Nice vladnik. Give a bit more blue curve
& take out a touch o green

I like this point JDN made:
"The value of these tests, I find, is that it gets people talking about plusses and minuses of different cameras and how they compensate for those in the field..."

That's it right? As JDN says, no matter what camera, we are obligated to compensate for shortcomings -- such as graduated filters for outdoor shots because of lack of DR. If we can't compensate, we need a new camera. I couldn't predict or work around or get used to the moire and aliasing of the Canon 7d, so I exchanged it for a GH2. It works for me. YMMV.

I already asked to stop discussing PB in this topic.

By way of reference for skin tones, here's something uncorrected shot with the method described above -- balanced to a warm 1 card, on the panny 14mm with a black frost 1/8 -- key through a photoflex small softbox with grid (2 x 312 lights balanced to tungsten) with fill coming from 2 x 312 lights behind the water tanks (dialed down and turned slightly to daylight).

Happy with the tone of the skin and results, although would have lighted a slightly larger lab so my back I could get some depth of field -- the camera is basically against the wall). And I wish I noticed the friggin lav wire slipped out!

@PhilipBloom thanks for the tests. Been shooting a $1 M doc with GH2 (f3, f800 and Alexa as A cams, just depending on what we're shooting, where we are and which owner-operator we're working with). Your screengrabs confirm what have become a few of my gh2 rules to live by. Not sure if you'd agree but here they are:

1. Gh2s prefer to be at least one, maybe 2 stops underexposed. Especially with driftwoods latest patches which recover shadow detail, I personally believe the live histogram is a little untrustworthy. When I try to avoid clipping shadows I find that I often end up blowing out highlight detail and not getting skin-tones in the zone I want them. To my eye, the gh2 shot of the boat and bridge is suffers from this, however that said:

2. The dynamic range of the GH2 isn't quite up for HDR type situations, such as that scene, with a dark foreground and big sky in the background. I've found for wide shots outdoors especially, 1/2 of the stuff I shoot on the gh2 has an ND grad in it. But the other point is that:

3. Gh2 WB is very cold. Given the lack of latitude of 420, getting WB perfect the first time is so key. At first, that meant trying to get it right with Kelvin settings (especially when trying to match the 800). I found that worked reasonably well, but I was not entirely happy. Next was a manual white balance to a grey card. Much better, but still not there. Lately, I've switched to using a warm card 1 for most balances. I find it gets the skin tones exactly where I want them (finally!) but pushes the background too pink of course, however, adding blue in the correct evens it out perfectly without affecting skin tones. However one problem remains:

4. Sharpness. Gh2, especially wide, especially with panny lenses, is too friggin sharp. So unless I'm using legacy glass, I always got a black frost 1/8th (at minimum) in front of it.

The value of these tests, I find, is that it gets people talking about plusses and minuses of different cameras and how they compensate for those in the field. Anyone who does these tests is going to be criticized for their method, but this is a bit ridiculous because everyone will have different opinions of the best method (there is no objective best method). That said, regardless of which method is used, the tests usually reveal certain fundamental characteristics of a camera, and that is important for anyone who cares about their craft to learn. Not sure if it was you who said it or someone else, but each camera is a bit like a different kind of film stock and it is important to know it inside and out so it can be deployed when it suits the situation (and compensated for when it does not).

Thanks for taking time to do the tests. Can't wait to see the full results. And although it goes without saying, thanks again to the guys who made this happen, specifically vitaliy and driftwood.

@danyyyel who is Vesubio?

I think of it like this: does Panasonic want that you read that the $600 GH2 is as good as the $6000 AF-100? I don't think so and I think that is one of the reasons there isn't so much talk about it on professional sites.

@Mimirsan, if I did not understand what you meant, my bad, I am sorry. But my point on the comparison stand for me. Lets take resolution for example. Until this shootout there was all type of post about the gh2 resolving power. Some where comparing it to RED (at 2k), others to Af-100 (see thread on the Af100) and there was even one guy (I personally think a troll) saying that it did not resolve more than 600 line about the same or less than a Canon 7d. Now with this test (if you download the 1080p version of the images embedded in his page) that the gh2 is a tie with the 1000 line C300. The guy/troll was saying that the gh2 would not be able to be projected on a big screen. If the C300 was projected on Paramount screen in LA then the gh2 is as good at least in terms of resolution.

This is where such a test is important. Now we can leave this subject, we know!!! What the gh2 is capable of in therm of resolution/detail. It is not just some collective belief or self persuasion but quantifiable result that can be seen and judge. Unfortunately I cannot have access to all these camera and cannot know how they compare. Yes compare as the example above, if the FS100 or Af100 was No 4 (C300) I would have looked closely at them as a purchase. Why because I am no blind Fanboy (even if I am big fan of the hack and Vitaliy work and dedication of the community with Dritfwood in particular), if you could get such an image (DR seems very good but lot of banding in the background, could be jpeg compression) compared to the gh2, perhaps the $ 5000 investment would be wort it. But the test showed that it is not the case.

I am not the biggest fan of P Bloom, because in some ways, he is one of the proponent of the video gear centric world. I prefer a thousand times someone like Vesubio who shot Musgo on a shoe string. But the gh2 is surely the least tested camera (in video). Everybody who has said they would do so, got very busy, got ill and just disappeared. Now as with everything I buy, I try to get some reviews to know if it is good and compare it to its competition and the gh2 is the same. I already did it by faith and seeing example, but even with all the flaws in the PB shootout, I can see now how it compares to its competitors. Now I know (we will have to see more of the shootout) that I can't get better result until I have $ 15000 in my pocket. But lets see another senario, should the Fs100/Af100 been much better like the No 4 image (DR mostly) the outcome of this shootout would have perhaps made me think seriously about buying a $ 5000 camera.

@Elenion
Thanks for the samples on page 4. Cineform SiLog sure did convert a rather harsh image to something more balanced and smoothed out, ready for the next stage of post. I am relatively new to GH2. I have Cineform Prospect HD/2K, and now talking with Jake at Cineform, I should do the cross/upgrade to Neo, so that I can import AVCHD and be compiant with Win7 system, my recently rebuilt edit box. @Vitaliy_Kiselev has been suggesting in a few threads that there are already some P-V topics on GH2 DR.
I searched and found this gem: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1062/dynamic-range-latitude-patches/p1

@Elenion, et al, if anyone has more to add to the above thread, I should be pleased if we could expand further on the many ways we can setup and record GH2 footage maximising DR, in a way to manipulate the gamma curve. Cineform, applying SiLog via FirstLight looks great, however, I am also looking at changing the curve, to some degree, at the record stage on the GH2, beyond the, say, -2 -2 -2 -2 and existing curve options. @kholi talks about ND and ISO settings which I would like to know more about, the sweet spot. Perhaps a Low Con filter may be useful in certain situations, etc. I hope to explore further and have the knowledge base herein expand on the "Dynamic Range / Latitude / Patches" thread. Thank you.

For those interested in the Nikon D7000, I recently posted downloadable comparison shots of the GH1, GH2 and D5100 (which has the same image sensor and quality as the D7000):

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

I got the right answers as well. The way i figured it out was by pairing the looks of each pic. The Sonys, Canons, Nikon and Panasonics all matched each other. So this confirms what we should expect as far as 'look' from each company. I'm glad the Panasonic did the best (imo). Very impressed.

@danyyyel

I've been afraid of the iContrast setting, could you link to that thread? I would love to see it.

It sounds like it would help out with interior shots more than anything?