GH2 Should I be surprised that an HPX 250 looks better than the GH2?

Do you have some footage or stills to compare? This thread has a lot of discussion but zero images.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
Don't mean to split hairs, but I don't think this is true.

"it is also true that an HPX250 in the hands of someone who knows what their doing will look a lot better than a GH2 in those same hands."

Depends on what it being shot, what is needed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is a lot of generalization going on in this thread. Words like "better" don't really have meaning when we aren't familiar with the context. Better for sports and live event coverage? Sure, the ergonomics of the HPX is better. The codec is better for heavy grading as well. But for narrative storytelling in natural light, or shots that benefit from more controlled shallow DOF, I think the GH2 would have quite an advantage and may even look better.

flinty said:
How are soft canon lenses better,the14-42 is always used as an excuse i have 8 lenses and tried many more and the 14-42 can resolve as much video as any,how could it take photos otherwise,the GH2 may not match the big cam but dont blame the lens.
Click to expand...

Ummmm.... its not always about how much detail it can resolve. The OP didn't say the HPX was sharper than the GH2... he said he preferred the "look" of the HPX compared to the GH2. That means the light, color, etc, all fit together to create a more pleasing image. The kit lens is really not known for its ability to create pleasing images. The color, saturation, and DOF are all rather poor on that. But with the right lens, it really does shine. And for the record, there are plenty of adapted primes that are hardly "soft", but even a modern panny F/1.7 would help tremendously.

Will Turner said:
As other have stated. A stock GH2 kit couldn't be more different to a hacked GH2 with nice glass.
Click to expand...

Right. Basically, the GH2 is just a fantastic sensor in a box. It comes with a set of glass to get you started, but that glass wasn't designed to particularly impress pro video users with its light sensitivity, contrast or color rendition. You'll need to throw some nice primes or exotic lenses to really get the most out of the sensor.

If the bitrate doesn't resolve enough detail for you, the hack bumps it up to extreme levels (Google for any number of tests from Phillip Bloom and Andrew Reid showing the hacked GH2 resolving more detail than popular pro camcorders). The only thing you would still be missing is the additional color space (4:2:2, etc) required for heavy grading. Which, according to some folks, can be achieved by descrambling the HDMI output recorded externally (although there is much debate about whether or not it is truly 4:2:2 in the end).
 
Last edited:
You have a lot more image control with the HPX250, so it's not surprising that it out performed a stock GH2 with the kit lens.

To produce high quality images with the GH2 you need to add a few things to your process...

- 100+ Mbit hack with high performance memory cards
- Better glass than the stock lens
- Post processing to grade and modify the image the GH2 produces
 
flinty said:
How are soft canon lenses better,the14-42 is always used as an excuse i have 8 lenses and tried many more and the 14-42 can resolve as much video as any,how could it take photos otherwise,the GH2 may not match the big cam but dont blame the lens.
Click to expand...

Also indoors and in low light my 20 1.7 is better than either stock lens but in good light they are every bit as sharp as the 20 and any lens.
And colors and look only vary on mine to how i set the camera not which lens i use but i have not used the renowned Voitlander.
 
Last edited:
I have shot with the GH2 in combination with a lot of glass (Panasonic, Canon, Voigtlander, Rokkor, Tokina, Zeiss) and have no interest in shooting with the 14-42mm again if I have my other lenses available. Also, the difference between the factory settings and the patches is pretty noticeable.

If you (or anyone else) want to get a sense for the differences the patches make and you live in the L.A. or Pasadena area, send me a message and come out on Sunday when we will be doing the biggest GH2 settings comparison to date.
 
AdventMediaProductions said:
So I was finally able to take out my new GH2 and my HPX 250 on a shoot yesterday and after reviewing the footage, I really liked what the 250 was giving me. To me, the 250 seemed to handle both low light and intense lighting situations better, was able to produce pictures with a little bit more detail, and heck it was a lot easier to focus with and to choose my DOF with in my opinion.

