GH2 XF300 vs GH2 Resolution Test

cowpunk52

cowpunk52

Veteran
I was curious about how my GH2 with Quantum v2 hack would fair against my XF300 in terms of resolving power. I knew that the XF300 should (and did) resolve more details, but I was curious as to how much detail my GH2 was getting. So here are the cropped comparison grabs.

GH2 had sharpness at 0, iso 320. XF300 was at -4 sharpness and gain at 0db. Used a Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 lens at f5.6 on the GH2 shot.

I think it's pretty obvious that the GH2 doesn't resolve as much as the XF300, but I didn't expect it to since the XF300 is a 3 chip camcorder that resolves 1000 TVI. The GH2 does very, very well, though in terms of sheer resolution. These are 100% center crops, and the curve of the GH2 grab was adjusted to more closely match the XF300.

GH2 100% crop with Canon FD 85mm f/1.4 @ 5.6:
GH2 Sharpness crop.jpg

XF300 100% crop:
XF300 Sharpness crop.jpg

GH2 1920x1080 still photo 100% crop with Canon FD 85mm f/1.4 @ 5.6:
GH2 Still Photo crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oops just saw you were using the Canon glass.

I wonder how this would fair with the Olympus zooms. I've just returned from playing with them and I'm startled at how finely they resolve in video mode.

The Canon FD's made for film, so it throws light all over the place. In the case of the Oly 35-100, it's made for digital sensors so it'll be much more precise.
 
Kholi said:
I wonder how this would fair with the Olympus zooms. I've just returned from playing with them and I'm startled at how finely they resolve in video mode.

The Canon FD's made for film, so it throws light all over the place. In the case of the Oly 35-100, it's made for digital sensors so it'll be much more precise.
Click to expand...

Possibly - but the GH2 image with FD glass is far sharper than what the video mode can resolve. I'll put up a still photo in a bit as a point of reference.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Possibly - but the GH2 image with FD glass is far sharper than what the video mode can resolve. I'll put up a still photo in a bit as a point of reference.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's sharper than what it can resolve. But, the difference in glass crafted for a digital sensor and a film plane will be distinct. Light cast on a film plane can have errors and still resolve tons of detail. Digital isn't the same, it's a much more meticulous and precise calculation.

I'd be willing to put money on the Oly Z's or something like RPP's being able to out-resolve the FDs even in video mode.
 
Well, unfortunately I don't have and Oly Z's or RPP's with me to test. However, here is a still photo crop taken with the same lens and settings as the video. The photo was shot as a 1920x1080 JPG with the FD lens, and it handily out-resolves the video:

GH2 Still Photo crop.jpg

Higher resolution photos show way more detail than this, even. The sensor is obviously able to resolve more detail from the FD lens than it's able to process into an HD video picture, so I just can't see how a lens that might be able to resolve even more detail would result in any sharper of a video image. I totally understand what you're saying regarding glass made for digital sensors and glass made for film, but I really don't think the issue here is lens or sensor - it's video processing capability. The sensor easily resolves more detail from the FD lens than what it's able to output in HD video, but it can process that detail into a still photograph.

I'll add the picture to my first post for easier comparison.
 
Last edited:
Not discounting your findings, hope it didn't come off that way. Supposed to generate convo, right?

Was just saying that if you start with a lens that's optically designed for the application, then the filtered down process would yield better results, especially now that we're using hacks that leave a fair amount of the compression behind. I think the FDs resolve plenty for video and stills, the softness is part of what makes them appealing anyway.

Only thought was, if you had a lens crafted for digital, to try it. We all know the Pana 14-140 is super sharp, much sharper than any FDs in video mode, right? That's what I meant.
 
Kholi said:
Not discounting your findings, hope it didn't come off that way. Supposed to generate convo, right?

Was just saying that if you start with a lens that's optically designed for the application, then the filtered down process would yield better results, especially now that we're using hacks that leave a fair amount of the compression behind. I think the FDs resolve plenty for video and stills, the softness is part of what makes them appealing anyway.

