PDA

View Full Version : Low Light Gh1 Vs Dvx100a



Slice
05-13-2009, 08:36 AM
Which is better in low light.

GH1 - using the auto-focus kit lens with the highest iso settings

DVX-100a - using iris wide open


This question is relating to event work. Auto-focus and low light ability is a must have combo.

Kholi
05-13-2009, 10:01 AM
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=170160

jenningsp
05-13-2009, 11:02 AM
the DVX with zero dB gain is about 1 stop better in lowlight than the GH1 w/ stock lens at it's highest ISO.

Kholi
05-13-2009, 11:05 AM
How's that work?

jenningsp
05-13-2009, 11:16 AM
DVX at 24p

ISO = 640 (with 0dB gain)
lens = 2.8 (for full range)


GH1

max ISO = 1600
lens = 5.8 (for full range)


the DVX's lens is slightly over 2 stops brighter than the GH1's stock lens.... but the GH1's ISO is only slightly over 1 stop better than the DVX... do the math man! :)

Kholi
05-13-2009, 11:17 AM
That's not factual math. Rating a DVX @ 640 isn't the same as rating a GH-1 @ 1600.

The DVX's ISO ratings are "theoretical" ratings if I remember right. So are the HVX200 and HPX170s.

The only way to tell is by definitive means, an actual comparison.

Also, an ISO rating doesn't dictate which is the better performance in low light. Again, if the DVX is faster it could be noisier, or vice versa.

Testing and comparing in a scientific environment is the only way to know.

ryansheffer
05-13-2009, 11:21 AM
I haven't tested the GH1, but I have tested the 5d mark II. Your math claims that the lowlight capability of the 5d with those same specs would be the same as the DVX.

Very flawed math.

Kholi
05-13-2009, 11:23 AM
Exactly. It's not even the same sort of measurement for either.

When Barry gets a GH-1 or someone who's more apt to do scientific comparisons you'll know, but until then nobody knows.

In my opinion I haven't seen lowlight like this in ANY prosumer camera.

divide
05-13-2009, 11:29 AM
I've shot some low light for a short movie with the DVX100 some years ago, and there is absolutely NO comparison with GH1 -from the footage I can see on the internet-. You can easily see noise on the DVX100, while you hardly notice it on GH1, even in very low light...

jenningsp
05-13-2009, 11:43 AM
that DVX's ISO rating is straight from barry green... and i think we all rate ISO by shooting a grey card with a spot meter. and then placing it at 50IRE with the camera and a wavelength monitor and seeing what the result is.... of course gamma curves and such effect the result. but that just really messes with where you place 50IRE in the dynamic range of the sensor...

and if Hunter's dynamic range tests of the GH1 are correct. they have the same range above 50IRE (3 stops) and the DVX has about 1 stop more room in the shadows.

so really an actual comparison might be even more favorable to the DVX :)

Douglas Villalba
05-13-2009, 11:46 AM
That can't be right.

To start with the comparizon has to be made between cameras.

If both are set a give ISO and the same f stop the results should be the same.

The advantage of a dSLR is that you can use a higher ISO

Kholi
05-13-2009, 11:49 AM
Yeah I highly doubt it myself.

Numbers can always be spouted but the only tell tale will be side-by-side.

jenningsp
05-13-2009, 11:59 AM
the DVX and GH1 have about the same DR and place 50IRE at the same point...

it's just ISO and Fstops... what's so hard to believe???

Douglas Villalba
05-13-2009, 12:01 PM
I believe that most people are buying the lens is because there no option for camera only.

Panasonic is forcing buyers to get the package because there is no other option in the market at this time for manual dSLR video camera.

ryansheffer
05-13-2009, 12:04 PM
Whats so hard to believe is the fact that I have shot with the DVX and think the lowlight is horrible. I have seen lowlight shot with the GH1 and stock lens at iso 1600 and thought it looked good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZADkizkkzu0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnck4Elm1hM

ryansheffer
05-13-2009, 12:07 PM
Also - am I wrong in assuming that a much bigger sensor makes it more light sensitive? I don't know the science behind what makes it light sensitive, but the thought that there is a larger sensor grabbing information makes me think this argument was flawed from the get go.

divide
05-13-2009, 12:15 PM
ryan: the GH1 has also more pixels in the sensor, so that reduce light sensitivity.
But in the end, GH1 still win (clearly).

John Caballero
05-13-2009, 12:24 PM
Forget about the DVX, thats a thing of the past. There is nothing to compare.

Isaac_Brody
05-13-2009, 12:29 PM
Measurebating.

Ian-T
05-13-2009, 12:30 PM
ryan: the GH1 has also more pixels in the sensor, so that reduce light sensitivity.
But in the end, GH1 still win (clearly).Yeah but that applies only if you take apples to apples in regard to sensor size. Meaning...the sensor is a heck of a lot bigger in the GH-1. If it were the same size as the DVX...then you could see a problem with it having more pixels. Also....I think the actual size of the pixels come into play.

Ian-T
05-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Measurebating.I was waiting for someone to use that line...lol

gastrolit
05-13-2009, 12:49 PM
it's just ISO and Fstops... what's so hard to believe???

No, it is not just ISO and f-stops.
Not at all actually....

Noise is about light gathering, nothing else (well, certain companies treat noise better than others, but in the end of the day, light gathering is what counts).

Light gathering depends on three parameters:

1) The f-stop
2) the sensor area
3) the exposure time

In videography the exposure time of each image is basically the same, so that equals out between different cameras.

The f-stop is what you get if you divide the focal length with the diameter of the entrance pupille of your lens. The faster the lens the more light hits the sensor. The Gh1 kit lens is indeed rather slow, but nothing prevents you from using a f1.4.

The most important factor is the sensor area. A bigger sensor will gather more light and the more light you have, the less noise you have as well.

This is the real reason for why a 5d2 shines noisewise..
The sensor is so much bigger than in traditional camcorders so its like a sumo fighting mr bean.

If a camera has a sensor that is twice as big as another, it will gather the same amount of light with a lens that is one stop slower. That is the simple math.

So what the hell is the ISO about?
The iso is measure of how much you amplify the signal (=the light that you have gathered) to create your final image. If you crank up the iso you increase the amplification of the signal. The problem is that you amplify everything, also the noise which will become visible.

A camera/camcorder with a big sensor can accept a higher ISO-level than a camera with a smaller sensor simply because there is more light gathered (stronger signal) and the signal to noise ratio is higher.
It's exactly like with a radio: If you have a good antenna (=large sensor) you catch the station well. If you have a small antenna (=small sensor) you have to raise the volume, but by doing so you also raise the background noise and it doesn't sound good.

