Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED Epic verus Panasonic GH2

Status
Not open for further replies.
All i can say is the comparison is a match to a fucking bonfire! Not worth the effort.

Really? Trying to compare a shit Panny camera to the EPIC? All I can say is f#&K off!


NO COMPARISON.



I presented the EPIC to people like David Burr/ John Seal/ David Gribble last night whom are argueably three of the best cinematographers of all time and the response I got was....WOW... Really... Amazing.

This conference was held at the ACS headquarters in Sydney, Australia and everyone in the room was impressed on how far RED has come.

When I see posts like this all I can say is that obviously the people trying to compare a consumer camera to a working cinema camera like the EPIC are f^%king idiots and I hope the moderator on this forum deletes stupid posts like this as it is detrimental to any proper digital alternative like EPIC/ Alexa/ Sony etc.

I have no time for fools like this and discussions like this should be posted elsewhere.

My 2 cents
 
Of course, it's apples and oranges... But the GH2, for its price range, has an excellent image. I just attended a 4K projection test, comparing a 4K DCP originated with a Red One, and a 2K DCP made with a GH2... Sure, the 4K DCP is sharper and has a better dynamic range according to the pros who were next to me. But everyone really enjoyed the 2K DCP too, the picture looked beautiful to me. After 2 minutes, everyone stood hooked by the movie, not by the technical aspects alone.
 
Steve Yager said:
Go shoot a feature with each and then tell me which one you prefer.
Click to expand...
5D and 7D for example has been used in Black Swan, Red State, 127 Hours etc and no one noticed anything, but the fact is that there is a reason why the whole movies weren't shot with these cameras. You can use todays DSLR's on any movie, but you can't really shoot the whole movie with them. You have to know where to use them and where they work better than other cameras.

Obviously no one would pick GH2 over EPIC if given a change to choose. I'm looking for EPIC too because no other camera gives the frame rates I need.
 
Adam Eden said:
...
Click to expand...
If you really don't have nothing better to say then you shouldn't say anything. Like I said lets not make this "my camera is better than yours lalalala", but instead make an intelligent discussion about the subject.
 
Having a GH2 (hacked) and able to shoot it side by side with Epic/R1, I can confidently say that Red is by far the better image in every category. Sanjin, I'm not sure what you're seeing that I'm not. It's a nice camera, I use it for certain things but when you put it next to an Epic the quality difference is dramatic. Now, I do have some shots that when processed a bit with noise reduction can look really good, exceptional for an $800 camera but even then Epic and R1 win hands down.

Like any DSLR, the biggest issue is these cameras are not really built for production so you have to cobble together so many accessories to make them production ready. Hopefully Scarlet is the answer for the run and gun crowd. It will be built for production.

I don't dismiss people who want to use a GH2 for their work. I just think you have to keep expectations in check. It produces nice pictures for the money. If you are a pixel peeper and used to Redcode, you will most likely be disappointed. Redcode is incredibly robust.
 
Paul Russell said:
Me too. Slomo has to be done in camera and Red is the only real option in the price range. Although I think I might pick up a GH2 for 'pickup/making of/alt angle' shots.
Click to expand...
For me the slow motion doesn't have to come straight from the camera, well it really can't come even with EPIC since I shoot motorcycles that drive 150km/h 10 metres away and I need to slow they speed down to around 10km/h. I did some test with 60fps and twixtor when they drove 100km/h and it wasn't even close for being acceptable. 120fps might have been enough, not sure. But for 150km/h you really need something over 200fps PLUS twixtor.
 
Also tests like this are hard to accomplish much with on a compressed video source like Vimeo. You would need original mts and R3D files. I would suggest that even then, with the best of intentions it's possible there were mistakes made shooting it, so the only way to make a judgement is to do your own test, which I have been able to do. I was able to watch on a broadcast quality monitor. That's all I needed to see. It told me what the GH2s limits are and whether I would be able to intercut it if I ever needed to do so.

