PDA

View Full Version : Canon's recent announcement. Will it hurt GH1?



Nitsuj
05-27-2009, 11:17 AM
So they announced a firmware to be released on June 2nd for full manual control. Where does this leave the GH1 you think?

Kholi
05-27-2009, 11:22 AM
With a shorter pre-order list so I can get more of them sooner.

Cough.

dcloud
05-27-2009, 11:29 AM
better competition better choices.

Isaac_Brody
05-27-2009, 11:32 AM
A great first step by Canon, just hoping Hudson figures out how to get 24P from a firmware hack or scares Canon into releasing a 24P firmware update. I don't think this hurts the GH1, but if Canon releases 24P then yes that would definitely hurt the GH1 sales. I hope it gets Panasonic's engineers to improve the GH1 in a firmware update.

You listening Panasonic? Native 24P and better AVCHD implementation otherwise you'll see plenty of potential customers head over to the Canon camp. :)

Nitsuj
05-27-2009, 11:36 AM
Okay so I had decided the GH1 was for me due to the manual controls and from what I understand the gel look is not as intense as the other DSLR's. Now that the MKII is getting manual this just leaves me to make a decision here. The MKII is twice as much as the GH1. So is that price difference still justified even after full manual control has been added? What would prompt somebody to turn away from the GH1 after this announcement? Has anybody decided to do that? And why? Me for one I am heavily sided to the GH1 do to it's price, weight, size, control, and it's potential to have a counter firmware update.

Nitsuj
05-27-2009, 11:59 AM
After more thought... nah... I'm still sticking with the GH1. I believe they are going to pull out a firmware update that is going to make it even better and it's other pros just keep my interest more.

Ian-T
05-27-2009, 12:02 PM
Squig...is that you? JK LOl

Nitsuj
05-27-2009, 12:04 PM
Hehe... nah... I've been pretty solid on my decision. I am just curious what others think. I admit I had to think there for about 3 minutes... but once I visualize something it is real hard to turn me around. I'm stubborn like that.

Kholi
05-27-2009, 12:04 PM
squig...is that you? Jk lol

lol olololllll~

caseyhayward
05-27-2009, 01:34 PM
Oddly, after canon's announcement, I find that one of the biggest features attracting me to the GH1 other than the 24p is the flip out screen. It seems to offer much more shooting flexibility than the 5D.

Kholi
05-27-2009, 01:38 PM
GH-1 remains to be a great yet-to-be released camera. Just wait til it hits the states.

But there's options at least!

And now, I've participated a little too much over the past week in Forum discussion. I'm disappearing for a bit, at least until I finish cutting these tests.

Later.

ChipG
05-27-2009, 01:45 PM
Oddly, after canon's announcement, I find that one of the biggest features attracting me to the GH1 other than the 24p is the flip out screen. It seems to offer much more shooting flexibility than the 5D.

I like to shoot from the hip and look down at the lcd.

Boz
05-27-2009, 01:52 PM
I think I'm going to have to cancel my GH1 preorder for now. Too much to process. I need to wait until the dust settles before I make a decision. Ugh.

ThunderousProductions
05-27-2009, 01:56 PM
Canon 5D has you all on one front, the most important. Lenses. Canon wins my vote because you can use there lenses. There lenses are par non, only 25,000-3,000 Leica/Zeiss prime lenses have outpreformed the awesome canon glass.

PappasArts
05-27-2009, 01:59 PM
A great first step by Canon, just hoping Hudson figures out how to get 24P from a firmware hack or scares Canon into releasing a 24P firmware update. I don't think this hurts the GH1, but if Canon releases 24P then yes that would definitely hurt the GH1 sales. I hope it gets Panasonic's engineers to improve the GH1 in a firmware update.

You listening Panasonic? Native 24P and better AVCHD implementation otherwise you'll see plenty of potential customers head over to the Canon camp. :)



I agree, if Panasonic would firmware a slight codec improvement or make the option to do 24fps in Mjpeg like the 720 does, this would make good for a camera that is on the right track in so many ways.


.

Polanski
05-27-2009, 02:23 PM
All this plunges me in a great dilema. I have a shooting coming on in August and I don't know what to decide now. Canon with manual control, great image, but 30p or GH1 with manual control, artifacts-compressed image, but 24p...
What is holding me from ordering Canon right now is the F****ing 30p that would have to process to 24p...
Happiness is never complete!!!

Jimmy Moss
05-27-2009, 02:33 PM
I dont have either of these cameras but from what I've seen the D90 has too much jello and no 24p. How can you not go with the GH1 unless you already own a D90?

Nitsuj
05-27-2009, 02:36 PM
All this plunges me in a great dilema. I have a shooting coming on in August and I don't know what to decide now. Canon with manual control, great image, but 30p or GH1 with manual control, artifacts-compressed image, but 24p...
What is holding me from ordering Canon right now is the F****ing 30p that would have to process to 24p...
Happiness is never complete!!!

See but the thing is the GH1 hasn't been released into the states yet. There is still a possibility for firmware updates that will make it even better. I really think the GH1 is going to be the more bang for the buck kind of camera. I for one am not excited about the gel I have seen in the MkII. Other things can be handled (24p) but if a gel pops in on you there isn't a whole lot you can do with that.

Chamber005
05-27-2009, 02:36 PM
Doesn't the Canon only record for like 5 minutes, though? That camera is dead as far as filming, IMO. GH1 is the first step towards what DSLRs will be in the future. At this point using the MK over the GH1 would only make sense if you currently own an MK -- and even then the sense is marginal.

And as for the 30p vs 24p -- I thought the consensus was that no one was liking the GH1 outside of 30p. I don't know why anyone cares about 24p anymore anyway. "Filmic look" is quickly becoming a retarded answer. DOF has nothing to do with "filmic look", it seems like it's all in this 24p crap. I say on the low budget side go with what gives you the best and clearest image overall. Obviously in a lot of these cameras, 25/24p is not providing the best picture.

Nitsuj
05-27-2009, 02:40 PM
Doesn't the Canon only record for like 5 minutes, though? That camera is dead as far as filming, IMO. GH1 is the first step towards what DSLRs will be in the future. At this point using the MK over the GH1 would only make sense if you currently own an MK -- and even then the sense is marginal.

And as for the 30p vs 24p -- I thought the consensus was that no one was liking the GH1 outside of 30p. I don't know why anyone cares about 24p anymore anyway. "Filmic look" is quickly becoming a retarded answer. DOF has nothing to do with "filmic look", it seems like it's all in this 24p crap. I say on the low budget side go with what gives you the best and clearest image overall. Obviously in a lot of these cameras, 25/24p is not providing the best picture.

Exactamundo!

Boz
05-27-2009, 02:51 PM
I don't know why anyone cares about 24p anymore anyway. "Filmic look" is quickly becoming a retarded answer. DOF has nothing to do with "filmic look", it seems like it's all in this 24p crap. I say on the low budget side go with what gives you the best and clearest image overall. Obviously in a lot of these cameras, 25/24p is not providing the best picture.

Um... why are you here exactly? ;-)

Why 24P? Do you watch ANY theatrical movies? How 'bout ANY dramas on TV? That's why 24P counts. 30P looks like video, always will.

killacam
05-27-2009, 03:16 PM
\And as for the 30p vs 24p -- I thought the consensus was that no one was liking the GH1 outside of 30p.

I think it's the 60p mode that everyone is liking- mostly because 1) it has more frames to deal with so is easier to convert to 24p 2) it allows for slow motion if you want 3) it does look smoother than 30p and 24p 4) it's the only other AVCHD mode.


I dont have either of these cameras but from what I've seen the D90 has too much jello and no 24p. How can you not go with the GH1 unless you already own a D90?

The D90 definitely does have 24p but yeah the jello is the worst of the three. Honestly I would say that the D90 has looked the most filmic over the Canon 5D and the GH1 but that jello kind of kills it.

ydgmdlu
05-27-2009, 03:26 PM
The D90 definitely does have 24p but yeah the jello is the worst of the three. Honestly I would say that the D90 has looked the most filmic over the Canon 5D and the GH1 but that jello kind of kills it.
As a current 5D Mk II owner and future GH1 owner, I agree 100%... Also the terrible compression and lack of manual controls kills it.

cowpunk52
05-27-2009, 03:31 PM
I don't know why anyone cares about 24p anymore anyway.

I shoot an internationally distributed travel show, and we shoot 24P. That decision comes down from production. It's much easier for them to transcode to PAL than 30P. Because of this, 5DII is not an option for the show at all, but they just bought a bunch of GH1's for us to play with for b-roll! woo hoo!

