View Full Version : Please evaluate these clips

05-10-2009, 07:34 AM
One is the GH1 at 720p60: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvid_AVCHD_1280x720_00013.MTS

Canon T1i 720p30: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/ymovie_charlotte_720t.mov

GH1 1080p24: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvid_AVCHD_1920x1080_00008.MTS

Canon T1i 1080p20: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/ymovie_charlotte_1080t.mov

What are your opinions?

This is the GH1 720p30 with MJPEG: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvidHD_1280x720jpg_P1010217.MOV

05-10-2009, 09:01 AM
OK, this is my humble impression on this:
GH1-720/60p looks OK.
GH1-1080/24p looks terrible... the compression is appalling...too much artifacts.
GH1-720/30p with MJPEG looks better.

T1i-720/30p looks OK...over exposed... What happened with the color of the grass?
T1i-1080/20p same as 720/30p

05-10-2009, 09:48 AM
wow the interlacing didnt help in the artifacts LOL

joe 1008
05-10-2009, 10:00 AM
Could only open the MJPEG of the GH1. It looks overexposed - is this the codec or simply exposure? Also noted a lot of compression noise - the contrary of what I've seen in AVCHD from this camera, which looked totally clean.

The good point is that the codec seems to handle leaves and grass quite well. Could not see any strange resolution loss due to the panning.

05-10-2009, 11:33 AM
I've been playing with these same Watch Impress clips from the other day in my NLE. The 24p is ugly in motion. It looks like sharpness was turned up high. Couple that with the interlaced artifacts...it makes on ugly picture. To be fair though...others caught a better looking 24p than what we see here.

05-10-2009, 06:22 PM
the 1080 has basically the same limitation as the d90. anything else video, gh1 wins.

Now if the gh1 has a live hdmi out (coupled with a convergent design nanoflash), that would be a killer

Uwe Lansing
05-11-2009, 04:32 AM
GH1 1080p24: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvid_AVCHD_1920x1080_00008.MTS

The 1080/24p really sucks in these situations: pans, fast movement, a lot of greens, fine lines + structure, architecture.... => aliasing, compression artefacts. Sure there are some scenes where you can use it. But who wants constantly think about => could I shoot this scene in 1080/24p or not?

Perhaps the best way with this camera is always to shoot in 720/60(50)p mode. And if you need 1080p, 24p scale it up and convert it with after effects or a good plugin.

05-11-2009, 05:10 AM
also the shutter must not be 1/50

joe 1008
05-11-2009, 07:41 AM
Perhaps the best way with this camera is always to shoot in 720/60(50)p mode. And if you need 1080p, 24p scale it up and convert it with after effects or a good plugin.

Probably a smooth way to go in PAL countries. They are definitely better off with the GH1. Here in Las Américas we have to struggle againt with Twixtor or Compressor for smooth motion. 5D Mark II revisited...

Uwe Lansing
05-11-2009, 08:28 AM
... scale it up ....

Obviously, that fails somewhat too. You gonna lose some sharpness (2:1 zoom). But maybe sometimes it could be a way to go:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6871/comparison2o.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=comparison2o.jpg)

joe 1008
05-11-2009, 09:30 AM
How did you do the uprezzing?

Uwe Lansing
05-11-2009, 09:38 AM
"Resizer 2" in PP CS4 (PC)

05-11-2009, 02:57 PM
"Resizer 2" in PP CS4 (PC)

sounds like just the thing I need to stretch my anamorphic footage, thx.

05-11-2009, 03:48 PM
sounds like just the thing I need to stretch my anamorphic footage, thx.

'Sharp' and 'Smooth' are not 'algorithms' as I would understand them.



05-11-2009, 04:04 PM
found this review-


Hey capice can you just use it to anti-alias the 1080 footage?

05-11-2009, 04:15 PM

Red Giant bought Digital Anarchy and now includes 'Resizer' in it's 'Instant HD' packages.

05-11-2009, 04:52 PM
They talk about the software without disclosing the algorithm. Photoshop has bicubic and bilinear...most people never look for something better.

Each algorithm has its pluses and minuses. The vendors only show their pluses. Most (all?) of the upscale images seem rather simple. This page has some mouseover comparisons at the end. There are clear losers, no clear winners, and for competitors, it is unclear that they optimized very well. However, some of the pictures have a fair amount of detail. http://www.thedeemon.com/articles/video_upsize_methods_comparison.html

05-11-2009, 04:58 PM
Wow that Video Enhancer plug-in for After Effects is NICE!

