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

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because the codec quality (and thus the footage quality) doesn't hold a candle to consumer cameras far below the GH1's price point.

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

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.

The 1080 implementation of the codec is not ideal and will make it difficult / impossible. The 720p codec will (in 95% of cases) remedy that at the price of resolution. Also, neither the 1080 nor 720 codec implementation is acceptable by pro standards.

But, what's the alternative? The 35mm adapter grain normally leads to quite heavy pixel-level degradation for HDV codecs, and everything else below 10k $ lacks shallow DOF or manual control. In fact I would be pressed hard to name anything below Red One that offers both the DOF we want & manual control.

Having said that, I am loving to film, direct and edit but I do not earn my living from video.

PS: My FX1 - SGPro R2 combo cost me approx 4500 USD. I can't count how many German film students dropped their jaws seeing the footage. Now I can get something for a third of the price with less than a 5th of the weight and size even shooting better footage. I'd say that's more revolution than evolution (even though loads of German filmstudents will buy GH1s and the jawdropping ends).

That is fantastic news, I reeeeally hope this is the case. I would be extremely happy.

I agree, the 720p 60 stuff looks fine, apart from resolution.

I make good money delivering that antiquated, outdated look. That's what people associate with high production values. For better or for worse, it is extremely important to lots of people who are interested in this camera.

If the 60p can be turned into actual, indistinguishable 24p without cadence problems, then awesome. I have heard a lot of people talking about it but haven't seen it done yet.

-M

This might seem like a somewhat silly question: I have never worked with 60p, so I am unaware of how to deal with it in an editing system (Final Cut). I have only shot 50i in the past (I am in a PAL country, but will be considering a non-PAL camera for 60p and 24p simplicity)

How would you go about conforming 60p to 24p? Say I shoot two clips, both at 60p, and drop then into a 24p Final cut timeline. If I wanted one at real time, and one slow, would I simply leave the first clip at 100%, and reduce the second one to 40% speed? (which would theoretically be 60p on a 24 timeline)

Would the first clip then drop frames and become, essentially, 24p? And would the second utilise its 60p information to create a smooth slow motion?

So far, from what I've seen, if you want slow motion, you should first use Cinema Tools and conform the 60p clip (59.94fps) to 24p (23.98fps). Dropping a 60p clip into a 24p timeline and changing speed to 50% doesn't do what you'd want it to do.


It does drop frames, but it's not necessarily elegant. The testing I've done and seen from others is showing that you'll get the best results by using a 1/50-1/60 shutter speed. However it's not perfect. To me, 60p to 24p conversion is controversial.

I documented my testing and conclusions here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/panasonic...onversion.html

-steev

With a 30fps timeline, FCP knows that the ratio between the Timeline rate and the number of frames per second of the video is 1:2. So FCP simply uses every other frame. It ignores every other frame. Each non-ignored frame has the shutter-speed used for shooting 60p. Which should be 1/60th or slightly longer. (You would use the same process for 25p from 50p.)

I'm not going to re-explain how 24p comes from 60p.

If you're talking about how Varicam and other P2 cameras record 24p over 60p, they record with information on how to extract that out. Pure 60p does not have any of that data, and there's no actual 24p inside of the GH1's 60p.

So I still assert that it's not a simple endeavor. That is, not if you want it to look as smooth as real 24p.

You are correct that because the Variacam captures real 24p it needs flags to tell FCP which frames to discard. But, the way the 24 get to 60 is to use 2-3 pulldown. The first frame gets repeated once while the second frame gets repeated twice. The repeats are discarded or ignored depending on your NLE.

Although there is no actual 24p in 60p -- the NLE can impose a 2-3 structure on the 60p as I explained earlier. Now what the NLE considers "repeats" are ignored or discarded -- depending on your NLE -- leaving 2 frames for every 5. Presto -- 5 goes into 60p 12 times and 12 times 2 is 24.

In terms of editing, one has a 24fps Timeline because there are only 24 non-ignored frames in every second of the Timeline. Just as there would be were 24p be in the Timeline.

I think your concern is that the interval between frames is not a constant 1/24th second. I've already said that was true -- it only averages 1/25th second. Yes -- that creates a cadence. But, that cadence will never be seen because will be hidden in an even more complex cadence created by 2-3 pulldown! (You can't see 24fps in the video world.)

The only way 24p can be seen is by imposing a 2-3 cadence so it can be viewed on a 60Hz monitor. And, we know that as disturbing as this should be -- all movies viewed in Region 60 have always had a 2-3 cadence -- and no one claims the result doen't look like film or is unsmooth -- even though it is very unsmooth!

But the proof is that those using the GH1 have already done this -- and report it works.

PS: Of course, the simplest solution is to drop 60p into a 30p Timeline. We all know 30p strobes when presented at 60Hz just like 24fps does when presented at 48Hz. It's not the absolute fps -- it's the strobing on movement that makes people "feel" film was used.

I am hoping that this workflow is going to be simplified and be more transparent with PAL/European model. If I understand correctly it should be a very simple case of taking the 50p and in for example Final Cut dropping it onto a 25p timeline. Ending with what is effectively a straight 2:1 pulldown. If you want to keep all frames for slow mo, then create these first in your app of choice like compressor ( Blender does this very easily BTW! ) and then import to the timeline. If you want a 24p master for distribution then that can be easily created from the 25p project ( if you can deal with the speed change ).

"But the proof is that those using the GH1 have already done this -- and report it works."

Exactly and I think the results look promising so far.


Adrian

Even with the trickery and stutter phenomenon involved with displaying 24p over 60hz, the motion from 24p capture film/varicam/dvx10/hvx200/etc, looks far smoother to me than the motion you get from 60p-24p conversion with 1/60 shutter (approx). If you are after a higher shutter speed look, you may be happy with the results. But when you want it to look smoother, what do you do?

To try to get a smoother look from 60p-24p, I will be using some techniques like adding motion blur, using twixtor for conversion, or conforming the footage down to 24p (resulting in slight slow down).

I haven't done testing with 25p, so I'm curious how that would work out. 50p-24p.

All of this makes me want to scrap 24fps and just reach out loving arms to 30fps. It's the easiest thing for GH1 720p and the 5DMkII already does 30p.

It's really interesting to see how so many people agreed that the lack of 24p was one of the biggest reasons not to get a 5D because it didn't look cinematic and now that we actually have that 24p mode with shallow DOF and, according to you, Steve, better compression in the future models, we're getting more and more posts in praise of the 60p mode.

Let me ask you something: If "WE" don't want 24p in the 21st Century because it's old, then why has Canon received thousands of calls and mails asking for it in the next 5D upgrade? Why is everyone trying to extract 24p from 60p in the 720 mode of the GH1? Why is so many people buying HV20s and HV30s simply because they're a cheap way to get 24p and manual shutter? Why are movies shot at 24p in the 21st Century when 35mm cameras can get to 60p and more? Why... well I guess you get the idea.

You say there're lots of countries switching to 60p for narrative work. Good for them. As for me, when I see something shot at more than 24/25p, my brain says "this is not a movie" no matter how good it looks. Times are changing and many years from now we may have lots of feature movies shot at 60p or even more but you have to agree that, for now, 24p is still the standard for narrative work. It DOES feel different than reality and that's a good thing. Our brains still switch to "movie watching mode" when we see something shot at 24p and it'll be that way for many years... maybe because we've been doing it for more than 100 years now.

I don't want to say "if something works, then why change it" because I'm not like that and it's not true. The World evolves thanks to people trying to change things, but personally I like 24p a lot and I know there're lots of people who like it as well. We've been looking forward to having affordable 24p with manual controls and shallow DOF for so many years and now that we're so close you say that we're in the 21st Century and those are things from the past? That WE don't want it?? No thanks.

You set the shutter-speed to match the inter-capture interval in the Timeline which is 1/25th second: alternately 1/20th & 1/30th. So you set it at 1/40th or 1/50th second. I wouldn't use 1/60th.

I’ve seen a lot of native samples that averages around 15MBPS in both 720 60p and 1080 24p. In other words, their isn’t that much of a difference in bit rates.

Jose, not that I am trying to defend this cam (although I am 99% sure I will buy one), but for us PAL users the 720 50p is great. I already conformed a lot of the native NTSC clips from 60p to 30p (completely dropping every second frame), so for us getting 25p out of the 720 50p mode is dead-easy.

The great advantage is that you always have the option to do great slo-mo later, for "Bloom style" travel documentaries and the like.

Good to know. I'd like to try it on the HVX200 for test purposes, but not needed since it's got 24p recording perfected.

However, from what I was hearing, anything below 1/60th on the GH1 in 720p mode is actually 30fps. It doubles frames within the 60p stream. If this is in fact true, I believe we'd be stuck at 1/60-1/80th.

1) The rest of the world has been shooting 50i and 60i for decades. When I lived in Japan in the `80's no prime-time narrative was shot on film nor was 24p used. Same all over Asia. Same in Latin America. It is absurd to claim that narrative can't be done at 50i/60i because world numbers say otherwise.

2) The key is to understand that these folks do not confuse "movies" and "narrative." You, and others, have the belief that narrative can only be done if the production looks like a movie. Others know this is false. Humans respond to good stories no matter how they are told.

3) The reason folks want a "movie" look is that movies have been, and continue to be, expensive to make. Thus, if something looks like a movie it looks like like quality. (And, commercials are the biggest offenders in wanting to look like they represent quality products.)

Bottom-line, 24fps is nothing more than a marketing tool. And, it will remain that way until a famous director shoots 2K or 4K at 60p. And, theaters use their digital projectors to present the Directors Cut at 60p. Suddenly, realism will be in. (In fact, 3D may be part of this.)

So, I agree that TODAY if you want to make something that looks like a movie it needs to be 24fps. If you want to tell stories -- then "poor motion accuracy," "eye-tracking strobing," and "motion-blur" are not needed. And, when Sony starts pushing 1080p50/1080p60 next year, I believe we'll see narratives not shot at 24fps.

Let's say of course any camera can be used to produce good results. And ultimately you use the best that you can get your hands on.

Now - to the GH1. Yes if finally has some features needed for easier video work in a DSLR (like manual control and a moveable LCD screen). But if the codec condemns the camera to 720P aren't there three other DSLRs out there with 720P that all cost half of what the GH1 does? Is the GH1 really such a great deal? To be correct the GH1 has a larger sensor than most video cameras but it's not much bigger than any of the much cheaper competition and it's no where near the size of the 5DMKII which also delivers 1080P with outstanding quality.

The recap:
Nikon D90 - 720p and 24P but codec isn't perfect and the jello effect is pretty bad.
Nikon D5000 - 720P and 24P plus the moveable LCD feature. Did Nikon fix the jello and skew in this revision? We'll have to see. Same codec from the D90 so no upgrade there. Rumors are Nikon is going to offer full manual control in video mode for both the D5000 and the D90 but I haven't heard that this is for sure.

Canon Rebel T1i (500D) 720P and 24P plus the always fun 1080P 20fps mode that nobody knows exactly what to do with. The codec appears to be the same outstanding h.264 version from the 5DMKII that runs at over twice the data rate of what the GH1 has offered. So it's sold. No major upgrades in video features like the moveable LCD or manual modes.

Canon 5DMKII - 1080P 30fps. Codec is pretty amazing. It blows away HDV & even pushes the Sony EX1 despite being half the price. Full frame sensor with incredible low-light ability. BUT no 24P (the holy grail) and no manual control (but using a manual nikon lens the experts here at DVInfo have cracked the auto modes to find some fairly easy ways to lock in your shutter and then have full ability to adjust the ISO with the exposure compensation wheel.)

So for me the GH1 isn't blowing me away. It has a lot of the ergonomics that I want but 720P and a struggling 1080P doesn't seem worth paying double for it. Why not suffer with auto-mode tricks and get the Canon T1i (500D) at HALF the price of the GH1?

The 5DMKii, despite it's well know work-arounds, clearly produces the better image. For now I'm waiting and using the 5D because both Canon and Nikon have only released the cheap end of their products. Somewhere out there is a $1500 Nikon and a $1500 Canon. Plus I wouldn't be surprised to see some offerings from both of them in the $6-$7k range that really kick ass with video. And of course Red has gone back into the bunker to re-create Scarlet once again - only this time they're not forecasting what's changing. I know I love working with Red video in RAW from a quality perspective. Talk about no compromises in compression quality plus when you need speed you can always edit with the proxies instead of processing all of your clips.

A great time to be alive in video, but the GH1 isn't the home-run for me.

Loaded 720p60 into FCP Viewer and added 5 Markers: 1 2 3 4 5

Dropped into 720p24 Timeline.

Exactly as I expected, 2 frames showed-up in the Timeline.

I expected 2-3 pulldown would put frames 1 and 3 in the Timeline. But, frames 1 and 4 moved -- so 3-2 pulldown was used by FCP.

When I exported to 720p60, 5 frames came -- as expected -- from the 2.

These were created using 2-3 pulldown.

I also counted out 60 frames and dropped them into the Timeline where they became 24 frames.

The 24p looked fine when played.

Gene,

If the GH1's codec is poor at 1080, How would the GH1 then stack up with its competitors at the same price bracket. I guess the ones most suited to compare them would be the Sony 520 (I think that's the model no.) and the canon hf-s10/100? As far as price goes, this is the market the GH1 seems to be playing. Will the Sony and Canon version hold up to your candle standards as far as codecs go?

We also seem to be forgetting our history and it just happened about 3-4 years ago. When the FX1 came out and the first amazing HC-1, we've had lots of complaints about low light, slow start up, color, etc. But I didn't see people not taking up the camera.

Remember too, that most people don't use 24p. Especially us here in Asia, 24p is an anachronism. Call us "tasteless" but hey, that's how it goes. I can dig the 720 60p and you seem to always gloss over it as if it does not exist. And for all intents and purposes, as far displaying goes unless you probably hit 42" or more, you wouldn't notice the difference.

As far as my clients go, we still deliver at SD/DVD. To me, at least, 720p is plenty already for my target clients. And even if they go HD, 720p is still HD and still acceptable. So if only codec is an issue, I see no problem using 720 60p instead of 1024 24p, w/c we don't use anyway. We could probably use 1080 30p. Why the GH1 does not have it, I cannot guess. If they can do a firmware upgrade and put it there, I will be thankful.

We also seem to be forgetting that this is the first release of a hybrid camera. I suspect that the venus engine (there's two of them used if I am not mistaken) is still lacking and that could maybe explain the codec issues you mentioned at 1080p. For a first release, it's pretty solid.

If I were an indie, hell, indies in the past have done well with the vx-2000, or gs-400, or even lesser cameras. Some have gone to the FX-1, and even the HC series. Don't tell me the issue that concerns people there look is poor codec. In the bigger scheme of things, people are looking at other issues than the poor codec, w/c, if it is that important to you, you can always go to 720p.

Most of the time, whether you are an indie or an events shooter like me, the issue is noise. How to get clean shots in low light. The other issue, even for events shooters is how to get shallow DOF for isolation. I believe the GH1 more than passes this with flying colors. Codec is the least of the concerns. And again, nothing that 720p can't address easily. It's not as debilitating as having only 1/4 sensor, or noisy images.


Finally, if "if it's jst a camera for crap's sake," why even bother with the minutest detail of compression and make a big fuss out of it? I do respect your ipinion and your POV, but when someone tries too hard to point out one glaring fault as if it is a show stopper (w/c it isn't for most of us and can be overcome), to the exclusion of other positive qualities of an equipment, I get suspicious. Especially when the equipment isn't compared properly with those of the same price bracket.

If history is any indication, like the HC1, the FX1, etc that came before it, the GH1 will be a glaring success. The market will vote with their wallets and not see the codec issue you aggressively try to spin out.

Perhaps in the GH2, your concerns will be addressed. But for me, for a first release, the GH1 is one fantastic and amazing camera. Events shooters and indie shooters will have a field day with this camera, in spite of your protestations. :-) What you consider a major problem is a pimple of an inconvenience in some other people's universe. ;)

DANG!!! I love that last post. Two thumbs up Mr. Enriquez!!!

Mel,
It sounds like you haven't seen the footage. I know it sounds like I'm being ridiculously picky, but when you see the 1080 footage (like the people walking city streets in Japan) you'll go "oh." It really is poor, and the quality of the compression is MUCH worse than the cameras you suggest I compare it to. In fact, I and others in this thread HAVE compared it to those cameras, and it is significantly worse.

Honestly, all you angry people must not have read the actual thread, because you keep bringing things up that have already been addressed.

And, for like the fifth time, I want as much as anyone here to love this camera, I WILL VERY LIKELY BUY ONE for the things it does well. I am just let down by some of it's shortcomings, which are real whether people want to admit it or not.

-M

Absolutely. One of the main reasons many people are turning to these cameras are their sensor sizes. Over here, for the cost of a GH1, I could (for only a negligible sum more) get myself a new HVX200A from overseas.

It's a pretty tough offer to pass up, but I think I am going to go for the GH1. I've had enough of all these 1/3 cameras and systems. It just drives me insane thinking about the minute size of these sensors, their terrible ability to receive and decode information from light sources accurately, deep dof, bad latitude, CCD flare, noise etc.

I frankly do not care that the GH1 has an inferior codec, or it looks like a consumer camera, or many of its other minor drawbacks. A lot of people are very grateful for RED, and what they are doing to shake the industry apart (finally). It seems like the DSLR revolution in cameras has now been brought to the video world by a relatively new and unknown company, and until I can get my mitts on a Scarlet, I would rather spit in the face of the Panasonic video department and help them hurry things along a bit by NOT investing in outdated hardware.


