PDA

View Full Version : Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

commanderspike
05-31-2009, 09:56 PM
Okay so many of us have found that the GH1 is a very promising camera but it's biggest flaw in my eyes is not the lack of 24mps AVCHD or HDMI live out, but rather the major bug with the full HD mode and motion blur.

Anything approaching a fast pan removes all the detail from the picture, making it look like an ultra compressed 700kps web stream. The problem is a lot worse on my GH1 than I was expecting. I have the Japanese model.

I have also found when playing back the full HD footage after removing pull-down artefacts with JES and Final Cut Pro, the moment the pan introduces the 'mud' effect this puts a bigger toll on my CPU and the footage stutters to a halt. I have a Core 2 Duo 2.16ghz Macbook Pro and will do more research into what is causing this. But it's as if the effect of motion blur overloads the codec.

So could the problem be with the way the GH1's processor is handling motion, overloading the codec?

I don't think the issue is with the auto-ISO control or high ISO, because in full manual mode with ISO fixed at 100 it happens as bad as ever.

And what do I think of 720p? The mud effect is indeed lesser. But I don't like it as much as 1080p 24p. It's not making use of even 720p's reduced resolution. Lots of jaggies, which would have to be smoothed over by time consuming post processing.

I really really want to get a fix for this.

24p full HD is a must have. Nothing a good firmware update can't fix! (I hope)

Screen grabs:

Static handheld shot:

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/good.jpg

Start of pan (continues like this until the pan ends)

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/bad.jpg

stephenvv
05-31-2009, 11:09 PM
Until someone shoots tests with film shutter speed (1/40th to 1/50th) with proper pulldown removal and factors out OIS, we don't yet know what the codec issues are.

From what I read here, Neoscene is the only tool removing pulldown correctly - although a patch for VoltaireHD is due soon.

Handheld pans at higher shutter speed could well cause problems but I avoid those anyway.

It should be noted that panning speed causes problems with all 24p - from film to HD, so until some better tests are done, the jury is still out.

sunburst
05-31-2009, 11:43 PM
"Holy Grail" , or Growing Hail ?

John Caballero
05-31-2009, 11:43 PM
There are pans out there already that don't look anything like that. I dunno but thats way too extreme looking. Something else must be at play there.

Orchidthief
05-31-2009, 11:53 PM
There are pans out there already that don't look anything like that. I dunno but thats way too extreme looking. Something else must be at play there.

I agree...If this is what happens during pans, which I pray isn't the fact, I'll have to re-evaluate my purchase. I'm pretty careful with pans as it is, but this screen grab looks horrid and unacceptable.

artforme
05-31-2009, 11:56 PM
It could be your computer. What are you specs?

John Caballero
05-31-2009, 11:59 PM
I am thinking maybe the SD card lower speed might affect the data capture, thus affecting the footage. Panasonic has their own cards specifically marketed for their AVCHD cameras. Is like the Compact Flash cards for the Red One. They have to be Red One certified because of the special needs of the camera's data capture speeds and processing.

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 12:04 AM
I don't think this is to do with pulldown or my computer. Reasons:

- Followed the workflows recommended on this forum very closely, the panning corruption cannot be removed no matter what I try, I have successfully deinterlaced and followed the pulldown stuff to the max, with FCP and JES. Checked and double checked settings.

- The same corruption appears in raw AVCHD footage MTS files, and on the GH1's LCD screen when playing back recorded footage, but not when panning in live view. 90% sure anyway, it's hard to judge it from a small screen - will double check later.

- Computer is a Macbook Pro 17", Core 2 Duo, ATI Radeon X1600 GPU. Latest version of Final Cut Pro (FCP), JES, Leopard, etc.

The corruption does not occur all the time, seems to be due to the amount of detail present in the frame but even then... it sometimes takes me by surprise. Had a lot of normal on the fly footage damaged from this bug with the GH1.

I am none too happy about it. Firmware update please!!!!!

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 12:04 AM
What SD card are you using? How fast is it?

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 12:07 AM
I am thinking maybe the SD card lower speed might affect the data capture, thus affecting the footage. Panasonic has their own cards specifically marketed for their AVCHD cameras. Is like the Compact Flash cards for the Red One. They have to be Red One certified because of the special needs of the camera's data capture speeds and processing.

I hope it is this.

Most plausible suggestion I've heard so far.

I am using a cheapo brand 8GB SDHC card, with high specs. 22MB read, which is pretty fast, but write is quoted lower - as 10MB.

They have a Sandisk Extreme III SDHC which quotes 30MB read AND write speeds. I believe it when I see it. Its very expensive... but may buy it anyway to see if it improves matters.

Like I say...I HOPE SO.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 12:13 AM
The ones from Panasonic say up to 20mb read/write. We have to look at all possibilities with this situation though.

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 12:55 AM
Will buy a Sandisk Extreme 30mb 8GB card later and report back.

It may be that the 24p artefacts are not due to a fault in the GH1 processors, or the codec or a firmware bug after all, but due to the camera being very demanding on card write speeds.

AdrianF
06-01-2009, 01:05 AM
Card speed was suggested earlier on in one of the workflow threads, as a possible cause of the codec breaking. Panasonic have just announced high, speed high capacity cards. In the marketing blurb, it states that these cards will specifically benefit avchd recording, obviously they want to sell their own cards so take that with a pinch of salt. Interested to how you get on with the Sandisk cards.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 01:20 AM
Yeah dude, my breakage looks NOTHING like that. That's HORRID. I don't know what's going on with your footage but at worse mines looked like Sonics (sams) footage. And actually, I think I even got less than Sonic.

I'm using SanDisk Extreme III SDHC cards bought from Best Buy. if you jump on google you'll find out purchasing them online is a gamble because people are selling fake Sandisk cards.

