So... it seems that while the GH1 is so close to being a perfect little indy digital cinema camera, it falls short in a few key (and seemingly obvious) areas.

1) Codec sucks. Like they didn't even try to give us something decent. 1080 interlaced at 17 mbps? Yeah. Awesome.

2) No live HDMI output. As far as I can tell. Would've saved it right there, because there are plenty of portable acquisition options. We could've taken the beautiful uncompressed image and done whatever we pleased with it. But nope. Can somebody tell me if indeed this is the case?

3) No audio monitoring (ie headphones) or manual control of levels. I mean, they included an audio-in jack- why not the rest?

4) Shutter speed only goes down to 1/60th or 1/30th- no important 1/48th for getting a smooth film look. I'm assuming this is part of the same math that has it recording 24p as 60i.

It's like, they gave us so many things that pro's need, and that I can't see consumers doing much with, but left it just far enough away that it's not actually useful to us.

The question is: why? Why get so close only to fall short in some key areas? Their answer is of course, this is a consumer camera. But why include so many quasi pro features then?

I don't get it- I guess I just don't get the enormity of the chasm between what we want and what hardware makers are making. A 5 minute phone conversation with any film maker would tell them exactly what we need.

Anyway, end-rant.

-M

I agree. I think it is odd at this juncture that we don't have a camera option, say at $5k or even $10k with a larger sensor with all the pro controls. However, I think we're just getting impatient. All of that is coming. Red Scarlet is supposed to be that. Then I'd assume Canon, Sony, and Panasonic will come in to steal the bigger share of customers with their answer to scarlet.

If we think of how far we've come from DV, things are moving FAST, but then not fast enough.

I think it's time for anyone who had high hopes for the GH1 to embrace the good, be aware of the bad and know that there's no way it was going to be the end-all camera - it costs $1500! Ultimately though, this camera will make epic images in the hands of anyone with hunger, creativity, vision, and patience to master the camera. Just look at what's happening with the 5DMkII.

Last point - we have yet to see some hardcore testing and results posted.

-steev

I just downloaded and analyzed a bunch of raw clips from another forum, and that's what I'm basing my comments on. I think it's a great step forward, and nobody can complain about the price.

But it's just not gonna cut it for me- the codec is the real killer. The 1080 stuff looks great if it's talking heads or other non-moving shots. But as soon as you get things moving it completely falls apart.

The 720 stuff is better, but it can't do 24p.

Really, if it had live HDMI out, I'd figure out some portable acquisition system and be more than happy with it. It's a shame.

-M

Okay, I am not a defender of this camera, but when you make the comment it can't do 24p, I have to chime in. While you may think 24p in 60i is not progressive, I think you may be mistaken. If it is like the HV20 24p, or myriad of other 24p inside a 60i stream by adding pulldown, the information is in the digital product to convert the footage into true 24p by removing the extraneous inserted pull down. The information that is left after pulldown removal is information taken from a single scan of the chip, at the rate of 24 frames a second. As I understand it, it is not interpolated footage or anything like that. Do you have information other than that ?

4) Shutter speed only goes down to 1/60th or 1/30th- no important 1/48th for getting a smooth film look. I'm assuming this is part of the same math that has it recording 24p as 60i.


It offers 1/50. This should be close enough to 1/48 to be imperceivable.

Point #1 is the real bummer for me. True, we've come a long way from DV, but at least DV was 25mbps.

Nope, you're exactly right. I never said it didn't do 24p, only that they chose to encode the 24p as 60i. It really is true 24p when the pulldown is removed, but a) you still gotta remove it, and b) like half the bandwidth is wasted by encoding that way vs progressive 24p.

The other comment was just that you can't do 24p at 1280x720, which is a bummer because the bandwidth seems it would be better used, and you can shoot in Motion Jpeg.

-M

It offers 1/50. This should be close enough to 1/48 to be imperceivable.


But that'd be for the PAL version, right? I'm assuming the NTSC version does not offer 1/50th.

-M

Yes, NTSC version offers 1/50, as well as 1/40 and a lot of other odd shutter speeds. People on the message board with the Japanese version have confirmed it.

Oh, awesome, well one down then. Now if somebody would come out and tell us they figured out a way to do live HDMI out we'd be set!

-M

So... it seems that while the GH1 is so close to being a perfect little indy digital cinema camera, it falls short in a few key (and seemingly obvious) areas.