The gh1 is almost certainly much cleaner at ISO1600 than a traditional camcorder at ISO 640 because of the bigger sensor.
The comparison of ISO levels between different cameras is only interesting if you also consider the noise levels.

GregGory
05-13-2009, 01:49 PM
No, it is not just ISO and f-stops.

The most important factor is the sensor area. A bigger sensor will gather more light and the more light you have, the less noise you have as well.

This is the real reason for why a 5d2 shines noisewise..
The sensor is so much bigger than in traditional camcorders so its like a sumo fighting mr bean.

If a camera has a sensor that is twice as big as another, it will gather the same amount of light with a lens that is one stop slower. That is the simple math.

So what the hell is the ISO about?
The iso is measure of how much you amplify the signal (=the light that you have gathered) to create your final image. If you crank up the iso you increase the amplification of the signal. The problem is that you amplify everything, also the noise which will become visible.

A camera/camcorder with a big sensor can accept a higher ISO-level than a camera with a smaller sensor simply because there is more light gathered (stronger signal) and the signal to noise ratio is higher.
It's exactly like with a radio: If you have a good antenna (=large sensor) you catch the station well. If you have a small antenna (=small sensor) you have to raise the volume, but by doing so you also raise the background noise and it doesn't sound good.

The gh1 is almost certainly much cleaner at ISO1600 than a traditional camcorder at ISO 640 because of the bigger sensor.
The comparison of ISO levels between different cameras is only interesting if you also consider the noise levels.

Yes, I generally agree, but instead of sensor size, I prefer to focus on the effective light gathering capacity. Eg. Bayer sensors (CCD & CMOS alike) waste 2/3 of the light in the colour filters. 3-chip designs have a much lower loss rate, and concerning the 5Dii, allegedly there is an aditional 2/3 loss of signal due to the crippled readout method.

IOW: sensors size, f-stop, sensor efficiency, readout method are equally important.

These are the 'objective' parameters that can be compared easily, the 'subjective' ones are the amplifiers, A/D converters, the noise reduction method etc. also affect the output greatly.

GregGory
05-13-2009, 02:06 PM
ryan: the GH1 has also more pixels in the sensor, so that reduce light sensitivity.
But in the end, GH1 still win (clearly).

Actually, contrary to common belief, the pixel count is probably the least important aspect. With higher pixel count, the noise on pixel level goes up, but resampled to common denominator the noise stays remarkably constant. So, as long as the higher pixel count is properly resampled (not like the 5Dii), it's fine.

John Caballero
05-13-2009, 02:16 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

divide
05-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Greggory: unfortunately there is no resampling in the GH1, so it has more noise that it could avoid. But the loss is smaller than 5Dii.

GregGory
05-13-2009, 03:23 PM
Greggory: unfortunately there is no resampling in the GH1, so it has more noise that it could avoid. But the loss is smaller than 5Dii.

Has it been tested? The fact that the 5Dii doesn't completely smoke the GH1 for high iso and only minor aliasing issues reported suggest that GH1 is more efficient with the smaller sensor. But if you have a source I'd love to see it.

dcloud
05-13-2009, 04:26 PM
i have no evidence but it has been said before, the gh1 has far better low light than current video cameras (EX1)
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1632911&postcount=1381

jenningsp
05-13-2009, 06:43 PM
the GH1 is excellent in lowlight. it's better than and ex1, it's better than a DVX but only if you use a super fast lens.

if you use the stock lens, it's gonna be worse in lowlight than the DVX - and by this i don't mean noise/grain wize. i mean just being able to see something. i'm sure a pitch black image is super clean and has very little noise

also with the stock lens you're going to get about the same DOF as a DVX as well. so what's the Fing point......

stock lens is just slow. deal with it. wish they sold it without it.

according to amazon japan the cam by it's self is only worth $538 :)

divide
05-14-2009, 12:09 AM
Has it been tested? The fact that the 5Dii doesn't completely smoke the GH1 for high iso and only minor aliasing issues reported suggest that GH1 is more efficient with the smaller sensor. But if you have a source I'd love to see it.

I can't point you to an official source, but this as been discussed earlier on this board, the GH1 use Point resampling, not Bilinear/Bicubic. However, considering the max sensor resolution is 4352 (width) whereas the 5Dii is 5616, resampling to 1920 produce less artifacts. The evidence of this is that GH1 produce some artifacts when filming horizontal/vertical lines, but fewer than 5Dii.

divide
05-14-2009, 12:13 AM
if you use the stock lens, it's gonna be worse in lowlight than the DVX - and by this i don't mean noise/grain wize. i mean just being able to see something. i'm sure a pitch black image is super clean and has very little noise

..So the GH1 has better low light capabilities than DVX. What you're saying here is that DVX has more gain and this can see better in low light (are you sure about that, given the low light footage with the stock lens we have seen so far ?), but you can boost the gain in post on GH1 footage, so I think it still win even with the stock lens :)

ydgmdlu
05-14-2009, 12:40 AM
The most important factor is the sensor area. A bigger sensor will gather more light and the more light you have, the less noise you have as well.

This is the real reason for why a 5d2 shines noisewise..
The sensor is so much bigger than in traditional camcorders so its like a sumo fighting mr bean.

If a camera has a sensor that is twice as big as another, it will gather the same amount of light with a lens that is one stop slower. That is the simple math.
You did get right that the main factor in low-light performance is light-gathering ability, but can you please explain why greater sensor area leads to greater light-gathering ability? Do you not understand what an imaging sensor actually is? It's an array of photosites. The sensor itself does not capture light, per se; it's the photosites on the sensor that do it.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a 2.1 MP wide-aspect sensor. (This would be a 1080p HD sensor, FYI.) Say that it's a 1/3" chip, like the majority of prosumer camcorders. Now take those same 2.1 million photosites and spread them evenly across an area 36mm wide by 20.25mm high. (This is the effective imaging area of the 5D Mk II's video mode.) If the same number of photons are hitting both sensors, then how should the bigger sensor perform compared to the smaller one?

If you insist that the bigger sensor in this scenario somehow gathers more light, then you must explain how. Or to put it another way: How would the exact same photosites manage to gather more light simply by virtue of being spread across a much larger area?

