@producer

But what are my own impressions and conclusions - the "After" frame has all the characteristics of a digital video, lacked of dense and getting flat. No, I don't mean the "flat image style"!!! I mean that the hacked picture simply lost its material depth! While the "Before" frame produces much more characteristics of a movie look, looks much more cinematic closer to the Hollywood motion pictures.

Aside from the impenetrably subjective character of the OP's opinions, the linked screenshots are the type of scenes that the GH2 is most poorly suited for. Murky and dimly lit, monochromatic with blunt, mute details, could any scene take even less advantage of the hacked GH2's ability to capture sharply detailed, high-speed images with virtually no perceptible aliasing? Let's be realistic here, the GH2 is hardly a high-ISO dynamic range champ with exquisite shadow detail. If that's what you need, use a BMC or even a Nikon D800 (since there's nothing in those scenes that would come even close to aliasing).

TL;DR: OP doesn't like the look of a GH2. OK bye, game over.

Not good to restart old threads, but I want to point out that those frames are actually not before and after of hacked and unhacked, but rather before colour grading and after colour grading, I know this because I clicked on the link to the blog post and read the first sentence...

I don't know how that can be missed.

I go back to the Super 8 era. For years I held off, hoping for a camera without that video look, particularly that ugly outline around shapes in the picture that, in the analog days, we called ringing. Then the GH2 came out. I bought one and a Leica 25mm D 4/3 and Olympus 4/3 > MFT adapter. I ended up running FlowMotion, but even without the hack, the GH2 produced the kind of footage I had been looking for. aaronchicago is right - there are many choices now, but in 2011, the GH2 had a mojo like no other.