DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic LUMIX S / G / GF / GH / GX Series (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-s-g-gf-gh-gx-series/)
-   -   GH1 Not as I had hoped (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-s-g-gf-gh-gx-series/234612-gh1-not-i-had-hoped.html)

Luke Tingle May 17th, 2009 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham (Post 1143911)
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

"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.

Steve Mullen May 17th, 2009 08:33 PM

2 Attachment(s)
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.

Steve Mullen May 17th, 2009 08:50 PM

2 Attachment(s)
These are 720p60 and so much better!

Luke Tingle May 17th, 2009 09:24 PM

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.....

Alkim Un May 18th, 2009 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Tingle (Post 1144472)
"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.

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.

Khoi Pham May 18th, 2009 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Tingle (Post 1144472)
"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.


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.

M. Gene Hoffman May 18th, 2009 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen (Post 1144482)
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.

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

-M

Steve Mullen May 18th, 2009 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Gene Hoffman (Post 1144798)
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.

Ian G. Thompson May 21st, 2009 09:12 AM

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

M. Gene Hoffman May 21st, 2009 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian G. Thompson (Post 1146352)
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.

M. Gene Hoffman May 21st, 2009 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen (Post 1144981)
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.

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

Steve Mullen May 21st, 2009 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Gene Hoffman (Post 1146424)
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.

Steev Dinkins May 22nd, 2009 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen (Post 1146625)
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.

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.

Steve Mullen May 22nd, 2009 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins (Post 1146688)
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.

Robin Lobel May 22nd, 2009 06:37 AM

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...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network