GH2 versus Arri Alexa and F3 (real world testing)

NickBen

@JDN Can you add Red Epic / Scarlet to the title of this topic, as Vitaliy prefers we keep real world testing on Red Cameras in this topic?

I laughed at the initial comparison topic, but then saw the footage and said "damn"

Can anybody else confirm this,
the GH2 Hack produces a better default image than the EPIC at 1080 24p?
Especially in low light?

Closed red thread listed here with Jannard comment:
"This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever read.

Jim"

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?64983-RED-Epic-verus-Panasonic-GH2

johnnym

It is "bullshit" isn't it, as the Epic has so much more dynamic range, but the test being carried out under overcast weather, this isn't obvious.

On the other hand, why does Red feels it needs to comment on this, if it is so obvious?

Very funny. And what a superb camera the GH2 has become thanks to Vitaliy and friends.

cosimo_bullo

I think Janard et al are in fact shocked by how quickly the playing field is leveling out. Look at the data rates between driftwood's best patches and the older redcodes. The image is there, the data is now there... and the damned little camera turn on in seconds, ready for work.

Edit: And seemingly ready to accept nearly every lens ever invented.

lolo

@johnnym from that forum thread i´ll keep this comment, wich seems to be the less beligerant, yet informative.

Kristin Stewart
"Of course, it's apples and oranges... But the GH2, for its price range, has an excellent image. I just attended a 4K projection test, comparing a 4K DCP originated with a Red One, and a 2K DCP made with a GH2... Sure, the 4K DCP is sharper and has a better dynamic range according to the pros who were next to me. But everyone really enjoyed the 2K DCP too, the picture looked beautiful to me. After 2 minutes, everyone stood hooked by the movie, not by the technical aspects alone."

from this statement we can say that gh2 can go to cinema, and if someone complains about not being 4k, that is the filmmmaker´s fault not a technical fault, is the storyteller´s fault, not the pixel´s fault, wich is amazing, and not comparable to the now old miniDV revolution

disneytoy

What ever anyone thinks. Even if we all agree RED is better. The difference in image quality is minimul. With proper exposure, setting, you can cut the GH-2 footage with the RED and I doubt anyone would be able to pick it out. Now, this does not take into account the higher dynamic range of RED, and the farther you can push the grade in post. But A well exposed jpeg looks just as good as a well exposed RAW assuming you don't need to fix things.

brianluce

Meanwhile over at reduser.com Jannard locked the GH2/Epic thread. Those guys are so crazy, they treat everything as a sacred cow with the RED brand -- be it vaporware like the nonexistant Scarlet, or the crapheap that was the early generations of RED One -- a barely usable noise making chunk of metal.

nomad

Well, I use both and actually tested all of them for Digital Production (Munich). Sorry, from all technical aspects the EPIC is better. But I fully support the notion that it's all about the artistic quality of the film in the end.

Only pixel-peepers may sit on the edge of their seats for technical quality, but the whole audience can get drawn into a good film – whatever it originated on. There have been great films in cinemas that originated on DV, like "In This World", "Lost Children" or the like and nobody complained.

There have been projects intercut with RED and Canon 5D footage, and I think we can all agree the the hacked GH2 blows the 5D out of the water (for film, not photography). Sure you can intercut GH2 and RED!

But I don't think that Jim Jannard closed that thread because of 'sacred cows', he closed it because it became so silly and pure digital noise. He owns that site, and it's up to him to close a thread, just like Vitaliy does it where he sees it appropriate. We can all discuss cameras ad nauseam on other sites instead of shooting with them…

IMHO, Jim and Vitaliy are similar personalities in one respect: they are both trying to give us better tools, only in different fields. If RED wouldn't have kicked the big ones asses, they would still try to sell us outdated technology with minor improvements year by year and we'd choke up our hard earned money again and again.

An Alexa would have never existed, neither a F65 (not at that price point) without RED. I'm sure well see better codecs soon in the lower price range, maybe even 4:2:2 and 10 bit because of Vitaliy (not forgetting Driftwood and all the others here).

If you are shooting a high-budget film, tools like the Epic make sense, since it allows more range for exposure correction, re-framing and better VFX. But if you are a budding film-maker with very little money, but talent and passion, you can replace the difference in money by excellent knowledge of the workflow and your tools, very careful lighting and exposure, patience in post and you'll get results that can stand their own on the big screen.

brianluce

There is lemming cult like quality at Reduser. And it is full of sacred cows, the biggest being Jim Jannard himself. Look at the petulant manner in which he replied to the GH2 thread -- and that's how he always is. It's not like that here, Vitaliy is routinely trashed and insulted on nearly every subject under the sun. He's no sacred cow. Vitaliy never gives hype or hyperbole or propaganda. The only possible sacred cow around these parts is Olivia Speranza. And I challenge the notion that Jannard is all about helping filmmakers and the little guys. I know for a fact the so called little guys were thrown under the bus when it came time to upgrade from R1 to Epic.

About the test, I think it's garbage. I don't believe an 8 bit 4:2:0 consumer $600 digital cam is better than a $60,000 cine cam. Some of the Epic footage didn't even look focused properly. We need to get real.The Epic is a fantastic camera, way out of GH2 class.

The test I'm referring to is the wedding videographer's test. Not JDN's, which wasnt a test but observations.

driftwood

I laughed at 'My softest lens' test on REDUSER! Here's mine :-) FD55mm 1.2 ASPH. lens on Driftwood INTRA 176M Ex Tele

lolo

@brianluce dude! Olivia has the holy curves!, she is sacred!

@driftwood is that really extele mode????, looks like 24h factory settings :)))))))))))))))

@nomad of course there are good dv movies, but my point referring to the miniDV revolution was, that Kristin Stewart from that RED forum said that after 2 minutes everyone stood hooked by the movie, i´m mean i have watched movies in DV on cinema and i´m kind of mentally complaining up to the first 30 minutes (and i´m seriously not a pixel peeping, and also they were actually good movies), so, my point is, we are getting better and better, as everything gets cheaper and cheaper, and everything is closer and closer now in terms of technical qualities.

JDN

@disneytoy, sorry, was away shooting and missed your question: when I did the test, all that was stable low GOP was kaes 3gop 66 from ptools 3.61. Now I exclusively use driftwoods excellent patches -- hope to have the chance soon to test them against other cameras.

alcomposer

Just to illustrate pictorial style the shear difference in price point of the Epic v's GH2.

(I am not discussing quality or price or anything- just the enormity of the difference)

Im thinking who needs a GoPro? Welcome the GH2 new disposable camera.

killagram

@alcomposer - hmmmmm, tough choice =P

nomad

Nice for Bullet-Time ;-)

alcomposer

(A friends current art project: not GH2)

However we digress - Was just a graphic for comparison... Nothing else.

smsjr

I've been posting some comments about RED comparison to GH2 over in the Low GOP thread but will comment here instead. I've been an active member on Reduser for a long time, and I'm sure everyone's experiences have been different over there but I find that when the focus is on helping each other work through issues, sharing knowledge and techniques, and the occasional fun banter it's a very good place to hang out. Occasionally it gets out of control, but that's the web for you. I'm drawn to this forum because of the same reasons. I have a R1 and a GH2, so for me it's cool having both these resources to turn to. The one thing that RED did decide to get away from was talking too much about other cameras, for no other reason than it added up to a lot of noise, could get ugly at times, and really didn't prove to be very productive when all is said and done. They concluded that's what DVXuser is for.

So, I'm going to shoot this little test tonight comparing the two and post my results as I discussed in the other thread. It will satisfy my own curiosity and maybe open up an interesting conversation. Should be able to make files available by tomorrow.

danyyyel

@smsjr Hi, would it be possible to do so day test and contrasty lighting just to see not only resolution but also dynamic range. Thanks.

smsjr

@danyyyel Iam uploading some test files to FTP now. They are huge but should be ready by morning. See the Low GOP thread for details.

tfreakburg

Hey all, I just joined over here a couple weeks ago, but I've been a member at reduser for 3 years now..

The big reaction over there is the fact that were talking about a compressed 1080p comparison. And I understand their reaction... Since were not even talking about uncompressed HD, seeing GH2 footage end up even on blu-ray as clean as Epic footage is probably unlikely.. But the real point is seeing it in theaters on a *good* 4k projector. The thread seemed pretty calm to me compared to other stuff... Jim seemed the most ticked off lol.

If you're just shooting for local commercials, vimeo, and low (LOW!) budget film stuff.. You're not going to be picking an Epic anyway (unless u got that cash). Maybe the occasional rental.

On the other hand, even on a feature with a budget of 500k to 1 million USD, if 3D is the goal, using GH2's would probably give u more bang for you're buck than anything. I guess in general, you could argue that to be true of the GH2.

Scientifically, this comparison is nonsense. Practically, there's a huge crowd of students and indie film makers that are scrambling to add a couple more of these great little cameras to their gear. Me included.

brianluce

But what % of movie theaters have 4k projectors? My understanding is that 2k, overwhelmingly, is what films are scanned AND projected at.

Ian_T

That's true as far as understand it.

tfreakburg

Yea, most films are finished in 2k... and digital imax is two 2k projectors layered...

But Jim is right when he says 4k is the next step... 2k is just not good enough. Especially now that there ARE theaters with digital 4k projectors, and movies that are actually finished in 4k. People are able to see the difference, not just hear that there Is a difference.

Not everyone cares, and I get that. My brother loves making short films and collecting movies, but he doesn't have a blu-ray player. He doesn't care about HD.

Red is always thinking a couple years down the road, which is fine, because it usually takes them that much longer to release something....

But ever since I got my first HD laptop and HDTV, I can't get enough of it. All my movies and my shows have got to be in HD now or I just can't stand watching them. Some people won't care in the end no matter what.

Even if you don't see/care about the difference between 16mm film and 35mm film, you have to admit that the difference between 70mm or imax and 16mm is mindblowing.

Just like people don't see the need for 5k, theaters didn't (and some still don't) see the need for 4k projection. But when your competition has it, it matters.

I do event videography. I shoot only hd now. Not because I offer blu-rays (I don't) but because web videos are a strong side of my business... and people have started to discover that little option on Youtube that says 1080p 720p etc.... And they like it.

brianluce

Just like people don't see the need for 5k, theaters didn't (and some still don't) see the need for 4k projection. But when your competition has it, it matters.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br />
Sorry, I don't buy this, at least not until 4k has a credible penetration. If major studios are overwhelmingly displaying in 2k, that should be and is our gold standard. 4k seems like more of a Jannard marketing ploy than anything else. It's perfect for a brochure, but in the real world it's not all that.

That GH2/Epic test is sketchy at best, but the fact the Epic and GH2 were compared at 1080/2k (approx) is fair since that's the primary high end display format at this point in time and space.

The Epic is awesome, but for me, it's not awesome because it's 4k or 5k whatever it is.

tfreakburg

Its true Red pushes resolution more than anything.

Epic and other Red cameras are awesome for much more than resolution. Redcode RAW? Awesome. HDRx? Awesome. High FPS rates are total gravy, but theres so much that goes into Red cams besides resolution, which I'm sure has been the reason so many film makers have jumped on it.... the great capabilities.

Jim's mantra is part marketing, but part truth. Now that we are moving out of the film era, resolution is going to be progressing very quickly. In 10 years we have moved from features being shot on mini-dv and 1080p cameras (then converted to film, like 28 days later, Star Wars...) to Epic 5k. In 10-15 years I expect people will be buying their 4k tvs at Walmart... or whatever that UHDTV standard is... And movies will be shot in... 8k? 12k? who knows.

The golden standard only lasts for so long. I'm sure there's a limit to how much resolution we can perceive and still enjoy, but we aren't there yet. I'm just glad that when they shot Lawrence of Arabia back in 1962, they used 65mm over 35mm. Now Sony is scanning it in 4k for blu-ray release, and who knows? 4k release down the road? I hope so... before some jerk decides to remake it.

I don't think you really disagreed with me up there... You said "until 4k has a credible penetration"

Who's going to push theaters to invest in 4k projection? (and most the theaters I go to have it and even advertise it) The consumers aren't... not when most of them can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on their living room tv... People don't think, wow thats crappy resolution when they watch a 2k film... not unless they are thinking "wow I bet this would look even cooler in 4k".

There's still a war on between film and digital. This is part of it.

thepalalias

A lot of good points made so far but I think you forget the difference between "what can people tell" and "what can people be told".

4k is not only real and available, but projection format has been a deciding factor in selecting a movie theater when I go out with my friends (and has been since 2007, much like surround sound was during the 90s. That's not because all of my friends think of and see the difference, it's because they want "the best" and what that is depends on marketing. Dolby Surround, DTS, SDDS, IMAX... if there's a label out there that people sense on some level can provide a superior experience, they will feel like they "might" be missing something if it isn't there.

It's worth noting that high profile 4k projectors are about to hit the home.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/07/sony-announces-a-4k-projector-for-the-home-at-cedia-prices-hmz/

That means that theaters will rapidly adopt them in order to maintain their claim of providing the highest quality movie experience.

Marketing and public perception are very important in terms of the bottom-line (much more so than our personal perceptions as industry professionals or independents) and that is what will drive industry adoption.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters