Personal View site logo
Official Panasonic GH3 topic, series 3
  • 1137 Replies sorted by
  • @Manu4Vendetta - all looks so by video - not as cinematic as the GH2

  • @Butt

    Yea, I'm trying to give the GH3 the benefit-of-the-doubt, and some videos show the potential of detail... but really, nothing yet quite has that nearly-2k resolution look of the GH2. Allot of it just looks like better-resolved 7D footage. Which, don't get me wrong, isn't a bad thing... but yea, that "cinematic-texture" hasn't shown up yet.

    Most likely though... people just haven't nailed the best settings for in-camera processing. And I would just like to see someone really perfect the detail-settings before I go ahead and order one. ...just to be sure.

  • @Butt @bwhitz did that sensor plus the hacking cabal just get something perfect about 24p cadence?

  • Well, the "magic" to the 24fps image cadence on the GH2 is the Intra-frame encoding the patches allowed. It makes sure that there is no temporal-compression going on... because in film and high-end digital cinema... there's no temporal compression like long-GOP encoding. So far, in the GH3 and the Intra-codec look very good as far as motion cadence goes. It's just something about the sensor, that perhaps, is not fully sampling the same amount of detail. From what I heard last, (and it could still be wrong) the GH2 had analog-to-digital conversion directly on the sensor, and the GH3 does it all afterwards. So there may be an extra step in processing that takes a hit on detail sampling because of it.

  • the GH2 had analog-to-digital conversion directly on the sensor, and the GH3 does it all afterwards.

    It is incorrect statement. In GH3 it is all the same :-) And sensor speed is bigger, hence, more sampling, not less.

  • Found this on Vimeo - did not see it posted here.

  • I don't understand all this talk about the GH3 not being as "filmic" as the GH2. We've seen direct comparison footage that proved that both cameras can look extremely close in terms of image but with the GH3 having better shadow and lowlight handling. Perhaps even a little bit better highlight handling, No Green Tint problem. The only issue seems to be a bit more sensitivity to Moire. Overall IMO if you know what you're doing I can't see why you can't get a similar "filmic" look from the GH3 that you once got from the GH2.

    The levels of adjustment are much greater on the GH3 and thus you will see footage that varies much more from user to user than was possible on the GH2 with -2/+2 as the extent of the adjustment levels. It seems now that you can pretty much turn off in camera sharpness, contrast etc. Whereas the GH2 was limiting in how much you could effect that. I think mostly the detail differences are probably due to the GH2 having more Contrast and Sharpness baked in. Whereas many of the GH3 test shots have been -5 across the board.

  • I don't understand all this talk about the GH3 not being as "filmic" as the GH2.

    DO not worry, GH2 was also not so filmic compared to GH1, as far as I remember :-)

  • @ vitaliy

    have you had a chance to shoot with the gh3 yet? curious to hear your impressions.

    i returned my gh3 and bought a $500 gh2 after running some basic comparison tests. 50mbps gh3 mode vs fm2.2, both transcode to 422hq, then into pp cs5 w/AE for grading. didnt really see anything that different in the files. id have thought that with with increased rate of sampling the results would be much better w/less macroblocking. the hacked gh2 held up better in post. 60p and body style is cool, sure.

  • @ aria

    i dont get it either. they both are capable of very nice images, filmic or otherwise. id have kept my gh3 if i didnt need the dough. but frankly, the differences and improvements in image quality at 24p that i could see are slim... imho, the increased DR and highlight detail is also very, very minor.

  • There are so many non image improvements in the GH3 that I think it's a clearly better camera. IMO the one major request I had before the GH3 came out was that Pany would give us greater levels of adjustment of the image and they did just that. It's been shown that you can in fact lower the the sharpness more than on the GH2 and not having that baked in Contrast also helps to make the image IMO a bit better. I can see clear improvements in the footage i've seen in the shadows over the GH2. It may not be a HUGE improvement but it was clearly visible and IMO more acceptable.

