E-M5 II vs. GH4 video stabilization test

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Anders W said:

naththo said:

I prefer GH4 over E-M5 II for quality of video. GH4 Advantage 1. More flat profile

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Don't know what the limits of the two are in that regard.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

2. Better WB

Click to expand...

You mean better AWB or what? While I haven't shot any of the more recent Panys, my experience when comparing the AWB of my G1 with that of my Oly bodies (E-M5, E-M1) is the opposite. The AWB of the G1 systematically errs by turning things to cool, especially when the light itself is on the coolish side.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a completely fair comparison Anders. Comparing one of the oldest MFT bodies in stills mode to the newest Oly bodies, again in stills mode.

Fair, fair, fair.

Click to expand...

I didn't make any claim to this being the best comparison. It just happens to be the only one I am personally in a position to make. If you can personally offer a better one, feel free to provide it.

One other thing here: Olympus bodies have a setting whereby you can enter WB compensation. If, for example, you find the temp or tint that AWB provides too cool or too green, you can adjust that via the compensation setting. Do modern Panasonic bodies have something similar? My old G1 didn't.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

3. Better input of video 50M vs Olympus 30M.

Click to expand...

Those just happen to be the settings chosen in this particular case. The Olympus can manage up to 77 Mbits per second and the GH4 200 I think.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

GH4 is specifically target for videography.

Click to expand...

Sure.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Don't care about image stabiliser. You can get better image stabiliser kit (physical kit) for videography.

Click to expand...

Conceivable. There might be quite a few who wouldn't want to acquire and carry such a kit however.

Click to expand...

That kit isn't needed, sir.

Click to expand...

Whether that's so depends on personal objectives and requirements. Yours appear to be a bit different than those of quite a few other participants in this thread.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Stabilized lenses work perfectly well. Stabilization isn't even needed for wide angle shots.

Click to expand...

See above.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

This obsession about stabilization (from a guy who admittedly doesn't shoot video and doesn't even care about it) speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

Since when did starting a thread about a test video to sound out the impressions of others amount to obsession?

And you have evidently forgotten already what I told you in my reply to you here yesterday. So let me repeat it:

"I remain just as uninterested in video as I was. This is why my participation in the very large number of video threads recently has been so limited. But I like to keep an eye out for the development even in areas that are not particularly important to me. When I decide to do video, even if only sporadically, I like to have an idea of how things work and what the options are."

Ander, shame on you, your name is all over the place.......in a dialogue like this....sometimes it is better to sit still and wait a moment......

Just teasing my friend....chil-out

Siegfried

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

The stabilization doesn't have a such effect for motion blur. The stabilization is there to keep motion blur minimized. Better stabilization, no matter is it OIS, IBIS or a external one, will allow to get motion blur minimized.

Click to expand...

The point I made early in the thread here is that the effect of the stabilization depends on what it takes to its primary objective. See also Ken Strain's comment on the matter here.

Click to expand...

And those are just guesses that the IBIS and OIS would do two different ways to stabilization, synced with the framerate instead being in flow.

Click to expand...

Is it? So which of the two stabilization systems manage best to eliminate the jerkiness with regard to framing?

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

The stabilization doesn't work way that it would jump between frames, it is continually working and doesn't care about framerate or shutter speed. It is a "dumb" that it only reads the motion and execute commands to stabilization hardware (a lens or sensor shift) based the motion.

There is no link between framerate, shutter speed or image stabilization. Only effecting factor here is the shutter speed, what we don't know anything about because it is in P mode.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you claim to know these things?

Click to expand...

Because I just know.

Click to expand...

That reply doesn't exactly convince me that you do.

Fri13 said:

Both are designed to be in continued motion eliminating the motion, not to track and jump between frames.

Click to expand...

Fri13 said:

Do you know why Olympus suggest to disable IBIS I-IS 1 in high framerate shooting,

Click to expand...

Do they? There is a setting whereby you can turn IBIS on and off for burst mode and it is off by default. Is that what you have in mind?

The only reason for keeping it off that I have heard being mentioned is that it will slow down the burst slightly. Many (including myself) turn it on and I have never personally experienced any problem with the effect of IBIS in burst mode. Nor have I seen others report any problems in this regard.

Fri13 said:

but allows it to be use in video? Because the IBIS is designed to do only one thing, not to track framerate or shutter speed and move between those and stabilize while the exposure.

Click to expand...

In stills mode, the IBIS very clearly works differently during a stills exposure than during ordinary live view. During stills exposure, you can hear the noise IBIS produces increase significantly (this happens even with IBIS turned off), the reason presumably being that the electromagnetic system uses more power to keep the sensor where it is supposed to be.

Fri13 said:

Same thing is with OIS. It is on continual correction, not moving between and stabilizing while the exposure.

Click to expand...

In OIS mode 1, the system is on continuously. However, in OIS mode 2 (now abolished by Panasonic but still present on my G1), it turns on during exposure only.

Fri13 said:

You can find many patents and research papers about image stabilization if you want and read those trough.

Click to expand...