If we grant that a bigger antenna picks up a stronger radio signal than a smaller one, which is a dubious and simplistic claim, then the reason why is because the entire body of the antenna is acting as a conductor for the signal. An antenna is really more analogous to a photosite. An imaging sensor is not a monolithic light-sensing device. What we know as the "chip" is made up of millions of tiny sensors. The output of the chip is essentially a mosaic of the read-outs of the individual photosites. This is why the size and performance of the photosites matters most, not the area of the sensor. The area of the sensor is almost meaningless, except to the extent that it allows the use of bigger lenses, which of course gather more light.

Late
05-14-2009, 02:33 AM
You did get right that the main factor in low-light performance is light-gathering ability, but can you please explain why greater sensor area leads to greater light-gathering ability? Do you not understand what an imaging sensor actually is? It's an array of photosites. The sensor itself does not capture light, per se; it's the photosites on the sensor that do it.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a 2.1 MP wide-aspect sensor. (This would be a 1080p HD sensor, FYI.) Say that it's a 1/3" chip, like the majority of prosumer camcorders. Now take those same 2.1 million photosites and spread them evenly across an area 36mm wide by 20.25mm high. (This is the effective imaging area of the 5D Mk II's video mode.) If the same number of photons are hitting both sensors, then how should the bigger sensor perform compared to the smaller one?


You're still going on about this? Yes. IF the same number of photons hits the big sensor then it isn't any better than the smaller one. The thing is that the same number of photons is NOT hitting the sensor. If you use the same lens (which is capable of covering both sensor sizes) the number of photons collected by the big sensor is much greater. The photons collected per area is the same, but the big sensor has more area. It's funny that you seem to think that area only matters on the pixel level, but not on the sensor level. You can't compare one big pixel to one smaller one. You have to compare equivalent areas. One big pixel vs. several smaller ones.

I posted this link in previous thread, but you just chose to ignore it. You keep demanding proof, but it's you who hasn't proven anything.

Here is the link once again: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html

Quotes: "Nevertheless, what should be clear from the preceding analysis is that there is virtually no difference in photon collecting efficiency over a very wide range of pixel sizes, from 2 microns to over 8 microns."

"The above DSLR/digicam comparison outlines the extremes of what may be possible with current or near-term technology, if digicam pixel densities were used to populate full-frame sensors. The fact that a digicam's performance is in the same ballpark as the best DSLR's when referred to fixed spatial scale, suggests that the problems with noise in digicams is not due to their ever smaller pixels, but rather it is due to their continued use of small sensors."

gastrolit
05-14-2009, 05:01 AM
The 5d2 has 21.1 Mp on 24x36=864mm2 sensor area. This means that 1080x1920 pixels take up 85mm2. The size of a 1/3" sensor is 4.8 x 6= 28.8 mm2

So, the effective light gathering surface area of the 5d2 is log(85/28.8)^2/log2 = 0.98 step bigger (where each step is a doubling).

The horrible thing is that we still live in camcorder stone age because the 5d2 could have used ALL PIXELS on the sensor to gather the light and then use pixel binning to output a 1080x1920 signal.

In this case the difference to a 1/3" sensor would be a whopping
log(864/28.8)^2/log2 = 4.9 step advantage..

The video function on todays DSLRs is tacked on, but the result is still better than on prosumer camcorders. It's sad that they didn't go all the way, but both canon and panasonic have a camcorder division to protect...

SLoNiCK
05-14-2009, 06:14 AM
gastrolit

The 5d2 has 21.1 Mp on 24x36=864mm2 sensor area. This means that 1080x1920 pixels take up 85mm2. The size of a 1/3" sensor is 4.8 x 6= 28.8 mm2

5Dm2 takes 36*20~=720 mm2 in 16:9, then reads every third line from sensor and downscales it to 1080p, AFAIK. So, effective square is 720/3=240 mm2. Comparative with ~200mm2 for GH1 in 16:9 mode.

dcloud
05-14-2009, 07:11 AM
the GH1 is excellent in lowlight. it's better than and ex1, it's better than a DVX but only if you use a super fast lens.

if you use the stock lens, it's gonna be worse in lowlight than the DVX - and by this i don't mean noise/grain wize. i mean just being able to see something. i'm sure a pitch black image is super clean and has very little noise

also with the stock lens you're going to get about the same DOF as a DVX as well. so what's the Fing point......
do you have a gh1?

StMad
05-14-2009, 07:12 AM
Isaac, I thought your measurbating call was a little premature...but now I come to the same conclusion.

Isaac_Brody
05-14-2009, 07:15 AM
Ha, I've been on here for years and seen this happen countless times. If it looks and smells like it, it's measurebating... :)

Still, a couple weeks away from having cameras in hands so I understand the temptation. I just hope people realize that it's pretty much a pointless exercise in debating until side by side tests can be done.

John Caballero
05-14-2009, 07:17 AM
also with the stock lens you're going to get about the same DOF as a DVX as well.

Precious.

marlontorres
05-14-2009, 07:18 AM
WHO CARES?! This is like debating the length of an artists pencil! It's not the pencil that creates the work its the artist! This debate just makes my head hurt!

gastrolit
05-14-2009, 07:28 AM
gastrolit

The 5d2 has 21.1 Mp on 24x36=864mm2 sensor area. This means that 1080x1920 pixels take up 85mm2. The size of a 1/3" sensor is 4.8 x 6= 28.8 mm2

5Dm2 takes 36*20~=720 mm2 in 16:9, then reads every third line from sensor and downscales it to 1080p, AFAIK. So, effective square is 720/3=240 mm2. Comparative with ~200mm2 for GH1 in 16:9 mode.

Ok, so after the readout of every third line the intermediate result will be an image
of 1080x5616 pixels. Then it is downsampled from 5616 to 1980.
Are you saying that this downsampling is done with pixel binning?
(If you just throw away all but 1980 pixels in the horizontal line without pixel binning the effective light gathering surface will be what I wrote before)

I haven't been able to find any info about this, but if you are right and data from each pixel in the horizontal row is used it's good news.

mkeep
05-14-2009, 09:26 AM
if you use the stock lens, it's gonna be worse in lowlight than the DVX - and by this i don't mean noise/grain wize. i mean just being able to see something. i'm sure a pitch black image is super clean and has very little noise

You can't talk about dynamic range and then ignore noise. It's part of the whole equation (signal to noise ratio, usable dynamic range, etc). And the DVX is an SD camera so for a fair comparison you would have to scale the GH1 footage down to SD and then compare their noise performance.

Barry_Green
05-14-2009, 11:51 AM
The horrible thing is that we still live in camcorder stone age because the 5d2 could have used ALL PIXELS on the sensor to gather the light and then use pixel binning to output a 1080x1920 signal.
Nope -- can't do it, because the 5D2 is a bayer-pattern sensor. Pixel-binning would result in a monochrome image.

