So what happened to the resolution test between the AF100 and GH2?

Y

yoclay

Veteran
Alright so after a German source showed resolution charts which found the GH2 had better resolution and LESS aliasing than the AF100, I thought someone here was going to repeat that study to see if it held water.

Has anyone done that or did Barry Green do this finally?

I can't seem to find anything which follows up.
 
Yoclay and Bucknfl, please don't take this the wrong way but why don't you do it yourself if you are so interested.

Just a thought.

Simon
 
yoclay said:
Has anyone done that or did Barry Green do this finally?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I've actually been filling my time doing something useful rather than getting dragged into some pointless battle once again, because we here at DVXUser are frankly sick to death of that nonsense. Inbetween the time that I said I would do it, and now, we had the whole ridiculous BBC thing which has led to one forum shutting down their entire AF100 discussion section, and Alan Roberts being practically chased off his own forum by vowing that he will never, ever read or respond to any camera-related post again. You have to understand just how much a situation like that saps one's enthusiasm for spending a couple of hours of one's life, just to create a test that will start all that horsecrap up all over again. Because, at the root bottom of it, people in general aren't looking for what the real answer is -- they're instead looking for evidence that proves that their preconceived notions were "right" all along, and if the evidence doesn't support what they wanted to believe, then they will just attack the person posting the evidence. Joy and fun, it is not.

Besides, Rick Burnett got his AF100 together with another member's GH2 and they performed all sorts of side-by-side tests and they found that the GH2 absolutely and unquestionably exhibited more moire than the AF100 did. That test has already been done and that question has been settled.

Finally, I dispute the basic premise -- go look at those shots from the German magazine -- were they done simultaneously, using the same lenses, under the same conditions, with cameras configured on the same monitor? No. And as far as I can see, they most definitely don't show more resolution on the GH2, they didn't even show the limits of resolution on either of them so how can you say one or the other showed "more"? They both cleanly resolved the trumpets all the way. They showed softer contrast on the AF100, but that's not the same thing -- and contrast is easily adjustable. In any case, comparing the relative sharpness of these two is about as relevant as comparing the acceleration times of a moped vs. a tractor. Sure one is less expensive, but -- what does it matter if one is faster than the other? So what if the moped goes 0 to 27mph faster than the tractor does? Are you really going to buy the moped instead of the tractor, if you need to do farmwork? Are you really going to buy the tractor, if what you need to do is commute to school?

I was going to dig into this, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it's nothing but a fanboy exercise for those on each side of the debate to try to use as a hammer on each other to beat the other side into submission. It's not relevant to the real world in any valid way, shape, or form. My interest in the GH2 and AF100 is in: can I use the GH2 as a b-camera for an AF100? And the answer is yes, of course you can, when used in Cinema mode. So what will further testing do? Inflame fighting, and that's about all. And we've had enough of that here, and I don't really have a whole lot of appetite for firing that up again.

But, with all that said, I'm one of the few who could probably do it properly because I do have the charts, lights, monitors, external recorder, and both cameras. So -- sometime today I will attempt to get a shot of both of them from The Wringer, and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Last edited:
Barry,

What does it matter between the af100 and gh2. I have a gh2 and while it takes a great picture, the AF100 is going to end up the better production camera. Do any of you really think a GH2 could stand up to the AF100 in real production? While the Gh2 could be a great B cam, move on guys! Show up on set with your GH2 and watch your client start to sweat beads. Totally different cameras guys.

Look, the bottom line is, have you seen images out of the AF100 that look nice? You bet! Same goes for the Gh2.
Barry, don't waste your time. I think we all know that both cameras will make nice looking images.
 
I think that a lot of this is fueled by the DSLR fad, which some want to somehow prove that a lower priced product can outperform a professional product. The GH2 is intended to be an efficient camera for prosumer still photographers.

Having broken into filmmaking, I do sympathize with the desire to democratize access to indie film. However, I don't think that becoming a fanboy for any trend is going to make that happen. DSLR is not a movement. If you want to see a real art movement in film, check out cinéma vérité, new wave, or some of the Latin American documentary movements. Those movements were not made by a product. Though, some of the techniques were surely influenced by a lack of resources.

If an AF100 is beyond someone's reach for the moment, a lot of people get beautiful images out of DSLR. The GH2 is a great example. The sample videos that I see look really nice. However, the benefits of working with a camera is intended to be a cinema camera and not for photography seem more than clear to me. Seemingly random resolution charts posted on a blog like that don't mean much to me, especially concerning real in the field performance.
 
