GL2's photo power

John DeLuca · June 7th, 2004, 01:05 PM

Corey,

If you notice, the wedding pic is taken handheld, and with daylight. What size are you making them in photoshop?

John

Corey Sturmer · June 7th, 2004, 07:43 PM

My fault...I made the wedding pic 1000X1500 and the Frog 1488X1128...Like I said, it is clear, that the 6 megapixel sized down is a knotch and a half sharper than my frog or dog pictures...But one must consider the difference in cameras when comparing the two. I still maintain that the GL2, while not built to take still pictures, and shouldn't be purchased for said purpose...But can still create very high quality photographs that one might not expect if they read some of the things said about the feature on this website.

Another thing to consider is that my sharpness was less than halfway when I shot the photos.

John DeLuca · June 7th, 2004, 11:01 PM

***I still maintain that the GL2, while not built to take still pictures, and shouldn't be purchased for said purpose...But can still create very high quality photographs that one might not expect if they read some of the things said about the feature on this website***

That I completely agree with, and im sure its just fine for pics online. I completely misunderstood what you where trying to do with it. I like the frog photo alot, the subject is composed in one of the three quaters of the frame(not dead center), and there is a nice rim light on the frog. My only advice would have been to fill the frame alittle more, but it really doesnt matter, the photo is great. Try some b/w stills on the GL2 aswell, I had some good ones myself.

John

Bill Hardy · June 8th, 2004, 06:45 AM

I am really impressed with the frog shot, although my few attempts to take pics with my GL2 were not as impressive to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/bhardy3/PhotoAlbum8.html

There is a pic of a duck on the water and one of two children in the host of video frame shots here. These were taken a few years ago.

I wonder if they have improved the photo quality of the GL2 since then. Or perhaps the grain in my pics comes from too much light. There were reports of folks being disappointed with the photo quality of the GL2 years ago also. I simply decided to use my 2 MP digital cam for pics, but perhaps I will check out my second GL2 I bought a month ago to see if there is an improvement over my old GL2.

Corey Sturmer · June 8th, 2004, 06:53 AM

I'll do that John...I'm not much of a fan of B/W for nature though...I really love color! Thanks for the advice on the frog picture...I agree it has a bit of empty space, but another minus is that the GL2 doesn't have Macro...Also, check out my moth pictures, those turned out well too I think.

Corey Sturmer · June 9th, 2004, 08:42 AM

http://woffester.deviantart.com/gallery/

John...I actually happened to try it out and I got very pleasing results...

Michael Le · June 9th, 2004, 09:29 AM

No to hijack this thread but, if you can get shallow DOF like that on the GL2 photo (Corey's frog picture), why can't you get that shallow DOF in video? Is it a different CCD?

John DeLuca · June 9th, 2004, 10:59 AM

If you dont already know, play around with the shadows and highlights in photoshop CS. Take them right to the point where they start to burn out for a richer look. Great pics btw.

John

John DeLuca · June 9th, 2004, 11:02 AM

Its the F stop michael.

John

Michael Le · June 9th, 2004, 11:24 AM

I know the GL2 can get F1.6. That's pretty wide-open there and so the DOF should be nice and shallow. But it's not... for video at least. Is there a reason why you can get smaller DOF using the photo function than the video? It's the same camera and lens. Am I missing something?

Jeff Donald · June 9th, 2004, 11:36 AM

Read the article on DOF in our DV Info library.

Corey Sturmer · June 9th, 2004, 09:49 PM

Michael, for those pictures I was at 2.0, and 720 shutterspeed...It took quite a bit of playing around before I got that shallow DOF, and I usually have to wait till dusk so it's light enough to light my subject, but dark enough to the point that I can keep the iris as wide open as it'll let me...

The photo mode is actually less prone to a shallow DOF because the iris will only go down to 2.0, even at 1/60th, and the shutter speed up to 720, so the lighting has to be just right...That DOF is totally possible in the video mode (with possibly even better results)...But at that zoomed level, its hard to control the camera, especially in run n' gun style film making.

For the photos I have on my deviant art page, I only did one thing in photoshop, and that was change the gamma curve to an S shape...In some pictures, I did this process twice, or three times...One on top of the other. This really makes the pictures a bit more breathtaking and filmic. You can replicate this process easily in After Effects...Just make sure you have good source footage.

Finally, thanks for the compliments, John.

