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

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.

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.

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's not the numbers, it's the quality of the codec. Canon has always had an edge with codecs, but this just looks like Panasonic being lazy with their implementation.


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.

I know the difference and the relation, or I should say lack of relation to 24p.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

working with a true 24p timeline is old fashioned.

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 (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=170383)
Rebel Café :: View topic - Shooting 60P for 24P (http://rebelsguide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2603)

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

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

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.

Canon - VIXIA 3.3MP High-Definition Digital Camcorder with 2.7" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Black - HF20 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9239512&st=HF10&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1218065983946)

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?

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.

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.

It's worth noting, the HF10 is recording AVCHD in 17mbps in the shots here, but it also has a 24mbps mode above that.
I think you must be mistaken the HF10 to the HF11.

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.


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 ;)

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

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

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-lumix-gh1/234999-60p-24p-conversion.html

The i frames are SUPER obvious on the panasonic,

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.

it comes across as stupid or lazy, because the rest of the camera is superb.

-M
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

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.

Wacharapong,

Allow me to direct you to the TM300:
Panasonic HDC-TM300 HD Camcorder | Wired.com Product Reviews (http://www.wired.com/reviews/product/pr_0505_tm300)

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.

Wacharapong,

Allow me to direct you to the TM300:


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...

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

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.

You're right...24p is no limitation. There is definitely an obvious difference between 24p and 30p and 60p. I don't know what this animosity towards 24p is. I've been hearing a lot of this talk m

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

I completely agree that 30p makes so much more sense. And, I really doubt an audience can tell the difference.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

. . . 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.
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°.

Panasonic has confirmed that the GH1's codec lacks b-frames.

Thus the crappy footage in many scenarios.

PMA Interview: Panasonic: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031901panasonicinterview.asp)

Sad.

-M

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.

If anyone expects this camera to perform like a professional cinema camera then be prepared for serious disappointment.

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.

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

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.

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).
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.

I don't get all this techie talk about what the GH1 cannot do on paper because it does not have this or that.


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.


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?


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


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.


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

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


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.

...
2) The codec is not ideal and will make many kinds of shots difficult or impossible to reliably capture.
...



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).

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.

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


2) At 720p60, the data rate is as specified by Pana and the quality is fine. Which it should be at 17Mbps.

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


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.

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?

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)

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.


Would the first clip then drop frames and become, essentially, 24p?

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-lumix-gh1/234999-60p-24p-conversion.html

-steev

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?

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.

And, if you don't understand this -- go to Panasonic and read about how Varicam records 24p.

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.

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.

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

The only way 24p can be seen is by imposing a 2-3 cadence so it can be viewed on a 60Hz monitor.

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.

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?

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.