sanveer

Wow. Eagerly look forward to the results. Also, try and colour correct and grade both the (hacked) gh2 as well as the gh3 video. btw, Which hack have you installed?

was that question for me? what will blend?

Avoid iDynamic and iResolution. They were terrible on the GH2, as well.

Could you try this (and maybe note everything with a pen and paper): 1. Shoot in the various Modes of the GH3. 2. Shoot the videos at 5, 0 and -5. 3. Wear a Checked Pattern Shirt (preferably which exhibits moire patterns on cameras), and let someone run the video over your shirt, left to right. 4. Try and shoot a comparison with a Panny Lens (preferably a 12-35, if its there, and a 14-140), and a Non-Panny lens (maybe a Voigtlander). 5. For indoors use a fast lens, and keep the ISO low. 6. Carry a shade card, to check the comparison in colours on various modes, as well as the colour difference between the GH2 and the GH3. 7. Shoot in the 50p/ 60p mode, and compare the same, with the 720p on the Gh2. Let us know.

I am assuming that all the various tests done on the GH3, apart from highlighting a lack of instructions (and maybe even knowledge, to an extent),from the Panasonic team, also, go to show, that the Codec is Indeed developing, and, the fact, that, people are getting the hang of things with the GH3, like they did with the GH2 (in the formative months). I guess, this can only spell good things, for the GH3 to come. I also saw another video yesterday, and I found the video quality pretty impressive. I am not really sure, why he's shot it at 50fps, if he's shot it at 720p. He could have done that on the GH2. But,great resolution, anyway. Also, since the guy has shot it on the 14-140 lens, there appears to be hope for the Panny lenses. I am also, hopeful, that the Panny lenses will have more specific codec, for assisting with the autofocus in the future (not that it is required, I feel, if you open the aperture enough). Here is the video: [url="http://vimeo.com/52005342#at=0"]http://vimeo.com/52005342#at=0[/url]

okkkkkkkkk ... Actually, I guess, most tests for ISO would keep the Aperture constant, so that, they have a rough Idea, of the increase in brightness. But, I guess, this test highlighted the fact, that, contrary to popular belief, in the m4/3rds, the aperture ring has to be opened up, and the aperture lowered, to get more things in focus. P.S.: I meant, opening up the aperture below the f4-f5.6 level (maybe beyond f8 level)

"4K and 50Mbps422" ? Is that enough Mbps, for 4k?

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1351029942' post='20200'] Media Player Classic (so the levels aren't correct) > Print Screen > MS Paint > Save as PNG. I suppose there are superior ways. Just have Lightroom here and that doesn't work really well for this kinda things. Keep in mind the screen grab is a close up of a huge portrait photo, see in the video. I think the screen grab looks much better than the YouTube version btw.. Here's another screen shot (same lousy method) of the scene. Looks fine to me. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/130-screen-grab-2/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_2455628.png[/img][/url] [/quote] Wow. I find this image, pretty sharp too (though, the other one seemed a little sharper). Could you use a faster lens than the 14-140, for testing the ISO. Also, strangely till ISO 800 the focus, on the lamp-shade, seemed poor. The focus gets sharper, once the ISO reaches 800 (and above). Also, I found the ISO till 3200, pretty usable. There appeared banding from the lowest ISO. Though, loss of detail, seemed (for me), to become noticeable post ISO3200.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1351028145' post='20192'] Thanks! The sharpness is fine indeed. At -5 it is a bit soft, so that's why I shot at -2. No sharpening artefacts but the detail is there. Some shots are around f/5.6 or maybe even lower. But I had to go for smaller apertures since I have no ND filter in my kit right now. I don't think it would make much of a difference though, at f/4-5.6 the lens is probably even sharper because diffraction kicks in pretty soon on micro four thirds. The shot from 2:08 to 2:22 might be a bit misleading, since it's a huge blow-up or a photograph. So maybe there's banding in the print ;) And the YouTube compression doesn't help. Here's a screengrab (view at full resolution): [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/129-gh3-screen-grab/"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_16/gallery_20742_16_771748.png[/img][/url] @yellow: your clip shows black and white here. Isn't it more likely that it is because of the way YouTube processes it? They re compress the files... [/quote] Oh, ok. Thats why (possibly) John's (Twigt) video seemed sharper (he set everything at '0'). But, this new video, of yours, is pretty sharp. Lots of detail, and the picture profile, is pretty flat. The banding is mostly noticeable, indoors. In the outdoor shots its hardly there. I guess, the outdoor shots must have had banding, more due to the compression by youtube.

its from 2:08 to 2:22 seconds (the face profile). Check he details.

Julian, gr8 work. This video seems pretty good. I like the colour, and the flat profile. There is a little banding. But, very little, and in few frames. Also, the sharpness is comparable with the GH2. It is evident, when you focus the shot, on the large pictures. The details, the GH2 is famous for, are there. Have you tried shooting, at f4-5.6?

He answered my query, on the settings, on Vimeo: [color=#7B8084][font=sans-serif][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]"Hi Sanveer, all settings were neutral, 0,0,0,0,0. Standard picture profile. Remember, this is NOT a proper test, just my experience from an hour-long session."[/background][/font][/color]

Appears to be some kind of mini Jimmy Jib arm.

