GH3 Photo Samples Specs and Comparison

[see ya]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1351017438' post='20181']
I'm on a Mac running Mountain Lion and I see everything fine in QuicktimeX, Quicktime 7 and Premiere Pro 6. I just tested it out and everything looks fine. Apparently they fixed the gamma bug in Mountain Lion?
[/quote]

Good to know, one less problem with gamma shift hopefully.

For anyone interested if they want to compare shadow / highlight levels handling in their favorite NLE between an 8bit & 32bit project, try importing the 16-235_flagged off.mp4 file in the zip download into an 8bit and 32bit project.

Then adjust levels 0 - 255 to 16 - 235 to try and get the text to show, the flagged 'off' file is exact same full range h264 stream as the flagged 'on' file, just metadata changed so it doesn't signal to the decompressing codec to squeeze luma.

Black and white horizontal bars will be seen, however in an 8bit project applying a levels adjust to 16 - 235 will probably still fail to show the text, but a 32bit project levels adjust should bring text into view to illustrate no data is lost. all depends on where a particular NLE does the YCC to RGB conversion as to whether crushed blacks and compressed highlights are lost or can be recovered in a grade.

[Julian]

Here's a quick video of all the GH3 iso settings. The noise seems to add up as you would expect, didn't notice anything special happening at intermediate iso's for example.

YouTube smooths the grain a lot and makes it look more muddy, but it gives an impression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SniBNzz7P9k

Original footage, unedited.
1080p25, 72Mbit, 1/50s. Manual mode, changed aperture with ISO.
Panasonic 14-140mm lens
Fixed whitebalance (K)

Profile: Natural
Contrast -5
Sharpness -2
Saturation -2
Noise reduction -5

[sanveer]

[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.

[see ya]

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1351028145' post='20192']
@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]

Well I see different results in different browsers, one browser just black and white bars, another something that's a bit closer to original levels.

But YT has probably done what happens to all Canon MOV's and now GH3 MOV's when they are transcoded or imported into an NLE, the full 8bit range luma in the original camera files is squeezed into 16 - 235, which is how the GH3 mts files are encoded.

[see ya]

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1351028145' post='20192']
And the YouTube compression doesn't help. Here's a screengrab (view at full resolution):
[/quote]

Julian, hope you don't mind but that's a terrible screen grab, something's not right with it, if you don't mind how did you do it? Check the histogram for the image in Photshop or something and see how combed it is.

[Julian]

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351028859' post='20195']
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.[/quote]
I also have the impression the compression on Vimeo is less harsh. Especially Vimeo 1080p looks much better than YouTube 1080p. I'll be uploading some original footage onto a ftp soon, via a helpful member here. That'll do :)

[Julian]

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1351029659' post='20198']
Julian, hope you don't mind but that's a terrible screen grab, something's not right with it, if you don't mind how did you do it? Check the histogram for the image in Photshop or something and see how combed it is.
[/quote]
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]

[sanveer]

[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.

[Julian]

The focus gets sharper because I changed the aperture to compensate for the higher iso. Started at f/4 iso 200, ended at f/22 iso 6400.

[sanveer]

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)

[John Twigt]

I think it's very dangerous to make assumptions based on Youtube and Vimeo posted footage and screengrabs. Compression plays havoc on exactly the things people are trying to ascertain here (and on other forums),like banding, aliasing, moire. All these things should be examined with the original footage in an editsuite with calibrated HD-videomonitors, and not on (mostly uncalibrated) computerscreens scaled by mediaplayers with all kinds of strange conversions going on.
Banding will appear when the gradients are (again) rendered after compression-decompression on services like vimeo and youtube. The visibility of moire is highly dependant on the scaling (through mediaplayers or monitor systems), so I find it hard to beleiev that people actually dare to make statements on moire and such based on youtube stills and such.
Any way just my two cents here.

BTW these are my latest shots with GH3 : http://vimeo.com/52019304

[Walter H]

@John (and all others)

Thanks for that statement. The rash, reflexive bashing become difficult here (and in other forums) to weed out from the reasonable critique/conjecture which is ostensibly why we come here: to thoughtfully discuss a camera we are all interested in.

[sanveer]

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]

[Kasper Mols]

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1351025166' post='20185']
Lots of people, outdoors.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIV0xXQa8A[/media]

1080p25, 1/50 fps
Original footage, unedited.
Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 X
Auto White Balance

Inside footage max. iso 1600
Outside footage everything iso 200
Aperture stopped down around f/8-11 most of the time

Profile: Natural
Contrast -5
Sharpness -2
Saturation -5
Noise reduction -5
[/quote]That's breda! Funny to see your hometown in such a test video :D

[Axel]

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1351118364' post='20250']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,
(...)
Here is the video:

[media]http://vimeo.com/52005342#at=0[/media]
[/quote]

First of all, there [i]is[/i] moire. Watch the red wall. I admit it's not very prominent. And then, I don't know at what time of day these kids were filmed (the autumn sun in the hazy sky we have here in our little european 'indian summer' is similar also at noon), but I think there hardly can be a more perfect light, even the shadows don't cause big contrasts. This is nature's flat style, and it is very becoming. Then there is total DoF (complete sharpness, aperture closed) and tripod shots (no degradation of detail through jittery handheld camera), together with a [i]28 Days Later[/i] short exposure time (fast shutter). A camera that failed to look acceptable under these circumstances would be, er, [i]un[/i]acceptable.