PDA

View Full Version : Panasonic Removable Lens Four Thirds HD AVCHD Camera



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

DavidNJ
02-26-2009, 12:09 PM
G1 HD...PMA or NAB?

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/pressrelease/img/gh1k_slant.jpg

hungrych
02-26-2009, 12:29 PM
pma

FatDaddy
02-26-2009, 12:50 PM
I hope they come in those colors. How cool would that be to show up with a "red" camera...

Jason Ramsey
02-26-2009, 12:59 PM
Don't you mean a "peach" camera :)

DavidNJ
02-26-2009, 01:07 PM
PMA...that means April or May?

DavidNJ
02-26-2009, 01:10 PM
The glass won't be as good as the 5D, and the sensor is a little smaller so their will be less DOF and wide won't be as wide. However, it may overcome many of the 5DM2's short comings in video capture option and manual control.

Barry_Green
02-26-2009, 01:14 PM
PMA...that means April or May?
PMA is five days away. March 3rd.

Nektonic
02-26-2009, 01:22 PM
The glass won't be as good as the 5D, and the sensor is a little smaller so their will be less DOF and wide won't be as wide. However, it may overcome many of the 5DM2's short comings in video capture option and manual control.

So if the sensor is smaller, how much of the low light shooting ability and DOF control are we loosing? How close are these sensors to an APS-C sized sensor?

Maybe these will get Canon motivated to add un-hampered and quality video options to the next round of their cams, which would be the Digital Rebel and later the inevitable 60D. I'm assuming these are going to compete in a similar price range, or are these going to be more pro-targeted cameras like the 5D mk2?

joe 1008
02-26-2009, 01:42 PM
So if the sensor is smaller, how much of the low light shooting ability and DOF control are we loosing? How close are these sensors to an APS-C sized sensor?

The G1 stills are clean up to 800 asa, with the reduced resolution in video even 1600 asa might work - compared to the 5D you would loose about 2 stops. But that's just guesswork. Also the lenses that exist and are announced don't open more than f 3,5 or f 4,0 with the exception of a single prime lens, with an aperture of f 1,7 and a focal legth of 20mm (equivalent to a 40mm lens on a 35 camera - so the the crop factor is 2 compared to the one of an APS sensor which is 1,5 or 1,6) With the latter lens you might be fine in the dark.


Maybe these will get Canon motivated to add un-hampered and quality video options to the next round of their cams, which would be the Digital Rebel and later the inevitable 60D. I'm assuming these are going to compete in a similar price range, or are these going to be more pro-targeted cameras like the 5D mk2?

Pure speculation. I personally still hope for a 5D firmware upgrade. But if an other camera shows up in time with better features I would be willing to buy that one. The G1 HD is said to ship between 1.500 and 1.800 USD. That's at least what the rumours say.

Nektonic
02-26-2009, 02:58 PM
Pure speculation. I personally still hope for a 5D firmware upgrade. But if an other camera shows up in time with better features I would be willing to buy that one.

Yep, I'm just guessing about what else Canon might release.


The G1 HD is said to ship between 1.500 and 1.800 USD. That's at least what the rumours say.

Ehh, with the limitations compared to a full frame or APS-C sensor camera, I'm not too interested at that price. Hopefully the rumored Nikon D400 with HD video will be announced at PMA.

dcloud
02-26-2009, 07:15 PM
the sensor is still bigger than a 2/3"camera. i dont see the limitation except for limited set of lenses

DavidNJ
02-26-2009, 08:16 PM
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/mft_product.html#14-45f35-56

It is micro four thirds...same 18 x 13.5 mm lens but no mirror allowing a thinner camera but no optical viewfinder. The lens is smaller diameter but with more electrical contacts.

For comparison:

1/3 is 4.8 x 3.6mm
1/2 is 6.4 x 4.8mm
2/3 is 11 x 8.8 mm
APS-C is 25.1 x 16.7mm
35mm is 36 x 24mm


Note, the APS-C is larger than four thirds.

HD is 32:18, 35mm and APS-C are 27:18, four thirds, 2/3, 1/2, and 1/3 are 24:18. So, the 35mm and ASP-C lose fewer photo sites shooting HD.

Nektonic
02-26-2009, 08:38 PM
the sensor is still bigger than a 2/3"camera. i dont see the limitation except for limited set of lenses

The lens issue is the main thing I'm thinking about.

Of course, the main issue is whether it will have full manual control and 24p. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

DavidNJ
02-26-2009, 09:01 PM
One other note...the Panasonic 4/3rds lens are so-so, but Olympus and Sigma have some better glass. (see reviews on SLRgear (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1201/cat/14/date/1128024133).

Note that one of the lenses is 25mm thin lens, that is less than 1" thick. Even with an adapter, it is a thin camera.

Another is a 7-14mm (14-28mm 35mm equiv) zoom. There are also 9-18 and 10-20 zoom..and a wide variety of telephotos.

In the end, the lens has to have twice the resolution to create an equivalent image to a 35mm lens. However, if it works for 12Mp still, it should be ok for a 2k HD image, even if it is over 9Mp instead of 12.

Glass prices can be as high as Canon L glass...and the reviews are good.

DavidNJ
02-26-2009, 09:18 PM
I am really beginning to think the important things are glass, recording algorithm/bandwidth (if you can't save it what does capturing it matter?), and a distant third sensor and electronics.

The larger sensor (opposed to different technology) seems to lead to 1) a few f/stops more light, increased DOF control, and probably most importantly, 'better' glass with a lower glass resolution. On a 35mm sensor, the lens needs half the lines/mm for the same resolution.

This is a four thirds lens comparison on CameraLabs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_12-60mm_SWD/images/results/Oly12-60vs25_E420_outcrop4.jpg

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_12-60mm_SWD/images/results/Oly25vs12-60_E420_outcrop4.jpg

update: Olympus has sensor-based IS, Panasonic has optical. As a result, the Olympus lenses don't have image stablization. Also, according to Panasonic, only lenses with contrast AF will autofocus. According to DPreview that is limted to:


• Micro Four Thirds mount lenses
• Four Thirds mount lenses via adapter (DMW-MA1PP)
Autofocus only available with:
- Olympus Zuiko 25 F2.8 'Pancake'
- Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6
- Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6
- Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH
- Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm F3.8-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS
- Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS

dcloud
02-27-2009, 03:21 AM
heres hopeful thinking
panny has always provided manual controls and 24p on most of their consumer cams.
4/3 may not be as big as apsc or dx but its still a step up to consumer cams and smaller sensors.
obviously it cant beat a 5d mkII in sensor. but it does offer versatility and small size for a dslr.
arent panny lenses made by leica? and leica is pretty reputable.

im just being optimistic :)

SPZ
02-27-2009, 03:49 AM
Things to consider:

5d Mark 2 H264 is 30Mbs, what is the G1hd avchd bit rate?

As for the DOF, no worries. I own a panasonic L1 with the bundled leica 2.8, and DOF wise its very close to bigger sensor cameras. I also bought the 1.4 summilux 25mm and DOF is equivalent to a 50 1.4 Nikkor. Also, these 2 lens are excelent lens- up to Leica standard. Anyone interested I can post a couple of stills with these two lenses...

DavidNJ
02-27-2009, 08:04 AM
The micro 4/3rds lens are not branded 'Leica', just Lumix. DPReview, which raved about the G1 sensor and electronics, used an Olympus 50mm lens. Virtually all of the Olympus lenses lose auto focus and all have no image stabilzation, reducing their effectiveness in telephone or high vibration environments.

The 5DM2 is around 40Mb/sec...btw.

Point and shoot Panasonic AVCHD cameras cap at 17Mb/s, and the consumer camcorders at 17 or 21 Mb/s.

Class 6 SDHC should handle 40-45Mb/sec, which probably exceeds 100Mb/s DVCProHD in most cases.

Nearly all the (all?) the digital cameras have no manual adjustments in video mode, and many don't allow zoom or focus adjustments.

Maybe we are now just waiting for a 4/3rds, APS-C, or 35mm sensor in a camcorder with digital camera or a version of digital camera lenses. The XH-1 Canon's do have an EOS lens adapter, however, the small sensor makes that feature somewhat limited. With a 35mm sensor it would be great.

dcloud
02-27-2009, 09:50 AM
regarding the m4/3 lens. im not sure but i know its leica. ive read that somewhere.

i honestly dont care who gets there first on the perfect dslr video bandwagon. my money is on the lumix g hd. i just hope its low light is atleast as good as a dvx100b and less noise. few days till PMA! :)

Kholi
02-27-2009, 10:22 AM
I'm interested! Dunno much about Micro Four-Thirds and all, lenses all sound super slow and lens selection is probably rather drab but if it's cost effective I'll grab one for fun.

Kholi
02-27-2009, 10:24 AM
Things to consider:

5d Mark 2 H264 is 30Mbs, what is the G1hd avchd bit rate?

As for the DOF, no worries. I own a panasonic L1 with the bundled leica 2.8, and DOF wise its very close to bigger sensor cameras. I also bought the 1.4 summilux 25mm and DOF is equivalent to a 50 1.4 Nikkor. Also, these 2 lens are excelent lens- up to Leica standard. Anyone interested I can post a couple of stills with these two lenses...

More about the FOV, not so much the DOF but I get what you're saying. Should be pretty interesting, yeah?

Please post stills. I've no experience with these cameras.

joe 1008
02-27-2009, 02:50 PM
Have in mind that the RED camera has basically an APS sensor. So the G1 has a sensor only slightly smaller than a RED.

IF this camera has manual video and audio controls and there are useful lenses (are there any adapters for APS lenses???) it MIGHT be a no brainer for the price.

DavidNJ
02-27-2009, 03:39 PM
You can use 4/3rds lenses, Olympus has some good ones. However, the conversion to the micro 4/3rds mount loses the auto focus, and Olympus lenses don't have IS (the camera's sensor does).

The two biggest issues are manual, shutter priority, and aperture priority control, focus and zoom adjustment while shooting (the LX3 is locked), and the bit rate on the AVCHD (the Canon is 40Mb/s, the LX3 17, 25 would be ok, 45 would be better).

If the camera is good, good glass will follow and the stock glass is probably as most fix lens camcorders.

DavidNJ
02-27-2009, 08:43 PM
I'm a little disappointed. Imaging-Resource.com has reviewed the Canon 5D Mark II and the Panasonic G1 with their standard lenses. You can to side-by-side comparisons there. I took an section of both and extracted them below, both ISO 100. The Panasonic degrades MUCH more rapidly at higher ISOs.

Right now, the combination of contrast focus, MICRO 4/3rds mounts, and lens optical stabilization means that only the Panasonic lenses (not labeled Leica) will work well.

Panasonic will only have one lens, labeled HD, which will support auto focus in video mode...a 14-140 zoom. They will have a 20mm that is absolutely tiny...the smallest high quality video possible I believe.

While the Panasonic is probably better than any camcorder with a built-in lens, it doesn't look like it will return the dramatic results we have become accustomed to seeing with the Canon 5D Mark II. And even further from one using Zeiss primes.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1235795569.jpg

Jaimebailon
02-27-2009, 11:55 PM
this red flavor will cause much confusion with RED cameras

filmmaker's gang
02-28-2009, 02:11 AM
hey man.. couldn't you link your fancy sources?..



http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1235795569.jpg

and..




This is a four thirds lens comparison on CameraLabs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_12-60mm_SWD/images/results/Oly12-60vs25_E420_outcrop4.jpg

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_12-60mm_SWD/images/results/Oly25vs12-60_E420_outcrop4.jpg

..which is which?

DavidNJ
02-28-2009, 02:24 PM
The little one is a test of the Olympus lens on CameraLabs.com: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_12-60mm_SWD/outdoor_results.shtml.

I am rather disappointed that Panasonic didn't make a better interface to Olympus glass by supporting lens that didn't use contrast auto focus and by using a sensor rather than lens IS like Olympus. The glass limitations are going to be an issue unless someone makes a micro 4/3rds to Nikon F mount.

The big one used image comparisons at Imaging-Resource.com: http://imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM. You will have to go in, select the cameras and the image (in this case ISO100 still life). I knew the lens because that was what was used in the review. DPreview.com is better if you are changing lenses since they always test with high end prime glass. However, they often test with lenses much better than you will use. And in this case, the quality of the Panasonic glass is the main issue.

There are adapters for the regular 4/3rds to just about anything. In an Olympus body, the image stabilization on the sensor lets any telephoto benefit. While there will undoubtedly be sensors to APC-S and 35mm lenses in the future; however the 4/3rds 2x cropping will limit them to standard and telephone lengths.

My guess is that their are minimal sensor and electronics issues. We don't know if Panasonic will use a consumer 17Mb/s, HMC150 25Mb/s, or push the envelope as Canon did with a 40Mb/s or so AVCHD bandwidth.

tbanucci
03-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Released today! Looks awesome:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/panasonics-hd-wonder-lumix-dmc-gh1-gets-previewed/

Can't wait to see the comparisons between this and the 5D!

DavidNJ
03-03-2009, 11:33 AM
Good News:

1) Manual shutter and aperture

2) 2 lenses...standard 14-200 (28-400), optional 7-14 (14-28)

3) Mic input

4) 1080p24 and 720p60 modes

Bad News:

Records at 17Mb/s, MUCH lower than the Canon 5DM2/SX1 40-45Mb/s That is LESS than half the picture information is recorded.

Unanswered questions:

1) Can the gain be manually controlled also? If not the lighting will change during the video.

2) Can the HDMI output capture the video live and uncompressed. The Canon's don't. However, the much smaller data stream makes this a problem here.

Links:

Camera: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/pressrelease/gh1.html#1

WA-Tele Zoom: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/pressrelease/gh1.html#2

Super WA-WA Zoom: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/pressrelease/gh1.html#3

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/pressrelease/img/gh1k_slant.jpg

zeke
03-03-2009, 12:32 PM
Too bad about the 17mbs, 24 would have been killer.

joe 1008
03-03-2009, 12:40 PM
Records at 17Mb/s, MUCH lower than the Canon 5DM2/SX1 40-45Mb/s That is LESS than half the picture information is recorded.

Unanswered questions:

1) Can the gain be manually controlled also? If not the lighting will change during the video. [/IMG]

Ups. I was looking for that. Look meager those 17Mb/s...

I doubt you can control the gain manually, they would have emphasized that. But I'm sure ISO won't change while recording. They really tried to design a serious camcorder - at least in it's class.

personally a bit disappointed that there are only lenses that don't open up much, only to f/4 or f/5.8. That's bad news for DOF and low light. Maybe the adapter for other lenses will resolve that.



But I wonder if the PAL and NTSC capability will be in the same model??? That would be really great! :)

Hunter Hampton
03-03-2009, 01:13 PM
Looks like fun. I wonder when its coming out?

dbwolfe
03-03-2009, 01:21 PM
ok, here's what I want. HPX170 body, AVC-Intra recording to P2, Four Thirds size sensor and lens mount on front. that would be the ultimate compact camera. if you look at these sensor sizes, Four Thirds is just slightly larger than 2/3 B4. maybe they've been planning this all along? Jan?!

you could use all of these lenses:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/SensorSizes.svg

http://www.red.com/images/pages/cameras/technology/formats.jpg

Barry_Green
03-03-2009, 01:40 PM
if you look at these sensor sizes, Four Thirds is just slightly larger than 2/3 B4.
It's actually way, way larger than 2/3. It's about 3x larger than 2/3, and about halfway between Super16 and the Red One's 35mm-sized sensor. Actually, it's probably about the same size as the 3K mode on a Red One. Haven't bothered to run the math but I bet that's about where it'll end up.

dbwolfe
03-03-2009, 01:44 PM
even better. and that sensor size with just 1920x1080 pixels as opposed to 12MP would mean great low light capabilities. c'mon panasonic, do it!

joe 1008
03-03-2009, 01:45 PM
if you look at these sensor sizes, Four Thirds is just slightly larger than 2/3 B4.

Have a closer look on the charts you were posting yourself. Four Thirds is VERY close to the Arri Standard 35mm format.

Said that I second your opinion that now a new breakthrough-camera is possible as it once was the DVX.

They are certainly prepared to counter the Scarlet.

joe 1008
03-03-2009, 01:47 PM
It's actually way, way larger than 2/3. It's about 3x larger than 2/3, and about halfway between Super16 and the Red One's 35mm-sized sensor. Actually, it's probably about the same size as the 3K mode on a Red One.

Or THAT one, hehehe...

Nik Manning
03-03-2009, 01:54 PM
It's actually way, way larger than 2/3. It's about 3x larger than 2/3, and about halfway between Super16 and the Red One's 35mm-sized sensor. Actually, it's probably about the same size as the 3K mode on a Red One. Haven't bothered to run the math but I bet that's about where it'll end up.

Thanks Barry some questions

1. Will the DOF for this camera be shallower than the HPX500?
2. Will the low light performance be better than the HMC150?
3. Will the price be lower than the Canon 5D Mark II?
4. Will the AVC format be the same exact one that is supported by the NLE systems?
5. Will the 1080p24 be actually 24 frames or 23.976?
6. Will the dynamic range be better or equal to HPX500?
7. Can an uncompressed signal be pulled from a hdmi out?

Please answer the best you can. So far I am very impressed by this panasonic move. The datarate should at least best hdv. And I like hdv. :)

Jason Ramsey
03-03-2009, 02:00 PM
1. yes.
2. unknown, but going by sensor size alone, probably
3. unknown, but rumors suggest as much
4. avc-hd.. yes. doubtful that panny would make some proprietary version of avc-hd specifically for this camera that is not compatible with all their other avc-hd cams.
5. don't know
6. don't know.
7. don't know

The data rate is 17mbps, I believe, which, while a lower data rate than hdv, should be of better quality compression b/c we are looking at mpg4 vs. mpg2 compression.

later,
Jason

combatentropy
03-03-2009, 02:22 PM
ok, here's what I want. HPX170 body, AVC-Intra recording to P2, Four Thirds size sensor and lens mount on front. that would be the ultimate compact camera.

I third the motion. I've wanted a camera of that size with at least a 2/3" sensor since the VX2000.

Except not to P2 but to CompactFlash.
And maybe not even AVC-Intra but uncompressed, to CFast.
And not rolling shutter CMOS but global shutter CMOS or CCD.

Nektonic
03-03-2009, 02:23 PM
1080/24p and 720/60p = :) :thumbup:

I have to admit this camera is looking better than I originally thought. The mic input is already a huge issue the D90 had that is already solved here, as well as a dedicated movie mode selection on the mode dial. Add to that a dedicated record button and a flip out LCD screen and Canon and Nikon have some shoes to fill.

Hopefully the lens options will increase by way of an adapter that would allow Canon and Nikon lenses.

I'm fine with the 17mbps AVC-HD for now. This is just a first step. Once they figure out how and when to put this kind of tech into a dedicated pro camcorder body, HPX170 or HMC150 style, then we should see better and more varied codec options.

Now I'm really interested to see what Canon and Nikon have up their sleeves for their next video DSLR offerings. I'd be willing to be that Nikon will have a D400 with 1080p video. Hopefully it won't be crippled though.

Seriously, what else besides basic logistics and materials is keeping Canon from giving us a full frame EOS mount HV20 or GL2 style AVC-HD camcorder? It should be possible very soon, as in the next year-and-a-half. Panasonic and Sony would follow soon after if Canon did it. Maybe Pany and Sony will actually do something like that first?

Barry_Green
03-03-2009, 02:26 PM
Thanks Barry some questions

1. Will the DOF for this camera be shallower than the HPX500?
At equivalent aperture, yes. But if you put an f/1.8 lens on the HPX500 and an f/4 lens on the G1, then no, the HPX500 might still be shallower.


