Well, I can't publish the full 6 pages article here, it will be in Digital Production soon. We tested them all under identical conditions – as it should be to stay scientific. Plus, since judgement plays a role here, in particular where you consider detail unusable because of noise (which explains differences in other tests), we had several professional film teachers look at each cameras results without naming the camera.

The Alexa has proven it's 14.5 steps, F3 was 12.5, but we think Sony can pull another stop with further refinement due to the very low noise (it's S-Log was darker than Arri's Log C). The EPIC had 11.5, but we could get it to the Alexa's range easily with HDRx (even beyond). The 7D was 10, and all the rest wasn't any better than GH2.

The idea of any log curve for the GH2 is a bad one – you need to grade log massively to get a nice picture, and 8 bit is not up to that. But a flatter curve for contrasty scenes would be great, something like Sony's Cinematone.

Sorry, but I won't post more than this.

@nomad
>A last question would be if you use a hacked gh2 and does it make a difference on a chart, but I understand if you can't answer.

I second that question (at least to mention if or if not the firmware was 'enhanced') especially considering the comment about 'usable dynamic range due to noise' in which the hack has so greatly enhanced (Mush to velvet - c'mon- velvet also has grain- just a nice one!)

Lets hope we can get a hack for the idynamic mode, getting a stop or two more would be very very nice. at least it is good to know that the gh2 is on par with the other DSLR.

@danyyel
I recently did a high-contrast, low-ISO dynamic range test comparing GH1, GH2, and Nikon D5100 cameras:

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1195/nikon-d5100-compared-to-panasonic-gh2#Item_24

DxOMark tests of the D5100's image sensor produced a dynamic range of up to 14 stops at ISO 100. I adjusted its film mode settings to get a close match to the GH2 in low light at high ISO's. The ISO 100 sunlit scenes I shot on the D5100 showed noticeably more contrast than the GH1 and GH2 in Smooth Film Mode.

@danyyel
I tweaked the Nikon D5100's Neutral film mode to get as close a match as I could to the GH2 in Smooth with Contrast -2. However, the Nikon works best in auto-ISO mode and I would've had to push it into underexposure to get lower contrast out of it.

A hacked GH2 will have better shadow detail in situations where the D5100 runs out of bitrate. This can occur on slow pans at fast shutter speeds that preserve background details. But in dim lighting with static shots and/or motion blur, the GH2's AVCHD encoder will automatically decrease its bitrate, while the D5100's H.264 encoder will have little difficulty handling the fine details. The GH2's limitation is that its shadows are obscured by sensor noise that is twice as high and four times coarser than the D5100's.

"Also remember that many great films were shot on stocks with poor latitude relative to what we have today." Can you elaborate? I didn't know that... have always thought of film, even chromes, as having more DR.

Thanks for the info! We still have out non-reflex bolex, by the way... haven't rolled any film through it though since the last spaceship one launch (we also shot super 8 kodachrome at that event).

I fully agree on this. Once we have 100 % stable patch with good quality the next most important things is DR. Lets hope its hackable.

I'm not saying I wouldn't love more DR, even two more stops would be great.

There are a ton of "films" shot on video with poor dynamic range that have been great. You yourself can do a little search to find that out.

A good DP will know a cameras limitations and work around them. Even in outdoor situations, the biggest problems you'll come across with the GH2 is shooting someone in the shadows while there is also a very bright sky in the frame. There are alternative solutions to this apart from more DR: add light; add a graduated filter; don't shoot the person in the shadow; or split the difference in exposure.

Again, I'd love more DR and I think it should be a priority if there's a chance to achieve it.

This is the reason they call it nostalgic. It's a bit on the yellow warm side.

Leave it as is and white balance in post, then create whatever look you want.

This is a interesting comparison between the DR of the Alexa, F3/slog and a 60D . It really shows the advantage of having much more DR, more so for indie shooters because it simplifies the lighting process. Look at the last example (the interior one) with the two girls inside with a window behind them. The Alexa and F3 maintain detail in both the actors and the background. For the 60D looses detail in the outside shot. The building the left is a good example where you see only the contour of the windows and the walls have blown out completely. With the 60D you would have to either gel the window or light the actors (or both) to reach the level of exposure that is capable with the F3 and Alexa.

The result would be that it will cost you both in time or Money to have the same scene with a lesser DR camera. In most cases it would require only an S-curve in post for the high DR shots. This is why I would a 1000 times prefer a 2k 14 stop DR camera to a 4K 12.5 one.

I'd love a tonne of DR, but in reality, with a very limited budget, the DR of the GH2 and its competitors will have to be fine.Bang for buck, very little can compete. Any extra DR we can squeeze out of the GH2 is fine by me.

I'm having good results with nostalgic with a tweak in the WB fine tuning, and that's in daylight too. I've plenty of testing left to do though, which will take time. The WB fine tuning is a god send though.

I've done some tests, and I want to make a case for Cinema Mode (not in all circumstances of course) and will be curious about others responses.

On Dynamic Range Disadvantages (and Advantages?):
*Highlights Exposure: It is true that Cinema exposes about 1/3 of a stop less than Nostalgic (according to the DPreview), and gets about the same highlight exposure as Standard and Smooth.
**Shadows Exposure: It's also true that Cinema exposes a full stop less into the shadows than Nostalgic, and 2/3 of stop less than Standard or Smooth.
**Roll-Off: The highlight and shadow roll-off of cinema seems worse than Nostalgic on the DPreviewcharts, but... I'd like to look at some waveforms.

Than how could one possibly make the case for Cinema? Well:

(1) The most important of the luminance spectrum for most shots anyone will want to take will be the midtones. That's usually where faces are exposed (just above, at, or below medium gray). Thus, it is in general desirable to have more detail and information in the midtones. And Cinema seems to have just that! Look again at the DPreview site: midtone range of cinema is largest. It also seems to better represent color. And:

(2) At the same exposure settings, highlights in cinema are just as well protected if not better than other modes (including Nostalgic). It's just that the blacks will be crushed sooner. BUT: thanks to the Hack, blacks are more easily retrievable in post. Once your highlights go in video, you can't get that detail back. But you CAN get the shadows in Cinema to be just like those in Nostalgic with some post work (especially a greater separation between the shadows and midtones).

(3) Cinema also appears to have LESS NOISE than the other modes (even though it's technically under-exposing relative to other modes at the same f-stop, shutter, ISO).

Also, Standard mode is actually a nice compromise between the advantages of cinema and smooth. But its midtone range is not as good as cinema.

As for Personal taste: to me, the color shi(f)t of Nostalgic is unbearable (although I could maybe see how certain situations would be amenable to them ala LPowell's suggestion); the skintones in smooth and dynamic are respectively too destaturated and too saturated. Dynamic seems nice on some color charts, but it makes people's faces look like they've had too much carrot juice!!

By the way, I just realized after a search (doh!) that there was a nice thread on filmmodes earlier, and if @Vitaliy wants to merge this over to that one, he should.