What we are dicussing here is how two particular systems actually work. In view of that, learning how those two systems actually work (by reading the manual or doing some simple tests) appears to be a better bet.

Fri13 said:

The main difference is that IS lens doesn't have the space and speed to react to such radical moves as the IBIS does.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you claim that?

Fri13 said:

The magnification at the point the image is on sensor is much smaller, making even a slight movement to give much stronger effect.

Click to expand...

I would rather think that the (typically) small elements in the OIS lens group need to move less than the sensor to accomplish the same effect.

Fri13 said:

Giving a IBIS far bigger motion correction capability than OIS can have.

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

By the look and knowledge of the Olympus video,

Click to expand...

For reasons already spelled out, the look of the video itself doesn't tell us what the shutter speed is since the stabilization works visibly differently on the two cameras.

Click to expand...

It is same design, different implementation. The look of the frames show us the framerate difference, not the exact values but the difference.

Click to expand...

There is no difference in framerate and for reasons already pointed out the look of the frames do not provide any clearcut information about shutter speed either.

Fri13 said:

And knowledge and experience between Panasonic and Olympus cameras tells as well that Olympus prefers slow shutter speeds in low light scenes.

Click to expand...

Whose experience? There is no Panasonic camera listed in your gear list among those you currently own or have owned.

Fri13 said:

If you know how shutter speed has own effect with specific frame rate, regardless of the IS, you can identify that problem being in P mode, not at all in IS as you would know if you would know how different IS works.

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

I know it prefers to keep the shutter speed low.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you know that it systematically prefers to keep the shutter speed lower than Panasonic?

Click to expand...

By using those cameras and testing them in real world situations for different scenery?

Click to expand...

See the question/comment of mine immediately above.

Fri13 said:

What is reason why I keep Video mode in my E-M1 in M mode and sometimes I allow it to do auto ISO if resulting quality doesn't matter so much.

Click to expand...

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

hindesite said:

Then unrelated issues like motion blur, shutter angle, bitrate etc won't need to be discussed.

Click to expand...

I think motion blur is directly related to the type of IS used (see below).

Click to expand...

Shutter speed and codec is the ruling factor there. We don't know what shutter speed the cameras had.

The shutter speed affects radically to motion blur, not the framerate.

Both were 30fps so 30 frames per second, meaning the minimal shutter speed is 1/30.

But we can use a different shutter speed for 30 fps, meaning we can example use 1/1000 for each frame, resulting a very high quality detailed non-blurred video.

The cameras were in P mode, that is totally unfair for the discussion about the blurriness, as the camera was choosing the framerate, aperture and ISO.

Click to expand...

Not the framerate but the shutter speed.

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry the typo.

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

And GH4 and E-M5 II has different ways to calculate the exposure values.

Click to expand...

Do they? It would surprise me if they chose dramatically different settings in P mode. Perhaps someone with access to both cameras (or at least a recent Pany and a recent Oly) can help out with this question.

Click to expand...

You can see it yourself when testing both cameras.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have neither camera available to me for testing.

Fri13 said:

That is the thing why you should not use automatic modes as they tend to ¤%&# in tests and when you can't see the actual test settings, it cause discussions like that where people talk trash about image stabilization when the fault is in the automatics what camera choose to use for exposure, when taking tests of camera in fast moving motion.

Hence nothing can be compared in sharpness as Olympus tends to keep low shutter speed unless commanded to keep it up. And this is one reason why cinematographers use lots of variable ND filters because they can control exposure manually easily without allowing camera to change aperture, shutter speed and ISO. And if you want something to be changed, it is automatic ISO then, not auto shutter or auto aperture.

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

The only real way would have been using a M mode, where shooter sets shutter speed, aperture AND then lets the ISO be automatic.

Or at least use a A mode where setting shutter speed, ISO and let camera change aperture. And same way the focusing needs to be on manual mode, so it doesn't get changed.

Click to expand...

Yes, both of these solutions would have been better in this case.

Click to expand...

What renders the test only to be about the end-result as is. Olympus wins hands down because:

1) It perform far better stabilization in camera

2) It doesn't require post processing

3) it even produce better results than post processing

Now, what can be said, is that take both cameras to M mode, use best bitrate and code setting possible for the given scene (fast moving etc) and then we can discuss about sharpness extracted from fast moving scene. Now Olympus has sharper details in slow moving scenes (panning landscape, looking buildings, waves, antennas etc), that were brighter than under bridge condition where the fast moving action was going.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a hypothesis of yours that I'd like to see tested.

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

BTW look at the floor tiles at 1:05 - wow!

Click to expand...

You mean that they look more blurry with the E-M5 II or what? Well if you start looking at details in places where the camera moves rapidly, you'll notice that the individual frames tend to be more blurred with the E-M5 II than with the GH4, presumably for either or both of the reasons pointed out here.

Click to expand...

Looking the frames, looks like the GH4 had shutter speed around 1/320 and E-M5 II had around 1/30. As even that level motion blur doesn't come as difference without using ALL-I.

Click to expand...