Nighthawk
05-27-2009, 03:45 PM
I'm still firmly in the GH-1 camp( for those that were worried). I do believe a firmware update is a distinct possibility for the issues we all know and love. 2 camera's pre-ordered for a little more than the price for a single 5D. Lenses and adapters already gathering dust just waiting for the 'brain' and something to shoot upon delivery. Exciting times.
I think it's great that Canon did this as well for the same reasons mentioned by others. It just means more of us are going to be shooting with the camera that suits them best. Ain't nothing wrong with that. For me it's the aesthetic choice of the 30p v 24p ending up being the decider.

Dzip
05-27-2009, 03:52 PM
Canon just showed Panasonic that it can make a chessmove on the market by a simple firmware update just before the release of their competitor's new camera. I'm sure the people at panny are taking note of that. I hope they use this same tactic with the GH1! I say the more competition, the better to move things along to get decent video features on these DSLR's. > oh, and I'm still super excited to get the GH1.

John Caballero
05-27-2009, 04:05 PM
Doesn't the Canon only record for like 5 minutes, though?

Incorrect.


from what I've seen the D90 has too much jello and no 24p.

Yes and no.


I thought the consensus was that no one was liking the GH1 outside of 30p.

Wrong again!!!!! 720p60 is believed by Kholi to be the strongest. The jury is still out until more people get to use the camera.


My goodness, so much wrong information! What good are these forums then? All this has been discuss all over the place for the last few months.

cowpunk52
05-27-2009, 04:25 PM
They're both stupendous cameras, no doubt about it. With that huge sensor and razor thin depth of field, the 5dII is especially well-suited to things like narrative drama.

But I shoot for television & the web, and that's what pays my bills - reality and comedy are my primary domains. With it's 24P, overcranking ability, super-small footprint, autofocus features, swivel LCD, EVF, longer recording time & a kit lens with a huge range (+ OIS - all at a price almost half a 5dII body only), the GH1 is very nearly perfectly suited to my needs. The codec doesn't bother me - equipment versatility is king here, and 17mps AVCHD suits the networks I work for just fine. Oh, and I can use it with a host of lenses that won't break my bank - Canon FD, C mount, PL mount, zeiss, M42, etc... With the GH1, I see myself able to capture footage much more readily than I could with the 5dII. And if you can't get the shot in the first place, it doesn't matter how many mbs you can record.

The 5dII just became a much neater toy, but it still lacks the versatility that I need to give it a place in my kit. But if my primary usage would be making indie dramas that I hoped would someday make it to the big screen, then I might give the 5dII more thought.

But probably not

Oh, and oddly enough, neither camera can replace my primary camera, an XH-A1... which will, for now, keep bringing in the majority of my bread & butter...

PappasArts
05-27-2009, 04:33 PM
All this plunges me in a great dilema. I have a shooting coming on in August and I don't know what to decide now. Canon with manual control, great image, but 30p or GH1 with manual control, artifacts-compressed image, but 24p...
What is holding me from ordering Canon right now is the F****ing 30p that would have to process to 24p...
Happiness is never complete!!!

24FPS is coming to the 5DMII, it's being beta tested at the moment. This has been in the air in LA film scene for a short while, however more confirms are coming in daily; not unlike the manual control chatter was two months ago, tell just before yesterday. Then it happened.


Timur Civan has 1st hand account.

Conversation starts at thread #150 to be exact..

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=172444&page=15



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


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

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

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

.

DammitJanet
05-27-2009, 05:40 PM
Regardless of the 5D's firmware announcement, the features of the GH1 and most importantly, its price, are what really draw me to it. Not to mention the size/weight etc. Budget reigns supreme with me so I'd rather get the GH1 and some lenses/accessories than a 5D body alone.

squig
05-27-2009, 05:50 PM
Squig...is that you? JK LOl

hehe smartarse

I think if I can get my hands on a GH1 next week from HK I'll play around with one for a while and wait for the MKII 24p update. If I can't get a GH1 next week I'll just hire a MKII for the weekend for my shoot. We can look at specs and test footy until our heads explode but the only way to know for sure if the cam is right for you is to get and shoot shit. Kicking myself for selling the D90 before I could get a replacement.

Justyn
05-27-2009, 08:45 PM
It's a great time for everyone here. I think the Canon might have one edge in terms of its still shooting. It is nice to have a full frame sensor.. but it's quite a bit more money and quite a bit larger. I think that the Panasonic one will be a major killer if they have realtime video out through the ports. Thats all they need to sell me.. Hard to do pro work without that these days.

Kholi
05-27-2009, 09:44 PM
After finding out my MKii arrives this Friday, I had to come back and ask some questions about adapters but wanted to chime in here.

Beware: this post will cause grief, but oh well. People need to learn that no tool is perfect, and neither is better than the other because they're both flawed.

I'm going to repeat, though, that I'm brand agnostic. Proof --


My MKii arrives on Friday. Hopefully will be able to get my Contax and Nikon adapters on the same day if possible.


GH-1

Pros:

- 1080/24P, 720/60P, 720/30P
* Slow Mo in Post is easier, direct
* 720/60P is robust
* MJPEG Option for instant access
- PAL Support
- 4/3" Sensor
* Vast coverage of lenses in every brand including Cinema Spec
* Easy Focus Pulling, Mark Hitting
- Small and Lightweight: Great for small rigs and setups
- Kit lens: 14-140 w/Silent Focus and OIS
* Automatic Features (great for doc, run-n-gun)
- Flip Out Rotatable LCD (great for run-n-gun)
- IN-Camera Crop Options
- Jello Control in Both 1080 and 720 controlled extremely well.
- Excellent Battery Consumption
* 2 Hours for recording.
* 1 Hour Charge Time for batteries
- No Overheating or intense heat output
- Lengthy Recording Times in all modes. Great for Events, etc.
- Quite cheap for the benefits that come with it.
* MSR: 1500.00 w/Kit Lens

Cons:

- 1080/24P not at its best -- enough of an image hit to warrant caution
* Contained in 60i which needs Pulldown
* Artifacts introduced due to 1080/24P Implementation
- Lowlight performance not as great as MKii
- Not exactly S35mm FOV
- No Video Out Monitoring during recording built-in
- No Audio Metering (dunno if this is really a con, but sure)
- Weak Still Capabilities on a Consumer level
- Aliasing issues in 1080P, 720P TBD but looks better. Needs workarounds


Canon 5D MKii

Pros

- Full frame sensor
* Photographic Full Frame FOV and DOF
* Better low light performance
* High dynamic range
* Live HDMI out while recording
- Robust 1080 Compression. Still worthy video in fact.
- Incredible still images for the money
- Hudson's Participation in the 5D Free Program
* Gui represented Audio Levels
* Adjustable Audio gain
* On screen Zebras for Highlight pretection
* Crop Marks on Screen for Video stay visible
- Live Video out through HDMI or Composite port during recording

Cons

- 30P limitation. No options in-camera to record higher or lower
- Full Frame DOF will cause problems with focusing in Run-N-Gun
- Full Frame limits lens choices, although great glass available that covers it.
- Larger Body than competitors
- No Crop Options at the time, need to crop in post if you want such a thing.
- Battery Drains quickly when Live View is activated
- No Flip-Out LCD. Locked into EVF or Stationary LCD on back.
- Hot Pixels prone to appearing during extended use
- Heats Up: affects not known, outside of hot pixels.
- Aliasing issues need workarounds
- Jello more prevalent than GH-1, but much better than D90
- Price in comparison to competitors
* 2600 + Tax (2800+ in CA) with no kit lens

This list is based on NOW, not later. Not assumptions or rumors or speculation on either side of the camp. One camera isn't even out yet in the US, the other is already here.

I know a lot of people are going to jump in and start slinging rocks, getting angry. This is my observation from using both cameras.

Both cameras are great, and the important thing to know is that both will produce an incredible image for the price. They come with limitations, and neither are perfect. Far from it.

Pick and Choose your poison. And if I've left something out, please inform me in a respectful manner and I'll be happy to change it.

dadoboy
05-27-2009, 09:54 PM
That's a great list Kholi.
As a shooter, not a shooter/director, the real deal breaker for me on the GH1 I think isn't the image. It's the lack of recording Live HDMI out. It's probably a wanky connector on the 5D that gets loose all the time without tie downs, but it's better than nothing! The director has to see the image, it's a must.

squig
05-27-2009, 10:36 PM
Kholi I know you don't want to do a shootout and I don't blame you but there is one thing you could test for us. I'm interested to know the settings required to get a comparable DOF and FOV on both cams under the same lighting conditions.

