Ben_B
Veteran
Well, when Philip Bloom answers the 4 commenters on his website and all the stuff on his facebook pages asking which settings he used on the GH1 we will then know.
My point is that I can look at that scene and suspect the settings were not quite right for the GH1, because I've shot with the 5D and I've seen what happens when the settings are optimized for low contrast, and I've done the same with the GH1.
That said did anybody else think the GH1 stuff looked gorgeous on the tub scene?
As for the lightbulb? On a fixed tripod shot like that using any of the cameras I find the look somewhat unacceptable. I would shoot the scene twice, one stopped way down, and comp the lightbulb in
Boom! Dynamic range 
Also I'm not quite sure what the heck was going on with the chart. On the Gh1 it looked out of focus, it was askew, all kinds of weird stuff was going on. This is after all the comments about how sharp the GH1 is.
Other question: since when is sharpness a bad thing? Still photography people are always complaining about how digital isn't sharp enough! Film is sharp! The idea that turning down sharpness to avoid false detail has already been somewhat disproven with the GH1. The GH1's downsampling doesn't exhibit the same kind of aliasing and moire problems of the Canons, and turning up sharpness at least +1 on the GH1 is typically prudent: the theory being that by introducing a bit more detail to a scene, the codec can better track changes in areas that it normally wouldn't see changes. IE: a seagul walks away, and with sharpness turned down becomes a grey piece of mud because the codec doesn't see a change, but with sharpness turned up the codec notices the difference, realizes that there are feathers, and details, and records it.
My point is that I can look at that scene and suspect the settings were not quite right for the GH1, because I've shot with the 5D and I've seen what happens when the settings are optimized for low contrast, and I've done the same with the GH1.
That said did anybody else think the GH1 stuff looked gorgeous on the tub scene?
As for the lightbulb? On a fixed tripod shot like that using any of the cameras I find the look somewhat unacceptable. I would shoot the scene twice, one stopped way down, and comp the lightbulb in
Boom! Dynamic range Also I'm not quite sure what the heck was going on with the chart. On the Gh1 it looked out of focus, it was askew, all kinds of weird stuff was going on. This is after all the comments about how sharp the GH1 is.
Other question: since when is sharpness a bad thing? Still photography people are always complaining about how digital isn't sharp enough! Film is sharp! The idea that turning down sharpness to avoid false detail has already been somewhat disproven with the GH1. The GH1's downsampling doesn't exhibit the same kind of aliasing and moire problems of the Canons, and turning up sharpness at least +1 on the GH1 is typically prudent: the theory being that by introducing a bit more detail to a scene, the codec can better track changes in areas that it normally wouldn't see changes. IE: a seagul walks away, and with sharpness turned down becomes a grey piece of mud because the codec doesn't see a change, but with sharpness turned up the codec notices the difference, realizes that there are feathers, and details, and records it.
Last edited:
