@nomad - good point about the reflections! Newer lenses have more coatings on inside surfaces because of that. "Digital" filters too.

Good point about retrofocus designs too. I have a set of adapted Contax SLR Zeiss primes - they work very well with the GH2. The Contax Rangefinder Zeiss lenses - not as good.

Regarding "classic" vs. "digital" lenses, there are several issues to be taken into account.

The oblique angles at which the rays hit the sensor wells and micro-lenses are one of them. They are worst with wide angles in non-retrofocus constructions, like lenses made for rangefinder cameras, not SLRs. A typical case is the Voigtländer 12mm on a Leica M9. This kind of problem hardly effects us if we use adapted SLR lenses.

Another one is loss of contrast from light reflected off the sensor surface, bouncing around between the last glass surface and the IR- or anti-aliasing filter. The emulsion of analog film is far less reflective than these surfaces. Plus, some of our cheaper adapters don't have a really good black paint on their inside. The problem is worst when the lens is used wide open, of course. I noticed this when comparing a Rokkor 50mm 1.4 against a Nikkor with the same values, both very sharp lenses. The Nikkor is really blooming highlights when wide open, the Rokkor quite a bit less, but both lenses are much more contrasty on film. If you look at the rear lens of both of these, their curvature is different. This problem is more prominent with retrofocus lenses, typical for wide to medium for SLR (to create room for the mirror).

BTW, Sony is taking care of some of the light bouncing around behind the lens with a rectangular black frame in their adapter for SLR lenses to NEX.

@cbrandin

Point of clarification here as I raise the dead to discuss sensor angle.

Your "right angle" applies to micro-four-thirds only? Or is it all digital only formats like Sony's NEX? Or, is this universal to apply to Canon EF-S over Canon EF and Nikon DX over full frame G? If I stick a PL mount on an Arri, same problem?

Old timers, like me, attributed MFT sharpness to the smaller everything associated with MFT. Are you saying that all film lenses are diminished when placed in front of any digital sensor? Or, are you saying that all film lenses are diminished when placed in front of any micro-four-thirds sensor?

@abraham1307 - It probably is a good idea to try several, and see which you like. Sharpness isn't really so monolithic. What do you mean? The ability to reproduce the smallest edges, or the ability to resolve edges with the most color/luma accuracy?

It's like audio - does boosting mid-range improve clarity? Relatively speaking, boosting mid-range actually reduces high-frequency content. Does the effect seem to have more detail, though? It certainly sounds like there is more powerful detail. Sometimes the way we perceive things is different than what the pure numbers would indicate.

Which AN patch should we choose if we dont want to add softness to our panny lens?

The in-body sharpening might try to optimize images based on the original luma matrix. I use -2 sharpening. If needed, post-processing editor can do much better job.

@cbrandin I don't know about other Pana-Leica lenses, but I know the DG 25mm 1.4 for sure as one user tested out and posted about it. There was noticeable amount of corner distortions. It seemed no better than 20mm 1.7 uncorrected distortion. I'm no longer a fan of Pana-Leica. I just love Lumix lenses. The new AN settings seem nice for them. Thanks!

@stonebat - Could be that they have changed their requirements. I just remember that it used to be that way.

@cbrandin I thought Leica labeled Panasonic lens wouldn't utilize in-body distortion correction. But it was proven that's not the case. e.g. Leica DG 25mm 1.4. I sold it and bought 20mm Lumix again :) You are absolutely right about the film lens' inherent soft look on digital sensor. That's why I replaced them with sharp lenses. AN settings + sharp lens seem unique combination. Softer look + less CA. Lumix 20mm 1.7, 14mm 2.5, 14-140mm are all good.

@lpowell - honestly, I have no idea. That may have happened because I didn't change the deblocking tables or anything else. I should probably run more tests. Or, it may just be raising Q because I didn't allocate enough bandwidth.

Coding is hard, and non-intuitive. Drill ten or twenty Inception levels down and your brain is heterodyning like a hummingbird on Prednisone. It's not merely no wonder but fully expected that different opinions/philosophies will collide at max velocity, compounded by the exponential aggrotrashyak inherent in any mangeekforum. Discovery Channel would call it "When Big Brains Attack".

I have a lot of respect for Lee, Nick, Chris, Vitaliy, and anyone else who pulls on his wetsuit and dives into this GH2 code. If I had a million years and no kids and independent wealth I could never begin to grok WTF these guys are doing when they diddle the binaries and gift us these .ini files which utterly transform a cheap consumer camera into an authentic professional filmmaking tool. They all have my eternal respect and fealty, even though Vitaliy deletes most of my posts because cheap black market vodka and forum moderation are frankly a bad cocktail but hey it's his tree house and at the end of the day it's probably for the best.

As for the Kurtz "I Swallowed A Bug" patches, Onion's right as usual. They're the best yet from a visual standpoint. Whatever blips and farts show up in Streamparser, what I'm seeing from the raw files out of my GH2 are noticeably better than what I was seeing before, whether I choose the soft or fully erect patches. Call me a romantic but I prefer the soft patches, even with old FD/Rokkor lenses. Especially with old FD/Rokkor lenses. I wanted this look when I bought my GH2, and now I have it, just by downloading a tiny snippet of .ini these gods among men have shared with us all for free.

I understand and respect the scientific peer review. The hard work, self-imposed pressure, and ego needed to push the art forward guarantees a certain baseline level of rancor and primate behavior. You didn't see the body bags from the Mars rover landing because those guys don't air their work on a Russian blog. But trust me, there were body bags. Omelette/broken eggs etc.

Mainly I just want to thank all of the above for the Apocalypse patches. They are genuinely a new level of performance for the GH2, not just a squint to maybe see the difference incremental yaya. I can't believe my $700 camera shoots this kind of footage. Really, it's nuts. I know you guys need to butt heads but just know how grateful the rest of us are for your hard work. Thank you.

@cbrandin At this point I simply don't know enough to either agree or disagree with you, but I am interested in learning more -- and I appreciate learning from you. You've inspired my recreational project for the next month -- learning more about this. And, I thank you for sharing your insights.

I think what you noted about the difference between video and stills is a big deal.

@jrd

I'll put this on the to-do list. The most honest reaction I can offer is -- AN is being used in production tomorrow.

The differences between various settings and stock can be subtle under some conditions, and more dramatic under others. When you've stared at them and pixel peeped for eight months -- you notice differences.

The truth is that the best testing is your own. Use what you like. My point is simply that -- as a person who has been staring at this stuff for eight months on calibrated production monitors -- these AN settings look damn good -- damn good!