I have both an AF100 and a GH2. I use the GH2 for fun and the AF100 for work. I would consider the GH2 as a B camera on web projects. It just doesn't do what the AF100 does. And if you read the conclusion of the German test, as I recall, they preferred the AF100. To Barry's point, the AF100 was also tested at a different time than the GH2. I'd say be very leary of sensatonalized blog headlines used to generate clicks.
 
dustylense said:
Barry,

What does it matter between the af100 and gh2. I have a gh2 and while it takes a great picture, the AF100 is going to end up the better production camera. Do any of you really think a GH2 could stand up to the AF100 in real production? While the Gh2 could be a great B cam, move on guys! Show up on set with your GH2 and watch your client start to sweat beads. Totally different cameras guys.

Look, the bottom line is, have you seen images out of the AF100 that look nice? You bet! Same goes for the Gh2.
Barry, don't waste your time. I think we all know that both cameras will make nice looking images.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Taylor Rudd said:
Why so hostile? It would be an interesting test to see done properly.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be hostile. Just trying to avoid another thread that has to be closed because people want to complain about the af100 for the 100th time.

And yes I am a owner of a af100 and I love it! :)

Simon
 
Just asking.
One of the basic principles in science is repeatabiility and independant confirmation. So let's really see where the cards fall.
No one is better placed or more respected here to confirm or deny the results of this German test than Barry Green.
He's got the charts and the experience.
I for one would be very appreciative to have a second solid look at this question.

We all know that functionalty is completely different between these two cameras, but I was frankly surprised by what the charts revealed and I don't think I was alone.

Thank you in advance Barry.
 
Hi there-

As I followed this And the closed thread, it is a matter of stupidity, to compare something, or build an opinion, based on feedback by people, who doesn't really had their hands on one or both cameras...

I have the AF101 & recently bought the GH2 as photocamera + B-Camera next to the BBC- And Green-approved Af101.

I would NEVER dare to use the GH2 As a replacement!

The AF101 is just toooooo good And has tooooo Many Features to ignore!

If you had or have the opportunity 2 test it for some days -

Do it - And you will love it. The footage i Shot with the Af101 (And it was just a test) brought me the biggest Client And with it the biggest production I ever worked on.

If there would have been 5D or 7D or what so ever aliasing And moiree - believe me - I would have to get an AF101 to solve the problem.

And One of the biggest plusses was the 1080p50 but i will produce in the future in 24p As you got 10frames more And Start playing with 1080p60!!!
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Just asking.
One of the basic principles in science is repeatabiility and independant confirmation. So let's really see where the cards fall.
No one is better placed or more respected here to confirm or deny the results of this German test than Barry Green.
He's got the charts and the experience.
I for one would be very appreciative to have a second solid look at this question.

We all know that functionalty is completely different between these two cameras, but I was frankly surprised by what the charts revealed and I don't think I was alone.

Thank you in advance Barry.
Click to expand...
Working on it. Already been nearly two and a half hours... if nothing else worthwhile comes from it, I think I'm developing a pretty good matched scene file between the GH2 and the AF100, which is something I wanted to do anyway...

I'm trying to do it "right" so color-matching and focusing and distance-matching the cameras and getting nonreflective lighting off the chart so it's a pure representation and using the exact same lens (PL-mount Compact Prime, stopped down to f/5.6 or more to make sure it's delivering the goods). And A/B monitoring between the two cameras to get them visibly as close as reasonable.

I'll tell you one thing though -- already this whole GH2 monitoring thing is pissing me off. It's infuriating. Using consumer gear for a pro application is profoundly irritating. When you hit "record" on the GH2 it totally changes the gamma and range of the HDMI output -- so which is correct? If you line up the exposure based on the waveform monitor, and then press record, you end up with like a stop less dynamic range -- the top end gets compressed, the bottom end gets lifted up, everything gets scrunched -- does that mean all my Nano-recorded footage is going to give up a stop? Maybe. It's weird -- because if you leave the highlight feature on (basically the GH2's "zebras") it'll output the full range and show you where it's clipping, and if you then press "record" the monitor output will scrunch down but the highlight clipping is still on... which probably means that all your Nano footage will be completely compromised. So on top of the HDMI output to the Nano not being a standardized frame rate, or a standardized 4:2:2, or with any audio, now it's scrunching down and throwing away valid image data too. Sigh. It's ridiculous. Of course, that's not even mentioning that sometimes when you plug the HDMI connector in, the monitor shows up all green, and you have to unplug and re-plug. I'm liking my GH2 less and less the more I try to work with it to get pro results from it, that's one thing I can say for sure. To those of you who want to try to work with it in that way, I salute you, and I say stock up on the Excedrin because you're gonna need it. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
mediaplexx said:
Hi there-

As I followed this And the closed thread, it is a matter of stupidity, to compare something, or build an opinion, based on feedback by people, who doesn't really had their hands on one or both cameras...

I have the AF101 & recently bought the GH2 as photocamera + B-Camera next to the BBC- And Green-approved Af101.

I would NEVER dare to use the GH2 As a replacement!

The AF101 is just toooooo good And has tooooo Many Features to ignore!

If you had or have the opportunity 2 test it for some days -

Do it - And you will love it. The footage i Shot with the Af101 (And it was just a test) brought me the biggest Client And with it the biggest production I ever worked on.

If there would have been 5D or 7D or what so ever aliasing And moiree - believe me - I would have to get an AF101 to solve the problem.

And One of the biggest plusses was the 1080p50 but i will produce in the future in 24p As you got 10frames more And Start playing with 1080p60!!!
Click to expand...
Agreed 1,000%, and it sums up a lot of why I don't really care whether one has fifty lines of res more than the other or whatever -- it's just irrelevant.

The GH2 is a great little camera for what it is. And it isn't what it isn't. And I'm okay with that. :thumbsup:
 
szimmer said:
Barry you are too kind. Do you ever sleep?
Click to expand...
The Final Four basketball tournament is on right now, and I'm fiddling around with a GH2 and fighting using a real monitor with it... sigh. My priorities are seriously shot. Oh well, at least there's the DVR!

On the recording and the monitor -- definitely the GH2 monitoring is absolutely *worthless* unless you're actively recording. When recording, the monitor is accurate to the image that's being recorded. When in pause mode, it's expanded -- blacks are blacker and whites go up to 109 on the waveform, when in reality, in the camera, they're clipped off at 100. Monitoring is just plain inaccurate.

Which means that when using the GH2, if you're using a monitor to set up or light or review a shot, you *have* to be recording or else what you're seeing on the monitor is just WRONG.

On top of that, there's a BIG difference in chroma saturation between the onboard recording and an external recording. It's not even close. And then, the level of noise and chroma noise grows dramatically when recording externally... and the chroma pattern gets screwed up on the HDMI output...

Here's how different the GH2's onboard codec records color, vs. how it displays it on a monitor when it's recording (and, therefore, how a Nano or Ninja will record it):
Play that video repeatedly until you've been able to watch all the colors to see how differently they look. I interleaved Nano footage against native footage, both recorded simultaneously, by playing the Nano footage for 1/2-second and then the native footage for 1/2-second. So this vimeo video is the exact same shot, recorded simultaneously on the Nano and on the onboard codec, showing just how differently the monitor represents color vs. how the camera captures color.


So, now I know that the last hour and a half was totally wasted because trying to match them via using the monitor is utterly pointless unless the GH2 is recording, all I can say is:

FOR SALE: one GH2. Cheap. Free delivery as long as you are standing within how far I can kick it. :thumbsup:

(but, starting over, maybe I'll now be able to get a more accurate match between them.) Sigh. Patience is running out, maybe I'll just settle for "vaguely close enough" and call it a day.

(and no, I'm not really selling the GH2, I like it for what it is, but I will never ever ever try to use it as a substitute for a real production camera.)
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The Final Four basketball tournament is on right now, and I'm fiddling around with a GH2 and fighting using a real monitor with it... sigh. My priorities are seriously shot. Oh well, at least there's the DVR!

On the recording and the monitor -- definitely the GH2 monitoring is absolutely *worthless* unless you're actively recording. When recording, the monitor is accurate to the image that's being recorded. When in pause mode, it's expanded -- blacks are blacker and whites go up to 109 on the waveform, when in reality, in the camera, they're clipped off at 100. Monitoring is just plain inaccurate.

Which means that when using the GH2, if you're using a monitor to set up or light or review a shot, you *have* to be recording or else what you're seeing on the monitor is just WRONG.

So, now I know that the last hour and a half was totally wasted because trying to match them via using the monitor is utterly pointless unless the GH2 is recording, all I can say is:

FOR SALE: one GH2. Cheap. Free delivery as long as you are standing within how far I can kick it. :thumbsup:

(but, starting over, maybe I'll now be able to get a more accurate match between them.) Sigh. Patience is running out, maybe I'll just settle for "vaguely close enough" and call it a day.
Click to expand...

The VCU/Butler game is a war!........At least watch the end Barry.
 
Hang in there, Barry! Can't wait to see the results.

... and, yes, frustrated here too with the changes between pause and record on the histogram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top