It's a really good idea to start with OIS (on/off) and especially your SDHC cards.

That still looks GROSS, but I seriously didn't experience it THAT much.

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 02:39 AM
Kholi neither did I. A bit shocked to be honest.

Will have results from fastest card I can get my hands on in Taipei within the next few hours... fingers crossed. Buying from the high street so not too afraid of getting a fake.

Illya Friedman
06-01-2009, 02:45 AM
In my experiece so far with the kit lens, I now only use the "movie camera icon mode", even though you can shoot HD in most modes. I noticed breakdown with the kit lens in the "non-camera icon modes."

I haven't had major codec faults at all with in "movie camera icon" mode, or if I did it was only in moments of extreme motion, when everything was a completely blur anyway, and it ended as soon as the motion slowed.

If I can get the chance/permission from the filmmakers, I'll upload something to Vimeo.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 02:59 AM
I am using the kit lens but will test with the 14-45 and 45-200 G1 lenses with OIS and auto focus, etc. OFF.

But I can't see how the lens is part of the problem. It doesn't look like an optical cause does it?

The break down appears to be either a bottleneck in the GH1's processing, and yes the bottleneck might be due to a slow SDHC card and hence an easy fix.

But what worries me is how random the problem is. It's as if the processor loses the plot once a pan starts and takes some time to reestablish itself, the continued motion prevents it from restablishing the bit rate or something...

I have noticed that the original G1's auto focus was awful when the whole scene is moving around, i.e. from a car window. Not had time to test this aspect on the GH1 yet.

17mbps AVCHD = 17mbps write to card, right?

If so not even a Sandisk Ultra II at 15mbps will be good enough, and the 10mbps max on my card is nowhere near.

It's find it implausible that even the Sandisk Extreme can sustain 30mbps write speeds for the duration of recording a clip especially when there are lots of files on the card, and it's nearly full.

One other thing that makes me doubt that it's the card speed causing the break down is that the Canon HF100 and numerous other camcorders also record at 17mbps without a hitch.

You can say something similar about the Nikon D90.

Meanwhile Canon 5DM2 is happy at 48mbps!! Though not sure what Canon quote about memory card suitability... seems like it's only the GH1 which has this problem.

squig
06-01-2009, 03:37 AM
the SD cards are rated megabytes per second not megabits 17Mbps = 2.125 megabytes per second

Martti Ekstrand
06-01-2009, 04:17 AM
Meanwhile Canon 5DM2 is happy at 48mbps!! Though not sure what Canon quote about memory card suitability... seems like it's only the GH1 which has this problem.

If I recall correctly there were users who had problems with some memory cards just when the 5DmkII came out and it dropped frames when the card choked.

When it comes to all memory media, be it hard drives or flash cards, don't forget that for video sustained transfer speed is what matters, not peak. Cheaper brands have a tendency to overstate the latter.

Justyn
06-01-2009, 06:53 AM
This does look really bad. Personally, I've been shooting tons of video on both my SD9 and the 150 to both the panny cards and also the Transcend media, both without problems and both deliver the same results and the Transcend card is 1/3th the price.

I don't think the mbps is really the issue with why things aren't up to snuff. The SD9 shoots at 17mbps and the panning and shots and all of that are pretty darn good for a 400 dollar cam. The colors can be a bit too saturated and don't look as natural as they should but it handles motion very very well and handles vibrations very well too. The SD9 is what we mount to our RC helicopter and it really resolves everything very well. I was hoping for live view out for the Panasonic one so I could buy that and shoot both stills and video with the same cam.


Thanks so much to all of you bleeding edge pioneers.. I know we all appreciate your reports and candid info and reviews. It's great to have this out there and you guys being so open and supportive of each other and in delvering a viable solution for all of us to buy a great cinema style camera at a fraction of the price it would have been just a few years ago. KUDOS to all!

SonicStates
06-01-2009, 07:01 AM
I don't know what's going on with your footage but at worse mines looked like Sonics (sams) footage. And actually, I think I even got less than Sonic.



ouch! :)

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 07:48 AM
Well, just came back with a shiny new Sandisk Extreme III 30MBps edition (8GB).

No sign of artefacts in 24p mode yet, but it's dark outside and within four walls there isn't a great deal of detail for the GH1 to handle even when panning. But still a positive initial outcome. I couldn't reproduce the artefacts which came so easily the other day, in just about every 2 minute segment of footage I created.

The true test will come when shooting in bright light around the city centre tomorrow!

Thanks for everyone's input on this so far. The Sandisk is indeed a lot faster than my AData 150x 8GB, which is supposed to have 22mb read and 10mb write. Good job it was only the equivalent of 10GBP!! Also continuous shooting does have the long write times as was previously evident, so clearly the quality card is making a difference.

Maybe the extra fine detail and large sensor output demands much higher write speeds than a consumer grade camcorder such as the SD9 or HF100, et al.

Looking at AVCHD from the HF100 on a large screen reveals that it doesn't make full use of 1920x1080's worth of resolution due to quite excessive noise reduction. Handles motion blur well, it's true, but so does the GH1 when it doesn't break down. Fingers crossed for tomorrow...

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
06-01-2009, 10:01 AM
FYI: There's some interesting info in this article (various tests: "Card-to-Computer Transfer Speed: SD/SDHC Readers"):
http://robgalbraith.com/bins/reader_report_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9438

Kholi
06-01-2009, 10:10 AM
Must be careful about read/write rates listed as "gospel" by these companies. Only certain ones really produce the specs they claim and that's honestly why cheap knock-offs are the worst thing you could do for your image performance regarding solid state.