05-11-2009, 07:00 PM
The super resolution works in both...$99. From looking at the pictures it seems InstantHD is a Lancoz 3 node, and Instant HD Advanced may add the motion compensation enhancement. Lancoz has a side effect of adding some edge sharpening, which it seems some of the additional processing removes.

05-11-2009, 07:41 PM
does it get the davidnj seal of approval? I need something to do a 1.5x stretch for my anamorphic stuff
Hunter has been using shake to stretch his, I have no idea how it compares.

05-11-2009, 08:41 PM
I have limited hands on...I would imagine any of the Lancoz packages should be ok, however, scaling, up or down, can add artifacts. The scaling software is making decisions as to what are edges and how they should be represented.

It seems that the super resolution is the least expensive way to get a solid scaling algorithm. However, it would seem that that from a scaling perspective, it is similar to Magic Bullet HD Advanced. There are some other good algorithms out there in addition to Lancoz.




Things to look for are lines, especially repeating lines (e.g., picket fence) in an angle, curves, and artificial edge sharpening.

Note that this is part of the 'RED' advantage. Like the GH1 it is oversampled. In the GH1 the images are demosiced and downscaled in the camera in realtime. In the RED the demosaic and downscaling is done in post on a more powerful processor without realtime constraints. The SK2i demosaics in post, but the captured image is a direct 1080p.

05-11-2009, 09:07 PM
thx for the info

I only have a tiny budget for the film so a $99 option to stretch my anamorphic footage is attractive. The alternative is to just crop the 16x9 to get 2.39:1 but @ 720p it doesn't leave me with a lot of pixels for the 35mm transfer. Plus no cool distortions or lens flares.

05-11-2009, 09:13 PM
Do you really think the anamorphic is worth it? In the old days, it turned 4:3 into 16:9, but had lots of issues. There are many DVX threads on that. An HD anamorphic lens has to be pricey. Why not just spend the effort on grip equipment and sound to a get a feel more than a look?

05-11-2009, 09:23 PM
in two words 'Blade Runner' yeah it's worth it. A lot more work but with a GH1 it's ridiculously inexpensive so I have to try it. I'll study some of the issues threads first though.

05-11-2009, 09:41 PM
video enhancer, in my tests was really buggy. I think one guy posted on their
forum, that it was total shi*, he was so pissed. :Drogar-Love(DBG): It can be frustrating.

The others have different degrees of hassle setting up. Trying to crop what you
get seems problematic too. try the demos is best.

I really dont think this "uprez from 720-60p" is a good workflow for a big project.
Not on the options I've seen.

You might rather spend your days sand papering your eyeballs and swallowing
paint thinner.

try and make your 1080 work!

Uwe Lansing
05-12-2009, 03:32 AM
sounds like just the thing I need to stretch my anamorphic footage, thx.

What kind of anamorphic stuff is it? Some years ago I made a lot of upscaling 16:9, 25p SD-DV (anamorphic) to 1280-720/25p. Resizer 2 made a good job. It was hard to distinguish from normal 720p. And anamorphic HDV (1440x1080) doesn´t need a resizer anyway. Maybe now the latest version of "InstantHD" is somewhat better, I don´t know.

Hey capice can you just use it to anti-alias the 1080 footage?

I don´t think so. But didn´t give it a try so far.

05-12-2009, 04:21 AM
I'm thinking of shooting 720p with a 1.5x anamorphic lens then stretching it 1.5x and cropping it to get 2.39:1 so it would end up 1720x720

Uwe Lansing
05-12-2009, 04:41 AM
Ah.. Ok. But I´ve no experience along those lines. Good luck.

05-12-2009, 07:48 AM
I'm thinking of shooting 720p with a 1.5x anamorphic lens then stretching it 1.5x and cropping it to get 2.39:1 so it would end up 1720x720


I know nothing about this. Im just curious if a simlar effect could be got
by changing the pixel aspect ratio to a custom size?

Of course one wonders what type of distribution you hope for?

I recently saw a version of How the West was won. shot in 3 camera, CINERAMA.
Talk about wide! This was the rolls royce of wide.

The dvd has two versions, apparently, One letterboxed, and one with a smiley
shaped image. Really distorted.

High sides, thinner in the middle. Strange to watch.

Uwe Lansing
05-13-2009, 04:38 AM

05-13-2009, 05:53 AM
Weird, those videos were filmed where I grew up...

Never liked that movie theatre.