There have been tests, check for the GH2 versus AF100 posts -- there was a stir when it outresolved the AF100 -- Berry Green almost had a breakdown. Generally there are complaints about the GH2 -- for example under some circumstances you can still get aliasing, banding pops up under some circumstances, 8 bit limitations, lack of great wide angle solutions, weak audio and others. But generally, resolution has been one of the strengths. I mean, look at this forum, engineers and shooters are obsessive compulsive about squeezing every little last drop of image quality from the GH2 and yet you won't find much concern for resolution -- presumable because everyone is pleased with it -- contrast that to a Canon forum where resolution *is* an issue.

@brianluce seconded.

I've used gh1 footage on large projections and although I had issues with some of the noise (macro-blocking in certain areas of the spectrum), resolution was definately not an issue. I saw details which I didn't see while editing when watching the projection up close.

Note: it was a full HD projector, 10 metre wide projection. (DIY setup - the projection could have been much better with more time and care) Also, the lens setup used for that particular work didn't work in favor of resolution, which means that the image was a lot softer than what can be achieved.

The GH2 has a lot cleaner image, better resolution, and better noise rendition - especially in gop1 footage. I'm very confident it would look gorgeous on the big screen.

If you really are concerned with resolution, try out the GH2 with optics that is known to work well with it and full frame cine lenses that you can get hold of.. There are notable differences between different lenses on different systems. Even between the GH1 and the GH2 some lenses do not work as well on the gh1 s on the gh2 and vice versa (although this is of course subjective to a large extent) so I suggest you do not assume that one single lens will give you the cream of the gh2 because it has produced good results on other systems, or is reknowned as a good lens, full stop.

When looking at the screen grabs above, I find the 16mm footage looking better - because of the fringing on the ex1 (producing dv-like results), even though the grabs seem to contain more detail. But that is just me. Add sharpness in post to gh2 footage if you want a similar look.

I suggest getting a bunch of lenses that you can try out on both setups - then you will have a much better idea of which camera produces the results that you want. No resolution test alone will give you that info, and it's especially wortwhile if you are planning a £100k project. Maybe even renting a camera would be wortwhile for your project? If you don't try it out then you will never know, but IMO it would then be quite rash to use the gh2 just because it is cheap or the ex1 because you have used it before.

I'm not saying that you should splash all the cash on trials, but surely it would be more wortwhile to do screen-tests with different setups and different lenses than check at resolution tests alone.

That's what I would do.

There have been some other tips but check also out the real-world Arri, f3 and gh2 comparison topic if you need more arguments (as to why the gh2 might be worth an effort)..

Oh, and by the way - if you are planning on shooting a lot outdoors, then the gh2 is propably the best cam I've used for shooting landscapes / nature scenery on video.

RRRR What 16mm frame grab? One was an EX1 only and another was an EX1 with a Letus.

Derek No I am not a troll I recently bought a GH2 A zacuto monitor to go with it My intention was to use it to make a film All I want to know is the cameras resolution which after doing tests have discovered compared to an EX Or an EX1 with a letus adpater the GH2 image is softer and therefore would like to try and find out what the line resolution is for a GH2

You know every pro camera out there have these tests actually asking if there are any seems to some to be some sort of criminal offence punishable by name calling and derision. My goodness is it so scary to know what the damn camera resolves.

RRRRR

The testing I have done is with a single lens A Pentax F1.4 50mm used with the Letus on an EX1 and used with the GH2 Now the lighting was different and the GH2 was used indoors with a single dedo. I have already said this. Okay its clear there are no line resolution tests for this camera so unless someone has these I wont respond to any more posts as its clear everything is based on experience hear say and emotional feeling.

Vitaliy Yes I think your right! Problem is those charts are so expensive although undoubtably an investment. Maybe I will.

Thanks Vitaliy I'll keep watching to see if the hacks change things.

Best

Mark

Vitaliy
I missed for some reason the last part of your post.

QUOTE
About your 50mm test.
You are comparing different things.
Full frame image projected on ground glass and shot on good small sensor camera.
And center crop.
-------------------------------
I think there must be some misunderstanding here as the EX1 with the letus and the Pentax 50mm lens shows a much better resolved picture than the GH2 with JUST the pentax 50mm lens. AND the SAME pentax lens is being used with the EX1 and with the GH2.

MY TEST
The two frame grabs I supplied are both shot with an EX1.
1)One frame grab shows the EX1 alone so the comparison is to the EX1 lens
2)The other frame grab shows the EX1 with a Letus adapter with the pentax 50mm lens. This means the EX1 with letus has a lot of glass in front of it and an expected drop in resolution because of it..

Neither frame grab shows the GH2.

The tests I've done with the GH2 show the SAME 50mm lens on the GH2 using an adapter. I did wonder if the adapter may be out a bit but then looking at a monitor the resolution is much higher than being recorded.

I think I'm going to have to assume the GH2 resolves about 650 lines until I can get tests done myself.

Vitaliy
I'd like to ask this thread gets deleted and forget I ever asked.

@mark2929

check this:

why would EX1 be better than RED Epic ?

Vitaliy.... Right I'm with you now. :)

AHHH Yes that could well be a mistake I have made. Great observation and could be a fatal flaw in my test. I have an adapter coming for my zeiss mark one lenses. The 25mm will fit and if I crop to a 2.35 image so will the 16mm Also I will use the 12 and 9.5mm in crop mode and see what results I can get from them! Also I need to purchase some decent four third lenses at a later date when I can afford to.

I really hope this little camera can get me the resolution I want.

Mark

On the topic of GH2 and AF100, the sensors are likely similar in actual resolution but the OLPF (optical low pass filter) is completely different.

In video cameras the OLPF is usually designed to cut off lower so that aliasing is less. This leads to less edge sharpness but also less aliasing. This is probably why the GH2 out resolves the AF100 by a small amount.

Okay I've found some more information from a trusted source provideo coalition and Adam Wilt who also uses a hacked GH1

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P1/

A quarter way down the page It seems he found the AF101 slightly out resolved the GH1 and resolved about 630 lines. The af101 was not as good with highlights but has a couple of stops more than the GH1. How this translates to the GH2 I don't know. Will know more when my adapter arrives and hopefully will tell by eye whether or not to use the camera if borderline I'll have to get the charts but I have slightly more reason to believe now that the GH2 resolves about 630 lines.

Mark

If you are into pixel peeping, charts are not expensive:

www.graphics.cor- nell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html

Print it with the best printer you can find and really large.

BTW, if anybody is pixel peeping, don't confuse false detail (beyond the Shannon/Nyquist limit) with true resolution. Sony is notorious for this, even the F3 is not free of it!