My hacked Gh2 is killing my Af100

I shoot Af100 at work and own a hacked GH2. Unhacked they are both pretty comparable, but my hacked GH2 is running circles around the Af100 I use everyday. It is really kind of mind boggling. Where the GH2 really excels is in wide shots. The Af100 is very soft on wides and the hacked GH2 retains so much detail. Hacked also handles the banding issue much better. For the cost of an Af100 you could have a multicam GH2 setup for shooting a short or feature. Hacked GH2 is the first dslr I have used that doesn't feel crippled, and it consistently puts out an image that I find very aesthetically pleasing. I have never felt that with the Af100, it has always taken a lot of finessing and at the end of the day it was just so soft of an image. It screams soft digital HD, but the grain quality of the hacked GH2 has this inherent film like quality to it.

I thought the low cost revolution would come from Red, but it actually came from this little camera, and I hope Canon and company take a note from what this camera does right. And I also hope Panasonic does something actually revolutionary besides just reheat the old dvx/hvx form factor with a new sensor for the next Af100 update. They changed the game with the dvx, but now this just seems like a dinosaur, and the area where I expected them to really succeed (image quality and mojo) has fallen very flat for me in the Af100. It just doesn't have that mojo that the dvx/hvx had. Not sure why. On paper the Af100 makes a ton of sense for what it offers, but none of it matters when the image just lacks that pop and wow factor.

Just my two cents. I recommend trying Driftwood's patches, especially the latest Quantum V7. And run the GH2 footage through 5DtoRGB to flatten the gamma. This makes a big difference since some editing programs (FCP 7) can totally wreak havoc and insert gremlins into avc footage when ingesting.
 
dcloud said:
i agree on proper codec. if they put a 10bit intra 4:2:2 codec at the back end of the af100, we couldve gotten a lot more from the sensor.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but they were trying to hit a certain price point for the camera.

Fwiw, i love the pix240 10 bit recording out of the camera.
 
"Fwiw, i love the pix240 10 bit recording out of the camera."

Did you guys get a Pix 240 ? Whaddya think of the unit over all?

I'd love to rent one to try it out but they seem to be scarce in NY. Abel is selling them but the units seem to be driv=bbling out of the supply chain.

What specifically do you like about the Pix recording?
 
I rented the GH2 last week as a B cam (lensrental.com, awesome service!!!!) and was astounded by the camera. I even mistakenly set it at "low 24p" (17mbs) and it still blasted my AF100 with great detail and sharpness.

http://vimeo.com/34702930

I just order two GH2's as a result. One will have the Driftwood hack, w/ prime+MB, rods and bleaker box. The second (44mbs hack) will be a super stripped down C cam for Glidecam 4000 and pocket dolly work.
 
Mark Smith said:
"Fwiw, i love the pix240 10 bit recording out of the camera."

Did you guys get a Pix 240 ? Whaddya think of the unit over all?

I'd love to rent one to try it out but they seem to be scarce in NY. Abel is selling them but the units seem to be driv=bbling out of the supply chain.

What specifically do you like about the Pix recording?
Click to expand...

The robustness, quality and features of it are just amazing.

It starts and stops automatically with the camera.

Timecode matches.

Drag and drop editing with theProRes or Avid DNxHD files is very cool.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I shoot Af100 at work and own a hacked GH2. Unhacked they are both pretty comparable, but my hacked GH2 is running circles around the Af100 I use everyday. It is really kind of mind boggling. Where the GH2 really excels is in wide shots. The Af100 is very soft on wides and the hacked GH2 retains so much detail. Hacked also handles the banding issue much better. For the cost of an Af100 you could have a multicam GH2 setup for shooting a short or feature. Hacked GH2 is the first dslr I have used that doesn't feel crippled, and it consistently puts out an image that I find very aesthetically pleasing. I have never felt that with the Af100, it has always taken a lot of finessing and at the end of the day it was just so soft of an image. It screams soft digital HD, but the grain quality of the hacked GH2 has this inherent film like quality to it.