It's like, they gave us so many things that pro's need, and that I can't see consumers doing much with, but left it just far enough away that it's not actually useful to us.

I don't get it- I guess I just don't get the enormity of the chasm between what we want and what hardware makers are making. A 5 minute phone conversation with any film maker would tell them exactly what we need.


The pattern now is familiar. "I really could make a movie if only camcorders shot 24p. Then, I really could make a movie if only camcorders had shallow DOF. Then, I really could make a movie if only camcorders didn't put 24p into 60i. Then, I really could make a movie if only camcorders shot 24Mbps." Come on. Let's get real.

If you can't shoot with this camera, how do you explain multiple released films shot on the VX1000 in DV?

1) 17Mbps is Panasonic's AVCHD standard for 1080i60. If you want 24Mbps, buy a Panasonic AVCCAM camcorder. And, if you' know how to shoot, the codec will not fall apart.

2) You can't compare MPEG-2 and H.264/AVC by bit-rates unless you multiply the H.264/AVC by 2 first. Now, bitch about 34Mbps vs 25Mbps. Hmm, doesn't work does it?

3) Drop 720p60 into a 24p timeline. Guess what happens?

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.

These pro's don't have a need for an external monitor. Moreover, they may be in a storm or war zone. Likewise, there hasn't been a need to monitor audio or control its levels for decades. ALC or limiters work fine for these assignments.

And, as shown by the huge market for consumer camcorders, the GH1 will also work fine for the buying public that wants to shoot both stills and video.

I didn't say people won't shoot awesome stuff with this camera, I just said it's not what I hoped.

And I'm not basing this off of numbers. AVCHD is a better codec than MPEG-2, but that doesn't change the fact that the 24p footage from the GH1 that I have analyzed falls apart when, for example, shot from a moving train overlooking a lush countryside.

http://gh1.dark-stone.com/sam/CountrysideJellotest1080.MTS

And if you drop 60p into a 24p timeline, you get stuttery garbage. Or you can slow the 60 to 24 and get nice slow motion. Which is great IF you want slow motion.

I am a professional, who wants to use this camera day in and day out on paid work. There is so much to love about it. But for a lot of what I do, it just ain't gonna cut it as is.

I understand that they are gonna make things for the lowest common denominator, I'm just disappointed because the features are SO CLOSE to being a great (way lower cost) alternative to like a Scarlet or whatever.

2) You can't compare MPEG-2 and H.264/AVC by bit-rates unless you multiply the H.264/AVC by 2 first. Now, bitch about 34Mbps vs 25Mbps. Hmm, doesn't work does it?


Actually, one of the few people that has a Japanese GH1 has been testing it extensively, and found that while Panasonic states 17mbps as the bitrate for 1080p, it's actually variable and averages 10mbps even during complex scenes. I have no doubt that AVCHD is at least twice as efficient as MPEG2 & DV, but I think most people here would agree that an average 10mbps is not ideal. So it's more like 20mbps vs 25mbps. And if we're comparing it to DV, the latter has about 1/4 the picture information to compress.

Can you provide a link to a native clip that averages 10MBPS per second or at least provide a link to someone who gave that claim and was it for sure on the highest mode?

If I remember correctly when there is static motion the bit rate drops...but when there is movement it increases. 720p seems to be constant. I just edited a raw file of a cat in Vegas and it is spectacular looking. This was a 1920x1080 24p file. I also have an HV20 and HDV falls apart also with high motion. That train shot is not your typical shot (in regards to all the fast motion going across (close up) the screen. So yeah....worse case scenario I'd expect it to break up. ALso...according to a couple of the guys testing...60p on a 24p timeline is the way to go. I'm not sure what you are referring to as stuttery...but according to them the footage turns out nice. Kholi stated that you can't tell a difference. The only real difference is the footage does not break up. Oh.....and the skew from rolling shutter...looks so much better than 24p.

I do have an interest in getting this camera and it’s a good thing I favor 1280x720 60p over 1920x1080 24p anyway. I still don't think most 1080 clips averages that low but I do sometimes see side effects in that mode.

So I guess the 2 biggest issues with the camera are the 1080 24p mode and the lack of live output during record mode. Hopefully Panasonic will release a firmware update to address both of those issues and it’s clear they have more expensive camcorders to protect so you never know.

I just edited a raw file of a cat in Vegas and it is spectacular looking. This was a 1920x1080 24p file. ALso...according to a couple of the guys testing...60p on a 24p timeline is the way to go.