2. Will the low light performance be better than the HMC150?
Don't have any way of knowing.


3. Will the price be lower than the Canon 5D Mark II?
The only price talk I've heard of at all is some panasonic rep saying "under $1500" so, yes, it should be half the cost of the 5D Mk II.


4. Will the AVC format be the same exact one that is supported by the NLE systems?
The picture shows the "AVCHD" logo, so I'm sure that it must be.


5. Will the 1080p24 be actually 24 frames or 23.976?
If it's compliant with AVCHD, it'd have to be 23.976. The only thing we know for sure is that it'll be embedded in a 60i data stream (which will, almost certainly, actually be a 59.94i data stream).


6. Will the dynamic range be better or equal to HPX500?
Don't know; my bet would be on the HPX500 having better but that's just based on pixel size; these are two entirely different technologies so we'll have to see.
7. Can an uncompressed signal be pulled from a hdmi out?

Please answer the best you can. So far I am very impressed by this panasonic move. The datarate should at least best hdv. And I like hdv. :)[/quote]

Barry_Green
03-03-2009, 02:32 PM
Hopefully the lens options will increase by way of an adapter that would allow Canon and Nikon lenses.
Nikon adapter already exists:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/563533-REG/Novoflex_FTNIK_Lens_Mount_Adapter_.html

Canon FD adapter already exists:
http://i.gizmodo.com/5134563/canon-fd-adapter-brings-even-more-classic-lens-compatibility-to-micro-four-thirds-system

Leica M adapter already exists:
http://i.gizmodo.com/5104127/novoflex-adapter-brings-classic-leica-m+mount-lenses-to-micro-four-thirds-system

Barry_Green
03-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Actually, there's a 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter, so if you used that, you could then take advantage of all the lens adapters that already convert to 4/3.

Meaning, said another way, there's lots of lens adapters that convert various lenses to fit 4/3 bodies. And with an adapter you could use all those lenses on a Micro 4/3 body now too. So, yeah, gobs of lenses to choose from. On this page (http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm)they list existing 4/3 adapters for:
Nikon F
Pentax K
Pentax M42
Rollei
Olympus OM
Contax C/Y
Leica R
Minolta MC or MD
Leica Visoflex
Exakta
and Topcon

Nektonic
03-03-2009, 02:44 PM
Actually, there's a 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter, so if you used that, you could then take advantage of all the lens adapters that already convert to 4/3.

Meaning, said another way, there's lots of lens adapters that convert various lenses to fit 4/3 bodies. And with an adapter you could use all those lenses on a Micro 4/3 body now too. So, yeah, gobs of lenses to choose from.

Wow, thanks Barry. This is good to know. I figured that since the 4/3 system was newer that there might not be adapters out. This is huge since many will already have Nikon or Canon lenses. Plus, I have to admit, I wouldn't mind being able to invest in some Nikon lenses yet still be able to use this Panasonic DSLR body for stills and video.

The only major snafu that I can foresee is the rolling shutter jello, which is not the end of the world frankly. The other is the darn 24p imbedded in 60i sillyness. I guess I don't mind as long as there is a quick and painless way to extract the 24p.

I can't wait to see some footage from this thing.

DavidNJ
03-03-2009, 03:58 PM
45Mb/s would have been killer. I've been looking at SX1 and 5D Mark II footage, raw downloaded, and intensity captures, often from inexpensive camcorders.

The amount of data makes a difference. BTW, Cineform is 2-3x the bandwidth of the Canon, which is twice the GH1 and 60-80% more than an HMC150. It probably hurts the HMC150 a bit less (I find HMC150 and HPX170/HVX200 to look similar) because the image is under sampled to native resolution is 960x540 photo sites. However, the Canon 5DM2 and SX1 and the GH-1 are recording oversampled 1080p30, 720p60, or 1080p24.

P.S.
DV, 720x480, has been used to make movies. An SDX900 can create an anamorphic 16x9 DV image that would like fine on a big screen.

Carlos_Nieto
03-03-2009, 04:03 PM
Plus, I have to admit, I wouldn't mind being able to invest in some Nikon lenses yet still be able to use this Panasonic DSLR body for stills and video.


Unless you have a Nikon camera, why would you like to invest in Nikon glass to use with the GH1? Among its Zuikos, Olympus has some of the best lenses ever produced for a DSLR system, as good, if not better, as any Canon or Nikon lens. The 7-14 f4, the 14-35 f2, the 50 f2 macro, the 35-100 f2 or the 150 f2, all of them are suberb examples of Olympus excellence in optical design and all of them (except maybe the 50) are expensive, yes, but you got some lenses, like the 14-54 f2.8-35 that are far good for what they cost. I would say that my 1.200 eur Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 L is no way better than my 500 eur Zuiko Digital 14-54 f2.8-3.5 ASPH.

Besides, you can use Leica M lenses with the Cameraquest adapter... What better than this could anyone desire?

joe 1008
03-03-2009, 04:16 PM
Carlos tell me more about that Olympus 14-35 f2. Por favor! Do you really mean f2.? For a zoom? Aperture and focal length would make it the perfect standard lens for the GH-1.

EDIT: I found it in the web. It really is f2. Amazing. But you have to plug down about 2000 USD. It has NO aperture ring. Would it be compatible with the GH-1 electronics for aperture and AF? Will de GH-1 adapter DMW-MA1 work with it? (it is supposed to work with other Zuiko lenses)

dcloud
03-03-2009, 04:24 PM
I would want to see it sold with a choice kit lens... it could be cheaper.. :)

Nektonic
03-03-2009, 04:51 PM
Unless you have a Nikon camera, why would you like to invest in Nikon glass to use with the GH1?

I could also buy a Nikon body (D300 or if it is true D400). I'm sure all the lenses you mention are great too. I'll take a look at them in more detail since I'm not familiar with them. Thanks for the recommendations.

I'm just thinking that since I've been leaning toward getting a Nikon anyways, it would be nice to be able to use the same lenses. This GH1 has some very nice video features that I can't just dismiss, even though I'm still hoping for a kick a** HD video mode on the rumored D400.

Nik Manning
03-03-2009, 05:01 PM
If this slr is under $1500 and it looks similar to the Canon 5D videos I am sold!

Zack Birlew
03-03-2009, 05:11 PM
At this point, if everyone releases a 1080p 24p VDSLR camera, things are going to get tricky.

Nikon route:

Good
- 24p at 1080p.
- Robust photo capabilities.

Bad
- Only Nikon F mount with some adapters for Pentax and Leica screw mount.
- Full frame or DX? Still up in the air.
- More FPS than 24? Don't know.
- Mic input?
- Sound quality?
- Compression scheme?
- Recording limit?

Canon route:

Good
- 24p and 1080p
- Canon L and FD lenses abound with several adapters, Nikon F in particular, best of both.
- Mic input definitely
- Sound is decent
- Compression is decent
- Full frame all the way
- High megapixel stills

Bad
- Manual controls along with everything? (Still protect video division?)
- Recording limit?

Panasonic route:

Good
- Can use just about every lens possible
- Multiple resolution and frame rate options
- Small and light
- Sound options
- Manual controls
- No limit on record times
- Cheap

Bad
- Compression any good?
- How different is 4/3" filming going to be?
- Lens magnification for non-4/3" lenses

Ian Slessor
03-03-2009, 05:24 PM
If this slr is under $1500 and it looks similar to the Canon 5D videos I am sold!

Yeah. It's kinda got my attention as well. ;)

joe 1008
03-03-2009, 05:28 PM
Carlos tell me more about that Olympus 14-35 f2. Por favor! Do you really mean f2.? For a zoom? Aperture and focal length would make it the perfect standard lens for the GH-1.

EDIT: I found it in the web. It really is f2. Amazing. But you have to plug down about 2000 USD. It has NO aperture ring. Would it be compatible with the GH-1 electronics for aperture and AF? Will de GH-1 adapter DMW-MA1 work with it? (it is supposed to work with other Zuiko lenses)

Quoting myself...:huh: But here's some interesting answer to my question:

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/g1.html

On this official Panasonic list you can find a LOT of lenses compatible with the G1. With manual focus though in most of the cases. (as ist the case with the Zuiko 14-35 f2.)

dcloud
03-03-2009, 06:03 PM
if its not too much to ask panny heres what wouldve been nice
24p 720
24 or higher mbps

can we send em email requests about this? Im sure a lot of people would email panny

Ian-T
03-03-2009, 06:54 PM
I'm already wondering about HDMI out...

Kholi
03-03-2009, 07:04 PM
Aren't there already still examples showing inferior performance to the 5D MKII?

The only save for this is a clean HDMI capture option, but that jacks the price up anyway.

Then again, if it looks better than the D90 it's a great trade-in for me. I'm willing to go this route JUST to use my Contax Zeiss lenses on my DSLR finally.

When's the release date on this thing?

DavidNJ
03-03-2009, 08:25 PM
It would have to try hard NOT to be better than the D90.

How much does good recording count? Compare Canon SX1 to 5D Mark II footage downloaded from vimeo. The SX1 has more texture detail than nearly any uploaded camcorder footage. And the 5D is that much better. However, between the two the thing I see most is lens artifacts. Chromatic aberration captured really well.

5D Mark II: http://vimeo.com/2491190
SX1: http://vimeo.com/3099292

Based on the footage I have seen, recording ability is the baseline that makes the lens, sensor, bayer and low pass filter quality show. Once you have it, it shows.

To emphasize that, there is SR11 and HV20 footage online captured via an Intensity card to Cineform. Stunning.

Canon has shown that you can do over 40Mb/s to an SDHC. Convergent Design stores MPEG2 to Compact Flash at over 100Mb/s.

I imagine the SX1 would give it a run for the money if there is no HDMI output. If there is HDMI output it would probably blow away the 5DM2. If Panasonic increases the bandwidth to Class 6 limits, it would probably be close enough to the Canon to make the difference the skill of the operator or lens selection. IMHO

SPZ
03-03-2009, 08:40 PM
More about the FOV, not so much the DOF but I get what you're saying. Should be pretty interesting, yeah?

Please post stills. I've no experience with these cameras.

Here they are. Sorry for the late reply ! :)

(notice- these photos are not my best work :) )

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3597/1236142419.jpg

This one was taken at the Macau GP, in a hurry.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3597/1236142580.jpg

A simple and effective DOF test with the summilux 1.4 on my Panasonic l1

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3597/1236142815.jpg

This is Macau, my hometown. Panasonic L1 with bundled Leica 2.8 zoom lens

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3597/1236142344.jpg


A candid foto from my travels in China- Panasonic L1 and Bundled Leica 2.8 zoom

DavidNJ
03-03-2009, 08:42 PM
US Site Has GH1 Section with Some Video

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh1/index.html

The video is hammered though to a small size...you could film that with 640x480.

Isaac_Brody
03-03-2009, 10:10 PM
Very interesting. Wish that clip was bigger and better quality but this looks great.

dcloud
03-03-2009, 10:26 PM
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/gh1_movie/movie_e.html it looks fine. I still have my hmc for serious filmmaking. This one works fine. i just wish for 720 24p :(

DavidNJ
03-03-2009, 10:59 PM
I'm not sure why those are great or even 'fine'. The colors look a bit over saturated...the low resolution loses both picture sharpness and all texture detail.

Try these clips for reference:

Canon 5D Mark II: http://vimeo.com/3346724

Canon XL-H1: http://vimeo.com/3292423

Sony PMW-EX1: http://vimeo.com/944552

Isaac_Brody
03-03-2009, 11:08 PM
Great in concept, one more step closer. Think you took my excitement too "literally."

dcloud
03-03-2009, 11:53 PM
by "fine" i mean itll do for me. I have an hmc and I wont exactly rely on gh1 as my money maker. Its a good companion camera that shoots decent still and video with the flexibilities i want.

referencing pro cams that are twice its price range is just plain petty. get a pro cam if you want high quality or wait for the next revolutionary cam

13th Judas
03-04-2009, 04:17 AM
how long does it record video. i mean, does it have a limit like the d90 and 5dm2?

shiny4
03-04-2009, 04:42 AM
WHO KNOW IF this new live mos sensor of gh1 has global shutter or rolling shutter??

joe 1008
03-04-2009, 08:36 AM
Panasonic claims the Live MOS sensor represents the best of the CCD and CMOS worlds.
Though I didn't read any unambiguous claim that there is no rolling shutter, it seems to be likely that the sensor is free of such distortion.

This is what wikipedia writes about that sensor type:

The Live MOS sensor is a brand name of Image sensor used by Leica, Panasonic and Olympus in their Four Thirds System DSLR manufactured since 2006. (Olympus E-330, Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 and Leica Digilux 3).
It is possibly researched and developed by Panasonic. It claimed that it can achieve the same quality as CCD while keeping energy consumption down to CMOS levels.

This is a statement from Olympus on the PMA 2006:

Redesigned Sensor Elements with Greater Photosensitive Surface Area
Photosensitive area accounts for 30% of sensor element surface (comparable to CCDs). The Live MOS Sensor takes advantage of the simplified circuit requirements and thinner layer structure of NMOS type sensors to offer a larger photosensitive surface area. In addition, circuit technology refinements were made to boost light utilisation efficiency and improve image quality.

A new transfer mechanism for photodiode signal readout enabled us to reduce the number of circuit paths to two, the same as in a CCD sensor, and thereby minimise the surface area that is unresponsive to light.

hope that helps a bit

combatentropy
03-04-2009, 09:23 AM
Sounds like by "CCD" quality Panasonic means that its Live MOS has only the CCD's lower noise, due to the greater surface area of the Live MOS's pixels.

Since Panasonic must know that many users are aware of rolling shutter artifacts, then Panasonic would have certainly called it out if they had solved that problem, too. They didn't. So that means when they say "the best of the CCD world," they are lying, because a chip that combined the best of both worlds would have not only the lower noise but also the global shutter.

joe 1008
03-04-2009, 10:16 AM
There are some hints on the web that Live MOS sensors have a global shutter - but nothing clear. Too much chatter and few detalis.

Barry_Green
03-04-2009, 10:37 AM
Someone else posted a video showing someone shooting with it on youtube, and if you watch the LCD screen you can clearly see skewing going on in the fast pans, so -- I feel pretty confident in saying there's no global shutter in this camera.

shiny4
03-04-2009, 10:42 AM
this is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akSvf1uvDXs

joe 1008
03-04-2009, 11:16 AM
Yes, in the pans from second 30 to 40 there seems to be skew. Though there are so many factors to consider (perspective distortion of the LCD due to camera movements, interferences between the LCD and the camera that is shooting at it...) all in all it's very jerky. 80% of rolling shutter probability, I would say - just don't want to give up 20% of hope.

Nik Manning
03-04-2009, 11:45 AM
I am ok with the low datarate but why 24 frames in a 60i stream? This is the only thing I hate about my hv20. Makes me so sad. I use my HV20 for recording mostly web stuff. Youtube HD video. Also some night club performances. I would also like to shoot some profesional photography. This really seems like the slr/camera to replace my HV20. It is like buying a HV20 with a pro camera wrap around it. LOL what a crazy world. Is there away to automatically pull the 24 frames out of the stream? Please let me know. Thanks

zeke
03-04-2009, 12:39 PM
Wow, thanks Barry. This is good to know. I figured that since the 4/3 system was newer that there might not be adapters out. This is huge since many will already have Nikon or Canon lenses. Plus, I have to admit, I wouldn't mind being able to invest in some Nikon lenses yet still be able to use this Panasonic DSLR body for stills and video.

The only major snafu that I can foresee is the rolling shutter jello, which is not the end of the world frankly. The other is the darn 24p imbedded in 60i sillyness. I guess I don't mind as long as there is a quick and painless way to extract the 24p.

I can't wait to see some footage from this thing.

I beleive you can use Cineforms' "Neo Scene" to convert back to 108024p and edit in Cineforms' codec. There are free solutions out there too.

dbwolfe
03-04-2009, 01:06 PM
are we convinced that Final Cut won't remove pulldown on import? my Panasonic HDC-SD9 records AVCHD 1080p24 in a 60i stream (I believe, b/c available recording time doesn't increase when I switch from 1080i60 to 1080p24) and after using log & transfer I end up with 23.98p ProRes files. why would another Panasonic product be any different?

dcloud
03-04-2009, 04:21 PM
i dont see it.. if there is, its not d90 bad. really bad footage to check for skewing.

in d90's case, i saw the skewing the first time nikon released a footage of a guy skateboarding and the camera was zoomed out and was panning slowly.
I also saw a handheld jello test footage of d90. bottomline. d90 jello is too much.

Hunter Hampton
03-04-2009, 04:48 PM
Any news on the release date?

John Caballero
03-04-2009, 06:36 PM
Watching that video and having the D90 and hating its video quality I can say it looks great. If that is the "jello" it produces then "hurrah!" It looks promising. We have to wait and see its output. The D90 footage quality really sucks. Its a good camera to do home videos, like the old Super 8 cameras used to be. Not much else. I am sure Panasonic put some effort into making it look as good as they may want. After all they have a legacy and a business reputation to protect.

Nik Manning
03-04-2009, 07:53 PM
Any news on the release date?

Thinking about switching cameras for your movie. :)

Nektonic
03-04-2009, 07:58 PM
Watching that video and having the D90 and hating its video quality I can say it looks great. If that is the "jello" it produces then "hurrah!" It looks promising.

That is why I'm so excited about any new cameras that push things in this new video DSLR market. While this Panasonic one may not be perfect, it still provides more motivation for Nikon and Canon to give us better quality and controls at an affordable price on their next cameras.

Hunter Hampton
03-04-2009, 08:12 PM
Thinking about switching cameras for your movie. :)

Always! ; )

tomaob
03-05-2009, 08:14 AM
just found this:

http://www.photographybay.com/2009/03/05/panasonic-lumix-gh1-sample-video/

don't know if it was posted before

USLatin
03-05-2009, 09:03 AM
FINALLY someone smart like Panasonic had to be the one to come out with a 1080 DSLR with a swivel screen!! woohoo!! :)

Kholi
03-05-2009, 10:16 AM
Wish this was on the way before the end of this month. THat'd be nice to have going out of town.

Looks like miniscule wobble as well. Big uh oh for the competitors, especially considering you can use whatever glass you want.

USLatin
03-05-2009, 10:23 AM
especially considering you can use whatever glass you want.

Really? I missed that part. How?

Kholi
03-05-2009, 12:00 PM
Any lens is an exaggeration, but many options:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1564867&postcount=43
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1564873&postcount=44

The big one is the Contax for me. My Zeiss lenses would finally find a home on my DSLR system. So they'll be universal for all of my shooting situations finally, including RED.

joe 1008
03-05-2009, 02:30 PM
just found this:

http://www.photographybay.com/2009/03/05/panasonic-lumix-gh1-sample-video/

don't know if it was posted before

Guesswork again, but not much of a rolling shutter until now.

dadoboy
03-05-2009, 02:58 PM
Yes, the crop factor is 2x so you lose a lot.
But what the micro 4/3 specification and this camera specifically allows, is the use of lenses that have shorter flange distances; i.e. Canon FD lenses, Minolta MD, etc. that cannot be used on Canon/Nikon/Sony digital bodies because of their longer flange to focal plane distances.
Whether its worth it to use these old lenses on the G1 is something we'll find out through trial and review.

Kholi
03-05-2009, 06:23 PM
This will probably replace my D90 if it comes in at a great street price. I only wish someone would report on some street dates, etc.

