OMG, ... "X" was the GH2 - Coppola's and so many other's favorite. (I'm not going to say which one GH2 was, so as not to spoil it for others. For now I'm just gonna call it "X") After all, it was also "X" that was the winner of online polls. But what also shocked me was that the over-saturation of those orange and green shirts that you see in "X" was what made "X" one of my least favorite shots.

15th July

-cool

Finally managed to watch the efforts on a decent monitor, I liked E F and H the best, although H was slightly too blue in the daylight. Just to have it on record. :) Overall the first impression had almost everything to do with lighting. I found some unwanted stuff in many but most were rather good. Of the worst performers D was soft, but quite interesting up close. G was also soft but the skin color was all orangey so it looked shit up front as well. Completely appalling that one.

@RockRoadPix I am not saying that the pictures should look blurry. :) All I mean is that there is somewhat less detail with them than without them: there is still a LOT more detail than there would be with a standard diffusion filter, or something like that.

Anyway, here are a few shots of just a landscape, with and without the Ultra Contrast filters.

As you can see, some of the primary detail that gets lost is in the areas where contrast was already low to start with. Try processing each photo to reveal the powerlines or phonelines as much as possible to see what I am talking about. The difference is noticeable even with an Ultra Contrast 1, but more so with an Ultra Contrast 3 (and of course even more so with the two stacked together).

Conversely, there is more color preserved in the sky in the Ultra Contrast 1 picture than either the No Filters picture taken earlier or the No Filters picture taken after.

@thepalalias I regularly use Tiffen Ultracons too in a variety of strengths depending on shooting conditions. My experience is very similar to yours except for one thing. I would not say that they increase the dynamic range really. In fact, they probably slightly reduce the dynamic range if you plan to lift the blacks and then crush them back down in post. However, what you give up for this loss of, say half a stop, is that the blacks now occur in a higher part of the curve that is less susceptible to noise, banding, blocking, and the weaknesses of the GH2's recording and compression.

Yeah, I had the same results with my ultra con 2. It was a slightly noticeable shift in DR or look, but it's helpful.

@rockroadpix Yes, see my tests in the Canis Majoris thread. Tiffen Ultra Contrast 1 and 3, Low Contrast 2 and Warm Black Promist 1 were all tested.

The softening can often be desirable, but it should not be ignored.

@danyyyel @rockroadpix Here, I went and got the link. I did other tests and the filters perform better in some situations than others, but I thought that particular set was a little easier for people to parse since I kept doing tests without the filters as the light was changing, too.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/62717#Comment_62717

@danyyyel

What this test shows is that it is the person behind the camera who is the more important nowadays. No more excuse on the equipment to justify lack of skill or vision.

Yep. This is exactly where the resentment is coming from. Allot of people liked being able to "buy" an aesthetic and instantly have it in a league above students and low-budget work. This really isn't possible anymore. Lots of people don't like this... you know who they are. They're usually the same people who cry "professional this" and "professional that". Well the days of "professionalism" and a "industry work-flow" that everybody must abide by are fading away. Film how you want. Work how you want. Only the results matter now. :)

@kronstadt I disagree. Pixel peeping and numerical data can contribute to the "feel", but there are many other factors that also must be considered. Motion, color rendition etc. It's obvious that the $$$ monsters will pretty much always win out in the pure data side by sides, this actually has more to do with "feel" as in , the DP's adjusting the lighting / mood that works well with the camera's inherent parameters.

@danyyyel I don't disagree with your points about the "test", but adding a few kinos or bouncing a tweenie or two will not cancel out the rental charges for an alexa. Of course, it depends upon the scope of what you are shooting. If it's a room set up. You're normally not going to get an alexa package for less than $2k. And by that, I mean package: 4-5 Lenses/support/FF/ larger tripod/ extra cards... I can get two kino 4 banks for $150/day. By the way, I just used some low/ultra cons this week and they help tremendously with the DR. I couldn't use them indoors, as we had a prompter on the cam.

I don't understand the resentment of the test when it has been clearly stated that it was in two part. One subjective with lots of variable and one much more precise/scientific with the same set of setting. It is as if these people cannot live outside the realm of pixel peeping/measuberators, forgetting that in the end it is the art that is the most important. More so that it is backed up by some of best Cinematographers in the Industry.

What this test shows is that it is the person behind the camera who is the more important nowadays. No more excuse on the equipment to justify lack of skill or vision. It is the driver in the car that is important now in the race, now it is skill that will be the judge. This put the pressure on lots of people now because it will be them who will be judge now and not their equipment.

Now, I am not saying that the scientific method is not important. I am eager to see the second test to see how those camera deal in terms mainly of DR. Because in terms of resolution apart from the iphone and the 7d the rest are good enough it seems. Because the last few years it has been just resolution and low light. Resolution being championed by a certain company for 4k, but I not see one person say that the image of these camera were soft or lacked detailed projected on the big screen. Or that they shoot only in not low light but what I call no light. I forgot if human beings lived only at night.

What is good with these test is that they put back the emphasis on dynamic range. I mean everything has a threshold, once you reach that, everything becomes just incremental. I think we are reaching it in terms of resolution and low light. What has been missing is DR, at least before the Alexa/f3/f65 cameras. Arri and Sony have been working a lot on it compared to resolution and it payed up. This test seems to be the perfect example. At least from what was said for the gh2. To get an image approaching the Alexa, you are going to need much more light for fill. In the end it could cost you as much as renting an Alexa versus light if you want the same result. I hope we will see better DR in the next gh3. I will at least wait for the second test to see the actual difference between the gh2 and the 12 stop Canon and 14 stop Alexa/Sony to get a better idea of the difference. I think I saw a test from @thepalalias with low contrast Filters. It could be an avenue it get better Dr from the gh2.

Now my only criticism is about the one month delay between each part. Come on, perhaps it is good for the marketing and buzz, but I would have liked to see the reaction of the different audiences if they had to wait one month for the result.

@kazuo I think it comes down to, as you said, a question if which is right for each person or production. I think what has changed, as compared to the early DV days, is that digital has become a good option in recent years, for the very first time and I think that is a good thing.

To get back to the audio parallel, it is like digital is finally getting bit depths and sample rates that exceed CD quality during our production, while early DV was like working with 8-bit 22KHz audio - people often noticed the quality gap vs higher end recordings right off the bat.