Yeah, the cat footage is jaw dropping. That's what makes me so excited for this camera, but where the train footage is worst-case scenario, the cat footage is best-case. It looks awesome, but barely moves at all.

I will have to try the 60 footage in a 24 timeline. I would love to be dead wrong about that because that opens a bunch of doors, and the 60fps 720 footage looks much much better than the 1080.

Again, this camera is so exciting to me, and I really want to love it. I just wish it was that much closer, but I do feel better about it after our little conversation here.

-M

If I remember correctly when there is static motion the bit rate drops...but when there is movement it increases. 720p seems to be constant. I just edited a raw file of a cat in Vegas and it is spectacular looking. This was a 1920x1080 24p file. I also have an HV20 and HDV falls apart also with high motion. That train shot is not your typical shot (in regards to all the fast motion going across (close up) the screen. So yeah....worse case scenario I'd expect it to break up. ALso...according to a couple of the guys testing...60p on a 24p timeline is the way to go. I'm not sure what you are referring to as stuttery...but according to them the footage turns out nice. Kholi stated that you can't tell a difference. The only real difference is the footage does not break up. Oh.....and the skew from rolling shutter...looks so much better than 24p.

You are correct on all points. The "other" site has several people shooting and providing experienced reviews of the camera. This is a prosumer camcorder, so I'm not sure how anyone who's read about it since PMA, could not expect it to be anything other than what it is.

Fast action won't "move" if you follow-the-action. Obviously, if you ALLOW high motion vectors on a moving object you might see break-up. But, I remember when HDV came out there were those who claimed they saw break-up. After a few years of use, IF it ever existed at all -- it was a non-issue. Think of all the vertical smear from CCDs. Should be a deal breaker, but it's not. Think of rolling-shutter. Should be a deal breaker, but it's not.

This demo video by Phil Bloom is very impressive for $1500.

PS: if a indie film camera comes, why would they give it away at $1500. They'll set the price above anything low-end from Red.

we mustn't forget that this is a consumer camera...aimed at consumers and sort of priced at consumers...

It has superb pro features that the 5dmk2 would kill for and if you use it right it can be a fantastic little camera...

it's not a 5mk2 killer or a video camera killer but the video functions are quite superb as are the stills...the move away from SLR to this new style of camera is only the tip of the iceberg am sure...

I own a D90, a 5Dmk2 and a GH1 as well as a host of big and small cameras...put it this way...it will go everywhere with me now as it's such a great hybrid...it really is pretty small and stunningly capable...you just have to look at it as what it is and not what it is not...if that makes sense!?

we mustn't forget that this is a consumer camera...aimed at consumers and sort of priced at consumers...

Shame in Australia they are adding an extra 60% on top of the price ($3300AU vs $2100AU for the US price)making it easily the same price as a prosumer DSLR spend an extra K and I got a 5D...what is the point of that??!?!? especially the G1 only cost $1500AU, not sure what market they are aiming at in Oz.

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.

.

Since when is shallow DOF used to 'hide background motion judder'?

I am excited (as a Nikon d90 user now, and looking forward to an improved version soon...) to be able to shoot @f1.4 and have the eyes in focus, but the ears out of focus to direct the attention of my audience. I thought that is what shallow DOF was being used for by most of us!!

The GH-1 is an interesting step (though I think our future will be in full 35mm sensors for both shallower DOF and light sensitivity). I believe that within a year we will be offered an affordable 35mm frame size motion imager from Nikon (who has no video business to hurt), with good compression, full manual controls, etc. The SCARLET will certainly provide this, but at $7,000 I think it will look overpriced very soon--if Nikon or Canon can put some pressure on Red by introducing better cameras.

Guys check out this comparison of the GH-1, Mark ll and the D5000. Tell me what you think.

YouTube - Comparison 3 DSLRs movie test D5000,5Dmk2,GH1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkZfUax_yI&feature=channel)

Also..the low light scenery in these two makes me think that it's really not far off (if at all) from the 5Dll..Amazing.

YouTube - Lumix GH1 SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 video test night town (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekW_aNq7M4&fmt=22)

YouTube - Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 Short movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnck4Elm1hM)

The question is: why? Why get so close only to fall short in some key areas? Their answer is of course, this is a consumer camera. But why include so many quasi pro features then?