The DSLR Movie mode is progressing rapidly. I certainly didn't expect Panasonic to drop anything nice and only time will tell how good the raw footage looks. But one step closer with manual controls and the rest of it!

Pretty soon we'll have a real SCARLET, only it won't be from RED it looks like.

Edit: By the way, as it stands Canon and Panasonic are positioned to do the most damage with an HPX170/HVX200 or XHA1 (references relative to manufacturer brand) and their native still lens mounts. Someone else in the thread mentioned a 4/3" HPX170... I have to agree. If the Wobble/Skew isn't atrocious then offering a camera body that takes advantage of the existing 4/3 mount as an interchangeable system could really be something awesome. I'd suggest it record to something better than AVCHD... AVC-Intra + P2 perhaps? But then again that doesn't sound like an accurate fit.

Nektonic
03-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Pretty soon we'll have a real SCARLET, only it won't be from RED it looks like.

Edit: By the way, as it stands Canon and Panasonic are positioned to do the most damage with an HPX170/HVX200 or XHA1 (references relative to manufacturer brand) and their native still lens mounts. Someone else in the thread mentioned a 4/3" HPX170... I have to agree. If the Wobble/Skew isn't atrocious then offering a camera body that takes advantage of the existing 4/3 mount as an interchangeable system could really be something awesome. I'd suggest it record to something better than AVCHD... AVC-Intra + P2 perhaps? But then again that doesn't sound like an accurate fit.

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. :beer:

Either a 4/3 HPX170 or HMC150 and an APS-C XH-A1 style camera would be what we need. The video DSLR's are nice, but I think we all really want something in a video/film camera body style. Unfortunately for Canon fans like myself, I don't see them beating Panasonic to the punch on this one since Canon has always sort of lurked in the shadows and waited to see what Panasonic, Sony, and JVC do before they make a move. They might be second though.

I agree about the codec as well. I figure, why not allow the camera to have both a higher end codec/recording medium like P2 as well as an option to also record in AVC-HD on SDHC cards? AVC-Intra would be awesome of course, but I don't see that being put into this price range just yet. Although, with the HPX300 having it at around $10K, maybe I'm being pessimistic about an HPX170-style camera having it.

Kholi
03-05-2009, 06:54 PM
The thing that I've come to realize is that it won't cannablize their professional line-up. Canon doesn't have one to protect and Panasonic's is so high up there, something like this wouldn't really touch it.

It would probably lack the proper manual/automatic controls for a streamlined environment, catering mostly to the same crowd that Scarlet would have: the niche indie/no-budget do-it-yourself filmmaker.

Of course, that means they couldn't really produce en masse like they wanted.

There's a big chance for an outside company to take advantage of this tech as well.

Nektonic
03-05-2009, 07:05 PM
The thing that I've come to realize is that it won't cannablize their professional line-up. Canon doesn't have one to protect and Panasonic's is so high up there, something like this wouldn't really touch it.

It would probably lack the proper manual/automatic controls for a streamlined environment, catering mostly to the same crowd that Scarlet would have: the niche indie/no-budget do-it-yourself filmmaker.

Of course, that means they couldn't really produce en masse like they wanted.

There's a big chance for an outside company to take advantage of this tech as well.

Very good points. I shoot manually all the time anyways, so I say bring it on.

One thing too is that even if a potential buyer, whether they're a filmmaker or not, doesn't care about the DoF control that these sensors and lenses allow they can't really ignore the low light improvement over the standard 1/3 3CCD or 3CMOS cameras that comes with having a single larger sensor and the ISO boosts versus regular old gain.

I do want 35mm DoF without the hassle of an adapter, but the excellent low light capability is almost as, and in some cases, is more important to me. I'll take the DoF though. No arguments there.

As for a non-video camera company taking advantage of this, I say why not Nikon? They have no video camera divisions to protect, consumer, prosumer, or high-end professional.

SPZ
03-05-2009, 07:15 PM
From the newly posted video, it seems there's a rolling shutter (the one from PMA). 17mb/Sec is a very limiting (and obvioulsy market protecting) move by Panasonic. I still think that the still company with the biggest potential to breaktrough is either Nikon, since they don't have to protect anything, or a non conventional maker like Koreans Samsung or LG, or different less considered but very good brands like Sigma (a foveon DSLR with movie capabilities sounds exciting), Pentax, or even Olympus (if this doesn't seriously damage their relationship with Panasonic.)

The biggest contender, of course, and I am obviously still leaning for it, is the Red Scarlet. Just take a look at this photo. The portrayed system, according to our own DVXUSER founder Jarred Land, is self contained:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27080&page=34

I wouldn't mind continuing with my HVX+Brevis flip+ Rails for one more year untill this baby comes out- if it takes that long- unless, of course, a similar value for money offering comes from the competition. As it is, excluding a firmware updated 5dMark II, everything is still way bellow in spec to the Scarlet. For a 10k/12k investment, I'd ratter go this route.

DavidNJ
03-05-2009, 08:13 PM
I think AVC-Intra was a mistake. If they had done the same bandwidth with AVCHD 4:2:2 (100 Mb/s, which can be recorded to a $100 Compact Flash) they would have had a much better image. The interframe stuff allows for a lot more info in most shots. The reason the Canon shows so good, IMHO, is that the 40-45Mb/s AVHCD 4:2:0 records enough info to let the ability of the lens and sensor to show their stuff.

Class 6 can handle 45Mb/s. Unless Panasonic ups the storage bandwidth or makes the HDMI port output uncompressed 4:2:2 video (or both), this camera will probably not match the 25Mb/s HMC 150 or HF S10/100.

combatentropy
03-05-2009, 09:24 PM
I think AVC-Intra was a mistake. If they had done the same bandwidth with AVCHD 4:2:2 (100 Mb/s, which can be recorded to a $100 Compact Flash) they would have had a much better image. The interframe stuff allows for a lot more info in most shots. The reason the Canon shows so good, IMHO, is that the 40-45Mb/s AVHCD 4:2:0 records enough info to let the ability of the lens and sensor to show their stuff.

Class 6 can handle 45Mb/s. Unless Panasonic ups the storage bandwidth or makes the HDMI port output uncompressed 4:2:2 video (or both), this camera will probably not match the 25Mb/s HMC 150 or HF S10/100.

Mind your B's and b's.

MB = 8 Mb

SPZ
03-05-2009, 10:29 PM
I think AVC-Intra was a mistake. If they had done the same bandwidth with AVCHD 4:2:2 (100 Mb/s, which can be recorded to a $100 Compact Flash) they would have had a much better image. The interframe stuff allows for a lot more info in most shots. The reason the Canon shows so good, IMHO, is that the 40-45Mb/s AVHCD 4:2:0 records enough info to let the ability of the lens and sensor to show their stuff.

Class 6 can handle 45Mb/s. Unless Panasonic ups the storage bandwidth or makes the HDMI port output uncompressed 4:2:2 video (or both), this camera will probably not match the 25Mb/s HMC 150 or HF S10/100.

While 100Mb/s is stretching it for SDHC or Compact Flash, IMO, 50Mb/s sounds possible. I don't see anything (excluding, of course, the implementation on the camera of the avc Intra chip) preventing the AVCINtra50 10bit codec to be encoded on an SDHC card.

EDIT- Also, Encoding AVCHD 100Mb/s (if such a thing exists) and AVCINTRA100 would be exactly the same. Its the same 100 Mb/s encoding speed. The only thing that would need to be changed is the encoding chip on the camera.

Nektonic
03-05-2009, 10:44 PM
While 100Mb/s is stretching it for SDHC or Compact Flash, IMO, 50Mb/s sounds possible. I don't see anything (excluding, of course, the implementation on the camera of the avc Intra chip) preventing the AVCINtra50 10bit codec to be encoded on an SDHC card.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

LizaWitz
03-06-2009, 02:59 AM
17mb/Sec is a very limiting

H.264 is a very flexible codec, in fact its not even necessarily fixed bitrate. It can be variable bitrate. I think many people are still hung up on the days when the format was DV and the encoding was "fixed compression" and the bitrate determined quality.

This is not the case anymore. The quality of an H.264 stream is dependant on several factors, including bitrate, but also including the complexity of the encoding being done, the horsepower of the CPU doing the encoding and the time available to he CPU to do that encoding.

The 5D drops much of the sensor information and barely encodes the video and so it needs a massive bitrate to get by--- because it doesn't apparently have the horsepower to encode the video in real time at higher quality, it makes up for it with bitrate.

Its quite possible that the GH1 will encode video at a higher quality than the 5D, even though the bitrate is much lower. Two reasons: Superior input: The GH1, by all accounts, reads the full width of the frame-- a 4k image, and reduces that down to the 1920x1080 video frame. The 5D just drops all that info. So, better input quality. Secondly, the GH1 has a dual core CPU, and probably one of those cores is a dedicated H.264 encoder. I believe the 5D just had video added on late in development as a response to nikon-- its probably encoding in software, and thus relying all on bitrate. Finally, the GH1 has %33 longer time between each frame to do the encoding. That goes directly to the quality bottom line.

It remains to be seen what the GH1 video looks like, but we can't draw many conclusions at all from the 17Mbps bitrate. This isnt' tape.

Frankly, this camera delivers what the scarlet promised-- a 4k camera with interchangeable lenses great for shooting HD. Course, not in raw mode, etc, but its a whole lot cheaper....and it will be shipping in months.

Barry_Green
03-06-2009, 05:37 AM
While 100Mb/s is stretching it for SDHC or Compact Flash, IMO, 50Mb/s sounds possible. I don't see anything (excluding, of course, the implementation on the camera of the avc Intra chip) preventing the AVCINtra50 10bit codec to be encoded on an SDHC card.
Do you guys realize what you're asking? Not even a class 6 card could support AVCIntra @ 50mbps. Class 6 is supposed to support a sustained speed of 6 megabytes per second, or 48 megabits. So even under the absolute perfect conditions at all times, 50mbps still wouldn't be possible. And if it were, it would be on the absolute edge. There would be no margin of error, no room for redundancy, no safety net whatsoever.

Class 6 is the current highest class of performance out there, which guarantees the minimum-write-speed. SDHC cards would have to progress to at least Class 8 before you'd have a remotely rational base for trying to encode a 50mbps data stream on one.

And yes, you'll read all sorts of tests and manufacturer claims about 150x and 300x and whatever, and none of that means anything; the Class rating is a guaranteed minimum write rate. If it can't write at Class 6 speed, it won't be given a Class 6 rating, and Class 6 guarantees 48mbps.

Barry_Green
03-06-2009, 05:43 AM
Frankly, this camera delivers what the scarlet promised-- a 4k camera with interchangeable lenses great for shooting HD. Course, not in raw mode, etc, but its a whole lot cheaper....and it will be shipping in months.
Scarlet doesn't promise 4K in their lower-cost models, they promise 3K. This GH1 doesn't promise 3K, it promises HD (which is nigh unto 2K).

Scarlet claims use of cinema lenses, modular/expandable design, and RedCode wavelet compression at 42 megabits, plus slow motion at up to 150fps, for $3,000. The GH1 claims 1080p and 720p using AVCHD, interchangeable lenses, and a body-only price probably around $1,000. The GH1 will have a sensor about 3x as large as the Scarlet 2/3. You could get a Scarlet with a bigger sensor than the GH1, but those start at $7,000.

Kholi
03-06-2009, 09:11 AM
What's the deal on no release date? It's basically a timestamp on how soon we get to see real footage, not the tradeshow stuff.

I'd be happy to replace my D90 with this...

Isaac_Brody
03-06-2009, 09:32 AM
I saw Summer mentioned for release. Wish it were more specific or even sooner. As we all know, a lot can happen in five months. I'm sure this isn't the only new interchangeable DSLR hybrid coming out this year.

Digigenic
03-06-2009, 09:51 AM
Just for clarification, the new GH1 isn't technically a DSLR right. Since it doesn't have the mirror etc. it's just an ILC (interchangeable lens camera) or at least that's how I'm told Panasonic refers to it.

Sumfun
03-06-2009, 12:24 PM
Do you guys realize what you're asking? Not even a class 6 card could support AVCIntra @ 50mbps. Class 6 is supposed to support a sustained speed of 6 megabytes per second, or 48 megabits. So even under the absolute perfect conditions at all times, 50mbps still wouldn't be possible. And if it were, it would be on the absolute edge. There would be no margin of error, no room for redundancy, no safety net whatsoever.


They can always RAID 2 cards. That would be a nice cheap solution for higher quality video.

jdv
03-06-2009, 01:21 PM
Just for clarification, the new GH1 isn't technically a DSLR right. Since it doesn't have the mirror etc. it's just an ILC (interchangeable lens camera) or at least that's how I'm told Panasonic refers to it.

Yup - nice article on the whole thing on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera

john

joe 1008
03-06-2009, 03:49 PM
One feature that I'm curious about is that aut follow focus. If it works fine and precise, doors open up to a different shooting style: Run & Gun with shallow DOF.

DavidNJ
03-06-2009, 08:08 PM
H.264 is a very flexible codec, in fact its not even necessarily fixed bitrate. It can be variable bitrate. I think many people are still hung up on the days when the format was DV and the encoding was "fixed compression" and the bitrate determined quality.

This is not the case anymore. The quality of an H.264 stream is dependant on several factors, including bitrate, but also including the complexity of the encoding being done, the horsepower of the CPU doing the encoding and the time available to he CPU to do that encoding.

The 5D drops much of the sensor information and barely encodes the video and so it needs a massive bitrate to get by--- because it doesn't apparently have the horsepower to encode the video in real time at higher quality, it makes up for it with bitrate. The only info I've found so far shows CAVLC to be 10% less efficient than CABAC (http://escher.elis.ugent.be/publ/Edocs/PPT/P106_246.pdf)

Its quite possible that the GH1 will encode video at a higher quality than the 5D, even though the bitrate is much lower. Two reasons: Superior input: The GH1, by all accounts, reads the full width of the frame-- a 4k image, and reduces that down to the 1920x1080 video frame. The 5D just drops all that info. So, better input quality. Secondly, the GH1 has a dual core CPU, and probably one of those cores is a dedicated H.264 encoder. I believe the 5D just had video added on late in development as a response to nikon-- its probably encoding in software, and thus relying all on bitrate. Finally, the GH1 has %33 longer time between each frame to do the encoding. That goes directly to the quality bottom line.

It remains to be seen what the GH1 video looks like, but we can't draw many conclusions at all from the 17Mbps bitrate. This isnt' tape.

Frankly, this camera delivers what the scarlet promised-- a 4k camera with interchangeable lenses great for shooting HD. Course, not in raw mode, etc, but its a whole lot cheaper....and it will be shipping in months.

I've seen quite a bit of footage from different cameras, and if the Canon is dropping something...it must be pretty irrelevant. The images have as much picture edge sharpness (low spacial frequency MTF) as any camcorder output I've seen (including SDX900 DVCPro50) and more (much more usually) texture detail (mid-range spacial frequency MTF).

AVCHD specifies this chart:

http://www.avchd-info.org/format/OverviewChart1.GIF

Wikipedia says:


Canon and Panasonic camcorders use High-Profile@Level-4.1, up to the AVCHD format's maximum bitrate of 24 Mbit/s. To date, Sony camcorders have only used Main-Profile@Level-4.0, at a maximum bitrate of 17 Mbit/s. 4.0 specfies a 20Mb/s video data bit rate for Main Profile and 25Mb/s for High Profile. and 4.1 specified a max data rate for video of 50Mb/s for Main Profile and 62.5Mb/s for High Profile.

In both, similar encoding is used. The Canon is clearly display more detail. That extra detail seems to be present, within the limits of the lens and sensor. which are astronomical on the 5DM2 with good glass. However, looking at even insexpensive SR11 and HV20 footage captured through HDMI, tremendous extra detail (at least in picture edge sharpness, the textures still seem a bit hammered which I think is a lens issue). This is further evidence that the storage bit-rate is the limiting factor.

That said, the advanced protocols of AVCHD seem to make a difference. Comparing HMC150 25Mb/s AVCHD to HPX170 DVCProHD, I find the footage remarkably similar. That protocol has 1.75Mb per frame. At 24fps, the AVCHD average 1Mb per frame, however the long GOP makes up the difference. I imagine 720p60 or 1080p30 which would take advantage of the higher 100Mb/s DVCProHD bandwidth would look better in DVCProHD.

My knock on AVCIntra is that I don't see the Intra giving and an advantage over the otherwise identical long GOP version of the otherwise identical protocol. However, the inter-frame protocol would allow more efficient compression, allowing more data to be captured.

If Panasonic is supporting HDMI out on the GH1, it may exceed the 5DM2, IF bit-rate is still the limiting factor. If not, the Canon's superior glass and probably superior sensor (minimally 4x the area) should give it the edge.

LizaWitz
03-07-2009, 12:26 AM
Sorry for even mentioning red. I'd like to see Red be competitive, but looking at their store, a CF module, and one 16GB CF card is $1,000. So, I think I'm not their target market.


I've seen quite a bit of footage from different cameras, and if the Canon is dropping something...it must be pretty irrelevant.

The canon is dropping lines of pixels to quickly get a 1920x1080 frame out of their full frame sensor. They aren't dithering or otherwise downrezing the full frame, they're just dropping the data. This is, at least, what I've read in numerous forums. The result of this is a moire pattern that can appear in footage and be problematic. I don't deny the 5D produces wonderful images-- I'm just saying if the panasonic is making full use of their 4k wide sensor, and not just dropping data to get an HD frame, then that will help them be competitive with the 5D in image quality.


In both, similar encoding is used. The Canon is clearly display more detail.

If you're talking about the 5D vs. the GH1, neither of these statements are valid. The second cannot be claimed until we've seen video from the cameras. The first is simply an assumption on your part. Just because two cameras use an H.264 codec does not mean they are encoding to the same quality level or even with the same methods. H.264 provides a huge array of choices in the way you're going to encode your video, how many frames forward and back you look for similarities, what algorithm you use to compare frames to find similarities, etc. In fact there are so many choices one can make in encoding that I can't keep track of them all.

Here, look at the man page for the x264 open source H.264 encoder. All of these options have an effect on the CPU load necessary to encode a given piece of data, and the quality of the resulting bitstream.
http://www.linuxcertif.com/man/1/x264/


This is further evidence that the storage bit-rate is the limiting factor.

That was a non sequitur. Bitrate is a factor, but that does not mean its the only factor.


If not, the Canon's superior glass and probably superior sensor (minimally 4x the area) should give it the edge.

The first thing the Canon does is throw out %75 of the pixels in the image. Then it compresses the rest, and it does so at a very high bitrate, requiring minimal CPU horsepower. The high bitrate is to compensate for the lack of encoding horsepower on the camera.

Given the GH1 has 33% more time to encode the information, probably doesn't throw out %75 of the pixels, has a duel core CPU, one of which is probably dedicated H.264 encoding hardware, and can use Canons "superior" glass with an adapter, there's no reason to believe, at this point, that the video will be inferior to the 5D.

Just looking at the encoding pipeline, the GH1 should probably deliver about %266 more quality per megabit than the canon, more than making up for the differences in bitrate. (Figuring the dual CPUs give twice the horsepower and the %33 longer time to encode being multiplicative.)

We'll see how good a job Panasonic did here. But you can't judge quality on bitrate alone.

Nik Manning
03-07-2009, 02:27 AM
I honestly think the video quality should be as good as hdv or better but not to the level of the Canon 5D. The compression and lenses and codec are pretty amazing. I think we are asking for to much from the GH1. Canon codec is around 40 Mbit/s but it is 30p so if it was 24 frames it would be around 32 Mbit/s. Still almost having double the bit rate of the GH1. Canon just has a fatter straw period. It seems that if you were ok with hdv and you just wanted some killer dof this is the camera for you. No 35mm adapters. Cheap media and long record times. So nice.

