Ernesto Mantaras

[quote name='pietz' timestamp='1352384493' post='21301'] summarizing what youre saying: if you only switch horizontally the middle row is best. but the top row is even better if you first switch to the next higher setting in the row underneath and then to the top setting. wow thats weird as fuck. i think that i was shooting on 1250 and only switched horizontally. is the noise really that bad then? i remember a sheet for noise of canon cameras. multiples of 160 are best, then 200, then 250. its that big of a difference that iso 1250 has less noise than 250. for that reason i love the iso layout of the GH2, but what you guys just came up with seems really weird. thank you everybody for your help. [/quote] I guess the tip is (to make it clearer) that you should use the top row, but always coming from the inmediate middle row. Choose a middle row setting, then go the upper row and leave it at that. Also, this resets everytime you turn of the camera, and I haven't tested if this also happens when you switch modes, but I still repeat the trick. It has become second nature. And really, it saved my life. I shot a music video 3 days after the camera arrived, and I shot some footage that looked extremely noisy. I was using the Canon rule, multiples of 160, but I didn't know about the GH2 ISO bug, and then I found this solution, used it and have been happy ever since. Oh, and I rescued that noisy footage with Neat Video, lucky me! Although it was mostly even background.

Just watched it out of my YouTube feed. No mention of moiré, and although I found the deer's (or whatever those animals are) hair to look weird, I don't really know if that was moiré. But overall I liked it and I think the samples were shot with the "High Dynamic" profile set and with lower sharpness settings.

From my own experience, the top row up to 2500 is best, but only as long as you set them coming from the inmediate higher setting (that is, 320 from 400, 640 from 800, 1250 from 1600, etc.), not from the right (I've seen people coming to 640 from 1250, doesn't help). It's weird as hell, but that's the way it is. ISOs from the second row have more noise than the top row set with the workaround. The top row is the cleanest this way.

[quote name='zaz' timestamp='1352197698' post='21132'] Ok, lets be clear here - the GH3 WILL have moire. But the GH2 actually does have it as well. any camera that does not have a randomized sensor pattern (aka, any digital camera) will have moire. anything displayed on a digital monitor will as well. the way moire works is that when a pattern being captured becomes finer than the capture (or display) grid data is lost, and when the pattern being captured has a distinct geometric ordering (bricks, stripes, textiles), the data being lost, starts to line up with gaps in the grid. (sorry, i dont know any technical terms. also, perhaps I am completely wrong here, if so plz send me 100xPM's/ban.) You can assume that any geometric pattern will moire when it becomes tight/fine enough (when it gets small inough in your composition. a checkered shirt with a 2cm x 2cm pattern will not moire when you are close to it, but move back far enough and BAM moire noir, son.) I guess knowing just what the limits are takes some damn experience, as its fully dependent on both the capture and display resolution/settings. [/quote] The GH2 doesn't have moiré. It has a tad bit of aliasing, that isn't really noticeable unless you use some electronic MFT lenses that activate lens distortion correction. Really, I pay a lot of attention to it and mostly use legacy manual lenses, and don't ever see it.

I just saw this looking for something else. It's a Redrock Micro "LiveLens MFT Adapter". It's $545 in it's basic package, and only delivers electronic aperture control (or maybe more, according to this: "Please note The LiveLens MFT powers the aperture control portion of EF Lenses. Additional lens features that require power may not be supported."; this implies they also MAY be supported... ha!). http://store.redrockmicro.com/livelensmft You also have the option to use "dumb" lens adapters, but you wont get AF unless Redrock improve their product (or the end up supporting thos "additional lens features that require power").

[quote name='KarimNassar' timestamp='1352224152' post='21169'] yup [url="http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/Files/SI%20Price%20List%20May%202007.pdf.old"]http://www.siliconim...ay 2007.pdf.old[/url] at least in 2007... wonder how much they cost now looked around but could not find any website selling them [/quote] [url="http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/si-2k-camera.1202/"]http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/si-2k-camera.1202/[/url] In this thread there's a guy that owns (or owned) an SI-2K and named that same price, but also said he saw the older models being sold a $4000 on eBay. I can't find any being sold right now. Anyway, I was just curious. I want the BMCC, really, though we have to wait, and I wanted to mention: if it had Cineform RAW as a recording format it would indeed be GREAT.

[quote name='KarimNassar' timestamp='1352223103' post='21166'] very interesting never heard of that camera thanks for sharing but I did some research on the price and it seems to be around 15k, at least that is the price I found maybe they got cheaper [/quote] Uff! If that's the price then it'd make no sense to get it. You can buy a Lightweight Scarlet pack for that!

What about the Silicon Imaging SI-2K camera? It just popped in my mind. It'd be like a 16mm camera (it has a 2/3" sensor) that shoots 2K RAW through Cineform RAW. It's the camera that was used to shoot almost the entire "Slumdog Millionaire" movie, and that one won Best Cinematography (if that matters at all). I made a quick search to see where they were at, and found no new info. It might be out of production, I don't know. Can't even find a price for it, let alone someone selling it (except here, but you have to contact them: [url="http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-si2k-mini.php"]http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-si2k-mini.php[/url]). Here are some samples in a quirky page but with high quality downloadable Quicktime videos. [url="http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/gallery_main.html"]http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/gallery_main.html[/url] It's an old camera so to speak. Came along around the time the RED ONE was being talked about. But looking at some images I remember why I liked it back then.

[quote name='zaz' timestamp='1352196069' post='21125'] relevant: 12-35 2.8 on a gh2. it's on youtube so @0:50 just might be a compression thing, but take a loot. all the usual suspects are present in a godamn high degree. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u4m7u0oqig[/media] [/quote] I think this is a case of shitty postproduction work. The video looks as if it was shot interlaced and then had a field thrown away. Weird, nothing like any of the other GH3 videos. I'm confident to say moiré can't be that bad on the GH3. Besides, it can be seen everywhere in this video. I think it's a bad export/conversion.

Moiré seems to be less evident here, but it's there, and I think there could be situations where it becomes more evident and distracting. If a stronger antialiasing filter could reduce or eliminate it, it'd be great. I hope this issue can actually be overcome, because it's certainly a no go for me and for many others, even if it's less present than what's in a 7D, 60D, etc. I wonder, are you really not bothered by it, Andrew? It's great that we get all of these other features, but I will prefer image quality over improved functionality in this case, and that's probably in staying in GH2 grounds...

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1352125130' post='21064'] This is probably an oxymoron comment, since the topic suggest you're on a budget... - i would save up for the Gh3 though if it were a possibility. The only thing that truly sucks right now is the possibility that it has moire/aliasing issues... There are videos that have it, and others that don't. That's a pretty big deal though with a lot of people regarding whether they'll pull the trigger on one or not, and unfortunately, no substantial answers. "Almost" all footage shot with the gh3 on the web right now has been with the Panasonic 12-35x lens. I'm not sure how a lens would introduce aliasing artifacts into an image, but the other footage shot with the Voigtlander 25mm, and "Genesis" with the Olympus, SLR glass showed none. In all other facets though, the Gh3 wins... If they clear the aliasing issue, then i'd do it in a heartbeat, since eventually it will be hacked. It's got much faster processing now also, so game on.. [/quote] I thought the same way, but Karim's video, the one in the topic the OP posted, does show moiré in spite of having been shot with the Voigtlander as well. It worries me a bit. On the other hand, Andrew posted this on Twitter: "[color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(245, 245, 245)]Panasonic GH3 is an amazing piece of technology, so far ahead of DSLRs in many respects not just video. Full report this weekend…"[/background][/size][/font][/color] I have a little more hope now. Unless he's embraced moiré. :P

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351942437' post='20951'] You know, Karim, I don't like Moire or Aliasing, either. But, I also noticed an interesting thing. The human eye, creates moire or aliasing, too. especially, more, up close, and for black and white, criss-crossing patterns. Incidentally, IMHO, the GH2 resolves moire and aliasing better than the human eye (or rather the human brain). [/quote] Funny, when I try to explain moiré to people that don't have much of an idea of what it is (and don't work in video) I try to bring that kind of "human eye moiré" into the table. I give the example of a man with a striped t-shirt behind some blinds. Kinda shitty, yeah. But most of us have seen it. And like Karim said, that's the problem with moiré: it's distracting. It's a flaw that was something you had to live with back when there were no options. It's unfair that we have to shoot around that now because of inept or uncaring engineers. Well, like these companies are all well intentioned and want peace in the world... They just wanna sell. But still, it's stupid. When I was starting film school all I had around was a VHS-C camera, very rudimentary, along with a couple of friends. Things have changed for me, luckily, although I'm far from being a self sustained studio, but I always said that limitations force you to be creative. That's a good thing. But this particular limitation, moiré, is not only unnecesary and avoidable, it's unacceptable. I shouldn't have to change my shot because the brick wall in the back looks hideous or that ceiling seems to be a hacksaw, nor should I change the interviewee's wardrobe or remove that tartan skirt from my Scottish character because the camera will make all of that look like shit. Can you imagine Braveheart shot a 7D? A disaster!

It's not blind hate, I work with Canon cameras. The 5D MkII and the 60D/7D. I like Cinestyle and they have a unique way to render color. But I can't help the feeling that they give a shit about their video users when they give a lot less than they can give for a lot more money. And that's why I haven't felt fond of Canon for the last year and a half.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351817152' post='20828'] So you really love the images, yet you really hate the camera that created those images? Bizarre. [/quote] It makes perfect sense. He likes the video because of the shots, their compositions and the editing. The lens choice, maybe (and the way it looks in full frame). It doesn't take away the fact that the camera still renders soft images that are badly encoded and over priced. Well, it's more like you have to pay more than it's worth to get those soft badly encoded images. Point in the matter being that the video is good thanks to the creator, not thanks to the camera.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1351891031' post='20913'] For most of the examples i have seen, again, they are the 12-35x lens on super-video mode.. The "my first impression" video with the Voigtlander 25, showed no moire or aliasing that i saw.. He even did a scene specific set of shots to find it... I saw none in Genesis as well.. (Just some noise in the dark sky when the lead character is getting shookdown by the police....though that could have been web compression i dont know...can't see something like that being acceptable by 2 respected DP's on a launch video). [/quote] You're right, both videos were reassuring to me. I saw no moiré or aliasing in the "Genesis" video (only lack of detail in a few shots, but once I watched the 1080p downloaded version I felt much better). I thought it was all because of the 12-35mm. But if you download the original videos from [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1481-gh3-vs-hacked-gh2-quick-handheld-comparison/"]this[/url] topic KarimNassar made you'll see something funny: while moiré can be seen in the GH3 video, the GH2 one shows aliasing! And it's a bit less detailed than the GH3 (nothing to do with sharpness or anything). The moiré issue has to be tackled. Even if the improvement in image quality wasn't there (and it is, even if marginally, with the exception of the aforementioned issue) the pros of the camera could make it worth an upgrade. I love the GH2 image after all.

And about the GH3, I agree with Axel. Though I do feel there are good improvements (while some things stayed the same) the moiré problem kills the GH3 as an option. That's a step back. It can have its quirks, like the GH2 and any other camera out there, but the one thing it couldn't fail in was that. The GH2 lacked moiré, it became the ONLY option in this budget once I heard about it, and I'm glad I found about it. I'm really happy with the camera. Panasonic managed to improve the banding in the lower end, ISO performance (apparently) and it even has a little more resolution (judging from the head to head comparison that KarimNassar did), and then there are the bigger body, more dedicated buttons, 3,5 mic in, etc, etc. Those things are improvements but it's on each one of us to decide whether they're worth the jump. GH2 would still be a contender with all those improvements. But they become futile if you have to step back in the main reason that makes this camera so lovely: image quality. Moiré is unacceptable. All the other advantages lose tremendous weight next to it.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1351876546' post='20885'] Hey!! Quick question about Sedna:) i've only used AQ1... From what i understand AQ1 is the better of the 2 but i'm not really understanding the difference.. Benefits, etc.. What the hell is "Q" anyway, lol? ... [/quote] According to Driftwood the AQ1 has a more detailed matrix, and AQ2 is kinda overkill. And I'm not sure, but that extra detail (quite unnoticeable in the few silly tests I made) also makes the data rate go up, so you need a really fast card. Q20 is more manageable and comes in three purposes: A, B and C. I tried A since it was supposed to have the most detail, but in 720p my card couldn't keep up (I tested everything in my backyard on a windy day... LOTS of unpredictable high detail), and then I tried B (the "Q20B" I talked about) and it has never failed me since, not even in the most detailed scenes. This one reads "[b][color=blue][font=inherit][size=3]B = Good allround detail matrix[/size][/font][/color][/b][color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3] Great all round wide / mid shots." [/size][/font][/color]in the patch forum page([url="http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/3454/driftwood-settings-series-5-cluster-v6-ultra-reliable-mysteron-crossfire-quantum-9b-sedna.../p1"]http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/3454/driftwood-settings-series-5-cluster-v6-ultra-reliable-mysteron-crossfire-quantum-9b-sedna.../p1[/url]). Perhaps if you have cards faster than 45MB/s like mine you could go with Q20A. Still, Q20A will do just fine, I think. Amazing clarity. [quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351879101' post='20887'] I am with germ on flowmotion, I thought it would be the last patch I use as well, but I have jumped ship on it. There is only so much you can do with the GH2, and sedna is the best way to get all of the "only so much" out of it. Flowmotion is still a good patch, and Lpowell is currently working on a new version, I'm guessing FM 3.0?, that hopefully will address some of the issues I have with it. [/quote] Like the horrible blurred shadows? I talked about this with LPowell when I tired the patch (it was v2, no 2. something) and he explained why this was so from the technical side, all very nice, but it didn't take away the fact that it didn't look good (like you can see in the screengrab from my latest post). But of course, the GH2 has limitations inherent to its design and hardware, and the point with the patches is to squeeze that potential as much as possible. We have seen the top, I think. Sedna is great, the rest of the patches have subtle differences (to me at least) and what I like the least is that there are versions designed for wide shots, middle shots, skin tones, etc. I don't want to be installing patches in between takes. Sedna Q20B is the best all around to me (and for the speed of my cards, 45MB/s).

Here's a small sample video in DNxHD of a few shots from the Distant Project music video. I had to divide into two parts. http://www.mediafire.com/?8n6ahoafda16f And about Flow Motion, I don't know if it's that patch that introduces the "shooting star" artifact or what, but from I tried it once and thought it was garbage, mainly due to this: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/5093e413b66fc_Lows_Comparison.png[/img] Flow Motion v2 on top. Sedna Q20A below it. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/5093e2c36a3dc_Lows_FlowMotionv2.png[/img] Flow Motion v2 [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/5093e36b99022_Lows_SednaQ20A.png[/img] Sedna Q20A

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351843256' post='20852'] There is Quite a bit of noise in your video (on the staircase, and the seats, etc etc). I just saw a few seconds of the start, and there was already a lotta noise (strange artefacts). [/quote] Those "strange artifacts" were the shitty YouTube compression trying to intepret the grain I added. Big mistake on my part (it's the first time I added it in a whole video). I looks great uncompressed, but it looks quite bad on YouTube, didn't take that into account. Will upload a bit of the video in DNxHD so you can see what I'm talking about. Anyways, those "shooting star" artifacts are nowhere to be seen. Did you continue to watch beyond those first few seconds?

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351797153' post='20807'] Could you please upload footage, in High Contrast, and low light videos? thanks [/quote] This is what I have at hand. The shots of the guitar player and picking the guitar up and playing it with the skylight behind is an example. I had to lift the lows quite a bit in all of those shots. EDIT: it's exactly the thumbnail shot that I'm talking about, and all those shot from the same angle. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ44i0Woa6E[/media]

I always shoot in the top row ISO settings, never above 2500ISO. Could that have something to do with it?

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351778748' post='20784'] Did u ever shoot, in the dark? With a not-so-fast lens? [/quote] Yes, I have. And I have pushed the footage. Never seen it.

Wow. Not once have I seen that kind of artifacts in my footage. Lucky me!

I'm not saying 1080p or 2.8K don't look good. "Slumdog Millionaire" was the first almost fully digital film to win best cinematography and best movie and it was shot in 2K with the Silicon Imaging camera (not a RED One or something), and it looks really good (at least that's what I recall). I also love the look of Super 16mm film. My point is there's nothing wrong with going that little extra mile. 4K does make a difference, and aspiring towards such goal doesn't seem to be a madman's thing. Not to me. Just like it wasn't back in 2006 when I discussed these things with my Photography teacher (elitist markets aside...).

Yeah, if I had shot my earliest short films in 4K I'd probably be cringing at the sheer detail of my every failing shot (whenever they were in focus, that is). Of course, my point is valid only in productions that are meant to be seen and enjoyed and succeed in doing so. 4K would give them "replayability" as standards increase. Like old films that still look awesome because they were, well, films. DV hasn't aged so well. Then again, perhaps my current turds will be valuable in the future, so I'd rather give historians something worth looking at!