Some people may think that RED overprices the cards they re-badge and perhaps they do, but you know they WORK with your footage and that's a guarantee you kind of have to have when your career hangs on this little two by two inch square of plastic and solder.

Don't skimp on cards. And not saying that anyone has, just some advice. Spend the money on them and be safe.

Boz
06-01-2009, 10:39 AM
This is EXACTLY the type of breakdown I've been seeing, and the reason why I keep harping on it.

Here's another example:

Camera still:
http://bozfx.com/pix/rebel/GH1_01.jpg

Camera in motion:
http://bozfx.com/pix/rebel/GH1_02.jpg

Source file: http://vimeo.com/4825706

I've seen it in multiple files from multiple sources. It would be great to know if this is simply a matter of a slow SD card.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 10:46 AM
I'm willing to bet it's a slow SD card. I'm looking through 1080 lowlight footage with an AIC to Compressor pulldown applied, going frame by frame during some quick pan and tilts looking for it and I can't find a frame like that.

I'll let you know if I see one.

But honestly, now that I remember, I've got ONE slow SDHC card that I got when I first bought this camera, this was what I was seeing as far as breakdown went. Then I bought two SanDisk extremes and haven't really seen it since. I could be wrong, let me scrub.

DrBlaz
06-01-2009, 10:50 AM
thanks for the test!! we are waiting... :)


may be the GH1 is very picky about mem cards, really its strange that panasonic release the camara with this big flaw knowing it, so it makes sense if it happens only on some cards due to an incompatibility.

Ian-T
06-01-2009, 10:57 AM
That would still be some sort of good news....at least for me.

Boz
06-01-2009, 11:05 AM
One more example to show that it's not all the uncommon to see this problem:

Still:
http://bozfx.com/pix/rebel/GH1_03.jpg


Motion:
http://bozfx.com/pix/rebel/GH1_04.jpg


Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNQo78PWR1U&hd=1

The one thing I've seen in common with this problem is the pans are vertical, not horizontal.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 11:21 AM
Extreme Motion, LowLight, 400 - 500 ISO (if I remember right), dark detail, GH-1 @ 1080/24

SanDisk Extreme III SDHC 4GB card

This would be the case that the compression would show up. It's a very quick tilt up then tilt back down to catch the peak of a high kick and the landing.

http://www.kholi.net/picsforweb/GH1HighKick.jpg

DrBlaz
06-01-2009, 11:27 AM
kholi : your site ask for a password when entering in the forum



I've seen the mud on horizontal and vertical panning, but also occasionally when not panning, it seems also when focusing.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 11:35 AM
Sorry, does that work now?

DrBlaz
06-01-2009, 11:39 AM
in this frame the mud appears when focusing, no paning , the original m2ts is here, frames 600-610 after pulldown removed:
http://rapidshare.com/files/228719328/Focus13.zip


http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9969/1243881555.jpg

Martti Ekstrand
06-01-2009, 11:56 AM
may be the GH1 is very picky about mem cards, really its strange that panasonic release the camara with this big flaw knowing it

Exqueeze me but how does this compute in your mind? Lets break it down in steps:

1. Panasonic clearly states the specs needed for cards to be used in GH-1.

2. Some random card makers puts out cards on the market that are not up to snuff.

3. Image gets artefacts when using such cards and it's then a big flaw of the camera?

What should Panasonic (or any other camera maker) do to make sure it works with any and every card out there in the world? Have the cam only output 360x240 files? Just 10 fps? No colour? Or just stop in mid-take and throw up a error box ala Windows "This card is mushy-mushy. [Yes] [Cancel]"?

Boz
06-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Sorry, does that work now?

nope. still getting a pop up for authorization (name & password)

Martti Ekstrand
06-01-2009, 12:08 PM
Yup, still pops up on page 3 in this thread

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 12:08 PM
As I stated earlier Panasonic is making their own cards. So, wouldn't they test them to make sure they work properly with their equipment? They want to sell cards but that is why they are in business for, right? I am not saying that theirs are the best but at least come from the same manufacturer as the camera. They are the first ones I am going to get when I get my camera. Aren't P2 cards an array of SD cards? So Panasonic should know a thing or two about their cards. At B&H a 16gig card is about $80.00. And to think that I paid $875.00 for a 16gig P2 card! The 4gig Pana is about $30.00.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 12:15 PM
http://www.kholi.net/GH1HighKick.jpg
http://www.kholi.net/GH1HighKick2.jpg

Now?

Boz
06-01-2009, 12:17 PM
That did it :-)

Looks pretty clean, overall. But since it's mostly black, wouldn't that help the compression?

stephenvv
06-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Kholi - both posts work fine for me (FF3 Windoz)

Kholi
06-01-2009, 12:19 PM
Kay fixed it. The second still changed as well. One take back to back in 1080/24

That's through a pan and a tilt at the same time. Trying to track the performer in mid-air. A pretty intense situation for the GH-1's compression but frame-by-frame, the only thing I could spy was an improper pulldown.

Still waiting to get a Neoscene license myself.

Boz
06-01-2009, 12:27 PM
Well it definitely looks cleaner than what we're seeing elsewhere. Any chance you can point the camera out the video and do a quick vertical pan to see if you get the same results (in daylight)?

DrBlaz
06-01-2009, 12:31 PM
Exqueeze me but how does this compute in your mind? Lets break it down in steps:

1. Panasonic clearly states the specs needed for cards to be used in GH-1.

2. Some random card makers puts out cards on the market that are not up to snuff.

3. Image gets artefacts when using such cards and it's then a big flaw of the camera?

What should Panasonic (or any other camera maker) do to make sure it works with any and every card out there in the world? Have the cam only output 360x240 files? Just 10 fps? No colour? Or just stop in mid-take and throw up a error box ala Windows "This card is mushy-mushy. [Yes] [Cancel]"?


