Resolution of Panasonic GH2 vs Red Scarlet Fixed for 1080p Bluray Delivery

I haven't heard of the AF-100 having inferior resolution.... please point to the thread. I may wait a bit for the kinks to get worked out as is usual with first generations of a product and then get the AF-100a or whatever it will be called. I do know that my GH13 has superior handling of fine fine detail with motion than the GH2. The GH2 has better low light, but that's not such a huge deal for me. The detail and codec breakup issues are more important to me. I do a lot of hand held stuff with wide lenses and a lot of detail and the GH2 couldn't handle it. On a tripod, sometimes the GH2 looked better, but not always, and it looks way to edge enhanced to me.
For most people though, it's a fine camera.

The GH13 can be purchased but you have to do a little digging. You can't just purchase any old GH1 as many of the later models are unhackable. Best to buy one with the hack already installed by someone who knows what they're doing if you're going to go that route. Otherwise you have to make sure you buy a GH1 within a certain serial # range or you're out of luck.
 
Blackout I totally agree with you that the GH2 is not the camera for your style of shooting. I have tested it and I agree it will fall apart in the wide angle shots when compared to a hacked GH13. However, the GH1 does not contain more resolution than the GH2. I have tested both side by side with the same lenses and the GH2 is simply much sharper.

Now the sharpness of the GH2 is just due to the difference in sharpness settings in the GH2 vs. the GH1 but it still shows more resolution than the GH1 at the same settings. It also does show slightly more aliasing because the sharpness settings are different. However, that aliasing is very minimal and it only shows up in the toughest scenarios.

As far as the 720p goes. Absolutely, the GH1 720p blows away everything else for aliasing. I just went back to the comparison files I have and sure enough the GH1 720p had ZERO aliasing. Even less than the AF100 at -7 detail. However, it also had the lowest horizontal resolution of any of the cameras I have tested. It was basically the same as the 720p on the GF13. The GH2 720p has about 150 more horizontal lines of resolution than the GH1 720p with comparable sharpness settings.

Basically, if you need wide angle shots with no codec break up the GH13 can’t be beaten by ANYTHING. However, if you want resolution then I still say a properly setup GH2 will beat just about anything for pure resolution. The AF100 is right at the same level as the GH2 for resolution but it has more flexibility to dial in a good balance of resolution vs. aliasing.

If you can afford the AF100 and you don’t need to shoot stills then get it. If you need wide angle shots with no codec breakup then the GH13 is the only camera calling your name. If you want the best hybrid camera available today then the GH2 is your only choice.

http://vimeo.com/user442745/videos/page:2/sort:newest
 
You are kind of contradicting yourself here. You are saying that the GH2 has more resolution but that if you want a wide shot with no codec breakup then the GH13 is they way to go.

Does not compute.

The GH13 with the proper settings gets better resolution (not sharpness.. sharpness is the wrong term - but detail and when I say detail I mean HELD detailed resolution throughout multiple moving frames) period. The GH2 - while apparently getting a slight bit more SHARPNESS, and maybe even resolution on a lock down shot - can not HOLD that resolution through movement. As soon as too much frame changing detail happens - things start blocking up - your detail is out the door and the GH2 losses.
 
Gh2 does have a higher resolution. A bit starved for bitrate though, because when things start moving detail gets lost. Can't wait until the gh2 hack...
 
Blackout said:
I haven't heard of the AF-100 having inferior resolution.... please point to the thread. I may wait a bit for the kinks to get worked out as is usual with first generations of a product and then get the AF-100a or whatever it will be called. I do know that my GH13 has superior handling of fine fine detail with motion than the GH2. The GH2 has better low light, but that's not such a huge deal for me. The detail and codec breakup issues are more important to me. I do a lot of hand held stuff with wide lenses and a lot of detail and the GH2 couldn't handle it. On a tripod, sometimes the GH2 looked better, but not always, and it looks way to edge enhanced to me.
For most people though, it's a fine camera.

