roxics
Veteran
Any chance that with a hack you guys might be able to pull 4:2:2 out of it?
GH2 Native GH3 I-Frame 72Mbs Video
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
Any chance that with a hack you guys might be able to pull 4:2:2 out of it?
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I use my wife, which by the way she hates and threatens to break my camera. Wish I had a cat to use instead to eliminate the risk factor to my new cameras.
roxics
Veteran
I don't know about easy, you're dealing with optics here that require motors to move them and lock it precisely. It's a physics thing. A larger sensor will have a shallower depth of field. Which is going to require a lot more accuracy on the part of the AF motors.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Because sometimes you don't need 4x4 and if you have a portion of the frame with not much going on it can use 8x8 blocks and still use the 4x4 blocks in the busy part of the frame. By half the frame using 8x8 it leaves a little extra left over for the 4x4 parts that need it. The real strength of AVCHD was each frame adapting to 2x2, 4x4 or 8x8 blocks as they are needed.
4x4 macroblocks are better-suited to encoding rapidly moving objects. 8x8 macroblocks are better-suited to encoding smooth gradients. A sophisticated H.264 encoder will use both types of macroblocks to achieve the finest quality at the lowest practical bitrate. The GH1 and GH2 AVCHD encoders can only use 4x4 macroblocks, and this impairs their ability to handle gradients without noticeable banding and posterization, even when they have access to bitrates of 100Mbps. The GH3's ability to use both 4x4 and 8x8 macroblocks indicates that Panasonic has made a major upgrade to its H.264 encoder.
I know it's a common viewpoint, but certainly not universal. I'm an event shooter and the AF100 and GH2 are absolutely my first choice. It completely depends on shooting style and how you choose to tell your story. I rarely miss servo zoom, but if I went back to my HMC150, I'd sure miss the ability to choose my lens and my depth of field. And I can't wait to add the GH3 to my arsenal.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Many. But how many since the advent of the AF100? Not a one.
There's the concept of trying to use a chisel to do the work of a screwdriver. Trying to shoehorn an ENG camera into a production environment is a little clumsy, but do-able. Trying to shoehorn a production camera into an ENG environment is just folly. (It's done, I know, heck I've seen people shoot press conferences on a DSLR, which is the ultimate in masochism and, dare I say it, tomfoolery, but I've seen it done).
I just think people would be generally happier if they used products for the purposes for which they were designed, instead of taking something designed for one job and trying to use it for another. Down that path lies frustration, and I'd just advise -- don't go down that path. Use the right tool for the job.
Barry_Green
Moderator
But I disagree with your basic premise. A cinema camera is one that is designed for shooting cinema-style, and that includes a vast swath of production that doesn't have anything to do with Hollywood. High-end television commercials, for example. Corporate films. All sorts of work. The basic common thread is that in cine-style work, it's usually scripted.
When I say "event" work, I'm talking about live productions that are unscripted, or stuff that is destined for immediate broadcast. News. Conventions. Press conferences. Weddings. Sports. I would dare say that a cinema camera (even one as inexpensive as an AF100) would be a less than ideal choice for that type of work, with the possible exception being the "love stories" that go with weddings. Other than that, I wouldn't want to use an AF100 to shoot any of those categories.
Neither category has anything to do with whether it's going to Hollywood or the cineplex, it's all about HOW YOU SHOOT, and whether what you're shooting lends itself to cinema-style techniques.
Ah, yes, there we are -- that "frustration" word. Because you want to apply a product to a use for OTHER than what it was designed. Don't do that, and you won't be frustrated.
There's nothing inherent about the "quality" of these cinema-style cameras that will make your events look ANY better, other than shallow DOF. An EX1 or HPX250 or AC160 will make sharper, better-looking footage than any of these cinema cameras, and they'll do so with servo zooms and optical image stabilization too. The ONLY thing you're getting with the cinema camera, for your type of work, would be shallower DOF. That's it. Is it worth the tradeoff? Probably not.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Grossly oversimplified answer: Because you can encode 64 pixels using 1/4 the data that you would have otherwise needed. If you're dealing with a swath of sky or a plain wall, that's a whole lot of space that can be recovered and then re-allocated to different areas of the picture, areas that might otherwise have been a little starved for bandwidth. More tools = more capability in the encoder. Having access to 4x4 or 2x2 blocks was a HUGE jump in quality over HDV, because HDV would degenerate into gigantic macroblocks of 8x8, whereas AVCHD could finely break into smaller chunks. But having access to smaller doesn't mean that smaller is always the right answer. having access to both is inherently better.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I don't know -- haven't used a GH3 yet!
