Test footage from the pre-release Panasonic GH3 at Photokina

[haarec]

"I’d happily pay $3000 for this [better image in the next, upcoming camera], as the GH3 already is a bargain for $1299".

I would NOT.

GH3 is a new camera that many are waiting for. It costs more than GH2 so it is obvious it should be more then just an improvement over previous model. And a camera is not everything. Lenses and propriety accesories makes additional costs, so if a new camera for $1299 doesn't generate a better image it doesn't have any sens.

Aliasing and moiré instability of an image is passé as a chromatic aberration. A new camera have not to be affected by this image defect. Specially that GH3 is made with possible professional use in mind, right? It doesn't make any sense to wait again and again for a newer camera, because this way we will stay with nothing always waiting.

[Germy1979]

It's a pre production firmware yes... But this is a big ass event! Most of the indie crowd waited with their eye on this camera after the BMC to put in a pre order. The Gh2 didn't have any issues with Moire or Aliasing... Nobody even had a second thought that it would be a factor with this one, until it was. They may fix it yes, but does any camera manufacturer think anyone wants moire and aliasing in their footage? That should be part of the basic checklist. If they could do it 2 years ago, shouldn't be a problem. Second is the same old 4:2:0, 8 bit. We pretty much know that isn't going anywhere in the final product. So we're stuck with 16-235 limitations again. To me, i haven't even seen the banding issue or increased dynamic range comparisons to justify the upgrade, but if the banding is fixed within those numbers, it sounds like cheating when the information could be there to begin with. The fact that the camera was DESIGNED to handle progressive footage at higher bitrates this time, along with finally looking like a damn man's camera for a change though, is a worthy welcome.

For hybrid shooters, i see this as your guy. For pure filmmakers on the other hand, the BMC may be $1700 more, but it will pistol whip these limitations, and more than likely get a 60p upgrade later. You get what you pay for...

[Germy1979]

[quote name='haarec' timestamp='1348332997' post='18911']
"I’d happily pay $3000 for this [better image in the next, upcoming camera], as the GH3 already is a bargain for $1299".

I would NOT.

GH3 is a new camera that many are waiting for. It costs more than GH2 so it is obvious it should be more then just an improvement over previous model. And a camera is not everything. Lenses and propriety accesories makes additional costs, so if a new camera for $1299 does't generate a better image it does't have any sens.

Aliasing and moiré instability of an image is passé as a chromatic aberration. A new camera have not to be affected by this image defect. Specially that GH3 is made with possible professional use in mind, wright? It doesn't make any sense to wait again and again for a newer camera, because this way we will stay with nothing always waiting.
[/quote]

Damn right man!

[TJB]

I think she looks just fine....and the GH3 does as well.
I'm not rushing to pre-order though, especially as the XLR adapter and peaking got lost in translation.

I bought a GH2 when the 25p firmware came out and then when I saw the poor reviews of the 5DMK3. The GH2 is simply very hard to beat.
It would be a shame if the [i]noticable[/i] difference between the GH2 and GH3 is that the more expensive one has a slight moire and aliasing problem and the cheaper one doesn't. I don't need a larger/ heavier/weather sealed camera body. The tipping point for me would be if they improved banding and noise in ETC mode....Only time will tell.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1348320764' post='18899']
From this grab, it seems it is just your monitor that is clipping. Non-calibrated Apple screens are really bad, they are too contrasty, a crush the black by a big margin. Not speaking of being glossy glass.

On my calibrated Nec LCD2490WUXi, the left image is correct. No black crushed and - as there is any - no highlight clipped.

You should really look to calibrate your screen, or get a better one.
[/quote]

The monitor calibration did help the blacks but now other aspects of my display are a little crazy and it is too bright.

The skin tones on the juggler's face issue - one is clearly awful and the other much better - any idea what causes that?

[Axel]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1348342245' post='18922']The skin tones on the juggler's face issue - one is clearly awful and the other much better - any idea what causes that?
[/quote]
???
You can't be serious, look at your own video!
The skin reflects a multitude of colored lights, from the blueish background to the green and red LEDs at the bar, reflections of the bottles and everything. I don't know how much color correction you applied, but overall the colors of this camera are the most convincing point so far. For me.

[Julian]

Agreed. The light looks completely different in both shots. Was the white balance fixed on the camera or on auto?

[sanveer]

I am guessing, that either coloured lighting, or (white) light through a bottle, or something, reflects, on the juggler's face. Because, when he stands away, from the bar, his face isn't yellow (in the shots where he is playing with that string). Also, it seems strange, that though his face (and hair) seem very yellow, in a few frames, his shirt is almost as white, as ever ... :P

[MatthewP]

Hey Andrew, just a quick note regarding gamma.

Note: this post assumes that you think the left image has the 'wrong' gamma setting, and the right one has the 'correct' gamma setting.