I thought the low cost revolution would come from Red, but it actually came from this little camera, and I hope Canon and company take a note from what this camera does right. And I also hope Panasonic does something actually revolutionary besides just reheat the old dvx/hvx form factor with a new sensor for the next Af100 update. They changed the game with the dvx, but now this just seems like a dinosaur, and the area where I expected them to really succeed (image quality and mojo) has fallen very flat for me in the Af100. It just doesn't have that mojo that the dvx/hvx had. Not sure why. On paper the Af100 makes a ton of sense for what it offers, but none of it matters when the image just lacks that pop and wow factor.

Just my two cents. I recommend trying Driftwood's patches, especially the latest Quantum V7. And run the GH2 footage through 5DtoRGB to flatten the gamma. This makes a big difference since some editing programs (FCP 7) can totally wreak havoc and insert gremlins into avc footage when ingesting.
Click to expand...

+1
 
mcgeedigital said:
The robustness, quality and features of it are just amazing.

It starts and stops automatically with the camera.

Timecode matches.

Drag and drop editing with theProRes or Avid DNxHD files is very cool.
Click to expand...

What is the over crank situation with the pix 240? one of my favorite features of the AF is over crank in 1080, no downshifting to 720 for over crank .
 
Isaac_Brody said:
. I have never felt that with the Af100, it has always taken a lot of finessing and at the end of the day it was just so soft of an image. It screams soft digital HD, but the grain quality of the hacked GH2 has this inherent film like quality to it.
Click to expand...

This is so interesting! It's that exact quality that I LOVE about the AF-100. That softness, or I prefer warmth, seems rich to me. I'm grateful for it. To me, it looks WAY more like film than the GH2. I find that detail on the GH2 harsh (mine is not hacked)

I see all the HD stuff on TV and see how they go to so much trouble to soften it. Look at NCIS! It looks like they shoot through a net! Even Blue Bloods (shot on RED I think) has a soft, amber, smokey feel. I like it, although I would say NCIS goes too far ;) I would be so happy if I could get the GH2 to look soft like the AF100. Just my 2 cents.

With that, I'd like to say that I think it's extremely cool how the GH2 crowd is rallying around this camera. The forum over there is on fire. All the energy around it is very exciting.
 
I'm wondering if all the sharpness that people are liking on the GH2 incoming from false detail created by aliasing. The 5D exhibited similar effects which sort of presented themselves as false detail when the actual resolution of the camera shooting 1080 HD was just a pinch above SD.

I shot a commercial for Nivea just before christmas and used 2 AF's with Zeiss classic primes/ matte boxes and some lovely flares.
It was a romance themed spot and and the old Zeiss lenses were a perfect fit. I'm not going crazy for sharpness, but more the overall look. THat said I wouldn't mind an AF with a higher bit rate and 10 architecture.
 
Mark Smith said:
I'm wondering if all the sharpness that people are liking on the GH2 incoming from false detail created by aliasing. The 5D exhibited similar effects which sort of presented themselves as false detail when the actual resolution of the camera shooting 1080 HD was just a pinch above SD.
Click to expand...

Hedge my bet on no, but would love to have someone more experienced grab the Qv7 hack and compare to see if it is aliasing. If it is, then it's welcomed by me, because it's not damaging the image like Canon material and it sure as heck takes an ultra fine pattern to get it to dance.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Agreed, but they were trying to hit a certain price point for the camera.

Fwiw, i love the pix240 10 bit recording out of the camera.
Click to expand...
i agree and i wouldnt have had the cam if they didnt.

personally,the difference between the two cams in iq isnt night and day for me. whats really cool about the gh2 is the price point to iq ratio,
 
hscully said:
I either have to hack my GH2 or get my head examined because I can't get the GH2 to look anywhere near as good as my AF-100. Heck I can't even get it to match at all in my NLE. Admittedly, I am an extreme novice colorist but I've edited a few shorts and commercial spots. It has so much shiny detail and contrast and saturation that I can't do anything with it. I thought perhaps I wasn't exposing well because I'm not used to the histogram but in the waveform in Premiere it is exposed fine.

I think it looks lousy. I can't use it and believe me, I'd like to. I'm sure I am missing something because I saw Bob's beautiful movie trailer from India where he used an unhacked GH2 as a b cam and everyone is raving about how it's better. I don't know. I don't like it. With the AF-100 I shoot flatter, less detail, less saturation and when I bring it in and set a curve it's beautiful to me. TONS more cinematic. So, off to get my head examined and to the GH forum to figure out what to do to make this work.
Click to expand...

do you have link to Bob's trailer?
 
Bern Caughey said:
Christopher,

You've convinced me to retry the hack, so thanks!

Will need to test 5D2RGB too.

Best,
Bern
Click to expand...

Ben.. It's quite nice combined with 5d2rgb. If you edit on the mac, you can download it off the app store. SO far my favorite patch it the Gh2x-thirty patch. Give it a go and report what you think.
Peace!
 
Speaking of 5D to RGB, I've used it to transcode some AF footage and the results are unusable because the audio is crap, out of sync or non existent. I'm using version 1.5.7
 
ya know, I had some money burning a hole in my pocket and I bought Cineform Neo today and installed it on my edit machine which is a mac running FCP 7.03.

I transcoded a clip with cineform remaster to quicktime, the same clip that I had used 5D to RGB to transcode that came out visually fine but with audio issues.

I'm telling you that the difference between the clips is night and day in terms of visual quality, sharpness , noise , and of course the audio is just fine with the cineform transcoded clip. When I have some spare time I'll frame grab the same frame from each version of the clip and link to them in a post.

I'm having a holy sh*t moment realizing that not all transcodes are created equal. People might gripe about $299 for cineform but the way it looks to me it is the best investment you could make. Buy it once and use it for everything you shoot from then on, and you'll enjoy the bump in picture quality with all your projects going forward. Just from seeing this one clip which was shot in times square ISO 800 with my 14-140 and sort of under exposed go from being nasty noisy in the 5dtoRGB version to nearly squeaky clean in the cineform version was pretty amazing.

I'm having a flashback to a conversation I had at the Red dog and pony show in LA when they announced the MX. I spoke there with a Local DP who had shot quite a bit with RED cameras and after seeing the demo footage was complaining to me about his inability to get his stuff to look as delicious as the shots Peter Jackson's crew was putting out. He said, " I'm using the same camera, I can light, compose and expose a frame properly but I just don't get the same great looking stuff when I get to post."
I said - " You Probably don't have a room full of code monkeys optimizing the debayering and post processing of your Red footage either."

I don't have a room full of code monkeys either but since I have just witnessed what cineform can do with AF 100 footage, i'm pretty happy to have that in my toolbox.
 
Mark Smith said:
ya know, I had some money burning a hole in my pocket and I bought Cineform Neo today and installed it on my edit machine which is a mac running FCP 7.03.

I transcoded a clip with cineform remaster to quicktime, the same clip that I had used 5D to RGB to transcode that came out visually fine but with audio issues.

I'm telling you that the difference between the clips is night and day in terms of visual quality, sharpness , noise , and of course the audio is just fine with the cineform transcoded clip. When I have some spare time I'll frame grab the same frame from each version of the clip and link to them in a post.

I'm having a holy sh*t moment realizing that not all transcodes are created equal. People might gripe about $299 for cineform but the way it looks to me it is the best investment you could make. Buy it once and use it for everything you shoot from then on, and you'll enjoy the bump in picture quality with all your projects going forward. Just from seeing this one clip which was shot in times square ISO 800 with my 14-140 and sort of under exposed go from being nasty noisy in the 5dtoRGB version to nearly squeaky clean in the cineform version was pretty amazing.

I'm having a flashback to a conversation I had at the Red dog and pony show in LA when they announced the MX. I spoke there with a Local DP who had shot quite a bit with RED cameras and after seeing the demo footage was complaining to me about his inability to get his stuff to look as delicious as the shots Peter Jackson's crew was putting out. He said, " I'm using the same camera, I can light, compose and expose a frame properly but I just don't get the same great looking stuff when I get to post."
I said - " You Probably don't have a room full of code monkeys optimizing the debayering and post processing of your Red footage either."

I don't have a room full of code monkeys either but since I have just witnessed what cineform can do with AF 100 footage, i'm pretty happy to have that in my toolbox.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. I've been happy with 5Dtorgb, but I'd be really curious to see the still comparison if you don't mind. The money is worth it if the difference is that apparent.
 
Mark Smith said:
Speaking of 5D to RGB, I've used it to transcode some AF footage and the results are unusable because the audio is crap, out of sync or non existent. I'm using version 1.5.7
Click to expand...
If you send me one of the clips that has been giving you trouble, I can have a look at it and try to fix this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top