Nik Manning
03-07-2009, 02:39 AM
Hey Barry about 5 months ago you said...

2) it's a lot more efficient. AVC-HD at 8 megabits can about match the picture quality of HDV at 25 megabits. AVC-HD at 24 megabits should be able to match XDCAM-HD at 35 megabits.

Do you feel that way right now? If not what do you think avchd is at compared to hdv now?
Do you think the 17 megabit avchd codec is as good as sony's 35 megabit mpeg2 codec?


Thanks

Barry_Green
03-07-2009, 08:01 AM
According to Sony, 9 megabits of AVCHD matches 25 megabits of HDV. So when I said 8, I might have been a tad optimistic, but not all that much.

I would say that yes, definitely, 17 megabits of AVCHD should match XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX at 35 megabits. Thing is, you can only compare 60i to 60i, becaue AVCHD @ 17mbps is only 60i. EX @ 24p is going to look noticeably better than EX @ 60i, because progressive is inherently so much easier to compress than interlaced.

AVCHD @ 21-24mbps is easily a match for XDCAM-EX at 35mbps.

Ian-T
03-07-2009, 08:16 AM
I honestly think the video quality should be as good as hdv or better but not to the level of the Canon 5D. The compression and lenses and codec are pretty amazing. I think we are asking for to much from the GH1. Canon codec is around 40 Mbit/s but it is 30p so if it was 24 frames it would be around 32 Mbit/s. Still almost having double the bit rate of the GH1. Canon just has a fatter straw period. It seems that if you were ok with hdv and you just wanted some killer dof this is the camera for you. No 35mm adapters. Cheap media and long record times. So nice.I can't agree more. I think this cam's picture should match up perfectly with my HV20. The thing is if I wanted some of this cam's capability on the HV20 I would have to slap on an adapter further degrading the picture. If the codec holds up nicely like I think it will then I believe I would be one satisfied customer.......until Scarlet that is.

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 10:23 AM
I don't think the Canon is throwing out 75% of the pixels. The interpixel gaps would be so huge as to have other artifacts. Also, it would lose its low light advantage, which is clearly not the case.



It does throw away 19% of the pixels, since 16x9 can only use 3159 rows.

Yes, there are different algorithms used in H.264/MPEG4 Part 10. However, when you define it as High Profile Level 4.1 many are specified. I doubt Canon is giving up much of an advantage to Panasonic here, other than CABAC vs. CAVLC.

The down loaded Canon clips I have viewed have had bursts to 45Mb/s, and sometimes sustained periods in the 44Mb/s range. At least according the VLC.

I thought the moire pattern were because of reflections north of the Nyquist limit. Possibly because the optical low pass filter is set for 5600x3700 resolution?

LizaWitz
03-07-2009, 10:27 AM
According to Sony, 9 megabits of AVCHD matches 25 megabits of HDV.

So, H.264 is giving AVCHD a better than 2:1 efficiency advantage over the MPEG-2 video in HDV according to Sony. I'm sure they have a good basis for saying that. As a rule of thumb, 2:1 is the ratio I use, but of course video compression is an art.


I don't think the Canon is throwing out 75% of the pixels. The interpixel gaps would be so huge as to have other artifacts. Also, it would lose its low light advantage, which is clearly not the case.

Dropping every other line horizontally and vertically means removing %75 of the information, but would only leave a single pixel gap between the pixels... this would be the same as producing the same sized sensor, and same sized pixels, but with lower pixel density. If you can find details on the method canon uses to get the 1920x1080 frame, I'd be happy to see it as its possible I'm wrong. I've seen it asserted many times that this is the case and have not seen the contrary, though not from authoritative sources.

The DIGIC 4 image processor used in the 5DmkII is the same one canon uses in its SX1, and is Powershot Line, specifically the G10 and the SX10 which have been out for while. These two cameras both capture H.264 video, however they do so at a maximum resolution of 640x480! The 5D has the same CPU, and thus is woefully underpowered for compressing HD-- a huge step up from 640/30p to 1080/30p. The only way to make it work is to do the bare minimum possible compression and have a very high bitrate. And this is what they did.

This may be the source of the video time limits-- I expect the CPU is overheating. I don't think its unreasonable to believe that people are right when they say the pixels are dropped to downrez-- this CPU is very busy trying to encode H.264 at HD resolutions, and all the other things it needs to do, and resolution reduction would just add to that load.

All of these are reasonable compromises for Canon to make and they still result in good image quality. Panasonic didn't put video in the G1, they waited, and they produced a camera with a new, dual core CPU and a new sensor. They stated their intention to not "make the same mistakes" of other DSLR manufacturers with regard to video. So, they clearly intend to produce a fabulous video image... and they have the advantage of time and focus on video.


Yes, there are different algorithms used in H.264/MPEG4 Part 10. However, when you define it as High Profile Level 4.1 many are specified.

Like most standards, MPEG4 is focused on interoperability, without tying people down to a technology that may become less ideal in the future. Thus these profiles focus on coding of data, not the algorithms used to come up with the data. Sometimes the coding affects algorithm choices (CABAC vs. CAVLC) but often it does not.

The profiles set the way you can store the image data, but they do not determine how much horespower or what methods one uses to come up with that data.

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 10:54 AM
In any system, the limiting factor is bottleneck limiting the others. If the limiting factor is the recording quality, then all the lenses and sensors in the world won't make a difference. One comparison of an HDMI capture vs. AVCHD on an HV20 or SR11 (downloads of both available on vimeo) will show AVCHD does limit ability. HDV much more. I would say slightly less than 2x...maybe a range of 1.5-2x, which is why I don't like the XDCAM EX...I think it is probably the limiting factor on a great camcorder (the EX1/EX3).

Those small camcorders still have limited texture detail...a probably limitation of their sensor size and lens quality.

The 5D has excellent texture detail and picture edge sharpness. That means it was captured by the lens, through low pass and Bayer filters, the sensor, and the recording format. Since it doesn't have a direct HDMI output, we will never be able to compare it directly.

The HMC150 does 25Mb/s and looks comparable (IMHO) to the HPX170. However, while both have good contrast neither blows you away with edge sharpness or texture detail.

So, we know 17Mb/s doesn't cut it from cameras with far inferior optics and sensors. We know whatever Canon does, it works. However, without manual adjustments, and limited frame rate and other choices it is the unsuffixed DVX100.

If the GH-1 could record the image, it may be a suffixed (DVX100a/b or even SDX900) camera, setting new standards.

That Panasonic only posted those very low resolution clips 3 months before projected release date implies that not be the case. And that is very disappointing.

filmmaker's gang
03-07-2009, 11:29 AM
H.264 is a very flexible codec, in fact its not even necessarily fixed bitrate. It can be variable bitrate. I think many people are still hung up on the days when the format was DV and the encoding was "fixed compression" and the bitrate determined quality.

This is not the case anymore. The quality of an H.264 stream is dependant on several factors, including bitrate, but also including the complexity of the encoding being done, the horsepower of the CPU doing the encoding and the time available to he CPU to do that encoding.

The 5D drops much of the sensor information and barely encodes the video and so it needs a massive bitrate to get by--- because it doesn't apparently have the horsepower to encode the video in real time at higher quality, it makes up for it with bitrate.

Its quite possible that the GH1 will encode video at a higher quality than the 5D, even though the bitrate is much lower. Two reasons: Superior input: The GH1, by all accounts, reads the full width of the frame-- a 4k image, and reduces that down to the 1920x1080 video frame. The 5D just drops all that info. So, better input quality. Secondly, the GH1 has a dual core CPU, and probably one of those cores is a dedicated H.264 encoder. I believe the 5D just had video added on late in development as a response to nikon-- its probably encoding in software, and thus relying all on bitrate. Finally, the GH1 has %33 longer time between each frame to do the encoding. That goes directly to the quality bottom line.very well.. how do you know all this?.. your crystal ball?.. or any secret Panny information from inside? lol


It remains to be seen what the GH1 video looks like, but we can't draw many conclusions at all from the 17Mbps bitrate. This isnt' tape.

Frankly, this camera delivers what the scarlet promised-- a 4k camera with interchangeable lenses great for shooting HD. Course, not in raw mode, etc, but its a whole lot cheaper....and it will be shipping in months.where did we hear it?.. :D great 4k camera slogan btw :beer:

Kholi
03-07-2009, 11:36 AM
One feature that I'm curious about is that aut follow focus. If it works fine and precise, doors open up to a different shooting style: Run & Gun with shallow DOF.

... But it's been this way for decades? Real cameras...

filmmaker's gang
03-07-2009, 11:40 AM
Sorry for even mentioning red. I'd like to see Red be competitive, but looking at their store, a CF module, and one 16GB CF card is $1,000. So, I think I'm not their target market.on that you're right. :thumbup:

Kholi
03-07-2009, 11:41 AM
very well.. how do you know all this?.. your crystal ball?.. or any secret Panny information from inside? lol

where did we hear it?.. :D great 4k camera slogan btw :beer:

Yeah I'm wondering who Liza is as well, that info sounds like it's insider source. LoL

Keep it coming, though!

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 11:47 AM
very well.. how do you know all this?.. your crystal ball?.. or any secret Panny information from inside? lol

where did we hear it?.. :D great 4k camera slogan btw :beer:

Why the sarcasm without a substantive contribution. We all know camera manufacturer's have become very secretive of actual measurements.

What we probably need is a way to do end-to-end MTF tests so we can develop this at different apertures or better, different illumination levels.

http://cinema5d.com/download/file.php?id=240

BTW, this link is record with an SR11, but to Cineform 4:2:2 via HDMI. I submit it as evidence that until the recording issue is addressed, the sensor and lens issues are secondary: http://vimeo.com/1082016

joe 1008
03-07-2009, 12:22 PM
... But it's been this way for decades? Real cameras...

Has there been auto follow focus for shallow DOF cameras for decades? Not really. There has been auto focus for small sensor cameras with almost infinite DOF. And more than one of them doing its job pumping around when the object is going to move. Ore the focus jumps to an other object, while the camera is moving.

Now, this is a sistem with face recognition and object recognition that follows the marked object smoothly without getting irritated by other faces, people and objects. That is what it's said to be and if it works fine that would be the end of the job of the focus puller in many situations. (I also could imagine a function where the camera pulls the focus from one marked face to a second marked face in a determinated moment)

If and only IF it works that flawless as they say - it is an amazing tool that provides a lot of control for a singe DP.

Kholi
03-07-2009, 12:45 PM
You don't need auto focus, you just need practice. The intuitive nature of a focus puller will never be replaced by auto focus.

I can pull focus and handle a shoulder mounted RED at the same time... there's no real need for auto focus in a production environment, not even if it's guerilla. There only real return is practice and experience.

filmmaker's gang
03-07-2009, 12:47 PM
Why the sarcasm without a substantive contribution. We all know camera manufacturer's have become very secretive of actual measurements.what sarcasm?.. to each his own.. my contribution here is just.. wondering about a march 2009 junior member who is so condescendent w/ new Panny products but not w/ the superior competition.. hey me said superior competition?.. quite bigger sensor size.. higher bitrate just for beginning.. :D in the meantime.. so focused and well informed about very secretive measurements.. also on the competition side btw ehehehehe

filmmaker's gang
03-07-2009, 01:08 PM
btw part2 and laughs aside.. how did you get these 5d mk2 figures?

" It does throw away 19% of the pixels, since 16x9 can only use 3159 rows. "

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 02:13 PM
That is easy...the sensor is 5616 photo sites wide by 3744 high. However, 16:9 only would use 3159 rows high.

If Panasonic allows full uncompressed output on the HDMI port, it will be dramatic. If it doesn't, the door is wide open for Olympus or Samsung. The Samsung, with an APS-C sensor and the wide selection of high quality lenses, if it output uncompressed 4:2:2 video would probably be very impressive.

Alternatively, Canon is due for new prosumer video cameras. Maybe the XH2 will sport EF mount lenses and a full frame or APS sensor with HD-SDI output and high bandwidth MPEG4 Part 10, maybe even breaking from AVCHD to use maybe High 4:2:2 Profile, which also supports 10-bit color depth.

LizaWitz
03-07-2009, 06:30 PM
very well.. how do you know all this?.. your crystal ball?.. or any secret Panny information from inside? lol

Please be specific about what you think might be insider info, or whatever. I think I've been pretty clear. That the GH1 has a dual core processor was announced by panasonic when they announced it, that the GH1 has %33 more time to encode video is simple to calculate by the relative framerates of 24fps and 30fps.

That bitrate is only one factor in determining the quality of H.264 video is something that I have learned from experience, and delving pretty deep into video software development.



Now, this is a sistem with face recognition and object recognition that follows the marked object smoothly without getting irritated by other faces, people and objects.

As I understand it, reading the marketing site, the auto-focus doesn't follow other objects, but does follow faces in movie mode. In still mode it will track objects. This might be an error in the marketing or for some reason a feature choice, or I might have misread it. But I think for video, face tracking yes, but general object tracking no..... here's the site where I got that impression:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh1/index.html



what sarcasm?.. to each his own.. my contribution here is just.. wondering about a march 2009 junior member who is so condescendent w/ new Panny products but not w/ the superior competition.. hey me said superior competition?.. quite bigger sensor size.. higher bitrate just for beginning.. :D in the meantime.. so focused and well informed about very secretive measurements.. also on the competition side btw ehehehehe

Well, since you take it for granted, without having seen any video, that the 5D is superior to the GH1, there's not much point trying to debate that issue.

I'd be satisfied if you came to understand that bitrate does not determine quality.


One comparison of an HDMI capture vs. AVCHD on an HV20 or SR11 (downloads of both available on vimeo) will show AVCHD does limit ability.

Yes, of course, compression does not produce the same quality image as uncompressed. It would be great if cards had the capacity and cameras had the bandwidth and computers had the storage space to work uncompressed. IF you can get better quality capturing HDMI, then that's great for you. But compression is a fact of life, and on paper the GH1 bests the 5DmkII.


That Panasonic only posted those very low resolution clips 3 months before projected release date implies that not be the case.

That's a non sequitor. The marketing clips are obviously designed for a marketing page and I bet the people who hose the resolution of those clips were web designers rather than even marketing people, let alone those focusing on the enthusiast market.

I hope Panasonic is doing something brilliant like Canon's move of hiring Vincent Laforte to shoot a promo video-- I'd love to see them release some steller footage from a professional to show what the camera is capable of.

But even if we don't, we will know the quality of the cameras footage when it comes, and no sooner.

Barry_Green
03-07-2009, 06:41 PM
So, H.264 is giving AVCHD a better than 2:1 efficiency advantage over the MPEG-2 video in HDV according to Sony. I'm sure they have a good basis for saying that. As a rule of thumb, 2:1 is the ratio I use, but of course video compression is an art.
Depends on the bandwidth. The advantage of AVC over MPEG grows bigger and bigger the smaller you squeeze the bandwidth. So, 4mbps of AVC would probably easily trounce 15mbps of MPEG2, I bet that 4:1 ratio is completely believable. But by the time you juice MPEG-2 up to 25mbps, you'd need 9mbps of AVC, a 2.5:1 ratio. And at 35mbps of MPEG-2, in interlaced, you'd need 17mbps of AVC, for a 2:1 ratio.

When the bandwidth pipe is fat enough, any compression system will perform well enough; so at 400mbps of AVC and 400mbps of MPEG-2, like for like, you probably wouldn't see any difference. But the more you squeeze the pipe down, the more you limit the bandwidth, the more the better compression algorithm is going to shine.

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 06:51 PM
But compression is a fact of life, and on paper the GH1 bests the 5DmkII. Alchemy? One is 17Mb/s, the other over 40Mb/s. The point of showing the HDMI, which is still compressed to around 100Mb/s when recorded, is that the recording is the limiting factor, not the camera. If it was the camera, the 5DM2 would own the GH-1, just as it (and most other full frame cameras) own all 4/3rd and nearly all APC cameras, at least of the same technology generation.

And yes, as the bandwidth increases, compression means less and less.

The 17Mb/s was a limitation from times past...before the existance of Class 6 SDHC or x133 Compact Flash. However, if the HDMI output works like a camcorder and not like a 5DM2.

I posted some SX1 video links. The US$1500 GH-1 would have to beat those from the US$600 SX1; at 17Mb/s I doubt it will. At 45Mb/s it would challenge the 5DM2.

Ian-T
03-07-2009, 07:38 PM
I don't claim to know much about anything....but if I'm understanding what Liz and maybe some others are suggesting then the 45 Mbps on the Canon is not the only factor for IQ. If the camera is throwing away more than half its picture to begin with (by skipping pixels etc.) then it is already limiting itself in terms of what it could actually do if they didn't use this method. It would be like "garbage in-garbage out"....right? Who knows if the picture would still look the same if they outputted @ 17Mbps instead of the 45. But if Panasonic is actually using all of its pixels to make its final image....then at 17 Mbps it can actually rival or even look better than the full frame Canon. Am I correct in thinking this way?

The use of cameras with more than 17Mbps is still brand spanking new. So pretty much most of us know what to expect. For example...one of the cams that was used in the upcoming "Crank2" movie, the HF10, has a superb picture and it only peaks at 17Mbps. There are still cams coming out today that held on to a 17Mbps peak. But when we talk about a cam like this new Panasonic, with its superior sensor compared to the handycams, I think there are some folks up in arms about the data rate used. I wouldn't be surprised if the picture turns out to be the best we've seen from any DSLR (though this cam is not really a DSLR....but that' a whole other discussion I guess).

This is where we all exercise some patience and wait for a suitable demo video. Here's hoping on IQ.

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 08:00 PM
Let's get back to real theory and experimental evidence.

Experimental:



The 5D Mark II produces tremendous contrast and detail in both picture edge sharpness and texture detail. 40-45 Mb/s AVCHD
The SX1 with the same encoding produces very contrast and picture edge sharpness and fair texture detail. 40-45 Mb/s AVCHD
The HMC150 is approximately the same quality as 720p24 HPX170 DVCProHD. 25Mb/s AVCHD with CABAC vs. 40Mb intraframe compression.
Small sensor, cheap lens camcorders see a dramatic improvement in contrast and picture edge sharpness going from 17Mb/s AVCHD to 100Mb/s Cineform. (17Mb/s AVCHD vs. 100Mb/s Cineform).


Theory:



There are different options in encoding that require increased processor power. Canon has recording limitations because their processor can overheat.
Panasonic made specific allowance for increased processing power.
Class 6 SDHC can handle 45Mb/s, there is no technical reason to limit the data stream to 17Mb/s, at least in a $1500 camera.
At increased bandwidths compressing quality is less important.


And finally, my read on the situation:



While Panasonic may use 17Mb/s more effectively than some other camcorders, I doubt it is more than 10-20% advantage and way under an adequate amount.
40Mb/s AVCHD from the Canon seems awfully close to 100Mb/s Cineform form from HDMI from other cameras.
Texture detail appears to be a combination of sensor resolution (only an issue with early camcorders), lens (an issue with most camcorders and small sensor cameras) and recording effectiveness.


For myself, the Canon 5DM2 is the first camera I've seen (and SX1 may be the second) that I didn't think HDMI or HD-SDI capture was critical. While I haven't seen the GH=1 output, I have seen nothing in the specs that leads me to believe its AVCHD will produce the high quality image of increased bandwidth.

The big factor may be does it output uncompressed HDMI during filming.