But, I will say I'm very very interested in it. I flung my GH1 on ebay the MINUTE that I found out about the GH2, as the GH2 gave usable quality without the vagueries of the hack (which I hated using). The GH2 has been decently solid with LPowell's FlowMotion, but the option of having an onboard factory-supported 50mbps and 72mbps all-i, plus all the other options, make the GH3 a no-brainer and I plan to go all-in on the GH3. I'll probably do a book and DVD and everything, as I think the GH3 has a real chance to be the no-budget DVX replacement we all wanted the AF100 to be.Even so, the GH3 is still missing at least three fundamental things -- no internal ND filters, no SDI port, and no XLRs. So now, the question is -- is working with the GH3, and the footage from the GH3, worth the hassle factor over just using the AF100? Right now I don't know. The AF100 is pretty good on the image front, and is nearly perfect in use. But it's also 3x the price of the GH3! So if money is not a question, I'd say by all means get the AF100 (unless we find that there are huge improvements in the GH3's image over the AF100, to the point where you'd rather use it). But if money *is* an object, then the GH3 looks really compelling. I mean, it looks like the nearly perfect implementation of what people always wanted when they wanted to shoot on a DSLR. It's cheap, it's got great quality, and it's vastly more convenient than something like a 7D.
For the low/micro budget shooter, the GH3 looks like it's gonna be incredible at $1299. It's the first DSLR-style camera that I'm actually amped up about. All prior (including the GH2) have been "ugh, well, I guess I'll use this because it's the best there is) but the GH3 is getting to the point where it would overcome most of my complaints and frustrations. Gaping hole is still the ND problem, as I hate hate hate what Fader-style filters do to the image, and I'm no fan of HDMI but ... it's 1/3 the price of the AF100. 1/3. That's a huge advantage. And it's got ETC. And who knows what the iPad/iPhone apps might bring?
I'm thinking any AF100 shooter who doesn't have a GH3 in the bag with them is nuts.
But it's way too early to decide whether the GH3 is a viable alternative to the AF100 for those who could afford either. Rest assured I do plan to dig into the GH3 extensively. I feel like third time's the charm and Panasonic has probably (probably) hit the nail pretty squarely on the head for today's DSLR shooter.
Hmm... not sure about everyone else, but this footage is kinda making me rethink pre-ordering the camera. I appreciate the effort, and without this video, I might have made a hasty decision. I'm a little worried that highlights are handled exactly the same way as the GH2. If there is more DR, then it certainly lies in the shadows... which is okay... but I was really looking forward to getting more protection in the highlights than anything. Also, after seeing raw footage rather than Bloom's graded cinematic production... it's just missing too much of what I liked about the GH2. Maybe I'm wrong and just need to see some more footage... but as of right now, I think I'm actually more in favor of the GH2's image. I hope I just need to see the right thing to change my mind, because I have my finger on the trigger to buy this camera.
In addition to what Barry points out, there are a number of features I really appreciate in the AF100 that I don't see in the GH3 specs:
1. Built-in tiltable viewfinder with eyecup.
2. Focus peaking, displayed in red on B&W viewfinder image.
3. Real-time display of lens focal length, aperture, and focus distance.
4. Waveform monitor, overlaid on LCD screen.
5. Choice of two zebras, with individual exposure level presets.
6. Live audio level controls, physically accessible on the camera.
7. Remote control of lens iris and focus, via Manfrotto 521PFI.
For my purposes, two new lenses make the AF100 a good choice for outdoor event shooting:
Olympus 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 Power Zoom
Panasonic 45-175mm f4-5.6 Power Zoom
Both of these lenses work perfectly with the Manfrotto 521PFI. This gives me hands-on control of aperture, focus, and power zoom features, exactly what you need while shooting a live event. I really like the AF100's light weight, self-contained operation, and the ability to use any of my MFT-compatible lenses. With the AF100, I can use a pro shotgun mic and a simple, counter-balanced shoulder mount without the need for 15mm rails or external monitors or recorders. That makes it a highly practical choice in cases where capturing well-framed spontaneous footage is a higher priority than meticulously choreographing a shoot to achieve the highest possible image quality.
Last edited:
It's good to see this unadulterated footage...I'll also hold off for the moment. I feel a little underwhelmed...probably because expectations were so high. I don't see the dr improvements that were touted and peaking would've been a killer feature. I'd love to have a GH camera that I can confidently focus on. Bloom mentioned better lowlight performance...that would be nice. 1080 60p is nice, but I can't see a strong reason to sell my hacked GH2.