questech

This is a great example that equipment is probably the least factor in the mix.  Any of these great cameras we speak about here could get the same results; it's the director and the production team, and the great actors and settings that support a great story (script) that makes a work truly cinematic.   If you substituted a GH2, an AF100, FS100, BlackMagicCam, Red... the average audience would never be able to tell the difference (unless blowing it up on a gigantic screen of course) because they would be to enthralled with the action and the beautiful scenery and the story.   Now if you took the best operator and a great 35mm film camera and put him in a grey/beige training room with no light other than the overhead fluorescents and limited space to move the camera and he had to shoot a very boring speaker describing a very dry, overly technical issue that the audience doesn't care about... and it will look like @#$%*&   This is a beautiful piece!

I agree!

Hello,   The term "high levels of noise" which is yours not mine, is both subjective and relative within my discussion.  I did run a series of highly controlled tests, and my results are relative to my standard of acceptable quality, which may be higher than yours.   I ran the tests at every ISO available on my camera (hacked and stock firmware) and the results were the same across the board; the hacks induced more noise than the unhacked firmware at every ISO setting.   So my statement "Don't hack the GH2 if you don't like noise!!!" still stands but let me qualify it.  In most settings, noise isn’t an issue with the GH2 if you're doing anything like sports or action work where you have a lot of movement... you can't really see the noise when the camera is moving, and if your subject is moving, the audience will be focusing on that rather than trying to see how clean the image is.  Now that's just one example of how the brain makes you see what you expect to see.  This is a phenomenon that I learned, not in film school, but when I got my pilots license in 1989.  We have a blind spot in each eye where there is absolutely no image for us to see.  Our brain fills in those spots with what it thinks should be there, it is totally not really there, but we think that we're seeing what is actually before us.  That's important if you're flying an airplane, an oncoming plane could be in that blind spot and you would never know it.   Now if you're shooting a low lit dramatic scene with no camera or subject movement, the noise could be distracting because it would be the only thing moving in the scene  :-)   Again it's relative, but if you hate noise and are sensitive to it like me, and it’s important to your shoot (like the last one I described) don't hack your GH2.   Also, I've watched a lot of video in a critical fashion, and some way more expensive cameras have just as much noise than the GH2, so maybe I'm picky.   Happy New Year!    

Hey north carolina,   My tests were conclusive when it comes to noise; all hacks induced more noise than the stock firmware.  As you stated, some of the hacks changed the characteristics of the noise, but non reduced the noise over the stock firmware, and all increased the noise to a varying degree.   On the macroblocking, I have heard a lot about the improvements of the hacks over the firmware, but have not tested for that specifically and have not seen any tests on the net that have proven it to me so far, so I'll have to take your word for it.   All in all, if you have great content and your crew knows what their doing, I doubt that any audience will be able to see anything but a great story.  For us, that are making purchase decisions, it's obviously an issue to explore prior to shelling out the bucks.   I totally agree with you as far as DOF goes.   BTW  I must also state that these cameras all seem to have different characteristics from one to the other... maybe Panasonic needs to tighten their quality control.  My GH2 doesn't have the ISO bug at all.  Nor does it have banding issues, and the moiré is better than on most cameras that I've used, very acceptable.   I guess this is why we should take all of these tests and reviews with a grain of salt, what is great on one GH2 may be awful on another.   Cheers... Anthony

Hello Everyone... Happy Holidays! I have many cameras, which includes the Panasonic GH2. The GH2 has a much bigger sensor than the old guard standard pro video cameras (1/2" - 2/3" - etc) and the DOF can easily be manipulated. I use all kinds of lenses but right now I have been using several Canon and Fujinon 2/3" B4 lenses and I haven't taken my Fujinon off my one GH2 in a long time.  It's very versatile in that it's a zoom so I can use it for effect with the (very precise) electronic control, or manually.  Of course I also use it on a dolly and just set the focal length where I need it.  It has a constant aperture so you can set it and forget it, or because it is stepless you can change it while you shoot (I never do).  I'm selling one of them on eBay, but here is a YouTube video that shows some of it's capabilities:   http://youtu.be/H9oCL8eol0g I am a super freak when it comes to noise so I ran extensive tests because I thought the GH2 was a bit noisy for my taste (low light).  I shot a video under a 1 candle light and it came out great, but was a little noisy in a spectrum of exposure (not in the super blacks where I would expect, but in a lighter exposed area).  This of course doesn't happen in film (we shoot film as well and where that poses other challenges, digital artifacts and noise aren't one of them). So I took a Nikon D7000, a Canon T4i (I think it was) and the GH2 and ran some side-by-side tests.  Long story short, the GH2 had far less noise out of the bunch.  I then scoured the net and downloaded all of the test from AF-100s, FS100s and others and found that the GH2 held it's own. Now considering that the FS100 (and 700) have larger sensors, you would think that you would get a more shallow DOF... well yes, but not enough to make me drool.  In fact you can get very shallow DOF with the GH2 if you use the tool correctly (focal length and distance to subject is key as well as Fstop). One important note is that the GH2 is geared heavily toward video, which makes it a better choice for video work than the DSLRs. As far as the FS100, that larger sensor size is great and it's a great camera (I might be purchasing one soon) but along with the minor benefit that you get with the "super 35mm" sensor, comes some drawbacks.  Your lens choices are severely restricted as compared to the GH2.  For instance you can't use the 2/3" lenses (GH2 requires the use of a 2X teleconverter (built in to my lenses)) except with the 2X teleconverter and at a long focal length (I believe at 90mm or longer) or you get vignetting.  Now you have les lens choices and many of them are in the higher price range than available for the GH2. The Nikon D800 is a great 32MegaPixel camera, but here you go again using way more expensive lenses, and there are issues when it comes to shooting video.  Again, it is not a video camera so it is lacking professional video features.  It can only shoot clips 30 min or less in length, and the codec options are limited, just to mention 2. The new GH3 has way more recording (codec) options and can shoot at high bit rates! Now I know this next statement is going to bring the haters out so please don't... this is just my opinion based on my personal, extensive testing, and if you don't like my results, please be civil. Don't hack the GH2 if you don't like noise!!!  Every one of my tests prove that hacking increases the noise, period!  Some moderately (unacceptable to me) and some severe, but more noise for sure.  Some claim that the hacks provide better results when shooting fast moving scenes, I didn't notice that in my tests, but my main emphasis was on noise and I did little testing with fast movements (other than the occasional swish pan, I don't do any sports type shooting, so it's not a factor to me). Now the GH3 addresses the higher bitrate issue (more storage required for a small benefit when it comes to green screen and color grading) and I know that the engineers at Panasonic will deliver a stable product.   Don’t forget that the GH2 hack might provide a way to add more bits to the mix, but it’s still just 4:2:0. My company uses a wide range of gear and the expensive stuff can deliver performance that under $5K cams can only hint at (even though they're getting closer) but you get what you pay for, and I use these less expensive cams for my personal use as well as in the field on lower budget projects, but for the money you can't go wrong... and the GH2 and GH3 have to be the best choice on a budget. Anyway, that's my take on it. Happy New Year All! Anthony