"Raw" footage you download from vimeo is not the same as footage directly recorded from the camera. Even the clips you are viewing are compressed for web by the uploader, right?

When the 5D MkII came out there were only a handful of clips on the web that actually looked good (reverie being the best of course), there were also some very horrible clips recorded with the 5D.

I've seen really great GH1 clips and really horrible ones so far. Seeing the really good clips tells me that in whatever conditions they were filmed in the camera really is outstanding.

It's image quality can't suck and be awesome at the same time. Can someone show my where to download actual RAW AVCHD recorded from the camera and shot competently.

Here are two images that match the images in the review I read. I just had to see them myself. So I downloaded the .m2ts files.

These are from 1080p24 after pulldown was removed.

This is bad!

And, it reminds me that when I saw the camera's video at CES I was horrified. Trees had no details - just a blur.

These are 720p60 and so much better!

ahh...... thanks Steve. I couldn't play the .mts back for some reason (mpeg streamclip). But the stills say a good bit.
The motion clips are pretty bad but if you park on an HDV frame in motion it doesn't look that much better.
I did notice that even in some of the motionless stills there are random chunks of mush (like the lady's shirt in the 108024p still). With HDV there would be some detail there. Now I'm torn between the GH1 or the Rebel T1i.....

you can download the original .mts files camera record. toast 9 on mac can easily convert to prores or AIC codec.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0905/09...gh1preview.asp

details of trees and any objects are washed out. yes there is some luminance that what sensor can achieve, but it is totally disappointment for me :(

I ll wait 3rd manufactures's DSLR cam.

alkım.

Raw is raw, original from the camera ok, there are tons of raw unprocessed from the "other forum" that you can download and watch, I did not said anything about download raw footage from Vimeo.

That's... exactly what I've been stoned to death for saying here... change of heart?

-M

Not in the least, as my primary interest in the GH1 is 720p60. I've used p30 on various camcorders for 5+ years and I've always hated low-temporal rate video.

I shot film 50 years ago and nothing any video product "does" looks like it. Shooting at 24p on an electronic device that has no grain -- not for me.

Today the goal is hyper-realism with as many pixels and frames and audio channels as possible -- and how about 3D too. Put viewers IN the action.

Or -- with more and more viewers watching internet material on their computers and LCD monitors, create 60p media from the start. That's how even 24p media is going to be watched as no one is going to SEE 24fps.

Well this 1080/24p footage from Phillip Bloom is stellar.
Joshua Tree: Panasonic Lumix GH1 on Vimeo

Yup, and it also doesn't move. The GH1 does an awesome job of super shallow DOF, low motion stuff.

Good use of buzzwords. That may be YOUR goal, but 99.9% of the largest entertainment industry in the world would disagree.

That's today for those that produce for the movie theater. Who but kids goes to movies today?

3D is an example of hyper-real. And, Japan is doing Ulta-HDTV. When they get product on the market in a few years -- 24p will be like using SD in an HD world.

24p REQUIRES "suspension of disbelief" because it looks so "un-real." The future will require no "suspension of disbelief" because media will carry so much information to a viewers senses it will be EXPERIENCED as real.

This has always been the goal of story tellers which is why we have IMAX and had Cinerama. But, it was too expensive then. Now, it's not.

I don't miss the "reality" feel of 60i. As soon as I had methods to go progressive and essentially slow down the frame rate to 30p or 24p, I was a lot happier with my productions. If the future is ultra-reality, I'll continue to be "retro" when it comes to most of my endeavors.

The exception might be for sports, reality-tv, realist documentary, PORNO!, and live events like musical artists and bands performing live.

But when it comes to telling fantastic and surreal stories and emoting an otherworldliness, high frame rates just don't cut it for me. I disagree that storytellers actually wish they could have ultra-fidelity. Look at what happened with digital audio technology. People suddenly had access to pristine audio, and soon the workflow involved recording through vintage equipment and sound processors to color the sound or degrade it artistically, and/or recording to analog 2" tape first before transferring to digital. High fidelity doesn't always equal the emotion that an artist is trying to express.

But some artists probably have been craving ultra-realism. You know porn producers want it bad!

And at this point, I'm asking where is the GH1 in this conversation? Oh yeah! It can do ultra-reality 60p at 720 HD for $1500.

That really was where this all began.

You might think I don't love FILM, but I do. Not, because of 24p, but because of grain. I really love 60's 16mm film -- B&W or color. Today's zero-grain film leaves me cold.

A decade ago I was in a small screening room in NYC with Spike Lee as he was looking at samples of digital video transferred to 35mm film. To my eye the "lowest" quality film, "The Saltmen of Tibet" looked the most like film because the VX1000's noise looked like grain. The more expensive camcorders looked "glassy."

His comment at the end was that the VX1000 offered "texture." That, summed it up perfectly and the next time I met him he was in Times Square shooting with a VX1000.

Steve: "who can do more, can do less"
There are lot of effects that simulate film grain. From a noise-free picture, you can go to film-like picture easily (if to you film-like refer to noise).
On the other hand, you'll hardly get a noise-free picture from film...

It's funny because that very same movie looked like video even long before I found out it was shot on video. When I found out, in my mind, I said to myself..."no wonder."

Since ALL the film being shown came from video cameras -- they all looked like video. The issue was which of the samples looked best to his eyes. He liked the VX1000 sample and that's what he shot his next "film" with.

And, yes there are apps that claim to add grain. But, as much as I like 60's 16mm grain -- today there are very few people who have seen this look. They see modern stocks that have no grain. So adding grain might please me, but no one else. I don't think we can go back.

Today we should use HD and 5.1 sound to it's max while we wait for the next level of realism. The idea that media has to live with old technology to tell a story is beyond belief. Can you imagine if the directors of the 30's to 70's had stayed with 16/18 fps film because the audience couldn't accept a story unless it were shot at this "magic" rate.

Quality doesn't rely on a magic rate.

Technology always has and will drive all the arts. Everything shot at 24fps will simply look retro in another decade. In two decades, a director will re-discover 24fps -- make one movie which the critics will love but will fail at the box-office -- and the director will return to using 8K at 120Hz with 22 channels of audio. Or, whatever technology the Chinese have developed by then.

So the GH1 is a chance to shoot 60p for $1500.

You had me at 60P...

;P

I still don't get the sudden animosity towards 24p. I said it before. We've been looking for the "24p/highest possible resolution/shallow DOF" combo for decades and now that we have it we have to read comments like "Oooh! That's too bad! 24p is old! Didn't you know it?"

I supose someone should have told Jim Jannard before creating an already outdated camera. Thank God they're now developing another one with 120fps. If 60p is good, then 120 must be great! Too bad the pro line of the Scarlet only gets to 30fps. I guess noone will buy those.

Now that I think about it. Don't you have something against shallow DOF? I mean, it's another of the old 35mm film flaws.

Steve, what I mean is that if you want to shoot movies at 60p, then go for it but please, let the rest of us enjoy shooting 1080p24 just like the movies are shot nowadays.

DITTO on that!!

Baaaaah you know, this thread is ridiculous now. Comment retracted, I'm done.

I think one of the reasons we have always been stuck arguing about the aesthetics of 24p vs higher framerate video is because the lack of affordable means of getting good enough 1080/50p or 60p+ footage from the currently available cameras. As far as I know the only cameras capable of such framerates at or even higher than 1080 resolution with large enough bandwidths and strong enough codecs could cost in hundreds of thousand $ for a workable system. Even if there were an a-list director brave enough to shoot his movie in 60 fps, theatrical limitations would surely make delivery of 60 fps+ not commercially possible.

James Cameron once mentioned in one of the web blogs on 3D that he would prefer the shift in the acquisition standard from the current 24 fps to 48 fps so that, in his own words, viewing will be smoother and more pleasant with minimal adjustments to the present theatrical infrastructure. 60 fps is "overkill" (not because of being uncinematic) in his own words.

Money no object, the best solution at any price would be shooting at 72 fps. For those who like fluid video and can afford the full bandwidth, view it at 72 fps. For those who prefer the look of 24 fps, just throw out 2 out of every 3 frames each second with no complicated pulldown removal and view the movie at 24 fps. Or find the middle of the road and view it at 48 fps.

Wacharapong

While I'm excited about aspects of the GH1 shooting 60p (mainly so I can feed it into compressor for slo-mo) I think we need to look forward to new technologies with healthy skepticism.

For example: Leo Fender's invention of the Stratocaster, while utilizing modern technology, did not supplant the Stradivarius from its position as the greatest musical instrument ever crafted.

The Strat, while embracing modern technologies such as electronic pickups and precision-engineered tuning machines, could certainly be viewed by some as an evolution of any of Stradivari's creations whether they be violins, guitars or cellos.

While it was celebrated by fans worldwide and imitated by many Luthiers and manufacturers, the Strat will always be a little sterile in comparison.

Perhaps it's because Stradivarius created the modern violin almost singlehandedly (Amati nothwithstanding) and composers and performers were forced to reconcile with its short-comings for generations which lead to an entire canon being formed around its idiosyncracies.

The modern electric guitar, in contrast, was essentially invented by four distinct individuals: Leo Fender, Les Paul, Adolph Rickenbacker and George D. Beauchamp in the 1930s and 40s, but manufactured in bulk and marketed by corporations. It was really embraced by the masses mostly for its ease of use in playing 'three chord wonders.'

True innovators like Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck would eventually embrace the instrument, but its association with 'throwaway music' would prevent it from being fully recognized as a serious instrument by critics for many years to come.

The 24p and 60p debate is similar.

While a bit unfair, critics tend to associate 60p with 60i and consequently with bad lighting and soap opera or reality tv quality dialogue.

60p can and probably will be used artistically for great things in the future, but the body of literature has been rooted in a canon of 24fps films for so long that it will probably take years before the critics really embrace different framerates.

Hence, I'm hoping that the 720 60p of the GH1 will easily convert to 24p, because it really looks like a stellar camera for my purposes.

Interesting analogy Peter...

A "Strat" in the hands of a Clapton will create beauty... in the hands of a hack player will inspire nausea...

It ultimately is not the tool, but the artist. Give an artist an imperfect tool, and they can create... give a hack a perfect tool, and they can create drek...

The unfortunate fact is that manufacturers have to create tools with mass appeal to recoup R&D and manufacturing costs. What you can buy for a reasonable price today is amazing, whether you can create something compelling with it... that's another question.

HUH??? This 'kid' and his wife just got back from the theater to see Angels & Demons and I don't believe I saw anyone under 35 there.

I guess you haven't gone to the movies lately Steve...like in the last decade? ;)

Indeed, movies are something that almost all human beings share an enjoyment for, hardly just kids!

Hi Nathan. I tried the 500D a few weeks back, and the 720P mode was 30fps, not 24.

Richard

Plus the MJPEG the GH-1 uses in one of its modes looks real nice @ 30Mbps

Very true - sorry that was a mental typo. No 24P with the Rebel T1i (500d).

This is an interesting comment considering the very demanding Japanese won't buy cell-phones that can't pick up satellite HD and the like (okay, a slight exaggeration, but not that much). The Japanese demand everything they buy be packed with all the features, and anything that falls short or is perceived to be less packed is quickly discarded. As Apple about that.

Whether the Japanese hunger for features applies to their cameras - I don't know. I just think it would be inconsistent given so many other examples.

I disagree - if it hasn't shipped yet then the discussion is paramount, especially if Panasonic MIGHT BE LISTENING. It's possible they could take the good comments and go back and make a firmware upgrade prior to shipping that addresses the shortcomings people are talking about. Hey, I said it's possible. ;)

Paul, I don't think that the cameras that will be shipping in the next few weeks would have a
firmware update installed before shipping, but I hope I'm proven wrong. A firmware update could happen at some point, if Panasonic think they need to. The point is we don't know enough from the few camera native files that are around to make a considered evaluation of these "limitations". Most of these clips are from people who've only had the camera a few days and so some of these artifacts that are being seen could be due to a number of factors, including a weak codec. The fact remains that the few pro shooters who've shot with the camera, have shown that it will produce images far better than it has any right to.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Canon have just announced a manual control update for the 5dII, Canon have been listening and watching the competition I'm sure. Exciting times!

