PDA

View Full Version : extremely bad 1080p from dc.watch.impress.co.jp



DrBlaz
05-17-2009, 11:46 AM
yesterday I downloaded gh1_m001.mts from

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2009/05/13/10814.html

there is a clean frame every 12 frames, between them all frames are mud , the effect is really annoying

Ian-T
05-17-2009, 12:46 PM
I have to ask what's the point of this post? There are issues in 1090p with this camera as noted on several other posts. But I've viewed those same Watch Impress footage from the other day and I didn't see what you are talking about. Which one specifically? I posted the other day that I thought they were rather clean (the 1080/24).

...or are you referring to the interlacing? If so then you have to remember these are raw footage which needs to be ran through a deinterlacer for proper viewing.

Edit: Matter of fact I use Nero Showtime to view all of those clips and they were all pristine clean. What suprised me is that they were panning shots and even one moving on a train. I am able to pause anywhere in the clip and have not found any mush. If anything one of the boat clips was little noisy (very fine grain)...but there was no breakdown of the image. Except for clip gh_m001.mts though.

DrBlaz
05-17-2009, 04:36 PM
hello

just uploaded to megaupload the first 50 frames of this video, of course pulldown removed, and saved as jpgs.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8AB7AYPR

pay attention to frames 1-12-24-36-48


the point of this post? may be we can only post here how good is the gh1!! :beer:

I'm thinking about purchasing this cam and want to be sure I can shoot foliage at 24p, so I'm downloading every m2ts I find, in another m2ts I saw also strange effects with moving foliage , may be the gh1 is a urban camera!

codeloss
05-17-2009, 05:14 PM
Thanks for the upload DrBlaz. I haven't checked it out on a TV but I'm guessing the effect would probably be a bit distracting. For people that don't have the patience to step through the images, here's a side by side of frame 11 next to frame 12. Frame 11 is mushy, and on frame 12 a lot of detail suddenly pops in.

In all fairness, it appears the shutter speed was pretty high here, and if it was more in the range of 1/50 or 1/60, the motion blur would help to cover up this effect. That doesn't make me feel any better about the codec, though.

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 05:25 PM
Wait until you have a camera in your hands and do your own tests. Is a waste of time to be working with footage that you don't have and idea of how was shot. There are no valid conclusions in working this way. Absolutely none to be made.

Ian-T
05-17-2009, 05:30 PM
the point of this post? may be we can only post here how good is the gh1!! !Well...that's not what I was implying. There are other threads with plenty of examples and info on why this is happening. when I opriginally read this I thought it had nothing new for me to learn. But I admit I didn't see that you were talking about a specific mts file. But if it's the file codeloss is referring to then that is the same one I was talking about in my original reply. It's strange how the other 1080 files look good with movement though.

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 05:43 PM
It's strange how the other 1080 files look good with movement though.

And that is the secret. Unless we have information and all the details of how they were shot we have no point of comparison. So it becomes futile to try to make a good judgement unless you were doing tests with your very own hands and eyes the way Kohli and Hunter are doing and the way you will be able to do the day a camera is in your hands.

cheezweezl
05-17-2009, 05:54 PM
And that is the secret. Unless we have information and all the details of how they were shot we have no point of comparison. So it becomes futile to try to make a good judgement unless you were doing tests with your very own hands and eyes the way Kohli and Hunter are doing and the way you will be able to do the day a camera is in your hands.

are you implying that there is a setting in the cam that blows 11 out of every 12 frames? and what is wrong with doing research before the camera is in your hands and your cash is in their hands?

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 06:03 PM
are you implying that there is a setting in the cam that blows 11 out of every 12 frames? and what is wrong with doing research before the camera is in your hands and your cash is in their hands?

