@danyyyel

You have fair thoughts, my friend. Again, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, but people here and GH2 users out there should feel confident in what they're using. Not just GH users, but all camera owners. I know why the images are unsettling, it's very simple:

WE KNOW the camera is much better than what that still represented. It happens in nearly EVERY shootout, that's why they're pointless unless they're being done by tons of people with tons of time to commit to making sure every single detail has been accounted for.

The Digital Cinema Society shootouts were the most rich, detailed shootouts we could have gotten, and the results were handled professionally. If you want a serious opinion, then that's the kind of shootout you need to look out for.

Let me tell you this: I can grab an Epic and shoot whenever I want. Point blank. F3 S-Log? No problem. ALexa? I might have to pay a few bucks, but I know private owners. I could shoot with these any time.

As far as Epic vs GH2? GH2 can't truly compete with Epic at 5K or 4K, but at 3K and 2K? Not the case. The GH2 Hacked stands image to image with Epic 2K. And it's a freakin' 700.00 camera.

You can take that or leave it, but right now you shouldn't be worried about what the cam does in a shootout and, instead, showing moving footage of how insane it is.

*derek
on philips site he have updated the post

---

EDIT: Someone in the comments got in right!

Sony NEX5N, Flat PP

AF100 AB-RANGE PP

C300 C-LOG

GH2 Driftwood Hack nostalgia and dialed down

5Dmk2 Marvels Advance

7D Marvels Advance

FS100 G-LOG A

F3 AB-RANGE

F3 S-Log

Nikon D7000 Flat

were you read that?

ehr,
Yes, the green cast is too much on the D7000. I certainly see the difference due to compression, even more so viewing on a large display.

Re: dynamic range--one thing on my list of things to do is shoot some vid with a legacy prime that is very sharp but has less contrast, say in the F2 to F2.8 range. In still photography, some people use this trick to get an extra stop of DR (which is then reconstituted in post). Have to try this on the Driftwood hack over the holidays, maybe with the Nikkor 35mm F1.4 or one of the Rokkor primes.

Here are three reasons I preferred No. 9. I would add, and I'm sure many have already done this, that I carefully calibrated my monitor. First is, without thinking about any technical details, the image just looked better than the others at "prima vista." OK, I could be fooled by extra contrast, etc. But the GH2 leaves a vivid first impression, no matter how it does it. And first impressions are important.
Second is the level of detail. Everyone, or most people, have a a superfine layer of fine hair on their skin. If you look at the model's shoulders, the GH2 resolves some of that detail. And that is super resolution--impressive. Many of the others just give you a cottony blur at the skin edges. Mushy.
Third, I thought the color of many--not all, but many--of the others was off (and this is why I double checked my monitor). There could be a million reasons for that, but there it is.
As far as the blacks and dark parts of the models hair being crushed, this happens all the time, and it is also present in the C300 video. IMHO, the GH2 is dialed up one notch too far in contrast, or the shot is very slightly underexposed. Instantly and easily fixable. There must be about a full stop of exposure variation in the test, depending on how each camera "sees" the subjects, and part of this is probably due to the lights in the background.
What I'm saying is, dynamic range is important, but contrast is no biggie. Dial it down, then bring it up in post if needed. At ")", the GH2 Contrast is too much, but we knew that anyway. At -2, it is OK, and we knew that too. Exposure is touchy, we knew that as well.

Preference is subjective. I just happened to prefer that single frame, although I liked the "nonsubject" part of the C300 image: smooth and not grainy. Others would prefer other frames, and it is only one test in a series. The boat in the harbor, the C300 seemed to resolve more detail. We will wait and see. But as far as the first test goes, I for one am not planning on buying a different cam.
Until the next test.

Kong,
I thought the same thing regarding the smeared compression look of many of the other samples. It's not pretty.
The D7000 suffers from compression artifacts and makes the skin tones looks blotchy.


I certainly believe Philip has a lot more to show.

jspatz is correct.

Take a look at the FS100 shot #8. It does not look that good. colors are muted and skin tones are blotchy from compression artifacts. Does this one shot tell the whole FS100 story, no way. So the same goes for all of these different camera one frames comparisons.

Just look at kholi's shots above. It's a lot cleaner and looks great. Now if this frame was included in the mystery game of - guess which image belongs to a camera - , this would be a very different story. Everyone would be praising the GH2. Don't go by one shot.

BTW, the whites are clipped on the GH2. Now, the come back would be this was intentional in order to not underexpose the shadows, but look at the 7D sample below, whites we not blown out, and the shadows are even more crushed.

I would of been interesting if Philip had used smooth with all -2 settings. Nostalgic is a "pushed" look with the GH2. I'm surprised this was the chosen setting.

Nonetheless, it's only one sample.

Are all these opinions being based on the 9 jpegs on the site? With all the artifacts, poor resolution and wild differences in exposure, contrast and color, how can anyone tell anything about these cameras?

>Disappointing that the GH-2, in this test is 9.

My comment is regarding how the GH-2 fared in the test. I'm not disappointed in the camera for my uses. I just hoped in a side by side comparison, the hacked GH-2 would have been closer to the top of the cameras tested for contrast and DR.

Dynamic range test question: If you shot the same exposure on different cashmere. Then brought a frame into post. If you raised or lowered the exposure by one EV or stop, and counted how many stops before you see clipping in the histogram or Photoshop "show clipping"

there seems to be a lot of dynamic Range tests, but are almost always a subjective result.

@CraftyClown
It's just that some people sound so deflated that the GH2 doesn't have 20 stops of latitude and might or might not fall a tad short of a $9,000 camera.

it is only a test:
which also says nothing - absolutely nothing - absolutely unnecessary for me
and
Philip Bloom is a Canonman (sklave!?)