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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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?

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

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.



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.

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.

-MThe 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.

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.

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) (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260326569133&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=260377044069&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=StoreCatToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget&_trksid=p284.m184&_trkparms=algo%3DDR%26its%3DS%252BI%252BSS%26itu%3DISS%252BUCI%252BSI%26otn%3D4)

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 (http://converyoptometrists.com/facts.aspx)

Bye bye.

Eye Facts (http://converyoptometrists.com/facts.aspx)

That read was interesting and an eyeful. :)

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.

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.....

"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/0905/09051503panasonicgh1preview.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" 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.

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

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 (http://www.vimeo.com/4714724)

Well this 1080/24p footage from Phillip Bloom is stellar.
Joshua Tree: Panasonic Lumix GH1 on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/4714724)

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.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."

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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

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



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!

The recap:


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.



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

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

Richard

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

The reason these camera are the way they are is that Japan doesn't suffer from the "I want to be a FILMmaker affliction." All prime-time narrative drama in Asia is shot at i60. At 60i, they have no need for a shallow DOF to hide background motion judder because there is no judder.

Simply put, they don't care about our Indie film market! These cameras are aimed at those who shoot professionally day in and day out on real paid assignments. Being able to capture stills and motion gives these shooters twice the material to sell.


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.