June 7th, 2004, 07:43 PM	#17
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	My fault...I made the wedding pic 1000X1500 and the Frog 1488X1128...Like I said, it is clear, that the 6 megapixel sized down is a knotch and a half sharper than my frog or dog pictures...But one must consider the difference in cameras when comparing the two. I still maintain that the GL2, while not built to take still pictures, and shouldn't be purchased for said purpose...But can still create very high quality photographs that one might not expect if they read some of the things said about the feature on this website. Another thing to consider is that my sharpness was less than halfway when I shot the photos. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

June 8th, 2004, 06:53 AM	#20
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	I'll do that John...I'm not much of a fan of B/W for nature though...I really love color! Thanks for the advice on the frog picture...I agree it has a bit of empty space, but another minus is that the GL2 doesn't have Macro...Also, check out my moth pictures, those turned out well too I think. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

June 9th, 2004, 08:42 AM	#21
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	http://woffester.deviantart.com/gallery/ John...I actually happened to try it out and I got very pleasing results... __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

June 9th, 2004, 11:36 AM	#26
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Read the article on DOF in our DV Info library. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

June 9th, 2004, 09:49 PM	#27
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Michael, for those pictures I was at 2.0, and 720 shutterspeed...It took quite a bit of playing around before I got that shallow DOF, and I usually have to wait till dusk so it's light enough to light my subject, but dark enough to the point that I can keep the iris as wide open as it'll let me... The photo mode is actually less prone to a shallow DOF because the iris will only go down to 2.0, even at 1/60th, and the shutter speed up to 720, so the lighting has to be just right...That DOF is totally possible in the video mode (with possibly even better results)...But at that zoomed level, its hard to control the camera, especially in run n' gun style film making. For the photos I have on my deviant art page, I only did one thing in photoshop, and that was change the gamma curve to an S shape...In some pictures, I did this process twice, or three times...One on top of the other. This really makes the pictures a bit more breathtaking and filmic. You can replicate this process easily in After Effects...Just make sure you have good source footage. Finally, thanks for the compliments, John. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

June 7th, 2004, 01:05 PM	#16
John DeLuca Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 496	Corey, If you notice, the wedding pic is taken handheld, and with daylight. What size are you making them in photoshop? John

June 7th, 2004, 11:01 PM	#18
John DeLuca Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 496	*I still maintain that the GL2, while not built to take still pictures, and shouldn't be purchased for said purpose...But can still create very high quality photographs that one might not expect if they read some of the things said about the feature on this website* That I completely agree with, and im sure its just fine for pics online. I completely misunderstood what you where trying to do with it. I like the frog photo alot, the subject is composed in one of the three quaters of the frame(not dead center), and there is a nice rim light on the frog. My only advice would have been to fill the frame alittle more, but it really doesnt matter, the photo is great. Try some b/w stills on the GL2 aswell, I had some good ones myself. John

June 8th, 2004, 06:45 AM	#19
Bill Hardy Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 205	I am really impressed with the frog shot, although my few attempts to take pics with my GL2 were not as impressive to me. http://homepage.mac.com/bhardy3/PhotoAlbum8.html There is a pic of a duck on the water and one of two children in the host of video frame shots here. These were taken a few years ago. I wonder if they have improved the photo quality of the GL2 since then. Or perhaps the grain in my pics comes from too much light. There were reports of folks being disappointed with the photo quality of the GL2 years ago also. I simply decided to use my 2 MP digital cam for pics, but perhaps I will check out my second GL2 I bought a month ago to see if there is an improvement over my old GL2.

June 9th, 2004, 09:29 AM	#22
Michael Le New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 22	No to hijack this thread but, if you can get shallow DOF like that on the GL2 photo (Corey's frog picture), why can't you get that shallow DOF in video? Is it a different CCD?

June 9th, 2004, 10:59 AM	#23
John DeLuca Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 496	If you dont already know, play around with the shadows and highlights in photoshop CS. Take them right to the point where they start to burn out for a richer look. Great pics btw. John

June 9th, 2004, 11:02 AM	#24
John DeLuca Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 496	Its the F stop michael. John

June 9th, 2004, 11:24 AM	#25
Michael Le New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 22	I know the GL2 can get F1.6. That's pretty wide-open there and so the DOF should be nice and shallow. But it's not... for video at least. Is there a reason why you can get smaller DOF using the photo function than the video? It's the same camera and lens. Am I missing something?