I don't get it- I guess I just don't get the enormity of the chasm between what we want and what hardware makers are making. A 5 minute phone conversation with any film maker would tell them exactly what we need.

Anyway, end-rant.

-M[/QUOTE]

WHY? Because they want you to buy 2 ( a still camera and a video camera ) to cover 100% of what you need! Reminds me of ED Beta from Sony. Fantastic quality but only one limited camera and eventually a dead end.

Why not AVC Intra instead of AVCHD?

Since when is shallow DOF used to 'hide background motion judder'?

When you pan WITH a rapidly moving subject, you do so to avoid Foreground judder. (And, if you think the codec doesn't handle motion well, it keeps the subject without much motion.)

But, what about the Background. Obviously, as you pan with the subject the background is speeding by. That means there could be Background judder and, possibly, codec breakup.

The solution -- shallow DOF keeps the EDGES of the background soft which prevents both judder and codec overload.

How come "video" guys need to keep explaining film shooting to guys who claim they are pro filmmakers. :)

PS: this kind of judder is really strobing which is a visual artifact.

Guys check out this comparison of the GH-1, Mark ll and the D5000. Tell me what you think.

YouTube - Comparison 3 DSLRs movie test D5000,5Dmk2,GH1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkZfUax_yI&feature=channel)

Also..the low light scenery in these two makes me think that it's really not far off (if at all) from the 5Dll..Amazing.

YouTube - Lumix GH1 SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 video test night town (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekW_aNq7M4&fmt=22)

YouTube - Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 Short movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnck4Elm1hM)

Wow

These videos are impressive to me. I'm in the market for a digicam and a videocam and I guess I better start saving for this. The night scenes are fantastic.

Guys check out this comparison of the GH-1, Mark ll and the D5000. Tell me what you think.

YouTube - Comparison 3 DSLRs movie test D5000,5Dmk2,GH1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkZfUax_yI&feature=channel)

Also..the low light scenery in these two makes me think that it's really not far off (if at all) from the 5Dll..Amazing.

YouTube - Lumix GH1 SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 video test night town (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekW_aNq7M4&fmt=22)

YouTube - Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 Short movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnck4Elm1hM)

We moan, we whine, we bitch, it isn't perfection at a consumer price point, it falls short of something that costs 2x the price, how could they do this to us, blah blah blah....

And then someone produces this. That third piece especially, it's beautiful. Period.

Damn it, I want my mini-red pocket professional camera ;-)
And in your heart of hearts, so do the rest of you.
Which is the real reason everyones so hard on it.

But what keeps going through the back of my mind is both Canon & Panasonic have foreshadowed !amazing! professional grade video cameras. I want to see them.

The solution -- shallow DOF keeps the EDGES of the background soft which prevents both judder and codec overload.

Shallow DOF might help with motion, but it really came into fashion with the advent of color film. With black and white, it's easy for the eyes and brain to cope with an image full of detail. With color, all of a sudden there's too much information and images get cluttered with foreground and background detail. So people starting pushing for shallow DOF to direct the viewers attention to where they wanted it. Then people decided it looked awesome and was an effective way to help tell their stories.


How come "video" guys need to keep explaining film shooting to guys who claim they are pro filmmakers. :)

Also, chill out. There are plenty of professionals here, you'd be surprised what some of them have done.

-M

1) 17Mbps is Panasonic's AVCHD standard for 1080i60. If you want 24Mbps, buy a Panasonic AVCCAM camcorder.

Or buy a 5DMkII and get 47bps H.264. We're not locked inside Panasonic's self-created boxes. Sorry Steve Panasonic can try to feed their codec slogans but Canon has already set the bar pretty high and the GH1 isn't in the ballpark. We all know just about anything can shoot a good image in the right hands, but we're debating technical strengths here and AVCHD is not nearly as strong as what Canon has with the 5D. So we still have a whole field of flawed choices. Pick your favorite and then live with it's shortcomings. C'mon Nikon. No video business to protect I know you guys can do it. Blow us all away.

It's funny that people don't like the 24P mode with the GH1 when 24P is all everybody kept screaming about for the 5D. You mean 24P is juddery? Who knew? Maybe that's why all these new HDTVs have frame creation modes to "fix" 24P so it won't look so crappy. Maybe we can all move on from this ancient 24P format to something better, newer and that makes more sense given the modern world. It's not 1950 anymore.