Having said that, the GH2 was at a slight disadvantage because I was using it all stock including the stock 14-42MM lens. Even though it wasn't necessarily as good as the HPX-250 in my opinion, it still produced great images, I just liked the 250 better.

So here are my questions:

Should I be surprised by this? Since I've been reading forums all I have been hearing about is DSLR filmmaking and how it is supposedly a lot better (at least in terms of picture quality) than the traditional video camera, and in my experience the video camera did a lot better this time around.

Would getting higher quality glass help even the playing field between the two cameras?

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you should be totally astonished that a $5K camera, with 10 bit 4:2:2, AVC-Intra encoded output... would look better than a under $1k for the 'important part', and under $1.5K for a 'kit', that shoots 4:2:0, AVCHD @ 24 (or so...) mb data rate...

Totally astonished...

I think you should also be astonished when you drive a $250K Porsche vs. a $20K Nissan whatever... the astonishment should center around the fact that one can go 150 m/h in the Porsche without really stressing the engine... on the other hand the $20K Nissan whatever, will probably reduce the probability that you will be jailed for speeding in excess of 60-70 m/h over the speed limit... well, provided you are not speeding in a school zone...
 
To that comment I would simply add that if you are speeding in a school zone, you should always get a ticket. Always.
 
Seems like a bit of a weird thread but I'll chime in. I do think there's certainly different tools for different options. At work we have the 250, but I would much rather shoot with my GH2 and the Voigtlander lens for most of the cinematic stuff that we produce. I might go with the 250 if I were shooting green screen or a run and gun type thing...

What you should be surprised at is that you are going to be close enough to even have this discussion, but I believe there's tools that are best for one thing and not so good for others. All in all, it's hard to even think in the terms of same since one costs 5 times as much...

I also have shot a lot of HMC40 stuff and you do have to consider shooting outside to compare cause that camera sucks in low-light. There's not a comparrion possible when comparing the HMC40 to a GH2 with a fast lens or even a fast 2.8 or 2.0 zoom...

But, we should be happy we have options... but I would say that I'll grab my GH2 probably 10 times more than I would the 250, HMC150 and certainly a 100 times more than the HMC40...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Yes, I think you should be totally astonished that a $5K camera, with 10 bit 4:2:2, AVC-Intra encoded output... would look better than a under $1k for the 'important part', and under $1.5K for a 'kit', that shoots 4:2:0, AVCHD @ 24 (or so...) mb data rate...

Totally astonished...

I think you should also be astonished when you drive a $250K Porsche vs. a $20K Nissan whatever... the astonishment should center around the fact that one can go 150 m/h in the Porsche without really stressing the engine... on the other hand the $20K Nissan whatever, will probably reduce the probability that you will be jailed for speeding in excess of 60-70 m/h over the speed limit... well, provided you are not speeding in a school zone...
Click to expand...

The point I'd like to make from that analogy is that while the Porsche can do it with less effort, both vehicles are perfectly capable of doing well over 100mph.
Does that make the Porsche "better" at getting to your destination? sure, you will impress more people and if you can afford the luxury, it also feels great to use. But both can be used to get the job done.
 
In the end in a real indie shoot with proper settings I would still opt for my hpx170 and just use gh2for my back or incidental insert shots. We all have this denial of sorts because the hack and the lure to mock or challenge a traditional set up can just be erased overnight by this 1k camera with its hack.that lure is a form of hope as a common man is able to compete with CEOs and top professionals.thats all what it is,a common mans dreams. It's embedded in our psyche .talk to a real Hollywood or Spielberrg groupies ,they probably never heard of an hpx170 much less a gh2. So we are just in a small cocoon with big dreams and we all want to think that this little baby gh2 will be our ticket to the great equalizer.to tell you the truth if there was no gh2 we would probably create or have conceive another. Let's all look at this with right perspective even this discourse is part of a self impose cocoon with the need to break out. It's a cycle and just our nature but that's how we get to the moon .just like George melliethe French filmmaker when he did the first film in 1898 about men going to the moon which was filmedimn his garage.
 