It could be that the different extent to which the two cameras blur individual frames is due to differences in shutter speed. But it may also be due to differences in the way stabilization works.

Click to expand...

Worse stabilization == faster motion speed == more motion blur

The stabilization has no other effect at all to motion blur.

Click to expand...

Noone says it has another effect. But its effect on the motion blur you will see in an individual frame depends on what the primary objective of the stabilization is: To even out jerkiness between frames or keep each frame maximally sharp. And a stabilization system that focuses is on the former rather than the latter is not necessarily worse.

Fri13 said:

Only shutter speed related to framerate is the main cause there. And then the chosen codec how it will compress the data. But nothing else with image stabilization. If image stabilization gets camera movement minimized, slower shutter speed can be used.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what I'd like to see tested.

Fri13 said:

This is exactly as well the problem with the 4K in GH4 as you can only get 30fps with it, so you are limited many cases to 1/30 or 1/60 shutter speed for fast motion, depending exposure. With Olympus FHD being its max, you can get 60fps and that means you can use 1/60 or 1/125 shutter speed to freeze the motion in individual frames and get sharper results. But that is just 4K vs FHD and GH4 at FHD gives 96fps with own limits etc. But for normal playback it doesn't change much if it is 60fps vs 96fps as the human brains starts to be already filling the caps very effectively.

Fri13 said:

Fri13 said:

And that would explain why E-M5 II blows the highlights because it is using very low ISO that blows highlights easily. (Youtube video)

Click to expand...

I am afraid I don't understand how that video about Canon has anything to do with the way the E-M5 II works. Aside from ISO LOW, lowering the ISO doesn't imply any increase in the risk of highlight clipping as far as I am aware.

Click to expand...

It was actually very well explained in that. I was afraid that you saw only the Canon, not the information of the digital sensors behavior (how ISO is implemented in all digital sensors).

Click to expand...

No, that's not the way ISO is implemented in all digital sensors and what is talked about in that video isn't even a sensor characteristic in the first place. It's about the way the tone curve is applied by the OOC jpeg engine (not the sensor) on Canon cameras. And I know of no information suggesting that Oly does the same thing.

Fri13 said:

It goes to same idea that to use 1/3 of ISO lower from full stops ISO (like 640 instead 800) as it improves the quality etc.

But we don't know what settings was used in E-M5 II as it allows to use flat curves, it allows to control exposures and when you place camera to P modes, the one that is designed better by default for video will win, but it doesn't mean that the one that didn't win is worse, because it is again about the settings used. And in P mode all is lost regarding the highlight blowing up as its just auto mode.

But this just covers that E-M5 II use low shutter speeds, meaning it can use low ISO, and it is fragile to get highlights overexposed, especially when using a lower bitrate combined with it.

Way too many variables being against E-M5 II there, as skilled videographer would not allow camera to be a such random machine choosing ISO, Shutter speed and aperture.

Thats reason why that test can be used only in IBIS vs OIS and IBIS vs OIS+PP IS. And there Olympus IBIS wins hands down. It is up to camera operator to control the camera to avoid over exposing highlights off, using too slow shutter speed or have subject out of focus.

But now it was the engineer at Olympus that was doing that decision, not the shooter.

Click to expand...

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Anders W said:

xerophytenyc said:

The SW corrected footage of the GH4 is terrible because it is extremely difficult to correct for the jello effect, of which there is plenty because of the nature of the camera movement.

Click to expand...

Don't understand what you mean here. The SW stabilization doesn't make any jello effect either better or worse than it initially was. The "jello effect", as that label is conventionally used, simply has nothing to do with SW stabilization.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Give this footage to the newest version of Mercalli for stabilization and the result will be superior to Warp Stabilizer.

Click to expand...

In what way?

Click to expand...

Mercalli seems to produce visibly better results than Warp Stabilizer.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Oly does an outstanding job in camera. But it does appear to sacrifice fine detail in my eyes. Screengrabs from YouTube are useless. A comparison of original files is the only way to get a real good look.

Click to expand...

The screengrab I posted doesn't come from me but from the guy who shot the video. He presumably didn't have to take it via the YouTube route.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

I have yet to see any good evidence that the Oly video capability is comparable to GH4 other than the stabilization.

Click to expand...

I think it compares pretty well here even for things other than stabilization.

Click to expand...

I don't. It's so vastly outclassed by the GH4 and GH3's 1080p mode, it's a complete shame. We don't even need to go to 4K to see a massive difference.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Progress is definitely being made, but I doubt we will see a mass videographer migration.

Click to expand...

No idea about that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In other videos I thought the GH4 has better IQ but in this one to me it's obvious the Olympus overall has better IQ.

at this point, i'd be interested in seeing this experiment (or something like it) repeated with the same exposure settings on both cameras.

Tony8232 said:

No I didn't mean the stabilization. I noticed that the Olympus was set at 30M and the Panasonic at 50m. I don't know the significance of that since I don't know what 30m and 50m are but it could have something to do with it. Could anyone explain these settings.

Click to expand...

The M in these settings is a short way of saying megabits per second, and is a measure of the amount of data recorded per second of the video recording. As a rule, video recording involves lossy data compression and the less compression there is, the better the video quality, everything else equal. In this case, neither camera uses the highest bitrate (lowest compression rate) it can achieve. The E-M5 II can maximally reach 77 Mbits/s and the GH4 200.

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

Anders W said:

As most of you are probably aware already, the new Olympus IBIS introduced with the E-M5 uses a mix of hardware and software stabilization when shooting video (although on the E-M5 II you can turn the software part off if you want). Panasonic, by contrast, uses only hardware stabilization.

Now in discussions about the pros and cons of Olympus and Panasonic for video shooting, it is often mentioned that you can apply software stabilization to Panasonic footage in PP, thereby evening out the score between the two as far as stabilization is concerned. Via 43rumors found a test of how much that actually helps that I'd like to share in case some of you haven't seen it already.

The video compares how the E-M5 II and GH4 behave when shot side by side. The first part of the video (up to about 4:45) is with in-camera stabilization only (hardware+software for the E-M5 II, hardware only for the GH4). The second part is with software stabilization additionally applied to the GH4 footage via PP.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

My first thought is why all the sudden interest in video? The fact is, you had zero interest in video until Olympus decided they wanted to join the big boys (and failed). I mean, if you're now genuinely taking up an interest in video, then welcome to the club. If you've suddenly taken up this interest for Olympus' sake, then I'm not sure what to say. , and I'm not doing this just for the sake of doing it. I actually rely on the video functions of my cameras.

Click to expand...

Dear Mr Bobby Rue Goldberg,

As much as I prefer not to I really could not help but notice the abundance of threads and the general attitude of your stance here at DPR. I have not seen any examples of your 'work' other than the written kind here at DPR or any where else so I am interested to know a few things about you.

"then I'm not sure what to say" That statement seems right on the money so far.

"Because video is actually important to me". Important enough to use a high quality dedicated video capture tool and not a stills camera?

i'm curious, do you have any idea of just how many 'Hollywood' movies (movies the general public pays good money to see) and prime time cable television shows are made with digital cameras with video recording capabilities?

"and I'm not doing this just for the sake of doing it." doing what exactly? capturing video footage or whining about Olympus' video?

"I actually rely on the video functions of my cameras." rely on video functions for what exactly?

again...i do not recall seeing your name listed on 'Hollywood' credit reels. So are we talking home movies or ultra-low budget indy stuff? what exactly do you do? Do you earn a part/parcel monetary income from your video functions? Are you a hobbyist? What do you do with a video?

"Olympus decided they wanted to join the big boys (and failed)". join the big boys huh?! very interesting perspective you've chosen to comment by indeed!

So, the 'big boys' video capture tools are stills cameras with the ability to capture video? Not in my opinion from the movies I watch and television shows i regularly watch but what do I know.

Tthe way i understand Olympus' intentions for video capture with the EM5mk2 is that Olympus has no interest in joining the 'big boys' club as you put it and how i see it.

My understanding of Olympus' goal implementation of video on the OMD EM5 mk2 is that the OMD EM5mk2' video output quality is Olympus' best effort to date and an improvement on anything they(OLYMPUS) currently have available on the market.

By all accounts, except all of yours, it would seem certain that Olympus has clearly succeeded with their EM5mk2 video quality goal.

I find it uncanny that you are (far too) bound and determined to point out fault with Olympus' EM5mk2 video output quality by comparing it to other manufacturers video output quality.

Strange indeed.

Do you frequent Ford Mustang forums and continually harangue Mustang owners to the fact that a Mustang does not outperform any particular GM or Chrysler product in certain situation(s)? or vice versa?

Bobby Rue Goldberg said:

My second thought is that it is very nice stabilization, the best straight out of camera I've seen. But let's keep in mind they rely on a substantial crop to add a digital stabilization.

My third thought is that they screwed up the stabilization in post. There's no need for those black bars. If they cropped the video the same way Olympus' video is (and interpolated to 1080p), then they could do away with the black bars, and I doubt the video would look worse than Olympus (regarding video quality). But I'm not taking anything away from Olympus. The stabilization is impressive.

And finally, I don't shoot walking down the stairs (or rarely walking at all), and I don't know many people that do. I'm sure there are some that do and would benefit from it. But I actually do shoot a lot of video, and I'm not sure under what circumstances this would benefit me personally.

Click to expand...

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Click to expand...

Actually this is also the effect that I was describing earlier ago in this thread: The sensor seems to brake abrupt and jitters for a moment because it's over compensating the momevemnts which results in a quite nervous unnatural movement.

This is especially noticable in an otherwise perfectly stabilized movement (not even talking about the warping).

I think this is a quite good comparison, as it direcly compares to the E-M5 I with a result which is IMO more realistic than most of the other (overhyped) reviews we've seen:

The difference is there, but it's not big (to my eyes, barely noticable).

Fygaren said:

Anders W said:

Fygaren said:

Anders W said:

As most of you are probably aware already, the new Olympus IBIS introduced with the E-M5 uses a mix of hardware and software stabilization when shooting video (although on the E-M5 II you can turn the software part off if you want). Panasonic, by contrast, uses only hardware stabilization.

Now in discussions about the pros and cons of Olympus and Panasonic for video shooting, it is often mentioned that you can apply software stabilization to Panasonic footage in PP, thereby evening out the score between the two as far as stabilization is concerned. Via 43rumors found a test of how much that actually helps that I'd like to share in case some of you haven't seen it already.

The video compares how the E-M5 II and GH4 behave when shot side by side. The first part of the video (up to about 4:45) is with in-camera stabilization only (hardware+software for the E-M5 II, hardware only for the GH4). The second part is with software stabilization additionally applied to the GH4 footage via PP.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Thoughts:

1. I would have liked it if the video was shot with 77Mbps on the E-M5II and the SW stabilized shots on the GH-4 was cropped. I have seen convinsing videos of fast panning and lots of movements at 77Mbps on the E-M5II (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55400686 )

Click to expand...

Agreed. BTW: I saw that post of yours and found it useful. Just linked to it in a post in another thread to demonstrate that there is actually some evidence that the higher bitrate and the better codec compared to earlier Olys is put to good use.

Fygaren said:

2. SW stabilization - It does not work for me. The SW correction on the Oly does things to the background that takes my attention away from what Im supposed to look at.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are thinking of here. I didn't find anything particularly distracting about the Oly stabilization (which is both hardware and software in this case). Could you please elaborate a bit.

Click to expand...

This is the best video about the E-M5II IBIS IMO. 4:58-5:05 min in you see what I find disturbing. Its not mutch, but its the same thing that youtube does, only mutch worse. This effect draws my attention in every SW stabilization I have seen so far. In shoots where this is not noticable, I think IS2 will work just as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, I looked at the video segment you pointed to and now understand what you find disturbing. But it turns out the E-M5 II video I linked to in the OP of this thread is actually done with hardware stabilization only according to the text at the beginning of the video (M-IS2 instead of M-IS1). So if you see the same thing there (it was nothing I spontaneously noticed), it may not be the SW stabilization that is responsible.

Fygaren said:

Fygaren said:

Fygaren said:

The SW correction on the GH4 is mutch worse.

Click to expand...

Yes, I too think the end result is worse than what the Oly can accomplish. But I would have liked to see a third version with the GH4 footage cropped the way it would ordinarily be after SW correction.

Fygaren said:

The worst Ive seen is youtube that tried to "stabilize" some of my mostly stable videos, its the only thing you remember afterwords. I have yet to see SW stabilizing that works well, but PP to stabilize is not an option when you can get stable footage OOC.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, you have the option of using the E-M5 II with only hardware stabilization enabled. Earlier Oly bodies do not have that option.

Fygaren said:

3. 3-axis IBIS vs OIS - There is no contest. The IBIS is so smooth it lets you consentrate on what is beeing filmed, while the OIS has shaking that draws your attention away.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Fygaren said:

mpgxsvcd has a lot of good handheld videos with GH3/4 with 35-100 (I think, not 100% sure) while not moving around, but after using E-M5 I, I find the tiny shaking in his videos distracting. His kind of shooting is more in line of what I would do in addition to following my kids around on foot.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any of his videos so I can't really comment on that.

Click to expand...

He has many videos worth checking out, and will soon post an setup video for the E.M5II.

Click to expand...

OK.

Fygaren said:

Fygaren said:

Fygaren said:

4. Detail in framegrabs - This is the hard one to agree on IMO. Some people seem to think this is the only measure of video quality, but for me its quite far down on the list as long as its "good enough". For me its about what takes your attention away from what you video is about. In this regard fine detail is not as important as one would think. Shaking, picture breaking apart, strange behaviour of the background and flickering lights are far more distracting. My videos usually have constant movements in them, and a part of why people want 24p is in a way to get blurred movement...? The E-M5II videos that I have downloaded seem very sharp and detailed, but I dont do framegrabs. Looking at your framegrab here I find it strange that when watching the video, the E-M5 does not look so blurry (even if its only 30Mbps), and you are saying this can be because the IBIS is constantly moving the sensor around??. This IMO has to do with that video is mostly about movement. In some situations I can undertand that detail is important(macro? still nature?), but still I think one has to make people wathing aware of the difference in detail for them to notice by showing framegrabs (not talking about 4k).

Click to expand...

Framegrabs may still be useful for judging the quality you can get in a static scene. And such framegrabs can be useful for diagnosing what's going on in scenes with motion too. But I agree with you that to judge the quality for scenes with motion, you need to actually watch the video. I think the framegrab I posted (which is not mine but originally posted by the guy who shot the video) that such a grab may well be blurry without necessarily detracting the from the quality you perceive when you view the video itself.

Click to expand...

I think we are on the same page. Sitting in a car can tell you everything about how good and comfortable that car is to sit in, but it tells you little about how good and comfortable the car is to drive (although it might give you some ideas). I got one on suspention as well, but Ill spare you

Click to expand...

All right. Yes, I think we understand each other well here.

Fygaren said:

Fygaren said:

Fygaren said:

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts, and I would really like to hear what you have to say about detail in video (maby vs shaking and other disturbing things?). I would not mind if Oly had better detail, but ifor my use Oly sure has the best package of video capabilities available at the moment.

Click to expand...

You find my two cents above. I should add, however, that I make no claim whatsoever to expertise when it comes to video. As a matter of fact, I have so far been rather uninterested in video, in part because I think you have to be very ambitious about it to accomplish something worth looking at. I started the thread because I nevertheless found the test interesting.

Click to expand...

Your history on focus on detail makes your opinion interesting nomatter what the subject.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you have in mind when you refer to my "history on focus on detail". As far as video is concerned, I know that I dislike the loss of detail due to the compression/codec that you can sometimes see in scenes where the camera or subject moves, exemplified in the video comparing the original E-M5 (more compression) with the E-M5 II (less compression) that you linked to. In the video that this thread is about, I find the E-M5 II version clearly better although it shows more motion blur. But this is largely ordinary motion blur rather than loss due to compression and that blur looks quite natural to me.

Fygaren said:

I have chosen a small package with an E-M5 and two lenses as max of what I bring along on a regular basis. This makes a gimbal, tripod etc. not an option for me, and puts IBIS at the top of my video-priority-list. Others value detail, and I can in some ways understand that. I would think you normally would value detail, but then there is that Oly IBIS that just cant be ignored..

Click to expand...

A gimbal or steadicam is not something I would carry either and my tripod comes along only sometimes. So in-camera stabilization is a priority for me too, for stills as well as my very modest video ambitions. And in this department, the Oly IBIS is hard to beat.

How the E-M5 II compares to the GH4 and other Panasonics with regard to other aspects of video quality I am still not sure. I'd like to see more in the way of controlled comparisons before passing judgment on that. While it seems likely that the GH4 is ahead here (aside from its ability do 4K which the E-M5 II cannot do), I'd like to get a firmer grasp on how big the difference actually is.

Nemo0815 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Click to expand...

Actually this is also the effect that I was describing earlier ago in this thread: The sensor seems to brake abrupt and jitters for a moment because it's over compensating the momevemnts which results in a quite nervous unnatural movement.

Click to expand...

The effect is most likely due to the sensor being at the extreme of its range of movement and the stabilization algorithm therefore making an attempt to move it back closer to the center.

Nemo0815 said:

This is especially noticable in an otherwise perfectly stabilized movement (not even talking about the warping).

I think this is a quite good comparison, as it direcly compares to the E-M5 I with a result which is IMO more realistic than most of the other (overhyped) reviews we've seen:

The difference is there, but it's not big (to my eyes, barely noticable).

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Nemo0815 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Click to expand...

Actually this is also the effect that I was describing earlier ago in this thread: The sensor seems to brake abrupt and jitters for a moment because it's over compensating the momevemnts which results in a quite nervous unnatural movement.

Click to expand...

The effect is most likely due to the sensor being at the extreme of its range of movement and the stabilization algorithm therefore making an attempt to move it back closer to the center.

Click to expand...

Actually in the example he shows at 5:20 he is moving not really quickly so I guess it's somehow also related to the permanent movement before that point which doesn't the sensor allow to get back to default position (so you're probably right the sensor is at its maximum already).

In the panning later at the bridge it's even more pronounced, with a constant movement in on direction and then stopping, the sensor needs some time to get back to default position and doing this by rather random looking movements.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

This is especially noticable in an otherwise perfectly stabilized movement (not even talking about the warping).

I think this is a quite good comparison, as it direcly compares to the E-M5 I with a result which is IMO more realistic than most of the other (overhyped) reviews we've seen:

The difference is there, but it's not big (to my eyes, barely noticable).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nemo0815 said:

Anders W said:

Nemo0815 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Click to expand...

Actually this is also the effect that I was describing earlier ago in this thread: The sensor seems to brake abrupt and jitters for a moment because it's over compensating the momevemnts which results in a quite nervous unnatural movement.

Click to expand...

The effect is most likely due to the sensor being at the extreme of its range of movement and the stabilization algorithm therefore making an attempt to move it back closer to the center.

Click to expand...

Actually in the example he shows at 5:20 he is moving not really quickly so I guess it's somehow also related to the permanent movement before that point which doesn't the sensor allow to get back to default position (so you're probably right the sensor is at its maximum already).

In the panning later at the bridge it's even more pronounced, with a constant movement in on direction and then stopping, the sensor needs some time to get back to default position and doing this by rather random looking movements.

Click to expand...

It doesn't look random to me. It looks as it is moving back.

Nemo0815 said:

Nemo0815 said:

Nemo0815 said:

This is especially noticable in an otherwise perfectly stabilized movement (not even talking about the warping).

I think this is a quite good comparison, as it direcly compares to the E-M5 I with a result which is IMO more realistic than most of the other (overhyped) reviews we've seen:

The difference is there, but it's not big (to my eyes, barely noticable).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

As most of you are probably aware already, the new Olympus IBIS introduced with the E-M5 uses a mix of hardware and software stabilization when shooting video (although on the E-M5 II you can turn the software part off if you want). Panasonic, by contrast, uses only hardware stabilization.

Now in discussions about the pros and cons of Olympus and Panasonic for video shooting, it is often mentioned that you can apply software stabilization to Panasonic footage in PP, thereby evening out the score between the two as far as stabilization is concerned. Via 43rumors found a test of how much that actually helps that I'd like to share in case some of you haven't seen it already.

The video compares how the E-M5 II and GH4 behave when shot side by side. The first part of the video (up to about 4:45) is with in-camera stabilization only (hardware+software for the E-M5 II, hardware only for the GH4). The second part is with software stabilization additionally applied to the GH4 footage via PP.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

If the guy labeled his videos correctly, and I'm correctly interpreting what you mean by the bolded passage above, he was only using hardware stabilization on the EM5 II. M-IS2 mode, at least on my mark II, is labeled 'Sensor Shift Only', whereas M-IS1 is labeled 'Sensor Shift + Digital'.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction! You are quite right. I already knew what these labels mean but just didn't notice initially that it actually said M-IS2. So I incorrectly assumed it was the default (M-IS1), particularly since SW stabilization was later added to the GH4 footage. If this is just the hardware part, it is of course even more impressive!

One thing I don't understand though is that the E-M5 II (reportedly, I guess you can confirm it) crops the frame a bit and by the same amount in both M-IS1 and M-IS2 relative to stabilization off. That this is necessary with SW stabilization on is obvious but why is it done with SW stabilization off?

Click to expand...

The E-M5 II applies the same crop in video mode, no matter which IS mode is selected (including when IS is turned off completely).

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

As most of you are probably aware already, the new Olympus IBIS introduced with the E-M5 uses a mix of hardware and software stabilization when shooting video (although on the E-M5 II you can turn the software part off if you want). Panasonic, by contrast, uses only hardware stabilization.

Now in discussions about the pros and cons of Olympus and Panasonic for video shooting, it is often mentioned that you can apply software stabilization to Panasonic footage in PP, thereby evening out the score between the two as far as stabilization is concerned. Via 43rumors found a test of how much that actually helps that I'd like to share in case some of you haven't seen it already.

The video compares how the E-M5 II and GH4 behave when shot side by side. The first part of the video (up to about 4:45) is with in-camera stabilization only (hardware+software for the E-M5 II, hardware only for the GH4). The second part is with software stabilization additionally applied to the GH4 footage via PP.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

If the guy labeled his videos correctly, and I'm correctly interpreting what you mean by the bolded passage above, he was only using hardware stabilization on the EM5 II. M-IS2 mode, at least on my mark II, is labeled 'Sensor Shift Only', whereas M-IS1 is labeled 'Sensor Shift + Digital'.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction! You are quite right. I already knew what these labels mean but just didn't notice initially that it actually said M-IS2. So I incorrectly assumed it was the default (M-IS1), particularly since SW stabilization was later added to the GH4 footage. If this is just the hardware part, it is of course even more impressive!

One thing I don't understand though is that the E-M5 II (reportedly, I guess you can confirm it) crops the frame a bit and by the same amount in both M-IS1 and M-IS2 relative to stabilization off. That this is necessary with SW stabilization on is obvious but why is it done with SW stabilization off?

Click to expand...

The E-M5 II applies the same crop in video mode, no matter which IS mode is selected (including when IS is turned off completely).

Click to expand...

Thanks tex!

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

As most of you are probably aware already, the new Olympus IBIS introduced with the E-M5 uses a mix of hardware and software stabilization when shooting video (although on the E-M5 II you can turn the software part off if you want). Panasonic, by contrast, uses only hardware stabilization.

Now in discussions about the pros and cons of Olympus and Panasonic for video shooting, it is often mentioned that you can apply software stabilization to Panasonic footage in PP, thereby evening out the score between the two as far as stabilization is concerned. Via 43rumors found a test of how much that actually helps that I'd like to share in case some of you haven't seen it already.

The video compares how the E-M5 II and GH4 behave when shot side by side. The first part of the video (up to about 4:45) is with in-camera stabilization only (hardware+software for the E-M5 II, hardware only for the GH4). The second part is with software stabilization additionally applied to the GH4 footage via PP.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

If the guy labeled his videos correctly, and I'm correctly interpreting what you mean by the bolded passage above, he was only using hardware stabilization on the EM5 II. M-IS2 mode, at least on my mark II, is labeled 'Sensor Shift Only', whereas M-IS1 is labeled 'Sensor Shift + Digital'.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction! You are quite right. I already knew what these labels mean but just didn't notice initially that it actually said M-IS2. So I incorrectly assumed it was the default (M-IS1), particularly since SW stabilization was later added to the GH4 footage. If this is just the hardware part, it is of course even more impressive!

One thing I don't understand though is that the E-M5 II (reportedly, I guess you can confirm it) crops the frame a bit and by the same amount in both M-IS1 and M-IS2 relative to stabilization off. That this is necessary with SW stabilization on is obvious but why is it done with SW stabilization off?

