@thepalalias, yes I thought it was a playback issue, but I saw it in VLC, WMP and Splash until I converted. If the files weren't multiple gigs, I'd post it. I'd never really seen it before and I can't say I've seen it since, only in that single file in that condition. But yeah, it's hard to show true "proof" because even the same files on different computers can play differently. There are too many variables. You'll just have to see it on your own setup.

Try 18mm@F11, ISO160, 24p/50 with Sedna Q20 and pan fairly slowly across sky and trees. It was the transition between sky and detailed leaves that showed it, as @Kholi and @Plasmasmp said.

It would be nice if someone could post such a cadence comparison. So far no one that has talked to about it has been able to show me what they mean - they just tell me their conclusions.

To anyone that feels very familiar with the cadence differences: Back in the original Zacuto comparison (GH1, etc.) there is a section where they compare going from ultra lowlight to turning on a lightbulb in the lattitude test. Is there enough motion in that to demonstrate what people are talking about? Or is a very large amount of motion required? Does the GH1 have a similar cadence unhacked (or hacked) as the Gh2?

See, I honestly do not worry about it normally. I am not saying that it is or is not there, but with every shoot having to compromise in some area (and with the cameras varying so widely in dozens of other ways that are at the forefront of the decisionmaking process) the cadence just does not come up for me.

I prefer I-frame footage when possible for 24P, but I make do with others when I need to (and quite often when I am shooting 50P or 60P).

I love the fact people are starting to finally acknowledge motion cadence issues and differences between the GH2 and other cameras. Whereas everything usually seems to center around DR, (color) resolution etc, no one ever talked about motion rendering. For me, it's absolutely key.

It's undeniable that there's something inherently "film-like" about 24p captured by the GH2 which you can't find in other cameras less than 10k. While Panasonic is usually very good in this one area, the AF100 seems to lack some of these specific qualities that draw me to the GH2. Wish I could understand better the differences between how the motion is rendered in a large sensor video camera vs a DSLR (especially between 2 products from the same company no less, gh2/af100 etc).

What is the secret formula? Is it primarily a codec issue? A shutter issue? I'm totally excited to see the results from the shootout based on what I've heard so far.

@svart That sounds more like a playback issue than a shooting one. Using Cineform all i-frame, I have not had any cadence changes during the conversion.

@kholi, @plasmasmp, I noticed this strange cadence "look" the other day in bright sunlight. I thought it was my monitor so I tried it on a different monitor and then on a computer. All the same strange "look". I tried long and short GOP and got the same. I then processed through neoscene as "all-I frames" and the strobing is gone. Can you confirm this on your ends?

@kholi @brianluce @pinger007 thank you all for your insight I like what I'm hearing about the 1/40th shutter, specially the increase in light hug plus & finally image stuttering. Will give it a run later tonight..

@kholi

Been there. :-)

I remember using 1/24th back in my dvx100 days... A ”wild man” they would call me. :-)

@TrackZillas

I agree with the 1/40th shutter speed recommendation. To my eye it provides a more filmic motion than what the 1/50th provides. I know that 1/50th is closer to 1/48th, but it's just too stuttery and DSLRish for my taste. Another plus is that it lets in more light for those times when you need it. :)

@TrackZillas

I'm saying that's what made me comfortable with the GH2. 1/50 doesn't look right to me, 1/40 looks pretty good. I went through the same thing with the Canons, and have been recommending for a very long time that people switch from 1/50 to 1/45, only a few people do it or try it, but everyone that does ends up switching over indefinitely.

IF you want to try it, shoot people at 1/40, friends, family, then see how you like it.

@plasmasmp

Yes, I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. When there're a lot of leaves etc against a bright sky, you can see it blatantly and it is SUPER ugly. Only way to defeat it is to cut light until the contrast is balanced out.

The weird thing is this: I can also use a different set of lenses altogether to defeat it, without the penalty of being forced to close down. I noticed, after reviewing footage, using Zeiss Standard Speed PL glass, these harsh edges pretty much vanished.

Recently, I revisited some old lenses that I had and compared them to Nikon, Canon EF, and my last Contax Zeiss copy to make sure that I wasn't seeing things. Sure enough, problem solved.

Soon as I get some time I'm going to do the 24~28mm comparison with all of the 24's and 28's that I own.

@JDN

As I've said elsewhere here, what people saw and responded to at Zacuto was the lighting and grading of the GH2 footage (which was quite different from all the other cameras) in the second half of the test, not the motion cadence, not the resolution, and not the DR.

If the comparison had ended with the one-light grade and the universal lighting set up, the preferences would probably have tracked the prices of the cameras much more closely.

"Some people will tell you that you're crazy and you can't tell a difference because they can't tell a difference."

haha. We had a big argument about this when the low-GOP patches started coming out...

Some people even went as far as to say that it was impossible to even tell the difference between a 1/25 and 1/50 shutter angle. :slamhead:

"Just trying to put my finger on what the testers in this screening saw, and why they had such a meh response to red and sony footage (other than the f65)"

Well, dunno about the Red. I've always like the way Red looks. But as far as the Sony stuff, yea, the motion on the FS-100 and F3 have never looked good to me. Did they use external recorders? Because anything that isn't all Intra-Frame looks like crap to me now. Even the C300's has the temporally-compressed look due to the long-gop codec.

...but, the F65 has that new mechanical shutter coupled with the digital sensor... so that may be the trick.