No way! All my life using shallow DOF in photography and video to attract attention to a subject and now I realize I was wrong!! The main purpose of shallow DOF is to hide background motion judder!!

Exciting times indeed! This just seems overall like a prayer answered and, as a non-professional, I am very excited. I've been farting around with the DoF adapters with varying degrees of success and am looking forward to see the GH1 in "action" (properly reviewed).

I don't know where Panasonic is in terms of shipping the GH1, and you are probably correct that they won't include the update prior to shipping, but if the current shortfalls are serious enough to cast doubt on the GH1's capabilities or desirability, I have to wonder how willing Panasonic would be to fix things after the fact.

BTW, does anyone have any info on the Samsung NX?

I've seen many here talk about AVCHD being superior to HDV. This bothered me because I could have sworn the reverse was true not too long ago. I came across the following:

Are AVCHD camcorders the next HD lie? | George Ou | ZDNet.com

What's missing?

I think we all thought AVCHD would be superior but then at the consumer level we got tiny sensors and lower than the max AVCHD bitrates.

AVCHD was a few years too early. It's design is great for low storage/bandwidth solutions but today we have NAND technology that is faster and we should be using a codec that's easier to edit and one that captures more information.

Which, once again, begs the question - is the GH1 with AVCHD and low-bitrate better than my HC1 HDV for the same kinds of shots?

From what I've seen I have to say the answer is a resounding yes, yes, YES! Until, of course, I see the shots being complained about. Then I second guess my impulse and wonder what the end results are going to be like for the kinds of "movies" I shoot.

I use a camcorder to capture history - kids growing up, karate tournaments, vacations.

I also use a camcorder to make "creative" home movies. I've been trying to use a DoF adapter, but being unable to afford something professional I've ended up with making my own followed by an inexpensive buy which works quite well now that I've replaced the gg. But I don't have follow-focus, so I am still sometimes futzing with the focus.

The GH1 has full-time AF - perfect!

From what I've seen of the low-light performance, the GH1 is also perfect (compared with my HC1 and HV-30).

AVCHD does take a substantial amount of horsepower to edit, a lot more than HDV if my Kodak Z6 is anything to go by. But I'll manage. (would be nice to have a hardware solution).

And the 24pin60i - my HV30 has that and it's a pain because Canon neglected to include the flags, so Liquid can't handle the footage directly. Am I going to run into the same issue when shooting 24p?

And does anyone know how much footage you can shoot at a time and what's it limited by?

The big advantage of AVCHD is that there are already some software solutions out there to help with editing. Neo Scene from Cineform, for example, already ingests AVCHD (or HDV, for that matter) files, does 24p pulldown and converts it to easy to edit, virtually lossless AVI or MOV files. If it doesn't already work with the GH-1 files, I suspect it's will in the next Cineform update.

Think of AVCHD as purely an acquistion format -- kind of like film negative. Any manipulation is done on the "print" or digital intermediate.

Huh? The advantage of AVCHD over what with regards to software solutions? Are there packages that do AVCHD and not HDV? That doesn't sound right at all.

I bought Neo to work with my HV30. It's definitely different from Liquid but it does the job. Both seem to work with my little Kodak Zi6, but OMG the processing power needed on those files is something one needs to see to be believed! AVCHD may be 2x more efficient, spacewise, but it's 4x less efficient timewise (based purely on my very limited experience - the Zi6). Now that I think about it, Neo handles the Zi6 video but not the audio. I don't know why.

However, if the GH1 proves to be the answer to my prayers (and, again, I'm not shooting professional movies so I think my expectations may be a bit lower), then I might up the ante, though a C2D 3GHz xtreme CPU, 4GB RAM, and multiple TB's of SATA-2 drives in a system that uses almost as much electricity as my AC (and I'm in the Phoenix area) - yeah, I'm a bit reluctant and a bit annoyed that I'd need even more power. If someone could make me believe the issue was the software, I'd be overjoyed.

Speaking of the GH1 - the "pre-order" price is $1499. Come June and it hits the market, will that price suddenly go up? Will it go down? What *usually* happens?