We don't personally know much about the camera do we? Some very nice looking stuff is showing up in You Tube and Vimeo isn't it? So common sense tells you that whoever is doing the right procedure is getting positive results and whoever isn't is not. Common sense. I doubt it very much that Panasonic is gonna put up a product totally mess up. The stakes are too high. They know what they are doing and that is why they make money in the camera business. Most of the stores, at least in New York, give you at least a week to return merchandise so logic says you are not gonna loose your money if you are not satisfied. Again: simple common sense.

LizaWitz
05-17-2009, 06:03 PM
That doesn't make me feel any better about the codec, though.

It should. Unless your standard is uncompressed RED footage, in which case what you really want is a RED One, then you're going to be working with compressed footage.

The job of a codec is to reduce 500MB/s or so of image data down to 17Mbps so that it displays well to someone watching it at 24 or more frames per second.

I expect that when watched at that speed, this footage looks just fine.

If you're looking for the "film look" then you're going to be shooting at a shutter speed of 1/48th (or 1/50th) and you're going to get motion blur.

Looking at these frames, this codec is unable to keep up with the movement between frames in exactly the areas your eye would blur anyway-- characteristically the highest movement spots are also the ones least well rendered and that would be totally blurry in a film camera.

The important areas of the footage-- the background trees, and the train, are all rendered fine.

If this were shot with a film camera, the pebbles and the grass by the side of the tracks would be blurred in every frame.

This codec is actually giving you a higher quality image than you would get with film in the same situation-- where all that stuff would be blurred.

If you're not wanting to make movies-- but are instead looking for a 500MB/s image quality with perfect resolution in every frame, then this camera is not for you.

What I don't understand is why people seem to complain about this camera because its possible (at 20 times the price) to get a camera that will render every frame without any distortion.

The only conclusion I can come to is that this camera is threatening that camera because, while it doesn't match it, it comes a lot closer than the price disparity.

I've seen enough footage, and downloaded enough files (like the frames uploaded here) to reach this conclusion:

Anyone complaining about 24p mode in this camera is not being realistic. IF you want to complain about 24p mode, show similar images from a similarly priced camera in a similar situation with similar settings that hold up better.

Without that, its just nitpicking and near as I can tell, always unrealistic.

I'm open to know the limitations of this camera, I want to know them, in fact, but it seems that we're getting a lot of complaining, and not a lot of good solid evidence of real limitations.

PS-- while this post was in response to codeloss, it wasn't directed at him, more in general. I used his comment as a springboard, really.

Kholi
05-17-2009, 06:03 PM
From my experience that's pretty much what 1080/24P Will get you. The story is a different one, completely, in 720/60P.

The more GREEN in the image, as well, the more it's likely to break up. I don't notice it being this terrible in any other situation, mostly intense green scenery.

John Caballero
05-17-2009, 06:10 PM
Very well said LizaWitz.

Kholi
05-17-2009, 06:46 PM
If this were shot with a film camera, the pebbles and the grass by the side of the tracks would be blurred in every frame.

This codec is actually giving you a higher quality image than you would get with film in the same situation-- where all that stuff would be blurred.



Totally disagree with this. Blur and COMPRESSION artifacts are two different things. A straight MOTION blur will not look like this on Film.

If that's how you placate yourself, then okay, but this is in no way fact.




If you're not wanting to make movies-- but are instead looking for a 500MB/s image quality with perfect resolution in every frame, then this camera is not for you.

Exactly.



What I don't understand is why people seem to complain about this camera because its possible (at 20 times the price) to get a camera that will render every frame without any distortion.

True again. Too many wanting everything but refusing to pay for it.



I've seen enough footage, and downloaded enough files (like the frames uploaded here) to reach this conclusion:

Anyone complaining about 24p mode in this camera is not being realistic. IF you want to complain about 24p mode, show similar images from a similarly priced camera in a similar situation with similar settings that hold up better.

Although without FOV and DOF control, an HFS10 will probably hold up better in these same situations.




I'm open to know the limitations of this camera, I want to know them, in fact, but it seems that we're getting a lot of complaining, and not a lot of good solid evidence of real limitations.