Martti , just some thoughts...


1. GH1 has a "mud" problem under some cirscumstances. This is a big flaw.

2. we dont know yet if the problem comes from some sdhc cards, we wish it is!, if not, it may be lot worse, lets say a hardware problem.

3. If all the other 17mbps AVCHD cams, including panasonic video cams, seem to work fine with all cards, then why the GH dont? this is a flaw of the GH1

4. the problem is very comon, there are still few GH1s in the market, and there are lots of examples of the mud.

4. if panasonic release a cam with an incompatibility problem with a lot of cards in the market, then it is a panasonic flaw


again, I will be happy is this is solved with sandisk extreme, or panasonics cards or...

Kholi
06-01-2009, 12:31 PM
Don't have the GH-1 right now. It's out of townz. I've looked through day and night footage and I'm not the kind of person to just sit on a tripod. Nothing of what I've recently shot looks like that.

Like I said, the worst is when I get into a situation with lots of grass or something, OR I happen to stumble on a exposure ramp/adjustment.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 12:32 PM
Kholi, sorry, the still grabs you showed are with the fast card correct?

stephenvv
06-01-2009, 12:34 PM
What about the possibility the camera slows down the bitrate way back for cards that are too slow for 17 Mbs rate even if you set the camera to it?

It would make sense for a consumer/prosumer camera to do that. And of course, the compression would be fine on static shots for too-slow cards, but motion would require more speed as compression efficiency lessened, so instead of having a "write failiure" message, the camera just lowers bitrate to what card can handle.

This is how continuous shooting mode works on most DSLRs - the card make a big difference in speed and duration.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Kholi, sorry, the still grabs you showed are with the fast card correct?

Yeah. SanDisk Extreme III 4GB Cards directy from Best Buy.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 12:39 PM
What about the possibility the camera slows down the bitrate way back for cards that are too slow for 17 Mbs rate even if you set the camera to it?

It would make sense for a consumer/prosumer camera to do that. And of course, the compression would be fine on static shots for too-slow cards, but motion would require more speed as compression efficiency lessened, so instead of having a "write failiure" message, the camera just lowers bitrate to what card can handle.

This is how continuous shooting mode works on most DSLRs - the card make a big difference in speed and duration.


I dunno how logical this is but it's a possibility. I know that when I FIRST started shooting it was with a slow card. So I decided to go and get SanDisks and I haven't seen that same horrid breakdown.

I'm still looking through my footage.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 12:41 PM
Thanks Kholi. It is very demanding for cards to capture so much information in so a short time. That is why they have to make them faster and faster. At least we gain a little more perspective on the matter.

Illya Friedman
06-01-2009, 12:49 PM
...But I can't see how the lens is part of the problem. It doesn't look like an optical cause does it?

....The break down appears to be either a bottleneck in the GH1's processing, and yes the bottleneck might be due to a slow SDHC card and hence an easy fix.


I don't think anyone outside of Panasonic knows exactly what's causing this.

I could be wrong, but I think the camera mode(s) and lens has more to do with it than the card.

Those contacts at the end of your kit lens are constantly sending and receiving information to/from the camera depending on what kind of mode(s) you are in. Some is saved as metadata, others bits of information are telling the camera how to make subtle adjustments to image data at particular F-stops and focal length combinations (essentially a lens profile). With a manual lens there is no lens profile compensating, it's just "default" so no extra image processing.

Most DSLR camera manufacturers are employing on-the-fly CaC and other specific lens compensating image processing. Which works just fine for shooting stills, but I think that doing that extra number-crunching data work "on the fly" in HD video mode is responsible for that particular "mud" artifact appearing "easily", rather than after sustained handycam shooting full of whip pans or side scrolling close-ups.

As I mentioned "movie camera icon" shooting seems to have the least amount of processing, I also haven't been seeing that particular "mud" artifact in anything I would consider "normal" operation using the combination of manual lenses and "movie camera icon" with 1/50 shutter speed shooting. After shooting I've been evaluating these images on a 102" screen.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Kholi
06-01-2009, 12:57 PM
that's a good thought too, Iilya. There's a lot going on with the kit lens as well that could be causing some issues. I remember thinking that in the beginning myself.

stephenvv
06-01-2009, 01:18 PM
I agree, that is a good thought and more likely than my theory.

Nighthawk
06-01-2009, 02:16 PM
Might be an issue with their kit lenses like you say. There was a firmware update for the G1 lens recently. I've no idea what it was for but interesting to this discussion nonetheless. If this is the case I've certainly access to a number of manual lenses until this is resolved but a big chunk of the price is the included lens. All conjecture at this point but decent troubleshooting from you guys out there. Thanks.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 02:23 PM
I don't think anyone outside of Panasonic knows exactly what's causing this.


The whole theory by itself would make the Venus ll engine and the whole processing mechanism developed by Panasonic completely flawed. A total conspiracy of sorts. I tend to thing that the ultimate capture point and the one with the most pressure to perform the best is the SD card. It is the point where the bootlenecking of info would be most vulnerable. But at the end it could be a combination of camera performance AND card performance.

TrueIndigo
06-01-2009, 03:11 PM
So we have two lines of thought here: 1) Buy fast branded cards to avoid a possible datarate recording bottleneck. Many of us said we would pay for a fix to improve the 1080 recordings, so maybe the cost of expensive cards is the price worth paying! 2) The extra overhead of live intelligent lens compensation can push the already modest datarate over the edge. Didn't Kholi initially say even pulling focus or changing exposure showed a problem -- maybe that co-incided with a message-send from the lens, overwhelming the processor?