Kholi
03-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Ian T -- Yeah, I get what Liza is saying as well. It's similar, in thought, to the argument between EX-1's XDCAM Codec and DVCproHD.

Where you're recording a full raster image with the XDCAM Codec @ so and so bitrate, the 4:2:0 is about as similar as the DVCproHD 4:2:2 in the end.

It's not THAT argument, but it's kinda like that.

It'll be really interesting to see some footage from this camera. The 720P file I downloaded from that site wasn't all that impressive but also didn't show much wobble/skew when they were zooming in.

Also still interested in HDMI output. Could be a really killer camera, man.

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 08:59 PM
What footage to download? The short out of focus clip from the show floor?

Kholi
03-07-2009, 09:00 PM
what footage to download?

There was a 720p file on one of those sites to DL. Tradeshow. A slow pan in the room and then a zoom in without focus.

DavidNJ
03-07-2009, 10:33 PM
Not very representative. I am looking for an XDCAM EX comparison with HD-SDI from the same camera. Still looking though.

LizaWitz
03-07-2009, 11:59 PM
We have video! And despite one pre-production bug, I have to say, regarding video:

I'm calling it here first. The GH1 makes the 5D obsolete. In fact, it makes every camera and camcorder on the market right now for under $5,000 obsolete. It produces better image quality than the 5D, it has better DOF than any camcorder, and it has full manual control, unlike the DSLRs. It has interchangeable lenses, unlike the camcorders.

Really the only question was whether it shot great video or not-- and now we know.

NO MORE JELLO CAM! Yes, you can actually pan with the camera! You can move it around and get rock steady video that doesn't look like you're shooting thru a lens made of gelatin! Try that with a 5D mk II!

Ok, enough ranting. Like I said there is a bug evident in the footage, some banding at the end. I believe this is going to be an easy thing to fix.

Focusing test, which includes downloadable footage from the camera:
http://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-micro-43-gh1-and-14-140mm-video-feature-hands-on-–-af-and-manual-mode-tests-0736780/

Hands on Demo-- check at the end of the page for a good description of the camera from the panasonic rep.
http://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-micro-43-dmc-gh1-hands-on-gets-video-intro-0536516/#

I'm pretty happy right now-- I was worried it would have the jello problem. Whew!

LizaWitz
03-08-2009, 12:07 AM
the 45 Mbps on the Canon is not the only factor for IQ.

Absolutely. Mbps is an inexpensive substitute for computing horsepower, especially if you are already using CF cards which have bandwidth to burn.

The final image quality out of any video camera = Sensor IQ * Image Preprossessing IQ * Compression Effort * Bandwidth.

If any of these go near zero, your images suck. IF all of these stay good, your images will rock. If one of them is half of normal, and the other is 2 times normal, you can recover quite a bit, and that is the effect of substituting CPU horsepower for bandwidth, or vise-versa.


(though this cam is not really a DSLR....but that' a whole other discussion I guess).

I kinda like the acronym "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens.


This is where we all exercise some patience and wait for a suitable demo video. Here's hoping on IQ.

My only real worry was whether the sensor had the CMOS rolling shutter issue the DSLRs have exhibited, and from the sample video we now have, its pretty clear that's not the case.

Of course, the good news is, hopefully Panasonic will take this technology and put it in their pro and prosumer camcorders with all the nicer features (and higher bandwidth, etc) that people want..... I don't know how divided the divisions are in that company but I think this could result in some really compelling cinema cameras across all price points for them.

DVX-GH1 anyone?

Park Edwards
03-08-2009, 12:26 AM
first to d/l

Park Edwards
03-08-2009, 12:32 AM
definitely skew, but no JELLO!!!!

DavidNJ
03-08-2009, 01:12 AM
They had one clip converted to 720p24 and less than 2Mb/s. It wasn't anything to write home about.

None of the tests would say 'no jello' since that is an inherit artifact of a rolling shutter. Ditto the skew. I can't even imagine a way to digitally remove it since the part of the image moved and part is obscured that wasn't previously obscured.

A real clip would be as recorded, preferably with the recording info (image size, frame rate, shutter speed, aperture, gain, other settings such has gamma, color correction, and recording speed specified). I would settle for one without it.

So far there is no evidence that there is a magic that makes 17Mb/s better that 40Mb/s.

P.S.
The voice over says you can't change the aperture while recording while the shooter IS changing the aperture.

P.P.S.
If I thought this camera matched a 5DM2 I would literally be first in line.

P.P.P.S.
These are links to SX1 footage:
http://vimeo.com/3077524
http://vimeo.com/2504489
http://vimeo.com/2599995
http://vimeo.com/3213681
http://vimeo.com/3318970
http://vimeo.com/3211876

Most have raw footage downloads.

These are 5DM2:
http://vimeo.com/2790773
http://vimeo.com/3342835
http://vimeo.com/2764088

Note both the edge sharpness and texture detail on the 5DM2, the sharpness on the US$600 SX1. EX1/EX3 footage looks like slightly soft 5DM2 footage.

dcloud
03-08-2009, 01:59 AM
theres skew since it was quite zoomed in. its pretty acceptable if you know what your doing.

LizaWitz
03-08-2009, 03:45 AM
So far there is no evidence that there is a magic that makes 17Mb/s better that 40Mb/s.

Apparently video compression is a technology sufficiently advanced enough to seem like magic to you.

filmmaker's gang
03-08-2009, 06:37 AM
slight personal attacks are useless liza.. even why david seems more knowledgeable on his posts than you on your g1 propaganda.. you're comparing apples to oranges.. a FF35 is beyond an inferior format.. have you ever heard the word glass by any chance?.. it is not bottle of wine.. and please do not mention that thing about adaptors or anyone can conclude you have no idea about the meaning of a lens on a camera.

John Caballero
03-08-2009, 07:08 AM
There are two positives at this time. One, that this latest footage looks very promising. Number two is that if at the end of the day you don't want to buy this camera or any other camera that you believe doesn't suit your needs then move along get something more to your liking and stop criticizing everything that comes our way without real facts and time to analyze them. There will be plenty of people buying and using it. I say thanks Panasonic, I am glad you entered the revolution.

filmmaker's gang
03-08-2009, 09:18 AM
agreed.. ehehehehehe

DavidNJ
03-08-2009, 09:37 AM
Apparently video compression is a technology sufficiently advanced enough to seem like magic to you.

Your claim isn't that it is video compression, but that Panasonic's digital camera division is staffed with geniuses that avoided Canon's digital camera division. A very hard case to make.

Both are implementing slightly different variations of the same flavor: MPEG-4 Part 10 High Profile @ Level 4.1. You are claiming that parameters at on an unseen 17Mb/s stream of that protocol can make it exceed the quality of a 40-45 Mb/s stream (what I've measured on downloaded clips).

A 40-45Mb/s stream that we have seen match 100Mb/s Cineform on a comparison of equivalent camera units (SR11/HV20 vs. SX1). A stream were we have seen game changing results on the 5DM2, with low frequency contrast (picture sharpness) and mid frequency sharpness and resolution (texture detail) previously unseen in any device near its price range.

You don't have any data on the protocol used other than the bit rate. You know they paid attention to the processor power. However, since the Canon can overheat, you don't know if that was for quality or reliablity. You know Panasonic has used CABAC in the HMC150. However you don't know if it was used in this camera and if it was, it is worth at most a 10-20% gain, far less than the bandwidth difference.

The clips released have been few and rather bland. If they thought they had something, why not have a stand to take pictures with it? Casio had UNLV cheerleaders present to show of their high speed (60fps 6Mp still, 210fps video) cameras.

Where would it end up? Well, 17Mb/s, with maybe a slight quality boost over existing 17Mb/s (say equivalent to 21Mb/s, 10-20% less than an HMC150) would make its images roughly equivalent to the XDCAM EX PMW-EX1/EX3 Sonys.

The lenses from Panasonic are probably roughly the quality of the standard Fujinon on the Sony. The bokeh is undoubtly better than the Sony and the picture quality better than the Sony with a 35mm adapter. Better lenses are less expensive than the equivalent Canon lenses for the Sony.

It probably shares the 4GB file size limitation that the Sony doesn't have and we still don't know if allows uncompressed output. If it does, the cost of the Nano XDR will be twice the cost of the camera with two lenses.

allantab
03-08-2009, 10:36 AM
On his blog Prolost, Stu Maschwitz has written a post with a video analyzing skew from the GH1 live mos sensor, from footage originally from SlashGear (originally posted on this thread)

Prolost - GH1 Live MOS Skew (http://prolost.blogspot.com/2009/03/gh1-live-mos-skew.html)

SlashGear - GH1 Hands On Blog Post (http://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-micro-43-gh1-and-14-140mm-video-feature-hands-on-%E2%80%93-af-and-manual-mode-tests-0736780/)
(http://vms.slashgear.tv/video/183.mp4)

acoelho1
03-08-2009, 10:44 AM
I'm calling it here first. The GH1 makes the 5D obsolete. In fact, it makes every camera and camcorder on the market right now for under $5,000 obsolete.

So Panny's business plan is to cannibalize the HMC 150 after just releasing it. Not very likely and I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that it will make the 5D obsolete and don't forget, it takes great stills.

filmmaker's gang
03-08-2009, 11:37 AM
for this quote liza already won her 2009 razzie award.. march 2009 razzie award more exactly.. :D

Kholi
03-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Banding is still an issue, but if the release date is around June then there's a lot that can potentially change by then.

I can understand Liza's excitement, though. The lack of horrible jello effect immediately made me exclaim out loud "nice!". It's there! But it doesn't look like it's 5D bad or even better, Nikon D90 bad. The features on the camera? Nice. We still have a lot to wonder about, as David keeps stating: HDMI?? But, still, it's looking pretty promising.

As far as cannibalizing their camera line, well who knows what will come along. Just last year the idea of an HPX300 was laughable: CMOS from Panasonic? Get a life!

Yeah, well, HPX300 is here. If this technology fits into an HVX/DVX sized body and someone out there is listening, Panasonic or whoever jumps on it could really eat up this niche-in-a-niche market.

Everyone should just calm down, there's a long wait until June!!! Who knows what may be announced and even released by the.

acoelho1
03-08-2009, 12:17 PM
I agree that its too early to make any definitive proclamation about Panny's new offering; however, I think history tells us a lot on how these camera manufacturers operate. Having said that...this year will be very interesting and hopefully Nikon takes a better stab at this niche market.

joe 1008
03-08-2009, 12:42 PM
...as David keeps stating: HDMI??

With only that little feature added you could pimp up a GH1 to a serious Scarlet competitor straight out of the box. A very easy way to go for Panasonic and to sell more numbers of their P2 AVCiNTRA recorder.

DavidNJ
03-08-2009, 01:14 PM
Absolutely...that little feature would make this the killer camera. I would present that live HDMI could put it ahead of the small RED sensors or small SI2K sensor. especially if it matches their dynamic range. It would also put it ahead of the Canon, and be good enough in capture to see the difference between standard, very good, and excellent glass (all those who think Panasonic's fast contrast autofocus 14-140mm zoom standard with camera for $1500 will qualify as great glass for uncompressed capture to Cineform please raise your hands.)

Stock, with a 17Mb/s AVCHD capture it will probably be just a hair behind the PMW-EX1 capturing to XDCAM EX, and may even be ahead in some instances.

With a Canon equivalent capture, it would probably be just a hair or a few behind, depending on the glass used. With equivalent glass, probably very, very close. With HDMI, it would put the hurt on every camera with a smaller sensor.

The prosumer market is already populated by the walking dead. The days of undersampling sensors is come and gone. As has MPEG2 storage (DVCProHD, XDCAM EX, HDV, etc.). The next generation of US$3-5k cameras, probably with announcements at NAB, will probably signal a major shift. If not this year next.

Kholi
03-08-2009, 01:22 PM
Here's to hopin for what David calls "Live" HDMI being present in this GH-1 camera. While he's thinking Cineform, I'm thinking something more mobile like the nanoFlash unit recording to CF Media.

It's not say a "bad" thing, at 1500.00 or less, to have the camera perform like an EX-1 image wise. Especially considering the good you get out of an interchangeable lens system, the flip-out LCD (which looks totally bad-ass, like... my favorite feature ALREADY), the amount of skew present in comparison to ther systems etc.

Here's the good thing: Every time one is released it seems like there's one more step closer to the proper camera. Panasonic gives us Manual Shutter and Aperture, what looks like the opposite of radical skew/jello effects, and the ability to choose your glass with mount adapters.

The next iteration may see Manual ISO selection (That will be really killer), and more of what we want.

David, I notice that you've been on the boards for a while but seemed to have just started posting on the technology. Your knowledge is helpful! Thanks for contributing so much and keeping us up to speed.

DavidNJ
03-08-2009, 02:15 PM
I drift in an out depending on what I'm doing...now I'm buying a camera :).

The nanoFlash XDR is nice and most important portable, but expensive at $3500 and using MPEG2. Still 3x the bandwidth of a similar protocol XDCAM EX. And records I-frames at 160Mb/s.

Blackmagic Designs Intensity to a computer is $250-350 and Cineform is $500-750 (to capture directly). My guess is Cineform will also store a somewhat better image. To make Cineform portable you'd needs a battery powered PCIe to ExpressCard expansion chassis (I only know of a plug in model for $750 and a laptop with two disks and a fast processor...someplace between $1000 and $2000. Not that much different than the nanoFlash XDR. Then, they aren't shipping the nanoFlash XDR.

This is SR11 footage captured via an Intensity card to Cineform:http://images.vimeo.com/71/97/03/71970372/71970372_100x75.jpg (http://vimeo.com/1082016) .

Now imagine that with a bigger, better sensor and much better glass.

Nik Manning
03-08-2009, 03:51 PM
I am buying this cam if it is anything less than $1500. I don't know anything about Panasonic SLR division but if pana has a higher end slr it would make sense for them to add hdmi out and higher compression to that version. I really think panasonic just put a stop on alot of under 5k camera purchases. I was going to buy a scarlet but I don't think I will need it.

So for someone like me who has a hv20 I didn't want to buy a camera that had 1/3 chip. I just didn't want to pay 3k or more for that. So only option was EX1. Great camera but higher priced. I knew I would just wait for the scarlet for that 2/3 chip depth of field. Or any new low cost 2/3 chip cam. Now this GH1

Record to Card
Better than 2/3 chip DOF
Better than HDV compression
interchangeable lenses
cheap recording media
Better Low Light
oh and throw in a G1 SLR

This thing really reads like a wish list not a real camera. If this camera does 4 out of the 7 items from my list I will have to hold off on that Scarlet.

LizaWitz
03-08-2009, 03:52 PM
slight personal attacks are useless liza..

Of course, the above is a personal attack, and dishonest to boot. DavidNJ dishonestly characterized my previous statements as invoking "magic" and I merely pointed out that it was advanced technology.

At any rate, you then continued to do what you criticized me for:

for this quote liza already won her 2009 razzie award.. march 2009 razzie award more exactly.. :D
and

even why david seems more knowledgeable on his posts than you on your g1 propaganda..

I'm not surprised, it seems in any forum where you talk about any non-canon camera, you get a few fanatics telling you the canon is better, and when you hit them with facts they respond with assertion and denigration as you and DavidNJ have here.


Your claim isn't that it is video compression, but that Panasonic's digital camera division is staffed with geniuses that avoided Canon's digital camera division.

Ah, I see you've resorted to outright lying now. Please, show me exactly where I made this claim. If you're going to (again) make a dishonest claim about what I've said, do us all the courtesy of quoting me making that claim. Otherwise people might get the idea a you're just lying to trying and make me look bad

Fact of the matter is that I pointed out that the canon lacks the horsepower to do heavy compression as it uses an older CPU, while the GH1 uses a newer dual-core CPU. I also pointed out that H.264 allows quite a bit of choice in how you compress it and that canon chose to use more bandwith while panasonic chose to use additional cpu to compress the video more highly. Not once did I ever charascterize the engineers at either company as smarter than the other.

Frankly, lacking any facts or argument to make, characterization is YOUR mode of operation, not mine.


A very hard case to make.

Which is why you lied and said I made it. Because you obviously are incapable of responding to the arguments I did make.

Since the facts and arguments I've laid out have not been disputed, and no reasoning has been given for an alternative view, and the opposition is just continuing to repeat assertions already refuted, while getting increasingly into personal attack mode, I can see where this is going. Time for me to rest my case.

Ian-T
03-08-2009, 04:14 PM
Good people...good people....it's only a camera discussion. I think everyone here has something interesting to say so I appreciate all points of view. Let's not get out of hand and just agree on disagreeing. Please...no more pointing fingers.

But I do share you enthusiasm Liza.

LizaWitz
03-08-2009, 05:00 PM
Not sure this is right, but I tried running some DOF calculations. It looks like the GH1 offers shallower DOF than the 5D:

With a 40mm lens, f1.7, and subject distance of 10 feet:
Model: DOF, Range of acceptable sharpness in feet
5D: 1.91, 9.13-11
GH1: 0.95 9.55-10.5

40mm lens, f1.7, subject distance of 4 feet:
5D: 0.3, 3.86 - 4.15
GH1: 0.15, 3.93- 4.08

20mm lens, f1.7, subject of 10 feet:
5D: 8.94, 7.24-16.2
GH1: 3.96, 8.4-12.4

20mm lens, f1.7, subject 4 feet:
5D: 1.24, 3.47-4.71
GH1: 0.61, 3.72-4.33

Calculations from: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

taubkin
03-08-2009, 05:44 PM
Not sure this is right, but I tried running some DOF calculations. It looks like the GH1 offers shallower DOF than the 5D:

With a 40mm lens, f1.7, and subject distance of 10 feet:
Model: DOF, Range of acceptable sharpness in feet
5D: 1.91, 9.13-11
GH1: 0.95 9.55-10.5

40mm lens, f1.7, subject distance of 4 feet:
5D: 0.3, 3.86 - 4.15
GH1: 0.15, 3.93- 4.08

20mm lens, f1.7, subject of 10 feet:
5D: 8.94, 7.24-16.2
GH1: 3.96, 8.4-12.4

20mm lens, f1.7, subject 4 feet:
5D: 1.24, 3.47-4.71
GH1: 0.61, 3.72-4.33

Calculations from: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

That doesn't seem sensible. That's because the GH-1 is sharper than the MK II?

Isaac_Brody
03-08-2009, 06:38 PM
No more personal attacks please. If you can't play nice find another thread.

Park Edwards
03-08-2009, 07:05 PM
i'm ready come june. if the gh1 isn't up my standards, just return it and go back to the d90. simple as pie.

DavidNJ
03-08-2009, 07:35 PM
I can't imagine how the GH-1 couldn't be infinitely better than the Nikon D90.

What do you think of this clip: file:///C:/Users/David/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpghttp://ts.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/387/398/3873985_100.jpg (http://vimeo.com/3528689)

Park Edwards
03-08-2009, 08:18 PM
do you own or messed with one?

DavidNJ
03-08-2009, 09:23 PM
SX1 or GH-1? Neither...although I have been chatting with people who have it and looking at lots of clips. When I started I was looking at the EX3, EX1, HPX170, HMC150. Looking harder, none are interesting any longer.

However, the SX1 probably sets the low end of what should be considered acceptable. '

I have another GH-1 question: is it limited to 4GB FAT32 files or does it have a mechansim for continuous recording?

Kholi
03-08-2009, 09:38 PM
Good question, David. Event shooting still shouldn't be an issue if it's FAT32 Limited anyway because of the expense. However, it would still be nice to be able to record for extended amounts of time.

What other questions need to be answered?