Kholi
05-27-2009, 11:06 PM
Kholi I know you don't want to do a shootout and I don't blame you but there is one thing you could test for us. I'm interested to know the settings required to get a comparable DOF and FOV on both cams under the same lighting conditions.

Pretty odd to calculate but...

FF @ 50/5.6 is about a 100/11 for 35mm

So, somewhere around 100/11 on the GH-1 would look like a 50/5.6 on the MKii.

When I get my MKii, I'll be using a 50/1.4 to simulate the look I would get with a 24/1.8 on my GH-1. Or Vice Versa. Meaning a 50/1.4 on the MKii should look something like a 24/1.8 or 20/1.8 on the GH-1.

Might have that wrong but something similar.

codeloss
05-27-2009, 11:24 PM
Pretty odd to calculate but...

FF @ 50/5.6 is about a 100/11 for 35mm

So, somewhere around 100/11 on the GH-1 would look like a 50/5.6 on the MKii.

When I get my MKii, I'll be using a 50/1.4 to simulate the look I would get with a 24/1.8 on my GH-1. Or Vice Versa. Meaning a 50/1.4 on the MKii should look something like a 24/1.8 or 20/1.8 on the GH-1.

Might have that wrong but something similar.

I think you have that backwards. 50/f1.4 on full frame would be equal (in 35mm terms) to 100/f1.0 on a GH1, if you wanted identical depth of field.

Orchidthief
05-27-2009, 11:25 PM
Kholi, quick question is there a zebra option on the GH1? You mentioned it for the MKII but nothing with the GH.

pix2pixels
05-27-2009, 11:35 PM
A 50/1.4 would be way cheaper than a 24/1.8 or 20/1.8.

Also, accessing the pictures in a friendly fashion is much more difficult from GH1: is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?
If that is the case, a hardware solution like Matrox or AJA could be used for GH1.

ryvac
05-27-2009, 11:47 PM
You listening Panasonic? Native 24P and better AVCHD implementation otherwise you'll see plenty of potential customers head over to the Canon camp. :)
another vote on that! (also full frame!)
hope Nikon is listening too:thumbup:

John Caballero
05-27-2009, 11:52 PM
also full frame!)

LOL. It can't be full frame because Panasonic is commited to the 4/3 s format. For some reason I get the feeling that they are even going to go with it in the video lines.

BTW: The GH1 has a Histogram that I think works with the video. Its in the manual posted in another thread. No zebras.

arroway
05-27-2009, 11:56 PM
had canon just included the 24p in this latest update i would have already put my order in. since that's not the case, i continue to sit on my hands and wait to see what kind of reception the gh1 gets when it arrives.

John Caballero
05-28-2009, 12:12 AM
had canon just included the 24p in this latest update i would have already put my order in.

One little baby step at a time for Canon. It'll get there eventually. I don't think it should be hard to get it to 24p. I think the manual settings would be more difficult to achieve.

Kholi
05-28-2009, 12:12 AM
I think you have that backwards. 50/f1.4 on full frame would be equal (in 35mm terms) to 100/f1.0 on a GH1, if you wanted identical depth of field.


Right that's backwards. Sorry.

20mm on an MKii looks like a 50mm on the GH-1.

Kholi
05-28-2009, 12:13 AM
Kholi, quick question is there a zebra option on the GH1? You mentioned it for the MKII but nothing with the GH.

No Zebras while shooting on the GH-1, but it has a histogram that you can move around which is pretty handy.

Kholi
05-28-2009, 12:15 AM
A 50/1.4 would be way cheaper than a 24/1.8 or 20/1.8.

Also, accessing the pictures in a friendly fashion is much more difficult from GH1: is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?
If that is the case, a hardware solution like Matrox or AJA could be used for GH1.


Depends on the person. my 20, 24 and 28 are pretty well rated 1.8's and cost me about 1200 for the set. However, they aren't Contax Zeiss.

Haven't tried them out yet but will when I get the MKii and my GH-1 back.

And, I don't know where you got that number from, but I don't think it's accurate at all. Will look into it.

But if we have to add processing to the list, then the MKii files are not too friendly. Please note the number of users that can't playback full 1080P H264 on their computers.

I suppose I should throw that under the MKii's negatives. Because you still have to convert it to ProRes or something else to edit, and again-- the H264 is pretty intense on hardware.

Illya Friedman
05-28-2009, 12:18 AM
Also, accessing the pictures in a friendly fashion is much more difficult from GH1: is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?
If that is the case, a hardware solution like Matrox or AJA could be used for GH1.

This is not true. I haven't timed it but my 8-core transcodes quite quickly.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Illya Friedman
05-28-2009, 12:51 AM
Pretty odd to calculate but...

FF @ 50/5.6 is about a 100/11 for 35mm

So, somewhere around 100/11 on the GH-1 would look like a 50/5.6 on the MKii.....

Might have that wrong but something similar.

Focal length is correct, F-stop is incorrect.

This topic is bandied around a lot, and I feel like the point is totally moot; because the "elusive film look" in HD is not 135-sized/VistaVision with the wider lens FoV/DoF.

Film is based around 35mm Academy, or Super35. While their are a variety of other ways to shoot 35mm film, these two are probably the most common formats of 35mm motion picture film being shot today. If you would like more scholarly information on the subject consult the ASC manual (8th edition pages 4-43 will be particularly helpful.)

If "35mm film" as in MOTION PICTURE FILM is the look that you want- and you are comparing the GH1 and the Canon 5DmkII, then the GH1 is much closer to FoV/DoF of 35mm Film. VistaVision/135 (The DALSA Origin II and Evolution were also quite similar to VistaVision) is a far less common way to shoot.

I like the Canon quite a bit, although between the two I'd chose the GH1 in an instant for several reasons in the GH1's favor. The biggest reason for me against the Canon is the remarkably bad aliasing which seems to appear at semi-unexpected times. I imagine this is a direct result of their pixel skipping rather than full-frame scaling, to crunch images to 1920x1080/30. With so much data to crunch it's not an easy problem to overcome, and they did an admirable job getting it to where it is now..... I just think it should actually be much better. The 5Dmk2 aliasing is a deal breaker for me. Nothing reminds me more of bad video than aliasing, except for maybe clipped highlights and aliasing.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Kholi
05-28-2009, 01:13 AM
Oh, Iilya my man, trust me: I am with you ALL the way. I'm not a fan of the paper thin field at ALL. It DEFINITELY looks like Vistavision to me and I said the same thing in the other thread.

I'll get an MKii but I won't shoot on it too much because of that reason. For stuff that could use the "Grande" appeal, music videos, etc, I'll use it.

I may also try to crop 720 out of it and start shooting with guidelines to do so. That could be cool.

Otherwise, still camera fo rme.

squig
05-28-2009, 02:04 AM
What I want to know is will the 5D lose it's low light advantage over the GH1 at a comparable DOF and FOV. The advantage of stopping down is that lenses are performing at their best so that's something in the MKIIs favor if you want a sharp image which I don't particularly. I think its more like 2 stop difference between full frame and 2x crop to match the DOF and FOV but I could be wrong.

squig
05-28-2009, 02:42 AM
Nothing wrong with vistavision "episode 4 a new hope" The advantage of the MKII is you can have that look or like you said Kholi you can crop to 720. Good to have framing options in post too.

jamesc
05-28-2009, 12:17 PM
is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?

Encoding 1.5 hours of AVCHD at 21 Mbps from my HMC150 takes about ~30 minutes on my 2006 8-core MacPro. I'd imagine it would take even less time on a fully pimped out Nehalem 2009 8-core.

My MacBook Pro encodes at about 1:1.

Kholi
05-28-2009, 12:23 PM
Nothing wrong with vistavision "episode 4 a new hope" The advantage of the MKII is you can have that look or like you said Kholi you can crop to 720. Good to have framing options in post too.

Like 30P, Vistavision isn't a norm. I only see the Full Frame advantage in lens application, that you can use a 50/1.4 and get a pretty wide field. The Depth of Field characteristics, however, are not pleasing to me.

So for me, there is something wrong with it.

Also, if the crop were in-camear it would be optimal. as of right now we have no idea how framing on the LCD and dropping into a 720 frame will turn out. I can't imagine it doing anything terrible, but without actually doing it nobody knows.

At that point, and I think a lot of MKii owners would agree, why even bother? Is the cropped 720/30P Frame technically (compression, etc) better than the 720/60P frame from the GH-1? It should still be faster, because the crop isn't in camera it's in post, but as far as compression goes I'd be interested to see if they match.

My guess is that the GH-1 @ 720/60P and MKii @ 720/30P Crop would be on the level, with Jello Control nod remaining with the GH-1 and Low Light performance remaining with the MKii.

In short, might as well just shoot 1080/30 to get the maximum out of it and compose closer to subjects, stop irises down, etc etc.

Jack Daniel Stanley
05-28-2009, 12:39 PM
I don't care about the MII because of Jello.

Deal breaker. Don't see how anyone works with it. To me it's like saying there's a 300X300 pixel black square in the lower left hand corner of all your shots but other than that it's awesome! I want a camera that can - you know - pan with.

Jello on MII is way worse than any aliasing or artifacts I've seen on GH1, so what good does the robust codec do me?

Great - with the MII when measurbators put their noses to the 50" plasma they sees no aliasing! Never mind that the whole image looks like it's reflected in a jiggly fun house mirror.

I'm not looking to buy a $3K camera then have to borrow an HVX with an adaptor for action work.

I'm looking to buy ONE camera that is an inexpensive easy to use tool that gets great results whether my actors are sitting at a table talking or running around doing back flips. Or maybe two of them for the price of the one I'd never consider using anyway.

So:
Pricepoint.
Actually USEABLE footage regardless of the circumstance.
Auto focus in video mode.

Done.

PappasArts
05-28-2009, 12:42 PM
Nothing wrong with vistavision "episode 4 a new hope" The advantage of the MKII is you can have that look or like you said Kholi you can crop to 720. Good to have framing options in post too.


StarWars: A New Hope principal photography was most certainly not shot in Vista Vision. Retooled Vista Visions by John Dykstra were used for process shots. A New Hope was filmed in various 35mm stocks like 5243, 5247 and 5253. Other stock Lucas messed around with was CRI. A New Hope has the most unique look of the series.



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


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

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

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

.

joe 1008
05-28-2009, 01:11 PM
I'm not looking to buy a $3K camera then have to borrow an HVX with an adaptor for action work.

I'm looking to buy ONE camera that is an inexpensive easy to use tool that gets great results whether my actors are sitting at a table talking or running around doing back flips. Or maybe two of them for the price of the one I'd never consider using anyway.

Definitely the GH1 wins for run and gun. Also the DOF at F/4 is quite exactly what you would want for narrative shooting in most situations.

Said that I just canceled my GH1 order and changed to the MK II. Flame me, blame me, do what you want. But I LOVE the look of the MK II (it's highly subjective) and with the - often underestimated - f/4 stock lens too shallow DOF is not so much of an issue. We've simply seen too much 50mm at f/1,4 stuff. For narrative indie shooting in small environments it might be even an advantage to get shallow DOF with a 35mm lens.

But for my final decision also weighed in that the MK II is simply the better still cam.

squig
05-28-2009, 01:12 PM
That's what I like about this place it's full of know it all's

Does the MKII really have a low light advantage if you have to close down 2 stops to match the DOF of the GH1?

I'm flip flopping back to the GH1 but it's still early in the morning

Jack Daniel Stanley
05-28-2009, 01:19 PM
Also consider the GH1's low light performance compared to an HVX with an adaptor and a lens.

We get in this mentality of, if it's not THE best in a certain statistic, it's not enough. When in reality we've reached the point of useable technology on a lot of fronts. Already I've seen low light footage from the GH1 that looks like liberation from my HVX and adapter.

...

Joe, I won't flame you or blame you, but I will say, as for the look, just wait till some heavy hitters get out there and bring in some narrative work with the GH1. We haven't seen that yet.

I do agree with your point on the DOF being about the "default" area of most 35mm film. The NEURTAL choice. Usually you're wanting to stop down to 4 or 5 so you can control the DOF. For the crazy 1.4 135mm look, stick your nikon or canon prime on there. Most of us already have lenses, just get the fit adapter.

joe 1008
05-28-2009, 01:35 PM
No doubt there will be great GH1 footage. For a certain shooting style it will the better choice - I've seen Miami Vice again on TV (wasn't it even shot with a 2/3" with primes???) And I thought: That could have been done with a GH1. Devinitively no MK II area.

Then I saw Spring, Summer, Auutmn, Winter - and Spring from Kim Ki-duk and thought that for that narrative style the better choice would be the MK II (though in the movie he never exagerates the DOF).

It's a highly subjective choice for me and the final point was that the MK II is such a great still camera, too.

Anyway, all this will be temporary, the next generation from Canon and Panasonic probably will be so close to perfection that all this actual discussion will be obsolete. Meanwhile we should be happy with what we can have. I personally got tired of waiting, I'm loosing too much of my lifetime sitting around and watching all these tecnological artefact improve... :beer:

squig
05-28-2009, 01:37 PM
I ran around with my D90 shooting everything at f/1.4 because I could. When I went to cut a music vid I had to do 1.7sec cuts because everything was OOF. It worked but I wouldn't recommend it.

John Caballero
05-28-2009, 02:26 PM
When I went to cut a music vid I had to do 1.7sec cuts because everything was OOF. It worked but I wouldn't recommend it.

.......

Nathan Troutman
05-28-2009, 10:30 PM
. . . . . .

Kholi
05-28-2009, 10:36 PM
Thanks for sharing your views, Nathan. I'm sure we all appreciate them. When you purchase an MKii please do post your work for us to see.

Nathan Troutman
05-28-2009, 10:44 PM
Thanks for sharing your views, Nathan. I'm sure we all appreciate them. When you purchase an MKii please do post your work for us to see.

Sorry to have offended. I am shamed and dishonored.

Kholi
05-28-2009, 10:51 PM
Sorry to have offended. I am shamed and dishonored.

No, I was really seriously saying thank you. You haven't offended anyone. You know exactly how things should be done and you're just sharing that with everyone. It should help people.

I think Squig now knows that 35mm Adapters were spawned because of Full Frame capabilities and that Full Frame is the only way to go, or you should just use a Prosumer camera.

I know I had no idea that 35mm Adapters were spawned to use Full Frame. I really thought the P+S Tech was designed specifically to utilize 35mm Cinema Lenses, then later Nikon lenses, but still only covered the Academy FOV. But now it makes sense.

SO like I said, thanks for helping us out. When does your MKii arrive or do you already own one?

AdrianF
05-28-2009, 11:46 PM
Does the MKII really have a low light advantage if you have to close down 2 stops to match the DOF of the GH1?
Good question. I think the difference in the 2 formats in reality is closer to a stop. A 1.8 or 2.8 on a Four Thirds camera doesn't look hugely different than I would expect the same lens to look on a 35mm SLR. Just my subjective view though, I've never tested them side by side.

Four Thirds has always been attacked for low light performance, in the mine is bigger than yours arguments that always seem to crop up. The older cameras were pretty poor, my Oly E300 at 800asa is like taking a picture through a swarm of bees. The G1/GH1 does look way better, but I've seen some banding on some of the low light samples from the GH1. There's a few of these on dpreview. I'm shooting something in August hopefully with my GH1, where I'm planning on using a 5dMKII for some very low light shots, so I'd really like to know the answer to this question.

squig
05-29-2009, 01:50 AM
I think Squig now knows that 35mm Adapters were spawned because of Full Frame capabilities and that Full Frame is the only way to go, or you should just use a Prosumer camera.


whadutalkinaboutwillis?

Never used one myself but from what I hear they are clunky, soft and dim. I was exploring the option of using a HMC-150 or HV20 with one for the film until the D90 came along.

A whole day has gone by and I'm still in the GH1 camp. C'mon Kholi where's the magic?

Kholi
05-29-2009, 01:52 AM
He deleted his post. You wouldn't understand. LoL

Almost done cutting the action stuff, then vfx mahoozit and sound design.

Soon as it gets done.

Nathan Troutman
05-29-2009, 08:30 AM
You know exactly how things should be done

OK Kholi I'll bite. I get it - this is DVXuser. This is a Panasonic site. But it's all brand agnostic. In fact Kholi you know exactly how things are done:dankk2:. But I will say your summary earlier in this thread was pretty good and actually fair.

I can't speak to the P+S but the Redrock M2 images FF but the user really determins this depending on how far in they zoom to the ground glass. 35mm adapters were cerated to allow for film-like DOF with small chip video cameras. All that being said there are still plenty of times where film DOF is simply not needed and small chip cameras work just fine.

The idea that less DOF is an advantage of the GH1 over the 5D is confusing to me. squig you made the point that having to stop down on the 5D to get the equivalent DOF of the GH1 would eliminate the low light advantage of the 5D. But with this line of thinking would you also feel that an HVX would have an advantage over the GH1 for the same reason? What?

So I'm guessing you worry about blowing a shot with a full-frame camera like the 5D because of the shallow DOF and think the GH1 will be better because it has less? But unlike with film adapters where you were often forced to shoot wide open because of the slowness of the set-up with these cameras you can determine what kind of DOF you want for the shot. And you don't just have to stop down to accomplish this. Going from a 50mm lens to a 28mm lens will lessen your DOF as well. You have control over how much or how little DOF you want to shoot with. The 5D shoots solid even at 1600ISO. 3200 ISO is still useable as well. And yes the company I work for does actually have a 5DMkii. We've had it since December.

Our reel is here under the video tab.

http://www.hermesparga.com/

The funny thing is Kholi for me most of the good paying work like corporate industrials don't really need any of these cameras or adapters. Nor do they need 24P. It's the indie-films I shoot or the music videos I shoot, etc. that call for the creativity. More often than not these shoots pay little or I do them for free. I don't pretend to shoot major corporate commercial work or big-time music videos - because I wouldn't be shooting them with a GH1 or 5D. So try and get off your high horse.

All of this is funny to me - that you can now be considered big time because you shoot on an HVX. When this all started this whole segment of the video world was looked down upon by the "pro" guys. "You can't shoot good video on that little thing," said the pro guy as he thumbed his nose at the VX-1000.

I started shooting video almost ten years ago. My first camera was a first release VX-2000 and I started editing on Final Cut Pro the original. I remember how "pro" guys laughed at this new camera - until 2 years later everybody was using them. Then all of the sudden you could be considered a pro and be shooting on a PD-150. And now look where we're at. We're all pros now - or at least Kholi is.

I've also lived through plenty of film-induced fads.

The Canon XL1. Wow what a war this was back in the days. If you were a film guy you had to use this camera or you couldn't make a film - or so the XL1 crowd claimed. It has pixel shifting and interchangeable lenses. With the DVX this crowd moved into the Panasonic camp. 24P became the new must have film device. The DVX added some graininess and 24P and the film crowd went crazy.

But I'm not under some delusion that most of the people here are making tons of money off of 24P and the film-look. Most are just like me. Making some money shooting things that don't need 24P or DOF and using that same equipment to try and make their big 20 min short or music video etc. The whole point of the GH1 or 5D is as a replacement for 35mm adapters.

In my time I've seen a few revolutionary products.

The VX1000/VX2000 was the first for me. It created all of this. And Final Cut Pro was part of that - providing desktop non-linear editing at a home price.

Along the way 35mm adapters we're a great innovation.

Red really shook up the whole place.

But in my opinion the Canon 5D is the most revolutionary product I've seen since the VX-1000. It is a complete game-changer.

Kholi
05-29-2009, 09:05 AM
OK Kholi I'll bite. I get it - this is DVXuser. This is a Panasonic site. But it's all brand agnostic. In fact Kholi you know exactly how things are done:dankk2:. But I will say your summary earlier in this thread was pretty good and actually fair.

I can't speak to the P+S but the Redrock M2 images FF but the user really determins this depending on how far in they zoom to the ground glass. 35mm adapters were cerated to allow for film-like DOF with small chip video cameras. All that being said there are still plenty of times where film DOF is simply not needed and small chip cameras work just fine.

The idea that less DOF is an advantage of the GH1 over the 5D is confusing to me. squig you made the point that having to stop down on the 5D to get the equivalent DOF of the GH1 would eliminate the low light advantage of the 5D. But with this line of thinking would you also feel that an HVX would have an advantage over the GH1 for the same reason? What?

So I'm guessing you worry about blowing a shot with a full-frame camera like the 5D because of the shallow DOF and think the GH1 will be better because it has less? But unlike with film adapters where you were often forced to shoot wide open because of the slowness of the set-up with these cameras you can determine what kind of DOF you want for the shot. And you don't just have to stop down to accomplish this. Going from a 50mm lens to a 28mm lens will lessen your DOF as well. You have control over how much or how little DOF you want to shoot with. The 5D shoots solid even at 1600ISO. 3200 ISO is still useable as well. And yes the company I work for does actually have a 5DMkii. We've had it since December.

Our reel is here under the video tab.

http://www.hermesparga.com/

The funny thing is Kholi for me most of the good paying work like corporate industrials don't really need any of these cameras or adapters. Nor do they need 24P. It's the indie-films I shoot or the music videos I shoot, etc. that call for the creativity. More often than not these shoots pay little or I do them for free. I don't pretend to shoot major corporate commercial work or big-time music videos - because I wouldn't be shooting them with a GH1 or 5D. So try and get off your high horse.

All of this is funny to me - that you can now be considered big time because you shoot on an HVX. When this all started this whole segment of the video world was looked down upon by the "pro" guys. "You can't shoot good video on that little thing," said the pro guy as he thumbed his nose at the VX-1000.

I started shooting video almost ten years ago. My first camera was a first release VX-2000 and I started editing on Final Cut Pro the original. I remember how "pro" guys laughed at this new camera - until 2 years later everybody was using them. Then all of the sudden you could be considered a pro and be shooting on a PD-150. And now look where we're at. We're all pros now - or at least Kholi is.

I've also lived through plenty of film-induced fads.

The Canon XL1. Wow what a war this was back in the days. If you were a film guy you had to use this camera or you couldn't make a film - or so the XL1 crowd claimed. It has pixel shifting and interchangeable lenses. With the DVX this crowd moved into the Panasonic camp. 24P became the new must have film device. The DVX added some graininess and 24P and the film crowd went crazy.

But I'm not under some delusion that most of the people here are making tons of money off of 24P and the film-look. Most are just like me. Making some money shooting things that don't need 24P or DOF and using that same equipment to try and make their big 20 min short or music video etc. The whole point of the GH1 or 5D is as a replacement for 35mm adapters.

In my time I've seen a few revolutionary products.

The VX1000/VX2000 was the first for me. It created all of this. And Final Cut Pro was part of that - providing desktop non-linear editing at a home price.

Along the way 35mm adapters we're a great innovation.

Red really shook up the whole place.

But in my opinion the Canon 5D is the most revolutionary product I've seen since the VX-1000. It is a complete game-changer.


=( This is a really long post. When the gist of it is "Preference is not allowed".

Because you haven't actually pressed on anything I've stated as "fact" and you're simply battling my "preference" (see: So I'm guessing you worry about blowing a shot with a full-frame camera like the 5D because of the shallow DOF and think the GH1 will be better because it has less? ). Blow a shot because of hyper shallow DOF? If I wasn't comfortable I wouldn't shoot with it anyway... so, see, you're battling my preference. Not facts. And you can't really battle someone's preference... because we're allowed to prefer what we want? So

... here's the list of Pros and Cons again so that you can skim them and find something to actually debate about.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1648480&postcount=33

Otherwise, I need to ask you what use is it for you to come into a thread and tell Squig (as flip floppy as it is) that the idea of tryin to achieve a near-to-Academy or S35 DOF and FOV characteristic is silly because You, Nathan, think that Full Frame is Superior.

You can't find a single post where I say "hey you, don't do that". But I know you can find several that clearly state "Hey, this is just how I like to shoot." Or even...

Hey, I just bought an MKii to go along with my GH1.

Again, I'll ask... do you have any MKii samples to show us that'll help?

Love the Brisk Print Ads. S'my favorite Tea.

squig
05-29-2009, 09:11 AM
I'm not saying full frame is better than 2x crop or visa versa it all comes down to the look you're after. However 2x crop is closer to 35mm film which is the look filmmakers are trying to get. I've accumulated over a dozen lenses and anamorphic adapters so I'm just trying to figure out the best option for my style of shooting. Ideally you would get both cam's but budgets can't always be stretched that far.

squig
05-29-2009, 09:14 AM
when did I become an "it"

Nathan Troutman
05-29-2009, 09:34 AM
Otherwise, I need to ask you what use is it for you to come into a thread and tell Squig (as flip floppy as it is) that the idea of tryin to achieve a near-to-Academy or S35 DOF and FOV characteristic is silly because You, Nathan, think that Full Frame is Superior.

