@sammy

I shoot 50p most of the time, not so much for slowmo but for HFR aesthetic, with fairly high image quality requirements. Too high in fact for G series price range, but isn't that true for most of us here... Anyway, used to have a hacked GH2, now using G6. In my experience, whether 1080p50 on unhacked G6 is better than 720p50 on hacked GH2, depends on what you're shooting.

Video codec on stock G6 seems to be optimized for capturing people from close range, at least that's where I've had best results with it. If it's well-lit people, not moving very fast, in close to medium shots, then stock bitrate 1080p on G6 might be sufficient and resolution increase over 720p a visible improvement.

But in highly detailed shots, landscapes, available light documentary, fast movement, shakycam etc., the low-bitrate codec of G6 can cause artifacts, and high bitrate 720p on GH2 might be better. Hacked codec on GH2 can retain more information, both spatial and temporal, even if pixel amount in video data is smaller. While it won't be as sharp as real 1080p, it could be more pleasing to look at than 1080p with compression artifacts.

Here's my first sample of 1080-60p slowed to 24p. This was all shot with the G6, a Nikkor AIS 600mm and a Lumix 100-300

Don't know about any mud or artifacts in any shots I've ever taken with this thing so far. I use this cam for the high detail ETC and for it's ultra light weight on a jib pole stabilizer I've been developing. The only artifacts I've ever seen with it so far is dimly lit shadows in etc mode show fixed pattern noise that is pretty bad.

Cheers, Pete

Been using the G6 for over a week now as basically a beginner to taking digital video and am really enjoying it. Has anyone made use of the new (i assume) white balance adjustment matrix? I've been setting it at A:3 M:3 and I like the slight colour change it gives.

Also, anyone nailed down some good flat settings for maximum dynamic range? I've been using natural with everything except NR dialed down and it looks to retain the most highlight detail.

Also I've been pretty much exclusively shooting MP4 files over the AVCHD for ease of editing. Haven't noticed a difference in quality - but then again I haven't been pixel peeping.

AVCHD spans

The DR in the G6 is slightly better - probably 2/3s of a stop However, the rejigged encoder in the GH2 hacked - re: latest Cluster X settings - easily resolves a much better IQ and motion artifact-free image from the h264 encode.

Tested across Elecard Studio v2 tool suite, all the new GH2 Cluster X series settings trump ANY other settings or h264 encodes on any camera Ive seen (Canon 5D MKIII, Nikon D800, other panys) using h264, period, in my latest findings. And Ive done a lot of analysing of late. So you weigh it up - the sensor might be resolving an immediately better picture, but is their implemented encoder good enough to equate and retain that quality?

The GH2 DOESN'T use 8x8 transform (adaptive transform, and part of high profile level 5) like the majority of the newer HDSLRs / HDSLMs which mix 8x8 with 4x4 (and 16x16) the GH2 uses 4x4 - NO adaptive transform. But the finer transformation of the GH2's overall 4x4 DC coefficients throughout the whole picture provides better IQ rendition at the cost of a higher computational hit (and bitrate increase) of the image from the sensor.

@stonebat Yes, the AVCHD modes would be comparable if hacked (like the GH3's AVCHD modes) to the GH2 AVCHD modes. But their bitrate settings are too low for Intra. Needs a hack. The GX7 transform doesn't use finer transformation of subblocks over the GH2. Comparable.

FYI Large portions of the picture in the GH3/Canon 5D MKIII quicktime .mov modes (High Profile lvl 5) are coded with 8x8 (a big saving on the transform arithmetic) and only vertical/horizontal edges or stark differences in highlights and shadows are coded with 4x4 transform resulting in a more pleasing image but actually results in quite a soft encode.

When the picture is broken up into the smaller 4x4 subblocks the image (with extra bitrate thrown into the cook) is finer transformed and often results in a more sharper picture from the resulting high to low frequencies as in the hacked GH2.

You can't simply say smaller sub block matrix size = better image quality.

@stonebat Im not saying better image quality per se. Im saying the encode is important and it can help resolve artifacting. Of course its a better sensor - it ought to be. Im saying if these were hacked = even better. The h264 encode is what Im referring to NOT the performance of the sensor and the pixel binning. That stuff above is all pre encode to h264.

@debinatx

Thnks. After reading it again, I realized that the whole bit I quoted was specific to MP4. I'll be stickin' to AVCHD.

@driftwood Don't the G6 and GH2 use the same sensor, only with different processing? Were you talking about GX7 when you mentioned a better sensor?

Call me crazy, but to my eye, the GH2 looks much better than the GH3 (read: cinematic/filmic). The GH3 looks too "clinical", if that makes sense.

What are the chances that the G6 with a hack will have that similar look to the GH2? I would just get a GH2, but focus peaking is worth the wait!

Why do you say that debinatx? I thought they had the same sensor...

g6 + kit test