I can agree with you on the HPX170-slash-prosumer line-up just not really cutting it for personal tastes anymore. Although I have a very hard time dealing with my HPX170, there are still several people that love the image and aren't as picky as us. They will continue to keep business, I won't be getting rid of my 35mm Adapter Rig by ANY means.

However, I can see myself having two to three of these VDSLR/EVIL's in my own arsenal, of the same brand preferably. So bad-ass the concept of low-profile acquisition with A-Grade results.

I just really hope the AVCHD @ 17mbps can really hold up to scrutiny. For some reason, with specs already published, I don't see any changes being made to the 1080i/60i 24P Capture nor the Bitrate... =T Surprises maybe?

Park Edwards
03-08-2009, 11:42 PM
SX1 or GH-1? Neither...although I have been chatting with people who have it and looking at lots of clips. When I started I was looking at the EX3, EX1, HPX170, HMC150. Looking harder, none are interesting any longer.

However, the SX1 probably sets the low end of what should be considered acceptable. '

I have another GH-1 question: is it limited to 4GB FAT32 files or does it have a mechansim for continuous recording?

i read "could" instead of coulnd't be.

LizaWitz
03-09-2009, 01:56 AM
That doesn't seem sensible. That's because the GH-1 is sharper than the MK II?

Dunno, but thats what I get when I plug in the numbers.


I have another GH-1 question: is it limited to 4GB FAT32 files or does it have a mechansim for continuous recording?

Recording time is "until the card's full" but, I figure it does like other cards and when it hits the 4GB filesize limite of FAT, it continues in another clip.

Oh, and why are we still dealing with the poor FAT filesystem? I remember in the 1990s there were several filesystems designed specifically for the needs of FLASH, which were open sourced. Too bad the flash manufacturers didn't have the guts to get together and standardize on a decent filesystem-- by now Apple and Microsoft would have adopted it (and if it was one of the open standard, Linux would already have it too.) Instead, for SCXC, they go with ..... FAT again. UGH.


I don't see any changes being made to the 1080i/60i 24P Capture nor the Bitrate... =T Surprises maybe?

Its 1080/24p or 720/60p in AVCHD or 720/30p in MJPEG. No interlaced option, thank god.

Barry_Green
03-09-2009, 04:07 AM
Not accurate. The canon has a bigger
Sensor. You wouldn't use the same lens on both. They would have different FOV. The canon will always have shallower DOF.

Not sure this is right, but I tried running some DOF calculations. It looks like the GH1 offers shallower DOF than the 5D:

With a 40mm lens, f1.7, and subject distance of 10 feet:
Model: DOF, Range of acceptable sharpness in feet
5D: 1.91, 9.13-11
GH1: 0.95 9.55-10.5

40mm lens, f1.7, subject distance of 4 feet:
5D: 0.3, 3.86 - 4.15
GH1: 0.15, 3.93- 4.08

20mm lens, f1.7, subject of 10 feet:
5D: 8.94, 7.24-16.2
GH1: 3.96, 8.4-12.4

20mm lens, f1.7, subject 4 feet:
5D: 1.24, 3.47-4.71
GH1: 0.61, 3.72-4.33

Calculations from: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Ian-T
03-09-2009, 05:03 AM
Its 1080/24p or 720/60p in AVCHD or 720/30p in MJPEG. No interlaced option, thank god.
I don't believe this is accurate either. According to specs the cam captures 24p in a 60i container. So I believe there is pulldown added. The 60p options are fully progressive though. (720p).

Emanuel
03-09-2009, 07:42 AM
It does seem there are some mistakes and half trues which should be enlightened in behalf of the facts.


I don't think the Canon is throwing out 75% of the pixels. The interpixel gaps would be so huge as to have other artifacts. Also, it would lose its low light advantage, which is clearly not the case.



It does throw away 19% of the pixels, since 16x9 can only use 3159 rows.
The point is: when using (in the 5D Mark II's movie mode) every pixel on every third row -- AFAIK it ain't skipping every 2nd pixel (horizontal and vertical) but sampling only one out of 3 pixels (horizontal not vertical), the resolution drops to 1/3rd. Being the full resolution (sensor) in movie mode (before downsizing to 1920x1080) 5.9MP instead.

More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

But the sensor size for DOF is still the FF35mm (36x24 mm). Therefore, the noticeable problems with aliasing or moiré pattern -- avoidable with filters during shooting or even decreasing sharpness, not so easy in post production though.

The differences ain't only reported to DOF. Here is something where you can easily understand the tech limitations of an acquisition device in any way other than as 35mm sensor size. Even though you have no noise reduction on high ISO going with the 5D Mark II in movie mode. Anyway, do not try above ISO 1600 (example below) or so. Or you shall not have a good surprise at all.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9481/1231359766.jpg

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9481/1231359089.jpg

Courtesy by By John Mahoney

On the other hand, here is another example which can help to figure out what does mean an interlaced encoding for progressive recording:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8854/hf11hummerpa2.jpg

Interlaced encoding can be a problem for the progressive modes, as it is possible to follow with the article brought by Adam Wilt:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_canon_vixia_hf11_avchd_camcorder/P1/

Emanuel
03-09-2009, 07:47 AM
As conclusion, I'd easily admit that Canon has found a perfect balance or match between a higher bitrate and the necessary resolution in order to supply that well-known outcome we're used to check it out there.

DavidNJ
03-09-2009, 07:50 AM
It is precisely the Nyquist theorems that have me questioning that. Do you have a source for your information on the the 5DM2 sample size?

There should be a low pass optical filter to reduce noise reflected above the Nyquist limit. That filter would be set to work with the sensors full 78 lp/mm sensor resolution. Reducing it by half would imply no optical filter at all. Wouldn't it?

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236610900.jpg

joe 1008
03-09-2009, 01:24 PM
The nanoFlash XDR is nice and most important portable, but expensive at $3500 and using MPEG2. Still 3x the bandwidth of a similar protocol XDCAM EX. And records I-frames at 160Mb/s.

Blackmagic Designs Intensity to a computer is $250-350 and Cineform is $500-750 (to capture directly). My guess is Cineform will also store a somewhat better image. To make Cineform portable you'd needs a battery powered PCIe to ExpressCard expansion chassis (I only know of a plug in model for $750 and a laptop with two disks and a fast processor...someplace between $1000 and $2000. Not that much different than the nanoFlash XDR. Then, they aren't shipping the nanoFlash XDR.

David, any thoughts about the Panasonic AG-HPG20 recorder? Should have a streetprice of about 4.500USD and is playing more or less in the same league like the nanoFlash - providing a probably even better codec.

Though at first sight it looks absurd to stack such an expensive unit to a 1.500 USD camcorder it's still in the EX1/EX3 range pricewise - even counting with a cage or some rails to keep it all together.

DavidNJ
03-09-2009, 03:01 PM
Let me start by saying this is getting beyond my actual experience.

Some groundwork:



AVC-Intra 50:

nominally 50 Mbit/s
CABAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CABAC) entropy coding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_coding) only.
1920x1080 formats are High 10 Intra Profile, Level 4
1280x720 formats are High 10 Intra Profile, Level 3.2
4:2:0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:2:0) chrominance sampling
frames are horizontally scaled by 3/4 (1920x1080 is scaled to 1440x1080. 1280x720 is scaled to 960x720)


AVC-Intra 100:

nominally 100 Mbit/s
CAVLC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAVLC) entropy coding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_coding) only.
All formats are High 4:2:2 Intra Profile, Level 4.1
4:2:2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:2:2) chrominance sampling
frames are not scaled



So, that compares MPEG-2 GOP at 100Mb/s or MPEG-2 I-frame only at 160Mb/s against MPEG-4 I-frame at 100Mb/s. At those bandwidths it isn't clear to me which would have the advantage.

The Panasonic is slightly more expensive but with probably better vendor support. Neither supports HDMI (the nanoFlash XDR does) so you would need a HDMI to HD-SDI convertor assuming the GH-1 output HDMI (fingers crossed).

Now, you could setup up a laptop to record a blackmagic card via magma expressbox, however you would need a battery power source to use it remotely. The cost would be less than $3k including the laptop.

joe 1008
03-09-2009, 03:58 PM
I didn't consider that you need a converter. Thank you for that advise. But there seem to be compact solutions for a few hundred dollars. Though I would probably loose the compact form factor of the system. (one point for the NanoFlash)

One advantage of the AVCIntra codec is the 10bit encoding compared to 8bit of the NanoFlash. But would a possible HDMI of the GH1 output suport 10 bit? I suddenly got my doubts, did some research and found out that the HV20 has an 8 bit output and the EX1 gives full 10 bit.

So we don't only have to wait IF there is a HDMI output but also if it's 8 bit or 10 bit.

DavidNJ
03-09-2009, 04:05 PM
There also the mapping of the signal...David Taylor's Cineform blog talks about some issue they dealt with.

One advantage of the PC solution is recording to Cineform 10-bit 4:2:2. The advantage of 10-bit storage of an 8-bit signal is for accuracy in editing. Is 2/3 1, 0.7, or 0.67?

joe 1008
03-09-2009, 04:43 PM
The advantage of 10-bit storage of an 8-bit signal is for accuracy in editing. Is 2/3 1, 0.7, or 0.67?

Sorry, didn't understand this. 8 bit means 256 gradations for a color, 10 bit resolves 1024 gradations or about four times more information. This will give you much more lleway in post, don't expect any banding at all.

But one point that is very important for ME at least is to keep it simple AND compact. That rules out a laptop solution. Probably the NanoFlash would be the most compact and relyable quality solution? - after all I've learned for now...

DavidNJ
03-09-2009, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNJ http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1570738#post1570738)
The advantage of 10-bit storage of an 8-bit signal is for accuracy in editing. Is 2/3 1, 0.7, or 0.67?

Sorry, didn't understand this. 8 bit means 256 gradations for a color

In 8-bits the value is "2". In processing--color correction, transitions, etc.--the software divides the value by 3. In a base 10 analogy, with the same 8-places of precision the value could be 0 or 1. With one more digit the value could be 0.6 or 0.7. With two more values of precision it could be 0.66 or 0.67. In the end, this will yield fewer artifacts.

Sort of like the rounding error in Superman IV or Office Space.

combatentropy
03-09-2009, 06:59 PM
10-bit log is far better than 8-bit linear, and even 12- or 14-bit linear. Because it is logarithmic, not linear, the shades are evenly distributed among f-stops. Meanwhile, linear analog-to-digital encoding wastes an enormous amount of bandwidth in the upper zones.

For more information read Human Vision and Tonal Levels (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html#Human_vision), by Norman Koren.

DavidNJ
03-10-2009, 12:18 PM
Update on the 5DM2 missed pixel issue.

Here is the evidence:



To record everything, the camera would have to process 18Mp/frame x 30 frames/sec or 540Mp/s. People in the know say that isn't possible. For still images, the 1DsM3 does 5 21Mp frames/sec, or 105Mb/s.
There is a vertical moire pattern in some 5DM2 footage. Here is an example where the raw footage can be downloaded: http://www.vimeo.com/2738955. That would be an example of reduced vertical resolution. Notice it in the roof of the house.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236715066.jpg

The consensus seemed to be that the Canon process every third row for 6Mp/frame or 180 Mp/s. That is probably within what most seem to think is a reasonable bandwidth. The Moire pattern results in having a low-pass optical filter for 78 lp/mm while delivering 1/3rd that. Basically, the optical filter passes everything vertically.

Further evidence how good the recording must be.

For comparison, the GH-1 can process 3 12Mp frames/sec in burst mode, or 36Mp/s. Casio's high speed Exlim can record 60 6Mp frames sec or 360 Mp/s. So the 210Mp/s seems possible.


How does this affect the Panaonic? The GH-1 has a 12.1 Mp 4000x3000 sensor. for 16:9 that would be 4000x2250. For 1080p24 that would be 9Mb/frame x 24 frames/sec, or 216 Mp/s or slightly more than what users are guessing the 5DM2 is doing.

However, what about 720p60 mode? That would have to be 540Mp/s, which everyone thinks is rather unrealistic. Does it use a 2560x1440 section of the frame in the center of the sensor? That would be 221Mb/s however it wouldn't work with the optics. The resulting 11mm wide sensor would have no wide angle at all and stills taken during shooting wouldn't match.

If they dropped every third row (to maintain the bayer pattern) it would be subject to the same moire pattern as the Canon.

However, until it was pointed out I hadn't noticed the moire pattern in an clips and still find it to be fairly rare (really, only the clips someone pointed it out it).

Emanuel
03-10-2009, 12:28 PM
I am glad the link may have been useful. It does seem indeed you have the right skills in order to proceed with your findings. :dankk2: for sharing.

Kholi
03-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Update on the 5DM2 missed pixel issue.

Here is the evidence:



To record everything, the camera would have to process 18Mp/frame x 30 frames/sec or 540Mp/s. People in the know say that isn't possible. For still images, the 1DsM3 does 5 21Mp frames/sec, or 105Mb/s.
There is a vertical moire pattern in some 5DM2 footage. Here is an example where the raw footage can be downloaded: http://www.vimeo.com/2738955. That would be an example of reduced vertical resolution. Notice it in the roof of the house.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236715066.jpg

The consensus seemed to be that the Canon process every third row for 6Mp/frame or 180 Mp/s. That is probably within what most seem to think is a reasonable bandwidth. The Moire pattern results in having a low-pass optical filter for 78 lp/mm while delivering 1/3rd that. Basically, the optical filter passes everything vertically.

Further evidence how good the recording must be.

For comparison, the GH-1 can process 3 12Mp frames/sec in burst mode, or 36Mp/s. Casio's high speed Exlim can record 60 6Mp frames sec or 360 Mp/s. So the 210Mp/s seems possible.


How does this affect the Panaonic? The GH-1 has a 12.1 Mp 4000x3000 sensor. for 16:9 that would be 4000x2250. For 1080p24 that would be 9Mb/frame x 24 frames/sec, or 216 Mp/s or slightly more than what users are guessing the 5DM2 is doing.

However, what about 720p60 mode? That would have to be 540Mp/s, which everyone thinks is rather unrealistic. Does it use a 2560x1440 section of the frame in the center of the sensor? That would be 221Mb/s however it wouldn't work with the optics. The resulting 11mm wide sensor would have no wide angle at all and stills taken during shooting wouldn't match.

If they dropped every third row (to maintain the bayer pattern) it would be subject to the same moire pattern as the Canon.

However, until it was pointed out I hadn't noticed the moire pattern in an clips and still find it to be fairly rare (really, only the clips someone pointed it out it).

David, are you saying that Liza's information was correct on how the MKII gets its video in the end or is it the opposite?

Trying to make sense of this post altogether. Forgive my ignorance.

DavidNJ
03-10-2009, 01:25 PM
Some know a lot more...

More info


The Venus Engine HD also supports an extensive range of functions, including HDMI output.That may be the answer to another VERY important question.

And


http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/g1/img/high_image/05_img05.gif

The OIS has a panning mode. Well at least on the G1 lens. The GH-1 isn't specific.


The Venus Engine HD incorporates
two CPUs. This not only boosts image
processing speed, it also helps achieve an
exceptional noise-reduction performance.
Also, the two CPUs of the Venus Engine
HD allow long-time movie recording in
AVCHD while maintaining low power consumption.


another new technology makes it possible to read 4 channels of data simultaneously, which allows the DMC-GH1 to deliver Full-time Live View images at 60 frames per second, while faithfully reproducing high-resolution images with fine detail and rich gradation.

Taken together the sensor allows 4 channels to be read at once. The two CPUs allow 'low power consumption'. The Canon's overheating problem may come from running the processor at a fast speed (power, which implies heat dissipation, increases linearly with processor speed and as the square of voltage).

The high required bandwidth may be the result of multiple parallel processing streams...540Mp/s?

P.S.
A three sensor 1080p camera (Sony EX1/EX3, Panasonic HPX300) would process 2Mp/frame * 30 frames/sec * 3 sensors = 180Mb/sec.

Kholi
03-10-2009, 01:31 PM
What do you mean? LoL. I don't care who was right or wrong, the information is astounding on both ends and keeps me interested. I ask because Liza also mentioned that the GH1 may really shine at 17mbps because it doesn't scale like the Canon does. So if the info presented by Liza is right, that gives me even more hope for this camera.

The OIS panning mode may be why we don't see a lot of jello. But if it's a lens feature and not a camera feature then those of us planning to use other lenses will get just as much jello as before.

HDMI output: please oh gahd please. Seriously, this is getting exciting!

DavidNJ
03-10-2009, 02:00 PM
David, are you saying that Liza's information was correct on how the MKII gets its video in the end or is it the opposite?

Trying to make sense of this post altogether. Forgive my ignorance.


Lisa may have been correct concept but not in detail. The information isn't definitive, however, this is the source information that would have supported the proposition. Note, the detail is different. They hypothesis among users who encountered it is that it is scanning 5616x1080, alternating every third row.

The GH-1 sensor has about half the number of pixels (in 16x9 mode), so it is starting closer. And p24 drops that to 40%. 720p60 would bring the total right where the Canon would be if every photo site was scanned. So some questions remain.


Note, ABC, Fox, ESPN all broadcast 720p60, do consider it lower quality than CBS, NBC, or HBO?

Ian-T
03-10-2009, 03:13 PM
David, I have not watched the video since yesterday but from what I remember I did not notice the skew while he was in 60p mode.....only in 24p. Do you think what you said here has anything to do with that? Or was I just seeing things?


The GH-1 sensor has about half the number of pixels (in 16x9 mode), so it is starting closer. And p24 drops that to 40%. 720p60 would bring the total right where the Canon would be if every photo site was scanned.

DavidNJ
03-10-2009, 03:15 PM
Not sure...which video...however, the hypothesis is that it would occur on 720p60 and not 1080p24. From a capture standpoint, one is reading the sensor 2.5x the other.

Emanuel
03-10-2009, 03:54 PM
They hypothesis among users who encountered it is that it is scanning 5616x1080, alternating every third row.As said, it does seem so.

drubynum
03-10-2009, 04:00 PM
From a user at RedUser:

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=381541&postcount=24

Panasonic DMC-GH1 has HDMI output.

You can use an optional mini HDMI cable to output the motion images you took from the DMC-GH1 directly to the Matrox MX02 connected to Intel-based MacBook Pros and Mac Pros for captures to a variety of codecs – Apple ProRes 422 HQ, 10-bit uncompressed HD, and many more.
http://www.gefen.com/kvm/dproduct.jsp?prod_id=4318

Emanuel
03-10-2009, 04:57 PM
David, are you saying that Liza's information was correct on how the MKII gets its video in the end or is it the opposite?

Trying to make sense of this post altogether.


What do you mean? LoL. I don't care who was right or wrong, the information is astounding on both ends and keeps me interested. I ask because Liza also mentioned that the GH1 may really shine at 17mbps because it doesn't scale like the Canon does. So if the info presented by Liza is right, that gives me even more hope for this camera.
Lisa may have been correct concept but not in detail. The information isn't definitive, however, this is the source information that would have supported the proposition. Note, the detail is different. They hypothesis among users who encountered it is that it is scanning 5616x1080, alternating every third row.The 75% are not accurate. Not exactly the same as the DOF information -- where it is quite the opposite, actually. But close. On those 75%, they become 66% as matter of fact. What it doesn't mean any prevail of a 2x smaller sensor size, whether in terms of depth of field or even whether light sensitivity. Oddly or maybe not so oddly, the quality is not only measured in pixels. The case of its size. In small formats, the more pixels the smaller they are, with no absence of compromisses. And for instance, as we all know, bringing the inevitable noise or not necessarily more than another level of difficulty layers of sensitive response. The case of L lens(es) of large image circle already referred is not effectively non-sense at all, as well. As any real 35mm shooter can notice and knows it very well. Or yet, if not, why so much interest on fast lenses then after all?

