrong with a purely emtotional response. Isn't that part of why we shoot movies? To evoke some sort of emotion out of the viewer (I know...not quite the same as what you were referring to...lol)? If I can do that with a camera without any artifact distractions then I'll consider that as being halfway there. It's not to say that one can't shoot great movies with the stock camera but if you are looking for even more quality...then the hack is the way to go.

As to the OP...my thought is the answer depends. I think both the hack and lens are equally important. I can't imagine having a lens worth tens of thousands of dollars while using this camera only to have certain key shots ruined because of compression artifacts (which would have otherwise looked stellar). Then again I've seen very cheap lens on this camera perform beautifully.

 

[Gary Huff]

I am only familiar with the Sandisk Extreme 64GB 95MBps cards as that's all I've seen for sale locally - Are the Transcends and Patriots you mentioned also 95MBps? And what's their price generally? I would love to get into some killin' cards without needing to buy the Sandisk 64 every time.

Transcend 32GB Class 10 (looks different from mine, I have the more orange background, but it should be the same I would imagine)
Patriot LX 32GB Class 10

None of these are 95MBps, and you won't get the full 140Mbps-ish of the higher-end hacks, but I've tested both of these with the 24L setting of Sedna AQ1 and they spanned.

 

[flinty]

I don't see how I did anything other than praise Dan. I said that he obviously has talent and skill, only that I though the lens he was using was the weak link in the chain. If lauding somebody for their ability but criticizing an inanimate object that they happen to own can be considered a personal attack then I don't know what f'ed up alternate reality I've stumbled into. I had nothing but positive things to say about Dan and his work, and I don't make a habit of bad mouthing people in public forums, only crummy lenses.

I have a 14-42. I have compared it extensively to other lenses (from Panasonic and other manufacturers) in both controlled and real-world scenarios. I do not like it. At all. This is my opinion (which the OP asked of all of us). Deal with it.

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

Is what i was referring to
Does it not sound obnoxious,
i have never said the kit lens would be ones choice for making a film production,but its not meant for that and using ridiculous words like evil is preposterous,
Deal wit it.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Ok, if you say so. But really one does not have to look far for evidence...it's everywhere.


Ha ha... Been there done that. You must be referring to my posts over at hv20.com.
Though I don't think this comparison adds up.... that was a nice jab.


I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

But really, the GH2 is no different from the GH-1 with it's bad implementation of AVCHD. Both cameras were notorious for the footage breaking apart with just about every type of moderate to fast motion. The GH-1's 60p was a bit better than its 24p...but still had issues.

As someone mentioned earlier...you really have to take that camera out of the studio and do some real world tests. Given the right circumstances I can probably make just about any camera out there look good.

Look, I initially responded because to me it seems like you often overstate your POV (IMO). If the hack doesn't make that much of a difference to you I can understand. But on the same token I have not seen you shoot anything that really challenges the codec. I admit I have not been to your site (in a while) but the plethera of (other) test videos on sites like Vimeo etc. and my own shooting are enough to convince me (and others) that the hack is more than just a placebo effect. As I've said earlier we don't have to pixel peep to see a difference.

Oh...and there's nothing wrong with a purely emtotional response. Isn't that part of why we shoot movies? To evoke some sort of emotion out of the viewer (I know...not quite the same as what you were referring to...lol)? If I can do that with a camera without any artifact distractions then I'll consider that as being halfway there. It's not to say that one can't shoot great movies with the stock camera but if you are looking for even more quality...then the hack is the way to go.

As to the OP...my thought is the answer depends. I think both the hack and lens are equally important. I can't imagine having a lens worth tens of thousands of dollars while using this camera only to have certain key shots ruined because of compression artifacts (which would have otherwise looked stellar). Then again I've seen very cheap lens on this camera perform beautifully.

That was a well thought out response. Good job on that. I guess it all boils down to we don't have to choose. We can have our cake and eat it to. Or we can just be selective and try a little icing with a scoop ice cream.

 

[Gary Huff]

We can have our cake and eat it to. Or we can just be selective and try a little icing with a scoop ice cream.

As long as you don't go around telling people that the cake is terrible simply because you prefer chocolate cake instead of yellow cake.