Or buy a 5DMkII and get 47bps H.264. We're not locked inside Panasonic's self-created boxes. Sorry Steve Panasonic can try to feed their codec slogans but Canon has already set the bar pretty high and the GH1 isn't in the ballpark.

I agree that the 40mbs H.264 is far superior to the GH1 at 17mbs, from what I've seen so far.

However, I wouldn't trash on AVCHD so much. Part of why I purchased the Canon HF S100 was how great the image held up at 24mbs on AVCHD. My testing so far has made me even believe that maybe Canon's implementation and technique for compressing to AVCHD, even down to 7mbs - holds up better than the GH1 at 1080/17mbs. :O

I'll have to see more GH1 footage and reports to confirm just how bad the GH1 compression is at 1080 though. So far it looks like you can break it relatively easy with camera movement. For instance, how does it look on a jib shooting a wide shot of a complex scene?

Seems normal that AVCHD breaks with fast camera move (like the train shots) or frenetic exposure change. I didn't saw such artefacts in normal conditions on GH1 footage.

Maybe we can all move on from this ancient 24P format to something better, newer and that makes more sense given the modern world. It's not 1950 anymore.

You mean watching movies at 60p? Why? So you think you're watching the news instead of a movie? No thanks.

I don't know what happens with all these new TVs trying to make movies look like they were shot with a handycam.

24p is not a limitation. It separates reality from fiction and that's a good thing. But of course that's my opinion.

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 mostly from the 5D camp. The 5D makes nice pictures no doubt but to get there is problematic. 30p just doesn't cut it...for me at least. The GH-1 also makes beautiful pictures...especially in 720p. 1080/24p is sharp...but that train scene was worst case scenario.

17Mbps is plenty in most cases...but in the case of the GH-1 even Panasonic admitted it was implemented differently...and you can see that n the 24p/1080 mode. It's funny...17Mbps was common in most camcorders up to six months ago....and no one complained then. I think Panasonic knew they had too good a thing with this GH-1 and made sure it wasn't TOO good.

But 720p kicks but...with rolling shutter skew (comparable to Red One)..stable image in fast pans and fast motion...sharp image...beautiful slow motion...and you can drop it on the timeline and get smooth 24p in normal or slow motion. I would buy two or more of these cams.

But 720p kicks but...with rolling shutter skew (comparable to Red One)..stable image in fast pans and fast motion...sharp image...beautiful slow motion...and you can drop it on the timeline and get smooth 24p in normal or slow motion. I would buy two or more of these cams.

I was waiting to drop my bomb of discovery on this. Its now been widely reported and witnessed that 1080 mode at 17mbs has issues and it's now clear that it does. It can fall apart fast with complex scenes with a lot of motion.

So everyone is saying that, well, 720p is the sweet spot for this camera. Well the awful truth of the matter as far as what I have been able to test with actual footage from the camera is this.

If you shoot in 720 mode, it's recording at 60fps, which you could choose to:

A) use it for overcranking purpose for slow motion.
B) Speed it up to 200% in a 30fps timeline for normal speed.

But you can't just throw this 720p60 footage into a 24fps timeline and think it's 24fps. IT IS NOT.

You will have the same awful stuttering mistake of a cadence that you get whenever you throw 30p into a 24p timeline.

So in short, based on my findings and testing, 720p mode is not 24p - it is 60p or 30p. If you decide to convert it to some other frame rate, you'll be entering the world of frame rate conversion which involves a lot of tricks and compromises between frame blending and - my personal favorite - Twixtor for vector based morphing to do the conversion.

With all that said... the workflow for the GH1 is getting more tricky as the details roll in.

If someone is finding that they somehow buried 24fps inside 60fps (like the HVX/HPXs can do), please report. I have not found that to be the case.

Last point - I have a GH1 on pre-order from Amazon. So I'm not just a 5DMkII owner, hating on the GH1.

-steev

It's funny because some of the guys who already had this cam for the last week states that 60p dropped on a 24p time line looks beautiful and that you can't tell that it was not shot in straight up 24p (of course you have to have the right shutter settings). I hear what you are saying about 60p not being 24p...how different is it from when we use it in slow motion on a 24p time line? If there is stuttering in "normal" motion...shouldn't there be also in slow motion (I would think more pronounced). But that is not the case...because folks have been using 60p on a 24p timeline since...forever. :)

Now the issue of the 24p/1080 is not as bad as some folks suggest. The footage we have been seeing as I stated earlier is more like worst case scenario. I have an HV20...and HDV will be ripped apart in the same situation. There are some other 24p footage that looks great from the GH-1...especially when shooting with a blurred background which seems more tolerant on the compression. Like THIS one for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTlCpY06oDo&feature=channel

and this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFIFhnVou48&feature=channel

Even with YouTube compression I think they look great.