You need three sensors to be able to do what you want with pixel binning.

SLoNiCK
05-14-2009, 01:00 PM
Barry_Green

You can wire same color sensels via gap transistors. Nearly 13 additional transistors needed for 4x4 block of GRBG bayer sensor. Unlock transistors - and get unified charge for every color. BTW, it will give huge readout speed boost cause it's nescessary to read 3 charges vs. 16 in usual case. May be worth for high frame rate.

GregGory
05-14-2009, 06:12 PM
I can't point you to an official source, but this as been discussed earlier on this board, the GH1 use Point resampling, not Bilinear/Bicubic. However, considering the max sensor resolution is 4352 (width) whereas the 5Dii is 5616, resampling to 1920 produce less artifacts. The evidence of this is that GH1 produce some artifacts when filming horizontal/vertical lines, but fewer than 5Dii.

Ok, but I'm not completely convinced though. I still have a hunch that GH1 only reads 3840x2160 (x2.1 effective crop factor) of the sensor except when the lens is at full WA. In this case some of the sensor columns may not be read out. A second explanation could be the barrel distortion algorithm. Until someone makes the 'measuring tape test', we won't know for sure.

BUT all in all, I'm believe the GH1 DOES properly resample (pixelbin) properly.

Illya Friedman
05-15-2009, 02:05 AM
From my experience- which for the record may not be the most extensive but is quite possibly the longest with the DVX100 series. (I had access to a pre-release camera, and then received the very first two DVX100(P) cameras on the West Coast- first shipment from Japan was during the dock workers strike in 2002. I got two of three through, while the rest of the U.S. supply sat in a shipping container in Long Beach for over 3-months.)

Besides the GH1 having loads more resolution, my unscientific observational finding is that the GH1 has much better dynamic range (guestimate of 1.5 - 2 stops better than a DVX) For comparison, this is better than at least one larger format sensor camera which costs 10-12x the price of the GH1.

The GH1 also has significantly better low-light performance! The noise floor of the GH1 is probably between 6db to 12db below the DVX100. 8-bit 4:2:0 files are a bit of a shame, it's easy to see that these images could have a larger amounts of manipulation in post. Thank goodness for the all-manual controls, so you can get there on set. It's a bummer for the DP to have to hit record for a moment, and then hit play to see the scene on a large monitor for lighting. Kind of reminds me of film back when video taps were an expensive "luxury" item.

I wish manufactures published fill factor on the box right next to megapixels. I don't know what the fill factor is of the GH1, but my guess is when comparing some other (much more expensive) "professional" cameras to the GH1, the GH1 is capturing such fine low-noise details by utilizing a modern sensor with a combination of oversampling, higher fill factor, larger well capacity, and extremely advanced noise reduction to get such a clean image.

I was looking at some GH1 1080p forward facing driving footage tonight on the big screen- stunning! I don't know a single pro who would have guessed the camera that shot those images cost under $2K!

You can easily achieve a codec fault with the GH1 if you're trying to break the image. However, I really feel now that if proper care is taken when setting up and executing shots (that is ----> shooting in a *professional* manner, rather than just "handycam-ing" it) you're NOT going to get obvious AVCHD codec faults. Yes, even in situations with multiple axis of motion. In two-three months from now there'll be significantly more footage posted, you don't have to take my word for it.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

jenningsp
05-15-2009, 02:44 AM
Besides the GH1 having loads more resolution, my unscientific observational finding is that the GH1 has much better dynamic range (guestimate of 1.5 - 2 stops better than a DVX) For comparison, this is better than at least one larger format sensor camera which costs 10-12x the price of the GH1.


Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Hunter has rated the GH1 (in video mode) to have 6 stops of usable dynamic range. 3 stops above 50IRE and 3 below.

the DVX has about 7-8 stops usable. 3 above 50IRE and 4-5 bellow with normal gamma. this is from my own testing.

though most people set the dvx to crush the blacks slightly by lowering the master ped. so you can expect a very similar image from both.

GregGory
05-15-2009, 04:01 AM
Hunter has rated the GH1 (in video mode) to have 6 stops of usable dynamic range. 3 stops above 50IRE and 3 below.

the DVX has about 7-8 stops usable. 3 above 50IRE and 4-5 bellow with normal gamma. this is from my own testing.

though most people set the dvx to crush the blacks slightly by lowering the master ped. so you can expect a very similar image from both.

Yeah, but AFAIK Hunter didn't turn on iContrast which judging by the samples I've seen means a LOT. The sensor of the G1 can easily deliver 10 stops in RAW, so basically it's a question of telling the camera to use some of the bandwidth on the shadows.

jenningsp
05-15-2009, 04:05 AM
iContrast doesn't effect the video mode at all. video mode is 6 stops and that's it.

GregGory
05-15-2009, 04:37 AM
iContrast doesn't effect the video mode at all. video mode is 6 stops and that's it.

It depends, sensor DR isn't affected of course, and within normal bounds not even the JPG/MJPG DR is affected. But judging by the default setting samples I've seen (loads of crushed blacks), compared to the iContrast samples I've seen, it looks to me there is a different black point.

Crushing the blacks have various advantages, The noisy shadows don't show, Punchy 'consumer look', Blacks don't take up bandwidth, The frames less busy => needs less computing power => risk of compression braking up is lower.

The down side is the poor DR.

divide
05-15-2009, 08:14 AM
iContrast doesn't effect the video mode at all. video mode is 6 stops and that's it.

That's not what Kholi report. And as he own a GH1, I tend to believe him...
So I guess video mode from the GH1 can go way beyond 6 stops !

Kholi
05-15-2009, 08:39 AM
iContrast doesn't effect the video mode at all. video mode is 6 stops and that's it.

You're absolutely incorrect. And it's a shame that you stated that as fact instead of just asking.

John Caballero
05-15-2009, 08:48 AM
iContrast doesn't effect the video mode at all. video mode is 6 stops and that's it.


Is this a fact from personal use? Read the info in the Panasonic global website before making statements like this or wait until you get a camera in your very own hands. There are multiple settings in the menus to control the cameras image that apply both to stills and movie. Just do more reasearch on that info.

