GH1 Not as I had hoped

[Ian G. Thompson]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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."

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Ian G. Thompson

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.

[Scott Shama]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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

You had me at 60P...

;P

[Jose A. Garcia]

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I supose someone should have told Jim Jannard before creating an already outdated camera.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.

[Ian G. Thompson]

Originally Posted by Jose A. Garcia

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!!

[M. Gene Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

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

[Peter Gjevre]

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.

[Dave Blackhurst]

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.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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? ;)

[Oliver Smith]

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

[Richard Hunter]

Originally Posted by Nathan Troutman

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

[Ian G. Thompson]

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

[Nathan Troutman]

Originally Posted by Richard Hunter

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).

[Paul Nixon]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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.