The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Should I buy a GH1

photoSmart42

New member
As mentioned your image is purposely underexposed. Let's say it was underexposed by necessity, that the light in it was all you could get in a certain situation. Then you would like to increase the "exposure" in your raw converter.... and you would get blotchy noise and banding all over. (This also applies to shadow areas in normally exposed images.)
Thanks, Jonas. I underexposed it because Jerry said that was the scenario in which this happened most often. I do see that some of the noise is gathered in what could be interpreted as bands, horizontal and vertical, so I think I can see the effect described, and it doesn't appear as bad on my particular camera as in photos I've seen online. Guess I got lucky.

Taking a -3EV photo, then exposing it to +3EV in post would be like taking a -9EV photo in the first place, so I'd expect that noise would be a huge factor for that photo. Does noise processing software have an issue correcting banding more than just uniform noise? Is that why banding is problematic to begin with?
 

Jonas

Active member
Thanks, Jonas. I underexposed it because Jerry said that was the scenario in which this happened most often. I do see that some of the noise is gathered in what could be interpreted as bands, horizontal and vertical, so I think I can see the effect described, and it doesn't appear as bad on my particular camera as in photos I've seen online. Guess I got lucky.
Yes, there you are; you haven't any bad experience from normal use of your camera and that is what counts, isn't it. As you haven't run into the problem I'm not sure there is a problem. Semantics perhaps, but also real life work with the camera for you.

Taking a -3EV photo, then exposing it to +3EV in post would be like taking a -9EV photo in the first place, so I'd expect that noise would be a huge factor for that photo. Does noise processing software have an issue correcting banding more than just uniform noise? Is that why banding is problematic to begin with?
Hmm, Taking an image at -3EV and saving it by increasing the light, or pump up the EV comp, in the raw converter would be like taking a -3 EV image in the first place. Or an image with something in the shadows.

The problem with banding is that the unlike noise it makes bands all over the length or height of the image. It is visible also in parts not underexposed, but not everybody sees it. In bright parts we don't see it of course.

And yes. Noise reducing software normally don't deal with banding at all. The mentioned Nik software has a special box you have to tick to make it analyze and consider banding in the image you want to de-noise. You can see in the lamp sample Amin posted that Dfine works well, but still doesn't remove the banding completely.

regards,

Jonas
 

photoSmart42

New member
Thanks for the reply! I didn't know there was an issue with banding for NR software, but it makes sense - it's easier to remove uniform noise than something non-uniform.

Hmm, Taking an image at -3EV and saving it by increasing the light, or pump up the EV comp, in the raw converter would be like taking a -3 EV image in the first place. Or an image with something in the shadows.
It seems to me this would only be the case before you take the photo. If you've already taken the photo, you're dealing with only the available information in the photo as taken, so by pumping up the noise by +6 EV over the existing captured image to me that's like the equivalent of taking a -9EV photo to begin with. You can't recover information you don't have, so you end up amplifying the noise. I could be wrong, but somehow that makes sense to me =).
 
Last edited:

Amin

Active member
Amin, is there a different sort of image I could take where I would see if I have an issue better?
Sure, take a photo of people near a dark colored couch, table, or wall in an indoor, lowish light setting. Set the shutter speed to 1/30s, the ISO to 1600, and the f-number to whatever it takes to get a properly exposed image. Then look at the result and see if there is banding in the dark couch/table/wall.
 

Jonas

Active member
(...) so by pumping up the noise by +6 EV over the existing captured image to me that's like the equivalent of taking a -9EV photo to begin with.
Hmm. We are thinking along different lines here.

If I have an image I underexposed 1EV by mistake and therefore increase the EV comp in my raw converter I do it with a +1EV. There is no need to multiply or add double values. Maybe somebody else can straighten that out.

In principle everything in a photo that isn't a grey card, or as bright as a grey card, is either under- over overexposed compared to what a grey card would look if properly exposed and "developed" in a raw converter with no EV compensation.
So, we see the banding in the shadows, less of it in middle bright areas and not in bright areas.

High ISO images are already amplified by the camera's electronics compared to what happens at base ISO. That's why you see banding in Amin's and your image, also in JPG images right out of the camera. When applying some, even just a little positive EV comp the banding gets quite visible.

I am doomed, I can sometimes see banding in "low" ISO (like ISO800) images and I also see noise in big prints from images taken at base ISO. Most people are more fortunate and aren't bothered with all this. So, it can be a problem or not. Some never see it.

OK, end of blabbering. Cheers,

Jonas
 

Y.B.Hudson III

New member
yehh... a real problem with the high contrast lenses needed to power the auto focus, not nearly the problem with a manual focus quality cine lens:)
 

Jerry_R

New member
Short comment to my last post. Banding can be visible even at ISO 100 in GH1 picture, in darker, underrexposed areas of a photo. Not even whole photo is to be underexposed.

I was very happy with my 2nd GH1. My friend who used only G1 - from time to time - was showing me banding in my pictures, which I was not aware, until his comment.
But he saw it, because he never had sth like this with his camera. So better is to compare the same picture taken with G1\GF1 and GH1. Not JPG and RAW from GH1.

Anyway, as me and others said - not everybody will see it, it doesn't occur on every photo.

