Test after test... getting bored of these... Still, since theyre using Quantum 9b - it'd be intersting to see the 'non-pixel peeping' reaction of the Zacuto team...

@jrd I completely agree. Independent creators will find out just how important all of those elements are, and they'll be better off for it. Tailor your stories to what you can accomplish. Write around your locations and the resources you have available to you.

And I agree @driftwood test after test is getting annoying, why not create something original? Instead of shooting shrubbery arguing over bit rates, motion cadence, noise in the red or blue channel we should be discussing story elements, shot selection and other elements of our creations. But, as long as cameras keep improving I'm sure many will labor over the technical aspects, and in many cases this is a great resource and service to the creative community. However, what happens when cameras start recording 12-bit uncompressed RAW images at incredible frame rates? What else will we have to talk about except the creative process of our craft?

On the one hand I'm glad the GH series is getting more respect. But on the other hand, the reason I even got a GH1 was because they were so cheap at close out when the GH2s came out. T2i's have never gotten that cheap, and even as cheap as other Canon's have gotten now that some of those are being discontinued, they are still no where near that.

Not gonna like it if the shootout causes a run on the GH2s and prices never go down. Or worse, go up.

@thepalalias What's interesting about the video game comparison is how games are driven by higher frame rates. Gamers really crave the fluidity of consistent >60FPS. 24FPS w/ a first person shooter is annoyingly stuttery. The total opposite view of most film makers.

I know we all love the ethereal look of 24P, but I wonder if the young market that grew up with gaming will embrace the push for 48+ FPS in movies.

@kholi The subject is very very interesting to me. I understand where people are coming from... it's jarring to see narrative content with such high temporal motion. I'm still open to the idea that it could be made to work, and here's why.

To my knowledge, there hasn't been a proper high production, well crafted hollywood movie shown at 60fps. Part of the reason people have negative emotions with the Soap Opera look, imo, is because they are bad! Bad acting, writing, etc etc. Comparing that, to seeing something like Goodfellas in 60p isn't the same in my eyes.

From what I'm gathering, the other big problem is that 48-60p is a lot less forgiving in terms of costumes and sets. When I ate at Planet Hollywood, I was actually shocked at how bad some of the props looked. With the magic of film lighting, low frame rate/motion blur and softness, those flaws are hidden well. I seem to recall reading that a lot of the New Zealand stock footage was really well recieved with The Hobbit screening, but the actual movie footage was not. Perhaps it's cause the set designers, costume designers, makeup artists are now held to a much higher standard and can't get away with the same quality of work for higher frame rates?

These are just speculation on my part. I'm still in the 24p camp, but I'm not ready to write off 48 or 60fps for narrative fiction just yet.

@driftwood yes sir I read almost 3 articles which are similar. most of them are using quantum v9b. I think they were not informed regarding the sednas and canis

I see this as an analogy to painting. Do you prefer expressionism or photo realism? Is the emotional resonance in art linear to the degree of "realness"?

My suggestion is to create a topic on 'the weaknesses of the GH2', since everyone pretty much agrees on 'working around them'. Why should we not make a list with problems/weaknesses with possible solutions to work around it?

For instance: 'bad low light' => possible solutions: fast lens, neatvideo noise remover, etc.

Good idea @Bressonftw, Looking forward to you starting it. :)

@Bressonftw

My suggestion is to create a topic on 'the weaknesses of the GH2

Nah, I'd rather film a bush and marvel at the resolution. Seriously, that's a great idea. How to work within limitations is better than getting drunk on the strong points -- though it is fun to get drunk sometimes.

@rajmalik Those settings were released in mid-March. I thought I read that the tests were shot in February, but I may have remembered incorrectly.

@dbp @kholi Framerates are an interesting question, and games are a very different question from passive media (that being a label for non-interactive media). For games, increases in framerate are synonomous with a decrease in latency. This is a non-consideration for film framerates, because their is nothing for the audience that requires the audience to do somehting "to" the content and the interaction is either entireley internal or social. So latency is no longer a reason for higher frame rates.

But note that in my comment about animation, I was speaking about framerates relative to 24, 25 or 30P where a lower frame rate would be "shooting in 3s" or "shooting in 4s" etc. as opposed to "shooting in 2s" or even at the frame rate itself. So if we were talking about for 24P, shooting in 3s would result in an 8P look, etc.

Now some of the 90s cartoons had interesting and influential character designs that are more aesthetically pleasing to me than their modern equivalents (X-Men and Batman TAS for instance) but when I watch them with friends that have only seen the newer series, they often frustrated by the animation being low framerate, etc.That is not to say they would prefer framerates exceeding 30P, just that they dislike framerates as low as 8P.

@bressonftw Actually I disagree. The issue with the GH2 is not lowlight performance (which actually holds up quite well to a lot of the similar sensor sizes and somtimes even larger ones) but more specifically, it is the way it handles the lowest part of the histogram. The unpredictability of shadow exposure is troubling, in that certain scenes can result in shadow flash or flicker, even with intra codec settings.