The GH1 is not a near-to-Academy or S35 sized sensor. It's a 2X crop factor. S35 is about half way between the GH1 and 5D. I'm not trying to say that it's silly to shoot with a GH1, but it is kind of silly to list less DOF as a reason to use it. I just don't know what to make of that when you can have as much DOF or as little of it as you want with a 5D. It gives you the control to do what you want. I also don't think FF is superior, but FF does give you the more control over DOF.

I haven't bought a camera for myself which is what I'm debating. The 5D is the higher price but it has the best image. I had a lot of hope for the GH1 but the 1080P mode is a bummer for me and I already had a lot of reservations about the 2x format. Y'see when you buy glass it's nice for it to last forever. With FF lenses they will. So if I want an auto lens for the GH1 I'm stuck buying micro 4/3rds lenses. Where on Canon or Nikon I can buy their FF glass and have it forever. So when I change my brain out for a newer one I don't have to change the glass. It's the same reason a Nikon shooter with a DX sensor will still buy a FF Nikon lens. Because FF has been around forever.

I do want to actually shoot some stills with these cameras and going with manual lenses is not much fun. Great to see how hard it was to do back in the day but not fun.

Nighthawk
05-29-2009, 09:39 AM
when did I become an "it"

lmao. I saw that too.

Nighthawk
05-29-2009, 09:50 AM
So if I want an auto lens for the GH1 I'm stuck buying micro 4/3rds lenses. Where on Canon or Nikon I can buy their FF glass and have it forever. So when I change my brain out for a newer one I don't have to change the glass. It's the same reason a Nikon shooter with a DX sensor will still buy a FF Nikon lens. Because FF has been around forever.

I do want to actually shoot some stills with these cameras and going with manual lenses is not much fun. Great to see how hard it was to do back in the day but not fun.

You're right about that , Nathan. Most of us here are reluctant to delve into the auto 4/3 lenses at the moment but being able to use good glass from a myriad of different manufactures with the simple and cheap adapters available means that said investment in lenses won't go to waste when the next generation of vDSLR hits the market. Lack of auto functions for the olde tyme lenses is a compromise some of us are OK with.

Kholi
05-29-2009, 09:55 AM
Gh1s fov characterisics are close enough to RED I satisfy me. The retail can be corrected by wider glass or moving the camera.

squig
05-29-2009, 10:09 AM
the glass options are making me think twice about going back to nikon or to canon. I bought a a c-mount 10mm anamorphic lens that won't mount to anything else.

but then I look at the "sexy model shoot" and think "I gotta get me some of that"

Nathan Troutman
05-29-2009, 10:34 AM
Lack of auto functions for the olde tyme lenses is a compromise some of us are OK with.

And I'm OK with this as well especially when it comes to video. In a way the older manual lenses are nicer because they're metal and more solidly built. I have a Nikon 55mm micro f2.8 that I absolutely love to use whenever I can. But shooting stills with manual lenses is a real pain.

Canon knows if they can get you to buy a Canon body you're going to buy Canon glass and that will make you far more likely to continue to buy Canon bodies and glass down the road. This is the real reason Canon freed the 5D. One of the guys I shoot with is a Nikon guy. The other is a Canon guy. The reason each is one or the other is really because they have a lot of money invested in the glass.

In the end I feel bad for Red because I think they're responsible for this revolution but might not be the one to capitalize on it. That really sucks for them. Without RED I think Sony, Panasonic & Canon would have kept us in their nicely stacked product boxes forever.

Boz
05-29-2009, 11:30 AM
If the "real" reason why Canon freed the 5Dii was lenses, then why are their plans for the 60D exactly the same as the original 5Dii (no 24P, no manual control)? At least, that's the rumors so far.

Red was a revolution, no doubt. However, after the Red One, Jannard didn't need to announce Red's plans 2 years ahead of release, then change those plans, then change them again, pushing their release date further and further back. I do think this vDSLR revolution will hurt them a bit on the lower end models, but they'll still be OK on the higher end stuff... until Canon & others go after that market.

Digigenic
05-29-2009, 12:07 PM
Canon's 5DmkII firware update might only sting the GH1.
Nothing compared to all the pain and anguish Canon's caused people to endure without having manual controls for the past 8 or so months.
But there's plenty of hurt to go around.
Without straying too far from the primary purpose of these cameras, Canon's 5DmkII truly hurts the GH1 is in basic photographic quality. There is not even a debate on this.
Since I know I'm taking photographs as well as HD video, I definitely prefer the 5DmkII.
However, for video features, from camera to stock lens, the GH1 still holds onto a respectable lead. It's simply a better package. Never the less, the image quality that sets these two cameras apart in photography also carries over into the HD video. So, even if Panasonic appears to offer a better package at a great price, the quality of the image doesn't measure up to the 5DmkII, IMO.

Daniel L.
05-29-2009, 12:47 PM
Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why you guys care. "Will it hurt GH1?" That's not any of our problems, let Panasonic, Canon, and RED worry about that.

"a better package" is very subjective. The lack of live HDMI while recording, sound, video, and codec problems do not make a better package from my point of view. Also not interested in the relatively small sensor in the GH1. I have been trying to get away from crop factors for years. Using a full frame is no different than the 35mm adapters that have become standard production tools and we have welcomed for a long time.

I don't care what camera anybody would buy, and it's not my job to promote them. The 5D works for me, but obviously not for everyone. My needs are not the same as yours. The camera is just a tool, the trick is to have the right tool for the job :)

Kholi
05-29-2009, 01:15 PM
Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why you guys care. "Will it hurt GH1?" That's not any of our problems, let Panasonic, Canon, and RED worry about that.

"a better package" is very subjective. The lack of live HDMI while recording, sound, video, and codec problems do not make a better package from my point of view. Also not interested in the relatively small sensor in the GH1. I have been trying to get away from crop factors for years. Using a full frame is no different than the 35mm adapters that have become standard production tools and we have welcomed for a long time.

I don't care what camera anybody would buy, and it's not my job to promote them. The 5D works for me, but obviously not for everyone. My needs are not the same as yours. The camera is just a tool, the trick is to have the right tool for the job :)

This is exactly what Nathan Troutman is doing. Asking us why we care, then turning around and saying 30P is great!!! Like we haven't been using 24P as much as we can.


It's very different from using a 35mm ADapter. As much talk as there is about 35mm Adapters and full frame rarely ANYONE uses full frame on a 35mm Adapter because of the quality loss at edges.

It's definitely not the same on a grand scale.

Also, as far as I see it there are more people trying to cross-promote the MKii and D90 in this here GH-1 forum. But the people who are eager for the GH-1 are being accused of promoting the camera.

If anyone truly believes in "it's just a camera" then let's cease the sideways attacks on either.

I own BOTH. There're only two others on these boards that can quantify the differences and oddly enough they both speak highly of BOTH camera bodies. I do as well.

The rest is just conjecture from the stands, not actual experience.

Time to stop the debating and let people have their preferences.

PappasArts
05-29-2009, 01:42 PM
""Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why you guys care. "" I have been trying to get away from crop factors for years. ""



......... THE GRASS IS ALWAYS BIGGER ON THE OTHER SIDE

While the cropped issue is a matter of perspective. I hear
a lot of neophytes complain or exclaim their absolute
need not to be cropped, however most of them never have
shot on anything larger than 1/3, 2/3 or maybe S16mm
image area. Funny how most Entertainment has been shot on
S35mm film negative ratios with no issues, however the wannabes or
neophytes now say they can't work on anything less than 36x24mm sensors
since that implementation on the 5DMII. It's actually silly; well really silly.
I had in my hands since I was 5yrs old 120 format cameras ; so I must feel
really cropped. I find the whole subject absurd; and I want FF sensors,
however I also know that if there was only going to be APS-C approx. size
sensors, I would have zero complaints...


If your coming from, lets say:

1/3: Well that's cropped compared to
1/2: Now that's cropped compared to
2/3: And that's cropped when compared to
16mm: Which is cropped when compared to
S16mm: Cropped yet again when compared to
3perf 35mm: which is getting yet again cropped compared to
35mm AA : Which is fine, however small compared to
65mm 2:20:1 : Which is all in good, however compared to
IMAX full frame : Which is gigantic, maybe, however looking small, when compared to
8x10 large format.

You get my point!

No mater how you slice it ( crop it in this case ), your almost always smaller than something else. :-)
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d94/PappasArts/imaxfilm.gif


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


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

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

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

.

