PDA

View Full Version : Working around the 17mbps AVC-HD



DvxHerb
04-30-2009, 12:27 PM
First I want to say that I'm pretty blown away by this camera. The footage Phillip, Hunter and the Japanese owners have posted in the last day is great.

But... as Phillip said the codec won't hold up to much grading. So with no live HDMI is it possible to get uncompressed video out of this camera to feed to something like a nanoFlash?

I know that the nanoFlash costs more than the camera. I could just buy a better camcorder for the money that the pair would cost.

It kills me that the Canon HF S10 does 24mbps and has a live HDMI. If the GH1 had those two things it would be perfect for me.

Park Edwards
04-30-2009, 12:54 PM
so get a canon HF s10

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
04-30-2009, 12:57 PM
... So with no live HDMI is it possible to get uncompressed video out of this camera to feed to something like a nanoFlash? ...

The short answer is "no, apparently not".

Unless someone yet discovers a possibly undocumented button-pressing sequence to magically unlock full-time live HDMI output. But don't hold your breath.

Unless Panasonic releases a magical firmware fix to enable live HDMI. It could happen, maybe, but I doubt it. On the other hand, a firmware fix might be able to enable full-time live SD composite video, even during recording, but even this is somewhat doubtful, unfortunately.

As much as we might want the GH1 to do things it apparently can't, it probably won't.

It is what it is. And, yet, what it _is_ is quite remarkable.

Kholi
04-30-2009, 12:58 PM
It's not THAT bad, man. A lot of what you'll want to do is either shoot very flat and very clean, then output DPXs and grade in a proper program (Not Magic Bullet) or get your look in camera as close as possible and tweak later with a proper program (Not Magic Bullet).

I've seen people work wonders with DVX footage and After Effects.

Don't be too worried about the 17mbps AVC-HD. right now I'm figuring out the best way to maximize this camera's image, the key will be to find the most efficient pulldown method and/or shooting 720/60P at all times and using that for your 23.98/23.976.

Patience! We're doing a lot of footwork for you guys so you don't have to worry when you get the cameras. =D

squig
04-30-2009, 02:08 PM
So is it losing something in the 1080 pulldown or does the 1080 just not look as good as 720 out of the camera?

What's the deal converting the 720/60P to 24P?

thx kholi much appreciated

you're selling the hague, what gives?

Kholi
04-30-2009, 02:11 PM
Just not a fan of being restricted like that. The Hague is awesome but not for me.

squig
04-30-2009, 02:22 PM
restricted as in can't touch the cam in use?

Kholi
04-30-2009, 02:28 PM
Restricted as in just can't be crazy with the camera. I like being crazy.

squig
04-30-2009, 02:36 PM
hehe. I like the steadytracker cause I can still focus while moving and you can flip it upside down for low shots. Hey does the lcd image flip for inverted work?

Finster
04-30-2009, 02:37 PM
Get your look in camera as close as possible and tweak later with a proper program (Not Magic Bullet).

Why not Magic Bullet??? :embarasse

squig
04-30-2009, 02:45 PM
guess I better get that color tutorial DVD

Kholi
04-30-2009, 02:45 PM
Magic Bullet probably works fine! I just don't know any actual colorists that use Magic Bullet to do their work?

Take my thoughts with a grain of salt, please!

divide
05-01-2009, 01:46 AM
Well, actually I already used Magic Bullet with 17mbps AVCHD (from my Canon HF100), that gives some filmic look easily and quickly:
http://www.vimeo.com/2748109
However for more precise work you should use your NLE's builtin color effects, since MB is not convenient for adjusting several shots one after the others.

cinebuddy
05-01-2009, 07:59 AM
Hmmm Neveldine & Taylor did not seem to mind the 17mbs and neither did I when I went to the THEATRE to see their BIG BUDGET movie. I'm just sayin' aren't we indie dudes in here?