In two words, everything is resumed to 'size' and 'light'. Both count. Quality doesn't necessarily mean number.

Boz
03-10-2009, 05:00 PM
This is disconcerting and a bit disheartening on multiple levels...

http://exposureroom.com/members/DVC.aspx/assets/38c5fbace36a4263b4d4fc21fafc341c/

First off, there's the statement "shot with 1/60th second (slowest possible) shutter" which sucks because 1/48 is the film standard. Also... well the video speaks for itself. While not massive, the "jello" is definitely there. :(

Emanuel
03-10-2009, 05:14 PM
(...)

Quality doesn't necessarily mean number.The current POV under attack (under half bitrate, that is, 17Mbps) can be defensible. But it offers not less for its opposite.

DavidNJ
03-10-2009, 06:25 PM
A couple of things...

1) Pixels are not a good indication of picture quality. There is quite a few SD video work that would be better than much HD. What you are interested in is contrast often measured as MTF. At low frequencies it is displays picture edge sharpness and where the in camera sharpening affects damage the picture. In mid frequencies it adds texture. HD lets you capture that texture (usually lost in SD) IF the lens and in camera processing can deal with it. Small sensor, small lens HD cameras rarely have much in the way of texture. Many first generation HD systems also lacked texture. The new systems have more. The 5DM2 has tons of texture. Really high resolution, near the Nyquist limit is useful for aerial reconnaissance.


http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236734808.jpg

2) DOF depends on the aperture, size of the sensor, and focal length of the lens...whether it has 10,000 photo sites or 10 billion. This is a good explanation: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm


3) Low light sensitivity is a function of the amount of signal captured. That is a fuction of photo cell design and quality and its area. The high count is often better because the inter photo site gaps are smaller.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/CanonEOS-02.jpg

4) Noise, is a function of the quality of the electronic processing. The sensor and the subsequent processing. Obviously, the signal to the sensor, the light, is affected by the glass, the Bayer filter, the microlens, etc. The A/D conversion has to read an electrical signal from the sensor and convert it to a digital value. Gain means it is reading a very small signal for the complete dynamic range and expanding it. Now consistancy between each sensor and the circuits reading their voltage or current levels because the issue. Since small sensors have small cells it makes it harder. The GH-1 has twice the pixel density as the 5D Mark II, so the photo site to photo site varition may be larger. However, although good (and very expensive) 35mm glass is available, often APC and presumably similar sized 4/3rds glass often has less distortion. Overall, the 4/3rds at similar resolution may be close overall.

John Caballero
03-10-2009, 07:34 PM
While not massive, the "jello" is definitely there.

Well, if that it is the "jello" it produces then again HURAH!

Emanuel
03-10-2009, 07:45 PM
A couple of things...

1) Pixels are not a good indication of picture quality. There is quite a few SD video work that would be better than much HD. What you are interested in is contrast often measured as MTF. At low frequencies it is displays picture edge sharpness and where the in camera sharpening affects damage the picture. In mid frequencies it adds texture. HD lets you capture that texture (usually lost in SD) IF the lens and in camera processing can deal with it. Small sensor, small lens HD cameras rarely have much in the way of texture. Many first generation HD systems also lacked texture. The new systems have more. The 5DM2 has tons of texture. Really high resolution (...)Can't agree more. Your 2nd part justifies the reason of the counterculture of a 1st assessment politically incorrect.


2) DOF depends on the aperture, size of the sensor, and focal length of the lens...whether it has 10,000 photo sites or 10 billion. This is a good explanation: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htmAs quoted, size where sensor and lens may shine. Therefore, the larger, the more number of 'layers' aka quality of bokeh. Up to a certain kind of limit or balance. It's often to listen from ACs: «the Vistavision (circa FF35mm format) is cruel».


3) Low light sensitivity is a function of the amount of signal captured. That is a fuction of photo cell design and quality and its area. The high count is often better because the inter photo site gaps are smaller.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/CanonEOS-02.jpg

4) Noise, is a function of the quality of the electronic processing. The sensor and the subsequent processing. Obviously, the signal to the sensor, the light, is affected by the glass, the Bayer filter, the microlens, etc. The A/D conversion has to read an electrical signal from the sensor and convert it to a digital value. Gain means it is reading a very small signal for the complete dynamic range and expanding it. Now consistancy between each sensor and the circuits reading their voltage or current levels because the issue. Since small sensors have small cells it makes it harder. The GH-1 has twice the pixel density as the 5D Mark II, so the photo site to photo site varition may be larger. However, although good (and very expensive) 35mm glass is available, often APC and presumably similar sized 4/3rds glass often has less distortion. Overall, the 4/3rds at similar resolution may be close overall.The 35mm lenses will equal in distortion available with their sweet centre. However, there's less surface, more pixels for fighting there for less light available per each. Again there's a balance. In your finest example (5D vs. 5D Mark II), there was territory for exploring. But the sweet limit is close to be beaten. Such as it has occurred with the small formats more than ever, 1st than with any larger format -- 2nd round. The time has come. Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape, for example, has disadvised the new Nikon D3x. Reason? Why pay twice what you can have for mid-price? The 3.5MP don't worth the (slight) difference, in his opinion. We can compare apples to apples but we should not do with oranges. Or lemons.

IMHO, a small format is convenient for reasons of portability and handheld acquisition where others do not dare to enter, DOF for docs, guerilla style or 3D/stereoscope production for instance. Otherwise, it smells less than cinematic. I doubt GH1 may surpass it. Will do comparing with others.



EDIT -- I am not so enthusiastic with the new industry standard as Bruckheimer. Aesthetic reasons. But I will produce a 3D feature next year. :-)

DavidNJ
03-10-2009, 07:46 PM
Fuji has had an octagonal sensor for years that increases the effective sensor area.


http://www.hanimex.com/img/products/digital/a610/super_ccd_img.gif

LizaWitz
03-11-2009, 12:44 AM
Back when I was in hardware engineering, prototypes would run at a reduced clock rate while we worked out problems. I don't know if the pre-production models Panasonic were showing at PMA are doing this (a possible cause of the banding) or if they are running full stop. If they are running at a reduced speed, that could well mean that the skew in the final products is going to be less than we are seeing.

I was hoping for no skew, and I'm concerned about the skew we're seeing, but it looks like it will be manageable.

Regarding the video pipeline, David's confirmed what I was saying. The %75 figure came from assuming the canon was using every other line instead of every third line. IF you throw out half the lines vertically and half the lines horizontally you are reducing the pixel count by %75. Since its every third line, if that's in both directions the reduction is greater. However it may not be in both directions, and it may be more complex than that (Eg: they have some flexibility given how large their sensor is in MP.) But I guess every third line could work, that just seemed high to me.

On the GH1 it seems reasonable that quad read channels from the sensor and dual CPUS allows the GH1 to have higher bandwidth, and these numbers indicate the bandwidth expectations are not that high. Lets hope Panasonic has tried to take a no-compromises approach with this design.

joe 1008
03-11-2009, 08:04 AM
Lets hope Panasonic has tried to take a no-compromises approach with this design.

The GH 1 is basically a video camera developed on the G1 platform. Almost all the differences it has compared to the G1 are meant to produce good video. It is NOT a DSLR or an EVIL camera with an additional video function. Said this I'm very optimistic they did the best job they could to create a functional video camera with high image quality.

DavidNJ
03-11-2009, 08:36 AM
It is still the consumer photo division vs. the pro video department. They did somethings but there are lots of things we look for on a video camera (zebra, color matching adjustments, knee control, black stretch, headphone jack with output control, etc.) that aren't there.

The key is the quality...that is what gave interest to the D90 and made the 5DM2 a paradigm changing event. People live with lots of aggravation to use a 5DM2; their result is an average image that often makes the best EX1/EX3 image look like a mundane.

Hopefully the GH-1 (with HDMI output and manual controls) will let us equal or exceed the 5DM2. However, two years from now it will also be obsolete.

LizaWitz
03-11-2009, 09:37 AM
things we look for on a video camera (zebra, color matching adjustments, knee control, black stretch, headphone jack with output control, etc.) that aren't there.

All excellent choices for features to leave out of this camera and charge a premium for in the "pro" video line. There is, though, an AV jack on the camera next to the HDMI port, it's possible that some third party adapter could be hooked up to it to provide Audio monitoring with level control--- if this AV output is active while shooting.

I'm just hoping that this camera will be successful enough that in 2 years when its obsolete the replacement will be in the mFT system, so that I can preserve much of my investment by buying a replacement camera body for around $600.

To that end, maybe the real question is which platform has the best chance of succes-- this one, the Samsung NX or maybe a new one from Nikon or Canon.

I think whatever it is, it will be EVIL, but maybe that's my prejudice for portability showing thru.

dadoboy
03-11-2009, 10:17 AM
It's funny that this little camera has generated far more interest than Panny's new HDC consumer 3 MOS HDC cameras. If that translates into sales figures, I'm sure they'll get the hint that customers want bigger chips for better DOF control.

Canon will probably announce a new Rebel with video in late spring or summer, so I would hold your horses on buying lenses since the the G1 HD won't be out until June anyways.

This would just a personal use camera for me, as previously mentioned, lack of zebras, HD SDI, TC and image controls would be a no no for professional uses.

filmmaker's gang
03-11-2009, 01:34 PM
Regarding the video pipeline, David's confirmed what I was saying.nothing personal 'mam but the %75 figure has been denied step by step..


Since its every third line, if that's in both directions the reduction is greater. but it is not.. please stand corrected.. "the reduction would be greater" not "is greater".. capice? :)

Gordon Prince
03-11-2009, 02:20 PM
I think it is mere hype. Have a glance on this Emanuel's post:


It does seem there are some mistakes and half trues which should be enlightened in behalf of the facts.

The point is: when using (in the 5D Mark II's movie mode) every pixel on every third row -- AFAIK it ain't skipping every 2nd pixel (horizontal and vertical) but sampling only one out of 3 pixels (horizontal not vertical), the resolution drops to 1/3rd. Being the full resolution (sensor) in movie mode (before downsizing to 1920x1080) 5.9MP instead.

More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

But the sensor size for DOF is still the FF35mm (36x24 mm). Therefore, the noticeable problems with aliasing or moiré pattern -- avoidable with filters during shooting or even decreasing sharpness, not so easy in post production though.

The differences ain't only reported to DOF. Here is something where you can easily understand the tech limitations of an acquisition device in any way other than as 35mm sensor size. Even though you have no noise reduction on high ISO going with the 5D Mark II in movie mode. Anyway, do not try above ISO 1600 (example below) or so. Or you shall not have a good surprise at all.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9481/1231359766.jpg

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9481/1231359089.jpg

Courtesy by By John Mahoney

On the other hand, here is another example which can help to figure out what does mean an interlaced encoding for progressive recording:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8854/hf11hummerpa2.jpg

Interlaced encoding can be a problem for the progressive modes, as it is possible to follow with the article brought by Adam Wilt:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_canon_vixia_hf11_avchd_camcorder/P1/


Is that interlaced coding a good thing? I don't think you want it.

Nektonic
03-11-2009, 04:20 PM
Canon will probably announce a new Rebel with video in late spring or summer, so I would hold your horses on buying lenses since the the G1 HD won't be out until June anyways.

This would just a personal use camera for me, as previously mentioned, lack of zebras, HD SDI, TC and image controls would be a no no for professional uses.

That's why I'm still gonna wait until late summer at the earliest to pull the trigger on a VDSLR purchase. I just rented Transporter 3 on Blu-ray last night. On the disc was the Crank 2 trailer, which is all XH-A1 and HG10 footage. It looked freaking excellent. I'm feeling much better about my decision to hang on to my A1 and seeing how this VDSLR stuff and the Scarlet develops over the next 4-6 months.

DavidNJ
03-11-2009, 04:40 PM
The trouble with the A1 is the only way to get good video off it is to capture the component output. The camera and lens are much better than HDV.

I don't know where Canon will end up. A Rebel doesn't make me shake in my boots. However, Sony (Konica/Minolta) is do for a new camera and they are the ones racing Panasonic in the pro-video market. They are looking for a came changer...and we know Canon is scrambling with the 5DM2.

However, the Canon SX1 and SX200 share the 5DM2's high bandwidth recording (1080p30 at 40-45Mb/s for the SX1, 720p30 at 25Mb/s for the SX200). For $600 and $350 list respectively, either will probably best your A1.

Nektonic
03-11-2009, 05:18 PM
However, the Canon SX1 and SX200 share the 5DM2's high bandwidth recording (1080p30 at 40-45Mb/s for the SX1, 720p30 at 25Mb/s for the SX200). For $600 and $350 list respectively, either will probably best your A1.

You may be right, and I know that HDV is getting a little long in the tooth. The thing is will they have the other things like full manual control, zebras, custom picture settings, XLR audio, and a more filmmaker and videographer friendly design?

All I'm saying is that the way things are starting to develop, I don't want to constantly be spending the money on a new camera over the next 6 months to keep up with this sudden VDSLR growth spurt. I want to see how some of these cameras compare to each other and see what the pros and cons are between each model.

For the web, Blu-ray, and DVD distributions of short film projects, I'll be fine to just wait and see how things pan out over the summer.

I am excited by this new movement with camera technology, and want to eventually move to an interchangeable lens system with a larger sensor for excellent low light ability and DoF control.

Its going to be an interesting summer for sure.

DavidNJ
03-11-2009, 05:53 PM
The D90 was interesting, the 5DM2 is shattering. So people forgo some of the other features to use it. There is nothing preventing anyone from making a professional video camera based on hybrid large sensor internals. However, Panasonic is just getting the HPX300 out the door, and Sony has the EX1/3 established.

Will they eat their young? NAB is next month.

LizaWitz
03-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Nektonic-

Well, you can wait for 6-9 months and see what shakes out. I think that this will be the chance for every manufacturer whose serious about filmmaking at this level, to announce a camera to compete with the GH1. I think their choices will tell us a lot about the future.

I think Samsung will really be telling us a lot with their first camera (which is supposed to have video). I think Nikon and Canon will continue to have video be a sideshow to the main purpose for their cameras. And I think every camcorder manufacturer who has a separate 35mm lens line should come out with a camcorder with a large sensor that takes their 35mm lenses, or they are going to signal that they are asleep at the wheel.

Based on how all that shakes out, you can pick a lens system that you like. Don't worry about the cameras-- figure out the lens system that is best, and then every two years you change the camera body but you keep your investment in lenses.

I think that's the real paradigm shift that the GH1 brings to the table. They are doing it with an adeuqate lens system, but not one with any longetivity, but at the same time, them and the Samsung NX will be able to use any 35mm glass out there with an adapter (and manual focusing.)

So, if you don't need a camera now, wait 6-9 months and it will probably be evident which lenses you should start buying.

Emanuel
03-11-2009, 10:18 PM
However, the Canon SX1 and SX200 share the 5DM2's high bandwidth recording (1080p30 at 40-45Mb/s for the SX1, 720p30 at 25Mb/s for the SX200).This is not accurate. The Canon SX1 has half of 5D Mark II bitrate: 17Mbps.

With no mention of its lower rez (10MP) and smaller sensor size (1/2.3"). It is a compact, actually. A different bird.


Hopefully the GH-1 (with HDMI output and manual controls) will let us equal or exceed the 5DM2. However, two years from now it will also be obsolete.A smaller sensor can only try to close a larger one when DOF or sensitivity or even latitude are not playing. Even though, it is precisely here, through latitude (aside pixel density*) where it is possible put a mask on at least a little bit.

A 35mm setup of top lenses shall bring a value add-on, difficult to match. An adaptor will just magnify 1.5x, 2x whatever, what a large sensor is ready to offer @wide end by itself.


* PS -- I mean, on the edge of a balanced pixel density which IMO and many others it has no room for significant expansion in any way other than as additional losses instead, particularly in terms of lowlight range. Therefore, a good timing for a digital acquisition device purchase. Further improvements will be minimal as far as pixel density concerns. Unless towards larger sensors which does seem to be the option of the eldest Canon or a new player such as RED or now Panasonic that has just followed the criteria.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm


EDIT -- That 17Mbps bitrate is not correct but it has been updated by David's info already added. I obviously stand the remaining.

Isaac_Brody
03-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Based on how all that shakes out, you can pick a lens system that you like. Don't worry about the cameras-- figure out the lens system that is best, and then every two years you change the camera body but you keep your investment in lenses.

This is pretty much how I'm approaching things. At the moment your body choices are between the Canon 5DII and the GH1. Keeping your lenses and updating the body (brain) would be ideal in the next couple years...

Park Edwards
03-11-2009, 10:41 PM
I went nikon lens. That's why I'll sell my d90 and go gh1. Eventually I'll sell the gh1 or keep it then go onto something better, but the gh1 will probably suffice for a while. It's price range is going to be hard to beat. I bet the success of the gh1 will only bring a gh2 and have a bigger sensor and better features overall at the same price point the gh1 is now.

DavidNJ
03-11-2009, 11:25 PM
First, the SX1 has the same output rate as the 5DM2, go look at a file. The detail shows it also.

Second...sensor size is only one factor. A small sensor can have the same latitude as a large sensor...a Fuji EXP sensor probably has more latitude then either camera. (it is a little Genesis like in its processing).

While there is a DOF difference, in practice with video it won't be that earth shattering. If you really want a lot of bokeh, yes. However, with video, that short a DOF can be a problem also.

The micro 4/3rds, or as Lisa likes to say mFT has wide adaptability to lenses because of the rangefinder like short distance to the sensor; a result of no mirror assembly. There are already Canon and I believe Nikon mFT adapters. And of course 4/3rds and Leica M adapters.

The real issue with pixel density is the lens resolution. A look at Canon's lens specs shows MTF curves for 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm. Panasonic publishes a 20lp/mm and not directly comparable 40lp/mm (60lp/mm would be comparable). The Canon's sensors have about 78 lp/mm, the GH-1 closer to 125lp/mm. A compact camera with a 12Mp sensor can have over 400lp/mm. A 1/3" 1080p sensor has about 200lp/mm.

Emanuel
03-12-2009, 02:28 AM
First, the SX1 has the same output rate as the 5DM2, go look at a file. The detail shows it also. It does seem it's my turn now to ask you for your information source? Google it and it is a mess. I had checked it out straight after its announcement and, as matter of fact, it had been announced with 17Mbps as bitrate. Now, both informations concur. Yours?


Second...sensor size is only one factor. A small sensor can have the same latitude as a large sensor...a Fuji EXP sensor probably has more latitude then either camera. (it is a little Genesis like in its processing).Right. Please, give a 2nd chance for a 2nd read over my quote:

«Even though, it is precisely here, through latitude (...) where it is possible put a mask on at least a little bit.»

The latitude factor will apply only when and if associated to other variables.


While there is a DOF difference, in practice with video it won't be that earth shattering. If you really want a lot of bokeh, yes. However, with video, that short a DOF can be a problem also.http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=163339&page=20

It does really shatter, believe me. :-)


The micro 4/3rds, or as Lisa likes to say mFT has wide adaptability to lenses because of the rangefinder like short distance to the sensor; a result of no mirror assembly. There are already Canon and I believe Nikon mFT adapters. And of course 4/3rds and Leica M adapters.