I suspect this thread will get shut down because it's a Red forum but i think it's important to respect people's choices of what tools they are going to use. Whether it's artistic choice or budgetary choice, it's their choice. I respect that. If I have questions about a comparison, I do my own test. But I encourage everyone here to refrain from calling people idiots for a choice they make.
 
Josh Snyder said:
For me the slow motion doesn't have to come straight from the camera, well it really can't come even with EPIC since I shoot motorcycles that drive 150km/h 10 metres away and I need to slow they speed down to around 10km/h. I did some test with 60fps and twixtor when they drove 100km/h and it wasn't even close for being acceptable. 120fps might have been enough, not sure. But for 150km/h you really need something over 200fps PLUS twixtor.
Click to expand...
Ugh. I hate Twixtor. So much tweaking and faffing around to get an slomo image that doesn't bump or distort. I'm buying an Epic M because I want to be able to shoot 4K at 200fps, or HD at 300fps. Now if only it would hurry up and arrive :smile:
 
While waiting to have full access to a pair of epics we have done a lot of tests with the hacked GH2s on our 3D rig (GH2s are particularly nice for doing handheld with a mirror rig) and it really is phenomenal how good the GH2 hacked image is at the high bit rates. But to suggest that is in the same class as Epic is a disservice. The real decision regarding GH2 versus whatever is if you are considering something like an F3, FS100, AF100, 5D or even the new EOS 1d X - because in pure image quality for motion pictures the GH2 doesn't seem to give up much if anything to those cameras, and it may actually be better.
 
Rather than laugh at the guy, let's see what question he was trying to ask, which is, I guess.. "Can GH2 intercut with Epic on a 1080p shoot?"

I think, in certain cases, it will match up just fine. The only clip that it struggled with is the blown out sky with the tree/leaves... If you are shooting in the 10 stops DR range, they should match up ok. Not a bad crash cam for $800.
 
Incompetent tests produce strange results. We've seen poorly performed and controlled tests from all corners. My advice - do your own tests, and do them well, and shout if you want advice on how to test and what to look for.

For good tests think:

controlled - have you controlled all the variables you can? Are you really measuring resolution, or are you measuring in-camera sharpening or depth-of-field?
repeatability - can you test the same camera over and over and get very similar results? Is the test repeatable over time - can you perform the exact same test next year?
challenge - does the test really stress the camera / codec / lens resolution etc. Is the dynamic range of your scene as wide as you think it is?
variety - does the test encompass a large range, or does it just test a small part of the range (of resolution, or DR, or colours)
objective - is the result of the test an objective number or a subjective impression?

Although charts are boring, they do all of the above well. If you don't shoot the charts, you're not measuring, you're guessing. If you're guessing you're not testing.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Incompetent tests produce strange results. We've seen poorly performed and controlled tests from all corners. My advice - do your own tests, and do them well, and shout if you want advice on how to test and what to look for.

For good tests think:

controlled - have you controlled all the variables you can? Are you really measuring resolution, or are you measuring in-camera sharpening or depth-of-field?
repeatability - can you test the same camera over and over and get very similar results? Is the test repeatable over time - can you perform the exact same test next year?
challenge - does the test really stress the camera / codec / lens resolution etc. Is the dynamic range of your scene as wide as you think it is?
variety - does the test encompass a large range, or does it just test a small part of the range (of resolution, or DR, or colours)
objective - is the result of the test an objective number or a subjective impression?

Although charts are boring, they do all of the above well. If you don't shoot the charts, you're not measuring, you're guessing. If you're guessing you're not testing.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Enough said!
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Incompetent tests produce strange results. We've seen poorly performed and controlled tests from all corners. My advice - do your own tests, and do them well, and shout if you want advice on how to test and what to look for.

