GH1 Not as I had hoped - Page 6 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic LUMIX G / GF / GH / GX Series

Panasonic LUMIX G / GF / GH / GX Series
4K and AVCHD on a Micro Four Thirds system camera with interchangeable lenses.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12th, 2009, 01:03 AM   #76
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hoboken, NJ (New York metro area)
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mullen View Post
I completely agree that 30p makes so much more sense. And, I really doubt an audience can tell the difference.
There we solved it. 30P. I also agree that an audience could never tell the difference - nor would they care. It would be an improvement without rocking the film world and doing something like 60P.
Nathan Troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2009, 01:18 AM   #77
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mullen View Post
It is a combination of the interval between captures (1/30th vs 1/24th second) and shutter-speed (1/60th vs 1/48th second).

30p captures motion slightly better -- which is oddly what the film folks like. 1/48th offers slightly more blur -- which is needed to help make 24p judder be less severe.

I completely agree that 30p makes so much more sense. And, I really doubt an audience can tell the difference. However, when I use 30p -- I use 1/45th (about 213-degrees if I remember right. 1/30th is so blurry it reduces effective resolution. (Of course, that makes some think video looks like film -- which is it doesn't.) And, 1/60th has almost no motion blur.
I'm still curious to see what they look like side by side:
24p 1/48
30p 1/48

I understand it'll make a little difference, I'd like to know about what the ratio is between the two bits that defines "Film Look". I don't have 24p on my camera, nor 1/48, so I can't test it... any takers? I'd even be curious to see that 1/45. Perhaps a blind test and poll to see who can tell by watching what clip has which settings.
__________________
Web Youtube Facebook
Cole McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2009, 01:51 PM   #78
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole McDonald View Post
I'm still curious to see what they look like side by side:
24p 1/48
30p 1/48

I understand it'll make a little difference, I'd like to know about what the ratio is between the two bits that defines "Film Look". I don't have 24p on my camera, nor 1/48, so I can't test it... any takers? I'd even be curious to see that 1/45. Perhaps a blind test and poll to see who can tell by watching what clip has which settings.
I know this topic is all over the place, and this is all about 24p vs 30p now, but I'm posting this anyway.

I've tested 24p vs 30p numerous times before, but I decided to test it again recently. Especially since 30p keeps coming up with the 5DMkII, GH1 in 720p60 mode and the knowledge that smoother motion can be achieved in 30p, but... well it's not 24p! Does it matter?

This time I compared viewing 24p and 30p on an a NTSC interlaced monitor, and a progressive HD monitor.

I was able to tell the difference on the interlaced monitor, but it was a lot harder to tell the difference on the progressive monitor.

I wasn't able to tell the difference all the time, but when I did, here's my attempt to describe it - it's merely a feeling and subjective perception and opinion:

30p has a slightly more "reality" feel, while 24p has the narrative surreal feel that we know so well from watching so many things shot on film. 30p can feel like "this is happening and you are present", while 24p can feel like "this is happening but you are not here - it is beyond you, it is otherworldly" 30p feels like the event is happening in front of you, while 24p feels like history unfolding while you witness it, as if it always was, a timelessness. 30p is more immediate, 24p is more removed.

So with that in mind, a multitude of philosophical conclusions could be made. Among them, one of the strongest I've heard is the notion that 24fps leans the viewer towards completing the suspension of disbelief. It sets the stage for believing what is being presented, since it has a feeling of "otherness", a feeling altered from what we ordinarily see with our eyes in real life. While 30fps is a little closer to our ordinary perception and hence perhaps leads us to feel less "taken away to another place" where extraordinary things can happen. Because when it comes down to it, as creators of fiction, we ask a lot of the audience to believe and buy into what we're presenting. However, with this in mind, I can see strategic use of 30fps to capitalize on its merits. Sports, comedy, reality, documentary, interviews and more - I think all of these can work better in 30fps. It's when you want the audience to believe the unbelievable, I think that 24fps has a slight advantage.

I'm now wondering how slower shutter speed in 30p may affect viewer perception and whether it has a similar effect to 24fps.

I've always been curious about mixing 24p and 30p together purposely for altering perception - your master would be in 30p of course.
__________________
www.holyzoo.com
Steev Dinkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2009, 07:57 PM   #79
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins View Post
I'm now wondering how slower shutter speed in 30p may affect viewer perception and whether it has a similar effect to 24fps.

I've always been curious about mixing 24p and 30p together purposely for altering perception - your master would be in 30p of course.
Your description matches what most people say. A slight "feeling" difference that you describe very well. And, it matches the idea that by the time the inter-capture interval reaches about 1/50th second -- reality has fully set in.

Shutter-speed seems biases the feeling. Slower >> less real. Faster >> more real.

There are limits of about 1/30th and 1/250th second. Things get too blurry below 1/30th and stroby by 1/250th.

So I would use 1/45th with 30p to help it seem less real. Which seems to be possible with the GH1 with Motion JPEG which beats the AVCHD issues. It can be edited natively.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2009, 08:26 AM   #80
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve mullen View Post
. . . I use 1/45th (about 213-degrees if i remember right. 1/30th is so blurry it reduces effective resolution. (of course, that makes some think video looks like film -- which is it doesn't.) and, 1/60th has almost no motion blur.
If 180 yields a per-frame exposure of 1/60 sec at 30 fps, then for 1/45 sec the effective shutter angle would be 180(1/45 sec 1/60 sec) = 240. At 1/48 sec and 30 fps, it would be 225.
Lawrence Bansbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2009, 03:15 PM   #81
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lehi, UT
Posts: 39
Panasonic has confirmed that the GH1's codec lacks b-frames.

Thus the crappy footage in many scenarios.

PMA Interview: Panasonic: Digital Photography Review

Sad.

-M
M. Gene Hoffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2009, 05:06 PM   #82
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: U.K
Posts: 154
GH1 not nearly as sad as I'd hoped

Is this thread actually going anywhere? Personally, I've seen some great footage out of this camera, as well as some lousy. Since it hasn't started shipping yet, outside of Japan, and hasn't been tested seriously against any other "pro" cameras, I think the whole debate is a little premature. Each to there own though.

I've seen enough to know that it is probably going to be better than I had anticipated image wise, for what I wanted from it. If anyone expects this camera to perform like a professional cinema camera then be prepared for serious disappointment.
FWIW, some film cameras shoot with shutters that don't always match the magic 24p/48th number. It still looks like film.
Adrian Frearson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2009, 05:42 PM   #83
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lehi, UT
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian Frearson View Post
If anyone expects this camera to perform like a professional cinema camera then be prepared for serious disappointment.
Yeah I think it's just that it's got so many features that a pro camera would have, so we were all kinda hoping the rest would hold up to that too. I know, it's not realistic to expect that from a camera of its price, but it's soooo close!

Still an awesome camera, and a necessary step in the evolution of things. I will probably still buy one- it really is the best option for a hybrid right now.

-M
M. Gene Hoffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2009, 06:17 PM   #84
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
I still think it will definitely be a nice toy to play with... and also a fantastic B camera. Maybe even a nice A camera for some special projects.
__________________
Jose A. Garcia - Freelance camera operator, web designer and VFX artist - http://www.sinproblema.net/
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2009, 08:52 PM   #85
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Monreal, Quebec,Canada
Posts: 232
Gh1

Mr. Mullen and Mr. Bloom have a cold beer waiting for them any day they are in my area.
I have read the reviews and ordered the camera. It will be with me for the next year as a second or perhaps third depending on what comes out in the mean time.
I shoot for a living and as much as I value all of the specs and data, my arsenal has always been based on what works and what sells. In years past that may have been an SR or a BL or an Iki or ________________ insert your preference.
It is what works gents and Ladies! We have all had to put up with Disco and the other Nets and their silly "spec sheets" and then came along the cameras that caused many to question the "specs" and oops...... "well since buddy won an oscar/emmy with his/her film shot on a _____ we acknowledge this new wave" or whatever....
It is a camera that costs under $2K for crying out loud. Phil's images look awesome! Sure lots of that is his genius but even he admits ..... the camera is great and may I repeat it is less than $2k.Shit that is INSANE!
So give us all a break. Not to slag Jannard and his Scarlet but ....why not... all I have seen is CGI that must have cost ten times the price of one GH1. The web page still has Red One cameras for sale....and they are how many years old? How many people complain about them? Many!
I love the net and the boards and groups. I admire those whose tech "savoir faire" way exceeds mine and I learn from everything you write. So, this is NOT a put down. But I am a humble shooter,someone who has clients and luckily products to deliver. I am also someone who has paid in excess of $60K not so many years ago for a camera that wouldn't even come close to the DVX100B I just sold to a young film-maker in Michigan.
Buy a GH1, shoot with it, then write about it.
Brian Murphy
__________________
Brian Murphy Director-Editor-DoP
Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto
Brian Murphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2009, 08:21 AM   #86
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Murphy View Post
Mr. Mullen and Mr. Bloom have a cold beer waiting for them any day they are in my area.
I have read the reviews and ordered the camera. It will be with me for the next year as a second or perhaps third depending on what comes out in the mean time.
I shoot for a living and as much as I value all of the specs and data, my arsenal has always been based on what works and what sells. In years past that may have been an SR or a BL or an Iki or ________________ insert your preference.
It is what works gents and Ladies! We have all had to put up with Disco and the other Nets and their silly "spec sheets" and then came along the cameras that caused many to question the "specs" and oops...... "well since buddy won an oscar/emmy with his/her film shot on a _____ we acknowledge this new wave" or whatever....
It is a camera that costs under $2K for crying out loud. Phil's images look awesome! Sure lots of that is his genius but even he admits ..... the camera is great and may I repeat it is less than $2k.Shit that is INSANE!
So give us all a break. Not to slag Jannard and his Scarlet but ....why not... all I have seen is CGI that must have cost ten times the price of one GH1. The web page still has Red One cameras for sale....and they are how many years old? How many people complain about them? Many!
I love the net and the boards and groups. I admire those whose tech "savoir faire" way exceeds mine and I learn from everything you write. So, this is NOT a put down. But I am a humble shooter,someone who has clients and luckily products to deliver. I am also someone who has paid in excess of $60K not so many years ago for a camera that wouldn't even come close to the DVX100B I just sold to a young film-maker in Michigan.
Buy a GH1, shoot with it, then write about it.
Brian Murphy
Brian,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't get all this techie talk about what the GH1 cannot do on paper because it does not have this or that.

