Yeah, the cat footage is jaw dropping. That's what makes me so excited for this camera, but where the train footage is worst-case scenario, the cat footage is best-case. It looks awesome, but barely moves at all.

I will have to try the 60 footage in a 24 timeline. I would love to be dead wrong about that because that opens a bunch of doors, and the 60fps 720 footage looks much much better than the 1080.

Again, this camera is so exciting to me, and I really want to love it. I just wish it was that much closer, but I do feel better about it after our little conversation here.

-M

You are correct on all points. The "other" site has several people shooting and providing experienced reviews of the camera. This is a prosumer camcorder, so I'm not sure how anyone who's read about it since PMA, could not expect it to be anything other than what it is.

Fast action won't "move" if you follow-the-action. Obviously, if you ALLOW high motion vectors on a moving object you might see break-up. But, I remember when HDV came out there were those who claimed they saw break-up. After a few years of use, IF it ever existed at all -- it was a non-issue. Think of all the vertical smear from CCDs. Should be a deal breaker, but it's not. Think of rolling-shutter. Should be a deal breaker, but it's not.

This demo video by Phil Bloom is very impressive for $1500.

PS: if a indie film camera comes, why would they give it away at $1500. They'll set the price above anything low-end from Red.

we mustn't forget that this is a consumer camera...aimed at consumers and sort of priced at consumers...

It has superb pro features that the 5dmk2 would kill for and if you use it right it can be a fantastic little camera...

it's not a 5mk2 killer or a video camera killer but the video functions are quite superb as are the stills...the move away from SLR to this new style of camera is only the tip of the iceberg am sure...

I own a D90, a 5Dmk2 and a GH1 as well as a host of big and small cameras...put it this way...it will go everywhere with me now as it's such a great hybrid...it really is pretty small and stunningly capable...you just have to look at it as what it is and not what it is not...if that makes sense!?

Shame in Australia they are adding an extra 60% on top of the price ($3300AU vs $2100AU for the US price)making it easily the same price as a prosumer DSLR spend an extra K and I got a 5D...what is the point of that??!?!? especially the G1 only cost $1500AU, not sure what market they are aiming at in Oz.

Since when is shallow DOF used to 'hide background motion judder'?

I am excited (as a Nikon d90 user now, and looking forward to an improved version soon...) to be able to shoot @f1.4 and have the eyes in focus, but the ears out of focus to direct the attention of my audience. I thought that is what shallow DOF was being used for by most of us!!

The GH-1 is an interesting step (though I think our future will be in full 35mm sensors for both shallower DOF and light sensitivity). I believe that within a year we will be offered an affordable 35mm frame size motion imager from Nikon (who has no video business to hurt), with good compression, full manual controls, etc. The SCARLET will certainly provide this, but at $7,000 I think it will look overpriced very soon--if Nikon or Canon can put some pressure on Red by introducing better cameras.

Guys check out this comparison of the GH-1, Mark ll and the D5000. Tell me what you think.

YouTube - Comparison 3 DSLRs movie test D5000,5Dmk2,GH1

Also..the low light scenery in these two makes me think that it's really not far off (if at all) from the 5Dll..Amazing.

YouTube - Lumix GH1 SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 video test night town

YouTube - Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 Short movie

The question is: why? Why get so close only to fall short in some key areas? Their answer is of course, this is a consumer camera. But why include so many quasi pro features then?

I don't get it- I guess I just don't get the enormity of the chasm between what we want and what hardware makers are making. A 5 minute phone conversation with any film maker would tell them exactly what we need.

Anyway, end-rant.

-M[/QUOTE]

WHY? Because they want you to buy 2 ( a still camera and a video camera ) to cover 100% of what you need! Reminds me of ED Beta from Sony. Fantastic quality but only one limited camera and eventually a dead end.

Why not AVC Intra instead of AVCHD?

When you pan WITH a rapidly moving subject, you do so to avoid Foreground judder. (And, if you think the codec doesn't handle motion well, it keeps the subject without much motion.)

But, what about the Background. Obviously, as you pan with the subject the background is speeding by. That means there could be Background judder and, possibly, codec breakup.

The solution -- shallow DOF keeps the EDGES of the background soft which prevents both judder and codec overload.

How come "video" guys need to keep explaining film shooting to guys who claim they are pro filmmakers. :)

PS: this kind of judder is really strobing which is a visual artifact.

Wow

These videos are impressive to me. I'm in the market for a digicam and a videocam and I guess I better start saving for this. The night scenes are fantastic.

We moan, we whine, we bitch, it isn't perfection at a consumer price point, it falls short of something that costs 2x the price, how could they do this to us, blah blah blah....

And then someone produces this. That third piece especially, it's beautiful. Period.

Damn it, I want my mini-red pocket professional camera ;-)
And in your heart of hearts, so do the rest of you.
Which is the real reason everyones so hard on it.

But what keeps going through the back of my mind is both Canon & Panasonic have foreshadowed !amazing! professional grade video cameras. I want to see them.

Shallow DOF might help with motion, but it really came into fashion with the advent of color film. With black and white, it's easy for the eyes and brain to cope with an image full of detail. With color, all of a sudden there's too much information and images get cluttered with foreground and background detail. So people starting pushing for shallow DOF to direct the viewers attention to where they wanted it. Then people decided it looked awesome and was an effective way to help tell their stories.


Also, chill out. There are plenty of professionals here, you'd be surprised what some of them have done.

-M

Or buy a 5DMkII and get 47bps H.264. We're not locked inside Panasonic's self-created boxes. Sorry Steve Panasonic can try to feed their codec slogans but Canon has already set the bar pretty high and the GH1 isn't in the ballpark. We all know just about anything can shoot a good image in the right hands, but we're debating technical strengths here and AVCHD is not nearly as strong as what Canon has with the 5D. So we still have a whole field of flawed choices. Pick your favorite and then live with it's shortcomings. C'mon Nikon. No video business to protect I know you guys can do it. Blow us all away.

It's funny that people don't like the 24P mode with the GH1 when 24P is all everybody kept screaming about for the 5D. You mean 24P is juddery? Who knew? Maybe that's why all these new HDTVs have frame creation modes to "fix" 24P so it won't look so crappy. Maybe we can all move on from this ancient 24P format to something better, newer and that makes more sense given the modern world. It's not 1950 anymore.

I agree that the 40mbs H.264 is far superior to the GH1 at 17mbs, from what I've seen so far.

However, I wouldn't trash on AVCHD so much. Part of why I purchased the Canon HF S100 was how great the image held up at 24mbs on AVCHD. My testing so far has made me even believe that maybe Canon's implementation and technique for compressing to AVCHD, even down to 7mbs - holds up better than the GH1 at 1080/17mbs. :O

I'll have to see more GH1 footage and reports to confirm just how bad the GH1 compression is at 1080 though. So far it looks like you can break it relatively easy with camera movement. For instance, how does it look on a jib shooting a wide shot of a complex scene?

Seems normal that AVCHD breaks with fast camera move (like the train shots) or frenetic exposure change. I didn't saw such artefacts in normal conditions on GH1 footage.

You mean watching movies at 60p? Why? So you think you're watching the news instead of a movie? No thanks.

I don't know what happens with all these new TVs trying to make movies look like they were shot with a handycam.

24p is not a limitation. It separates reality from fiction and that's a good thing. But of course that's my opinion.