blues said:
In the end in a real indie shoot with proper settings I would still opt for my hpx170 and just use gh2for my back or incidental insert shots. We all have this denial of sorts because the hack and the lure to mock or challenge a traditional set up can just be erased overnight by this 1k camera with its hack.that lure is a form of hope as a common man is able to compete with CEOs and top professionals.thats all what it is,a common mans dreams. It's embedded in our psyche .talk to a real Hollywood or Spielberrg groupies ,they probably never heard of an hpx170 much less a gh2. So we are just in a small cocoon with big dreams and we all want to think that this little baby gh2 will be our ticket to the great equalizer.to tell you the truth if there was no gh2 we would probably create or have conceive another. Let's all look at this with right perspective even this discourse is part of a self impose cocoon with the need to break out. It's a cycle and just our nature but that's how we get to the moon .just like George melliethe French filmmaker when he did the first film in 1898 about men going to the moon which was filmedimn his garage.
Click to expand...

From a pure image quality standpoint, I would opt for my GH2 pretty much 10/10 times over my HMC150, or our HVX200 at work. The only time I'd take the 150 is if it were for a client, some sort of long event, and I didn't want to deal with the hassles and workarounds with DSLR shooting.

For anything narrative, for me it's GH2 no question.
 
Or here is a frame grab of EX 24H mode with stock settings (with the newer firmware v1.1) vs Sedna AQ1 C (which is lower detail than Sedna AQ1 A but is a little softer on skin etc.)

Factory - Blue 32GB-0000.jpgSedna AQ1 C - Black 32-0000.jpg

Note how much detail the stock setting loses in both the murky brown sections of the canvas, or near the undefined edges of the lantern on the left side. Even the solid red of the light seems to have a different grain to it in the two pictures.

The key in comparing the hacked GH2 files to unhacked ones is to look at how the areas that are "less detailed" in the stock settings are handled rather than looking at the ones it already handled well.

Not to mention (and you cannot see this unless you see it in motion) that the shadow and noise patterns update every frame with in 24H with intra patches like Sedna, while stock uses a longer GOP that keeps it from feeling "right" if you have gotten accustomed to intra.

EDIT: For some reason it seems that my original PNG files got downsized. Not sure why.
 
blues said:
In the end in a real indie shoot with proper settings I would still opt for my hpx170 and just use gh2for my back or incidental insert shots. We all have this denial of sorts because the hack and the lure to mock or challenge a traditional set up can just be erased overnight by this 1k camera with its hack.that lure is a form of hope as a common man is able to compete with CEOs and top professionals.thats all what it is,a common mans dreams. It's embedded in our psyche .talk to a real Hollywood or Spielberrg groupies ,they probably never heard of an hpx170 much less a gh2. So we are just in a small cocoon with big dreams and we all want to think that this little baby gh2 will be our ticket to the great equalizer.to tell you the truth if there was no gh2 we would probably create or have conceive another. Let's all look at this with right perspective even this discourse is part of a self impose cocoon with the need to break out. It's a cycle and just our nature but that's how we get to the moon .just like George melliethe French filmmaker when he did the first film in 1898 about men going to the moon which was filmedimn his garage.
Click to expand...

Hard to follow, but I think I get what you're saying. The camera isn't what its all about....technical considerations do not ultimately carry the story....etc

But if you're strictly on a camera board to talk about digital imaging, then yes, the GH2 is awesome and is not just a dreamer's crutch. Bloom's shootout clearly substantiate's the GH2's potency as an imaging device. https://vimeo.com/34279033

And anyone that has an eye for high quality can't do anything but giggle when they first see images off their hacked GH2.
 
blues said:
In the end in a real indie shoot with proper settings I would still opt for my hpx170 and just use gh2for my back or incidental insert shots. We all have this denial of sorts because the hack and the lure to mock or challenge a traditional set up can just be erased overnight by this 1k camera with its hack.that lure is a form of hope as a common man is able to compete with CEOs and top professionals.thats all what it is,a common mans dreams. It's embedded in our psyche .talk to a real Hollywood or Spielberrg groupies ,they probably never heard of an hpx170 much less a gh2. So we are just in a small cocoon with big dreams and we all want to think that this little baby gh2 will be our ticket to the great equalizer.to tell you the truth if there was no gh2 we would probably create or have conceive another. Let's all look at this with right perspective even this discourse is part of a self impose cocoon with the need to break out. It's a cycle and just our nature but that's how we get to the moon .just like George melliethe French filmmaker when he did the first film in 1898 about men going to the moon which was filmedimn his garage.
Click to expand...


