GH2 Philip Coltart's : RED Epic verus Panasonic GH2 Comparison
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
Watched it full screen up close.
I'm not really sure why people are surprised that a compressed 1080p video looks similar between the GH2 and Red Epic. The web compression variable is too low for either camera.
It's like if you have two distance runners, one can run 20k no problem, and other can run 8k just as easily. Then you have them each run 4K and measure their cardio performance based on that. It doesn't work.
I'm not really sure why people are surprised that a compressed 1080p video looks similar between the GH2 and Red Epic. The web compression variable is too low for either camera.
It's like if you have two distance runners, one can run 20k no problem, and other can run 8k just as easily. Then you have them each run 4K and measure their cardio performance based on that. It doesn't work.
Jester2138
Well-known member
Why couldn't that have been shot on a GH2? I mean, at least on Youtube, I don't see what's so special about it from a technical standpoint.
As for the original topic I don't see how the test has any real-world implications...?
Look, like many of you I can't afford an Epic-X (though I'll be the first one in line for an Epic-S if it ever materializes) and would LOVE for the little $900 toy I can actually afford to be a comparable tool. But it is ridiculous to pretend it actually is.
Why is that such a bold claim? Epic has 2/3 the resolution, less (and higher quality) compression, smoother tonality, and vastly higher dynamic range (even without HDRx), than a GH2 in stills mode.
Forget the GH2's "meh" stills. I'll take it a step further. Epic footage beats the snot out of stills from my D700. And the D3s I've rented a few times. (One caveat : The D700 and especially D3s do beat it for high-ISO noise.)
Go download some R3Ds if you don't believe me.
Why is that such a bold claim? Epic has 2/3 the resolution, less (and higher quality) compression, smoother tonality, and vastly higher dynamic range (even without HDRx), than a GH2 in stills mode.
Forget the GH2's "meh" stills. I'll take it a step further. Epic footage beats the snot out of stills from my D700. And the D3s I've rented a few times. (One caveat : The D700 and especially D3s do beat it for high-ISO noise.)
Go download some R3Ds if you don't believe me.
Ted Ramasola
Veteran
This reminds me of something i did almost 2 years ago. 
At that time I wanted to see how the 7D intercuts with RED ONE footage at 1080 not 3k or 4k but only at 1080 and how they intercut at LOW Light.
[size=+2]Red One and Canon 7D side by side[/size]
;-)
I applied the red footage LUT in Redcine before export.
At that time I wanted to see how the 7D intercuts with RED ONE footage at 1080 not 3k or 4k but only at 1080 and how they intercut at LOW Light.[size=+2]Red One and Canon 7D side by side[/size]
;-)
I applied the red footage LUT in Redcine before export.
I think we can all agree that the Epic camera is better than the GH2 in terms of image quality. However, I believe what the HDSLR revolution has shown is that you don't need those expensive cameras to produce quality programming that looks and feels like it was done by a major studio. I'm not much for collecting cameras and I could afford to purchase an Epic but I really don't see the point. I'm more concerned about my storytelling skills than if one camera has a higher resolution than the other. To me, the lower end cameras are so good that the perceived quality difference is negligible to the average consumer. Therefore, I'll be toting around my 5D and GH2 until something better comes long at the same price points.
As I see it, one of the biggest differences is that you have very little room for error with the GH2.
With higher end cameras one of the luxuries you pay for is more headroom for mistakes.
Everyone makes mistakes. But if you really can fix the mistake in post then that extra investment is well worth it.
So what it boils down to is, how much are your mistakes worth?
If you are shooting an indie film with some friends then it may not be a big deal to re-shoot and economy makes sense.
But if you are on a shoot that would be really expensive to redo, lots of crew and actors who may not be able to re-shoot, then you
obviously need the safety net.
Some people think these tests are a waste of time, but one day you may find yourself on set with an overheated red and an impatient director.
That GH2 will start looking really useful and you'll wonder if you should bother to pull it out. Well wouldn't it be nice to know where the limitations are so you can work around them? I think so. Pixel Peepers do a great service to the community. They spend hours setting up tests like this so you don't have to.
With higher end cameras one of the luxuries you pay for is more headroom for mistakes.
Everyone makes mistakes. But if you really can fix the mistake in post then that extra investment is well worth it.
So what it boils down to is, how much are your mistakes worth?
If you are shooting an indie film with some friends then it may not be a big deal to re-shoot and economy makes sense.
But if you are on a shoot that would be really expensive to redo, lots of crew and actors who may not be able to re-shoot, then you
obviously need the safety net.