The GH13 can be purchased but you have to do a little digging. You can't just purchase any old GH1 as many of the later models are unhackable. Best to buy one with the hack already installed by someone who knows what they're doing if you're going to go that route. Otherwise you have to make sure you buy a GH1 within a certain serial # range or you're out of luck.
Click to expand...


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...iasing-and-less-resolution-than-Panasonic-GH2
it was in this thread and others as well,i may give 24P a go some time with tripod only use and no panning at all IE let the image do all the moving and see if its a way i can get some benefit from the max bitrate.
 
Blackout....the GH-2's resolution kicks the GH-1's but in just about every "decently" shot footage I've seen. It is THAT good. That's not saying anything about the codec....which for now the GH-1(3) has its advantage. I understand (I had one) that the hack propelled the GH-1 to new heights...and you do seem to get some of the best looking results....but the GH-2 is much more detailed. I even like how the noise looks on that camera (go figure). ANd yes...it appeared to be a little more detailed than the AF-100 (at least in one test I've seen...jury's still out though).

This is all without talking about footage captured from the HDMI out (which is even more detailed....and no breakup in low light areas like most AVCHD cams I've seen).
 
Ian-T said:
Blackout....the GH-2's resolution kicks the GH-1's but in just about every "decently" shot footage I've seen. It is THAT good. That's not saying anything about the codec....which for now the GH-1(3) has its advantage. I understand (I had one) that the hack propelled the GH-1 to new heights...and you do seem to get some of the best looking results....but the GH-2 is much more detailed. I even like how the noise looks on that camera (go figure). ANd yes...it appeared to be a little more detailed than the AF-100 (at least in one test I've seen...jury's still out though).

This is all without talking about footage captured from the HDMI out (which is even more detailed....and no breakup in low light areas like most AVCHD cams I've seen).
Click to expand...

When the GH2 gets hacked.. or should I say if.... then it gets bought. I don't like what I does seen.. and I been done seen bout everything... when I seen an elephant fly... I mean a GH2 hacked....

It seems Vitali is close. Now this depressing news on the af-100.... What is a man to do. Sit and wait and shoot on what is working for him for now I guess. Which is what I am doing.
 
LOL....I hear you. But..I think that elephant might be flying sometime soon. :)

Don't let that one test get you down about the AF though. In real world shooting it's a non issue. Plus...look at all its benefits in comparison. Get yourself a Ninja...and case closed.
 
Blackout said:
You are kind of contradicting yourself here. You are saying that the GH2 has more resolution but that if you want a wide shot with no codec breakup then the GH13 is they way to go.

Does not compute.

The GH13 with the proper settings gets better resolution (not sharpness.. sharpness is the wrong term - but detail and when I say detail I mean HELD detailed resolution throughout multiple moving frames) period. The GH2 - while apparently getting a slight bit more SHARPNESS, and maybe even resolution on a lock down shot - can not HOLD that resolution through movement. As soon as too much frame changing detail happens - things start blocking up - your detail is out the door and the GH2 losses.
Click to expand...

I now have both GH2 and GH13. GH2 kills GH13 in resolution, period. Love my Gh13 but I just shot a short film on GH2 and there is no comparison. I don't know if I'll be using my GH13 anymore.
 
I don't agree with what people have said about GH13 aliasing though. Barry says "shoot some bricks with diagonal line and bamn... GH13 falls apart"

well my http://blackout.com/clients/top-of-ghostbusters-building.MTS clip proves this wrong... and that was a while ago before I tweaked a little bit more.... so I don't get it. I see tiny little bricks going diagonal with no aliasing or minimal minimal minimal none noticeable. And I have every horrible arftifact producing pattern possible in my laundry line scene with the saturday with the dogs clip and I get no aliasing and no moire so I don't agree with the findings.

Also - the higher res that is being found on the GH2 is from chart that is NOT MOVING. That resolution goes right out the door when if you start moving the camera or the chart around - look at the ugliness that happens then and talk to me again.