Kholi later gave 1080 a reprieve and reported good results: was this the combination of using the fast card and manual lenses?

Illya said use the movie mode, and Manual mode is not 100% manual (even when using a manual lens?). Kholi, didn't you successfully use manual mode?

Boz
06-01-2009, 03:14 PM
From Kholi's 'Thrift Store' video:
http://bozfx.com/pix/rebel/GH1_05.jpg

Again, a strong vertical pan. Similar if not exact same problem.

Kholi, do you remember what SD card and lens you used for this?

Kholi
06-01-2009, 03:17 PM
Yup. That slow SDHC card. That was before I got a pair of Sandisk Extremes.

Boz
06-01-2009, 03:20 PM
What about lens? If it was non-kit lens then we can at least eliminate that as a factor.

Isaac_Brody
06-01-2009, 03:20 PM
I'm curious to see pans with the OIS on and off. Wonder if there's any differences, and then pans with manual lenses. Lots of testing to be done...

Kholi
06-01-2009, 03:23 PM
What about lens? If it was non-kit lens then we can at least eliminate that as a factor.


You can't eliminate that as a factor if the card was too slow.

I didn't really notice it before but I had shot all of my action footage to an Extreme III and I said to myself "I wish I would have just shot it at 1080/24".

That's when I also came to that conclusion that 1080/24 wasn't as bad as I thought it was in motion.

The Thrift Store footage itself is SDHC extreme III's but the action test came before that and I had to record to the crap card because I didn't want to erase what was on the SanDisk EXIII.

I'll try to test this when I get my camera back before I send it out to its new owner.

squig
06-01-2009, 04:42 PM
If it's dependent on faster cards then great. I bought extreme III's for the D90 and they're not that expensive. I'd rather have a codec that's pushing the card than something mediocre like the mjpeg on the D90.

anthonybsd
06-01-2009, 04:51 PM
I hope it is this.

I am using a cheapo brand 8GB SDHC card, with high specs. 22MB read, which is pretty fast, but write is quoted lower - as 10MB.



This is all quite perplexing. 17 megabits = ~ 2 megabytes per second, i.e any cheapo class 4 and above card should be able to more than keep up with this camera. Something seems fishy here, folks.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 05:15 PM
i.e any cheapo class 4 and above card should be able to more than keep up with this camera

You have to get the fastest card you can get. That goes without question. This cameras are very demanding. You are going to compromise your recordings in order to save a few dollars? It makes absolutely no sense. You can get away with it for the stills but not video. If after you get the fastest SD cards available problems persist thats another matter, but you gave it the chance to capture to the best quality environment. Kholi already said that he saw improvements with faster cards and I have no doubt that they are indeed a primary part of the equation for better capturing.

admactanium
06-01-2009, 06:00 PM
When I get mine later this week I'll run some tests and see. I bought a 16Gb Extreme III 30Mbs card and I have a number of other off-brand cards to test it with.

Barry_Green
06-01-2009, 07:31 PM
I'm running some tests on a loaner unit right now. Sharply focused on a computer monitor with plenty of fine detail on the screen, then panning slowly, and quickly, tilting up and down, and rotating. I am using 1/250 shutter speed to hide the natural motion blur and let us more clearly see what's happening in the frame. I also used a cheapo card (class 4) and a SanDisk Extreme III Class 6 card to see if that makes any difference.

First observation -- noise reduction seems to make a difference. With the noise reduction at -2, the image can go pretty much totally to hell, but what you can see is basically still sharp amongst the compression artifacts.

But, if you put noise reduction at +2, then the image gets blurry as the compression falls apart. It still gets nasty, but it's a different nasty. Smudgy and blurry everywhere.

I'm also thinking there's a big effect going on of people not properly removing pulldown. I pulled the footage into Vegas to extract the still frames, and I couldn't find any interlace artifacts (presumably impossible on 1080/24p footage); I brought the footage into Premiere Pro CS4 and - OH YEAH - there's the interlace artifacts. Which tells me that CS4 is showing the footage more accurately and, yeah, I'm not gonna bother with Vegas for AVCHD anymore.

But if you didn't remove the pulldown properly, as happened on my first run through Vegas, you can see massive "smudging" happening on vertical tilts, but it's not really in the footage! It's an effect of the image getting de-interlaced for some reason, so you're seeing both fields at that point. If you strip out the pulldown properly (as I'm doing, I'm only checking the three "whole" frames and ignoring the split frames) then that vertical smudge is gone. Sure, the picture still goes to hell in a dragster-powered handbasket, but at least it's not like what's been reported.

Note: these files that I'm viewing were converted by Cineform Neo Scene and had 24p pulldown removed. I also am going to compare them from the original frames, manually scanning for pulldown-free frames to find comparable representative frames.

In summary: card quality appears to have nothing to do with it. If you've got a class 4 card, formatted in the camera, you're getting the footage as the camera makes it. You can't blame this stuff on a sub-standard card. If your card was too slow to support the mode, the camera would warn you and wouldn't let you record.

The artifacts pretty much look like HDV artifacts all over the place, and reminds me once again why I generally *hate* long-GoP codecs. Grrr. The image degradation is on par with the worst I've seen from HDV in the worst cases. But I suspect HDV might have done better under the given test circumstances. This implementation of AVCHD is not nearly as robust as the implementation in the HMC150, that's for sure. Screw long-GoP, I'm shooting AVC-Intra from now on... but -- okay, okay, long-GoP has its place, I know. Bah. The good news here is that nobody's going to be still-framing your video, so we're making a mountain out of a medium-sized mole hill, but -- if you're planning on doing some shakycam footage and then compositing in some special effects... yeah, get an HPX170 for those shots. Put on the Letus if you have to to match the DOF.