Nektonic
05-01-2009, 08:03 AM
However for more precise work you should use your NLE's builtin color effects, since MB is not convenient for adjusting several shots one after the others.

What I do is first balance all my shots with the FCP color corrector and if needed levels adjustments. Then I can take a shot into Magic Bullet Looks and come up with my "look' for that scene, and apply it to all my shots. Sure I still might have to tweak a bit on some shots, but it saves time in that I don't have to go in and out of the looks editor so much.

As for grading, if we import the AVC-HD clips and convert them to a more robust 4:2:2 codec like ProRes or Cineform, shouldn't that give us plenty to work with in post, granted we shot clean and properly lit footage in the first place?

Ian-T
05-01-2009, 08:48 AM
And then there is always Neat Video. I'm not sure about Macs though.

djkarn105
05-01-2009, 09:19 AM
Magic bullet is great but its ability to effect only portions of the image are limited. For example, I can tell Apple Color to apply only to pixels of a certain color. I can't do that in Magic Bullet. I can achieve the same effect though but I have to use a combination of the NLE's luma / chroma keys and color correction alongside Magic Bullet to do it.

Kholi
05-01-2009, 02:59 PM
Magic bullet is great but its ability to effect only portions of the image are limited. For example, I can tell Apple Color to apply only to pixels of a certain color. I can't do that in Magic Bullet. I can achieve the same effect though but I have to use a combination of the NLE's luma / chroma keys and color correction alongside Magic Bullet to do it.


That's what I was getting at. Magic Bullet is limited in its application, although when applied properly it does its job.

Using Software such as Color or even After Effects tends to yield much more stunning results when handled by someone practiced. A real Colorist will be able to do wonders with AVC-HD Compressed material.

I wouldn't worry about it.

If you are, shoot everything at 720/60P and you'll have an even better time in post, that's my theory.

chagchag
05-01-2009, 09:47 PM
My two cents: Magic Bullet is not for grading, but for LOOKS. Hence the name.
Color correction is what you do before you apply the look you want.

17Mbps seems kinda low to me. Personally, I find the XDCAM EX 35mbps codec to be barely enough to get good results.

dcloud
05-02-2009, 12:00 AM
unless its magicbullet colorista ;)

la838
05-02-2009, 05:00 PM
Slightly off topic but, how good of a computer would I need to edit these video files in say Premiere Pro, and use programs like Magic Bullet? I've read that AVCHD takes a lot of horsepower to edit. Would I need to have a intermediate process instead?

squig
05-02-2009, 05:55 PM
You can convert it to a lossless intermediate codec like prores if you have something like a 2.5ghz core2 duo

Illya Friedman
05-02-2009, 06:41 PM
Hmmm Neveldine & Taylor did not seem to mind the 17mbs and neither did I when I went to the THEATRE to see their BIG BUDGET movie. I'm just sayin' aren't we indie dudes in here?

Really?

Here's the thing- some movies and TV are INTENDED to look "bad." I'm not saying that the movie or TV show wasn't shot expertly or competently; but the intention was for a "bad" or low-fi texture/aesthetic. 28-days Later, Open Water, Pieces of April, The Good Girl are all examples. Now it's being done on the TV seires Southland- which features some of the "ugliest" camera work I've ever seen on network TV. It's intentional, just like the herky-jerky operating on NYPD Blue. It's a look.

This kind of shooting really works for some, they feel it enhances a story. I'm generally not one of those people. I usually feel that cinematography shouldn't be constantly calling attention to itself. Anthony Dod Mantle is one of the most talented DPs working today, and while I didn't like the texture of 28 Days Later I understand the intent.