PS: I can't see flickr pictures now...
(photo currently unavailable)
 
Last edited:
R

richie15

Guest
Well I have got it and from what I can see no banding at the minute, albeit I have only taken a few shots. What I would say is that in 16:9 mode I prefer it to the G1.
 

Amin

Active member
Well I have got it and from what I can see no banding at the minute, albeit I have only taken a few shots. What I would say is that in 16:9 mode I prefer it to the G1.
I've seen a fair number of negative comments about the GH1 banding, etc, from people who have seen or tried the GH1. However, the great majority of GH1 owners seem to be very happy with their purchase :).
 

GDI

Member
I had both the G1 and GH1. I found the image quality on the GH1 noticeably better particularly at higher ISOs (I can remember a few cases of banding, but only rarely). The multi-aspect sensor is a plus as well.

I kept the GH1, G1s are really cheap...
 

brianb032

New member
I'm kind of in a similar dilemma. I only use the 20mm lens on my E-P1 and occasionally bring out a longer MF prime (like almost never). I really want the GH1 for better video, since I shoot a lot on the E-P1 and a lot of times the jitteriness with fast motion just bugs the hell out of me after editing (I shoot on stable surfaces and mini-tripods too).

But if I give up my E-P1 for a GH1 I honestly don't know how bad I'll miss the smaller size; (what seems) better OOC JPEGS; better noise control; image-stabilization; familiarization with Olympus cameras; and just a sexier, smaller, and sleeker looking body.
 

photoSmart42

New member
But if I give up my E-P1 for a GH1 I honestly don't know how bad I'll miss the smaller size; (what seems) better OOC JPEGS; better noise control; image-stabilization; familiarization with Olympus cameras; and just a sexier, smaller, and sleeker looking body.
Those all seem like good reasons to keep the Oly. You'd want to make sure you'll get a lot of use out of your GH1 for video is you give up all those features in the E-PEN. Can you get both? You might find a good deal on a GH1 body and use it with the hacked software as a portable video camera, and use your PEN as your photo camera.
 

brianb032

New member
Those all seem like good reasons to keep the Oly. You'd want to make sure you'll get a lot of use out of your GH1 for video is you give up all those features in the E-PEN. Can you get both? You might find a good deal on a GH1 body and use it with the hacked software as a portable video camera, and use your PEN as your photo camera.
Just bought the GH1. To be honest, it really isn't that much bigger than the E-P1. But big enough to where it won't fit with the 20mm in my quick-access MOLLE pouch I have hanging on the strap of my messenger bag or backpack. (Gonna' have to shop around for bigger MOLLE pouches. The original was mainly for goggles anyways.)

I can already tell it's a great camera with awesome video and good pictures, but my eyes are also telling me that I'm pretty spoiled with the default oly jpeg colors (post should do the trick though). However, 32MBps 1080/24p (w/ hack) is just jaw-dropping amazing and more than I was asking for (which isn't a bad thing). I can't keep both, so I'm selling the E-P1.

If Oly can somehow cram the video capabilities, autofocus, and oversized sensor of the GH1 in an E-P1 body one day, then I'll definitely sell the GH1 and buy an E-P-whatever all over again.
 
Last edited:
M

monkeyking

Guest
Yes, buy the GH1 w/14-140 lens now. Club Panasonic has reduced price to $1000.usd and refers to the GH1 as "discontinued".
 

photoSmart42

New member
The banding issues is a bit more of a problem, I have found a used GH1 with this being purchased new in March 2010, so hopefully its the latest batch. Is the banding apparent across all ISO?
I was just reading up on this issue, and ran across what people are reporting as a way to greatly minimize or completely eliminate the banding issue. They're suggesting a 'burn-in' of sorts - leaving the camera turned on for a few days at high ISO and in movie mode with the lens cap on. Everyone who's tried it has reported an improvement in banding, and there's speculation about some sort of coating on the sensor that causes the banding, and which gets burned off once the sensor gets warm for a period of time.

I'm going to try it and see if I can detect any difference.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Dragos, That is a fascinating hypothesis. Given the fact that the sensor is sealed tight, where would the "burned up" material go? :confused:

My major issue with the NMOS sensor is that among all the digital cams I have used thus far, these (E410, G1) have the most number of hot pixels. Unlike in the E-410, Pana have found a way to mask it or smear/spread it (I don't know how to describe what is happening) via software.

This is the reason why I would like to see better quality NMOS sensors.
 

photoSmart42

New member
Dragos, That is a fascinating hypothesis. Given the fact that the sensor is sealed tight, where would the "burned up" material go? :confused:
I can't claim I understand the hypothesis either, so I dismissed it as well (felt for completeness I should at least report what they're saying), but I'm intrigued by the actual results people are reporting, so I figured why not? Other than a before and after photo it won't take up any of my time, so I'll give it a try.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Intriguing, indeed. Let us know what you get.

With the G1s, with increased long shutter time use, I only find increased number of hot pixels.:(
 

photoSmart42

New member
Intriguing, indeed. Let us know what you get.
24 hours to go. I took an interim image so I'll have a beginning, a middle, and an end to see if there's any change during the process. The body feels slightly warm-ish after 24 hours of being constantly on, but I don't smell any film being burned off :D
 
Top