Are you sure 100% that you're getting crushed blacks and highlights? I did extensive testing some time ago, and have a good method of testing for sure.

As you say, the GH2 records in 16-235.

The picture you posted before had correct gamma on the left, not the right. The right hand one had, I think (might be wrong), lifted shadows and darkened highlights, giving a pseudo low contrast look, which doesn't actually recover any detail, as black is effectively never truly black, nor is white ever really white. They're limited because 16-235 footage is being shown in a 0-255 space, so black is 16 levels brighter than it should be etc.

The way to test is by a histogram. Record some video with the lens cap on, low iso, and fast shutter speed, then record one with 100% blown out sky or something else that's bright.

Now, bring it in to whatever editing software you're using, and see if the brighter gamma (the same method you used to get the brighter result on the right) results in a black level that's truly black (looking at the histogram), or a black level that is actually grey (which won't reach down to the bottom of the scale on the histogram). Same for the highlights - see if the "white" you're seeing is truly white, or actually darker. Perhaps comparing it to a webpage window would be easy to spot, too, if you want a visual representation of what the histogram says.

All this is assuming that your monitor isn't the culprit of these crushed blacks and highlights that you are seeing...

Anyway, if you still don't get what I'm saying, take a look at this modified picture of what you posted... if the blacks were truly being crushed and the whites clipped, I wouldn't have been able to recover that information in the left image. I have literally just lifted the blacks and brought down the highlights on the left image using levels in photoshop.

Hope it's useful! I personally just wish everything was 0-255... but anyway :)

[galenb]

[quote name='chauffeurdevan' timestamp='1348320764' post='18899']
From this grab, it seems it is just your monitor that is clipping. Non-calibrated Apple screens are really bad, they are too contrasty, a crush the black by a big margin. Not speaking of being glossy glass.

On my calibrated Nec LCD2490WUXi, the left image is correct. No black crushed and - as there is any - no highlight clipped.

You should really look to calibrate your screen, or get a better one.
[/quote]

I have to agree with this observation too. On my monitors the Right image look washed out and the one on the left looks just right... well maybe a little dark but I think that's due to the overcast sky.

[see ya]

The GH3 encodes luma over full 0 - 255 (based on that native file Rich pointed to in the other thread) and the stream is flagged 'fullrange' on. Just like Canon and Nikon. This is a departure from the GH2 which was 16 - 235 luma.

The full range flag is there to tell the decompressing codec to squeeze luma levels 16 - 235 for playback which is the correct luma range for conversion to 0 - 255 RGB in the media player. If you are seeing 16 - 235 in a luma waveform it's because the flag is working, Premiere and AE on Windows respect the flag.

VLC depending on config with hardware YUV->RGB conversion active may not respect the full range flag so it may just crush black and compresses white giving increased contrast if not setup right. Many other media players will do the same.

Quicktime Player (on windows at least) does it's own thing and f--ks it up totally.

Perhaps test playback with ffplay from ffmpeg or better still Media Player Classic, which will honour the flag.

Here's a couple of test files, they are both from the same 0 - 255 YCbCr source file, one is encoded with the stream flagged full range on, as GH3, Canon, Nikon MOVs, the other flagged full range off.

[url="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74780302/fullrangetest.zip"]http://dl.dropbox.co...llrangetest.zip[/url]

If your media player / NLE whatever doesn't display the 255 & 16 text then you won't be viewing GH3 or Nikon or Canon MOV's correctly, it will crush shadows and compressed upper levels to white.

If you do see the text then you can check if the levels are correct and not stretched the other way by doing a frame grab and checking in a image editor using the sampler to check 0, 16, 235 & 255 RGB values correspond.

[see ya]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1348309262' post='18887']
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/505d90ded65c3_gh2levels.jpg[/img]

For reference this is the levels problem I am still having with the GH2 after all these years, and now GH3. Why does my Mac not recognise that GH2 footage should be 16-235 not 0-255?

Quicktime treats it as 0-255 as well, crushed blacks and blown highlights.

Full resolution screen grab: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/uploads/gh2-levels.jpg"]http://www.eoshd.com.../gh2-levels.jpg[/url]
[/quote]

Because you're looking at the RGB interpretation, which will be 0 - 255 from YCC 16 235. What does the YC Waveform show?

[zephyrnoid]

[quote name='MaxAperture Films' timestamp='1348313715' post='18893']
Looks like the greenish cast is just as bad if not worse on the Genesis BTS video (shot on GH2)
[media]http://vimeo.com/49500954[/media] between 1:06 and 1:09.
Has to be either the ambient light or a similar white balance issue.
[/quote]
I'm seeing a LOT of that icky yellow/green cast in other GH3 foootage around. I think there will be an intresting opportunity for anyone that wants to do a side by side comparo of the GH2/GH3/and another camera, so as to ferret out which modes are spitting out that horrid cast.
With the 4:2:0 constraint, I'd hate to deal with pulling that particular cast out of all my footage in post.