That being said, it's a mistake to hold up an example of extreme low-fidelity and declare "good enough for them, it's good enough for me." Don't settle! Attempt to get the best possible image you can afford. If your project is going to utilize a gimmic of a stylized "bad" look, just keep in mind you're going to aleinate a portion of your audience that won't be able to make it past the aesthetic to enjoy the story.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Ian-T
05-02-2009, 06:58 PM
I'm sorry but...what are folks expecting out of a $1500 camera? If amazes me how technical folks can get... Even if you name a $100,000 camera on here I guarantee you it will still have its own quirks. This cam is limited in a few ways but...everything else outweighs its weaknesses. So what of this cam is.."good enough?" I never shot film...but I thought back in the days people just chose a certain film stock to get a certain aesthetic look out of their film? Shouldn't we look at the GH-1 the same way? Pick your poison...that's how the saying goes. This cam is what it is...and I also think it's picture is good enough for a lot of things. Heck...until now a lot of folks were willing to put up with the D90 (some still are...not me thank God) and this cam (with all its quirks) smashes that cam. And the D90 produces a lot of great looking compositions.

squig
05-02-2009, 07:05 PM
I'd call most of my favorite films from the 70's lo-fi which is exactly the look I want for my film. I don't think anybody expects this thing to look like 70mm panavision. Maybe the GH3 though.

mico
05-02-2009, 07:08 PM
With film no situation was taboo or limited , it held up most everywhere. Highlights, motion , fluorescents all doable with film. With these cams you have one or more major limitations. I don't know if the train footage was messed with in any way when they shot it or in post process but that was heartbreaking because the way I feel now , the codec does not hold up for motion very well so you're locked into tripod shots and thats a major limitation. I did see POV footage from a car on a highway and didn't see any issues so I'm hoping that the train footage was an aberration and this cam comes through regarding major motion.

squig
05-02-2009, 07:29 PM
I've read that 24Mbps AVCHD handles motion much better, a firmware update petition is likely.

Sure there are limitations but there are and will be more workarounds like with the 5D and D90. Those cameras are more crippled than this one but people have shot really good work with both.
Film has some limitations too. Cost being the biggest one.

Kholi
05-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Really?

Here's the thing- some movies and TV are INTENDED to look "bad." I'm not saying that the movie or TV show wasn't shot expertly or competently; but the intention was for a "bad" or low-fi texture/aesthetic. 28-days Later, Open Water, Pieces of April, The Good Girl are all examples. Now it's being done on the TV seires Southland- which features some of the "ugliest" camera work I've ever seen on network TV. It's intentional, just like the herky-jerky operating on NYPD Blue. It's a look.

This kind of shooting really works for some, they feel it enhances a story. I'm generally not one of those people. I usually feel that cinematography shouldn't be constantly calling attention to itself. Anthony Dod Mantle is one of the most talented DPs working today, and while I didn't like the texture of 28 Days Later I understand the intent.

That being said, it's a mistake to hold up an example of extreme low-fidelity and declare "good enough for them, it's good enough for me." Don't settle! Attempt to get the best possible image you can afford. If your project is going to utilize a gimmic of a stylized "bad" look, just keep in mind you're going to aleinate a portion of your audience that won't be able to make it past the aesthetic to enjoy the story.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Hell Yeah. No arguments here.!

mico
05-02-2009, 07:46 PM
Not limited in situations squiq, situations . No film set I've ever been on said hey lets get this X video camera because we can't do it on film, even size didn't matter. I've seen guys pull out eyemos when they needed a small cam. But video can see better in the dark than film

I don't think you can firmware a higher codec capture rate without a board change. But live HDMI in record mode might be firmware updatedable. If that happens there is no stopping this cam with nanaoflash.

Park Edwards
05-02-2009, 07:46 PM
it's too bad when something looks good and has a horrible story or NO DIALOGUE!!!

Kholi
05-02-2009, 07:47 PM
With film no situation was taboo or limited , it held up most everywhere. Highlights, motion , fluorescents all doable with film. With these cams you have one or more major limitations. I don't know if the train footage was messed with in any way when they shot it or in post process but that was heartbreaking because the way I feel now , the codec does not hold up for motion very well so you're locked into tripod shots and thats a major limitation. I did see POV footage from a car on a highway and didn't see any issues so I'm hoping that the train footage was an aberration and this cam comes through regarding major motion.


