GH5 Noise Reduction @high ISOs simply sucks...

[Emanuel]

GH5 vs a6500 @6400 ISO

 

GH5 vs EM1II @6400 ISO

 

Stills, but... :-(

 

Source:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/02/14/panasonic-gh5-beta-first-shots

[Kisaha]

Actually I am surprised of how bad the a6500 looks at your example.

Is the Olympus the best of the three? Sharper than the GH5, better NR algorithm than the a6500??

[Don Kotlos]

I agree, it is just too aggressive. I have seen similar levels of NR in the high iso video samples, with an additional temporal component that sometimes seems to create artifacts. 

I just hope they allow us to turn it all the way down, cause what they claim as an "extra stop" just makes the image unusable.

[Emanuel]

Seems...? : ) They DO produce them:

...such a pity, if they don't fix this bogus.

May happen to be acceptable in the consumer realm; crappy for serious usage.

BTW @Kisaha, that grainy a6500 sample's outcome doesn't bother me at all. The more I see from that Sony device, the more I like.

[Mckinise]

The Blur or loss of detail increases with each ISO. ISO 200 with NR set at 6 has more detail than ISO 400 with NR set to 1.

[jonpais]

The noise reduction on the G85 is pretty aggressive at higher ISOs as well, so I can't say this comes as a big surprise or anything. What would be really shocking would be if the GH5 were as good as the Sony. When I saw the title, I thought the OP was referring to using a denoiser like Neat Video on some clips he downloaded. Maybe they are the same thing, but I would change the title to GH5 Noise Reduction @ high ISOs Simply Sucks... Tolerance for noise and smudging of detail is a personal matter, but I don't think I'd ever shoot at ISO 6400 with a u4/3 camera.

[leeys]

Knowing IR, you're comparing JPEG engines.

[tupp]

Don't know how/if the camera's noise reduction settings affect the raw stills, but the problem doesn't appear in the raw files.  By the way, there are raw files with two different noise settings (NR1 and NR6) available for download, and there is no noise reduction smudging in either. 

 

The problem is reduced on the jpegs with noise reduction set to "1."  If the noise reduction is working in raw mode, I am not seeing any smudging, so perhaps this problem is just limited to jpeg processing.

 

Wonder how the noise reduction in the GH5's 4:2:2 video will compare with that of the jpegs.

[Philip Lipetz]

This is not good example. Look at the same shot done at a lower NR setting.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5/GH5hSLI06400NR1.HTM

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

The noise reduction on the G85 is pretty aggressive at higher ISOs as well, so I can't say this comes as a big surprise or anything. What would be really shocking would be if the GH5 were as good as the Sony. When I saw the title, I thought the OP was referring to using a denoiser like Neat Video on some clips he downloaded. Maybe they are the same thing, but I would change the title to GH5 Noise Reduction @ high ISOs Simply Sucks... Tolerance for noise and smudging of detail is a personal matter, but I don't think I'd ever shoot at ISO 6400 with a u4/3 camera.

Feel free to change the title as mod : )

In any case, the idea would actually be ironic, as matter of fact, as you exactly said: "Maybe they are the same thing"... ;-)

The more they try beat Sony going on a post production trick in-camera rather than the acquisition side, the more they fail to succeed it in the professional camp.

[Kisaha]

@Emanuel it is ironic that you try to convince anyone that a6300/a6500 are belonging "..in the professional camp."

As a professional, that I earn my family's bread with my cameras, I would take the shitty GH5 iso quality anytime, to the "Sony-only-on-the-spec-sheet champ".

Actually I choose to stay with NX, a dead system, instead of the latest APS-C Sonys, because it is more reliable, have exactly the lenses I need in my line of work in APS-C, better ergonomics, lower battery consumption, no overheating etc etc, and I have worked a few times with the a6300 at 2016, and never had to go to 6400 by the way.

It is good as a 3rd camera, and one of my business partners can give it to me whenever I ask, but he seriously thinking to go full m4/3, as his primary camera STILL is the GH4.

[Emanuel]

On that one, you are partially right, Kisaha.

You didn't see me to quote the last toy from the a6000 series in the same line as in the professional category since I believe they see full frame mirrorless camera as the 'hybrid professional tools' ; ) no worries on that, man. I am not used to post in the Sony forums ;-)

In any case, I wouldn't dare myself to write the same about... the professional outcome a competent shooter can have, from such tiny 8-bit device. That one by Sony; the same for GH series, NX and so on.

I won't even call it 4:2:0 one, once you can reach higher than that through HDMI. Even though, F900 was 8-bit 3:1:1. And the 'professional king' for 100x more, albeit for less IQ

:P

 

BTW, I don't give a shit to the professionals here, there and everywhere. To me, it strictly counts the perspective on the artistic potential of the brush.

 

 

3 hours ago, Philip Lipetz said:

This is not good example. Look at the same shot done at a lower NR setting.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5/GH5hSLI06400NR1.HTM

Here is against the other one (both from GH5 beta unit now):

I stand the same conclusions. If not a post production in-camera trick though, sensor department doesn't help either against the remainder competitors, I guess. Seems jonpais nailed it when pointed out the 4/3" sensor size limitations.

[noone]

Doesn't look all THAT bad to me.

Sure the other cameras look better and I wouldn't want to use the GH5 at ISO 6400 anyway unless I had to.      I think for the A6500 I wouldn't want to use at ISO 12800 unless I had to but any of these cameras is not going to be at its best over ISO 3200 anyway.

GH5 seems like it will be a wonderful camera for video (regardless of sensor size) as long as you can control the light or keep it at lower ISOs.     It will also be a nice M4/3 stills camera with all the normal pluses and minuses the sensor size gives.

Maybe in a couple of generations, M4/3 will have the low light/high ISO that some want but just seems beyond M4/3s for now. 

[Kisaha]

@Emanuel the most money I earned the last couple of years are coming from C100 cameras, and those haven't the best codecs in business, or maybe, they do have!

I believe my greatest achievement so far was a media installation I did in film school (art department) were I had only a tiny light for orientation purposes, and all the performance was a wall of sound (achieved by a tap of water, a telephone analog signal, a Budha box and a few guitar effects and an amp). The key was that the lack of sight enhanced imagination. It is how you use your tools I guess.

 

[Don Kotlos]

15 minutes ago, noone said:

Sure the other cameras look better and I wouldn't want to use the GH5 at ISO 6400 anyway unless I had to. 

When you have to use high ISOs then it is easier to deal with noise than noise reduction once you have sufficiently high bit rate. 

The problem with GH5 right now is that it does now allow us to override NR settings completely in video mode, but Panasonic people have stated in one of their interviews they might allow it if there is demand. 

And that is what we are doing now, we are being vocal and we are demanding to be able to turn NR down!  

[webrunner5]

I don't see m4/3 Ever being worth a crap in low light. When you use the comparameter? it is still rather dishearting how little Any camera has gained with great Low Light ability in the last say 6 years. 1 stop if we are lucky in that amount of time. Sony A7s is the only one that is sort of great in low light. And real life that is 25,600 at the top without biting your lip. Sure more if you HAVE too, but you sure as hell don't Want to. Most cameras are still 6,400 tops, 12,800 is Oh Shit stuff. Ain't happening on a m4/3 camera video wise.

[terozzz]

Who gives a flying F*#¤ about JPEGs? Take RAW photo and then look who's the boss. IR tests are irrelevant, no real use at all to me.

[webrunner5]

Because if it is sort of good there it will be great at say even 6400. You do realize people shoot video in sporting events, horror films at night, bedroom scenes, run and gun, broke people that can't afford lighting, plane wrecks in farm fields at night, etc, etc.

I had my house broken into when I was in Florida last month. No surveillance camera, but if I did I bet I had one that was good at 100,000 ISO!! And I was glad as hell I had most of my video stuff with me in Florida.

[Kisaha]

What horror film is shot in 25,600 ISO?! 

There are specialized security cameras with infrared and other technologies, you are not going to put a A7s as a security camera, first of all, it would be the first to be stolen!

[Simon Shasha]

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.