For good tests think:

controlled - have you controlled all the variables you can? Are you really measuring resolution, or are you measuring in-camera sharpening or depth-of-field?
repeatability - can you test the same camera over and over and get very similar results? Is the test repeatable over time - can you perform the exact same test next year?
challenge - does the test really stress the camera / codec / lens resolution etc. Is the dynamic range of your scene as wide as you think it is?
variety - does the test encompass a large range, or does it just test a small part of the range (of resolution, or DR, or colours)
objective - is the result of the test an objective number or a subjective impression?

Although charts are boring, they do all of the above well. If you don't shoot the charts, you're not measuring, you're guessing. If you're guessing you're not testing.

Graeme
Click to expand...
Didn't Zacuto invite a person from RED team to come and use EPIC in the tests? If yes, why didn't you go?

My opinoin is that all that matters is how the image looks in real life situations. That's what people are watching when they see your film. And I would always choose a camera that looks better in actual real use than one that gets better results with test charts.

Few weeks ago my friend cut my hair. After he was done I looked on the back of my head with a mirror and it seemed that one side had stronger hair than other side, even tiny bit longer. My friend said that the hair is perfectly even and you can see that when you comb it straight. But as my hair is a bit curly in that other side it only looks like it's stronger and a bit longer, even though it really isn't. I said what does it matter if it's perfectly even, if it doesn't look like that when the hair is flowing freely. Everyone will only see the hair to be uneven even though in reality it is even. So we cut the hair to LOOK even.

Do you get my point? When you have things that are made to be looked at... it only matters how they look when they are looked at.
 
As I explained before..... Consider the situation were I disagree on a method of testing: at which point I can either stay and do a test that I think is wrong, or leave. Both look bad on me, so it's best off not to participate.

Absolutely you want something that looks best in use - but how do you know how to get the best out of a camera? Yes, by performing proper tests and understanding the camera system thoroughly. And if you do test two cameras side by side, "for look" and one is in focus, the other off, and you declare the one in focus to look "better" - are you saying that camera is better or that your skill in focussing is better on that camera?

Graeme
 
I have read every post in this section regarding the GH2 vs Red EPIC, and I think while it does seem almost ridiculous to compare the two (more appropriate would be the Alexa or F3), it is pretty obvious that if your final outcome is internet video, non profit or commercial or low, or extremely low budget short films, you can get nice images out of either. While the RED EPIC is amazing and I'm banking and saving to buy one or Red Scarlet with Super35 if it ever happens, I currently shoot with an F3, and many 5D Mark IIs all the time for commercial projects. One does not need to spend 60 grand plus on a system for only corp or internet work now when the market is changing so rapidly. If that is your market, buy a less expensive 1080p cam.

While I'm really tired of people comparing apples to oranges, these little cameras are valuable tools for videographers, not really filmmakers who are serious about feature production. Of course you can use one for that, but the skin tones just look like video to me on any dslr, almost muddy, or pasty if you look close.

Here is a little announcement btw, In the upcoming months (probably Feb 2012), we will be starting www.thecineforum.com , a weekly blog and forum site (although we own the site, there is nothing there yet) but my sole goal will be to create a resource for filmmakers to do exactly this, test different cameras against others and finally have a site that is unbiased on these issues. From what I've seen so far in the field, the RED is the clear winner on what the market holds now.

The main problem we keep seeing in these current tests is there is NOT enough info about how they blow up in theater. Hell, my wife's iPhone takes great pics until you try and print. I'm sure the GH 2 looks great on a small vimeo streamed link or the back of the lcd, but it's sure as hell no RED. Lets blow these up to full screen, project in theaters, and truly test. IMHO the Zacuto shootout was okay, but really didn't go into to much on how these look blown up. That's where the RED will shine for sure. That's where the 4K and 5K from future manufactures will show. .
 
you know what.

whenever I see

vs.

or

versus

in a thread title.

It never leads to anything good. Ever.


David
 
Graeme, you're attempting to explain the great "Scientific Method" to someone who may have failed out of basic high school science classes. But I still value you're effort tremendously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top