I think a list was already made in the April Fools thread.

"...but RED declined to accept."

Yep. This seems to be the Red way. Decline everything, then say "it's done wrong" when someone else doesn't get acceptable results.

David Mullen made a funny point in the thread that in the first shootout, Redusers complained that it wasn't fair because Red didn't get special treatment and proper work-flow to make it competitive to the Alexa and such. Now when each camera gets special treatment to make it sing... and Red still did come out on top... they're complaining that it wasn't fair that each camera has individual lighting? WTF? These guys are nuts.

I mean, I'd still like a Scarlet or Epic myself (for frame-rates and flexibility)... But this is getting crazy. Maybe the GH2 really does just have a better look to most audiences. Did anyone think of that? Why does the most expensive piece of gear ALWAYS have to be the best or someone is cheating?

@bwhitz

To admit that the GH2 looks better to audiences than the Epic is to admit that in terms of image at the final stage (projection in a theater), the camera that cost 66 times more couldn't win. This really is insanity because it goes against so many of our core beliefs. How often do we expect to get worse performance out of any product that we pay 66 times more for? It just can't be real, so we deny that it's even possible without considering otherwise. Even the most zealous GH2 fanboy isn't willing to outright say the image on his camera can beat the Epic (though I don't know after this test).

Every measurable spec of the Epic is objectively better than the GH2. It has R3D RAW vs AVCHD (hacked), RAW vs 4:2:0, 18 stops of dynamic range with HDRx, 5k vs 2k, and 12-bit vs 8-bit color. Yes, the resolution advantage has been compromised due to downscaling, but it should be noted the Epic gets to have true 4:4:4 levels of color because of this. On paper, the Epic slaughters the GH2.

But if we break down each spec, we can see how and why the GH2 was able to compare (and win according to many viewers).

Resolution: This is where the Epic wins hands down, but since Zacuto's test had all the cameras sized to 2k, the Epic didn't get to shine here. The GH2 resolves pretty close to 2k, so resolution was probably comparable in this test. While I realize Red didn't get to flex all its muscles in this test, I agree with Zacuto that the final output should have been 2k since that is what most people see in theaters as of 2012.

RAW vs hacked AVCHD 8-bit color: I think the amount of extra quality gained from RAW (even with grading) is not as significant as many people think. 8-bit doesn't seem like much, but it actually is. That's 256 colors each for red, green, and blue meaning a total of over 16 million color combinations. Out of camera JPEG files (including the highly regarded Olympus JPEGs) are all 8-bit. The BMC stills that people have been so meticulously grading have all been from an 8-bit JPEG. Blu-ray is 8-bit even!

RAW vs 4:2:0: When you look at explanation of color subsampling, you come away thinking "4:2:0 is awful! How can so much color information be tossed out like that?!". The fact is, all this stuff is at the pixel level, so most layman won't be able to tell a difference. The amount 4:2:0 hinders an image also depends on the kind of image. On some images, it may be impossible to distinguish between 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 without some serious pixel peeping. This would be a problem if movie audiences had a button on their seats that froze the film and magnified the image by 2x. I must admit though that 4:2:0 does suffer a bit for green screening (though be careful not to blame it on that if you are using bad keying techniques).

RAW vs 175mbps hack: In terms of bitrate, the hacked GH2 gives each frame the amount of bitrate a still OOC JPEG gets which is good enough to get rid of most noticeable artifacts. If the hack can render fine sensor grain, I don't think the compression is hurting the image that much. Again, most layman (and apparently some pros) wouldn't see these artifacts on the GH2 footage.

14 (or 18 with HDRx) stops of dynamic range vs 8 stops: This is what the GH2 needs more of in my opinion, but it took me awhile to realize that 8 stops is actually quite good. The Epic has no advantage in this respect if the image doesn't require more than 8 stops, and that's where lighting and NDing windows comes into play. In most cases, you can fit pretty much the entire image within the GH2's range. On really sunny contrasty days, I've been able to underexpose to protect highlights, and lift the shadows up a decent amount thanks to the hack. Apparently, the Zacuto test had a bright window in the shot, and I suspect the cinematographer NDed it good for the GH2. Also note that just because you capture 18 stops of dynamic range doesn't mean you use it all on the shot. Actually, 18 stops (or even 13 stops) is bound to look like garbage before you grade it. It is however a nice get out of jail free card when you botch the exposure. Just be extra mindful of the exposure with the GH2 and you'll get awesome shots. When I shot my feature on the GH1, I didn't need any extra dynamic range on most shots (I've blown out the sky a couple of times though, doh).

With all that said, I think the Epic is probably able to match any of the cameras in the test with the right person behind it. I also think the Epic's chance to shine would be in situations involving high dynamic range (like a forest under bright sunlight) and of course, when cinema moves to 4k+. For aspiring filmmakers, I think the hacked GH2 is better than what we deserve.