Some people think these tests are a waste of time, but one day you may find yourself on set with an overheated red and an impatient director.
That GH2 will start looking really useful and you'll wonder if you should bother to pull it out. Well wouldn't it be nice to know where the limitations are so you can work around them? I think so. Pixel Peepers do a great service to the community. They spend hours setting up tests like this so you don't have to.
Last edited:
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Thanks for posting the test. Very enlightening.
Jester2138
Well-known member
It is indeed interesting, but this isn't a GH2 vs. EPIC comparison, it's a GH2 whole sensor vs. a small crop of the EPIC sensor comparison. He's not downrezzing the 5K to match the GH2's 1080, he's cropping out the center 1080 x 1920 pixels in the Red's image to compare to the GH2's entire sensor output. Since nobody would ever do that in a normal situation, I don't see how this test answers any questions about how Red compares to the GH2 in a real-world sense.
Last edited:
Totally agree, and I own a GH2 for that reason.
The big deal about Red isn't about resolution or higher bitrates or even dynamic range. It's about RAW. About options!
In the world of still photography, shooters who use JPEG are a joke and cameras that only offer JPEG are toys. I'm ready for the day when the same is true in the motion world.
I understand the technical reasons that day has been slower to come for motion, but now that Red's shown that it can be done...
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Consider RED RAW is a variant of JPEG2000 not far from what MJPEG does saving each frame as a JPEG image. RED does output RAW data from the sensor but that has less to do with how it's saved. Does that make RED a toy?
Serious?
David W. Jones
Veteran
Wavelet compression.
JPEG 2000 uses wavelet compression, but it is not a raw image format, it is encoded RGB. Reds record unencoded Bayer raw sensor data to the file using patented wavelet compression algorithms. At the lowest compression settings the data is mathematically lossless, meaning that there is no raw data for any pixel lost. It is the same as uncompressed.
Nikon and Canon both use a form of loss less raw data compression on their image files too.
Dynamic range for starters. This test was shot with only the massive back lighting and side lighting for illumination. No front lighting. HDRx was used for exposure control.
Jester2138
Well-known member
OK, but if you had a GH2 - or the original RED for that matter - you could just use a fill light. It's cool that it was done in camera, but not necessary. As far as the viewer is concerned it would make little to no difference (as evidence by me not even seeing that it was done in that specific way). I'm not arguing that the GH2 can do anything the RED M-X can do, just that the GH2 could have been used to shoot this video and 99.99% of viewers would notice absolutely no difference. It's the lighting, nets, and naked people that make this video stand out, not a technical feature of the camera the DP chose to use.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Lets not forget 12 bit color and 4:4:4 sampling. It may not matter to everybody but it does matter.
With that said I love my GH1 and it has held it's own at work compared to our F900 and F3. I have yet to compare it to our Red camera at work but I will say my boss is very impressed with my GH1 hacked with the max latitude 100 mbit hack. I have used my GH1 for greenscreen projects at work and even with it's 4:2:0 and 8 bit color sampling it spanked the F900 and F3. I even captured the F900 output live to uncompressed in our studio and my GH1 still smoked it. Not bad for a camera I bought for $350.00. With extra gear such as lenses and support I have maybe $1,200.00 into this camera. Not bad compared to the $100,000.00 + we have stuck into our Red camera. Yes Red is better but I would not call it 10x better. Consider the fact that I can setup and shoot with it within five minutes sure beats the insane setup time and weight of our Red camera.
With that said I love my GH1 and it has held it's own at work compared to our F900 and F3. I have yet to compare it to our Red camera at work but I will say my boss is very impressed with my GH1 hacked with the max latitude 100 mbit hack. I have used my GH1 for greenscreen projects at work and even with it's 4:2:0 and 8 bit color sampling it spanked the F900 and F3. I even captured the F900 output live to uncompressed in our studio and my GH1 still smoked it. Not bad for a camera I bought for $350.00. With extra gear such as lenses and support I have maybe $1,200.00 into this camera. Not bad compared to the $100,000.00 + we have stuck into our Red camera. Yes Red is better but I would not call it 10x better. Consider the fact that I can setup and shoot with it within five minutes sure beats the insane setup time and weight of our Red camera.
Ian-T
Veteran
Aint it funny how times have changed? Just a few years back we could never have a "reasonable" discussion like this about a consumer camera vs a professional camera because there was just no comparison (in IQ...not features) and just the mention would unanimously get shot down. But here we are. There's no question the Red is a better purpose built camera. But to me, and it seems like to a lot of other folks, the line between the two has become more than a hair blurrier. That's a good thing in my mind's eye.