GH2 So what's the skinny on the real GH2 resolution?

[Adamsenoj]

Trying to find solid info on the GH2's real resolution is very hard. All you find are opinions, raging from it resolves only 700 lines and the rest is aliasing till the resolution is on pair with the Canon C300, which I honestly doubt. As far as I know the C300 resolves the same as a Sony EX3, which is 100% full HD and very impressive since the C300 is a singe sensor while the EX3 is a 3-chip camera.

So is there any solid information in this regard?

Also, while we are at it, what are the big no-nos when shooting with a GH2 with and without hack?

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I did some tests awhile back and the GH2's 1080p resolutions are close to 900 Horizontal lines and 850 vertical lines. At the time I did my tests there were only a couple of camcorders that could resolve more than 1000 lines and those were 1080p @ 60 FPS.

I am sure there are some 4K cameras now that resolve much more than that. However, there are not that many affordable displays that can resolve more than that in larger screen sizes.

Basically resolvable resolution is not an issue for the GH2. Nobody will look at a GH2's 1080p footage and say "It really needs to resolve more" unless there is user error in shooting with it.

The only big no no I know about with the GH2 and the hack is "Don't touch the camera while it is updating".

 

[Adamsenoj]

I don't mean big no-nos only with the hack but in general with the GH2, only differentiating them if the no-no only applies to the hack or to the standard but no both. The GH2 not being a purpose made video camera I'm sure there is a list of no-nos or can't dos. Such, never handhold it or you will get jello or the Canon's never point it at fine patterns or you will get moire etc.

The sony EX3 resolves 1000+ in 1080 24p.

 

[Spartacus]

This should go the other way around. A 16000$ camera should be examined for its "real" resolution and the general value it offers.
But the 700$ GH2...?
Seriously, the only reason to "investigate" the GH2´s video capabilities is, if your 16 and have to wash dishes to be able to afford your first camera.
Everybody else can just buy it along with a lens adapter and enjoy.
(Btw I shoot Canon and P2, when I tested a friend´s GH2 and showed a short clip to some non-techie friends and they just said: Wow! Not a very techie explanation, but not a very expensive camera either...)

 

[TheDingo]

what are the big no-nos when shooting with a GH2 with and without hack?

I wouldn't call this a "no-no", but you need to keep in mind that the GH2 has less dynamic range than the higher end professional cameras, which makes it a bit on the contrasty side. As long as you keep this in mind when you make your lighting/shooting decisions you should be fine.

 

[Adamsenoj]

I wouldn't call this a "no-no", but you need to keep in mind that the GH2 has less dynamic range than the higher end professional cameras, which makes it a bit on the contrasty side. As long as you keep this in mind when you make your lighting/shooting decisions you should be fine.

Also compared to the AF100 or only compared to the more expensive ones like the FS100, F3 and C300?

 

[Adamsenoj]

This should go the other way around. A 16000$ camera should be examined for its "real" resolution and the general value it offers.
But the 700$ GH2...?
Seriously, the only reason to "investigate" the GH2´s video capabilities is, if your 16 and have to wash dishes to be able to afford your first camera.

Or when you are thinking of getting it because of it's small size and to shoot alongside another high resolution camera. (roll eyes).

 

[Spartacus]

Or when you are thinking of getting it because of it's small size and to shoot alongside another high resolution camera. (roll eyes).

Oh sorry, you want to use it along your F3 or C300 on your next assignment? Well yes, then you definitely should ask in a forum how many lines it resolves. I guess the the answer "1000 lines" would mean your project will look fine in the end...? (eyes wide open)

 

[Adamsenoj]

Oh sorry, you want to use it along your F3 or C300 on your next assignment? Well yes, then you definitely should ask in a forum how many lines it resolves. I guess the the answer "1000 lines" would mean your project will look fine in the end...? (eyes wide open)

Look, please get back on your high horse and ride out of here to where you came from OK? Stop spoiling an otherwise healthy discussion.

