Julian Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Why 1/40? Isn't that supposed to be 1/50? Forget about 'log', everything set to -5 doesn't make it flatter than GH2. I have to check if it changes at all, could be a firmware thing. When starting to record the picture changes quite a lot, just like the GH2. I have old glass. Minolta MC, C-mount, Hexar 40mm f/1.8, etc. Was planning on using that. Just found out I lost (??) my Minolta 58mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/2.8 adapter and ND-filter... :( Aargh. Anyway, I'm making a 'rig' with the GH3 + Hexar 40mm f/1.8 and GH2 + Minolta 45mm f/2, the narrower fov on the GH3 is quite noticable, because it lacks the multi-aspect sensor, so this should give about the same fov. FFS.. both my minolta adapters are MIA :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Oh that sucks man..... Well fiddlesticks on the log style.. I really hope they implement customizable PP's like Canon does.. As far as 1/40 shutter, i know on the Gh2 it makes motion look a lot more cinematic than 1/50 does.. Unless you're shooting a gun fight, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galenb Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Yeah as a general rule, 1/40th or 1/50th actually is even better. The idea is that in order to emulate a 180 degree shutter on a motion picture camera, you need to set your shutter speed to twice that of your frame rate. So, at 24 fps, it should be 1/48th but since we don't have 1/48th, 1/50th is closest. To tell you the truth, I rarely follow this rule but whatever. Maybe I should. ;-) As far as what to shoot with the GH3, I've seen your videos and they look good so I trust you. :-) Just putting the camera in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing is worlds ahead of what we've seen so far ('Genesis' excluded of course). Obviously shoot in manual mode. ;-) Shoot some locked off stuff of high detail subjects (Shoot at f/11 or higher to get the crispest detail and stress the codec), Shoot some people in a public place like a square, shoot some low light shots. Maybe shoot a resolution chart with both the GH2 and GH3. I'd also like to see how much better the dynamic range is too. I was thinking that maybe if you shot someone inside a house standing next to a window during the day, If you expose for the window then we could see how much detail you can pull from the darker areas of the image in post while still maintaining the view out the window. I think that would be very telling. Thats all I can think of at the moment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 The shadow detail test is a nice idea, I expect it to be better at that than the GH2, also because of the higher bitrate it should have more headroom for grading. I'll put some shots trough Resolve Lite. Don't expect the results too soon, i'm going to do some shooting and then put everything together. Thanks for the ideas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Julian, could you please compose identical frames (by mounting the 2 cameras together, on the same Tripod, or 2 tripods, placed closeby), also, thereby shooting the Exactly same thing, at the Exact same time. Thanks in Advance ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350603546' post='19958'] Weird... For some reason, if I click on the links I get a "forbidden" error. So I just went to the sight to look at them. I have to say, these do not look impressive to me at all. There are some that look downright sub-par. Especially the "Firebread" food cart image. Take a look at the noise and mushy details in that one. Oh, and take a look at the alley shot with the hanging bicycle. Look at that weird salt and pepper noise all over the image... I've never even seen that kind of noise... Ugh. Oh what have Panasonic done to our beloved GH range... [/quote] [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350605792' post='19961'] Oh man! Now I'm really on it! Now that I've really looked at the images and compared similar images to other cameras (the bookcase image, is in most of the camera reviews) I can see that it's obviously some kind of user error or a lens issue. The bookcase was shot at f8 there is no reason why is should be as soft and mushy as that. There are even some shots where there is simply no clear focal plane at all (look at shot #33 of the pipe coming out of the brick wall). Even comparing images to those of lesser cameras like the LX7, you can see all the shots seem soft and blurry. In the bookcase shot, look at the "Arizona Highways" book with the little image of the waterfall. Now go look at Sony RX100 review and see how they compare. I can't see how the GH3 could be this bad. It has to be either a photographer error or a lens error. [/quote] True. I just saw ALL the pics. The dynamic range is pretty low. Cause the pic, with the Church, is very clear, even though its Low Light. But, pics with more contrast, have lousy dynamic range, and the onboard noise (thats, what I am guessing, is causing this), is creating strange artefacts, which may not actually exist, in the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1350679480' post='20005'] Julian, could you please compose identical frames (by mouthing the 2 cameras together, on the same Tripod, or 2 tripods, placed closeby), also, thereby shooting the Exactly same thing, at the Exact same time. Thanks in Advance ;) [/quote] My idea... :-) [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/med_gallery_20742_16_929748.png[/img] I have acces to two 14-140mm's, but not this weekend. And since my adapters are missing.. i'm stuck to testing the 12-35mm against a 40mm prime, which is quite a difference. Also, the lack of multi-aspect sensor makes quite a difference.. The GH2 is quite wider. I was doing some low light tests, the findings were quite interesting...but I think I fucked up the aperture so I have to reshoot it. I'll get back with some screenshots tonight. Here's an example of the live view image before recording and during record. This was at iso 3200 (or could have been 1600), with the natural profile everything at -5. The difference is very big.. [URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/113-gh3-live-view/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_305372.png[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/112-gh3-recording/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_1124525.png[/IMG][/URL] galenb and sanveer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Julian, I am So Proud of You. Andrew, could we Please have a Dude/ Babe of the week (Month) award. Julian, on behalf of everyone of this site (and Andrew, expressing acquiescence, by silence ... :P ), you are the Site's FIRST official, Dude of the Month :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 ISO 200, 1/50s, Konica Hexar 40mm @ f/2.8, WB 3600K GH2: Nostalgic -2-2-2-2 GH3: Natural -5-5-5-5 Be sure to click for full size. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/114-panasonic-gh2-moire/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_2130456.