dustylense
Veteran
PAPA, are you getting confused between DR and Stops in ISO performance? I will say without scientific testing that the gh3 has more DR than the gh2 easily and is about 2 stops better in ISO performance.
GH2 What is the dynamic range of the GH2?
- Thread starter Hutchman
- Start date
dustylense
Veteran
I'm gonna take a guess the 2 stop mentions in this thread have to do with ISO performance.
As for DR. It's wider. It grades better. The darks are better. They lift better with more detail. I'll get to that test you want sooner or later...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
One can 'play tricks' with the numbers. The result is the 'banding' that is seen in the smooth gradient areas of a image. Essentially one is quantizing the intensity values different depending on how high the value is. For example, and this is just 'theoretical', if input linear values between 0-63 are mapped to output values between 0-16, one has a 4x 'compression'. And if displayed as such on a ordinary screen, viewed by ordinary people at an ordinary distance all is well. But say on wants to 'fiddle' with shadow detail... well its gone, all you have are 16 values in that range that use to have 64 values of representation in the 'original scene'... There are many more complications than this simplistic example addresses... Such things as the noise of the sensor figures into how much of the value that an A/D delivers is 'usable' which figures in to the dynamic range achievable, etc.
While this may be fine for 'one step' shooting, that is shoot, then present. When one process this one will find artifacts such as banding or color shifts, etc. So, one may have a camera that represents values greater than the 'linear' representation, but it comes with a cost.
I don't know if many people in this section have shot on 'real(tm)' movie film, but real(tm) movie film is far 'flatter gamma' on its response curve than most 'still film' stocks. The reason for it is that allows for the 'wide dynamic range' of the film as well as an eye for the eventual output projection prints and resulting 'contrast' boost.
Current DSLRs don't have a 'flatter gamma', in fact they have about the 'right gamma' for direct projection... or presentation...
There aint no free lunch...
I would like to see more bit depth 'delivered' to the user, and heck while we are at it... being able to set shoulder and toe characteristics... if one has to compromise.
I would say GH3 iso 1600 is as clean if not cleaner than GH2 iso 800.
Own a GH3 and Owned a GH2.
I would say it's closer to 1 stop, so 1600 ISO on a GH3 is as good as 800 ISO on a GH2.
As for Digital Range with the GH3, you must factor in post-processing, as there is a lot more detail in highlights and shadows with GH3 footage compared to GH2 footage, and you can pull this out with proper post-processing.
I'm in Canada for Christmas, and was surprised to find a GH3 at a local camera store. I had my gh2 with me and access to 2 nikkor 50mm 1.4 lenses.. So I did a quick indoor, outdoor and simple DR test, with both set up side by side. GH3 is incredible with noise. I cranked it right up to 3200iso and it looked pretty darn clean- it was very impressive.
In terms of DR, still can't say for sure, but in my simple test the GH2 had a smoother roll off in the highlights and skin tones looked a bit more natural. The GH3 appeared to ever so slightly blow out before the GH2 if the subject moved and light happened to hit the skin harder or at a different angle. However in the shadows, I could visibly see a marked improvement where certain things were much more noticeable with the GH3, like hair and clothing detail which was more hidden on the GH2 with harsh sunlight casting half the subject in shadow.
My overall impression is that the GH3 certainly has nearly a stop advantage over the GH2 in the shadows, however I'm very hesitant to say theres an improvement in the highlights, and honestly I think I still prefer the roll off on the GH2, especially on skin. Other than that, the GH3 is a winner, after holding it, using it for video and stills, I wanted one. Although if I did get one, I'd likely use them both equally as much. There's certain things I just love about the GH2 image, but then there's undeniable improvements that would help out in many forseeable situations with the GH3.
In terms of DR, still can't say for sure, but in my simple test the GH2 had a smoother roll off in the highlights and skin tones looked a bit more natural. The GH3 appeared to ever so slightly blow out before the GH2 if the subject moved and light happened to hit the skin harder or at a different angle. However in the shadows, I could visibly see a marked improvement where certain things were much more noticeable with the GH3, like hair and clothing detail which was more hidden on the GH2 with harsh sunlight casting half the subject in shadow.
My overall impression is that the GH3 certainly has nearly a stop advantage over the GH2 in the shadows, however I'm very hesitant to say theres an improvement in the highlights, and honestly I think I still prefer the roll off on the GH2, especially on skin. Other than that, the GH3 is a winner, after holding it, using it for video and stills, I wanted one. Although if I did get one, I'd likely use them both equally as much. There's certain things I just love about the GH2 image, but then there's undeniable improvements that would help out in many forseeable situations with the GH3.
That's great that you finally got to use one. I honestly can't explain it, but when you grab a GH3 you just think to yourself I want this..... I also agree that the advantage is in the shadows and not really the highlights. One thing that I am really really impressed of the GH3 is just the build quality. I really love how the camera feels + the new screen. I would say right now it's comparable to GH2 Hacked footage, but man when they finally hack the GH3 (hopefully) it's going to be amazing.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Sounds like they improved the noise floor of the sensor and/or analog front end...