GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout

Apefos Adapter said:
I am editing a video tutorial how to make gh2 low light image match the c300 and fs100 low light image quality.

I will upload the tutorial to vimeo as soon as i finish editing it.
Click to expand...
No way!!
I got to see this. Can't wait.
Do you have a C300 or a FS100 to compare it side by side? It would be great
 
JoeJITSU said:
I totally agree with you also how Phil shot this. But I must say...The 5D Mark II did look noticeably better than the other DSLR's. I'm think its because of its full size sensor.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize how much of a difference the larger sensor made on light gathering between the 7D/5D until this test. I also found it interesting how different ISO values looked from one camera to the next.

Lots of interesting tid-bits.
 
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)
 
philip bloom said:
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is. <br><br>The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just not a lot...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful. <br><br>Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene. <br><br>At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone. <br><br>Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound. <br><br>Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)<br><br>
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the test. I really thought all of them were eye opening for me in different ways for many of the cameras.
 
philip bloom said:
Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.
Click to expand...
Look man....it's not that bad. It aint worth it. Sure there are haters....and what not,....but don't let that get to you. You got your whole life ahead of you. Forget those wannabees... They just wanna be U. Dammit Jim i'm a doctor!!!! If you need counseling .....we can get you that. JUST DON'T JUMP!!! :)
 
philip bloom said:
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)
Click to expand...
Poor Philip! Every time he tests, reviews, or anything, people jump all over him. Philip didn't have to do this test for us, but he did. Rather than bash him for any reason, why not just say "thanks Philip for taking the time to do these". Or... Why don't some of you bashers and nay-sayers get off your butt and test your own cameras, thus taking Philip's reports as a grain of salt. Philip gets bashed for speaking of the Red Epic, and now the Gh2 guys are all over him.
Keep on going strong, Philip. MANY of us love what you do for us. Others, are just too busy flashing their Gh2's with different hacks and filming blades of grass looking for compression artifacts. Get off Philip's back and get out and shoot something and make some evaluations of your own....
 
dustylense said:
too busy flashing their Gh2's with different hacks and filming blades of grass looking for compression artifacts
Click to expand...

Who told you about my secret Compression Artifact Porn... "Oh man! ...Look at the macro-blocking on that Tennessee blue!!! Damn, I have to change my pants again..."
 
philip bloom said:
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)
Click to expand...

Phillip, just want to say thanks for doing the test. Although I don't personally find these extreme lowlight tests useful for my own work, I do understand how it could be useful for others. And the resolution and skin tone tests were definitely good for all I think. Thanks for your efforts and for posting the results.
 
Mike@AF said:
Although I don't personally find these extreme lowlight tests useful for my own work, I do understand how it could be useful for others. And the resolution and skin tone tests were definitely good for all I think. Thanks for your efforts and for posting the results.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
philip bloom said:
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)
Click to expand...

Thank you Phillip for all of your hard work. I really appreciate it. Good luck tomorrow! I am sure everything will be fine... BUT, if they are not.... Can I have your cameras?!!!... just sayin' I will give them a nice loving home!!!!
 
Apefos Adapter said:
GH2 TUTORIAL How to match C300 / FS100 low light image quality at iso 6400 and 12800 on vimeo

http://vimeo.com/34890589
Click to expand...

I have to say, I love that REM song :) I think this is a good tutorial on noise reduction for the GH2 for those that have never used it, that said, the footage is still a far way from C300/FS100 footage. As you probably noticed yourself, when you have to use that much neat video, the detail gets smoothed out in the image. Especially on people, their faces look extremely soft. I've noticed this when I've used a lot of neat video.
 
Yes, the song is great: "let my machine talk to me"... neatvideo softs the image a little, but the 12800 and 6400 footage from gh2 does not have so much detail, it is already soft under the noise, when you remove the noise you see under it there is not so much detail but as I said on the tutorial: this is a low budget solution. 700 usd gh2 + 100 usd for neatvideo to have a clean 12800 iso is very good. also if you want you can decrease the amount of luminance Y denoise, so more detail will be preserved and less softness results can be achieved. instead of using the Y slider in 50 you can decrease it from 0 to 40 and see what you get. thanks.
 
I like Neat Video Pro, but I use it in the 30-40 range to avoid the rubbery look. If I use it, I use the sharpening as well instead of unsharp mask. Prefer not to use it, of course, but sometimes it is just the thing.
 
DrDave said:
I like Neat Video Pro, but I use it in the 30-40 range to avoid the rubbery look. If I use it, I use the sharpening as well instead of unsharp mask. Prefer not to use it, of course, but sometimes it is just the thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. The luminance Y slider set to 30 give better results. if you like more sharp image it can be used in 15 also.
 
Apefos Adapter said:
I agree. The luminance Y slider set to 30 give better results. if you like more sharp image it can be used in 15 also.
Click to expand...

I did some new tests and i found the minimum amount for the Y slider in the 12800 iso footage is 30, less than this does not give good results. (with the other settings as showed in the tutorial i uploaded to vimeo).
 
Thanks for the link @Apefos
I like using Neat Video too...but the GH2 is far from the C300/FS100 footage, But it is fine. Thank you again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top