GH1 First impressions and footage

[Ian-T]

Can you specify where you see artifacts?
I am not even sure I understand what are these artifacts...
Whether 24p or 25p we've only been seeing these anomalies during pans etc. Phil Bloom did not do lots of pans in his video (which is mostly his style I guess) but when you do see a pan in this particular video there is the same breakdown of the footage. You can see them at:

1:12 - 1:14
1:38 - 1:39
2:17 - 2:19

I'm talking about the video picture turning from super sharp into mud. They were not that bad...but then again they were not as fast a pan as we've seen in the other folks footage.

[PappasArts]

Whether 24p or 25p we've only been seeing these anomalies during pans etc. Phil Bloom did not do lots of pans in his video (which is mostly his style I guess) but when you do see a pan in this particular video there is the same breakdown of the footage. You can see them at:

1:12 - 1:14
1:38 - 1:39
2:17 - 2:19

I'm talking about the video picture turning from super sharp into mud. They were not that bad...but then again they were not as fast a pan as we've seen in the other folks footage.


I'm still wondering if this is a result of the decoding method.

Even watching raws, if the files are not decoded correctly it's like putting a puzzle together not properly. That would make it a mosaic blurry mess. That's why there is such a variable quality difference between players you view the raw material with.

Now the blame goes squarely in the hands of Panasonic. It's a lame choice to use the codec that is so not easily played back on MAC or PC. Doing so has made it very frustrating because some people see it one way; others see it different depending on the technology they are using to view.. Some can't even view raws on a MAC if they don't have FCP or a certain setup. That's lame..

Panasonic does not do the GH1 the justice it deserves by throwing out in the crowd and not giving everyone a proper primer to decode the clips. They should have used h.264 as Canon did. Or Mjpeg at a higher bit rate. Then this issue would be a dead one....





Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

.

[stav1606]

I'm talking about the video picture turning from super sharp into mud.

I really dont see these artifacts but that is beside the point.
What I want to say is that these vimeo downloaded clips are still compressed. Have you seen such artifacts in original clips from the camera?

I think we need to see original files from PAL models to be sure of what this camera is capable of.
Do you know of any such files?

[Ian-T]

Just like the 24p files you need to step through the 25p files. In most cases you don't see it while in motion. But I'm suprised you say that you say you can't see the examples I'm referring to.

Phil Bloom is the only one I know of with a PAL camera. He should be able to assist you with that.

I understand what you are saying about needing the native files but it seems to be exhibiting the same type of behavior to me.

[stav1606]

In most cases you don't see it while in motion. But I'm suprised you say that you say you can't see the examples I'm referring to.


I am just not sure I can really differentiate between artifacts and normal bluring because of the motion. I mean obviously when panning, the image will not be as sharp as when standing still. Isn't that true?
A movie file is supposed to be watched as such and not as stills frame by frame.
So there is my question. Are there artifacts that are really compression issue or is there a bluring that you see because of over-examination of the samples and it would be there even if shot with other cameras?

[Ian-T]

I'd say a bit of both.

[stav1606]

Do you see any artifacts in this example?
http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_gh1/panasonic_gh1_01.mts

[John Caballero]

You can't take the frames out of context. They are a sequence and they have to be watch as such. The general public is not watching a frame at a time. BTW, watch a series done originally on film for television and broadcast on the internet and start counting the artifacts flying around. Another point is that you have to pan slowly for the audience to follow the action unless the script asks for fast panning for a purpose. Finally, again, you can't make ANY final judgement on ANYTHING related to the GH1 UNTIL you have one on your very own hands to test and unless you are a knowledgeable cinematographer you won't get much from it either.

[Ian-T]

Do you see any artifacts in this example?
http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_gh1/panasonic_gh1_01.mts
What John said^^^^^

It's pointless to try and do this without having the cam in our hands. But for what it's worth there was absolutely no panning in those scenes. I would expect there to be no issue with either this or the 24p footage.

[philip bloom]

I have recently learnt that the 29.59 minute max recording time on the Panasonic Lumix GH1 is not due to hardware limitations, it's purely down to European Union tax law. In 2007 a ruling was announced that any digital camera that records 30 minutes or more of video is classified by the EU as a camcorder and is therefore subject to 4.9% import duty (assuming the camera was made outside of the EU which they generally are!)

So that is the reason why the EU version of the GH1 has the 29.59 minutes max per clip and the rest of the world doesn't get this limit.

Would you pay 4.9% more in the EU to get the max recording time and have it classified as a camcorder? I for one would.

Please visit my blog and vote!!

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/06/03/the-lumix-30-minutes-eu-recording-issue/

[Martti Ekstrand]

Although I've never in my life have shot a take longer than ten minutes I went there and voted yes but would be more happy if the EU Parliament in their infinite wisdom would remove these asinine random taxes that doesn't have any purpose. After all we could just grey-import the bugger from Hong Kong.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

I have recently learnt that the 29.59 minute max recording time on the Panasonic Lumix GH1 is not due to hardware limitations, it's purely down to European Union tax law. ...

Cheers, Philip! Thanks for the clarification. Gotta love the UK Parliament's sense of humor ... :(

See also:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1624612&postcount=21

[philip bloom]

Cheers, Philip! Thanks for the clarification. Gotta love the UK Parliament's sense of humor ... :(

See also:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1624612&postcount=21

it's not the UK, it's the European Union. They are infamous for passing daft rules. Hope we can get this changed!! Get everyone to vote, even you no Europeans, pleeeeease help us out!!

[AdrianF]

Are these the same crew who decided that a firewire input on a camcorder would be classed and taxed as a vcr?!
I would imagine the tax was put in place to help cover the ever growing costs of politicians expenses ;-)
Voting

[androoow]

Apologies as i asked this question in a diff thread.. but why can't panasonic make a firmware update that disables the time restriction , downloadable from the us site... so it imports into the uk with the restriction so all the bollocks with the taxes apply and then we can " fix it " the internet is newer that the stupid taxlaw so doing that couldn't be mentioned in that law!!???

****note sorry i only just read philips blog mentioning 2007, i thought it was part of the " no inputs on camcorder "rules that predate the internet"**