Isaac_Brody
05-15-2009, 09:24 AM
I can't remember if Hunter tested dynamic range in 60P, if I remember correctly he tested at 1080. From the footage I've seen there may be more range in the 60P mode.

jenningsp
05-15-2009, 11:07 AM
You're absolutely incorrect. And it's a shame that you stated that as fact instead of just asking.

i'm just taking hunters word man. i've been following hunters threads. i kinda gave up on yours after one thousand posts :) the crap to information ratio went through the roof


Greg Gory-

Hi! I chose iso 200 & iso 400 for the for the dynamic range test because I thought the base would be somewhere in there. Thats interesting that its at iso 100 though.

I did not test MJPEG.

I just tried the iContrast mode thing, it doesnt seem to affect the movie mode. Maybe it requires processing that doesn't happen realtime?

from here - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=169780&page=7

Kholi
05-15-2009, 12:26 PM
You can ask Hunter if, since then, he's seen it work.

I have and I have examples of it. So, you're definitely incorrect.

Illya Friedman
05-15-2009, 10:19 PM
iContrast doesn't effect the video mode at all. video mode is 6 stops and that's it.

The GH1 has more dynamic range than the DVX100. It's false and asinine to say otherwise.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

jenningsp
05-15-2009, 11:06 PM
The GH1 has more dynamic range than the DVX100. It's false and asinine to say otherwise.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

it's asinine to pass on information believed to be fact from a very reputable source?

the dvx has 7-8 usable stops and you can eek out a total of 11 from the sensor. it's not that bad. i guess it's a lost cause trying to convince people the DVX hasn't stopped being awesome just because HD was invented :)

stephenvv
05-15-2009, 11:20 PM
the dvx has 7-8 usable stops and you can eek out a total of 11 from the sensor. it's not that bad. i guess it's a lost cause trying to convince people the DVX hasn't stopped being awesome just because HD was invented :)

11? No way. I had 3 DVXs over the years and they are a noisy camera in cinegamma modes where you get the increased latitude. You could eek out 7 if you did not mind noise.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
05-16-2009, 12:00 AM
FWIW, according to the GH1 manual, iExposure is available when recording video.

However, note: "Compensation effect may not be achieved depending on the conditions."

gh1_iExposure_p121.jpg (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/attachment.php?attachmentid=11047&stc=1&d=1242457068)

Illya Friedman
05-16-2009, 01:42 AM
it's asinine to pass on information believed to be fact from a very reputable source?

Why are you trying to put this on Hunter now? In your quote referred to by John Caballero, divide, Kholi and finally myself, you don't credit anyone as your source. It clearly appears to be your own statement.

In a different Cinematography related forum, the founder constantly reminds it's members not to speak beyond their experience; and when posting theory/conjecture to label it as such. Not only is that good advice for any on-line forum, but life in general. I think that those who ignore such warning do so at their own peril, and risk doing themselves unrepairable disservice.

I was actually just told a story last week, that can perhaps serve as a cautionary tail. A person of some on-line/website notoriety a year or so back has gone (essentially) dark these days because their professional reputation is entirely in the gutter, with no signs of improvement. The reason- they so repeatedly ignored the basic concept of not speaking beyond their experience, and passing opinion and theory (sometimes not even their own opinions and theories) as fact.

Amazingly, at one point this person managed to secure a job in the technical side of the business, and after a very short period of time- was fired because it became obvious to all that the job was completely beyond their working knowledge. I also understand that they overstated their qualification greatly during the interview process, which made the firing that much easier.



11? No way. I had 3 DVXs over the years and they are a noisy camera in cinegamma modes where you get the increased latitude. You could eek out 7 if you did not mind noise.

If you'd like a seconding, my experience echos your own. I recall charting (a generous) 7.5 stops from the 100A before the picture became NG; and 5 of those stops were down.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

jenningsp
05-16-2009, 03:32 PM
Illya,

i really hoped this would die... but you keep instigating a response.

i see forums as a conversation, not a scientific journal. do you site your sources after every line you speak in real life? I was just passing on what i believed to be an established fact. After being corrected by kholi, I posted a quote and a reference, so your 'asinine' remark came across as a pointless dig.

this is a gh1 vs DVX100 thread. i own a DVX100. i have have done my own DR tests with a waveform. i know exactly what i'm talking about in reference to the DVX. and i'm comparing that information to the only DR test of the GH1 in existence today. Yes it's conjecture and theory. but that's what this thread is...

someone needs to do another DR test on the GH1 if Hunter is wrong. Illya, if you send me your GH1, i'd be more than happy to test it... what's that? you don't own one? :)

peace

Barry_Green
05-16-2009, 04:36 PM
Barry_Green

You can wire same color sensels via gap transistors. Nearly 13 additional transistors needed for 4x4 block of GRBG bayer sensor. Unlock transistors - and get unified charge for every color. BTW, it will give huge readout speed boost cause it's nescessary to read 3 charges vs. 16 in usual case. May be worth for high frame rate.
Well, yeah, but -- that's hardly binning, is it? That's no more than row-skipping.

Binning is combining adjacent pixels into a "super-pixel". If you go skipping the adjacent pixels to link only the same-color pixels together, you haven't really created a bigger bin nor gained the benefit of a super-pixel. The idea behind a super-pixel, as I understand it, is to combine all charges hitting in one area into one pixel. But with gap transistors you'd be linking disparate pixels together, but not increasing the surface area of the one super-pixel you'd be (assumedly) trying to create.

So, I still say that pixel-binning, to gain the advantage of sensitivity and lower noise at the expense of overall resolution, is not a practical technique on a single-sensor Bayer camera.

Unless I missed your point?

Barry_Green
05-16-2009, 04:38 PM
My experience says the DVX delivers about 7 stops to the final DV tape.

Juan Pertierra said he could eke some more out of the sensors with his Andromeda, but it seemed like there was frequently an odd color cast to the extended range, which is most likely due to one of the sensors clipping while the others were still delivering a charge. For example, the highlights would go yellow-ish, an indication that the blue was already blowing out and the red and green were then delivering a bit more out of proportion.

Illya Friedman
05-16-2009, 04:41 PM
i really hoped this would die... but you keep instigating a response.

2-2-tango eh?


do you site your sources after every line you speak in real life?

Well... If I didn't know something, I would say "I don't know", and not attempt to BS my way through it.

Are you really so peeved about being called on it? My bigger point was cautioning ANYONE who makes a habit of speaking first and thinking later. Is there really room in ones mouth for both an elbow and foot?


so your 'asinine' remark came across as a pointless dig.

Really? I always think the term asinine being incredibly pointed, if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I never pointed squarely at you.


i know exactly what i'm talking about in reference to the DVX.

So far that's not my impression. Please demonstrate your methodology for deriving a usable dynamic range of 11-stops straight from the DVX100, and I will immediately declare you master.