Oh, and thanks Steev, your response has helped me understand how I can tackle this new issue of 60p/24p

Well I was all set to get one, just about to preorder one until I look at some raw footage, and man it is so dissapointing, both 720 and 1080, the camera has everything I wanted, full manual , auto focus, small and cheap, but any wide angle shots with details looks bad, trees leaves turns muddy, stair steps on any lines, about the only good shots are tight shots with shalow DOF and most 1/3 chips camera will look good too if you can zoom in and have shalow DOF. You guys should download raw footage and look at it on your HD MONITOR and not just look at Vimeo or You tube stuff on you computer screen, heck my cheap Canon HV20 that I use as a playback deck and vacation camera only is clearly superior minus shalow DOF because of the ovious smaller chip, and so I will wait until maybe they have a GH1 pro coming out of the pro division, of fix the low bitrate or missing B frame or whatever or when Canon have a articulated screen and full manual, or maybe the new Pentax K-7, but man the GH1 was so close.
BTW I don't want to sound like I'm bashing the camera, I think you guys should download raw footage and judge it on your HD monitor first before making a decision, like I said I was ready to preorder on with more and better lens but can't justify shooting tight shot all the time.

The issues of the codec breaking in 1908/24p is knwon...just like there have been issues with other cams. Now that we know this exist we can work around it. The image (when not broken) is a great looking image....even in 720p. Go to watch imress and look at some of their latest footage in 1080p. Looks like any other sharp camera out on the market. Some of them are shot while on a train mind you and others are panned on a tripod. No real degradation there.

I'm helping some people with a little GH1 project right now. Shooting 1920x1080. So far every image looks fantastic.

The secret is to set up your shots and operate competently. You pay for it if you shoot 'garbage cam' style, worse than with some other formats.

On the other hand, the pay-off for shooting competently is great. The camera makes amazing visuals, has full manual control, a huge assortment of compatible lenses and an incredibly small/lightweight footprint.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

1) because this is a CMOS based camera, the longest shutter open time is the inter-sample interval. So, at 60p, these times are 1/60th. Try to set a longer shutter=speed, at theframe rate falls. So, you can't set anything less than a 1/60th. This will have an impact on the look of 60p to 24p.

2) if you use 60p to 30p or 50p to 25p, you'll have better results because the shutter-speed will be correct. You also, on video, get the eye-tracking strobing artifact as you get from film in a theater. (But, you do not get from 24fps on video because of pull-down.) So, it's likely 60p to 30p or 50p to 25p will look more filmic than 60p to 24p.

3) One negative of the GH1 -- its use of AVCHD. On OS X applications AVCHD is converted to AIC or PRORES 422 which takes a long time, takes lots of space, and does nothing in terms of quality. A camera that uses H.264/AVC can be edited natively and yet has no less quality than does AVCHD.

4) High data rate Motion JPEG has a similar advantage. (However, some Apple products crash with the 40Mbps files.)

5) The lack of power-zoom is also a real problem because zoom ring is not EZ when shooting off tripod.

What do you mean ? AVCHD is H.264/AVC.

I think maybe he's talking AVC Intra as compared to AVCHD (the former being the professional codec while the latter consumer).

I'm sure he’s talking about the H.264 you get from Sanyo’s camcorder verses AVCHD camcorders.

The camera may "not have been what you had hoped" but remember there are always other alternatives such as this one

PANASONIC HPX2000PAC-CAN1 AJ-HPX2000 CANON 16X 2EX LENS - eBay (item 260326569133 end time Jun-01-09 16:27:12 PDT)

Premium quality things will always come at a premium price, whether most can afford it or not, this is how it has always been for thousands of years in every culture.

I think for most all things, comparing the price to anything else on the market at that price, the GH1 will be better or very similar in quality in most every area then other examples in that price range.

I will probably get one myself because it has the features (short dof, manual controls) and quality as good or better than any of the probably 10 or so older sd and hd video cameras I have had over the last 20 years. But it will never look as good as say the camera in the above link (if being technically exact in a scientific comparison), I would not be reasonable if I expected it to even come that close for a $1500 price tag.

There will always be a list of things I may wish the GH1 may be better in, but it is what it is for only $1500 and that is that. If I want to spend $50,000 on the above link camera I am sure I could find many things about that cam that I wish were better too if I was exact about it.

There is no such thing as a perfect camera or even a perfect monitor to view the footage on, both will always wish they were as crisp as reality but will always fall short in some area, that is why reality will always be so much better, and its free too.

Off to the park now, going to test out my 120 million rod, night vision, dual cam with unlimited recording capacity setup.

Eye Facts

Bye bye.

That read was interesting and an eyeful. :)