|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 17th, 2011, 06:26 AM | #76 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 410
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Quote:
|
|
October 17th, 2011, 07:02 AM | #77 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Yes, I know. I almost didn't buy it because of the lack of 60p, but am so glad I did anyway. 60i with the camera produces very good images. I'm about to put up a video today with footage from the XA10 and while I haven't see yet how it might be mangled by Vimeo, on my computer the video is very nice.
As I've said before, I have been shooting in 720 60p with the GH2, and it is beautiful. I can't even imagine what 1080 60p with a large sensor would look like.
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
October 17th, 2011, 08:00 AM | #78 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,487
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
A lot of discussion about frame rates, p vs. i, etc.
First and foremost - shoot with the final product and client in mind. We can dream of that illusive "film look" but if that does not matter to the client, is there any point in chasing it if it adds cost you cannot bill (except perhaps for personal gratification)? Why give a Rolex to a pig when it can do equally well with a Timex? (OK, I accept that some lurkers may have fashion pigs.) What is important? My take on it is: Good audio, good shot composition, tight editing, on time delivery, and video that is acceptably (which does not mean totally) noise free considering the field conditions under which it was shot. Slow shutter speeds or frame rates maker for stuttery motion and really bad pans/tilts. The early days of TV settled on 60i/50i to deal with issues of power line frequency, available bandwidth and acceptable motion. Film at 24 FPS was the minimal that produce acceptable motion on the big screen, and that requires skilful camera work. Faster frame rates eat film, increase cost.
__________________
dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com |
October 17th, 2011, 08:16 AM | #79 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Don, no matter how long I live I am astounded at learning how most everything comes down to money.
Your statement is fascinating, is it true? 24fps was selected as a way to save money? That just blows my mind. I have NEVER understood the fascination with 24p. DOF with great lenses seems to me to be much more critical in achieving a great look much more so than frame rate. Now I DO get the fascination with progressive at any speed, it is fantastic to me in comparison to interlaced, and I've seen some amazing 24p wedding videos, but it would seem the lenses and the shots, exposure, etc are what take them over the top, not the frame rate.
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
October 17th, 2011, 09:01 AM | #80 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,487
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
48 fields per second (24 Frames Per Second with a 2-blade shutter, or 16 FPS with a 3 blade shutter) was selected as the sweet spot for film projection (by Edison I'm told) where there was little to be gain by increasing beyond it. This is based in large part on how the eye-brain sees motion. 24 FPS was standardized for sound.
Film use is proportional to frame rate. 24 FPS uses 50% more film than 16 FPS, and thus film cost is 50% more. So if 24 FPS gave satisfactory motion an sound, why go to, say, 30 FPS if the cost increases by 25% with no additional benefit at the box office. After all - it is a business. These rates for film were standardized before TV. Video at 25 or 30 FPS was in part to avoid a beat/interfenence with power line frequencies in the early days. And of couirse the other part of setting a standard is getting all players (or at least the important ones) to agree to it.
__________________
dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com |
October 17th, 2011, 09:23 AM | #81 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Thanks for the explanation, really interesting. So to say it was a move to save money, not accurate, but as you say 24fps the best overall value.
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
October 17th, 2011, 10:55 AM | #82 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,487
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Quote:
__________________
dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com |
|
October 17th, 2011, 11:11 AM | #83 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Don, you have a gift for verbalizing concepts and for making clear explanations.
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
October 17th, 2011, 11:20 AM | #84 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,414
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
sorry Don, not the motion, 24 fps came with the sound, before sound people were watching from 14 to 26fps, sound film made a 24 fps a standard, but yes, with economy in mind :)
__________________
I love this place! |
October 17th, 2011, 05:34 PM | #85 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida
Posts: 1,418
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Very interesting thread and comments.
Just to throw a wrench into all the commentary- there are other options that might be considered: there's a Canon HF M41 that I believe uses the same sensor as the G10 and reportedly produces nearly the same video quality, has mic input and shooting modes- might be well worth considering as it costs 1/2 of what the G10 does! There is also the slightly lower cost M40 that is nearly identical to the 41 without the rear viewfinder and less internal memory (but can use SD cards.) |
October 18th, 2011, 12:15 PM | #86 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Steve, a quick look around and I'm reading that the viewfinder is pretty poor on the 40 and 41 and the lens is not the same. Obviously you've got to give up something for the huge price difference. I'd like to see one of the little ones anyway, sounds like a potentially cheap effective extra camera.
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
October 18th, 2011, 05:01 PM | #87 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida
Posts: 1,418
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Jeff that's sad to hear about the lens not being the same- do you have a source for that info- I'd like to read about the differences.
As for the viewfinder being poor- I think it would be an acceptable allowance considering the budget pricing- but that's ME! Thanks for the new info! |
October 18th, 2011, 05:42 PM | #88 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
Cnet, I think, but I'm not sure. I googled HF G10 VS whatever the other one is, and wherever I landed said it was a grainy viewfinder, etc. I would definitely look for multiple reviews before buying. The $1400 G10 costs what it does for a reason, and since the lens is most of the cost of these cameras it makes perfect sense.
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
October 18th, 2011, 07:31 PM | #89 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 367
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
There is 30P which is what I shoot in...
Mark
__________________
Mark Goodsell |
October 18th, 2011, 09:40 PM | #90 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Re: panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10
On which camera? The XA10 or the G10?
__________________
"The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|