Edit: Oh and check out some of the 24p files on the Watch Impress Web site:

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fav.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fseries%2Fzooma%2F20090507_167999.html&sl=ja&tl=en

It's funny that people don't like the 24P mode with the GH1 when 24P is all everybody kept screaming about for the 5D. You mean 24P is juddery? Who knew? Maybe that's why all these new HDTVs have frame creation modes to "fix" 24P so it won't look so crappy. Maybe we can all move on from this ancient 24P format to something better, newer and that makes more sense given the modern world. It's not 1950 anymore.

Thinking about it, 24P is as a kind of an assumed 'fourth wall' comfy-seat. Tastes change, and standards are meant to be broken...

I hear what you are saying about 60p not being 24p...how different is it from when we use it in slow motion on a 24p time line?

It's a lot different. Overcranking for slow motion vs trying to resolve 60p to 24p with the intention of making it look as if it was shot at 24p is proving to be "dissatisfying", if I'm to put it gently.

Take a look at these tests with 60p to 24p I've done on the HVX200:

720p60 at 1/120 shutter speed - it's stuttery. It's close though! I tried slower shutter, but it got blurry looking. Tried faster shutter and the stutter got worse.
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/dslr/HVX200_60p-24p-720x405.mov

720p24N at 1/48 shutter speed - smooth as we all know this combo is.
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/dslr/HVX200_24p-720x405.mov

If someone can't tell the difference, go shoot like mad in 720p60 and throw it into a 24p timeline and be happy. To me it looks like garbage, and that's not even mentioning what different frame rates look like.


because folks have been using 60p on a 24p timeline since...forever.

Who? What? Where?

Again, I see the 720p now as a slow motion technique on this camera and *with some work*, I can see pulling off the illusion as if it was shot at 24fps. I can pull that off with the 5DMkII as well.

Point being that I don't think anyone should think it's as simple as dropping it into 24p and they won't see the ramifications and stuttering that they'll have to figure out how to resolve and diminish, or just scrap that footage altogether.

The plot thickens...

p.s. I thought I'd shed further light on using the camera as slow motion in 24p. That's also not straightforward.

Here's dropping GH1 720p60 footage into 24p:
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/dslr/GH1_60p_to_24p-StraightDrop-720x405.mov

Here's conforming it correctly in Cinema Tools first:
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/dslr/GH1_60p_to_24p-Conformed-720x405.mov

Ok, so I really do want to love this camera.

But watch the codec fall apart on a slow pan down from some trees.

In 1080p:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/video/avw/docs/167/999/00014.MTS

It's better in 720 60p, but not as much better as you'd think:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/video/avw/docs/167/999/00015.MTS

And watch the cell-phone-esque quality of 30p motion jpeg:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/video/avw/docs/167/999/P1000022.MOV

Am I crazy or is this pathetic?

I have nothing to gain by saying any of this, I am in the market and hungry for a camera like this, have watched every detail of the GH1 that I could find, and am just really disappointed. It's so close to being amazing. This is what kills it, and it just seems unnecessary/panasonic being totally ignorant or protecting their camcorder division.

-M

This is what kills it, and it just seems unnecessary/panasonic being totally ignorant or protecting their camcorder division.

-M

I wonder if it comes down to how much awesome practice this camera has been for Panasonic engineers and now they are even closer to launching a pro version. But given their lineup? I'd guess they will charge well into the $20k for it. Unless they just kill everything and go $5000 range.

I was discussing this with a friend recently and we deduced that Canon and Nikon are best poised for going for the kill at this point.

There's also Red, but the discussion was centered around the big established corporations.

I'm still pretty blown away with the GH1 for $1500 and all complaints absorbing, I'm still gonna get my hands on one.

The 1080p pan looks fine to me, better than HDV compression. What's the problem with it ?

Who? What? Where?

I was specifically talking about for slow motion... But I do understand what you are saying.

The 1080p pan looks fine to me, better than HDV compression. What's the problem with it ?