Okay, so enough with pixel-peeping; I'm now putting the card back in the camera and playing the footage back on a 67" 1080p-native DLP TV. And there, it looks a hundred times better. The glitched frames are there, and I can spot 'em, but -- I'm me, right? I know what I'm looking for. I had someone else watch it and said "do you notice anything about this footage?" Answer: "nope. Looks fine. Annoying, but fine." (keep in mind it's basically horrific shakycam footage, flinging the camera around like a spastic dweeb with fire ants in his pants, making "Cloverfield" look like it was shot on a Steadicam).

Tomorrow I'll try a wide-angle grass 'n' trees shot.

sunburst
06-01-2009, 08:08 PM
You can't blame this stuff on a sub-standard card. If your card was too slow to support the mode, the camera would warn you and wouldn't let you record.

.

Nice test, Barry.

So commanderspikes HAIL artifacts footage is NORMAL!? say it ain't so!

dmoreno
06-01-2009, 08:36 PM
Just in case, Vegas doesn't show interlace lines unless the video monitor's preview quality is set to good full/ best full or similar. It seems to drop or blend fields in lower quality preview settings.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 09:14 PM
Kholi said he saw some improvement with the faster card. So Barry, your tests prove his statements as incorrect?

Also, the question is how good, or bad, does it look when you do a normal smooth moving pan? Are you finding horrible artifacts and stuff in the footage? Because thats basically the question. Can we get something workable out of panning as a whole from this camera? We already know that if we do pans as if we were possesed by the panning demons it won't work! LOL.

Boz
06-01-2009, 10:41 PM
Thanks for doing the tests, Barry. Your findings are sad news indeed; and what I feared all along. So, what you're saying is right now is that my lowly HV20 outperforms the GH1 in compression detail when panning. That's pretty pathetic. Which leads me back to my original point, how in the world did Panasonic find this to be acceptable? I sure wish there was a Panasonic rep on this board to see these things and relay news back to the mothership (and address such issues).

Kholi
06-01-2009, 10:49 PM
I'm running some tests on a loaner unit right now. Sharply focused on a computer monitor with plenty of fine detail on the screen, then panning slowly, and quickly, tilting up and down, and rotating. I am using 1/250 shutter speed to hide the natural motion blur and let us more clearly see what's happening in the frame. I also used a cheapo card (class 4) and a SanDisk Extreme III Class 6 card to see if that makes any difference.

First observation -- noise reduction seems to make a difference. With the noise reduction at -2, the image can go pretty much totally to hell, but what you can see is basically still sharp amongst the compression artifacts.

But, if you put noise reduction at +2, then the image gets blurry as the compression falls apart. It still gets nasty, but it's a different nasty. Smudgy and blurry everywhere.

I'm also thinking there's a big effect going on of people not properly removing pulldown. I pulled the footage into Vegas to extract the still frames, and I couldn't find any interlace artifacts (presumably impossible on 1080/24p footage); I brought the footage into Premiere Pro CS4 and - OH YEAH - there's the interlace artifacts. Which tells me that CS4 is showing the footage more accurately and, yeah, I'm not gonna bother with Vegas for AVCHD anymore.

But if you didn't remove the pulldown properly, as happened on my first run through Vegas, you can see massive "smudging" happening on vertical tilts, but it's not really in the footage! It's an effect of the image getting de-interlaced for some reason, so you're seeing both fields at that point. If you strip out the pulldown properly (as I'm doing, I'm only checking the three "whole" frames and ignoring the split frames) then that vertical smudge is gone. Sure, the picture still goes to hell in a dragster-powered handbasket, but at least it's not like what's been reported.

Note: these files that I'm viewing were converted by Cineform Neo Scene and had 24p pulldown removed. I also am going to compare them from the original frames, manually scanning for pulldown-free frames to find comparable representative frames.

In summary: card quality appears to have nothing to do with it. If you've got a class 4 card, formatted in the camera, you're getting the footage as the camera makes it. You can't blame this stuff on a sub-standard card. If your card was too slow to support the mode, the camera would warn you and wouldn't let you record.

The artifacts pretty much look like HDV artifacts all over the place, and reminds me once again why I generally *hate* long-GoP codecs. Grrr. The image degradation is on par with the worst I've seen from HDV in the worst cases. But I suspect HDV might have done better under the given test circumstances. This implementation of AVCHD is not nearly as robust as the implementation in the HMC150, that's for sure. Screw long-GoP, I'm shooting AVC-Intra from now on... but -- okay, okay, long-GoP has its place, I know. Bah. The good news here is that nobody's going to be still-framing your video, so we're making a mountain out of a medium-sized mole hill, but -- if you're planning on doing some shakycam footage and then compositing in some special effects... yeah, get an HPX170 for those shots. Put on the Letus if you have to to match the DOF.

Okay, so enough with pixel-peeping; I'm now putting the card back in the camera and playing the footage back on a 67" 1080p-native DLP TV. And there, it looks a hundred times better. The glitched frames are there, and I can spot 'em, but -- I'm me, right? I know what I'm looking for. I had someone else watch it and said "do you notice anything about this footage?" Answer: "nope. Looks fine. Annoying, but fine." (keep in mind it's basically horrific shakycam footage, flinging the camera around like a spastic dweeb with fire ants in his pants, making "Cloverfield" look like it was shot on a Steadicam).

Tomorrow I'll try a wide-angle grass 'n' trees shot.

That is PRETTY much my summation right there. If you're not looking for it, it looks MUCH better on an actual viewing source in your living room. Thanks for quantifying that, Barry.