[zephyrnoid]

[quote name='MatthewP' timestamp='1348351052' post='18932']
Hey Andrew, just a quick note regarding gamma.... if the blacks were truly being crushed and the whites clipped, I wouldn't have been able to recover that information in the left image. I have literally just lifted the blacks and brought down the highlights on the left image using levels in photoshop.
:)
[/quote]
Well monitors matter a lot, as is the proper calibration thereof. Indeed that a histogram will deliver a numeric read of the image, irrespective of monitor calibration. Obviously, a $4,000 FSI costs what it costs because of how accurate its CLUT is in depicting the full scale & gamma of an image.

[TJB]

[quote name='zephyrnoid' timestamp='1348371474' post='18942']
I'm seeing a LOT of that icky yellow/green cast in other GH3 foootage around. I think there will be an intresting opportunity for anyone that wants to do a side by side comparo of the GH2/GH3/and another camera, so as to ferret out which modes are spitting out that horrid cast.
With the 4:2:0 constraint, I'd hate to deal with pulling that particular cast out of all my footage in post.
[/quote]
I've noticed the yellow/green cast as well. It's one of the things I hoped the GH3 would fix. A plugin called FilmConvert is a good fix. It makes grass look like grass again without changing skin tones etc. Otherwise I've had some success by doing a white balance for every setup and avoiding auto or preset white balance.

[lightpainter]

HI!

back from Photokina 12....
I played with the new GH-3 4,5 times..always jumped
to Sony and the others... ( LEICA!!! ) ( 6000 little $)

This is the highest quality of an beginnig pre-production
Camera i ever had in hands.. The form is good, the buttons
in original will be smart, everything is evolution.
Think also that we see a small costable deck ( 4:4:2 ) for this camera.
( and software;workrounds;hacks?)
And the skintones and other little..in this step of firmware..not so bad.

So how will this CAMERA work in version 1.0 release 2013 JUNE?

One was interesting... this shy way when i directly asked
WHAT IS WITH AF 200 / FF PROJECT...

+ yes!!!!

My gh-2 gets a sista.. yes. and price will be soon to 990 euros.
All Lenses work on.. so not so much $$$ for this step.

and the race goes on... out

[riccardocovino]

The moirè/aliasing issue is quite evident.
ALl other manufacturers haven't found a way to eliminate it in sub 2k$ products (Althought Sony has much less than Canon).
If they let it in such a big event like Photokina, with official launch, I don't think they are going to solve it with firmware.
Sensor has a big role in this thing, and clearly GH2 sensor was good for pixel binning while GH3 one (Sony?) not.
So, now we have a good mirrorless camera, with lots of features, but it's no more something unique in the market.
With GH2 you could trade sensor's small size and related problems (noise, crop factor) with clean, crisp, almost RED-like detailed image.
Now, we have a DSLR like all the others, it has good dynamic range (I guess like - and no more - Canon, Sony, Olympus and Nikon), it has moirè and aliasing problems, it has the smallest sensor of the bang (together with Olympus).
If I am an APS-C user, I see not so many reasons to change the wagon anymore, while I was clearly tempted by the GH2 and even more by the idea of an improvement of it if without steps backwards.

[hmcindie]

[quote name='riccardocovino' timestamp='1348402763' post='18949']
The moirè/aliasing issue is quite evident.
ALl other manufacturers haven't found a way to eliminate it in sub 2k$ products (Althought Sony has much less than Canon).[/quote]

Sony has much less than Canon aye?

http://fil.io/FL82vTNAM/Sony%20A99%20raw%20photos%20and%20footage

This 00023.mts was shot with the A99. Does it look like it has less? Same thing happens with the Nex-5n when in the 50p mode.

Horrible moire/aliasing.

[eliasd]

for me 5dmkii ML still rocks!
I expect something better from Panasonic if they want my money,
come on guys! you have it, give it to us!

[zephyrnoid]

[quote name='TJB' timestamp='1348400451' post='18947']
I've noticed the yellow/green cast as well. It's one of the things I hoped the GH3 would fix. A plugin called FilmConvert is a good fix. It makes grass look like grass again without changing skin tones etc. Otherwise I've had some success by doing a white balance for every setup and avoiding auto or preset white balance.[/quote]

The trouble seeems to be localized. What I have no dubbed "Nato Orange Cast" is not an overall cast so if you WB on a pure white card ( i never do BTW) it will not solve this particular problem. The screen grab below shows the radishes almost perfecty natural, whereas the carrots have that Nato Orange Cast. I think it's partly the 4:2:0 space, but I donlt know these cameras.
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/18291/505f655be74d0_Picture4083421.png[/img]