 

[Spartacus]

You´re right, I will ride out now.
But if you´d try to read my answers not as an insult, you might come to the conclusion that you will a) have to do real world tests yourself for your given project or b) ask for concrete examples of the camera combination you are looking for (eg F3 with GH2 intercut).
All the best!

 

[Adamsenoj]

You´re right, I will ride out now.
But if you´d try to read my answers not as an insult, you might come to the conclusion that you will a) have to do real world tests yourself for your given project or b) ask for concrete examples of the camera combination you are looking for (eg F3 with GH2 intercut).
All the best!

I think if you really didn't want people to take your replies as insults you should not have insulted them by calling them 16 years old immature teenagers.

All the best for you too.

 

[J.F.R.]

GH2 is an amazing camera and with the Hack is really taking things to the next level. Countless videos online show this. Also there are members here who have been intercutting it with RED footage and says it looks fine. I think you really shouldn't worry, this $700 camera is an excellent tool that is being used professionally.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Any links to the RED intercutting footage? Which RED?

 

[TheDingo]

Also compared to the AF100 or only compared to the more expensive ones like the FS100, F3 and C300?

My impression is that it is similar to the AF100, though the AF100 provides professional image controls that EVERY DSLR/EVIL camera lacks.

There are rumors that the GH3 ( to be revealed at Photokina in September ) has a wide dynamic exposure range, which I hope holds true.

 

[Ian-T]

Adamsenoj what is it that you really want to know about the GH-2? Everything about it (including all of you questions about resolution) has been published before, discussed about, touched up etc. . You seem to be asking the same questions in multiple threads and then pointing out how the EX-1 has more resolution or the AF100 is a better camera because of *...*...this and that this and that. I know you must realize that you are comparing a DSLR with a purpose built camcorder.

My impression (not necessarily from this thread alone) is you seem like someone who is on the edge of deciding whether or not to get a GH-2 (maybe a competiting DSLR shooter yourself?) but hates all the fanboism that comes with the GH-2 so your questions and statements come off as sarcasm or downplaying the documented strengths of this camera. If you have doubts about certain things why don't you just rent or borrow one and find out for yourself.....then report back. I can point you to a number of folks who have shot with the EX-1 and EX-3 that feel they get a better (and according to some of them an equally resolvable) image from this little camera than them (which of course is debatable...I think the EXs resolves more personally...but only on charts...actual images seem to be on par without pixel peeping). But the only way to know for sure....is if you looked into it for yourself and make your own jusdgement call. It seems like depending on who you ask you will always get a different answer.

Any links to the RED intercutting footage? Which RED?

There are plently of folks who work with both. but the first person that come to mind is Kholi. Ask him.

 

[Lpowell]

Unfortunately, there's really no objective way to measure the resolution of any digital camera, it's a subjective judgment call. At high spatial resolutions, the image sensor's output is contaminated with ultra-fine aliasing artifacts that are literally folded down into the upper resolution range. As a result, the genuine resolution of the sensor is submerged within spurious alias products and there's no way to separate them. With digital cameras, "sharpness" is a marriage of refined technology and aesthetic preference.

Here's a link to a recent discussion on this issue, where Barry Green posted a comparison of GH2 and AF100 resolution charts:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...nsider&p=1986193314&viewfull=1#post1986193314

 

[Adamsenoj]

Ok Ian-T, fair enough. I will explain. But I think you understood me totally wrong specially based on this comment you said: My impression (not necessarily from this thread alone) is you seem like someone who is on the edge of deciding whether or not to get a GH-2 (maybe a competiting DSLR shooter yourself?) but hates all the fanboism that comes with the GH-2 so your questions and statements come off as sarcasm or downplaying the documented strengths of this camera.