Also, I dunno maybe I got my settings right or just haven't noticed? But if it's not the cards then okay, one less thing to worry about being the culprit outside of it being HDV and its worse. LoL

ydgmdlu
06-01-2009, 11:04 PM
Kholi said he saw some improvement with the faster card. So Barry, your tests prove his statements as incorrect?
I don't see how a faster card could possibly improve video performance. It simply does not make sense on a technical level. The codec writes at a maximum rate of 17 Mbps, which is slightly more than 2 MB/s. A lot of the footage posted so far doesn't even use all of that bandwidth. Any card with an actual sustained write speed of over 2 MB/s should be enough. At that point, the card is no longer the bottleneck for performance; the codec becomes the bottleneck. A faster card won't make the codec write at a higher data rate. If that were true, then that would necessarily mean that the codec would be encoding with a higher bitrate.

The worst thing that one could say about the cheap cards is that maybe their write speeds are highly erratic to the point of falling below the codec's requirements. But even if that were true (and it hasn't been proven so), then you should say that one should buy the best quality card within one's budget, not the fastest. After all, manufacturer's spec listings are often misleading.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 11:08 PM
I don't see how a faster card could possibly improve video performance. It simply does not make sense on a technical level. The codec writes at a maximum rate of 17 Mbps, which is slightly more than 2 MB/s. A lot of the footage posted so far doesn't even use all of that bandwidth. Any card with an actual write speed of over 2 MB/s should be enough. At that point, the card is no longer the bottleneck for performance; the codec is the bottleneck. A faster card won't make the codec write at a higher data rate. If that were true, then the codec would be encoding with a higher bitrate.


Actually, it's possible if el-Cheapo SDHC cards specs are not what they're being reported as. Earlier in the thread I stated that SDHC cards online were being sold as SanDisk Extreme III's, but were infact not really that.

So if El-Cheapo's write-rate was more like 15mb/s instead of a proposed 20mb/s then there's a bottleneck someone may not have ever expected. Also, check over in the 5D camp and ask them what horror stories they have to share about CF Cards.

I also know that Read/Write specs for Solid State media in larger capacities are not always what they're advertised as. So it could have played a very small role, or could have been a possibility.

Barry tested, directly, a Sandisk EXtreme III and a Cheap SDHC card and ruled that out. Great. Less for everyone else to test.

But do keep in mind specs are not always as they're told, so it really was a possibility.

ydgmdlu
06-01-2009, 11:13 PM
Kholi, I updated my post to say basically what you said; I was writing the addendum before I saw your reply.

ydgmdlu
06-01-2009, 11:15 PM
And by the way, 2 MB/s really is not demanding at all. I imagine that only a really poor quality card would fail to sustain that write speed.

Kholi
06-01-2009, 11:19 PM
And by the way, 2 MB/s really is not demanding at all. I imagine that only a really poor quality card would fail to sustain that write speed.


Nope, I can't disagree with you here. THere's always the possibility that people are buying these on Ebay, where the poorest of quality will live.

So I don't disagree with you entirely, just want to point out that there's always a chance, that's all. And when you've got high hopes you gotta try everything. Nothin' wrong with process of elimination.

ydgmdlu
06-01-2009, 11:24 PM
Well, there are plenty of reasons to avoid buying cheap flash memory on eBay, whether in the form of memory cards or USB drives. The biggest one is that there are a lot of shady sellers, mostly based out of Hong Kong and China, who sell memory at falsely stated capacities. I'd say that that is arguably a bigger issue than card perfomance.

John Caballero
06-01-2009, 11:24 PM
So we are back to square one. What is exactly causing the bad break ups? I would just like to know how bad is it if you pan slowly and deliberately? Also do they show up on tracking shots?

Kholi
06-01-2009, 11:28 PM
Well, there are plenty of reasons to avoid buying cheap flash memory on eBay, whether in the form of memory cards or USB drives. The biggest one is that there are a lot of shady sellers, mostly based out of Hong Kong and China, who sell memory at falsely stated capacities. I'd say that that is arguably a bigger issue than card perfomance.

And that's the thing, man. A lot of people will initially flock to Ebay because of prices not realizing what they're getting themselves into. It's just like those adapters for Nikon to EOS or whatever: waste your money going with cheap ones that don't let you do what you're supposed to.

Anyway, yeah.

commanderspike
06-01-2009, 11:43 PM
I don't think we're back at square one just yet. I still think it's the card.

I don't think it's the lens. Why would a optical part cause digital break down?

I don't think it's post processing issues or computer related. Yes, I have noticed interlacing artefacts, such as a section of red on an umbrella completely floating interlaced in the sky whilst panning.

But what put the post processing theory to bed for me was when I looked very closely at the GH1 screen during playback direct from the El Cheapo card, of footage I'd just shot, and you see EXACTLY the same break down of the image as I and others have posted on this thread.

There are a lot of fake Sandisk Extremes out there. I made sure mine was genuine from a high street store - paid a little more but can't take any chances.

Heading out now to ram as much detail as I can through the codec and see if the breakage occurs with the Sandisk, versus my El Cheapo card.

Highly erratic write performance combined with a bug in the GH1 which causes the bit rate to spike when a pan begins could be the reason. A quality card won't fix the bug but it will hide the effects.

paulgandersman
06-01-2009, 11:53 PM
And that's the thing, man. A lot of people will initially flock to Ebay because of prices not realizing what they're getting themselves into. It's just like those adapters for Nikon to EOS or whatever: waste your money going with cheap ones that don't let you do what you're supposed to.

