Would the GH2 band be acceptable on the AF100?

Homunculus said:
what is has to do with af100 is this: the gh2 and af100 may possibly share the same exact sensor. thus the link.
Click to expand...
And yet they don't, as has been confirmed by Jan, confirmed by the specified pixel count, and confirmed by the field of view. They're not the same.
 
Maybe the OP is posting here because he would like someone with an AF100 to do a similar shot; proving it can be safely pulled off without the banding using an AF100 so he can then consider getting an AF100? To use for this type of shooting? Kind of comes back to why.
 
tflak said:
Maybe the OP is posting here because he would like someone with an AF100 to do a similar shot; proving it can be safely pulled off without the banding using an AF100 so he can then consider getting an AF100? To use for this type of shooting? Kind of comes back to why.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd think if that was the purpose, there would have been somewhere in the original post a statement along the lines of "hey, my GH2 has this band in it, does the AF100 do this also?"

But no, instead, the first post reads like "Panasonic, I'm going to embarrass you into "fixing" my GH2, or I won't buy any more of your products including the AF100". So in other words, it has nothing to do with the AF100 at all, doesn't belong in this forum, and if anything at all, should be a question between the OP and Panasonic themselves.
 
tflak said:
Maybe the OP is posting here because he would like someone with an AF100 to do a similar shot; proving it can be safely pulled off without the banding using an AF100 so he can then consider getting an AF100? To use for this type of shooting? Kind of comes back to why.
Click to expand...

And that's fine, I guess I was thrown off by the manner in which the post was written. He went out of his way to crush the GH2, and as opposed to asking "Hey, does anyone know if the AF100 has this problem?" He said, "Why should I consider the AF100 when my GH2 does this?"

So back to the OP, my answer would be "You should consider the AF100 because its a dedicated video camera with an optimized sensor, and we've yet to see truly terrible footage out of it. It has it flaws, but so far it seems very superior to the GH2 in every way possible."


HA! Barry beat me to it. +1
 
Man did someone just walk into the Lions Den! It sure smells in here.
I hope this guy learned not to play in the big kids section of the playground. Makes me want to stay away from there.
 
rigs said:
Man did someone just walk into the Lions Den! It sure smells in here.
I hope this guy learned not to play in the big kids section of the playground. Makes me want to stay away from there.
Click to expand...

and they're all fellow canadians to you also. you should feel ashamed!
 
Here I thought it's Christmas, but apparently it's April Fools: Shooting into the sun with aperture f/2 and ISO set at 1,000 !?!?!

Do people not know what setting an ISO means? Coming from a film background, anything higher than 800 could only be accomplished by custom ordering special film that high. It would almost be considered exotic and out of the norm for 35mm negative film higher than 800 ISO to be used, so much so no store store regularly stocked it outside of perhaps a dedicated photography shop.

Normally when shooting outdoors you use film rated 50-100 ISO.
There is a lot more fine grain that is less sensitive to light that can handle the brighter outdoors.

400-800 generally is used indoors.

1000 or higher is purchased specially for high speed sports photography or when shooting indoors with only available light.

So many people think ISO is just a digital dial or menu setting and flip it around with no respect. Respect the ISO.

In digital photography/videography the way it works is you can't swap out sensors like you used to swap out film. Different films have different ISOs (the chemicals used are inherently more or less sensitive to light, thus the different ISO ratings). But digital imagers come once when you buy the camera and you never swap them. This means the imager is technically rated at some certain ISO (many early digital cameras were almost always about 100 ISO). Ideally, you would test and find the optimum ISO rating of the imager and leave it at that-- always adjusting your aperture and shutter accordingly, adjusting the ISO setting higher up only in those few circumstances when the lens just isn't bright enough and a slower shutter won't suffice.

So what does the ISO menu setting do? It basically is using photoshop onboard the camera to either increase or decrease the image level electronically (that's why in video cameras it's called gain-- a much more appropriate term). That is why noise appears in your pics when you crank it up to 3200 ISO. The imager may only be 100 ISO, so you're just cranking up the levels so high above the baseline all the noise normally invisible is now visible.

How you shoot into the sun:
1) Put neutral density filter(s) over the lens
2) Stop the aperture down to protect the imager
3) Keep ISO low, bring it up only to what is necessary after steps 1 and 2​
 
The problem with shooting into the sun is usually lens flare.

The light falling directly on any of the lens elements from the front one back to the last one can (and usually does) cause ISSUES.

It is professional practice to avoid this situation and we go to great lengths to avoid it happening.

It is realtively easy to get a nice effect from lens flares but it is usually done by having the source of the light ( eg sun) in the actual shot.

In the case of the OP... the light source is out of shot (on the edge) and all that is being photographed is the actual flare on the glass elements . This flare is bouncing around in all th elements and getting intensified by them. Its exactly what I would have expected from this shot.

ND filters and ISO dont even come into the equation.

I dont understand why one would push the record button on a shot that exhibited this. Didnt the viewfinder show you that your shot sucked and required better managing?
 
why is the color fringing always purple when it's at the edge of frame but returns to warm yellow when it's in frame
 
DvxHerb said:

Just to clarify... I am only complaining about the band. I sought the flares out, if that is not obvious.
Click to expand...
Thanks for conducting this test, DvxHerb. The examples of GH2 horizontal banding I've seen so far have been elusive and difficult to reproduce. A clearly visible case like this may provide some valuable insights into the nature of this aberration. It would be very helpful if you could experiment further and determine a repeatable set up that will produce the bands under controlled conditions.

Barry is right, however, in pointing out that this thread belongs in the Panasonic GH1 subforum, which nowadays includes GH2 discussions as well. There are a number of technical issues that various dvxusers have been investigating there, and I think quite a few people would take a serious interest in this one.

BTW, those are some beautiful flares you produced and it's a shame they were spoiled by this curious banding interference. I've experimented on a number of occasions with similar techniques on the GH13 and have never encountered that type of problem. Here's an example of one of my more successful results, created entirely in-camera without assistance from Photoshop:

hl0195w640.jpg
 
lplowell can you confirm that shooting into the sun to produce flares will ruin a camera's sensor as these guys are saying?
 
lpowell said:
Oh yes, and it will grow hair on your palms as well.
Click to expand...

i take that facetious response to mean that NO, shooting the sun will not damage the sensor?

i shot the sun all the time on my gh1 to make flares. never seemed to damage my sensor but these guys here say that thread starter is killing his sensor by shooting the sun that way. i dont' know which to believe and you seemed like a good expert to ask
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top