Getting back to actual resolution - in line terms the gh2 outputs around 850-900 with false detail up to a full frame HD.. (1080) with INTRA. I doubt it has changed much since the new ptools.

Search for the ex3 - gh2 comparison thread.

[Note: drafted and posted before JeffGibbsTC's last response]

I promise this is my last word of the subject, but it would be more accurate to say that the chances of any independent, ultra-low budget film getting into a theater are very, very slight, regardless of format and lines of resolution.

Audiences, including mass-audiences, don't care a damn what these non-industrial movies look like. "The Blair Witch Project" is the most obvious example (Hi8!), but what are/were the big indie hits of recent years? "Once" (DV). "Paranormal Activity" (early consumer HD). "Open Water" (DV). "Tiny Furniture" (Canon 7d). Meanwhile, thousands of other films, many of which had substantially better production values, went nowhere. And the few professional "indie" productions which did get into theaters invariably had stars and production values that go far behind the capabilities of self-financing filmmakers, regardless of what camera they were shooting on. Resolution was only one small part of it.

This is something that almost no one cares to accept, but I'd just ask you to look more closely -- not at the aesthetics of the matter, but the actual box office performance of actual American independent films. I think you'll see that lines of resolution has nothing to do with success or failure.

I agree story wins, I disagree that low rez did well. It did terrible. Tens of thousands of DV films were shot and only three ever had a theatrical release beyond art houses. And one of those was shot by a studio. Story trumps all, but if you shoot on a low rez format or fashion your chances of getting into theaters were and are pretty much zero. The broad movie audience does NOT like a movie that looks like TV resolution, except at film festivals where it's considered "artsy." Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on films that has zero chance no matter how good their stories were of making the big time, or if they did, the low quality meant the audience would be limited.

@JeffGibbsTC

Hate to insist, but those DV features by big name directors didn't flop any worse than stuff shot with far better cameras, at similarly low budgets. Steven Soderbergh's DV feature didn't do well, but neither did his low-budget full HD and Red features. And at the really low budget end, the low rez stuff does as well as any other format.

But no matter.... Whatever camera you have confidence in, is the best camera.

@JeffGibbsTC

This isn't the place for a debate on indie film aesthetics, but at the low-budget end, the measurable resolution of dramatic features has virtually nothing to do with the popular, critical or commercial success. I could cite examples, but this is probably not the appropriate forum.

And I don't venture to speak to your own needs. For a nature documentary, resolution is obviously of more importance than it would be for a dramatic feature which consists mostly of closeups and medium-shots.

Thanks for the answers. Yes resolution isn't the only thing, especially with shallow dof shots. But on the big screen every single bit of it makes an incredible difference, and with landscapes and cityscapes it absolutely determines whether the audience perceives your work as a "movie" or something lesser, whether they are aware of it or not. Very, very few lower resolution films ever had a successful theatrical release and one reason is that it wears on the audience and reduces their cinematic experience of disappearing into the movie whether they are aware of it or not.

Yes I care a lot or I would not ask. I am aware it's complicated. I am aware there have been previous discussions. I do possess Google and use it frequently. I am shooting a documentary for theatrical release where I am filming landscapes and trees and forests, as well as urban landscapes, where every line of resolution matters a lot. A LOT. Otherwise, I would still be using my 5d Mark ii instead of the GH2. I am professional and would not waste my or anyone's time if this was not a critical concern. I am asking if there is an uptick in actual resolution with the 1.1 firmware and latest Ptools. I assume not, but wanted to see if anything had changed. If people don't that's fine too.

Do you care, really? We already had some topic about it of very questionable value. All this "actual real lines" are measured differently and have quite complicated relation to reality.