Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Philip Bloom´s Christmas Shootout Part 2
skin tones, codecs and low light
skin tones, codecs and low light
Philip Bloom´s Christmas Shootout Part 2 - skin tones, codecs and low light
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
bruceallen
Well-known member
Thanks for the heads-up!
Downloading... 58 minutes remaining for 2.21GB.
Glad this thing isn't in 4K!
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Downloading... 58 minutes remaining for 2.21GB.
Glad this thing isn't in 4K!
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Grug
Veteran
Hmm... just imagine the feature-set and functionality of an AF100 (at the AF100's price point), with the image quality of a driftwood hacked GH2 - surely Panny could do it. Would sell like hotcakes.
BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
Oh but we have been told emphatically, time and time again that it is NOT the same sensor. Apparently, Panny decided to put a worse sensor in the AF100.
KINOKS
Well-known member
And even if it's not the sensor, something is apparently better in the GH2. GH2 or no GH2 I never liked the pictures coming from the AF100.
This is a very funny comment -- to nerds, like me, who follow this stuff.
I've seen some very powerful results from the AF-100 when used by people who knew what they were doing. I've also seen awful stuff from the AF-100 and FS-100 from people who had just opened the box and thought it was a great idea to post their first footage on Vimeo.
Back to the Bloom Part 2 thing -- I thank him for putting that together -- and for a camera nerd, like me, both parts were absolutely fun to watch. My issue with the "low light" test of part 2 is that I thought it was unrealistically extreme. I would have preferred to have seen those tests done with a one point light, preferably a light small enough to fit in a camera bag. I think a minimal light setup would have better evaluated the cameras in low light relative to our production needs.
But -- it was fun to watch. Thanks, Mr. Bloom!
Danielvilliers
Veteran
The difference is that it puts every camera on the same playing field. Sure anyone of them can deliver some nice pictures in the right condition. But some will be able to get nice pictures in much more difficult situation. For me the least appealing is the af-100. I don't know what was Pana idea to put a camera that is in the average to lower level quality aganst a bunch of photo cameras. Its main competitor, the Sony FS-100 beats it in every situation and at least seems to be an upgrade from the dslr crowd. If putting a mattebox or a variable nd filter is such a sacrifice for some, that they are prepared to compromise so much in picture quality, I am not in this case.
I am on a hacked gh2 and a Nikon shooters for my photo business. I am impatiently looking at the Nikon which seems encouraging with the D4 release. If in the end I have to make jump to something even better than the hacked gh2, I know which camera I won't buy.
I am on a hacked gh2 and a Nikon shooters for my photo business. I am impatiently looking at the Nikon which seems encouraging with the D4 release. If in the end I have to make jump to something even better than the hacked gh2, I know which camera I won't buy.
for me PB's extreme low light tests showed me how exceptional the FS100, F3 and C300 are in the crappiest low light shooting scenario.
the test was simple & honest with up in your face illustrations of what happens in the most extreme of low light situations. i liked the fact that the test was "extreme". i was very surprised that the FS100 held it together so well and deserved to be with the F3 & C300 (as far as the low light tests) more than the others.
i know my EX1 isnt as great in low light as my 5DmkII for instance but i was really surprised to see how drastically far apart my EX1 is from the top three i mentioned above. quite shocking.
i also think the AF100 as far as capturing image detail and its lack of low light abilities looks very flimsy and weak. this didnt surprise me but rather confirms much of what ive seen. its just glaring in these tests when side by side.
the GH2 hacked is overall amazing except for its low light capabilities. i just dont like the crop on the GH2 so have stayed away. still the detail with the hack is pretty amazing.
david
the test was simple & honest with up in your face illustrations of what happens in the most extreme of low light situations. i liked the fact that the test was "extreme". i was very surprised that the FS100 held it together so well and deserved to be with the F3 & C300 (as far as the low light tests) more than the others.
i know my EX1 isnt as great in low light as my 5DmkII for instance but i was really surprised to see how drastically far apart my EX1 is from the top three i mentioned above. quite shocking.
i also think the AF100 as far as capturing image detail and its lack of low light abilities looks very flimsy and weak. this didnt surprise me but rather confirms much of what ive seen. its just glaring in these tests when side by side.
the GH2 hacked is overall amazing except for its low light capabilities. i just dont like the crop on the GH2 so have stayed away. still the detail with the hack is pretty amazing.
david
Yeah, but almost none of the extreme low light footage was usable -- and that's my point. The single candle routine or a single small LCD -- this would illustrate to us what you can actually use -- which camera up to which ISO, etc. -- and in that context I called the low light aspect "extreme."
Not shocking here. The EX1 was only "good" relative to the HVX200. Remember, these were the cameras that resulted in people flocking to the 5Dm2 and learning how to do things like convert exact 30p into 23.976.
I've been playing with the hacked GH2 for about two weeks now -- and I've had more fun playing with it than any camera -- going back at least eight years. Perhaps because my expectations were in the gutter -- so everything was a pleasant surprise. As opposed to spending thousands on something only to discover it doesn't come close to expectations.