    Then when you add in all the new features, 60p, more buttons and dials etc. I think it's a very nice package. I'm still trying to make up my mind whether to get 2 GH2's or a GH3. The GH2 is an INCREDIBLE bargain. I'm still using my GH1, which I also think is a very good bargain for what it can do. Heck I even considered another GH1 :)

  • @ aria i get where you are coming from and agree 60p, image control and body is great! take it or leave it, but i had both cameras last week side by side and when you get the files into a 32 bit float environ in aftereffects and apply basic curves adjustment all those so called image improvements arent visible at 200%. and the hacked gh2 certainly holds up better in post, particulalry in the head and tail of the curve (highlights and shadows). no doubt a future hacked gh3 will be a better competitor. but if max image quality is what you need, order the bmcc. just my 2 cents:-)

  • It is great to be able to play back, span, all on a standard sd card, plug in headphones and a normal mic and not get errors.

  • @JDN: what are you thoughts on the x2 digital zoom for video. How much does quality suffer?

    In this test you can see a shoot to show the differences between 2X digital zoom and ETC 2.6X on GH2. Aside the clear difference in dept of field given by the ETC mode, that makes the GH2 sensor acting like a 1/2" sized one, the two images are pretty the same.

    Panasonic GH2 Test2.png
    1919 x 999 - 1M
  • Ok i will test it on GH3.

    Theoreticlly one could use ETC AND digital-zoom (this works on GH2). So you can make Video with many focal-lengths only with the 20mm/1.7.

  • @Manu4Vendetta clip does look like something shot on a Canon 5dmk3.. (take is as a compliment, no less, I mean shot for less money) yet images do not scream "extra definition", like GH2 used to.. also notice more chroma clipping, on people skin in latest clip.. just an observation, imho.

  • @bwhitz perhaps, the whole "cinematic texture" that you talk about is what you can push in post and not something that's just a result of a footage straight from the camera?

  • @driftwood What happens with the street 1'11-1'20? It flickers on my screen quite it my screen (where I just watched, it was only XGA one), Vimeo compression issue or does it look indeed the same way in the original file? (I mean your test footage with the Boss calling....)

  • GH2 hack is NOT stable..... I don't care what anyone says, it is simple not stable. Also there's more to a camera than just an image. Even if the GH2 and GH3 had the same image, the build and button options are worth the upgrade. GH2 is built horribly, GH3 is a lot better. Also the oled screen is beautiful.

  • @FilmingArt You have obviously had problems with GH2 hacks. My experience is not the same; I have been using my GH2 hacked since I bought it almost two years ago and I can categorically say most GH2 hacks are stable. Perhaps you are using the more aggressive hacks meant to push the camera to its limits. If you stay with a hack that does not push to the extreme, I find them very stable. You should ask in a thread why you have had bad experience.

  • @FilmingArt

    I have never had ONE problem with the hack at all. Never once, in a year of shooting tons of footage and events. Just make sure you fallowing the SD card requirements for the patch your using.


    It is incorrect statement. In GH3 it is all the same :-)

    Oh ok, cool. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Yeah, I've never ever had any problems with hacks. You just gotta know which one to use. Honestly, from what I've see so far, GH3 seems to be a really nice camera. Great build, great lcd, nice codec, etc. My biggest gripe, as a hobbyist and not a m4/3 fanboy, is its price. I just can't justify spending twice/thrice as much for a camera that takes slightly better pictures and outputs similar/worse video than a hacked GH2. No can do. Especially since there's D600 out there for slightly more. I'll wait a couple of months for G6 and then decide.

  • i returned my gh3 after comparing its footage with that captured from gh2 stock, gh2 flowmotion and gh2 v9b.

    although i think the gh3 sensor is slightly better than that of the gh2, i think the imaging characteristics are very minor, not enough for me to keep the gh3 (even with improved body design).

    my real question now is how much better is hacked gh2 footage than stock. if you convert the mts via 5dtorgb to prores 422hq and grade in AE w/444 export the differences i see are minute. i'll keep using the hacks b/c i do see they have slight benefit (many thanks to all involved), but i really wish this site had more substantive technical comparisons ("blind style") between stock and hacked settings (and even between hacks) using charts. it seems to me that hack rivalry, apparent on many threads, has resulted in unhealthy biases.

  • @driftwood

    Excellent, enjoyed that! Mob bosses and Hitlers in bunkers really need to get out to a camera store and check things out, rather than rely on flunkies and generals!