Daniel L.
05-29-2009, 01:45 PM
Kholi,

The point of that post was to demonstrate how "a better package" is subjective. There is no such thing as the better package. 30p vs 24p is subjective. For me full frame is better, for someone else it's not. I'm not suggesting you need a 5D, it's not "better". They both have problems.

I don't own any Canon or Panasonic stock so I don't care who buys what. Finally, I'm certainly not trying to accuse or attack anybody.

Seriously, it's just a camera :beer:

Kholi
05-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Seriously, it's just a camera :beer:

And cheap ones at that. Just buy, play, sell and get the next one. A+

John Caballero
05-29-2009, 02:15 PM
The fact is who cares who doesn't buy it. It makes no difference to me personally about who is not going to buy the GH1 and for that matter who is going to buy it. Its all about what I can do with it. Will I make my money back quickly? Will I continue making money with it until an improved version comes along? Is all about that: how can one benefit from it. If you feel is not for you then, more power to you. Go get a Canon or a Red One or whatever. Anybody else's desicion won't affect my life at all.

squig
05-29-2009, 02:25 PM
it's been 24 hours now and I'm still in the GH1 camp. I'm not gonna start shooting the film now for probably another 6 months. I figure I'll get a GH1 shoot a couple of shorts and keep working on the script. By the end of the year there will probably be a DSLR that blows the GH1 and the MKII away. If not I should have the $$$ to shoot the film with both. How's that for a flipflop.

I have no doubt that the MKII produces better looking pictures but the GH1 is still more usable. Like you said Kholi the GH1 is unfukwitable......like a movie camera with training wheels.

disclaimer: if kholi's footage sux arse I'm getting a MKII

John Caballero
05-29-2009, 02:38 PM
Squig, you might want to get the Nikon 300s. It might be THE camera! nikonrumors is talking about it and polling people to find out if they will buy it when it comes out. One more to ponder about.

squig
05-29-2009, 02:49 PM
can't wait...got a stills shoot in 2 weeks that will pay for half of the GH1. If the D300s is any good I can always get my money back on the GH1. I'm done waiting this has been a painful experience particularly thanks to a prick teaser who shall remain nameless :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

John Caballero
05-29-2009, 02:54 PM
I am doing a still shoot as we speak that will pay for the whole of the GH1. Doing it with the D90. Can't wait for delivery date.

Martti Ekstrand
05-29-2009, 03:00 PM
Deep, deep down we all know we don't want GH-1, we don't want 5DmkII, we don't want D400, nor D90 or K7. We want this sucka! 3840x2160 resolution and 60fps in RAW mode! And the projector to match in our living rooms.

http://i41.tinypic.com/kdwglg.jpg http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/05/12/jvc.8k.projector.4k.cam/


(http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/05/12/jvc.8k.projector.4k.cam/)

squig
05-29-2009, 03:12 PM
first time a paid stills shoot ever falls into my lap a week after I sell the D90.....typical

Boz
05-29-2009, 05:40 PM
disclaimer: if kholi's footage sux arse I'm getting a MKII

Squig, you crack me up. lol

sunburst
05-30-2009, 02:18 AM
I'm still on the fence. Wondering which cam has an advantage, if any,
in effects work.

Manual is a must of course. I'm a bit sick of having to jimmy the HV20 into
TV mode. oooppps - back into TV mode........oopssssss. hit mic by mistake.
ugh.

Also the jello in HV20 is heartbreaking at times.

24p is a must for me.

I'm on a PC.

ydgmdlu
05-30-2009, 06:30 AM
The GH1 is not a near-to-Academy or S35 sized sensor. It's a 2X crop factor. S35 is about half way between the GH1 and 5D.
Whoa, let's get our facts straight. The GH1's sensor offers a horizontal FOV that's barely distinguishable from an Academy-size frame. And S35 is MUCH closer to Four Thirds than it is to full frame. "2X crop factor" means full frame as the frame of reference. Just do the math, and stop spreading disinformation.

Nathan Troutman
05-30-2009, 07:48 AM
Whoa, let's get our facts straight. The GH1's sensor offers a horizontal FOV that's barely distinguishable from an Academy-size frame. And S35 is MUCH closer to Four Thirds than it is to full frame. "2X crop factor" means full frame as the frame of reference. Just do the math, and stop spreading disinformation.

This is a quote from David Mullen over at Reduser.net.

"A 3-perf 35mm cine frame, Full Aperture (3-perf Super-35) is 24.89mm x 13.87mm -- very similar to the RED ONE Mysterium sensor in size"

The GH1 is 17.3mm X 13mm. So correctly stated actually the Nikon D90, D5000 & Canon Rebel T1i (D500) are closest to S35 film as David Mullen also states.

"The RED ONE sensor is Super-35 more or less (and a 4K recording uses slightly less than Super-35), and so is the Nikon APS-C sensor." (which is the sensor size of the other APS-C cameras like the D90.)

The GH1's sensor is smaller than S35. The APS-C sensor cameras are almost exactly S35. And yes the GH1 is closer to S35 than FF is. I said half-way in between but it is closer to the GH1.:beer:

ydgmdlu
05-30-2009, 08:08 AM
You're not even addressing my points.

1. Of course APS-C is close to S35. We all knew that already. Nobody, especially not me, has ever disputed that. Why are you even bringing up APS-C now, all of a sudden? I didn't see it in any part of the discussion before now.

2. You originally said that the GH1's image area is not near Academy frame size. What happened to that assertion?

3. You brought up "crop factor." What's the point of "2X crop factor" again if the frame of reference is not full frame, but S35 or APS-C?

4. The GH1 has an oversized sensor that, when in video mode, is wider than standard Four Thirds. It's 18.8mm wide. The difference between that and Academy size is roughly the same as the difference between S35 and Canon's version of APS-C (which is smaller than Nikon's version).

5. To be precise, APS-C or S35 is not "halfway" between Four Thirds and full frame. You might've meant it informally, but it's not an accurate statement of fact. It's actually quite misleading. The crop factor between S35 and the GH1's video mode is only 1.3X. The difference in frame width between S35 and full frame is 11-12mm. The difference in frame width between S35 and GH1 is 5-6mm. How is that even close to "halfway"?

Most studio productions are shot at Academy size, not S35.

Nitsuj
05-30-2009, 09:50 AM
So after all the discussion it looks like the answer is.... no. There are some peeps who say they are on the fence but I'm not sure that exactly will hurt the GH1 sales. In the end I think people will just get the GH1 because it's price point is just too sweet.

I do agree that this is just a tool. It is like an artists brush so it really doesn't matter what you use if you are talented enough. The MkII announcement did make me think for a second but after weighing the GH1 vs MkII (firmware update) I still think there is no contest. Sure the MkII has beautiful stills but this is a video forum right? Sure the MkII "might" have a better video image (to each their own) but the jello problem in my eyes brings that image quality right back down below the GH1. And I really do not understand how anybody can say the D90 video image is better. I have yet to see a comparison that proves that... on top of it's jello shiznit.

Good discussions here but I guarantee you that somebody is going to make a theatrical length movie on the GH1 and prove its disadvantages can't stop somebody from making a great film or a great quality production.

Nitsuj
05-30-2009, 09:55 AM
Deep, deep down we all know we don't want GH-1, we don't want 5DmkII, we don't want D400, nor D90 or K7. We want this sucka! 3840x2160 resolution and 60fps in RAW mode! And the projector to match in our living rooms.

http://i41.tinypic.com/kdwglg.jpg http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/05/12/jvc.8k.projector.4k.cam/


(http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/05/12/jvc.8k.projector.4k.cam/)


Good god that projector weighs 370 lbs!

sidereal
05-30-2009, 09:58 AM
* The GH1 has an oversized sensor that, when in video mode, is wider than standard Four Thirds. It's 18.8mm wide.

* The crop factor between S35 and the GH1's video mode is only 1.3X.

* The difference in frame width between S35 full frame is 11-12mm. The difference in frame width between S35 and GH1 is 5-6mm. How is that even close to "halfway"?

:beer::beer::beer:Spot on... True! :beer::beer::beer:

Nighthawk
05-30-2009, 10:22 AM
Good discussions here but I guarantee you that somebody is going to make a theatrical length movie on the GH1 and prove its disadvantages can't stop somebody from making a great film or a great quality production.

I start in July. I'd like to think I don't need it but wish me luck. Originally going to be shot on ultra 16mm 'til I started to hear of this camera. 2 days after the start of principal something is going to be announced that's going to make me go 'D'oh' but these are the times we live in.