Read through the whole af-100 thread and have decided to hold off on the af-100 till this stuff works itself out. AF-100a
 
Last edited:
Blackout said:
The RED was getting a pretty negative vibe at Sundance 11 - with the idea being that it almost costs as much to shoot with the red as it does to shoot real film, so why bother? This is what some DPs and directors who had done full projects on the RED were saying. I really don't have too much experience with the camera itself but I have not been to impressed with independent productions that have used it - but I have been very impressed when Hollywood has used it. It seems that all the money you save on film stock ends up going into paying the color corrector for post work anyway when you use the RED.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Don't kill me Kholi... Gelfling friend.. friend. Panasonic & Red Friends... friends...

But seriously... that was the vibe that was going on in the New York film makers lounge. A few of the panels were talking about shooting on the red vs shooting actual film vs shooting ultra cheap on dslrs. I heard more than one director say he was ditching the red and that he would rather make more films that he wanted to make faster and on cheaper equipment than have the increase in quality but at the expense of huge increase in cost and slow down in shotting speed and flexibility, and that unless you are actual projecting at 4K, the perceived difference in quality wasn't strong enough to justify.

Of course it all could have been a plant by Arri.. I believe they sponsored the event... but they would get no benefit either from people shooting on DSLRs..

Of course if you are a red DP I understand you obviously love the camera, just as Canon people love their stuff. I'm not bashing the camera I know it can do some amazing things in the right hands, but it wouldn't be my choice if I went higher end.
 
Ok but Blackout fact of the matter is you don't have the gh2. I have both. I have loved my GH13 for over a year and have shot 4 shorts on it. However, I just shot a short on GH2 where I used GH13 in several scenes for speed of setups and believe me when I tell you there is no comparison. Even people who didn't know anything about cameras noticed the huge difference when the scene shot on GH13 transitions to scene shot on GH2. It's leagues above GH13, there is no argument to be had there.
 
He's shooting with both the GH1/2 and red on superseeds , so he should know EXACTLY what I am talking about. They intercut well and many times the GH13 or GH2 footage will appear BETTER than the Red, even though technically it is not, because the GH13/2 doesn't need to be color corrected. The RED stuff is ugly till it's fixed.
 
The new red 'film simulation' color science is quite stunning.
(and of course MX is an absolute must)
 
Blackout said:
He's shooting with both the GH1/2 and red on superseeds , so he should know EXACTLY what I am talking about. They intercut well and many times the GH13 or GH2 footage will appear BETTER than the Red, even though technically it is not, because the GH13/2 doesn't need to be color corrected. The RED stuff is ugly till it's fixed.
Click to expand...

the term "fixed" implies something broken. Red native footage is not ugly until 'fixed', it is RAW and requires color grading. Even non MX red is far superior to GH1, GH2, GH13 and any other DSLR in Every. Single. Category. Including latitude, dynamic range, color fidelity, ability to be graded, frame rate options, resolution, and far more.
There is nothing the gh13, gh2, etc can do that even 4 year old non-MX Red cannot do MUCH better. And MX Red ...it's not even worth talking about the comparison, as it is in another universe let alone another league.
 
Blackout said:
He's shooting with both the GH1/2 and red on superseeds , so he should know EXACTLY what I am talking about. They intercut well and many times the GH13 or GH2 footage will appear BETTER than the Red, even though technically it is not, because the GH13/2 doesn't need to be color corrected. The RED stuff is ugly till it's fixed.
Click to expand...


No, I don't know exactly what you're talking about. I'm not sure anyone who's actually used a RED and a DSLR of any kind would...

A) It does not cost nearly as much to originate on RED and finish a RED feature or any project as it does 35mm Film. 16mm, perhaps, 16mm is cheaper to shoot than 35mm. I could probably pull a 16mm film shoot together that may cost one or two thousand more than a RED shoot. But versus 35mm? You tell me where 35mm shooting can be had that cheap, I'm switching over.

For those who have no working experience with RED and think that it's going to destroy them: what you don't have in hardware (RED ROCKET, Color Grading Suite) and Knowledge (colorist, conforming, etc) you can make up with time. If the statement that "it costs almost as much to shoot film" were true I would NOT be shooting my feature primarily RED MX. That's just freakin' false.

There are so many RED owners out there that will literally give you the camera for two weeks for as much as a DSLR rental costs because it's over saturated. When the AF100's saturate the market and F3's, the RED rate is going to plummet further.

On top of that, for a NO budget feature film, my choice as a Director, DP or Producer would be to either shoot ONE RED MX or Two DSLRs, a GH-2 and a 5D more than likely. If I had to choose one the RED MX would win out every time. There's not a single digital camera available that'll let you reframe in post like you can with 4K and 4.5K, and I can only imagine the benefit of having a 5K and 6K image available to zoom in on. For those of us without money, it literally makes it look like you shot with two or three cameras because you can rip out some seriously clean 1080/2K footage from the pseudo 4.5K and STILL be ready for projection.

To a degree, when you crop 1080/2k out of 4K or 4.5K from RED MX (if you're hitting focus on sharp lenses) it looks like what you'd imagine an aliasing free 720P camera would deliver, uprezzed to 1080 or something resolving in between 720 and 1080.

You're not getting that with a DSLR right now.

So, no, I don't know exactly what you're talking about?

Especially not on...

B) "They intercut well and many times the GH13 or GH2 footage will appear BETTER than the Red, even though technically it is not, because the GH13/2 doesn't need to be color corrected. The RED stuff is ugly till it's fixed."

Even my raw RED footage looks better than GH-1/2 footage. If there's something wrong with RAW RED footage it is not the camera. Shooting REDColor and REDGamma gives you pretty accurate WYSIWYG. So, no, I dont' agree with you on that either.

I do agree that you can cut in GH-13/2 footage with RED footage, as long as it's quick chops and nothing long no one should be able to tell the difference IN MOTION and when it's all graded to taste, etc. if your content is doing the job of pulling someone into the world. So that's why it's a good and loose B-Cam option for me tomorrow and as I go to pick up inserts. Of people's feet hitting pavement, hands reaching for objects, etc.

Other than that, it is what it is and that's DSLR video... it isn't anywhere in the same league, but will do the job it needs to when employed properly.
 
Last edited:
Here in NYC there's no way you are doing a no budget film on a RED ONE or MX... unless your film is 5 minutes long or your DP is some rich kid who just bought the RED and has no idea what he's doing..(which I have seen a LOT of) and even that can get pricey. Unless you have a rich buddy who owns all of the camera and needed support gear. So I don't know who you know who is handing you the camera, all the hardware and needed support for free - but it's pricey here. No WAY no budget. Is it no budget or is the cost of a 16mm film? That's a big gap. I am not attacking the quality of the camera or trying to put you on the defense, I was just answering the OPs question that a lot of real world clients simply can not tell the difference. At least not on a blu-ray.

I am watching the news on the epic to see if it actually has beaten the dynamic range of film as they claim, and I am watching prices. Up till now I'm just doing shorts and music videos with I guess what you would call the high end of the low end budget wise... which is why the GH13s are working so well for me. It's just so damn cheap and fast to shoot with them and it looks really spectacular without even touching anywhere near the budgets you need for RED shooting. No way we could shoot red., and even if I did, I would lose ALL my profit margin to gain a boost in quality that the client probably would not notice. YOU would notice, and I would notice, and DPs would notice, but the client already thinks they are almost in 3D when they see the GH13 footage. When I go to do a film in 6 month I will be thinking differently and weighing the current options and budgets then. You're doing a film that I assume you plan to try and release in theaters? Or are you just going to blu-ray DVD? Are you doing a film out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top