GH3 So what's the general consensus of the GH3 moire issue so far...

M

Mike Lorushe

Active member
From what I've been reading/watching online it seems that the GH3 beats the GH2 (hacked) in everyday with one crucial exception: Moire. For those of you who have one, is this correct? How bad id it? If it's remotely close to how bad it is on the Canon DSLRs this will be a huge deal breaker for me.
 
I haven't come across any more or less moire than my GH2. That is very unscientific because I haven't tried to provoke it but I don't see the sky falling as some would have you believe.
 
From what I've seen of the GH3 footage shot with the the release firmware 1.0, the GH3 moire appears to be slightly worse than the GH2, which means it's not a big problem. Nothing like the pre-5D MK3 Canon cameras.
 
From what I have seen, moire is slightly worse in certain situations with sharp wide angle lenses (ie 12-35 lens at the wide end). Overall you would be hard pressed to see any difference.
 
in that one review, it looks pretty significant:
http://www.noamkroll.com/gh3-vs-gh2-and-initial-thoughts/

but we dont really have any idea if that was the glass, or maybe if in reality he accidentally had the sharpness jacked up.

considering that the GH2 really had conversationally ZERO problem with it. i find it hard to believe that panasonic would release a new, supposedly higher end product that did.

im going to wait this one out for a while, do my own rental-testing and maybe finally just get a 5d3 and call the whole argument done.
 
Gabrobot said:
I've seen two tests using actual charts, and they both show that the GH3 has less moire than the GH2.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/5344/official-panasonic-gh3-topic-series-3/p3#Item_55

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/5366/gh2-gh3-and-lx7-resolution-charts#Item_1
Click to expand...

The problem with using charts for this type of test is that it only tells us one thing: How much moire does the camera exhibit with detail that is X distance from camera with X resolution and this particular pattern.
Things change dramatically in the real world when there is a random factor, when patterns come in and out of focus. Perhaps what one sees on a chart is seen less in real world situations.

The next thing to see is how often these patterns of moire issues occur when shooting people, clothes, buildings, etc... It's possible that what one camera sees as moire in the posted tests is less visible when shooting narratives, documentary, etc.. and the one that shows less moire is more effected by those same things.

Just a suggestion for thought, nothing scientific of proven. Hopefully people are willing to discuss.
 
PaPa said:
The problem with using charts for this type of test is that it only tells us one thing: How much moire does the camera exhibit with detail that is X distance from camera with X resolution and this particular pattern.
Things change dramatically in the real world when there is a random factor, when patterns come in and out of focus. Perhaps what one sees on a chart is seen less in real world situations.

The next thing to see is how often these patterns of moire issues occur when shooting people, clothes, buildings, etc... It's possible that what one camera sees as moire in the posted tests is less visible when shooting narratives, documentary, etc.. and the one that shows less moire is more effected by those same things.

Just a suggestion for thought, nothing scientific of proven. Hopefully people are willing to discuss.
Click to expand...

I think you have it backwards...look at the charts. It's testing every level of detail. (That's what those number are for) A "real world" test is much more subject to different distances and FOVs, making it difficult to determine if results are truly one to one.
 
Yeah, i think you are right on that one. But I am more interested in seeing how often that level of detail shows up in everyday life, on set, people, clothes. Charts only exist when people shoot charts. Subjects with lighting, art direction and sets will tell us what types of things to avoid. This just tells me avoid shooting charts lol.

But I think the basic point of my post has some merit no? The question of when moire will show up is really dependent on how often in real world shooting does that level of detail that causes Moire for these cameras arise?

Does this test have any merit? absolutely, but people looking at these charts will be no more educated when it comes to shooting their narratives, but will be under the assumption that the camera does not have much moire. That is until they run into something that shows them the opposite.
 