Not at all. I'm actually quite impressed by this little camera. I'm not downplaying it at all. But I'm also not delusional and expecting it will fully perform with the big boys. I think it already does a lot for what it is. So maybe my realistic approach to it is coming across as bashing? For example I think it looks sharper than the much more expensive AF100. If it's real resolution or just aliasing like some say I can't tell. But it looks sharper. But I'm aware the AF100 is much more flexible because it is a bigger camera with more features and costs more. Saying so is not downplaying the GH2 in my opinion. It's just what it is.

About the EX3 is because I have one. So that's my benchmark of sorts and I do think it resolves more. But as you said it may be more apparent on the charts. I was just trying to find out what is the real resolution of the GH2 to compare.

Renting or borrowing is a good idea and I will eventually probably do that. Rent that is, since I know nobody who has one. But the main point of a GH2 is the hack and not sure a hacked one can be rented. Besides I better research the ins and outs of the hack and camera before I rent it. Also I can learn a lot by talking to people with a lot of experience with it such as Lpowell etc. More than I ever could by just cluelessly playing with one myself, specially without the hack.

I do not have any DSLRs myself. But I have shot with the Canons. I have a sony EX3 and I'm thinking about replacing it. But I need to replace it with something that will cover all the bases the EX3 covers and give me the extras of a larger sensor. I don't like the other sonys, at least not the FS100 or FS700. The F3 is too expensive for me at the moment and I'm honestly not crazy about it. So I was thinking of getting the AF100+GH2 to do what the EX3 does for me. I'm just trying to figure if I will miss the EX3 sharpness with this combo because I do a lot of landscaping shots where the EX3 really shines because of the very high resolution. I'm also interested in how the GH2 and AF100 play together and when most people use one over the other etc. I know I will get my own conclusions once I have the cameras and other people's opinion wont matter as much anymore. But for now I think it's a good start to hear from those who have experience with the cameras, specially with both. As I said renting them and playing with them without knowing them is useful but doesn't replace picking the brains of people who can already use them. I hope this clear things up.

 

[Chris Adler]

Using the term "intercut" regarding footage from different cameras is a pretty loaded statement. Are we talking about shooting the same scenes on two different cameras and cutting back and forth with the footage? Will the footage be graded in post? Are the shots interior with some stylized lighting or outdoors with plenty of natural light?

I shot some footage on my GH2 that was "intercut" with Epic footage for a recent 48 hr film festival and when projected you couldn't identify what came from the different cameras, but my footage was of whole sequences, not shots of actors inter-cut with the Epic and trying to match inside an environment. The projection was also just HD.

A GH2 could make a great second camera for B-roll and scenes where the Epic logistically isn't suitable. I wouldn't shoot multi-camera scenes of actors using my GH2 and an Epic and try to make them match at that level. That's totally different. But inter-cutting large outdoor action sequences from multiple angles could certainly work as well.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Unfortunately, there's really no objective way to measure the resolution of any digital camera, it's a subjective judgment call. At high spatial resolutions, the image sensor's output is contaminated with ultra-fine aliasing artifacts that are literally folded down into the upper resolution range. As a result, the genuine resolution of the sensor is submerged within spurious alias products and there's no way to separate them. With digital cameras, "sharpness" is a marriage of refined technology and aesthetic preference.

Ha, that's a good way to put it and quite poetic actually.

So maybe I should just look for real world tests instead of chart tests. I actually already tried finding footage comparing the GH2 and EX3 but couldn't find any. Comparison with the EX1 would also work as they produce basically the same image.

 

[Ian-T]

Ok Ian-T, fair enough. I will explain. But I think you understood me totally wrong specially based on this comment you said: My impression (not necessarily from this thread alone) is you seem like someone who is on the edge of deciding whether or not to get a GH-2 (maybe a competiting DSLR shooter yourself?) but hates all the fanboism that comes with the GH-2 so your questions and statements come off as sarcasm or downplaying the documented strengths of this camera.

Sorry if I came off a bit too forward there (just a misguided observation on my part). I was just trying to keep up with you in the GH-2 and AF100 threads.