Only thought was, if you had a lens crafted for digital, to try it. We all know the Pana 14-140 is super sharp, much sharper than any FDs in video mode, right? That's what I meant.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm not taking offense to any of this. Just trying to wrap my brain around all the possibilities. I do have some Panny M4/3 glass, so I'll throw that on and see how it does.
 
Totally agree with these findings.

The GH1, GH2 and AF100 all only seem to give about a little higher than 720p resolution to me.

I said that on Barry's AF100 vs FS100 thread (very few people agreed with me - probably because they were only watching the 720p Vimeo file and couldn't see the difference then?)...

I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to everyone else.

Personally, it looks like I did a CG render with too low anti-aliasing settings and slightly too low resolution, then did a blow-up and do a combination of blurring / sharpening to make it "acceptable" 1080p.

Of course, crisp 800p or whatever might be absolutely fine for most folks' purposes.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
cowpunk52 said:
Don't worry, I'm not taking offense to any of this. Just trying to wrap my brain around all the possibilities. I do have some Panny M4/3 glass, so I'll throw that on and see how it does.
Click to expand...

For sure for sure. And hey, chances are you're exactly right, that it won't make a difference at all. If you do have some M4/3 glass that would be pretty sweet!

I wish I had the Oly right now or I'd try it out.
 
The gh2 definitely out-resolves the gh1/af100; it is higher than 720, yet not a complete 1080. Halfway. But it looks great, and resolution is one thing that does not concern me with the gh2.
 
Ok, here goes - I'm not going to label these. Shot with Quantum v2 as 1080p24 video. One is the Panny 14-45 zoom lens, the other is a Canon FD 35mm prime. Both at 5.6. I adjusted the contrast of the FD prime to match the m4/3 lens. Tell me which one you think is which.

14-45.jpgFD 35mm.jpg
 
cowpunk52 said:
Ok, here goes - I'm not going to label these. Shot with Quantum v2 as 1080p24 video. One is the Panny 14-45 zoom lens, the other is a Canon FD 35mm prime. Both at 5.6. I adjusted the contrast of the FD prime to match the m4/3 lens. Tell me which one you think is which.
Click to expand...

If you mouse-over, it says the one on the left is the 14-45. Unless you intentionally mislabled to throw us off, haha.

In any event, the one on the left is clearly sharper.
 
DBP said:
If you mouse-over, it says the one on the left is the 14-45. Unless you intentionally mislabled to throw us off, haha.

In any event, the one on the left is clearly sharper.
Click to expand...

Curses! Foiled by technology. Oh well. I don't feel like changing it now.

It is sharper for sure, but I don't see any more resolved detail.
 
Was gonna say the same thing as DBP.

I don't know if the one on the right is soft focused, though, because the numbers are slightly softer. Left does look sharper. Could be as simple as contrast doing that, though. Either way, proof that even if there is a difference, at least with thees two lenses, is almost negligible.

Also, AF100 is not resolving as much as a hacked GH2. In any sense. It may not be actual 1080 but it's definitely not what the AF100 is doing.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Curses! Foiled by technology. Oh well. I don't feel like changing it now.
Click to expand...

No worries. Thanks for doing it, anyhow. I've been looking at getting a few Canon FD primes and was curious just how much softer they were. This gives me a good reference.
 
Hmm, also, it's super subtle but the one on the right's got a bit of color moire in it? On the collar. YES... pixel peeping.
 
Sage said:
The gh2 definitely out-resolves the gh1/af100; it is higher than 720, yet not a complete 1080. Halfway. But it looks great, and resolution is one thing that does not concern me with the gh2.
Click to expand...
Kholi said:
Also, AF100 is not resolving as much as a hacked GH2. In any sense. It may not be actual 1080 but it's definitely not what the AF100 is doing.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever posted resolution charts comparing the GH1, AF100 and GH2? Seems kinda like the obvious thing people would do...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top