The only true way to not have moire or aliasing is to buy a proper video camera. Every DSLR is going to have this problem even if you can't see it. It kind of makes sense that the sharper you go with the GH3 the more you will notice it. Moire happens from high frequency detail. The sharper the image the more high frequency detail and the more chance of seeing moire. Just the way it is with DSLRs I'm afraid. You can't really have your cake and eat it to. You have to decide what is more import. Sharper detail or less chance of moire. Personally I would rather shoot at -5 and add sharpness later in post if fake detail is really that important to the final piece.

So the GH3 is now about choices. Perhaps at insane sharpness levels you may get more moire but you also have the option of keeping it in check by shooting -5 for the sharpness. That is something you cannot do on the GH2. You can now dial in the detail how you want to shoot.
 
dcloud said:
At this age of advancement, moire is no longer a concern. I want to see DR
Click to expand...

I think most of us here on on the same boat as you. But just in keeping with the point of the thread, I believe Thomas is absolutely correct. There is nothing that can be done to completey get rid of moire when you're starting with an image that has lines of resolution removed for the sake of scaling it to anything smaller.

I've started another thread on DR here, hopefully people who own the GH3 and the GH2 at this point in time could chime in.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?297985-Request-to-GH3-and-GH2-owners
 
It's on par or just slightly worse than the gh2, Slightly. I'm finding the ALL-I codec is not the way to go and sticking with the IBP codecs. But, the camera is better than the Gh2 in MANY other ways. Smoother grads, and the IQ of the camera make it worth it.

I hope to see a hack for the AVCHD and anything else they can do to push the camera.

The Gh3 is the better camera, so far.
 
PaPa said:
But I think the basic point of my post has some merit no? The question of when moire will show up is really dependent on how often in real world shooting does that level of detail that causes Moire for these cameras arise?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the question. But see, the thing about a properly-shot chart is, it shows you ALL potential levels of detail. So if moire doesn't show up on a chart, then it will never show up in the real world either. And if it does show up on the chart, then that means that it will also show up in the real world either. The question of how frequently is largely answered by -- how much of the chart is covered with moire? If it's only on the littlest tiniest patches, then you can expect that it will be a pretty minimal problem in the real world too. But if the chart is showing huge colored moire swaths on anything past a few hundred lines (like a Canon DSLR does), then you can expect that you'll encounter moire in many situations in the "real world".

Cameras don't operate in two different modes, one for "charts" and one for "real world" -- they operate exactly the same. So if it shows up on the charts, it will show up in your real world footage.

Does this test have any merit? absolutely, but people looking at these charts will be no more educated when it comes to shooting their narratives, but will be under the assumption that the camera does not have much moire. That is until they run into something that shows them the opposite.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of moire then. If there's a certain pattern of detail that causes moire on the chart, then that same pattern of frequency of repeated detail will cause moire in your image. And if it's only a little patch of the chart that shows it, then only that frequency of detail will show moire in your images. But, ANYTHING at that pattern or frequency will moire in your images. So you could get a corduroy jacket exhibiting moire hell on a camera that shows only a small patch of bands of frequency that cause moire, IF that jacket happens to be at just the perfect size in the frame that its corduroy pattern is being sampled at that moire-causing frequency.
 
dustylense said:
the Gh3 is the better camera, so far
Click to expand...

GH3 Improvements
- Better dynamic range
- Lower image noise at High ISO speeds
- 3.5mm Headphone Jack to monitor audio
- LPCM Audio Support
- 1080 60p Support
- Higher bitrate stock formats
- Recordable clean HDMI output
- Better RAW photos
- Better LCD display
- Larger weatherproof body
- Larger battery that lasts longer
- Battery grip
- WiFi camera control
- Wireless external flash control
 
dustylense said:
It's on par or just slightly worse than the gh2, Slightly.
Click to expand...
Are you encountering any colored moire? Or is it strictly black & white like the GH2?

I'm finding the ALL-I codec is not the way to go and sticking with the IBP codecs.
Click to expand...
Interesting. That's exactly what I predicted would be the case, but I was open to being wrong. Well, maybe Vitaliy can turn the 72mbps into 150+ and then ALL-I would be the better choice. Until then, yeah, I expected 50mbps IBP would be superior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top