DV Info Net - GH2 Noise

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)

- Panasonic LUMIX S / G / GF / GH / GX Series (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-s-g-gf-gh-gx-series/)

- - GH2 Noise (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-s-g-gf-gh-gx-series/510942-gh2-noise.html)

A mild rant!

I really got annoyed with pixel peekers on some of the Canon sites years ago and stopped posting.

In video there is a new breed of peekers that are just as bad.
I'm flat sick of hearing about macroblockig and noise in every video made. For heavens sake, digital cameras have digital noise and I've never seen a GH2 video that didn't have some and some Macroblocking as well.

Considering that I have software that will add film grain, dust and hair to a video....I really wonder if 50 years from now people will be paying for expensive software that will add nostalgic noise and Macroblocking to their holograms.

End of rant!

Agree with you Don. Most people praised the GH2 as the most amazing camera ever then the GH3 came out and all of a sudden all I hear is about whats wrong with the picture.

People in this industry have become insanely picky when it comes to cameras. I remember a time when I couldn't even get this level of quality in a $10,000.00 video camera but yet the GH2 just isn't good enough.

As a visual effects artist I do my fair share of pixel peeping but it is a different way then some of the others. I know can only do so much and for me I try to find ways of making the best of what I have. The GH2 is not perfect but then neither in the RED camera. We have a RED and a RED Epic at work along with a SONY F3. Honestly for effects work I still prefer my GH2. I can't really explain why it looks better then a 4:4:4 4k REd image but it really does work very well. I have never had a camera this sexy for effects work in the 15+ years I have been a slave to film and video. I have even worked with keying 35mm footage and I honestly may still prefer the GH2, hacked of course.

Combine all of this for less then $1,000.00 I honestly cannot figure out how or why people are so critical. I mean if it sucked then yes maybe but the fact is that the GH2 doesn't suck. In fact it is stunning what it can do. For what I can get out of the GH2 I would honestly have paid 3x as much and still been very happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Litten (Post 1755111)

I'm flat sick of hearing about macroblockig and noise in every video made.

That's because some feel the need to take a frame from a video, blow it up a few 100 percent and then go stare at it from a few inches distance on a large lcd screen. If I can sit in my couch from a normal viewing distance and when it looks good, then it's ok for me.

Water or wind-blown trees are a problem on the factory default camera, it can look strangely gritty if that's all that's in the shot. Recently I had some GH2 B-roll footage rejected due to very clear macro blocking in the shadows while the A camera which was shooting XDCamEX had no problem. Hacking the camera to 35Mbs later fixed most of this and, in the near future, the high bandwidth of the GH3 should eliminate the problem mostly.

Most of my interview footage on the GH2 looks great in motion and the noise is not noticeable except as Noa says, if you glue your eyeball to the screen and obsess.

It's the obsessiveness that annoys me William. Pixel Peeking is a legitimate diagnostic tool but for heavens sake, when it gets to the point of endlessly bemoaning areas that aren't visible in the video, it's ridiculous.

I am reminded of a still I took years ago. A child about 5 years old was standing in front of and stopping a line of 30 or so Police Officers in full riot gear. The kid was holding a small American Flag like it was a sword.

Access was completely blocked off by protestors and the cops were obviously discussing how to get around the kid. I climbed a wall, sat on it and hung by my legs over the guardrail, and took the shot upside down just in time for his mother to scoop him up.

The picture was far from perfect but I got it when no one else did.

One idiot on the Canon Board said "I always shoot in manual and won' take a shot until everything is perfect".

At that time I decided Darwin was right and I'm starting to see more of that going on with videographers now.

Years ago I delivered a project to a major cable network and they stipulated that no less than DigiBeta was acceptable. Everything else was unacceptable as such low quality that it would ruin the reputation of their network. Unfortunately the budget didn't allow for mastering on DigiBeta, expensive then, expensive now so we mastered to BetaSp and then dubbed it to DigiBeta. Guess who couldn't tell?

The best footage I've ever shot was when I grabbed my camera jumped in the car, met a friend at a lake and just shot footage with whatever was there and with whatever equipment I had at the time.

I've wasted so much time worrying about whether I had the right camera and equipment, instead of worrying about catching some good footage. While I was worrying about pixels, sharpness, saturation, moire, color, etc (not saying those aren't important), there were guys getting better footage more watchable footage and def more entertaining footage with a $300 camera. I had 10 times that much invested but I was too into the technical aspect while forgetting the art of it all.

Hey this site and the world are full of film makers who have never actually shot a film. Gotta love it.