PS-- while this post was in response to codeloss, it wasn't directed at him, more in general. I used his comment as a springboard, really.

Indeed. It's good enough for me, I just know what the limitations are and am prepared to work around them. If they hinder a project, then use a different camera.

S'all there is to it.

shaun1970
05-17-2009, 07:24 PM
I think too many people want the holy grail of camera's. If you wanna shoot ridgey didge 1080p at 24 or 25fps buy a proper camcorder that'll do it.

I think all these DIGITAL SLR's (and purely thats what it is) are a bit of a yuppie thing, like when they introduced mobile phones with camera's in them (who gives a sh*t).

Its all about the companies flexing muscles (we've got this and yours doesn't mentality),, if you wanna take photo's buy an SLR to do that but if you wanna take pro video at full frames without having all the nit picking about Codecs and all the other techo bullsh*t then go and buy an EX3 or an HVX or HPX.

The wheel was invented a long time ago so why try to re-invent it.
Thats my rant and 2c worth.

plasmasmp
05-17-2009, 10:31 PM
The problem is that there is no camera under the price of RED that shoots proper 1080p, at least without looking videoy. What we want is something that is supersampled from a 4k source for 1080p 24 and has a native mount to use SLR lenses at a crop factor of 2x or less. The MK2 would be almost perfect with 24p and manual controls.

The GH1 on the other hand has a completely unusble 1080i mode at this point. If there is custom software that can recover more data from the interlaced frames when removing the 3:2 pulldown it will be perfectly fine, but right now you cant even do a slow pan without interlacing artifacts. :( The bitrate isnt a problem for me, I can shoot 60p for fast motion stuff, but using 60p all the time in a 24p timeline, that doesnt work for me. Sure if you want everything to look like Gladiator's fight scenes

dcloud
05-17-2009, 10:41 PM
The problem is that there is no camera under the price of RED that shoots proper 1080p, at least without looking videoy. I can name several cameras under $25k. besides i think its subjective

my only grudge would be the 1080i 24p.. I would most probably use it on close up shots only.

xbourque
05-17-2009, 11:47 PM
Anyone complaining about 24p mode in this camera is not being realistic. IF you want to complain about 24p mode, show similar images from a similarly priced camera in a similar situation with similar settings that hold up better.

<cough> hv20 <cough>...

- X

divide
05-18-2009, 01:15 AM
<cough> hv20 <cough>...

- X

<cough>1/2.7" sensor</cough>

Kholi: I think you misunderstood Liza; she said that film is usually shot @1/48, while the footage shown on watchimpress had a faster shutter speed, thus trying to get some crisp footage (hence breaking the codec) where film would have simply shown blurred area (which the codec can handle way better).

Ian-T
05-18-2009, 05:39 AM
.... but using 60p all the time in a 24p timeline, that doesnt work for me. Sure if you want everything to look like Gladiator's fight scenesHow do you come to that conclusion? 60p has nothing to do with the "Gladiator" look. You are refering to fast shutter speeds not frame rates. Just shoot your 60p at 1/60 shutter and you will retain your "film-like" blur.

holyzoo
05-18-2009, 10:29 AM
Although without FOV and DOF control, an HFS10 will probably hold up better in these same situations.

From all the raw GH1 footage I've got my hands on so far, yes, this is true. I've shot a bunch now with the HFS100 camera, and at 24mbs, 17mbs, and even lower, the AVCHD encoding is amazingly solid. Even at 17mbs, I can't break it. This is clearly not the case with the GH1. You can certainly break it in 1080p, and many surely will, even when they've tried not to. But I'm more than up to the challenge to make the GH1 shine. With some experience, I think it will be an incredible and powerful camera.

I should add - the HFS100 has pretty bad staircase jaggy issues in certain circumstances, despite its awesome codec resiliency. So, yet again, as with every camera I've used, there are limitations, and part of being creative is to know how to use technology despite its limitations.