Lets Discuss, where the GH3 Falls Short

[Germy1979]

I'm not sure how many people even know this camera takes stills, lol.

I agree on the fact that moire/aliasing are a no go... Still, why is it on one video and not on the next? 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) Regardless... Panasonic has to be getting over-run with emails and questions over these concerns.. I dig my gh2, & i'd love to get the 3.. But if moire/aliasing are there, forget it. This camera scores high in everything in terms of upgrades.. But it's like painting a beautiful picture, then wiping your ass with it. In this case the ass is a metaphor for aliasing, incase no one got that. Not abstract art.. Seems like "good enough" is the mindset though if version 0.5 is the final word... It's a month away, which doesn't leave much time for easing the concerns of the public regarding issues if they plan on a different firmware.. Then again, there is a subliminal deadline that it has to be addressed before release if it's a firmware issue, however, if it's hardware and there's moire... Bummer.

[galenb]

Well, I did post where I was getting my comparisons. ;-) Thanks for posting that review though. I hadn't seen that one yet. Definitely looks better then what I've seen previously. Still, after looking at those images, I think I prefer the grain/noise pattern on the OMD to the GH3. For some reason it just looks more natural to me. The GH3 just looks cruddy and digital to me. On the OMD the out of focus areas still have a nice and pleasing grain to them but on the GH3, it looks soft and mushy to me. I think in this particular instance it comes down to how the image it compressed in JPEG.

But you are right, with no RAW support it's hard to tell just yet how this will turn out. All the development in finalizing the firmware is currently going into the stills side so there is a lot of room for this to improve before they release it. Maybe that's why DPReview hasn't reviewed it yet. I'm probably just jumping to conclusions before I know enough.

[galenb]

This is what I'm talking about:

[attachment=312:GH3-OMD.jpg]

I suppose this might be down to the sharpening settings though.

[Ernesto Mantaras]

[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.

[GravitateMediaGroup]

A lot of assumptions being made about a camera that people have only seen preproduction footage from.

The moire issue is still unknown why some videos have it, why some don't, maybe 12-35, maybe early firmware?
Like i've always said, I'm not going to go out looking to shoot things in my videos that will show moire.

@Axel, the thing is...without a doubt, the GH3 is a better camera than the GH2, if a person decides not to upgrade, then they will be using the lesser of the two cameras, if that's all a persons budget will allow, then so be it, make the best of what you got, even if you are using a GH1.
Canon is usually the choice camera when it comes to photos, but I don't think we are concerned with photo quality when it comes to any GH, the real question is, Can the GH3 be hacked? and if so what will it unleash. MFT is hardly a dead end and I don't see it going anywhere except up.

And yeah, I love the GH2 and the GH3, they are amazing cameras for the price and wide variety of lenses. If I plan on just walking out the door and just messing around it's what I'm going to grab. If I have a professional gig I'm going to use my BMCC (when it ever arrives) or I am going to rent a camera. People seem picky or spoiled by technology and must have forgotten what consumer cameras were limited to 5-10 years ago. Do people really go out looking for objects that will cause moire in their footage? If so, they need to stop focusing on flaws, and focus on creativity.

[Axel]

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351918265' post='20941']Do people really go out looking for objects that will cause moire in their footage? If so, they need to stop focusing on flaws, and focus on creativity.[/quote]

Well said. I say Amen to your last line. I own a moire camera already, the 7D, and all I can say is, if it's in the frame, it says [i]cheap video[/i]. You may be right, and nobody else cares.

[KarimNassar]

The issue I have with moire and aliasing is that it takes me out of the illusion and prevents me from enjoying the video.
Unlike higher noise or poorer detail rendition or even less color fidelity that also separate the good from bad cameras.
But those flaws don't break the illusion nor prevent me to enjoy the story.
Moire and aliasing do, so I am personally very wary of that.
.

[sanveer]

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).

[GravitateMediaGroup]

The way I see it, if you really want to know what you think about the camera, you need to just buy it. If you like it, keep it, if you don't like it, then send it back. Where I live there is no camera store/rental, so if I really want to test a product, I have to order it and see for myself rather than make an assumption from a youtube video. But if moire & aliasing is the biggest complaint, Like Germ said, we need to know why some videos have it, and some don't.

[Ernesto Mantaras]

[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!

[GravitateMediaGroup]

I like to find solutions to problems, this may be one? This may not work with GH3, just found the video and thought I would share.
seems to work well with Canon
[url="https://vimeo.com/41491834#at=83"]https://vimeo.com/41491834#at=83[/url]

or maybe this? [url="http://colorbyjorg.wordpress.com/plugins/"]http://colorbyjorg.w...ss.com/plugins/[/url] <-- for FCX only

[Axel]

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351960263' post='20967']
I like to find solutions to problems, this may be one? This may not work with GH3, just found the video and thought I would share.
seems to work well with Canon
[url="https://vimeo.com/41491834#at=83"]https://vimeo.com/41491834#at=83[/url]

just woke up, i'm a bit dyslexic today
[/quote]

Off the cuff, what do these AA-filters do? With a lens optimized for taking stills with the 18 MP sensor the 7D has, the actual video resolution is [i]just under[/i] 500 lines, as also congruent with all the moire on the test chart.

BUT: With organic textures with no uniform patterns, the perceived resolution goes towards 1080. There is a lot of detail in the image. It is false detail, but the image looks good. The filter reduces the frequency of the lens, allowing for a video resolution of slightly [i]over[/i] 500 lines. Now you see the true resolution (more or less), and the image looks muddy, like the half HD-resolution it is. By adding post-sharpening, it looks sharper again. Watch the lens bag, the original texture is [u]gone[/u]. It's no longer distracting though.

With the GH2, you have 900 lines out of the box, otherwise only reached by Sony's EX-series in any camera under 10.000 bucks. You needn't worry that it might not go for FullHD.

[Germy1979]

https://vimeo.com/52019304

If you haven't seen this, have a look. It's not here.

[sanveer]

[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1351960016' post='20966']
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.

[/quote]

Maybe because I work in video (entertainment) too, I know what it is. Otherwise, maybe I would know what one means, but, may not know the exact word, for it. :-)
Its also, very visible in those cheap office chairs, with black meshed nylon.

[GravitateMediaGroup]

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1351966671' post='20970']
[url="https://vimeo.com/52019304"]https://vimeo.com/52019304[/url]

If you haven't seen this, have a look. It's not here.
[/quote]

or here lol
https://vimeo.com/49420579

[galenb]

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351959781' post='20965']
The way I see it, if you really want to know what you think about the camera, you need to just buy it. If you like it, keep it, if you don't like it, then send it back. Where I live there is no camera store/rental, so if I really want to test a product, I have to order it and see for myself rather than make an assumption from a youtube video. But if moire & aliasing is the biggest complaint, Like Germ said, we need to know why some videos have it, and some don't.
[/quote]

Alright, I'm not trying to bash your opinion or anything but I think it [b]is[/b] appropriate in many cases to judge a camera by what you see on Vimeo or Youtube. Specifically if you intend on releasing videos on the web. Think about it, these cameras are all about the final product. No one sees all the work it takes to make a movie. They don't know that it has a metal body or what type of lens mount or sensor size it has. All they see is the end results. If your end result looks all aliased and moire, then that's all they're going to get. The camera's soul purpose is to provide you with the cleanest, most detailed image. All else is peripheral. if It can't do that, no amount of metal body or ease of use features are going to cure that. The GH2 is testament to this; it's tiny, plastic, looks totally unprofessional and even has a smaller sensor and yet the end results in many cases blow away cameras costing 3 time as much. The peripheral things don't matter as much. The only thing that matters are the end results. If you watch these GH3 videos and notice the aliasing and moire, chances are pretty high that's you'll see them in your footage too. that doesn't bode well for it's future.

Think about this too: The opposite is true too. Take the BMCC for instance. It's got some terrible usability issues that I wont repeat here but when it comes down to it, the only thing that people will see is the final image. If they see your videos and think, "man, that looks amazing!" (or better yet, they don't notice the image specifically but get an over-all feeling that your videos are great), then what do these issues amount to in the end? They're just peripheral at that point. Sure it makes it more difficult but no one knows that when they see the end result.

I used to say the same thing about Maya vs Lightwave (3d animation software). Maya was all modern and technically advanced but the rendering was god awful. Lightwave on the other hand was awful to use but the rendering was amazing for back then. No one knows what software you used to make the image on the screen. They just know it looks good or it looks bad.

Getting back on topic, do I think we have seen the definitive tests that show us all we need to see in order to render our final judgement? Absolutely not. I have a feeling, looking at the discrepancies in so many images and videos, that there is a magic combination of settings that causes the image to look really good or really bad. Once the camera is out and we have a chance to fully explore whether the issues are caused by to much sharpening or lenses or wether it's really is just down to the scaling algorithm and there's nothing we can do about it then yes, we can make an educated decision based on what we see on the web. As long as the tests are scientifically done, how can you argue with that? However, if you are looking at the results and up until now and thinking, "Hey, that's not bad at all!" then brother be one with it. Buy it. Love it.

And of course none of these big long posts is complete without a standard disclaimer stating that no amount of camera technology is going to make you a better filmmaker and that we all need to stop worrying about 4k vs 2k or what lens to use and just concentrate on making content that people actually want to watch Blah, blah, blah... I know, I know, it's the most important thing but this is a camera forum. We're here to talk about that stuff guys. Can we all just agree that this statement goes without saying?

[galenb]

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1351966671' post='20970']
[url="https://vimeo.com/52019304"]https://vimeo.com/52019304[/url]

If you haven't seen this, have a look. It's not here.
[/quote]

I just wanted so that I think this is a pretty bad test of moire. Moire shows up when fine lines converge together. Usually the performance of the camera to resolve this kind of detail is measured by how close to one pixel the fine details can come together before causing moire. The long horizontal lines in this video are way to large and way to far apart to show moire. Same is true with the bricks. The bricks would need to converge. You can't just point a camera at a brick wall and expect to see moire. I know this kind of test is bandied about in the forum as if all you have to do is point a camera at some horizontal lines or some bricks and you will see moire but it's just not true at all.

[GravitateMediaGroup]

@galenb
I didn't even read your post, because the GH3 footage we have seen is preproduction, come make a big long post about it when everybody is posting footage left and right on youtube and vimeo.

you are either going to buy the camera and test it for yourself, keep it or send it back. if you do not plan on buying the camera based on what you have seen "so far", there is nothing left to talk about.

[sanveer]

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351959781' post='20965']
The way I see it, if you really want to know what you think about the camera, you need to just buy it. If you like it, keep it, if you don't like it, then send it back. Where I live there is no camera store/rental, so if I really want to test a product, I have to order it and see for myself rather than make an assumption from a youtube video. But if moire & aliasing is the biggest complaint, Like Germ said, we need to know why some videos have it, and some don't.
[/quote]

I am sorry, but I find the argument ludicrous. One cannot go out and buy each and every camera, to test it. Whether you return it, later, or not, isn't even important. If that were the case, there would be no need for critics and discussions. Your argument has sent man, right back, to the stone age.

Pushing your argument forward, there would be no need to exchange ideas, to exchange information, and maybe, even get a manual, for products.

Also, maybe, it stems from your ignorance of buy and return policies. It isn't everywhere in the world, that one can buy a product and return it later, only because you found it unsatisfactory.

[GravitateMediaGroup]

@sanveer
You just made the most ignorant post I've ever had to read. I'm not taking away your rights to discuss cameras/gear. But it is dumb for you to think you know it all based on others "opinions" and half truths of a preproduction camera. I don't know where you live or who you do business with, but I will not purchase camera/gear with a money back guarantee and I suggest you do the same.
I don't care how you go about your test, but like I said, there isn't a rental or camera shop where I live and the only way I like to decide is with my own hands on experience, not some douche filming his cat. I guess by ordering anything I want and returning it is a possible free 30 day rental? Please due continue your discussion based on preproduction YouTube videos, I don't want you to feel like I'm taking your right, how do you test over the Internet what footage looks like blown up on a projector or TV, which I like to do both. Yeah, you can say hook a PC up, but then how do you know if the person used the best possible export settings?