Don't worry. It's a slight operator error as well. I've got a lot of vehicle footage with a car mount and just holding it in my hands. It took finding what worked and what didn't but you CAN car mount and move the camera.

Keep in mind that you're still seeing a lot of footage from people who just point and shoot. Even Philip Bloom's footage was STILL just point and shoot.

Unfortunately the little test project I wanted to get going didn't come through today. =( So it'll still be a few more days before you see anything from me.

I may just give youguys some car mount footage to watch until then.

Park Edwards
05-02-2009, 07:50 PM
maybe for your 10kth post you post some footage?

Eddy Robinson
05-02-2009, 08:03 PM
Slightly off topic but, how good of a computer would I need to edit these video files in say Premiere Pro [...]

I have a machine with an AMD phenom II x 4 and 4gb of memory. I'm not done configuring/upgrading ti, but it's about equivalent to an Intel core 2 duo or quad. I've loaded up test footage from the GH1 with no problems so far. So roughly a $500 machine plus some fat external disk storage.

mico
05-02-2009, 08:05 PM
Don't worry. It's a slight operator error as well. I've got a lot of vehicle footage with a car mount and just holding it in my hands. It took finding what worked and what didn't but you CAN car mount and move the camera.

Keep in mind that you're still seeing a lot of footage from people who just point and shoot. Even Philip Bloom's footage was STILL just point and shoot.

Unfortunately the little test project I wanted to get going didn't come through today. =( So it'll still be a few more days before you see anything from me.

I may just give youguys some car mount footage to watch until then.

Any footage with alot of motion that holds up would be welcomed, greatly.

Illya Friedman
05-02-2009, 08:57 PM
Not limited in situations squiq, situations . No film set I've ever been on said hey lets get this X video camera because we can't do it on film, even size didn't matter. I've seen guys pull out eyemos when they needed a small cam. But video can see better in the dark than film

5-years ago I would have agreed with you; but it's changed a lot, especially for TV. Last Monday I was the HD Tech & Consultant on a popular HBO series that shoots on 35mm. Shooting 100% 35mm for that show would have made it more difficult to get the desired look.

There's no reason to shoot film when it means you have to spend more time, money and effort to degrade the image when there are capable camera systems that deliver full manual control over the image capture paramenters, and allow the DP to create the desired look (or perhaps 90% of the look)>>>> in-camera.

I love film, but when you factor in the budget and the post production schedules most TV shows are saddled with, shooting 35mm in situations like that can easily become a liability rather than a benefit.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

squig
05-02-2009, 09:29 PM
Don't worry. It's a slight operator error as well. I've got a lot of vehicle footage with a car mount and just holding it in my hands. It took finding what worked and what didn't but you CAN car mount and move the camera.

Keep in mind that you're still seeing a lot of footage from people who just point and shoot. Even Philip Bloom's footage was STILL just point and shoot.

Unfortunately the little test project I wanted to get going didn't come through today. =( So it'll still be a few more days before you see anything from me.

I may just give youguys some car mount footage to watch until then.

stop prickteasing, it doesn't have to be academy worthy.

Solare
05-03-2009, 10:54 AM
Well, actually I already used Magic Bullet with 17mbps AVCHD (from my Canon HF100), that gives some filmic look easily and quickly:
http://www.vimeo.com/2748109
However for more precise work you should use your NLE's builtin color effects, since MB is not convenient for adjusting several shots one after the others.


Eh... forgive me pretty please but to me it looks just like video with some grain added. Am I crazy? :embarasse

Eddy Robinson
05-03-2009, 12:27 PM
Eh... forgive me pretty please but to me it looks just like video with some grain added. Am I crazy? :embarasse

Yes. It is video, from a lower-priced camcorder. The demonstration is to show that you can tweak the color of footage shot at the same bitrate as the GH1, without substantial degradation to the image. The footage can't help looking video-like since the HF10's sensor is only 1/3.2" in size.

