screwbiedooo

No - because you get an in-camera-debayered/color-rendered, in-camera-noise filtered 8bit signal with this mode as well. Compared to shooting raw with the Nikon 1, you don't get the quality gains from oversampling in post.

 

Ok. Anyway, it's all pretty much by the by, cos as far as I can see the 1080 quality coming from the hacked panasonics is pretty well good enough for 99% of us. I am just fascinated by this discussion as I am considering getting hold of a V1 for the 60fps in order to capture fast action stills into water. I see it as a fairly limited camera, except for this one great function (and the AF).

Aha thanks a lot. In tat case is the tele crop mode on the GH2 the zenith of hd video quality (no rescaling)?

There are at least four advantages to shooting this way, even if your rendered film will be 1080p:

• 12 Bits color depth (as opposed to 8bit color of standard DSLR video codecs) are a quantum leap in image quality, giving you 48 times more color information per pixel. This results in a much improved dynamic range, radically improved possibilities for grading, changing white balance in post and, if necessary, fixing exposure. In 8bit codecs, on the other hand, dynamic range is limited to 8 f-stops or, when a greater dynamic range gets squeezed into 8bits, color banding.
• zero compression artefacts/codec degrading in the footage.
• using the extra resolution to crop/zoom into the image in post. This also drastically improves the results of software stabilization.
• oversampling and scaling to 1080p gives an ultra-detailed image where every single pixel is sharp. (Sometimes even too sharp...)

Ok thanks for the explanation. I can see the benefits for cropping and image stabilisation. But isn't it just an awful lot more work, for a moderate gain in quality? What I don't understand is why we are not already hitting peak quality with large sensor cameras such as the GH1 for example which is already downres-ing its footage in a ratio of 5:1 to output 1080. Shouldn't those pixels all be amazing already or is there some flaw in firmware processing?

It is pricey for an adapter - maybe I will get it, maybe not. I want to keep it simple on the lens side for this camera until I know I'm going to make full use of it in my filmmaking, then I'll invest. I've ordered the CX 50mm F1.8 because it is $180 and to lock focus so quickly using AF and then just get on with the burst of shots is very useful. The images it produces are incredible, take a look at this - http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/12/05/the-nikon-18-5-f1-8-cx-lens-review-for-the-1-series-by-craig-litten/

 

Hmm, The image quality is pretty good, I would say. Not market-leading and not deal-breaking. It certainly is not on a par with OM-D, GH3 or 5D. But for a very compact, high speed body it is adequate I would say.

Forgive me if I am being noobalicious, but isn't it pointless? I can't display 4K on my TV and my laptop can't even cope with 1080. So, who can even watch 4K footage without a professional editing suite? Or is there some kind of quality compression effect when down-res-ing 4K footage to 1080?