GH2 Philip Coltart's : RED Epic verus Panasonic GH2 Comparison

I love these awesome battles. They are so silly. The truth of the matter is that to any average audience - anyone who is not a dp they would NEVER know the difference between red and GH2 hacked footage when they get their blu-ray or even in theaters on a good projector. For the price of the GH2 that is ABSOLUTELY INSANE that this can be done!

OF COURSE people who have tons of cash are going to defend the red and of COURSE the red can do a bunch of things the GH2 can't but the point is the GH2 hacked is capable enough to make a movie - then if loads of cash gets dumped on you, go buy a RED and make a movie with more resolution and color correction.

That naked people clip didn't even look so spectacular it had worse compression artifacts than my first GH13 hacks posted on youtube, and it wasn't even in 1080p so why were we bothering to look at it?

Silly. Silly. No one is saying the GH2 is as good a camera as the red but when you factor $$$ to the look to the average audience watching not compositing geeks, the GH2 and AF-100 are great magicians and 99% of the audience will never know.

Half of the films at Sundance 11 last year were shot on Canon 7D and 5D mark IIs and looked like mush to me but NO ONE CARED.....
 
If you think of the IQ as a series of curves in which the IQ for all cameras gets better but also levels off, then it is clear that the IQ converges at some point. Whether it is now or next year, doesn't really matter. No one is doing double blind tests with these cams, so the cameras are just mirrors that show us what we like to see. If they did do double blind tests--which they won't--most people would not see the difference. But even looking at a resolution chart it is clear that very good--i.e., GH13 or GH2, is very good and also good enough. Budget wise, you will make a better movie if the money you save is spent on production values, but, hey, if you have the money and more, why not buy the most expensive cam and enjoy it for its brief but very amazing moment of incandescence. How very cool to use one!
 
I have to agree with other posters in that the spread in quality is getting narrower and narrower. As Michael points out, it's getting to where the average joe can't tell any difference between footage from $1000 or $15,000 worth of cameras. His last point about Sundance 11 deserves to be repeated:

"and looked like mush to me but NO ONE CARED..... "

As others have pointed out already, we are closing in on the point of splitting hairs to find the most perfect, when the average joe has no clue and honestly, could care less.
 
I like these tests. Their the best way to slap the disillusioned back into reality. Of course you have those that have never shot on red one or epic, and they will argue that whatever dslr they own is just as good in 1080. Then you have the sensible ones that live on planet earth, that own a gh2, and can admit their cam is no where near the cam epic or redone is.

But thats still not to say you cant get a cinema quality image from the gh x, or Canon (fill in the blank). You just need to be very aware of what your shooting and how your exposing it. Alot like shooting actual film
 
When I have the budget and appropriate vehicle I will rent An Arri. It just makes sense. But I can shoot with my "G" everyday for peanuts. That makes sense too. The peeps can't tell the difference. The limitations of the GH1/2 forces you to work smarter to maintain that comparable look. You don't have a cushion. You have to nail it and it makes you better when you switch platforms.
 
maranfilms said:
I like these tests. Their the best way to slap the disillusioned back into reality. Of course you have those that have never shot on red one or epic, and they will argue that whatever dslr they own is just as good in 1080. Then you have the sensible ones that live on planet earth, that own a gh2, and can admit their cam is no where near the cam epic or redone is.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes?
 
Apples to oranges :-) And the results confirm it. IQ is not even definition but a whole. Only the color rendition speaks by itself.
 
Peter Jackson said some years ago that any 1080p camcorder is good enough to shoot a movie with. One of my favorite films was the celebration that was shot with a 900 dollar single chip DV camcorder, dogma style. Too often people focus on the camera. I was pulling into an event the other day with my camera and sticks in the front seat. The valet guy asked me what I did and if I shot with the 5D. He said he shoots with the 5D and does weddings and it was clear that is where his experience has taken him. He's picked a nice camera and too many people focus on that and rest on that. Personally once I make a decision I go with it... From the XL1 up till the GH2. I pick what I like and get the best at it and looking over the fences at the greener lawns does me no good. We all have scales and heights that we can achieve and a camera makes some of it easier, but it doesn't make it better or more important.

I'm sure there are Red owners out there who don't know a thing about cameras or filmmaking but someone told them what to get and viola... they got it.
 
maranfilms said:
Yeah, films are, But I wouldn't say a test is. If anything a test should be the closest thing to reality you can manage.
Click to expand...

If you're doing a hyper reality theme park ride.... but I don't think it works for movies. Movies at the frame rate of the eyes (about 60fps) just look bad and too real and don't have the hypnotic quality of 24p. it looks like news or sports. But we have had this debate on way too many threads so I'll just shut up now.
 
Blackout said:
If you're doing a hyper reality theme park ride.... but I don't think it works for movies. Movies at the frame rate of the eyes (about 60fps) just look bad and too real and don't have the hypnotic quality of 24p. it looks like news or sports. But we have had this debate on way too many threads so I'll just shut up now.
Click to expand...

I don't want to stir the pot too much on the old 24p debate, but has there ever actually be a hollywood-level dramatic narrative shot and distributed at 60p? or 30p for that matter?

I agree that the motion cadence is very different, but to me, the different feel with sports/news/soap operas is at least somewhat to do with shooting style, framing, lighting, editing etc etc...

It'd be neat to see an artistically acclaimed feature at 60p just to truely see how much it ruins it for us.
 
I never did get how things can look "too real". It's mostly about the DP and LD. Eye of the beholder I guess.
 
I don't think 60P looks more real I think it makes things look cheap and fake. Motion blur is a good thing.
 
DBP said:
I don't want to stir the pot too much on the old 24p debate, but has there ever actually be a hollywood-level dramatic narrative shot and distributed at 60p? or 30p for that matter?
Click to expand...

I don't like 60p either BUT I agree with this completely. Until I see this exact thing attempted, I don't think we will really know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top