Not at all. I'm actually quite impressed by this little camera. I'm not downplaying it at all. But I'm also not delusional and expecting it will fully perform with the big boys. I think it already does a lot for what it is. So maybe my realistic approach to it is coming across as bashing? For example I think it looks sharper than the much more expensive AF100. If it's real resolution or just aliasing like some say I can't tell. But it looks sharper. But I'm aware the AF100 is much more flexible because it is a bigger camera with more features and costs more. Saying so is not downplaying the GH2 in my opinion. It's just what it is.

Yes I agree the AF100 is much more flexible. But I would hope so at a few thousand dollars more.

Also, I agree that I wouldn’t expect any DSLR to compete with the big boys…. but really…mostly in terms of functionality. It’s more than likely so much easier to get a good image with a proper camcorder/digital cinema camera than it would be with a DSLR.

As far as bashing…I apologize…I should have probably termed it differently. I guess because throughout the last few years on these boards I’ve seen how these topics turn into a screaming match I was just being “overly” cautious. Trust me though…I do understand your questions especially when it comes to resolution etc. My thoughts on that however pretty much agree with what Lpowell stated above:

Unfortunately, there's really no objective way to measure the resolution of any digital camera, it's a subjective judgment call. At high spatial resolutions, the image sensor's output is contaminated with ultra-fine aliasing artifacts that are literally folded down into the upper resolution range. As a result, the genuine resolution of the sensor is submerged within spurious alias products and there's no way to separate them. With digital cameras, "sharpness" is a marriage of refined technology and aesthetic preference.

It’s the aliasing that throws a lot of us off. The GH-2 is not nearly as bad as all other DSLRs but it’s there. I found though, depending on the type of lens one uses, that it can be alleviated somewhat. It really only bites me when I use Panasonic lenses. But…this is my experience…someone else might say differently.

About the EX3 is because I have one. So that's my benchmark of sorts and I do think it resolves more. But as you said it may be more apparent on the charts. I was just trying to find out what is the real resolution of the GH2 to compare.

Gotcha.

Renting or borrowing is a good idea and I will eventually probably do that. Rent that is, since I know nobody who has one. But the main point of a GH2 is the hack and not sure a hacked one can be rented. Besides I better research the ins and outs of the hack and camera before I rent it. Also I can learn a lot by talking to people with a lot of experience with it such as Lpowell etc. More than I ever could by just cluelessly playing with one myself, specially without the hack.

I hear you. I just suggested renting or borrowing because I’ve recommended that for at least one other person a while ago who found it helpful to do so. A good place to go and learn about the hack is personal-view.com btw.

I do not have any DSLRs myself. But I have shot with the Canons. I have a sony EX3 and I'm thinking about replacing it. But I need to replace it with something that will cover all the bases the EX3 covers and give me the extras of a larger sensor. I don't like the other sonys, at least not the FS100 or FS700. The F3 is too expensive for me at the moment and I'm honestly not crazy about it. So I was thinking of getting the AF100+GH2 to do what the EX3 does for me. I'm just trying to figure if I will miss the EX3 sharpness with this combo because I do a lot of landscaping shots where the EX3 really shines because of the very high resolution. I'm also interested in how the GH2 and AF100 play together and when most people use one over the other etc. I know I will get my own conclusions once I have the cameras and other people's opinion wont matter as much anymore. But for now I think it's a good start to hear from those who have experience with the cameras, specially with both. As I said renting them and playing with them without knowing them is useful but doesn't replace picking the brains of people who can already use them. I hope this clear things up.

Agreed (on picking other people’s brain). It helped me when I was using my Canon 7D a couple of years back.

Though I’ve never used one I think the AF would do you good on the landscaping work. It has so much more you can work with to get a good picture out of the box,,,like a proper OLPF filter to prevent the aliasing…internal ND’s, pic controls etc.