Well, I'd just say we should speak for ourselves. Some of us have or have access too far better tools and we happen to think the GH2 is more than what you describe. Cosmic just sold his red for several reasons, one being that he felt the GH2 hack was producing plenty in a tiny package.

I shoot Epic and I have no issue whatsoever pulling the gh2 out to b cam or just using it instead. The only things that bother me are the operations. The image, when hacked, is primo.
 
blues said:
In the end in a real indie shoot with proper settings I would still opt for my hpx170 and just use gh2for my back or incidental insert shots. We all have this denial of sorts because the hack and the lure to mock or challenge a traditional set up can just be erased overnight by this 1k camera with its hack.that lure is a form of hope as a common man is able to compete with CEOs and top professionals.thats all what it is,a common mans dreams. It's embedded in our psyche .talk to a real Hollywood or Spielberrg groupies ,they probably never heard of an hpx170 much less a gh2. So we are just in a small cocoon with big dreams and we all want to think that this little baby gh2 will be our ticket to the great equalizer.to tell you the truth if there was no gh2 we would probably create or have conceive another. Let's all look at this with right perspective even this discourse is part of a self impose cocoon with the need to break out. It's a cycle and just our nature but that's how we get to the moon .just like George melliethe French filmmaker when he did the first film in 1898 about men going to the moon which was filmedimn his garage.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The GH2 and HPX170 are not well known outside of the prosumer market- but you know what is? The 5D Mark II. And that, by and large, doesn't come close to the clarity of image possible with the cameras being mentioned here. That should indicate that none of this really has anything to do with how well a product works in the real world, but rather with that of popularity. The big studios use what they've heard of, and don't have any particular reason to deviate from what they know and understand. The GH2 is pretty amazing for what it is, but neither it nor the HPX250 are really going to attract a real Hollwood or Spielberg groupie. So this argument is very much moot IMO.
 
Kholi said:
Well, I'd just say we should speak for ourselves. Some of us have or have access too far better tools and we happen to think the GH2 is more than what you describe. Cosmic just sold his red for several reasons, one being that he felt the GH2 hack was producing plenty in a tiny package.

I shoot Epic and I have no issue whatsoever pulling the gh2 out to b cam or just using it instead. The only things that bother me are the operations. The image, when hacked, is primo.
Click to expand...

Definitely digging my new handle, 'Cosmic'! Perfect, as I do a lot of space science shows and am a Mars nut!!

(And what K said it true, I can get whatever camera I need for shooting, and had a red until recently... the GH2 hacked and used right is extraordinary... also, we still have an HVX and recently it was used on a shoot... I suggested the operator also shoot some with his Iphone for wides. Why? More detail! And indeed, there was - though the HVX looked nicer)
 
No one's denying that these cameras are awesome. I use them pretty exclusively for a number of reasons. One is that my clients don't want to rent anything I don't already own most of the time, but a bigger reason is that it's so easy to get in quick and get beautiful shots while not seeming intimidating to people who may be at the event or whatever it may be I'm shooting. People respond better to a small, unobtrusive camera. I also choose that camera nearly every time, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking it's inherently better than massively expensive and well designed cameras often made by the same companies. The GH anything doesn't give you the clarity and image control of a professiona videol camera, and on additional features for monitoring and audio there's no competition. But those big professional cameras are also harder to use right, and sometimes that makes all the difference.

A lot of clients do request DSLRs from me because they've heard that everything is better through one. I don't argue, it works fine, but I know that anything I shoot for them will look great no matter what it's on - HPX, GH2, iPhone, so forth. The right tool can mean a lot of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top