New Panasonic GH2 video hack

Tsawout Spit - Gh2 Test (driftwood 176mb gop1 hack) from mark wyatt on Vimeo.

This is incredible quality, even compressed the level of detail is amazing.

More on lens "correction"

In many cases, the "corrective" features of a manufacturers software will work very well. They aren't the complete answer, and anyone who has used an ultra-wide lens will know that it has its own unique character, and you won't get the same result as a tilt/shift lens without a lot of work.

However, if you are interested in what is actually happening to a file and exactly what kinds of correction are being employed, then its useful to download yourself a copy of a dcraw programme (they are open source and usually free, though a donation always helps them develop) and see what a "raw" raw file looks like. Apart from anything else its the closest you can get to seeing what the sensor is actually recording, without any "interference" from the manufacturers software.

This is not something that I would recommend as a matter of course, and you may try it and decide that it's much easier to stick with the native software or ACR etc. The point that I am trying to make here, is that when you do use a dcraw programme, you are then in a much better position to decide if how the software processes the file "improves" it and whether it corrects it in way that works that you. I think it doesn't do much, Others think it does.

I spend my life taking photographs, and editing them. I'm also constantly testing and seeing what does what. Its my job, and I allocate time for that. If you haven't got that time, would prefer to use it doing something else, or quite simply don't care that much, then you won't be missing much. I invest a lot of time in photographing architecture, because it partly pays my mortgage, and wide angles are an important part of that, so I'm keen to know what they are doing and its of interest to me to see if I can get a more useful file out of a software programme that doesn't "correct" a file in the way that the manufacturer of the camera and lens thinks it should be "corrected"

In some cases I can get a better result from dcraw and the photoshop transform tools, in some cases I can't and in some cases it doesn't matter. It all depends on what I want to do and what kind of image I'm working with and, most importantly, to what use its going to be put to.

If you haven't read it already the Dpreview article which has the heading "What if I don't want to use the manufacturer's RAW converter?" at http://www.dpreview.com/...a-distorted-view-in-camera-distortion-correction/2 is an excellent (short!) read, and gives a nice overview of the issue. There's also a companion piece to this at:- http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5653763779/a-distorted-view-in-camera-distortion-correction/1

Perhaps it might be useful to end with an example and some process, to illustrate what I mean.

 

 Panasonic GH2 7-14mm lens. Tripod. 1/10th. sec. f/11 ISO 160 

The top picture is a jpg.("corrected") straight out of the camera. For the bottom one, I processed it in Rawker (dcraw) and produced a 16-bit tiff which I opened in Photoshop. I then edited the file, using the transform tools. You will notice that in the bottom right there is more of the sofa visible. dcraw does give you this "extra" bit which is very helpful for the transform process.

Not perfect, but the client was happy, and it shows what an alternative can give.

Nikon D5100 - Part 8 - 35mm f/1.8 lens.

Its a shame there aren't more lenses like this from Nikon. Small fast primes for their APS-C sensor cameras. The 35mm f/1.8 is a decent lens and provides a good fast "standard" lens for low light.

To give an idea of the relative size of the D5100 fitted with this lens, here are some pictures of it next to a Panasonic GH2 fitted with the 7-14mm zoom.

As you can see its not that much bigger. The body is also only 100g heavier than the GH2, so its very light and small for a DSLR.

Here it is next to a Leica M9.

Sharpening

While working with the Nikon D5100, I came up with some sharpening parameters in Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw that I liked. I've been working on this and trying something similar for other cameras. The idea is to get some nice crisp sharpening without increasing the luminance noise significantly.

Olympus E-PL2 + Panasonic 20mm f/1.7

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Fuji X100

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Panasonic GH2 + 7-14mm

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Nikon D5100 + 18-55mm

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Heres the Adobe Raw Settings I was using in the main. Depending on the file I would change these slightly, but most are very close to this.

Sharpening is quite difficult to guage. The commonly held view is that you sharpen depending on size and use. However, sending off files to stock libraries its impossible to know this. Many libraries ask for unsharpened files, but I've always sent them sharpened. 

Firstly, for any other camera except a Leica, all files do need sharpening. Secondly the assumption that the client will always sharpen the files is wrong. Many don't, and now in the days of Microstock, images are being bought and used that never go through a repro house and by people who know nothing about sharpening anyway.

A good rule is to sharpen at full size, even with this if files are reproduced smaller, particularly in published print, they will always need to be sharpened further, though often this doesn't get done.

I'm pleased with what I've come up with, and it makes the files look crisper on the screen. Since the majority of my images have to go through a selection process at a picture library anyway, it makes them look good on a monitor. In all cases, for every camera, these converted and sharpened raw files look better than the camera jpg. Crisper, clearer and more attractive. They are not oversharpened, indeed with this level of sharpening they look about the same as an unsharpened Leica M9 file. See below.

Panasonic GH2 - Zoom or Prime?

I've recently sold my Leica Panasonic 14-150mm Vario-Elmar Zoom. Wonderful lens, but big, heavy and bulky. I'm currently using an Olympus m.Zuiko 14-150mm f/4-5.6. There's a test at Dpreview - http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_m_14-150_4-5p6_o20/ Their conclusion is a bit luke warm. 

"Overall then the 14-150mm is superzoom that delivers a perfectly competent results in a small light package. Its image quality may not please the most critical of photographers, but unless you regularly examine your images at 100% or make large prints (A4 or bigger) its flaws are unlikely to be hugely apparent. In combination with a Pen-series camera it makes a highly flexible general-purpose package with image quality to match an SLR but without the associated bulk. So while it's perhaps not a lens for the purist photographer, for many others it will make a very agreeable travel companion indeed."

I've always thought its actually a pretty decent lens however, and yesterday I did some tests to compare it with what are generally regarded as the two best m4/3 prime lenses. The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro. 

These are pairs of shots taken on the same camera (A Panasonic GH2) at the same settings and the same focal length. If you click through to flickr there are full size images to view. (Though these are heavily jpg compressed, so expect a few artefacts.)

For some reason most of the pictures taken with the zoom are slightly darker than with the primes but what I see from this is how similar they are. Even when the zoom is wide open. I was certainly expecting to see much more of a difference with the primes producing significantly sharper results. They do look slightly sharper to me but not as much as I would have expected.

Not really a scientific test but one thats actually very useful for me. The primes obviously have other advantages such as wider apertures and macro facility, but for everyday use in good light there seems little advantage in using them. Certainly only a very slight sharpening in Photoshop for the zoom shots would be required to make them look identical.

I always had the feeling that the Olympus 14-150mm was producing good results and it was a factor in my decision to sell the Vario-Elmar. Certainly the Olympus zoom is a pleasure to use, being very light and it also has very fast AF on the GH2. 

So a very useful exercise for me and with a somewhat unexpected result.

No Mirrors, No SLR's.

Back in 2009 I published this.

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2009/10/g-series-pro.html

A few weeks ago my camera shelf looked like this:-

As of today it looks like this:-

I posted my Sony a850 off, finally, to its new owner a few hours ago and for the first time in my serious photographic life I have no (D)SLR.

It was a close run thing. Right up to the last moment I almost bottled out and kept the Sony. What if Vogue phone up? How can I be a professional photographer any more? I don't have a big camera. Thoughts like this kept running through my head. The fact that I can be at my local Jessops with a credit card in less than 15 minutes, didn't seem to register!

It does feel strange, I will admit that. I definitely have the sense that something is missing. So what do I have left.

Leica M9 50mm Zeiss T* Planar. One lens, no dust spots, amazing quality.

Fuji X100. Great quality. Wonderful Viewfinder. My low light camera.

Panasonic GH2 and Olympus E-PL2. Panasonic 7-14mm Zoom. Olympus 14-150mm Zoom. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro. My "Pro" outfit. 

Its what I've wanted to do for a long time, and I've decided its time to try it. The X100 filled in so many pieces of my "gear jigsaw". A small, light camera thats great in low light was something I've been looking for for ages. It's not perfect, but it works for me.

There are (were) a couple of DSLR's I might (have) been interested in. The Sigma SD-1 was one but at £6200 I think I'll pass! The other is the Sony A77. I'd like to think I will go with whats above but there's still that little nagging voice that says "You're not a real photographer without a DSLR" I'll see if it persists or fades away.

Interesting times ahead!

Property Pictures and HDR

Yesterday I was shooting some interiors with a Panasonic GH2 and a 7-14mm zoom. One of the problems is handling the dynamic range in these shots, particularly since m4/3 isn't the best at this. Normally I shoot a range of exposures and cut and paste bits from each, or mask off areas and selectively darken or lighten. This is how the top three shots were done.

I did try Photoshop HDR as well. Here are the three shots I used. Bracketed at -2, 0 and +2.

This is an HDR version of those three shots, with some Photoshop adjustment.

Its OK, and I presume I could get it better with practice or even using different software. However I'm not sure it improves what I do already.

Low light comparison between Fuji X100 and GH2 plus Summilux f/1.4

I've got both my Panasonic Leica D four thirds lenses up for sale on ebay. While the quality of the Summilux 25mm f/1.4 and Vario Elmar 14-150mm lenses is undisputed they are somewhat bulky, and I do have lighter alternatives. However since I'm not prepared to sell them cheaply, I may well end up keeping them, as they are both expensive, and fairly specialist lenses. This is obviously no hardship!! Its the usual case of guilt about having too much gear. I never actually want to sell anything, but room to move and the avoidance of bankruptcy are compelling reasons!

With the possibility that the Summilux 25mm f/1.4 might be staying around I decided to give it a try in low light at f/1.4 on the GH2.

The main problem with this is the high ISO performance of the GH2. While the best that m4/3 can offer, its certainly nowhere near as good as the X100. However with some work in Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw, involving a fair amount of luminance smoothing, I can get a very decent result up to ISO 3200 with the Summilux. 

This produces a very "smooth" looking file which is not unnatractive. It does work very well for portraits as people like the flattering result. I used this "luminance smoothing" for weddings on my Canons and people liked it a lot. It takes out all sorts of blemishes without looking like soft focus is used, as the edges stay sharp. It also has the advantage of smoothing out the bokeh at the same time.

Converting to black and white also reduces the noise. On the GH2 the green channel is the cleanest and converting to grayscale using just this channel produces an excellent result.

An advantage of the GH2 / Summilux combination over the X100 is the 25mm f/1.4 is sharper wide open than the Fuji f/2 lens, which is somewhat soft at its widest aperture. The extra stop also gives an advantage and with the smaller sensor meaning that DOF is not too narrow the GH2 becomes a useable camera in low light, though I still prefer the X100.

I'll see whether I still have the lens in a few days / weeks time. As I said I'm not going to be upset if I have to keep it. However there is a Panasonic AF 25mm f/1.4 on the horizon, which I'm sure I'll be getting, so what the future of the Summilux is in the long term I cannot say.

Panasonic 7-14mm Zoom

With a property shoot coming up, which generally provides a great opportunity for stock library shots, I have got myself a Panasonic 7-14mm zoom again. Since I will be working in fairly restricted space I need the widest I can get.

The 7-14mm is an amazing lens, and gives a fairly unique "world view" at 7mm.

I didn't use my last one much however and eventually sold it. This one may go the same route, but while its around it will certainly produce dramatic pictures.