One thing I would note about this test is that Philip Bloom chose a very revealing frame to judge the resolution of the camera: a brick structure at a considerable distance with both straight lines and curved arches. Lots of other details packed into that frame, plus some water which is also revealing. But I would say for sure the bricks at a distance with the arches (and shadows) are a much more interesting test than a flat, regular wall at nearfield, or even a chart which is always artificial. I've looked very carefully at footy from the Nex 5N, and in literally three seconds I was willing to give it the thumbs down after seeing the way it rendered complex objects and colors in that frame. Very revealing.
GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout
- Thread starter Boon
- Start date
That's because Philip deinterlaced the Sony nex5n 25p material. It looks 50% worse than it is. Look at the 50p nex5n shot, it has none of those aliasing lines that the previous 25p shot has. That's because they had their settings completely wrong in FCP.
It's a pretty bad mistake on their part.
Does the hack increase resolution of the sensor? I thought that it improved detail in the shadows & rendering of motion plus provided a better basis for colour grading. This video is no test at all of the improvements that the hack might bring. Resolution of GH2 video is already outstanding for the price & better than the AF101. The GH2 clips would likely have looked just the same with stock firmware. Sorry if this isn't the answer for those looking for Hack validation alongside GH2 validation
Does the hack increase resolution of the sensor? I thought that it improved detail in the shadows & rendering of motion plus provided a better basis for colour grading. This video is no test at all of the improvements that the hack might bring. Resolution of GH2 video is already outstanding for the price & better than the AF101. The GH2 clips would likely have looked just the same with stock firmware. Sorry if this isn't the answer for those looking for Hack validation alongside GH2 validation
No but the hacked high bit rate intra frame codecs preserve much more detail in moving shots than the stock version. Phillip's test was not so useful for judging the relative quality of the codecs involved for motion since it was a static shot.
Do you have an example of any footage to back up your claim?
Does Philip know this? I am kind of surprised that an experienced filmmaker like that would make such a rookie mistake.
I share his view. We've already seem the proof in gh1 vs gh1 hack tests. The same can be applied to Gh2 on a basic level, although not all flavors of avchd are created equal
Is there footage showing otherwise?
Interesting. I would not be able to tell deinterlaced just by looking at it. But it did look pretty dreadful, and I have come to expect unpleasant surprises from Sony. Maybe they should change the name to "Next!" And seriously, Sony, why no built in IS in the cam for stills??? I mean, Olly can do it. I still think the "Curved bricks at a distance" is very revealing. Going to look around for something similar, although brick is not common here in California.
I gave him a message on his board, he kinda overlook the issue because I was firstly blaming it on Premiere. (They used FCP). But the underlining issue is the same. With FCP it's also very easy to get them mixed up because the program will uncorrectly detect certain material as interlaced. Then when the sequence interlace setting is set to none, FCP will deinterlace all material that it thinks is interlaced. That's why the Nex 5n looks very bad and that's why the next shot with 50p Nex5n material looks better aliasing wise as the software didn't deinterlace that.
It's actually quite easy to make those mistakes with FCP as the program doesn't really tell you what it's doing. I've seen about a dozen sequences that have been messed up because of that while working in a post house.
One thing that kinda bugs me is that it appears he will not fix this which is completely a software fault. Not of the cameras. A more realistic sample of the nex5n is this:
http://vimeo.com/28751834
Last edited:
where are the bricks, i cannot see them in your sample?
Ian-T
Veteran
Seriously?? Surely you (of all people) jest.
Do you really think it loses that much light? An article by Matthew Duclos on the Zeiss CP.2's made it seem like there was much much less loss when comparing F to T. You're basically saying a full stop, which seems like a lot.
http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/cp2vszf2/
"The Compact Primes will provide a much smoother, creamier bokeh thanks to the 14 bladed aperture design but you won’t be able to pull off the crazy shallow depth of field shots because the CP.2 lenses are all limited to f/2 (T2.1) at most."
I own both an AF100 and a GH2. Personally, I am considering selling my AF100 and sticking to the GH2 with the hack. With the hack, the GH2 should have more detail in the images than the AF100, which we're told will not ever be able to be hacked. However, it's too early as far as Philip Bloom's shootout goes to make a decision if you were to make a decision based on that. We've only seen part 1 of the shootout, and being that resolution and detail isn't the only thing that makes up an image, there's much more to be seen (no pun intended). The AF100 has many benefits over the GH2, namely in the customization of the scene files. That could go a long way in being able to record superior image over the GH2.
As far as other benefits the AF100 has over the GH2, I agree with others that those can be overcome with the GH2 by adding additional components to the camera system such as an external monitor, recording double system sound, matte box (which an AF100 user might have anyway) with filters or screw-on filters, etc. However, certain shooting situations would still benefit from those features being built-in to the camera, just as certain shooting situations would benefit from a camera as small as the GH2.
It boils down to each individual shooter and each individual project that's being shot. Everyone is going to be different. I've shot films with solely the GH1 (when I had it), solely with the AF100, and a combination of the AF100 and GH2 (because the AF100 wouldn't work for the shots we got with the GH2 due to size and portability). So it really just depends. That said, what I shot with the AF100 could have easily been shot with the GH2.
Part of the reason for me to sell my AF100 is that I really want a Scarlet or an Epic. Selling my AF100 now and still having the GH2 lets me keep a camera I can continue to shoot with, but also lets me have additional money ready to put towards a Scarlet.
Lastly, I don't think anyone should make a decision based solely on what Philip Bloom's shootout shows us, or what Philip Bloom or anyone else says. Do your own tests, come to your own conclusions, and choose the camera or cameras that's right for you and your situation.