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/115-panasonic-gh3-moire/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_1746706.png[/img][/url] ..... I'm sure you can guess which is which camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galenb Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Oh weird... Is it just me or does the GH3 just lack an kind of clear focal plane? And, this is a manual lens so it's not an autofocus bug or something right? I can't see how a camera company like Panasonic could let this go out the door as a finished product. Even if it's only close to being finished, it can't see anyone from Panasonic putting this thing into people's hands and expecting them to be impressed by it. Something is seriously wrong here. Can you do one of those famous depth of field shots where you take a picture of a ruler or measuring tape extending out from the camera? That way, at least something along the ruler should be in focus. Oh and could you stop down the lens a bit too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrad Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 [quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350683479' post='20010'] ISO 200, 1/50s, Konica Hexar 40mm @ f/2.8, WB 3600K GH2: Nostalgic -2-2-2-2 GH3: Natural -5-5-5-5 Be sure to click for full size. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/114-panasonic-gh2-moire/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_2130456.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/115-panasonic-gh3-moire/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_1746706.png[/img][/url] ..... I'm sure you can guess which is which camera. [/quote] Wow. GH2 killed the GH3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350695592' post='20017']Can you do one of those famous depth of field shots where you take a picture of a ruler or measuring tape extending out from the camera? That way, at least something along the ruler should be in focus. Oh and could you stop down the lens a bit too? [/quote] Here are some comparisons (crops from video) Dialling down the sharpness on the GH3 to -5 has a pretty big effect. More so than -2 on the GH2 it seems. [URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/117-sharpness-moire/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_192245.png[/IMG][/URL] Also interesting is that the GH3 image looks flatter, but still the GH2 shows more detail in de shadows on the right. Maybe the curve is different. Looks like the GH2 has darker midtones. Here is the whole frame with settings: [URL=http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/116-setup-contrast/][IMG]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_697039.png[/IMG][/URL] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 I don't know why, but, it looks to me, as though pushing all the settings down to -5 on the GH3, also cause the f-stop to go lower by a few points. Its almost like, the difference between f2.0 @ '0' and '-5', is the difference between f2 and f5.6 or something. Though, at the higher settings, it appears, (almost) not to focus anything, at all. Strange ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I took the screen grabs from moving images (I was focusing back and forth slowly) so the depth of field could be a bit different. The f-stop didn't go any lower since I was using a manual lens. With sharpness at 0 I think the image is pretty good, same as the GH2 without sharpening artefacts. Here's a window/shadow test. GH3 on top. Camera's at iso 200, WB 7000K, 12-35mm @ f/11, 1/50s Same picture profiles as above, but kept sharpening at 0 for the GH3. Straight out of camera: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/124-gh3-no-gain/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_2368934.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/122-gh2-no-gain/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_721524.png[/img][/url] Moved gain to 0.25 in DaVinci Resolve: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/123-gh3-gain/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_3405851.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/121-gh2-gain/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_1088366.png[/img][/url] This is where the GH3 starts to shine, although I'm curious how a hacked GH2 bit bitrate similar to the GH3 would hold up. This GH2 footage was around 20Mbit. The GH3 is 72Mbit All-i (thats what i'm shooting in all the time btw). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 The GH2 seems to fall apart, pretty badly. Though a lot of noise is visible from the GH3, after the gain, it seems like something that can be worked with, in post (noise reduction). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Nostalgic is a quite noisy profile for dark subjects... try Vibrant and see the difference... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I was curious about the noise reduction in there camera, I gave the shot below the same treatment but set the noise reduction to 0 instead of -5. Just makes it look more like the GH2, blotchy. I prefer the fine noise with noise reduction at -5. Setting it to +5 makes things a lot worse. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/125-gh3-gain-noise-reduction-0-in-camera-min-5-max-5/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_896320.png[/img][/url] [quote name='kirk' timestamp='1350745964' post='20045'] Nostalgic is a quite noisy profile for dark subjects... try Vibrant and see the difference... [/quote] Vibrant, really? I thought Smooth/Nostalgic were the best modes to get the most out of the GH2 (dynamic range etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 So did I Julian... but was tipped about the Vibrant setting. My low light work has improved radically... I don't go for a flat setting either anymore, since I never could fathom why to remove saturation and contrast, then adding them again in post. From photo work with JPEGs I know that the clue to good end results is to get everything right in camera, while raw gives you more to play with. The same surely goes for non-raw video shooting? When you set the sliders to minus you ask the camera do do further post processing than when you leave them alone (trying to simulate a dynamic range that really isn't there)... My final grading takes way less tweaking than the flat nostalgic did, looks better and much less noisy. Try it please before dismissing it as heresy! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 All this, er, [i]depends[/i]. Nostalgic is good for night, vibrant for high contrasts, both not always. A 3-GOP hack @ about 80 mbps (i.e. Cake) will render a finer noise, comparable to that of the GH3, probably. Kirk, you may of course shoot non-flat and get your image right in-camera. There is no question about it. But don't get [i]everything[/i] right in-camera, don't get an overly sharpened and saturated image, you'd have no chance to correct anything later, let alone [i]grade[/i]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Desaturating a little in post is IMHO less disturbing to quality than saturating what has already been desaturated by the camera. I agree on the sharpening, and thus never add in post. It is all a matter of how many changes are done to the image. As I have understood the profiles Nostalgic changes more that Vibrant from what the sensor delivers. All changes will accumulate trouble. But once againI must stress that I'm no expert in any sense... I just trust what my own results have shown. I have had way less bad shots, and haven't used Neat once since changing tactics... I shoot quite a bit in unlit interiors of old houses, typically unhacked at 1600 ISO, and here the Vibrant setting has changed quality immensely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.