Illya, if you send me your GH1, i'd be more than happy to test it... what's that? you don't own one? :)

peace

Ok you've got a deal. Paypal me $1700 to cover shipping. Hope you can read Japanese.

Ja matta,

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Barry_Green
05-16-2009, 04:47 PM
Illya, he didn't say that he gets 11 usable stops straight from the DVX. He said the sensors are capable of that much range, which is most likely a reference back to Juan Pertierra and the Andromeda. That would seem optimistic, however, as Juan's claims for the Andromeda (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/alternative-imaging-methods/56251-andromeda-dvx-100-pre-orders-now-available.html)were that it got as much as 9.5 stops, which Juan says represents a gain of about 2.5 stops over the original DVX (which would put it back at 7).

Let's please step back a moment and let things defuse, okay?

jenningsp
05-16-2009, 05:11 PM
hahahahahahahhaha i love dvxuser.

i said the dvx has 7-8 usable stops and you can eek out a total of 11 from the sensor.

the extra stops aren't usable... but a technicality

but i can show you those 11 if you want. i'll be right back....

Illya Friedman
05-16-2009, 05:47 PM
hahahahahahahhaha i love dvxuser.

i said the dvx has 7-8 usable stops and you can eek out a total of 11 from the sensor.

the extra stops aren't usable... but a technicality

but i can show you those 11 if you want. i'll be right back....

Well it's my mistake for reading too fast. Until you clairifed, I thought you were trying to say that the DVX100 had 11 stops of dynamic range, which wouldn't surprise me after your other claim.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

upshot
05-16-2009, 06:20 PM
I love DR warfare. It's mysterious and contentious!

Let's lay bets on it...

I'll optimistically lay my bet on 8. Spin the debayer!

Jarred Land
05-16-2009, 06:39 PM
you guys are all nuts :)

jenningsp
05-16-2009, 06:40 PM
ok so here it is...

depending on your monitor you should be able to see the difference between grey and white in the first pic. and the difference between grey and black in the last.



http://f.imagehost.org/0522/dvxat28.jpg

http://f.imagehost.org/0488/dvxat8.jpg

http://f.imagehost.org/0892/dvxat11w64.jpg

one thing to note is that the ND filters are actually a little stronger than they're supposed to be. so this makes the DVX even more awesome...

f2.8 to f11 w/ 1/64 shows 11 stops of DR

here's the graph.....

f2.8 = JUST below white
f4
f5.6
f8
f4 + 1/8
f5.6 + 1/8
f8 + 1/8
f4 + 1/64
f5.6 + 1/64
f8 + 1/64
f11 + 1/64 (can still differentiate grey from black)
f16 = JUST above black


am i master now? :)

Ian-T
05-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Standard Def...Old Technology. That's my problem. :)

Illya Friedman
05-16-2009, 09:47 PM
am i master now? :)


I almost don't know where to begin. First things first.... I've counted to 10. Really.
.
.
.

Since these images are what you are presenting as proof of dynamic range, why don't you give us a little more technical detail about how exactly you went about this test, and exactly what conclusions it is that you're drawing.

Actually before you do that, why don't you take a look at this (http://www.cinematography.net/compare%202007/index.htm):

http://www.cinematography.net/compare%202007/index.htm

Now consider your test.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

jenningsp
05-16-2009, 10:26 PM
i miss counted when doing the test, so i only posted a grab of the 10 stop point... there is more room below that. there's almost 12 stops in total. but 11 realistically :) i'll post the extra grab now..

here's F16 + 1/64 ND - you can hardly see a difference between the grey and black but there is still a slight difference... this is just masturbation though :)

http://f.imagehost.org/0987/dvxat16w64.jpg

BTW i've read the link you posted before.

how i went about it...

set up a black,grey and white card on a wall.

set the camera to normal gamma (retains the most highlight info) and set master ped to -3 (which sets true black at 0IRE)

lit the grey card so it was JUST not clipping at f2.8 (so 99IRE). then just proceeded to stop down and add ND's and marked each fstop increment.

my conclusions are that the DVX has 7-8 usable stops and 11 in total. if you had to, you could save some badly under exposed footage with the After Effects exposure tool and neat video noise reduction :)

yay!

divide
05-17-2009, 01:17 AM
You can't compare Apple and Orange... DVX100 is 720*480, GH1 is 1920*1080.
Even if they had the same DR, GH1 has exactly 6 times more pixels, so if you downres GH1 to DVX100, you average 6 pixels for one, thus greatly reducing noise and enhancing DR.

Postmaster
05-17-2009, 01:29 AM
8 pages and no one came to the idea to do a quick test shot comparsion instead of theorizing?

Frank

Illya Friedman
05-17-2009, 01:46 AM
Patrick- I'm a reasonable guy, and I thought about what you said, about how you think of this is a conversation... so tell me what the point of this exercise was exactly?

Was it that it's possible to differentiate totally unusable grey from totally unusable black by boosting levels in software?

I don't need to tell you there is a big difference between usable dynamic range (the dynamic range that matters) and unusable dynamic range. Which most rational people would consider the closely adjacent area outside of usable. However, what you've done is show us some brutally soft, de-noised differences from the muck, raised-up and corrected in software.

Somethings are more "unusable" than "unusable". And I think you've just posted it.

Look, I'm a long time fan of the DVX100, but what you've done doesn't help the cause of the DVX100 "being awesome".

I'll offer up an EXTREME example- I have a crappy digital camera right near my desk. The camera has maybe 6 stops of usable dynamic range, in a 1.6MP imager. I just shot a simple chart, SEVERLY underexposed, and I pulled it up with only a gamma adjustment in XNview. Obviously no de-noise.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2725/demod.jpg

Just because you can do this does not mean it's practical (or IMHO fair to include it as part of that "unusable" dynamic range).

Don't be offended- to be clear, I am not mocking you. On the contrary, I'm trying to help.

I'm going to use my sarcastic voice for a second just to prove a point-

OMG, there's a difference between pure white (far left), grey (bottom half) and black (far right) - holy crap this "Melmann 5000 Pro" must be the most awesomest camera of all time!

No of course it's not. This image stopped being "unusable" a long time ago, but just because there are still few photons deep in the CCD wells doesn't mean it's fair to call this extreme example of a piss-poor latent image part of the sensor's dynamic range.

By the way, with an F900 and a DaVinci, it's possible to do this same thing to 19-or-so stops underexposed from key!! It's one of the examples we did at the Santa Fe Workshops (http://www.gancietv.com/cgibin/eDatCat/GTVstore.cgi), where I've been fortunate enough to attend a couple, and help instruct at another.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

jenningsp
05-17-2009, 02:19 AM
i just wanted you to declare me master :) i showed you 11 stops of DR from the DVX.... come on.... you know you want to...

Chance White
05-17-2009, 09:16 AM
I find this thread baffling and utterly hilarious.

Illya Friedman
05-17-2009, 03:33 PM
You can lead a horse to water.....


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 04:43 PM
Again, who the heck cares about anything to do with the DVX? That camera is history. It served it pourpose but there is nothing to compare! GH1 where are you?

William_Robinette
05-17-2009, 05:39 PM
Again, who the heck cares about anything to do with the DVX?

Those of us still making good money with it care...

Barry_Green
05-17-2009, 09:37 PM
i lit the grey card so it was JUST not clipping at f2.8 (so 99IRE). then just proceeded to stop down and add ND's and marked each fstop increment.
Not necessarily reliable though. First off, the DVX reports its stops in 1/2-stop increments, but the iris is calibrated in 1/6-stops, so you could be as much as a third of a stop off and not even know it. But second, and worse, is that there's something non-linear about the way the DVX reports its stops vs. the sensitivity to the light. It acts like it's 250 ISO when set at f/1.6, and 1000 ISO when set at f/16.

So I wouldn't rely on the iris to tell you what the actual stops you're seeing are. I'd much rather measure the light with a meter to know how many true stops you're seeing the difference between. Or, barring that, try using the shutter speed instead of the iris to change the exposure: try setting it at a fixed f/5.6 and then use the shutter speed to change stops; it's probably going to be more accurate.

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 09:41 PM
You won't pull a pro paid gig with a DSLR that can shoot 1080p video, I make money off my DVX too. If you do video work you need a video camera,, regardless of what A DSLR can do with video, in the professional world it means sh*t. Imagine rocking up to a wedding with a DSLR and say, i'm the video guy (people start to stare at you at this point).

And guess what?, the image could be 100 times better than any other video or film camera and it still wouldn't matter! It its a DSLR and not a video camera. As i've posted in another thread,,, why try and re-invent the wheel??

And really this thread is one of the most pathetic atempts to discredit a product or prove "betterness" over another. Very childish and stupidly pointless.

And finally, do photog's all have little DI*k syndrome over us video folks? Cause they all seem to argue now that they're great with the DSLR's that have the best of both worlds.

In the world we have Photographers and we also have Videographers. Why change this?? Really,,,,,

Kholi
05-17-2009, 09:44 PM
You won't pull a pro paid gig with a DSLR that can shoot 1080p video, I make money off my DVX too. If you do video work you need a video camera,, regardless of what A DSLR can do with video, in the professional world it means sh*t.

Whoa buddy. Are you sure about that? LOL


Let's not get crazy here. DVX still has it's place. But please don't mistake the power of talent and trust.

You guys can talk all you want about "it doesn't look like a camera though!". The truth is that those times are fading swiftly, and if you prove the camera can produce results then it doesn't matter.

Although I probably misunderstood your comment: are you sure you can't pull a "pro" and "paid" gig with a DSLR? =D How much would you bet on that?

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 09:57 PM
Kholi, you own an HPX170, I can't understand why you're batting for a still camera?

The HPX you'd shoot a corporate interview or wedding or whatever. A DSLR you'd take to the park to shoot the kids playing with the family poodle.

squig
05-17-2009, 10:00 PM
chuck a matte box and rods on a DSLR and the punters won't know the difference.

others here have scored pro paid gigs with their D90s. I missed out on a 20k TVC with mine and it's only 720p

Kholi
05-17-2009, 10:04 PM
I own an HPX170 .... for rentals. I shoot with a RED and second sound when I can and, now, a GH-1 and an H4N.

I'm not an event or wedding videographer, but I would SURELY change my cameras asap if I were.

Now, either BETTER? No. Never. It's all just preference.

I may not end up with a GH-1, but I probably won't be going back the other way.

The thought that the size of a camera matters is going to go out with the older crowd. Size seriously does not matter anymore.

You think anyone's going to care that Scarlet is the size of a dSLR? No.

squig
05-17-2009, 10:10 PM
only time size matters is when ya got back trouble.

ChipG
05-17-2009, 10:19 PM
You won't pull a pro paid gig with a DSLR that can shoot 1080p video, I make money off my DVX too.

Times have sure changed here in the US, travel shows, Discovery Chanel shows, action aventure shows are using DSLR's in the field, mainly the 5DII now but the little GH1 will be even more stealth and will be used a LOT. I know several production companies that have pre order GH1's by the dozen to be used on network TV shows.

It's a very usefull cam for fast run n' gun style shoots, travel shows, action adventure stuff where you need to be stealth so people will not bother you.

William_Robinette
05-17-2009, 10:28 PM
The thought that the size of a camera matters is going to go out with the older crowd. Size seriously does not matter anymore.

You think anyone's going to care that Scarlet is the size of a dSLR? No.

Agree. I use my DVX for now, but if something came along that gave my clients a better bang for their buck, then hell yes I am going to use it.

If you have clients who trust you and not your equipment I don't see how showing up with a DSLR is a problem. Can you really not talk your way out of that if they confront you?

Kholi
05-17-2009, 10:31 PM
Will has it. Not to mention, just wait until Photographers learn the video side.

"Yeah this is great because I can shoot video then snap a perfect still without even stopping!"

They already KNOW great composition and lighting. Video AND great stills in one package?

I guess the writing on the wall isn't as clear as I think.

ChipG
05-17-2009, 10:42 PM
Will has it. Not to mention, just wait until Photographers learn the video side.

"Yeah this is great because I can shoot video then snap a perfect still without even stopping!"

They already KNOW great composition and lighting. Video AND great stills in one package?

I guess the writing on the wall isn't as clear as I think.

Amen Kholi!

Here is a video of Vincent Laforet (a still phogographer) who borrowed a DSLR and it is the most viewed DSLR video to date. In this video he talks about the 5D but also about how he didn't ever feel comfortable with or understand video cameras only DSLR's and lenses. It's a good video to watch and really applies to all of the DSLRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfUUySn3y7w

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 10:42 PM
The worlds gone mad!

squig
05-17-2009, 10:44 PM
T
It's a very usefull cam for fast run n' gun style shoots, travel shows, action adventure stuff where you need to be stealth so people will not bother you.

not much action in melbourne:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

squig
05-17-2009, 10:45 PM
I have to send shaun some freebies to see my DSLR feature

I can relate with vincent, I have more SLR than video experience.

Kholi
05-17-2009, 10:47 PM
The worlds gone mad!

That's what they said about the DVX100 and 24P. How odd is that?

But DVX is still alive and kickin'! Keep shootin!

ChipG
05-17-2009, 10:56 PM
not much action in melbourne:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Dude,

Buy a waterproof housing and go mount one on your surfboard. It's a way to get shots you couldn't get before with a big cam.

squig
05-17-2009, 11:01 PM
Dude,

Buy a waterproof housing and go mount one on your surfboard. It's a way to get shots you couldn't get before with a big cam.

surf!

it's like hollywood mate.....too many sharks

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 11:04 PM
You won't pull a pro paid gig with a DSLR that can shoot 1080p video, I make money off my DVX too.

The GH1 will definitely be a great camera for a wedding. The bride and groom don't care two cents about what camera you are using to shoot their wedding as long as the final product plays flawlessly on their t.v. The GH1 with the shallow DOF and filmlike image will be great for weddings as the final product will definitely look like a movie to the newlyweds. Heck, you will be able to set their two faces for auto focus tracking them! The only problem would be camera overheating but it seems that the GH1 is good at that. If not, you can get two cameras. The low light capabilities is excellent for event filmmaking. A few SD cards will be enough to film the whole thing. This type of camera will eventually become the norm for this type of work. Mark my words. Oh, you can also take still pictures of the wedding with it too!
A lot of weeding material is done with the 5d Mark 2 already.

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 11:11 PM
Man, maybe you could mount one to a helmet and go skiing or even skydiving.

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 11:18 PM
Man, maybe you could mount one to a helmet and go skiing or even skydiving.

Versatile little buggers. Is amazing how they are shrinking in size but producing a better image. In the case of wedding work it won't be much of a difference to the client because the photos are being taken with a DSLR anyway, so they are familiar with them. I like them because they are light and even if I shot hand held all day my arms won't hurt at all. I am also a pro photographer and very comfortable with the form factor.

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 11:20 PM
Someone will have to make a Special little Glidecam for it.

ChipG
05-17-2009, 11:22 PM
Man, maybe you could mount one to a helmet and go skiing or even skydiving.

Yep, mount them everywhere. It really opens up so many possibilities for creative shots and it's smaller & lighter than the 5DII.

I don't even need to scuba dive anymore, I'm gong to buy a waterproof housing for $500 and put one on a 12 foot pole from the boat above, I'll no longer scare away the fish from my air bubbles and movement. Stealth!

The possiblities are endless!

The wave of the future :) The wave of the future :)

Kholi
05-17-2009, 11:22 PM
Someone will have to make a Special little Glidecam for it.

You'd be incredible surprised how useful the OIS on the kit lens is. I have some pretty shakey hands and I can handle this thing @ telephoto in excess of 400mm.

That's the say, by using the crop (x2) in camera, that's 140 x 2 which is 280 x 2 = 560mm telephoto.

the footage looks incredible @ 500mm, and the OIS lets me track quite well.

The Kit Lens is a MUST keep.

squig
05-17-2009, 11:22 PM
I hope the GH1 is good for weeding

my garden is like a jungle

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 11:27 PM
I hope the GH1 is good for weeding

my garden is like a jungle

I heard you might be able to use it as a hammer too. Very resourceful.

squig
05-17-2009, 11:30 PM
I heard you might be able to use it as a hammer too. Very resourceful.

yeah with a 2.5lb anamorphic lens attached

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 11:33 PM
You'd be incredible surprised how useful the OIS on the kit lens is. I have some pretty shakey hands and I can handle this thing @ telephoto in excess of 400mm.

That's the say, by using the crop (x2) in camera, that's 140 x 2 which is 280 x 2 = 560mm telephoto.

the footage looks incredible @ 500mm, and the OIS lets me track quite well.

The Kit Lens is a MUST keep.

People use glidecam for the "flying effect" its a visual thing. OIS or not its not the same, not even close, you wont' get footage like glidecam by hanholding a camera not matter how good the OIS or your skills are. And I was having a dig when I mentioned the glidecam thing,,, you know, just being a bit childish like this whole thread has been.

Nighthawk
05-17-2009, 11:35 PM
yeah with a 2.5lb anamorphic lens attached

You could probably crack open a beer with that. This camera could have it all.

Isaac_Brody
05-17-2009, 11:42 PM
I'm not sure anyone posted this in this thread but it relates to the topic.

http://www.vimeo.com/4506657

I don't know how I missed this. It's night footage shot at 1600 iso and it's absolutely gorgeous. I recommend downloading and watching at 720P.

squig
05-17-2009, 11:45 PM
You could probably crack open a beer with that. This camera could have it all.

AND RISK SPILLAGE!

you can be stoned to death for that in this country!

I use the Burton 162 for the "flying effect"

ChipG
05-17-2009, 11:49 PM
I'm not sure anyone posted this in this thread but it relates to the topic.

http://www.vimeo.com/4506657

I don't know how I missed this. It's night footage shot at 1600 iso and it's absolutely gorgeous. I recommend downloading and watching at 720P.

It's been posted although the same guy added this video 10 hours ago. It's a dark gloomy GH1 video but I'm really diggin the look!

http://www.vimeo.com/4696104

stephenvv
05-17-2009, 11:49 PM
at least no one has yet posted images of the clear two full stops of DR on the Gutenberg press....

squig
05-17-2009, 11:50 PM
I'm not sure anyone posted this in this thread but it relates to the topic.

http://www.vimeo.com/4506657

I don't know how I missed this. It's night footage shot at 1600 iso and it's absolutely gorgeous. I recommend downloading and watching at 720P.

yeah when I saw that I was almost convinced I could shoot my feature with this thing. I'll be convinced when I can get my hands on one or when kholi pulls his finger out and shows me some grading.

Nighthawk
05-18-2009, 12:08 AM
It's been posted although the same guy added this video 10 hours ago. It's a dark gloomy GH1 video but I'm really diggin the look!

http://www.vimeo.com/4696104

"Blue sniff" is his moniker and I'd like to send a big 'shout' to him. Between the info on this forum and his many uploads I'm certain, for me, this is an amazing cam to have. If he isn't a Panny rep he should be.

Nighthawk
05-18-2009, 12:11 AM
AND RISK SPILLAGE!

you can be stoned to death for that in this country!

In my country too, friend, but they're usually wrapped in snowballs.

squig
05-18-2009, 12:12 AM
tried that but they just turn into ice blocks

yeah like his work