As far as other benefits the AF100 has over the GH2, I agree with others that those can be overcome with the GH2 by adding additional components to the camera system such as an external monitor, recording double system sound, matte box (which an AF100 user might have anyway) with filters or screw-on filters, etc. However, certain shooting situations would still benefit from those features being built-in to the camera, just as certain shooting situations would benefit from a camera as small as the GH2.
It boils down to each individual shooter and each individual project that's being shot. Everyone is going to be different. I've shot films with solely the GH1 (when I had it), solely with the AF100, and a combination of the AF100 and GH2 (because the AF100 wouldn't work for the shots we got with the GH2 due to size and portability). So it really just depends. That said, what I shot with the AF100 could have easily been shot with the GH2.
Part of the reason for me to sell my AF100 is that I really want a Scarlet or an Epic. Selling my AF100 now and still having the GH2 lets me keep a camera I can continue to shoot with, but also lets me have additional money ready to put towards a Scarlet.
Lastly, I don't think anyone should make a decision based solely on what Philip Bloom's shootout shows us, or what Philip Bloom or anyone else says. Do your own tests, come to your own conclusions, and choose the camera or cameras that's right for you and your situation.
T stop to F Stop scaling/conversion depends on lens set. Standard Speed T2.1's are older, I believe they F-Stop @ T2.1 is about 1.3, but may be more like 1.6. I don't have the exact measurements.
CP.2's were original Zeiss ZF's, it's definitely going to be closer there as it's newer and more "refined" glass, and the design really hasn't changed much more than (not sure again, would have to fact check) the blade count?
Edit here: I know Superspeeds aren't going to get you to 0.95 @ T1.3, that should be like F1.2 at the max. So maybe Standards are more like F1.6 or F1.8.
Last edited:
Makes sense that the age of the glass is definitely a factor. I wasn't thinking about that. Seems like a lot of light loss though.
I think CP.2's are based on the ZF.2's, which are still very similar to the ZF's, but just a little slower. I'd be interested to know what the F-stops on the original ZF's translates to in T-stops. Part of the reason I still have my ZF's is because I'm assuming they're faster than the CP.2's. But if it's possible for my ZF 50 f1.4 to be just like the CP.2 50 T2 as far as light transmission, then I'll have to search for some crazy deals on the CP.2's. I'd much rather have the cinema mechanics and extra aperture blades on the CP.2's.
I think CP.2's are based on the ZF.2's, which are still very similar to the ZF's, but just a little slower. I'd be interested to know what the F-stops on the original ZF's translates to in T-stops. Part of the reason I still have my ZF's is because I'm assuming they're faster than the CP.2's. But if it's possible for my ZF 50 f1.4 to be just like the CP.2 50 T2 as far as light transmission, then I'll have to search for some crazy deals on the CP.2's. I'd much rather have the cinema mechanics and extra aperture blades on the CP.2's.
The good about the T2.1 set is that, for old glass, they're actually pretty decent wide open. The 28/T2.1 is a bit of a headache to be honest, it blooms terribly so and guess which lens I'm inclined to reach for the most?
However, I'm sort of revamping my thought process and considering grabbing the 20, instead.
One thing about the CP.2 50, which I haven't been able to qualify personally but have heard it from set owners, is that it is definitely a better piece of glass than the 50/1.4 at the same apertures. I am still considering going to a set of CP.2 Nikons as a back-up for size/weight, but the widest in the set I have access to is a 21mm and that's not wide enough at all.
Otherwise, they're sick lenses and I sincerely cannot wait to see the new Zooms and Anamorphics heading our way.
I've heard the comparison of the CP.2 50 to the ZF.2 50, but never to the old ZF 50. So maybe the CP.2's are based on the old ZF's or a combination of the old and new depending on the focal length.
I agree that the 21mm still isn't quite wide enough in some situations with the 4/3 sensor. On a S35 sensor I think it's okay. 18 would be better, but I've heard terrible things about the CP.2 18 and ZF/ZF.2 18, plus it's pretty slow.
I think those Zeiss anamorphics are going to be really expensive. $20k range each. Should be cool to see how they stack up against the Hawks though. In general I prefer the Zeiss image.
I agree that the 21mm still isn't quite wide enough in some situations with the 4/3 sensor. On a S35 sensor I think it's okay. 18 would be better, but I've heard terrible things about the CP.2 18 and ZF/ZF.2 18, plus it's pretty slow.
I think those Zeiss anamorphics are going to be really expensive. $20k range each. Should be cool to see how they stack up against the Hawks though. In general I prefer the Zeiss image.
simonpwood
Well-known member
Love it.
This sums up the difference between Canon DSLR users and GH2 users quite eloquently.
The Canon folk bought their DSLRs so they could get everything in the background out of focus. The GH2 users realized they couldn't get the background out of focus so they start raving about the fine detail in the far distance! Har har! That, and the fact that they have to take ten big steps backwards to get a decent composition....
BTW, I seem to remember the distance was in perfect focus back in the 'ye olde 3 CCD' days when the whole DSLR craze started. Back to square one it seems.
Fun test though.
(BTW - this is just an observation - no need to go all 'RedUser' on me - I think that all of these cameras are great)....
This sums up the difference between Canon DSLR users and GH2 users quite eloquently.
The Canon folk bought their DSLRs so they could get everything in the background out of focus. The GH2 users realized they couldn't get the background out of focus so they start raving about the fine detail in the far distance! Har har! That, and the fact that they have to take ten big steps backwards to get a decent composition....
BTW, I seem to remember the distance was in perfect focus back in the 'ye olde 3 CCD' days when the whole DSLR craze started. Back to square one it seems.
Fun test though.
(BTW - this is just an observation - no need to go all 'RedUser' on me - I think that all of these cameras are great)....