Look at the exact same shot, exact same datarate AVCHD from the canon HF10.
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20080723/ezsm022.mts

If you can't see the difference here, you and I have nothing more to say to one another. :)

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.

*sigh* But honestly, I'm still probably going to get one and use it for what it's good at. Unless scarlet decides to poke its head around.

Here's hoping a firmware fix might help the codec, or at least fix the 1080p at 17mbps.

-M

You're right, HF10 at the same bitrate looks way better...
Can it be because of Noise Reduction turned ON ? If not, let's pray for a fix :/

But watch the codec fall apart on a slow pan down from some trees.

In 1080p:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/video/avw/docs/167/999/00014.MTS


That's a terrible shot for several reasons - one, it's the wrong speed for shooting 24fps (consult your ASC guide). If someone gave me such a shot, it would quickly end on the editing room floor.

More importantly, the shutter speed is way too high which is why the codec struggles. Shoot the shot properly and it will look beautiful.

The HF10 shoot looks bad to me too - but it's slower, so it's not the "same shot"

Also, what about sharpening? the Canon and cameras like it has sharpening way too high (even when turned down) which would make the picture look sharper. I'm not sure what the settings were for the GH-1 in these comparisons. but if they want it to be apples to apples i think these settings should be taken into consideration.

This quotation from Mark Von Lanken's review of the AG-HMC150 for Event DV might be relevant to this discussion of the GH1's codec:

"How does AVCHD stack up against HDV? AVCHD in the PH mode records at 21Mbps with the maximum variable rate at 24Mbps. HDV records at 25Mbps, the same as DV. Just looking at those numbers, I would rather record HDV's 25Mbps than AVCHD's 21 Mbps. But according to Sony's own marketing information, "The quality of AVCHD recording at 9Mbps (HD-HQ) mode is roughly equal to HDV recording." Since the HMC150 will record at 21Mbps and, according to Sony, AVCHD at 9Mbps is equal to HDV, is there any doubt to why the AVCHD format is superior to the HDV format? Keep in mind comparing the quality of video achieved with different codecs is not a simple bitrate comparison; MPEG-4 compression is far more efficient than MPEG-2."

full article: EventDV.net: In the Field: Panasonic AG-HMC150 (http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=52607)

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.

The i frames are SUPER obvious on the panasonic, and regardless of whether that shot would end up on the editing room floor, the quality is very poor. Much worse than the canon at the same rate and far inferior to the HDV from my XH-A1.

People keep throwing around numbers saying "but AVCHD is a more efficient codec!!!" and it IS, but this footage is NOT. I mean, just look at the footage, there are a ton of excuses being made, but the fact is it is a poor version of a superior codec.

I do this stuff and analyze footage every day all day for a living, I know what I'm seeing.

-M

the fact is it is a poor version of a superior codec.

You're absolutely correct on this. I'm amazed at how fragile it is on the GH1. Tis a bummer.

Well, let's hope it gets fixed in future firmware updates.

Keep in mind comparing the quality of video achieved with different codecs is not a simple bitrate comparison; MPEG-4 compression is far more efficient than MPEG-2."
The thing is, yes, AVCHD is much more efficient than HDV. But that efficiency shines more towards the lower bit rate...meaning at 9Mbps. Pound for pound if you shot 9Mbps on both HDV and AVCHD you will see the latter kick the formers behind. But as you go up higher in bit rates things start to even out. What I mean is you will not see much of a difference in quality between 17Mbps and 24Mbps with AVCHD. The Canon A1 is a good example of superb looking HDV....and really...I can't think of an AVCHD camera that is sharper (maybe on par....but not any sharper)...




I hear you Jose.

I
But you can't just throw this 720p60 footage into a 24fps timeline and think it's 24fps. IT IS NOT.

You will have the same awful stuttering mistake of a cadence that you get whenever you throw 30p into a 24p timeline.

So in short, based on my findings and testing, 720p mode is not 24p - it is 60p or 30p.


Last point - I have a GH1 on pre-order from Amazon. So I'm not just a 5DMkII owner, hating on the GH1.

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

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.

24p is not a limitation. It separates reality from fiction and that's a good thing.

Why is it that "fiction" shot in Japan and Korea are 60i and they don't look like the news. Perhaps it has far more o do with lighting. Perhaps, 24p is nothing more than a convention. In which case, it can change.

Anyway, isn't it clear that narrative is dead and that today's audience wants recycled comic books. If so, today's "fiction" may be more powerful when it looks "real."