The point is that if AVCHD @ 17mbps did awful things to the raw image, then when you pushed the color in Magic Bullet or suchlike, you'd get hideous banding and artifacts all over it, like when you stream a movie over the net. But in fact, it looks quite OK, given the limitations of the camera's lens and sensor.

Nice little 'opportunity short', by the way.

DavidNJ
05-03-2009, 01:50 PM
Nice scoring...

I think the camera issues were just the HF100 in low light, from what I've seen not a Canon camcorder strength.

The GH1 may be processing the image before compression in a way that that makes the compression more effective my removing high frequency artifacts. If so, it is done very intelligently to reduce noise. So its 17Mb/s may be more effective than the HF100s. It is probably close the the EX1/3's 35Mb/s MPEG2

Imaginate
05-03-2009, 02:25 PM
Don't be too worried about the 17mbps AVC-HD. right now I'm figuring out the best way to maximize this camera's image, the key will be to find the most efficient pulldown method and/or shooting 720/60P at all times and using that for your 23.98/23.976.



Can 60p footage really look like proper 24p footage?

Kholi
05-03-2009, 02:34 PM
Can 60p footage really look like proper 24p footage?

I did a test, 1080/24P with proper pull down versus 720/60P in a 23.98 timeline.

I couldn't tell the difference in cadence at all. It looked exactly like 24P to me, without the hassles of retiming etc.

I'll let Hunter, Philip and Sonic test it, but ot me it looks NO different than straight up 24P.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 02:42 PM
Right now this camera only has two gripes:

1080/24 Not Holding up well at all.
Aliasing.

If Panasonic tweaks the 1080/24P, gives us native at a fixed Data Rate, wow.

I say this because without a DOUBT the 1080 nets more detail than the 720. You can see it when you record a lot of green material (trees, leaves, grass) and then downrez the 1080 to 720, then compare it with a 720/60 original. It looks a good ten to fifteen percent "Sharper" but it's not sharpness, it's actually resolved detail.

If Panasonic is listening/watching, we need to make this heard. If it's a firmware thing then it will be official: this camera will run its competition into the dirt.

Monitoring and Live HDMI would simply put icing on the sledgehammer they use to pound the rest through the asphalt. It would truly then be unfukwitable.

xbourque
05-03-2009, 05:15 PM
I did a test, 1080/24P with proper pull down versus 720/60P in a 23.98 timeline.

I couldn't tell the difference in cadence at all. It looked exactly like 24P to me, without the hassles of retiming etc.

I'll let Hunter, Philip and Sonic test it, but ot me it looks NO different than straight up 24P.


Hold on here... are you saying that you can shoot 60p and hope to achieve a 24p native look easily?

This is very misleading.

First thing that comes to mind is that since 60 is not an even multiple of 24, you can't simply drop every Nth frame... this means that stuff moving at a constant rate (such as slow pan) will appear to stutter when retimed to 24p.

The way around that is to use temporal interpolation such as Re:Vision's Twixtor or Foundry's Kronos. This is *really* render intensive an can introduce really nasty artefacts in the footage.

The other problem is that you can't have a shutter speeds slower than 1/60th in 60p. (And really, you shouldn't be using anything slower that 1/120th to avoid the "video" look).

This means that you're stuck shooting "Saving Private Ryan" all the time. It also means that you cripple low light performance severely.

Shooting 60p is NOT a good substitute for 24p if you want the look of 24p.

-- Xavier

Kholi
05-03-2009, 06:07 PM
Go get an HVX200 and drop some 720/60P on a 23.98 timeline.

Come back to me with results.

I didn't try fast pans or anything, just set it up on a breezy trees in 1080 and 720 and it looked no different to me. I'll have to do some more testing but again, it looked the same on a 23.98 timeline.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 06:15 PM
By the way, what's the reason you can't do less than 1/60th in 60P? And what happens to the footage since the GH-1 clearly let's you go as low as 1/30 in 720/60P?

That's something I have yet to understand so someone enlighten me.

codeloss
05-03-2009, 06:27 PM
Well at, 1/60th of a second exposure time per frame, that is the longest exposure you can have if you still want to fit 60 frames in a second. The shutter is open for as long as it possibly can be for each frame, for it to be open longer, you would have to drop the frame rate.

1/30 shutter with 60p should be impossible.

Daniel L.
05-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Not possible.

Makes me question if the shutter values you see are accurate.

At 1/30 it would take you at least two seconds to expose 60 frames.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 06:42 PM
Kay, then 1/30 isn't an accurate reading on the camera, that's the only possibility because 1/30, 1/40, 1/50 all have various exposure values in 720/60P when recording.

Don't ask ME, though. Cause I'm looking at the camera IN MY HANDS and it sure as hell does record 1/30 shutter @ 720/60P. 1/40 and 1/50 as well.

plasmasmp
05-03-2009, 06:42 PM
Some cameras do allow for a strobing type mode with a shutter speed slower than the actual frame rate. Typically you'll find it under places like "Special Effects" on Sony Cameras. I'm sure you've all seen it before. Gives a feeling like that effect the show "Earth 2" used a few years back every time someone was in a dream with an alien.

Daniel L.
05-03-2009, 06:47 PM
Kholi,

If you have a CRT screen handy you can do a rough test on the shutter speeds. Just to check the scan line changes with each incremental shutter setting.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 06:50 PM
What happens if it's not strobing? I can get behind Daniel L's explanation, that the shutter read-outs are NOT accurate and it's actually 1/60 @ 1/30, so on and so forth.

Note: The exposure looks exactly the same in 1080/24P @ 1/30 as 720/60P @ 1/30.

I'm PROBABLY wrong since it's supposed to be impossible, it'd be nice to see what Sonic, Hunter and Philip are getting.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Kholi,

If you have a CRT screen handy you can do a rough test on the shutter speeds. Just to check the scan line changes with each incremental shutter setting.

No CRT but I have a horrible Fluo kitchen light. Will that do?

Daniel L.
05-03-2009, 07:00 PM
Yeah that should work too, but may be more difficult to measure. It's a bit tricky, you need special equipment to examine true shutter speeds. This really won't tell us very much.

It would be very strange if you did see a change between 1/30 and 1/60 at 60 fps.

One other way to measure this more accurately is to use a camera flash.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 07:10 PM
Yeah, I see a change. It's pretty evident as well.

But maybe it's not actually 1/30? But that wouldn't make sense because the light level is the exact same between 1080/24 and 720/60.

Daniel L.
05-03-2009, 07:27 PM
Exposure can be faked with gain. Check if the strobing frequency from the light looks the same at:

720/60 @ 1/30
1080/24 @ 1/30

If it's different, it's not really 1/30. The only way they can be the same is if both are 1/60. At least in theory.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

Kholi
05-03-2009, 07:38 PM
Kay Daniel I think your theory is accurate. 1080/24 @ 30 scrolls, 720/60 @ 30 doesn't scroll at all.

Light doesn't change a bit, though, so I wonder if it's auto-gain or somethin'?

Yet another anomaly located.

squig
05-03-2009, 07:41 PM
does 1080/24 @ 60 scroll? and what about 720/60 @ 60?

SonicStates
05-06-2009, 05:49 AM
Monitoring and Live HDMI would simply put icing on the sledgehammer they use to pound the rest through the asphalt. It would truly then be unfukwitable.

Sorry but that was just too awesome...and I thought, "Chunt" was my new favourite word. :love4:

Yeah I was getting 1/30 on shutter too. I'm looking forward to the explanation.

DavidNJ
05-06-2009, 08:34 AM
If the HDMI was before the in-camera noise and resolution reduction it would be amazing...it would immediately obsolete every camcorder under $20k for work with a preference for image quality over convenience.