The real issue with pixel density is the lens resolution. A look at Canon's lens specs shows MTF curves for 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm. Panasonic publishes a 20lp/mm and not directly comparable 40lp/mm (60lp/mm would be comparable). The Canon's sensors have about 78 lp/mm, the GH-1 closer to 125lp/mm. A compact camera with a 12Mp sensor can have over 400lp/mm. A 1/3" 1080p sensor has about 200lp/mm.Well-seen. But you're actually mentioning the point. You need glass surface in order to resolve the resolution. Otherwise, you'll have less space for handling the task in the same purpose. But you'll never have the same bokeh. When I began my career in 1990, I gave up the video towards the film stock 'cause of that.

On the adapter solution, the interface just magnifies it, it is always a poor solution. Effective but good bye wide end. With L lenses, for instance, or similar glass, sure. The Leica f/4 offer is too slow for a serious approach to certain kind of outcome (once again, it's f/4 not in the 35mm format).

But with confirmation concerning the bitrate, I'd rather think to buy a SX1 40Mbps instead. At least, as family cam. :laugh:

Emanuel
03-12-2009, 02:34 AM
Here's another interesting example on these differences where size matters:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX1_IS/noise.shtml

daveswan
03-12-2009, 02:38 AM
Focal Reducer?
Just thinking, with the unobstructed throat of the m4/3, would it be possible to engineer a focal length reduser? Obviously you couldn't do this with a true SLR, since the glass would obstruct the mirror.
I do know such devices are available for telescopes, and it would solve a load of problems with using other marque's lenses on the m4/3 system.
Anyone with real optical knowlage / experiance care to comment?
Dave

DavidNJ
03-12-2009, 12:24 PM
Focal Reducer?
Just thinking, with the unobstructed throat of the m4/3, would it be possible to engineer a focal length reduser? Obviously you couldn't do this with a true SLR, since the glass would obstruct the mirror.
I do know such devices are available for telescopes, and it would solve a load of problems with using other marque's lenses on the m4/3 system.
Anyone with real optical knowlage / experiance care to comment?
Dave


Interesting point. With 35mm glass, you could move significantly closer to the glass, sort of the opposite of a tele-converter. Maybe as much as half the distance, restoring the glass to its original 35mm equivalent. However, the adapter may make that difficult.

Emmanuel, I noticed you referenced the CameraLabs review. That review has actual footage on vimeo that you can download and this quote, emphasis mine:


The files themselves additionally consume memory at a rate of knots (well, at around 5 Megabytes per second anyway), and once you get them onto your computer you may experience issues with smooth playback and editing. The simple fact is HD video encoded using H.264 at high bit rates presents a challenge for even the latest computers, and there’s few editing tools available that don’t involve significant delays or an intermediate conversion stage – we have dedicated threads about H.264 editing solutions and the PowerShot SX1 IS itself in the Cameralabs forums which contain a number of suggestionsThe Canon USA site says:

Time of Recordable Movies Full HD 1,920 x 1,080 30 fps Movie size (KB/sec.) 5,296 2GB 6 min. 07 sec. 8GB 24 min. 30 sec.

Both the number, 5.3Mb/s, and the storage requirements are 40+Mb/s.

The defense rests. In a typical tv show/movie, this is where everyone in the gallery stands up and cheers. :)

USLatin
03-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Hey guys, I am sorry but 22 pages is a lot and I have one simple question that I am sure was already asked here. Are there Nikon and Canon adapters like the one for OM lenses?

Isaac_Brody
03-12-2009, 02:17 PM
Hey guys, I am sorry but 22 pages is a lot and I have one simple question that I am sure was already asked here. Are there Nikon and Canon adapters like the one for OM lenses?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1564867&postcount=43

Barry_Green
03-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Yes, there's adapters for just about every lens mount.

USLatin
03-12-2009, 02:31 PM
Thank you Issac and Barry.

This little camera might prove too irresistible. Aside from all the other impressive specs and so forth, did I mention I love the swivel screen? :D

DavidNJ
03-12-2009, 02:51 PM
Hold it...the Nikon adapter is for a 4/3rd not a micro 4/3rds. The Canon is in Japanese. Of these only Leica M is readily available...now.

However, with the GH-1 and future Olympus micro 4/3rds cameras, the others should become available.

Which brings up daveswan's issue, what cropping factor will the 35mm adapters support?

Barry_Green
03-12-2009, 02:53 PM
There's adapters from 4/3 to Micro 4/3, so if you use that then any lens adapter becomes a possibility.

DavidNJ
03-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Just an aside, the questions exists will the Matrox MXO2 be available for the PC. The MXO2 provides HD-SDI, HDMI, XLR inputs and outputs to a express34 or PCIe card. It apparently supports any codec you have; now with only Mac support, ProRes422 is an obvious choice. However, if it is available on a PC I would think Cineform 10-bit 4:2:2 is a good selection.

Anyway...I asked on their forum about its availability and was told:


Hi David and thank you for your interest in Matrox products. We don't have any immediate plans for a new Windows version of the MXO2 product. However, please consult with our website for any new product announcements we might have in the near future. I followed up if that meant it would be a good idea to consult around next month's NAB 2009. The response:


The Matrox video editing division hasn't released new press releases regarding product driver updates or announcements for PC or Mac.
From now till NAB is a great time frame to check the Matrox website for official announcements.

At $1600 it is a lot more expensive than a Black Magic Intensity card and a little more than a Decklink HD Extreme card, it includes a laptop interface and is battery powered...making it equivalent to a home built Intensity/Magma expansion chassis/home battery configuration that would cost just about the same.

If the GH-1 only supports a low bandwidth AVCHD and has a live HDMI port, one of these combos may be essential.

For comparison, the new HPX300 uses 100Mb/s I-frame only 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC and the EX1/EX3 uses 35Mb/s MPEG2 4:2:0.

NAB announcments are unknown, however I would expect a HVX/HPX170/HMC150 sized unit with AVCIntra 100 and a Canon offering, possibly with Sony's XDCAM, possibly with high bandwidth AVCHD such as the Canon still camera, or maybe both.

Park Edwards
03-12-2009, 07:33 PM
posted this on the other thread. this'll get you your nikon lens on the gh1. you can choose from fotodiox or the other guy who's been making them for the g1 for a long time now. he's also in the works on making a nikon direct to g1/gh1 so no need for the 4/3rd to m4/3rd adapter.


http://shop.ebay.com/items/?_nkw=panasonic+dmw-ma1&_sacat=0&_fromfsb=&_trksid=m270.l1313&_odkw=micro+4%2F3rd&_osacat=0

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-to-Olympus-4-3-system-lens-adapter-E1-E200-E300_W0QQitemZ220371249600QQihZ012QQcategoryZ30059 QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1713.m153.l1262

http://cgi.ebay.com/nikon-lens-adapter-to-Olympus-4-3-E510-E410-E-500-E-330_W0QQitemZ110325620691QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30059Q QcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1713.m153.l1262

USLatin
03-12-2009, 07:44 PM
Wait, so you need a Nikon or Canon to Olympus adapter + the OM to 4/3 adapter? Wouldn't that have an effect on the image? Like vignetting? (or something else)

Park Edwards
03-12-2009, 08:00 PM
You'll need a micro 4/3rd to 4/3rd adapter then a Nikon to 4/3rd adapter. No, no effect on the image. People have been using this for the G1 for a long time now.

Mike Schell
03-12-2009, 08:29 PM
I drift in an out depending on what I'm doing...now I'm buying a camera :).

The nanoFlash XDR is nice and most important portable, but expensive at $3500 and using MPEG2. Still 3x the bandwidth of a similar protocol XDCAM EX. And records I-frames at 160Mb/s.

Blackmagic Designs Intensity to a computer is $250-350 and Cineform is $500-750 (to capture directly). My guess is Cineform will also store a somewhat better image. To make Cineform portable you'd needs a battery powered PCIe to ExpressCard expansion chassis (I only know of a plug in model for $750 and a laptop with two disks and a fast processor...someplace between $1000 and $2000. Not that much different than the nanoFlash XDR. Then, they aren't shipping the nanoFlash XDR.

This is SR11 footage captured via an Intensity card to Cineform:http://images.vimeo.com/71/97/03/71970372/71970372_100x75.jpg (http://vimeo.com/1082016) .

Now imagine that with a bigger, better sensor and much better glass.

Hi David-
I do expect we will be shipping the nanoFlash before this camera is available. The 160 Mbps I-Frame Only 4:2:2 looks awesome and nanoFlash fits in the palm of your hand and weights under 1 lb.

nanoFlash also has both HD/SD-SDI and HDMI I/O, so you can use it with the new DSLRs and your video camera. The Compact Flash media is very affordable and it is supported by all the major NLEs.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

USLatin
03-12-2009, 08:59 PM
You'll need a micro 4/3rd to 4/3rd adapter then a Nikon to 4/3rd adapter. No, no effect on the image. People have been using this for the G1 for a long time now.

Ok, cool. What's the total cost of all three?

DavidNJ
03-12-2009, 09:23 PM
All 4/3rds adapters that would have to be stacked, increasing their effective focal length.

DavidNJ
03-12-2009, 10:16 PM
One picture that explains why the GH-1 should be better than the HPX300:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236921320.jpg

From John Galt at Panavision

USLatin
03-12-2009, 10:50 PM
All 4/3rds adapters that would have to be stacked, increasing their effective focal length.

aha... I knew there had to be a side effect..... so this reduces your wide end capabilities, right?

David, could you explain the chart?

Park Edwards
03-12-2009, 10:51 PM
Ok, cool. What's the total cost of all three?

You'll only need the two. I posted an additional link to the Nikon to 4/3rd so you can see there's more than one person out there selling them. Total cost for the 2 would probably be $200 + change. But one of the guys from ebay is making a Nikon direct to G1 adapter for $80.00 skipping everything at a 1/4 of the price. He said 2-3 weeks so that's plenty of time before the GH1 comes out. I'd wait till his product came out, saving you $120 +.

Park Edwards
03-12-2009, 10:52 PM
It's 2x no matter what adapter you use.

Kholi
03-12-2009, 11:11 PM
Hi David-
I do expect we will be shipping the nanoFlash before this camera is available. The 160 Mbps I-Frame Only 4:2:2 looks awesome and nanoFlash fits in the palm of your hand and weights under 1 lb.

nanoFlash also has both HD/SD-SDI and HDMI I/O, so you can use it with the new DSLRs and your video camera. The Compact Flash media is very affordable and it is supported by all the major NLEs.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design


This is one product that I've been telling everyone about. I really can't wait to get my hands on it. Even for my HPX170!

filmmaker's gang
03-13-2009, 06:54 AM
would it be possible to engineer a focal length reduser? reduser?.. lol you are there.. ehehehehe that's where you should begin with.. :D

filmmaker's gang
03-13-2009, 06:56 AM
One picture that explains why the GH-1 should be better than the HPX300:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236921320.jpg

From John Galt at Panavisionimage quality is a LOT more than graphics..

Gary Senda
03-13-2009, 07:51 AM
I posted an additional link to the Nikon to 4/3rd so you can see there's more than one person out there selling them.

I've just purchased this one

http://tinyurl.com/b9jf7l (http://tinyurl.com/b9jf7l)

so I have the first element of my GH1 system. I have already decided, I will buy it without trying as soon as it will be available and I'll sell my Digital rebel and my EF lenses on eBay. This camera is the ideal photocamera of every videomaker, in my opinion.

And even if Canon makes an APS-C with video capabilities it will have less appeal for me, because EF mounting doesn't give you the opportunity to attach every kind of glass. I've seen also 16mm lens adapters on ebay for 4/3 micro and this is only fantastic.

I'm sure that I will use this camera more than my rebel, that is always in his bag. Really no reasons to keep my rebel and my EF and EF-S lenses: I already have an SGPro and 15 beatiful pieces of FD and M42 glasses that are much much better than the actual EF glass and I can attach all these glasses on the GH1 .

Thank you Panasonic.

Now I can forget the scarlet and the other 'vapor cameras'.
I hope that someone in future will post a scene file to match the GH1 with my HPX171.

HPX171 + SGPro 35mm adapter + canon FD lenses + GH1 + micro 4/3 to FD adapter: this is my definitive system. I can finally share all my glasses...

I can't wait....

Gary

kainekainekaine
03-13-2009, 08:10 AM
Hi all, just wondering if I was to use none micro 4/3rds lenses with the gh1 would I need to use ones with an aperture ring? as a lot of new lenses don't seem to come with an option to set aperture on the lens, you do it through the camera. A lot of people seem to be liking this camera because you can put other lenses on but I would like to know more about the compatibility. Cheers

Gary Senda
03-13-2009, 08:31 AM
Hi all, just wondering if I was to use none micro 4/3rds lenses with the gh1 would I need to use ones with an aperture ring? as a lot of new lenses don't seem to come with an option to set aperture on the lens, you do it through the camera. A lot of people seem to be liking this camera because you can put other lenses on but I would like to know more about the compatibility. Cheers

Only the newest lenses lack the aperture ring... you can buy tons of used lenses with the aperture ring. They are a lot cheaper and, if in good conditions, they are much better than the actual lenses for digital cameras

Gary

Zacatac
03-13-2009, 08:58 AM
You guys are serious? You're considering this the Scarlet Killer? Isn't that what they said about the D90, and then the 5D Mark II?

Now in all consideration, the GH1 and the specs it gives are amazing and make it worthy of a possible Scarlet Competitor, but I'm just shocked its being called a Scarlet Killer

Gary Senda
03-13-2009, 09:05 AM
You guys are serious? You're considering this the Scarlet Killer? Isn't that what they said about the D90, and then the 5D Mark II?

Now in all consideration, the GH1 and the specs it gives are amazing and make it worthy of a possible Scarlet Competitor, but I'm just shocked its being called a Scarlet Killer

It's very easy to be a killer of something that simply doesn't exsist... I'm more than tired to hear about cameras that are only a project that was announced 3 or for years before

Where is Scarlet now??????
There are only: a mock-up, a 3d model, a list of specifications, a forum and, obviously, a new delay announcement

Very very very easy to be a Scarlet killer

Gary

DavidNJ
03-13-2009, 09:08 AM
Filmmaker's Gang has be confused with someone else. That graph does say it all. It definitely says why an HD image downconverted to SD will virtually always be better than an SD image from an SD camera. And by extension why a GH-1 likely exceed the quality of any 2k sensor camera. Now a 4k sensor camera is a different story. The Scarlet comes in 3k, 4k, 5k, and 6k configurations.

Other than the graph posted, and the MTF of the recoding mechanism...I'd worry about lighting, filters, and audio. And of course the script!

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/113/1236960938.jpg

filmmaker's gang
03-13-2009, 09:17 AM
Filmmaker's Gang has be confused with someone else. That graph does say it all. It definitely says why an HD image downconverted to SD will virtually always be better than an SD image from an SD camera. And by extension why a GH-1 likely exceed the quality of any 2k sensor camera. Now a 4k sensor camera is a different story. The Scarlet comes in 3k, 4k, 5k, and 6k configurations.

Other than the graph posted, and the MTF of the recoding mechanism...I'd worry about lighting, filters, and audio. And of course the script!man.. agreed on your finds not w/ your conclusions though.. well.. not all :D

DavidNJ
03-13-2009, 10:44 AM
man.. agreed on your finds not w/ your conclusions though.. well.. not all :D

All you have to do is take some EX3 footage (vimeo has some), HPX300 (this site), 5DM2 (vimeo), SX1 (vimeo), and Henry Olonga's HR11 through HDMI to Cineform (vimeo). You can add 35mm adapters if you'd like.

Examine them in a binary method, side by side. a to b, b to c, a to c, etc. It become obvious fairly quickly. Then add the presentations from Panavision's John Galt and Canon's Larry Thorpe, and maybe the Panasonic presentation on MPEG2 vs H.264.

I am always responsive to new information. However, if the GH-1 a) processes a 4k x 2.25k image, b) outputs the never compressed image out its HDMI port I will call this a defining camera.

However, there is room for full frame sensors, full sets of video controls, better in camera audio handling, and in-camera recording of high bandwidth 10-bit 4:2:2 H.264 to compact flash or even a hard disk array or solid state storage. In the next two years todays cameras will seem as obsolete as most DV cameras did in 2004 after the DVX100 established itself.

kainekainekaine
03-13-2009, 10:50 AM
Only the newest lenses lack the aperture ring... you can buy tons of used lenses with the aperture ring. They are a lot cheaper and, if in good conditions, they are much better than the actual lenses for digital cameras

Gary

Thanks for that, just wondering do you know of any old lenses that would be wide with the 2.0 crop factor? As most of the new ultra wide zooms I see have no aperture ring so if you want really wide might only be able to go with newer micro or four thirds lenses and an adapter? Also does anyone know whether there will be an option for 1/48th shutter as I have seen mentioned that 1/60th is the lowest, yet if this works similar to an hv20 (60i/24p) cmos it should be possible? Cheers

Nik Manning
03-13-2009, 11:39 AM
I wouldn't call the GH1 a scarlet killer even if it did kill the chances of me getting a scarlet. :) It just doesn't seem necessary to own the scarlet now for a lot of us. We just wanted better than hdv recording, better than 1/3 inch DOF, solid state cheap recording, interchangeable lenses. So now that we have that for under $2000 scarlet just doesn't seem that far away from the competition. If this same camera was released in a prosumer body with it would have cost $5000 easy.

Isaac_Brody
03-13-2009, 11:47 AM
The 2/3 Scarlet will still have a huge benefit from the use of Redcode. AVC-HD doesn't hold a candle to that.

Check this out.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27537

And this...

http://redbeta.net/izzy/

I do agree that it would be nice to have the Scarlet in our hands this June, at the end of the day a fully functioning delivered product is always better than a camera with an unknown delivery date.

joe 1008
03-13-2009, 12:56 PM
Right. You definitely can't compare a 1.500$ consumer camera to a much more professional camera that will cost three, four of five times more.

But if the GH-1 ships with a HDMI out, things will look different.

Also Panasonic now owns all the ingredients to produce a professional scarlet on their own: AVCIntra & the GH-1 sensor. They could easily take a HPX300 body and stack a GH-1 sensor on it. THAT would be a real scarlet killer for about 7 or 8K. (with a f2.8 zoom lens included) If there is a market for such a camera they could present it pretty fast.

DavidNJ
03-13-2009, 12:58 PM
GH-1 vs. Red
Subtitle: Red fans needn't worry

The red stores a 288 Mb/s data stream similar to Cineform. The data is a raw format that demosaics the Bayer filter in processing. The GH-1 could store an uncompressed image, but you are starting with one downsized to 1080p or 720p and demosiaced. You wouldn't have the same processing capability.

Sensor is actually larger on the GH-1 compared to the Red One, but the Red One has about 10% higher resolution. If you look at the second image that Isaac posted, and wonder why it looks that way, look at the last two graphs I posted.

The glass used for that picture isn't sold yet on their site, but is probably in the $3-5k range. A typical set of cine primes would probably cost about $20k or so. They rent for $700-800/day.

How to get close:

1) GH-1 on a really good set of legs

2) Good 50mm f1.4 35mm prime...say $2000. The Leica 50mm F1.4 is $3600.

3) Capture to Cineform (10-bit, 4:2:2) or with the Convergent Devices nanoFlex XDR and 'maybe' the Panasonic HGR20 AVC Intra. In the first two you will have about 160Mb/s.

4) Light your subject for no gain and F5.6 or so.

5) Set up the camera's color setup, white balance and focus carefully. I find a target helps.

6) I would also throw on a light (1/4, 1/2) Black Diffusion filter...but that's me.

My guess is 90% of the people here would then have a hard time picking the image from that Red shot. You will have around $10k in equipment invested.