Good thread Nitsuj, thanks.

squig
05-30-2009, 06:17 PM
And I really do not understand how anybody can say the D90 video image is better. I have yet to see a comparison that proves that... on top of it's jello shiznit.

Good discussions here but I guarantee you that somebody is going to make a theatrical length movie on the GH1 and prove its disadvantages can't stop somebody from making a great film or a great quality production.

The D90 has a warm pleasing filmic aesthetic that is easy to obtain just walking around and shooting without any filters or post tweaking but it is heavily compressed. I've yet to see anybody get that kind of warmth from the GH1.

I've been having a close look at raw footage from the GH1 converted to prores and cineform compared to re-compressed H.264 from the MKII. The GH1 720p footage looks more compressed than the re-compressed MKII footage. It's particularly noticeable in solid grey areas.

If I was going to start shooting my feature tomorrow I'd shoot it on the MKII and do 24p in post. Jello is not really a major concern because I've used a D90 with a stablizer and wide glass and I know how to tame it and I'm told the MKII jello isn't quite as bad.

I still can't decide either way, I need a cam for 6 months of film school and to make a couple of shorts so the GH1 would do nicely but the compression isn't acceptable for my feature but that's just me. A few guys have shot films with the D90 and they look good so each to his own.

puredrifting
05-30-2009, 06:29 PM
Other than this vague website, where can one actually buy this film stock, rent the camera, do the lab and telecine for this format?
http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Dan

Nighthawk
05-30-2009, 06:38 PM
I still can't decide either way, I need a cam for 6 months of film school and to make a couple of shorts so the GH1 would do nicely but the compression isn't acceptable for my feature but that's just me. A few guys have shot films with the D90 and they look good so each to his own.

Whoops, somebody's back on the fence ;) Gh1 while at film school will blow fellow students and faculty away being such a new concept. Probably a good choice for school and by the time they're finished warping your mind there is likely going to be a few other choices out there for your feature. 6-9 months from now the Gh1 v 5D is probably going to be a non-issue with what we hear might be lurking just around the corner.

Nighthawk
05-30-2009, 06:55 PM
Other than this vague website, where can one actually buy this film stock, rent the camera, do the lab and telecine for this format?
http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Dan

I belong to a filmmakers co-op here in Victoria. They recently converted an Eclair to ultra. Rental for me is free. I just get whatever 16mm film stock is the best for the particular project. We were using a lab in Vancouver but recently things have changed a bit so we're using a lab in Seattle. After developing we send it to the following people: www.cinelicious.tv for everything else. Did our test on some shorts with pretty good results and our biggest fears of scratched negatives were put to rest.

My DP has a work flow, price break down and addresses for the labs (not in front of me at the moment, sorry) that I'd gladly send you if your looking into this for a project of your own. Just don't laugh when you see how 'brave' he was with his shot ratio. Just wanted to save me money.

squig
05-30-2009, 07:07 PM
Whoops, somebody's back on the fence ;) Gh1 while at film school will blow fellow students and faculty away being such a new concept. Probably a good choice for school and by the time they're finished warping your mind there is likely going to be a few other choices out there for your feature. 6-9 months from now the Gh1 v 5D is probably going to be a non-issue with what we hear might be lurking just around the corner.

yeah it's perfect for school. they have a bunch of hvx's. There might even be something with a global shutter in 6 months time. I'm still in the GH1 camp today primarily because I have a c-mount 10mm anamorphic lens that I want to try out and the MKII 24p update hasn't been confirmed. I can also get money back on a GH1 but I'd take a hit selling the MKII if nikon or samsung have a worthy contender.

dadoboy
05-30-2009, 07:33 PM
Finding an ultra 16mm camera for rental is tough. I have a S16mm Arri SR and a R16mm BL (which I'm trying to sell). I thought of converting the BL to ultra 16mm myself by filing and polishing out the gates, but the problem is that there's only two labs I know of that does the telecine: cinelicious and bono labs.
It's important for me to trust the lab and telecine place - and I want to be there for telecine, so I dont see the point of it anymore.

You can use any 16mm film out now for it - it doesn't require special film just special telecine (and maybe handling during processing - correct me someone if Im wrong).

I often give people the option to shoot with my film cameras for a nominal added fee basically just to conver my insurance - I don't care, I'll shoot film any chance I get. They are very excited at first but when we break down the costs they realize it would take away from a lot of other important costs.

Film can be great for short showpieces, but for low budget features, it usually is prohibitively costly, which is why so many people are considering the alternatives of course. Film ain't dead - it just too expensive for most low low budget features. :(


Other than this vague website, where can one actually buy this film stock, rent the camera, do the lab and telecine for this format?
http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Dan

Nighthawk
05-30-2009, 07:50 PM
Film can be great for short showpieces, but for low budget features, it usually is prohibitively costly, which is why so many people are considering the alternatives of course. Film ain't dead - it just too expensive for most low low budget features. :(

Word. That's why the 'gamble' on the Gh1. If shooting film my craft services would have been a 1 ton box of Kraft Dinner. If it wasn't for the trust I have in my DP I wouldn't have gone this route but the work this kid (I'm old enough to be his Pa) has done with sooo little is phenomenal. Man, I can't wait to get out of the gate.

puredrifting
05-30-2009, 09:20 PM
I was looking at Hunters A-Minima shots on Vimeo the other day, the stuff of his family. Just beautiful, heartfelt footage, I do miss shooting S16. I sold off my SR, I just have my old Russian K3 which frankly is a piece of junk. It is tempting, there are some great deals on S16 packages out there and with the economy the way it is, you can get some screaming deals on transfers.

I would love to shoot a nice, tightly scripted short on S16 these days, but with an HPX170 and a 5D MKII laying around, I should shoot shorts on one or both of them. And I agree, neither of my cameras truly look like film, although they both have some film characteristics. But film still looks better and much more organic overall.

Dan

squig
05-30-2009, 09:41 PM
The D90 looked very organic not as good as film but the closest I've seen, it was just let down by the heavy compression. The MKII is a little too sharp/clean but I think it looks really filmic with some post work.

Emanuel
05-30-2009, 11:30 PM
Oddly, after canon's announcement, I find that one of the biggest features attracting me to the GH1 other than the 24p is the flip out screen. It seems to offer much more shooting flexibility than the 5D.Not for that feature (feature?) :laugh::

http://www.flipbac.com/viewfinder-specifications.htm

Nitsuj
05-31-2009, 08:07 AM
I used the VX2000 on a lot of shorts in film school. The school I went to had 2 options, film or the new program, video. I chose video because I knew it was heading in that direction. Plus I had always shot video growing up. I shot 2 shorts on 8mm because it was a class requirement but after that I never looked back. The VX2000 didn't look as good as film then but I knew it wouldn't be long so I kept on trucking along. While the majority film students were cracking jokes at us minority video guys we were knocking out impressive stuff making them scratch their heads. Then when we kept pushing more and more out to show at the school theatre every Friday night to the public they were still working on scrapping up money to finish their projects. I loved to see the look on their face when they asked "What was your budget?". I said "What budget? $0 man... it's all about creativity." My fellow video peeps would also look in shock sometimes because our projects didn't look like video. It was all about lighting that took you away from the video feel and brought you into the story. Lighting goes such a long way.
So we were looked down and laughed at because of image quality however when it came down to it we were learning a whole lot more in less time by pushing out 10 times more videos then they could on top of making it look less like video. It is what film school is for if you ask me. Learn as much as you can while you are there and what better way to learn than by shooting a lot of projects? I'm wondering if there are any of them still in debt cause of their learning projects. ;)

Video has always been my medium. I really haven't understood the fascination for the film look. I understand it looks good and I always strive to make video cinematic but I would never say "This doesn't look enough like film" then shoot it all on film and raise the budget 5 or more times higher! That is what I don't understand. If the story is good and it is told in a good way then that will carry itself no matter what medium you use. If I had the chance to use the GH1 in film school I wouldn't think twice. Just think of the looks you would get telling them you shot it on a DSLR. ;)

stip
06-01-2009, 08:25 PM
The D90 looked very organic not as good as film but the closest I've seen, it was just let down by the heavy compression. The MKII is a little too sharp/clean but I think it looks really filmic with some post work.
Totally agree.
If D90 had the resolution and sharpness of 5DmkII and better compression I bet it'll provide the nicest, smoothest video on the DSLR market...actually I'm so sure, I'd even bet 1 $ on that!!

Psynema
06-02-2009, 05:23 PM
Can you even firmware update the Mark ii to 24p?