The GH2 at ISO 800 and 1/25th shutter is cleaner than an HPX170 at 0db. In video mode you can also drive the shutter down to, I think, half a second -- meaning it could have been pushed a heck of a lot further than Bloom did in that test. In other words, the low light of the hacked GH2 is not as bad as was implied.
I agree with you on the crop factor -- and would have never bought a GH2 because of that crop factor (small sensor) if it weren't now shooting stable 100Mbps intraframe (to affordable media in a compact form, etc.). Having bought it, essentially as a play toy, I can report that -- coming from the 5Dm2 the crop factor is MURDER, but coming from a 7D it really isn't that bad. Relative to noise, it's cleaner than a 7D, but probably not cleaner than a 5Dm2. And, coming from the 200A/170/150 and 5D/7D experience -- the resolution (with sharpness all the way down) of the (hacked) GH2 is pure joy.
The other thing about the hacked GH2 that I'm not seeing people discuss is the outrageous ability to pull usable details out of shadows from the very high bitrate streams (for example, Quantum 7 Beta's 147 Mbps). I've pulled two to four stops of usable detail out of very dark shadows (almost black on a calibrated monitor) -- fantasy land stuff for DVCPROHD, AVCCAM, NXCAM, or Canon HDSLR files.
Regarding the AF100 -- I go back to my original point that I've seen some powerful results from it in the right hands. And, I think with a bit of tweaking (I have no idea what scene file settings he was using, etc.), it certainly could have performed better for Bloom's test.
So -- everything you wrote makes sense and I respect what you're saying and don't passionately disagree with you -- and as I said before, I really had fun watching Bloom's test and thank him for doing it -- but -- my only disappointment was that the low light test didn't really indicate usable ranges in relatively realistic production settings.
AGMedia, the GH2 is so impressive for such little money. re-tooling for the 2x mount just makes me cringe though. im already heavily invested in full N&C DSLR's and so much great glass on both sides. i just try to look away with the GH2 and not think about it... then i see this thing with PB & his xmas outside tests! wow on the GH2. unreal detail, tight and clean. argh!!!
david
david
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
A - freaking - men!!!
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
"
Only problem is that it isn't clean. So I have replaced moire and aliasing on my 5D's with a [hacked] GH2's noise in the shadows (even on low ISO's) and even worse, banding in the sky or on gradients. The banding is a real and serious problem. They both have rolling shutter issues.
Depending on the situation, I could use one or the other. However, since I am in PAL land, I can't, as Vitaly still has not as yet cracked the 25p firmware.
Right now, "clean" still = more money.
I think the GH2 is the HV20 of today. The little train that could. Low price for surprisingly good quality, lots of workarounds needed to make it pro, but possible. A real lovechild of the forums.
Only problem is that it isn't clean. So I have replaced moire and aliasing on my 5D's with a [hacked] GH2's noise in the shadows (even on low ISO's) and even worse, banding in the sky or on gradients. The banding is a real and serious problem. They both have rolling shutter issues.
Depending on the situation, I could use one or the other. However, since I am in PAL land, I can't, as Vitaly still has not as yet cracked the 25p firmware.
Right now, "clean" still = more money.
I think the GH2 is the HV20 of today. The little train that could. Low price for surprisingly good quality, lots of workarounds needed to make it pro, but possible. A real lovechild of the forums.
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Well, yeah you COULD have slowed the shutter speed on the GH2, but I think he wanted to use the same shutter speed on all the cameras....using
the GH2 at F2.8 and shutter speed of 1/2 second isn't really a great comparison to say an FS 100 with the same lens at F2.8 with a shutter
speed of 1/50. And slow shutter speed will only work for some things in low light, it will obviously affect motion blur if it is too low.
Since I live in Alaska, I get to do lots of 'low light' shooting in the wintertime. I have been shooting with my FS 100 after dark
(which is pretty much 3pm until 9am) with a 50mm F1.4, and it is just unbelievable. The FS 100 performance in this low light test of
Philip Bloom's is NOT a fluke, it really does perform absolutely stunning in low light. Of course low light performance is just one
aspect of what a person needs to look at, but I think the test he did was extremely fair, and provides valuable information, even if
it isn't a typical production scenario. If you remember from the resolution portion of the 'shootout' he also provided shots that
were enlarged to 400% to show how the video held up to that stress. How many of us would ever enlarge our video to 400%? I know I
sure wouldn't. But it still shows some valuable information about the camera. I think these tests are interesting and can help a
person learn to work around weaknesses and maximize strengths of the different tools they choose to use. Maybe a person might choose
to shoot the wide shot with a GH2 because of it's nice resolution, and a low light scene with a FS100 because of it's low light ability.
Last edited:
Ian-T
Veteran
Can’t believe this thread is still alive.
And as far as noise....Neat video is your friend. But still...it’s dependant on which ISO you shoot at. It’s not noisy all over the place.
LOL...no it’s not. Don’t shoot at ISO 160 outdoors and you’re good.
And as far as noise....Neat video is your friend. But still...it’s dependant on which ISO you shoot at. It’s not noisy all over the place.
Last edited: