Nice. Can you post some pics or vid of the gel mod of the sensor? How does it clear the shutter? Never thought of trying to mod the sensor itself.

Whenever I shot with a filter I didn't white balance in cam, I just let it go purple then raised the green in post and it gave me a real nice image, especially of foliage. Your vid looks great.

here's a post from Aki's blog about my journey into sensor modding using varying degrees of minus green gels. http://www.fourseasonshd.com/cgi-bin/csvsearch.pl?db=db1&tp=tp19&search=blueLight013

@pchristoph Nice video. Sensor mod seems interesting. Thanks for posting.

@DrDave from what I read this technique involves "tricking" the way the sensor works and pushing more information into red and blue channels (which otherwise deliver less info than the green channel, in 4:2:0). So I guess it works if it is done "before" the sensor and not "on/by" the sensor. But I could be completely wrong ...

@pchristoph I tried it and it was better with the in cam processing.

By resolution I mean the amount of detail that is cleanly resolved.

Looking at your video on my calibrated monitor, it appears to me that the grey point is not set correctly and the colors as a result look a bit underexposed, along with a slightly washed out look. Of course you could be going for that look, as a sort of nostalgia filter but I think the grey point could still be lower. I particularly notice it in the skin tones as well as for example the blue squares in the shirt. The green in the trues is washed out as well, not so much the foreground which has a fall color but the evergreen background color.

I think your color would come out truer with the green/magenta shifted in cam, and then grading it however you like in post. But I can understand that you don't want to post a comparison, it is just helpful for us to learn from.

@Flabo, maybe it works, would be interesting to see a carefully done side by side comparison.

I'm curious about this. It seems to me that whether in-camera processing would offer better or worse results depends on when that processing takes place. My guess is that it's difficult to do a 1:1 comparison but in-camera processing should be better as it doesn't put anything in the optical pathway to reduce light or sharpness.

@DrDave dumb question: how do you actually balance green/magenta in cam? I don't have my GH2 at the moment, trying to do it on the GH3 but the only thing I can do is to adjust the WB through the manual hue selector, which I don't think is the correct way (I should minus green and then adjust the WB to compensate it, right?) EDIT: ok, I guess you mean the technique described by eoshd, which corrects into the WB @shian yes thanks, got it!

@pcristoph did you used the gel in the distillery video as well? It looks great and different from anything I've seen on the GH2

@shian thanks for checking it out. I love the side benefit that the gel takes the digital edge off as well. And thank you for teaching us from your wealth of pro experience. I've benefitted from your 'exposé in the zone' tutorial and its made me work smarter at becoming a better shooter. @flablo the distillery 'tank' video released a couple weeks ago has the gel mod applied, but the distillery story released last Spring doesn't. Glad you like the coloring on it - it was an artistic choice and I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.

If your iMac (like mine) has been properly calibrated, then what you see is what you get. I decided to activate my vimeo account on my bluray player a few nights ago just to see how my stuff looks to the public coming off the set top box. It looks even better on my TV than on my iMac. BUT no surprises. No colors in the wrong place, everything looks exactly the way I intended it.

IMO Apple Cinema displays are perfect. So check the scopes, if the scopes don't show the grey point too low, and you don't see it on your Apple display, then it ain't really there. You might have underexposed a bit here and there, but the skin tone looks fine to me. BUT I like to underexpose skin tone, I like the way it looks. I think what dave is seeing is a result of the grade, which does not have true colors, but a dirty almost gray/brown toner type look to it. Something I use all the time.

@shian the monitor calibration is heavily dependent on ambient light, so I still recommend a colorimeter with an ambient light sensor, for both color and contrast.

@shian, I'm curious, in your experience do the WB presets drift over time on the GH2 (or cameras in general) or with the warmth of the camera perhaps? I'm not a fan of doing scene-based custom WB but I'm curious about adapting this filter to a naturalistic style of mixed color temperatures, creating, essentially, a revised or offset preset for tungsten.

I think I'm going to give this technique a go the next time I'm shooting daylight, regardless. Really good looking stuff @pchristoph

@shian--I actually don't grade in darkened room because the effect of the backlight in a darkened room becomes the light source, and the grey point can then change with the size of the monitor. I do one pass on the calibrated monitor, then another round on the calibrated TV, then one pass each on Rec 709 and full 0-255, since the output is not only for internet but also Blu-Ray.

I have to assume that the end user will be viewing with some ambient light, and this of course is a crapshoot, but the last pass gets compared on Blu-Ray to reference samples of current movies, since if a TV is adjusted by the end user, that's where they will tweak the settings. The computer output is just a guess, but the high demographic target is the iPad user, so I use that as a reference. You could use an iMac as well. No easy answers here. I expect in a few years I will use a phone as the reference for YouTube.

Of course there is always the possibility that I am doing it wrong, there really is no way to know. I don't know anyone with a properly calibrated TV.