Way Off Topic - I just noticed the snowflakes move with the mouse. :}

I think Philip's shootout deserve my attention since it is improving my perception of these different footages...

In my humble opinion I think the GH2 is probably the best option for video under the U$5,000.

For me this is very important. As this thread that I started some month ago http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1343/gh2....-the-need-of-recognition./p1 That is the need of recognition. This gh2 and hack gh2 did not have one test against the other camera. At least know we know that the gh2 is the equal of the C300 and F3 and much higher than the other DSLR. So no more those endless talk about the gh2 resolution etc.

But beyond all this, it shows to the world and the manufacturers how good a $ 700 camera hardware can be, so things like the Af-100 can rest in peace. It leverage a lot the playing fields, no more those crap talk about 10 bit, high resolution, high bitrate codec would need $ 10 000 hardware. The hacked gh2 only lacks one thing and it is 10 bit. There have been a lot of septic about the gh2 etc. because of brand, fanboyism etc. People that have been conditioned so much that even the manufacturers don't need to answer anything because those guys are going to defend them. Now at least there are some proof that nobody can deny.

For too long, the price to performance ratio of the video world must be the worst in the whole electronic industry. In the photography world you can get a 18 megapixel raw camera for less than $ 700, and the people there are always complaining. How would they react if they only had 8 bit highly compressed file to work with. I know it takes more space for the files etc. but the hacked gh2 shows what is possible hardware wise with $ 700, when all the hardware crippling and marketing shit does not interfere. In the end when all the industry uses and manufacturers will know and take notice of the gh2vk powers it will be difficult to go backward. Today with less than Af100 price I can get a whole package that will be higher in every sens to the Af-100. You can get a 720p monitor, sound devices sound quality, Matte box and follow focus and rig. All this accessories will also work on any future camera.

Lastly if we get much more gh2 owners it will broaden the appeal of third party manufacturers towards it. You have how much LCD viewfinder choice for the Canons!!! But something simple as a good large comfortable eyecup for the gh2 evf (which is higher resolution than the Canon back screen) zero, none, nada. A good eyecup or even with a loupe to magnify the evf would be a godsend for handheld gh2 run and gun shoot.

I think this hacked gh2 will itself be another revolution after the initial HDslr revolution in the video industry. Now the new strongly rumored Nikons or Canon 1dx could be another step above, but for now it is the gh2vk that is bringing the affordable high quality cine camera to the market of low to no budget filmmakers. The more user, the more it get noticed the less the manufacturer will be able to cripple or overprice their product.

I've already prepared a multi page response with frame grabs and quotes for engineers in the event the GH2 scores poorly on Blooms skin tone test.

And how come my snowflakes don't move when I mouse over them? is there a fix?

Japanese engineers are good. Russian too, even with encrypted stuff. English are good actors and directors. :-)

I don't no, i always have the feeling they are 10 years ahead.
what they bring to the market is for them already "old".
Its not smart to bring what you got to the market.
this way they can still earn money on a properly already old hardware.

its just .... well ..... people like Vitaliy, and the patch-makers who shows the real power hidden in the hardware.
its feels like a kind off a still protest ... ;-)

I just bought my second GH2!

@danyyyel "But beyond all this, it shows to the world and the manufacturers how good a $ 700 camera hardware can be, so things like the Af-100 can rest in peace. It leverage a lot the playing fields, no more those crap talk about 10 bit, high resolution, high bitrate codec would need $ 10 000 hardware."

+1

This is why I'm into comparisons to other cameras. It's not because "I gotz a GH2 and I thinkz it'z th3 best3st" It's because I'm trying to spread awareness of how good and affordable modern hardware can be when left un-crippled. We know now (thanks to the incredible talents of people here) that 100mb/s+ Intra video is now possible on $700 hardware... so all the Panasonic BS of "it would cost $10,000 extra for that" is confirmed and complete bull shit of the highest degree.