Click to expand...

The E-M5 II applies the same crop in video mode, no matter which IS mode is selected (including when IS is turned off completely).

Click to expand...

Already mentioned this before here and it's rather strange. Meaning either it's a firmware bug not disabling the SW IS or some kind of "light" SW IS still going on in mode2.

But it could of course also be intended to have the same crop factor in both modes

Nemo0815 said:

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

texinwien said:

Anders W said:

As most of you are probably aware already, the new Olympus IBIS introduced with the E-M5 uses a mix of hardware and software stabilization when shooting video (although on the E-M5 II you can turn the software part off if you want). Panasonic, by contrast, uses only hardware stabilization.

Now in discussions about the pros and cons of Olympus and Panasonic for video shooting, it is often mentioned that you can apply software stabilization to Panasonic footage in PP, thereby evening out the score between the two as far as stabilization is concerned. Via 43rumors found a test of how much that actually helps that I'd like to share in case some of you haven't seen it already.

The video compares how the E-M5 II and GH4 behave when shot side by side. The first part of the video (up to about 4:45) is with in-camera stabilization only (hardware+software for the E-M5 II, hardware only for the GH4). The second part is with software stabilization additionally applied to the GH4 footage via PP.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

If the guy labeled his videos correctly, and I'm correctly interpreting what you mean by the bolded passage above, he was only using hardware stabilization on the EM5 II. M-IS2 mode, at least on my mark II, is labeled 'Sensor Shift Only', whereas M-IS1 is labeled 'Sensor Shift + Digital'.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction! You are quite right. I already knew what these labels mean but just didn't notice initially that it actually said M-IS2. So I incorrectly assumed it was the default (M-IS1), particularly since SW stabilization was later added to the GH4 footage. If this is just the hardware part, it is of course even more impressive!

One thing I don't understand though is that the E-M5 II (reportedly, I guess you can confirm it) crops the frame a bit and by the same amount in both M-IS1 and M-IS2 relative to stabilization off. That this is necessary with SW stabilization on is obvious but why is it done with SW stabilization off?

Click to expand...

The E-M5 II applies the same crop in video mode, no matter which IS mode is selected (including when IS is turned off completely).

Click to expand...

Already mentioned this before here and it's rather strange. Meaning either it's a firmware bug not disabling the SW IS or some kind of "light" SW IS still going on in mode2.

But it could of course also be intended to have the same crop factor in both modes

Click to expand...

Fri13 provided some alternative hypotheses about the matter here:

Nemo0815 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Click to expand...

Actually this is also the effect that I was describing earlier ago in this thread: The sensor seems to brake abrupt and jitters for a moment because it's over compensating the momevemnts which results in a quite nervous unnatural movement.

Click to expand...

Really.....do you really want us to take you seriously!!!

Nemo0815 said:

This is especially noticable in an otherwise perfectly stabilized movement (not even talking about the warping).

I think this is a quite good comparison, as it direcly compares to the E-M5 I with a result which is IMO more realistic than most of the other (overhyped) reviews we've seen:

The difference is there, but it's not big (to my eyes, barely noticable).

Click to expand...

BushmanOrig said:

Nemo0815 said:

Anders W said:

Fri13 said:

Anders W said:

John Brawley said:

With regards to the warping, you can reduce this by using MODE 2 instead of MODE 1 and I also manually override the focal length below 25mm...so for example I'll dial a 12mm up to 17mm or higher to override the IS setting....This can reduce the chances of warping in the corners, which you tend to see in wider shots...

Click to expand...

Could you please explain/illustrate what you have in mind when talking about warping in the corners here? Exactly what should I be looking for and on what grounds does stabilization produce this phenomenon?

Click to expand...

You can see all about that in those tests.

Check 5:20 forward to see the warping effect, it comes the sensor shifting and changing the sensor angle to the scene, resulting background (usually on edges of the frame) to get bigger and smaller and otherway on otherside of the sensor (other edge going closer subject, other going further of the subject). The sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, when your other goes forward, other retreats and vice versa.

Click to expand...

OK. But what does this have to do with the stabilization? If the sensor moves like your shoulders when you walk, that's due to the walking, not the cameras attempts at stabilizing.

Click to expand...

Actually this is also the effect that I was describing earlier ago in this thread: The sensor seems to brake abrupt and jitters for a moment because it's over compensating the momevemnts which results in a quite nervous unnatural movement.

Click to expand...

Really.....do you really want us to take you seriously!!!

Click to expand...

Well, yes ... maybe you should take a look at the youtube video for your enlightenment.

BushmanOrig said:

BushmanOrig said:

This is especially noticable in an otherwise perfectly stabilized movement (not even talking about the warping).

I think this is a quite good comparison, as it direcly compares to the E-M5 I with a result which is IMO more realistic than most of the other (overhyped) reviews we've seen:

The difference is there, but it's not big (to my eyes, barely noticable).

Click to expand...

--
I love equipment..........and photography....

Click to expand...