I also believe that if we have to compare or if we have to make a critique, we should not lose sight at the context of the camera vs the price and the competition at the same price point. In fact, if we look at the price of this camera at U$1,500, vs a Sony or a Canon at the same if not near the same price range, they are not as feature laden or even match up to the GH1 specs-wise. So why diss the camer?

Perhaps we are forgetting that this is a U$1,500 camera. And yet, it puts to shame, or at least better matched up with cameras 3-6 times its cost. We are trying to compare this camera to a RED w/c costs more, and not readily available, or a U$6k-10,000 camera w/c is also beyond most people's reach. And we say that is lacking? Of course it will be lacking!

We are also forgetting that the GH1 is the first of its kind. A first generation, first product, first effort at an EVIL camera. To me it's really 1.5 gen. But that's another story. The GH1 not going to be perfect, especially in its first incarnation. So if there is anything missing, or not done right, wait for GH2. But instead of lambasting the GH1 for what it cannot do? Why not see what it can do? For U$1,500 it sure makes the Sony and Canon camera's at the same price range look like P&S cameras! And it puts to shame the FX-1000, HMC-150 or cameras 3-5x its price.

We also seem to be forgetting that just a few months ago, the 5d mk2 came out. With all the limitations of this camera, all we have seen are people working around these limitations and coming out with exceptional work. Surely, the GH1 is more capable as a video camera as far as the ability to control certain settings. And we complain because it does not have a "B" frame or whatever? But Phil Bloom's samples show how good this camera can be.

Of course, for some, it the limitations mentioned can be a show stopper. But we are also forgetting that not everyone is going to be limited by those. Surely, if many use the HV-30/40, or some other "consumer" grade for serious work, surely the GH1 is many steps ahead of these cameras that the GH1 stands looking like a U$5k piece of equipment compared to them.

Though I learn a lot from these boards, I also believe, like you, its the results that matter in the real world. What I have seen so far is impressive for a U$1,500 camera. All I have to do is wait as many people get it to see what can be done with it. The GH1 is still coming in trickles, so it may take a while for us to see from other people they're own take. But for me, it's basically a done deal. The camera is very good as it is.

If I were planning to get a HF-S10 or S100, I'd rather add a couple of U$100 more and get the GH1 and have the performance of a U$6,000 or more camera. Three years ago, I paid U$1,500 for my sony HC3. Now I can get an interchangeable lens video and stills camera for the same price with better capabilities!

I respect the issues raised by the members here about the limitations or problems that the GH1 has. But darn, we've had those issues when the FX1 or some other cameras in the past when they first came out. If anything at all, we should know by now, that no camera is perfect. But life goes on and we have projects and clients to serve. If the FX1 did it at U$3,500 (at that time) 3 or so years ago, then the GH1 is several generations ahead from it and much cheaper too. Dont' tell me now that the GH1 is less capable and cannot do the job! So, why see only the bad points?

I guess some people just look at a glass and see it half empty, while others see it as half full. I see the GH1 as 3/4 full.
Mel Enriquez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2009, 09:21 AM   #87
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 613
I agree that ultimately the GH1 is a tremendous offering at its price. When I heard it was in under $2000, I was pretty psyched! At $1500 it's a steal. For the features offered on paper, at this price, the expectations became unrealistic. They chose to position it below the prosumer level. And of course we want it to be more. I'd be willing to pay another $3k-$5k for the pro version. Right now it doesn't exist, and yet, there is nothing comparable to the GH1 at $1500 or even $10k. Bizarre.

I think pro versions of large sensor cameras in the sub-$10k range are coming soon. Red is the most transparent announcement obviously. But I'd expect to see it also from Canon, Nikon and possibly Panasonic (if they can do right without cannibalizing their higher end cameras).

But for what's out right now - the GH1 is pretty obviously a must-have, even if it's a B-camera. It'll be an A-camera in many hands soon as well.
__________________
www.holyzoo.com
Steev Dinkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2009, 12:21 PM   #88
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins View Post
I think pro versions of large sensor cameras in the sub-$10k range are coming soon. Red is the most transparent announcement obviously. But I'd expect to see it also from Canon, Nikon and possibly Panasonic (if they can do right without cannibalizing their higher end cameras).
Red has made inroads into the pro HD camera market not just because it offers a relatively complete solution (cameras, lenses, peripherals, and RAW codec), but also because it does so at a far lower price than its competitors. If Panasonic is unwilling to risk cannibalizing its more expensive product lines, then it may risk losing sales at the high end (as people flock to lower-priced solutions) and the low end (because its products lack the features that Canon, Red, and other cameras have). That said, the GH1 is an impressive camera.
Lawrence Bansbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2009, 01:12 PM   #89
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lehi, UT
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Enriquez View Post
I don't get all this techie talk about what the GH1 cannot do on paper because it does not have this or that.
This whole conversation is based on reviewing footage, not the specs. I don't care at all what the specs are as long as the footage looks good. It could be 2 megabits and if the footage rocks, who cares. This conversation is based on the fact that with our eyes we have observed that the 1080p footage is surprisingly fragile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Enriquez View Post
if we look at the price of this camera at U$1,500, vs a Sony or a Canon at the same if not near the same price range, they are not as feature laden or even match up to the GH1 specs-wise. So why diss the camer?
Because the codec quality (and thus the footage quality) doesn't hold a candle to consumer cameras far below the GH1's price point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Enriquez View Post
Surely, if many use the HV-30/40, or some other "consumer" grade for serious work, surely the GH1 is many steps ahead of these cameras that the GH1 stands looking like a U$5k piece of equipment compared to them.
Yes, people use the HV30 for outstanding stuff- because the footage is outstandingly clear for a consumer HDV camera. People outfit them with all sorts of stuff to make the rest of the camera more like what the GH1 has, but it works and looks great because the codec (and thus, footage quality) is outstanding.

This thread has basically turned into an agreement that:
1) The GH1 is outstanding feature-wise for the price.
2) The codec is not ideal and will make many kinds of shots difficult or impossible to reliably capture.
3) If that doesn't bother you, fantastic.

Also, holy crap, ya'll are acting like I'm talking about your first born child or something. It's a camera for crap's sake.

-M
M. Gene Hoffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2009, 04:14 PM   #90
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Gene Hoffman View Post
Because the codec quality (and thus the footage quality) doesn't hold a candle to consumer cameras far below the GH1's price point.
That's not what's been reported.

1) 1080p24 in the few cameras tested are not running at the data rate specified by Pana. They are running at half the specified rate. I've posted how this could occur by error that could be fixed.

2) At 720p60, the data rate is as specified by Pana and the quality is fine. Which it should be at 17Mbps. The need for B-frames comes from GOP length and the amount of motion that needs to processed between image samples. Anyone is free to skip the HD1 if they really want to wave their camera around.

3) The target customer will want 720p60. We do not want, in the 21 Century, the level of motion judder forced on motion picture maker makers by the technology limitations of almost 200 year old technology. In no other area of media has a technology that is 2 centries old become a fetish which is held to have the magic property of creating a singular path to narrative. Why does this all sound like a religion?

3) Moreover, 720p60 has long been used as a carrier of 24p. In the end, 24p can be obtained from a 60p stream whether the stream includes 60 images or only 24 images plus 38 "flags." JVC and Pana have long used the latter system. How do you think Varicam works? And, the former system has been reported to work fine by those with the few GH1s and I have explained why it works.

PS: watch Telemundo HD channel and you'll see another culture that does not need 24fps for narrative programming. If you include Korea, Japan, China, and all of SE Asia, plus India and the Middle East -- I expect that there are today more people viewing narrative NOT shot at 24fps.

For the low-cost media production world -- which is video-based -- 60p can be used as the source of 24p, 30p, and 60p productions. And, none of the consumer camcorders can shoot it no matter the quality of their codecs.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic LUMIX G / GF / GH / GX Series

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:56 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network