You're right, HF10 at the same bitrate looks way better...
Can it be because of Noise Reduction turned ON ? If not, let's pray for a fix :/

That's a terrible shot for several reasons - one, it's the wrong speed for shooting 24fps (consult your ASC guide). If someone gave me such a shot, it would quickly end on the editing room floor.

More importantly, the shutter speed is way too high which is why the codec struggles. Shoot the shot properly and it will look beautiful.

The HF10 shoot looks bad to me too - but it's slower, so it's not the "same shot"

Also, what about sharpening? the Canon and cameras like it has sharpening way too high (even when turned down) which would make the picture look sharper. I'm not sure what the settings were for the GH-1 in these comparisons. but if they want it to be apples to apples i think these settings should be taken into consideration.

a possibly relevant quotation?
 

This quotation from Mark Von Lanken's review of the AG-HMC150 for Event DV might be relevant to this discussion of the GH1's codec:

"How does AVCHD stack up against HDV? AVCHD in the PH mode records at 21Mbps with the maximum variable rate at 24Mbps. HDV records at 25Mbps, the same as DV. Just looking at those numbers, I would rather record HDV's 25Mbps than AVCHD's 21 Mbps. But according to Sony's own marketing information, "The quality of AVCHD recording at 9Mbps (HD-HQ) mode is roughly equal to HDV recording." Since the HMC150 will record at 21Mbps and, according to Sony, AVCHD at 9Mbps is equal to HDV, is there any doubt to why the AVCHD format is superior to the HDV format? Keep in mind comparing the quality of video achieved with different codecs is not a simple bitrate comparison; MPEG-4 compression is far more efficient than MPEG-2."

full article: EventDV.net: In the Field: Panasonic AG-HMC150

Thanks everybody for the comments, but it's not sharpening, it's not shutter speed, it's not anything other than poor compression quality. I mean, look at it- it has nothing to do with any of that. Even when that camera hasn't moved yet it's obviously a much worse image.

The i frames are SUPER obvious on the panasonic, and regardless of whether that shot would end up on the editing room floor, the quality is very poor. Much worse than the canon at the same rate and far inferior to the HDV from my XH-A1.

People keep throwing around numbers saying "but AVCHD is a more efficient codec!!!" and it IS, but this footage is NOT. I mean, just look at the footage, there are a ton of excuses being made, but the fact is it is a poor version of a superior codec.

I do this stuff and analyze footage every day all day for a living, I know what I'm seeing.

-M

You're absolutely correct on this. I'm amazed at how fragile it is on the GH1. Tis a bummer.

Well, let's hope it gets fixed in future firmware updates.

The thing is, yes, AVCHD is much more efficient than HDV. But that efficiency shines more towards the lower bit rate...meaning at 9Mbps. Pound for pound if you shot 9Mbps on both HDV and AVCHD you will see the latter kick the formers behind. But as you go up higher in bit rates things start to even out. What I mean is you will not see much of a difference in quality between 17Mbps and 24Mbps with AVCHD. The Canon A1 is a good example of superb looking HDV....and really...I can't think of an AVCHD camera that is sharper (maybe on par....but not any sharper)...




I hear you Jose.

So you don't have the camera, but you have done all this testing on what?

And, if you don't understand the difference between 30p and 60p and their relation to 24p, then it's not testing you need to do -- it's some math.

Why is it that "fiction" shot in Japan and Korea are 60i and they don't look like the news. Perhaps it has far more o do with lighting. Perhaps, 24p is nothing more than a convention. In which case, it can change.

Anyway, isn't it clear that narrative is dead and that today's audience wants recycled comic books. If so, today's "fiction" may be more powerful when it looks "real."

With raw footage from the GH1 downloaded from Internet sources. If you want to go there, I'll provide sources. Furthermore, I'm testing 60p to 24p conversion using the HVX200. It is perfectly valid for testing this workflow.

I know the difference and the relation, or I should say lack of relation to 24p. Show us aesthetically successful converted footage from 60p or 30p to 24p within your everyday NLE. Especially with the intention of making it look natural as if it was shot originally on 24p. Bring it. Show it. I want to know how someone pulls that off.

My best methods involve Twixtor on After Effects. And that is quite a bit of work. My point is that anyone thinking its a walk in the park to drop 60p into a 24p timeline and have motion look "right", they are being wishful.

If I'm wrong, explain the simple workflow.

It would be nice if people would understand the technology before tossing in their opinions.

Sony and Panasonic employ AVCHD using H.264/AVC at a specific LEVEL. At this level increasing bit-rate doesn't do much. 18Mbps is a fine limit.

Canon chose to use LEVEL+1 which gives them the ability to use more powerful encoding tools. Specifically, the ability to switch between 4x4 and 8x8 macro-blocks. (Sony and Panasonic AVCHD only works with 4x4.)

Canon's not "better" than Panasonic. They simply chose to put more power into their consumer products. Want the same goodness from Panasonic -- simply choose an AVCCAM camcorder. They aren't lazy. They have a product strategy that Canon doesn't need.

IF Panasonic wants to enter the $3000 market, they can use AVCCAM. However, I strongly doubt they want to play in this price range. Owning the under $1500 market is both more possible and offers huge volumes.

Perhaps one should consider what it might mean that Canon didn't introduce an HDV replacement at NAB. Instead of wishing for firmware to fix a Canon "still" camera, maybe the next Canon video cameras will go up against the Red line.

I can't see anyone giving us ALL we REALLY want at $1500 to $3000 when Canon gets $10K for an HDV camcorder. They know that when they put all the goodies into a product, we'll pay $6K to $12K for it.

The GH1, at it's price, needs to be compared to a Best Buy AVCHD camcorder. I think it's clear it beats all of them. It also seems to intrude into HM100 and HVC40 space at 2X more money. Asking anything more from a cheap camera is absurd.

Obviously you don't. The key is that 60p in 24p can be accomplished by "good" pulldown (the NLE repeats frames as needed in the correct ratio) whereas 30p in 24p must use "bad" pulldown. Bad pulldown stutters, good does not. (Twixter is used for 30p.)

Before you say pulldown alters motion -- of course it does. But, even if you had true 24p you would need to ADD 2-3 pulldown to watch on the vast majority of Region 60 HDTVs since they are based at 60Hz. (I hope you aren't thinking you'll use a $1500 camera and have AVCHD converted to 35mm film. But, even if you are that crazy, any 24p BD of the film will have 2-3 pulldown added before you see it -- even with a 24p HDMI connection.)

In fact it could be argued that for Indies, which let's face it have a very low probability of ever being seen -- let alone be seen on film in a theater -- working with a true 24p timeline is old fashioned. We are a year away from 1080p60 pro VTRs. They will record 2-3 pulldown directly. (720p60 does so now -- a perfect match to 720p resolution recordings.) To go to BD pulldown is removed. To be viewed, pulldown is added back by the HDTV.

PS: It's even easier with 720p50 since the pulldown is 2-2.

Well, that's not what I see but I've also looked at this clips on several different systems and players and the codec playback ability and quality varies considerably. The HF10 clip has chromatic aberration, less color depth, high frequency shimmer etc. that are not in this or any GH1 clip.

Plus, neither camera is setup correctly for cinema like images. I have an HV30 and unless you set it in Cinegamma, custom image parements flat or off shutter speed correct etc., it easily make ugly footage.

Who's talking about repeating frames. It sounds like you are thinking of 24p inside 60p. I'm talking about *converting* 60p to 24p, which involves deleting frames, not repeating them.

Well now we're really getting off the subject I'm grappling with. If you want a 24p look from 60p, you're still going to have to convert it to 24p first, even if you're going to throw it back into a 30p or 60p timeline with pulldown.

The question remains. How do you convert 60p to 24p? And I'm not talking about for slow motion (conform 60p to 24p).

Other discussions about this are here:

Shooting 60P for 24P - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking
Rebel Café :: View topic - Shooting 60P for 24P

The WHY behind any of this doesn't matter if the end result is that the footage sucks for many kinds of shots.

Canon - VIXIA 3.3MP High-Definition Digital Camcorder with 2.7" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Black - HF20

There's the Best Buy link for the step up from the camera I was comparing it to. And the footage/codec QUALITY from that camera is embarrassingly better than the GH1.

I'm not talking about the lens/sensor/anything else here. It's clear that the GH1 trounces them all in this area. That's why we're all so excited in the first place! I am simply talking about the codec and thus quality of the images that come out of it.

It's like (and don't take this literally anyone) streaming gorgeous dual HD-SDI 4:4:4 from a genesis and recording it on a VCR.

-M

This is all a great explanation except that it's confined to the camcorder world. In my mind the GH1 is competing directly with the Canon 5D and the new Rebel. The codec may be just fine compared to Panasonic's product line but the 5D isn't confined to that box. Have you considered in your analysis of the GH1 how it compares to the 5D's codec that is also H.264 and runs at well over twice the bitrate of the GH1?

Quite frankly Canon's photo division has given us a superior video recording format to almost anything we've seen in the sup 10k camcorder market from Sony, Panasonic or Canon's video division. I sure there are plenty of pissed off Canon video guys because their photo division just blew up almost ten years of keeping us all stuck in DV/HDV land.

I challenge someone to shoot 30P with all the proper lighting, cinematography, acting and story and see if the general public wouldn't think it's a film. It's soap operas that make TV look like a soap operas not the frame rate. 24P wasn't chosen because of it's amazing dreamy film affect on people. It was chosen to save money and to provide a universal standard. It was a good enough balance between a frame rate that was smooth enough and the added expense of going with a higher frame rate. Back then extras frames meant extra film cost. Today with digital this is not an issue.

But who am I? I'll never change this. It's going to take some big directors who are willing to think outside of the box to show people there's another option. I think the general public might actually prefer this newer format just because it is newer. Just look at how much the digital post production process has affected the image and look of film just in the last ten years. Even films that are shot on film retain little of that film look compared to things shot before digital could clean everything up and put that nice shine on it. It's a new world, why not a new framerate?

I did some comparisons of the different video modes on the GH1 using the footage from Watch Impress. I also threw in the HF10 footage that was linked here. It's not exactly the same shot, but it makes for an interesting comparison.

Edit: you're right Paulo, I was thinking of the HF11. The HF10 is 17mbps AVCHD only.

I think you must be mistaken the HF10 to the HF11.

hahaha, I was just in the process of exporting series of frames via TMPG when I read your post. Could have saved myself the effort, your comparison is very well composed and highlights the essentials.

It seems that the codec is set to save bandwidth on the darkest areas of the frame. Movement seems to be a lesser factor (check the "green-soup" in the foliage both on movement and static).

Maybe we have to change our workflow a bit to adjust. On film, it is common to slightly overexpose, with small video sensors, overexposure had to be avoided. Phil Bloom faced problems trying to lift exposure in the Zeiss lens clips but grading went well for the Hawai sunset clips (in that case it looks like he brought exposure down). The skies on the GH1 don't overexpose too quickly, it seems. Bring on the light.

In short, it is a disappointment but the workarounds may be a lot easier than setting shutter speed on a 5D2 ;)

YOU tossed in this comment, "but this just looks like Panasonic being lazy with their implementation."

If you are going to comment in WHY something sucks, be prepared to be called on the accuracy of your comment. And, don't weasel out with a doesn't matter why -- it just sucks.

If it doesn't matter, then why did you feel the need to explain why it sucks?

--------

PS: It really doesn't matter:

1) If a Canon camcorder shoots better video. It's still a tiny little no VF camcorder. Or, it has a VF, but uses tape. These tiny cams from Canon, Sony, and JVC are a dime a dozen. And, they don't shoot 720p60.

2) If the 5D shoots better video. It's also 2X more expensive. And, at 2X more there's a camera that shoots even better video. And, it better shoot 2X+ better video.

Someone seeing the Rebel at Costco for under $700 isn't going to think, "gee maybe I should spend 2X and get a bit better HD." That's not how consumers buy. (It's why Sony sells fewer than Vizeo.)

Steve,
You are beating around the bush, which is why I chose to ignore your argument. I don't want to argue technical stuff- I am as comfortable as anyone doing so, but it has nothing to do with the point of the whole thread.

The point is that the footage doesn't look good for many types of shots. And it would with a better codec implementation.

Making a breakthrough camera that exceeds in all areas except for the last one that matters comes across as lazy. Everybody else has a good AVCHD codec implementation. I am aware that Panasonic does too in their higher end stuff. The whole point is that they didn't use it here, and for whatever reason, it comes across as stupid or lazy, because the rest of the camera is superb.

-M

The point of 24fps is NOT the frame-rate, but the temporal sampling TIME that is so long (1/24th second) that motion can NOT be captured accurately. The Nyquist frequency of sampling is so low, motion aliases and we see it as judder. Or, more simply put, we see unsmooth motion.

When p60 is dropped into a p24 timeline the NLE treats the 60 frames as 12 groups of 5 frames each: A, B, C, D, and E. The time between each capture is 1/60th second.

It now ignores all but frames A and C. The time between A and C is 1/30th second while the time between C and A is 1/20th second. The average inter-sample time is 1/25th second -- low enough to have all the qualities of "film". And, a perfect match for a 1/50th shutter-speed. You now have a timeline with the TEMPORAL nature of a video shot at 24p.

----------

Of course, you cannot view it at 24fps. Your LCD display is running at 60Hz. So when you hit Play, frame A is presented twice and frame C is presented three times. Since there are 12 As and 12 Cs -- every second the display shows, 24 As and 36 Cs for a total of 60 frames. This is 2-3 pulldown applied to progressive video.

In this 60 frames, the temporal sampling time remains ONLY about 1/24th second. The motion blur for each frame is still about 1/48th second.

---------

You Master to 720p60 using 2-3 pulldown. The Master goes to BD at 720p60. The HDMI connection feeds 720p60 to HDTVs. The display shows each frame once, twice, four, or eight times. Nevertheless, within these 60/120/240/480 frames, the temporal sampling time remains ONLY about 1/24th second. The motion blur for each frame is still about 1/48th second. It still looks like film -- unless you enable frame interpolation in the display. If you do that, the display will tween frames to increase motion accuracy. So, turn it off!

-----------

The key is stop thinking of film and it's historical 24fps. Think in terms of temporal sampling ACCURACY. The supposed magic of film is it is has very low ability to capture motion accurately -- about every 1/24th second. (I say "about" because until modern days, film cameras never captured frames EXACTLY 24.0000 second apart.)

So there's your modern workflow that starts with 720p60. Yet, to the viewer, it looks like you shot video at p24.

PS: Yes you have wasted some bits. But, not the number you think. Changing frames every 1/24th second -- when there is motion -- forces P and B frames to be very large. When captures are made every 1/60th second, P and B frames are tiny. Therefore, ignoring lot's of P and B frames with p60 isn't wasting lots of bits.

How about ignored I-frames? If I remember correctly, AVCHD has a 15-frame GOP. So in 60 frames there are 4 GOPS:

Abcde abcde abcde Abcde abcde abcde Abcde abcde abcde Abcde abcde abcde

Looking only at the 24 frames that are not ignored:

Ac ac ac Ac ac ac Ac ac ac Ac ac ac

There are 4 I-frames every 24-frames!

What if you shot true 24p with a 15-frame GOP?

Abcdefghijklmno Pqrstuvw

Only ABOUT 2 I-frames every 24-frames. Fewer I-frames every second.

Bottom-line -- shooting 720p60 you waste mostly P- and B-frames, but you preserve more I-frames.

PS: of course, for segments you can still create slo-mo from the 60p source.

I'm seeing this derailing off topic.

I've started a new thread to outline my findings on 60p to 24p conversion here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/panasonic...onversion.html

There is popular belief that there is a visual difference between I-frames and P- and B-frames. This comes from several miss-understandings of how long GOP works.

1) The point of any compression system is to keep quality constant -- although with CBR that can't totally happen because the bit-rate is fixed, so quality is allowed to vary. With VBR, the quality can indeed be constant.

The reason the P- and B-frames are smaller is because there is less information to compress since they only carry changing information. With a constant quality goal -- naturally the amount of recorded data will be less for these frames. The fewer bits in no way implies lower visual quality. Likewise, the big I frame does not look visibly better. All frames after decoding have the same visual quality.

2) The other reason folks believe the further from the I frame -- the lower the visual quality -- is because they think P- and B-frame are predicted from the I-frame. Hence, the prediction must get less accurate going through a GOP. Not how it works.

Each P- and B- frame contain two types of information. One type is indeed the motion vectors that attempt to accurately place pixels in the next frame. Obviously, there is a chance of errors. So, after creating these vectors, they are used to generate a "next" frame.

Then, the errors between the generated and actual next frame are computed. This DIFFERENCE information is the second type of information.

Both types then undergo bit-reduction.

During decoding, the motion vectors generate a potential next frame and then the DIFFERENCE information is applied to it. The corrected, now very accurate frame, is output. When you combine this process with the dual direction predictions of B-frames, there are no fluctuations of visual quality within a GOP.

---------

But, what happens at scene changes? Depends on the encoding rules. If the GOP can't be shortened and the system is using CBR, the frames following a scene change until the next I-frame will have compression artifacts. However, with a VBR system plus the ability to start a new GOP, plus h.264's artifact filtering function -- the inserted I-frame is far more likely to handle the scene change without artifacts.

You'll note that reports say when the exposure fluctuates rapidly, quality drops. That's because each fluctuation is like a new scene. Long GOP systems can't keep shorting GOP.

----------

1920x1080 has 2X more pixels to compress than 1280x720. 720p60 has 2X fewer frames than 108060i. They balance each other out -- although progressive frames compress more efficently which is why ATSC uses 18Mbps for 1080i60 and only about 14Mbps for 720p60. (This allows carrying an extra SD channel.)

Were 1080p30 being carried, then it too would also be fine at about 14Mbps. And, 1080p24 could use as little as 11Mbps. So were a camera a broadcast station, they would likely squeeze 1080p24 to 10-12Mbps. But, a camera isn't a broadcast station. There is no reason to limit data rate for 1080p24 and market it as 17Mbps. Once marketed at 17Mbps they can't claim 2X longer record times for p24.

So if indeed 1080p24 is using a 2X lower bit-rate -- then someone set the bit-rate reduction ratio for 1080p24 and 720p60 to the same value -- based upon a limit of 17Mbps. Once this was done, 1080p24 would logically have about a 2X lower bit-rate. That's simple math.

Think about it. If a video camera manufacturer with the resources at the level of Panasonic has overcome so many technological hurdles in bringing about good video images to the mass and yet seemingly fallen at the very last hurdle before the images out of a camera such as the GH1 can be seen on the screens, this could be purely intentional, not them being stupid or lazy. Imagine the GH1 being able to shoot superlative 1080/24p images at 24 Mbps or at 17 Mbps at a quality comparable to that of the Canon HF10. Think about how many potential buyers of the prosumer AVC cams or the consumer AVCHD series Panasonic would lose to the new GH1. As it already is, most target buyers of this cam would never notice the shortcomings like motion artifacts in some demanding situations, for instance.

I think they have thought this through and done their homework with respect to the marketing of this camera.

Wacharapong

Wacharapong,

Allow me to direct you to the TM300:
Panasonic HDC-TM300 HD Camcorder | Wired.com Product Reviews

It's $1300.
It has a 3 chip design.
It has a Leica F1.8-2.8 44.9-539mm lens -- less wide than the GH1, but longer tele, and MUCH faster. I'm guessing it has a zoom rocker, too.
It has 32GB of built-in storage.
It has 5.1 surround sound microphones -- sounds like a gimmick, but people love gimmicks.
It even takes 10 megapixel shots, nearly the resolution of the GH1's stills.

The best feature: "The auto-focus tracking feature is straight out of the future: Tap a subject on the LCD, and the camera automatically keeps it in focus as your target moves about the shot."

Some of that sounds pretty nice. I'm much more interested in the GH1, but I think for the average consumer, the TM300 is going to look much more appealing.

Reviews are up and this looks to be a great camcorder. But, it lacks not only 720p60 but 1080p30.

However, wait until August and spend 2X more and get the really great Panasonic HVM40.

Think of a true PRO version of the TM300 with 720p60 and 720p30.

This will likely blow away the GH1, but then at 2X more money it should. But, for those who also want to shoot stills -- the GH1 is a nice package.

PS: the HVM40 uses 24Mbps AVCCAM. Nice, but good luck editing it.

Steve: Where did you heard about "Panasonic HVM40" ? I cannot find a single reference to it on the internet. Plus, would it have a sensor as big as the GH1 ? That's the only way it can blow the GH1 away...

Sorry. HMC40.

How about a waveform monitor on the LCD? How about full audio controls? How about a power zoom? And, most import, built-in ND filters. Plus, all frame-rates and frame sizes. Oh, and let's not forget 24Mbps.

Sensor size is not such a big plus as narrow DOF only increases the likelihood of out of focus shots.

Steve, do you know anything about the lense? Focal lenght and diameter. Thanks

Announced and shown at NAB. Should be all over the web and at Pana site.

I'm curious as to how much of the film look is delivered via the actual frame rate and how much the standard shutter speeds associated with those frame rates.

I'd like to see a sample of 24p 1/48 next to some 30p 1/48 to see how well it holds onto the "Film Look" From a purely physics stand point, the 1/48 shutter seems more relevant to me than the actual frame rate as that defines how much motion blur is presented to the viewer. For that matter, Is it more filmic to shoot 30p 1/30 if 1/48 isn't available?

Would someone be interested in testing these? Shooting in 30p for 60i delivery would be much easier and cheaper to post than the "is everything right for working with 24p" game we need to play to work with 24p stored in a 60i stream. But there are too many hoops to jump through to work with it. I know the hoops and I still forget every once in a while. PITA!

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.

Erm. If people talks about GH1, it's because it's the first videocamera with full manual control AND the big sensor. If it would not have that big sensor, there would be no buzz at all.
So you can't compare HMC40(1/4" sensor) vs GH1, it's a completely different market.

Finally, GH1's 1080p compression looks pretty good for most situation:
http://www.vimeo.com/4582107
It only breaks at the end (last shot with action), which would be handled properly using the 720p60 mode.

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.

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.

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.

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°.