The more people buy into the mindset and justify cameras like the C300 being $20,000... the more it's going to hurt everyone and keep stagnating the market/industry. The C300 is great for what it is, but it's an OBVIOUS and dirty upsell. Anyone (even if you're a wealth production company) who buys into the C300 is being taken for a serious ride. Now, on top of that, we have the asshole "film-hipsters" that complain about absolutely irrelevant details, like the world-famous moronic rolling shutter scapegoat, that are basically selling the camera for Canon on their blogs and digging everyone into a deeper whole.

The more people are aware about the market... the more companies will have to compete and democratize the tech. The more this happens... the more smaller production companies and individuals will be able to compete with Hollywood and larger budget productions. The more this happens... the better the products of everyone will become, ticket prices will be lowered, more risks will be taken (not just shitty reboots year after year), and more options will be available. Consumers and artists will be the winners here. The "professionalism " will hopefully fade away and movies will finally just be made by "teams" of passionate people instead of "companies". The industry will be destroyed and films will finally become an art form... where all the profits will go back to the artists, and not the "door holding" middlemen. Competition = progress.

Then there's just the fact that good ideas are few and far between... and in the meantime, I like to geek out. :)

I own a pair of GH2's. Why do I care what the FS100 can do? I don't own it. If my GH2's aren't good enough, then I should get something else.
The test is lame anyhow, "Oh look at this GH2, looks pretty good! Okay how about the Sony, hey that looks good too! Now I'll look at the Nikon, not bad! I like it!"

I don't know about collective illusions, but I think a shooter should be able to look at the image his camera makes and decide if it's usable or not. For example, for my purposes, I couldn't live with my Canon 7d. The moire and aliasing ruined about 15% of my shots and I couldn't always detect it until I got the footage ingested in the computer. Some people aren't stressed out by Canon moire and aliasing -- but I was. For me it's a shot killer. Repeat, for me, some people love the 7d. I didn't need a side by side with an HVX200 to tell me the 7d wasn't satisfactory (for me), all I had to do was look at it. Same with the GH2, I can look at the image it makes and understand it's not the limiting factor in my production chain, that'd be me and what I bring to the table.
Bloom makes one point that resonated with me, that the GH2 presents an absurd value relative to the market -- that it can legitimately shoot next to an F3 is remarkable considering the price point. The GH2 is an outlier in my opinion, that's why I don't think some of the expectations expressed here with regard to sub $5,000 1080p 4:2:2 cameras are reasonable. Btw, did you notice that not only were the clouds and light also shifting throughout the shoot but that the big boat moved? LOL, I was using that boat to assess the cams and then you see these guys climbing down the ladder and then boat leaves. Was that scripted?

"The GH2 is an outlier in my opinion, that's why I don't think some of the expectations expressed here with regard to sub $5,000 1080p 4:2:2 cameras are reasonable."

Doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not. These are the only specs that are going to get me to open my wallet. I'm not going to shell out $5000 for a so-called "pro camera" that is only offering marginal improvements, if that.

Panasonic is not underselling the GH2 or anything like that... 200mb/s video is just possible with $700 hardware now. Regardless of color space... 200mb/s is 200mb/s. There's absolutely nothing that is special about the "data" that makes up 4:2:2 video... it's just friggen data. There's just no reason at all why we don't have a 4:2:2 60fps option for under $5000... besides the companies love product tiering... and it seems like people also love spending $20,000 for $2 in hardware upgrades, because they're "pro features" ment for "pros". You think the DSLRs would have woken people up to how much they are being taken for a ride by the "pro gear stigma"... but it just seems like they're getting worse every year.

@brianluce said: The test is lame anyhow, "Oh look at this GH2, looks pretty good! Okay how about the Sony, hey that looks good too! Now I'll look at the Nikon, not bad! I like it!"

re: That's what happens when you're trying to avoid calling a winner so that any faction of brand loyalists won't get mad at you and begin to curse your blog.

People want to feel like they made the right choice in purchasing something. That blog is one of the few beacons of DSLRism that validates an entire cult of DSLR shooters, a number of whom will never touch a serious camera and don't understand anything beyond "give me everything for as cheap as possible."

He's doing the right thing if you want to keep traffic up.

Incidentally, I believe this is also why VK does not want P.Bloom discussions or even these silly shootouts talked about here but I could be wrong.