[url="http://vimeo.com/51928527#at=0"]http://vimeo.com/51928527#at=0[/url] This guy tried 'Standard' Picture Profile, and shot with a non-Lumix (Panasonic) lens. Also, he opened his Voigtlander from f2 to f1.2, so background is pretty blurred. Though, from the little portions, which are in focus, it seems sharper than the other videos, doing the rounds. The guy who shot the video, also, doesn't seem to mention, what were his setting (for color,contrast, saturation sharpness) were at (-5,or 0, or +5, or somewhere in between). Grading seems to come out well, with the footage, he's shot. It holds pretty well.

There was no lighting trick. Its just that, like other things on the GH2 (eg:- the strange ISO Bug), the picture profile is subjective, and so is the dynamic range. In lighting situations like over-cast skies (and setting it up, as such, with huge shadows and filters), the picture profile is very flat, and the contrast is much lower. This doesn't happen, though, when the clouds cause extreme loss in available light, or during late evenings. Though, this doesn't apply as a rule or trick, simply because, it is either very difficult to get the same effect as an overcast sky, or its simply impossible.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1350911889' post='20118'] Dude, did you ever follow up with this? [/quote] ha ha ha ... actually, i uploaded a few videos, online, but, strangely, they had banding, when viewed online, though, i couldn't notice Any banding, when i saw it, on my laptop, as well as my friends'. So, i just gave up :(

The GH2 seems to fall apart, pretty badly. Though a lot of noise is visible from the GH3, after the gain, it seems like something that can be worked with, in post (noise reduction).

Wow, they've added some pretty neat feature.

[quote name='agp26' timestamp='1350676539' post='20004'] Now why can't we get 2.5k in at an affordable price for HDSLR's? Curious as to how 2.7k downscales to 1080p...hopefully tack sharp. Was looking at the sony for 120 fps, but gopro pulled a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute...what can I say? 2.7k?!! for 400 bucks....way to go guys.... :) [/quote] Cause the DSLR guys are fooling us, consistently, for far too long. If they are in Dire Need of Money, maybe they could start a Forum for Collections. Or start a campaign on Kickstarter or something. I don't know what the excuse it. Its also probably a cartel or something. Maybe if someone files and official complaint, with some international trade body, alleging cartelization, through limitation of available technology, and show that all DSLR aren't moving anywhere, the Trade Body would do their own research, on the matter. That would be interesting :D

[quote name='jacanaproductions' timestamp='1350705763' post='20023'] I call BS on 4k. [/quote] what is BS on 4k?

I don't know why, but, it looks to me, as though pushing all the settings down to -5 on the GH3, also cause the f-stop to go lower by a few points. Its almost like, the difference between f2.0 @ '0' and '-5', is the difference between f2 and f5.6 or something. Though, at the higher settings, it appears, (almost) not to focus anything, at all. Strange ...

Julian, I am So Proud of You. Andrew, could we Please have a Dude/ Babe of the week (Month) award. Julian, on behalf of everyone of this site (and Andrew, expressing acquiescence, by silence ... :P ), you are the Site's FIRST official, Dude of the Month :D

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350603546' post='19958'] Weird... For some reason, if I click on the links I get a "forbidden" error. So I just went to the sight to look at them. I have to say, these do not look impressive to me at all. There are some that look downright sub-par. Especially the "Firebread" food cart image. Take a look at the noise and mushy details in that one. Oh, and take a look at the alley shot with the hanging bicycle. Look at that weird salt and pepper noise all over the image... I've never even seen that kind of noise... Ugh. Oh what have Panasonic done to our beloved GH range... [/quote] [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350605792' post='19961'] Oh man! Now I'm really on it! Now that I've really looked at the images and compared similar images to other cameras (the bookcase image, is in most of the camera reviews) I can see that it's obviously some kind of user error or a lens issue. The bookcase was shot at f8 there is no reason why is should be as soft and mushy as that. There are even some shots where there is simply no clear focal plane at all (look at shot #33 of the pipe coming out of the brick wall). Even comparing images to those of lesser cameras like the LX7, you can see all the shots seem soft and blurry. In the bookcase shot, look at the "Arizona Highways" book with the little image of the waterfall. Now go look at Sony RX100 review and see how they compare. I can't see how the GH3 could be this bad. It has to be either a photographer error or a lens error. [/quote] True. I just saw ALL the pics. The dynamic range is pretty low. Cause the pic, with the Church, is very clear, even though its Low Light. But, pics with more contrast, have lousy dynamic range, and the onboard noise (thats, what I am guessing, is causing this), is creating strange artefacts, which may not actually exist, in the scene.

Julian, could you please compose identical frames (by mounting the 2 cameras together, on the same Tripod, or 2 tripods, placed closeby), also, thereby shooting the Exactly same thing, at the Exact same time. Thanks in Advance ;)

The measure of details, in some of these pics is really something. check these ones out: [url="http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_77.jpg"]http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_77.jpg[/url] [url="http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_74.jpg"]http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_74.jpg[/url] [url="http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_73.jpg"]http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh3_73.jpg[/url] I wish someone would do a Comparison with the Olympus.