Anyway, yeah.

noticed this post and I was thinking about buying one of these:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-lens-to-Panasonic-Lumix-G1-GH1-micro-4-3-adapter_W0QQitemZ250422526636QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLe ns_Accessories?hash=item3a4e5882ac&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

would you not recommend it? if not what is a good product that does the same thing?

thanks!

dcloud
06-01-2009, 11:54 PM
its the gh1's cpu processor. it cant handle the encoding to avchd. that pretty much sums it all up, either they replace it with a codec easier to encode or HDMI out.

superzero
06-02-2009, 12:02 AM
its the gh1's cpu processor. it cant handle the encoding to avchd. that pretty much sums it all up, either they replace it with a codec easier to encode or HDMI out.

We have a winner!

stav1606
06-02-2009, 12:45 AM
its the gh1's cpu processor. it cant handle the encoding to avchd. that pretty much sums it all up
And how exactly are you sure about that?

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 12:46 AM
And how exactly are you sure about that?

Exactly. Would you care to enlighten us with all the details please?

Illya Friedman
06-02-2009, 12:57 AM
This discussion is crazy. This artifact is not only avoidable, I haven't seen it at all lately when shooting (normally) in Icon mode w/manual lenses.

This is rapidly being blown out of proportion. I'm looking at some stuff shot over the past few weeks on a 2K big screen and on 35mm film this week, I'll report more after.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 01:03 AM
The "mystery artifac syndrome" as urban legend. This is what happens when basically 4 people have a camera in the whole U.S. of A. Thank you Illya for saving the day, a few people were ready to swallow a poison pill and just die over this. You just prevented a mass suicide! Can't wait for the big screen reports.

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 01:13 AM
Okay back from my test.

First up, El Cheapo class 6 memory card. That's 'class 6' with a pinch of salt, but recommended by Panasonic.

Literally the first pan I did after stepping outside the front door, I see this awful corruption, not just on my Macbook Pro in FCP but on the GH1's screen itself under playback from the card:

El cheapo card, not panning
http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/cheapogood.jpg

El cheapo card, panning begins, not too fast...
http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/cheapobad.jpg

Now the results from the Sandisk Extreme III 8GB card, 30MBps edition, setting me back 2100 NT dollars which is approx 80 USD.

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/sandiskgood.jpg

Uh oh...

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/sandiskbad.jpg

Yep - just as bad.

I then tried all the dial settings, OIS on / off, manual mode, auto mode, ISO 100, ISO 400, P, M, A, S and P I S S E D O F F. Nothing makes a difference.

Speechless. I just can't believe Panasonic let this thing out of the factory doors with such a major flaw. I am really fed up with them.

Video is the raison d'etre for the GH1 to exist!

If this is fixable with a firmware update, it better arrive soon... anything involving handheld work and panning is going to be a write off... that is to say 90% of footage will be effected, even panning on a tripod.

Utterly ridiculous. I have never seen such a huge bug with a 'market ready' piece of consumer electronics in all my life.

Just to make sure I wasn't seeing things, going insane (cannot be disproved), or my Macbook wasn't overheating, here is the same phenomenon on the GH1's screen itself under playback mode:

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/gh1good.jpg

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/gh1bad.jpg

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 01:16 AM
This discussion is crazy. This artifact is not only avoidable, I haven't seen it at all lately when shooting (normally) in Icon mode w/manual lenses.

This is rapidly being blown out of proportion. I'm looking at some stuff shot over the past few weeks on a 2K big screen and on 35mm film this week, I'll report more after.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

I find this interesting. You were not using the kit lens, and had no artefacts?

Try using the 14-140mm kit lens and see if you have the same terrible problems as I do.

Joe Shaw
06-02-2009, 01:17 AM
FWIW, I have a PAL camera and my initial - very early - experiment shows that yes, if you pan at a certain speed, the picture does break up and artifacts appear. I am on 25p workflow obviously, so no pulldown issues. I use Edius 5 which has a great AVCHD utility - including a preview option which allows me to just drag and drop footage onto an icon and playback.

Testing the camera whilst panning it is fine until a certain speed, then it breaks up. If you pan quicker still it actually seems to break up less.

As Illya has said, it's avoidable and I can see very few occasions where I might pan like that in shooting. And I'm pretty sure if I had to use a shot like that I could cover it in After Effects.

I'll let you know more as I figure out the camera.

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 01:20 AM
It depends on the level of detail in the scene. Panning indoors I wasn't able to corrupt the picture.

Simply holding the camera and panning slowly outside today, as you see ABOVE, causes the problem to occur once every 10 seconds on average.

An intolerably bad level of performance.

plasmasmp
06-02-2009, 01:25 AM
If you turn off the Noise Reduction, does it help with the artifacting? (IF) this is a CPU issue, possibly taking some of the load off will help free resources for encoding. Turning off noise reduction makes sense in this case. Additionally, though it is against popular theory here, if you shoot a subject with narrow depth of field and try shaking the camera, is their less breakup on screen? When items are out of focus it will be easier for the realtime encoder as there is less fine detail to record.

I was all excited about this camera until the first 1080i samples were put up a few weeks ago, but it seems many people since then have been doubting that this issue exists. This is a definite issue, and we need to systematically go through the settings and see if this problem can be avoided. If not, the 1080i mode on this camera will essentially be less usuable than the jello ridden sensor in the D90. (only usuable for static shots or shots without much motion either by the subjects or the camera itself. )

I look forward to all the new owner's tests and results.

sunburst
06-02-2009, 01:28 AM
Utterly ridiculous. I have never seen such a huge bug with a 'market ready' piece of consumer electronics in all my life.


bro, I feel your pain.

Hopefully, you just got one from a batch of faulty units. Maybe all will be
well soon.

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 01:33 AM
Maybe there is a batch of faulty units. We will see.

But this artefact is everywhere... in many people's footage, in PAL cameras, in NTSC cameras. It's just unbelievable.

I am going back and forth outside and to my Macbook now, to see if there is a work around settings wise...

squig
06-02-2009, 01:37 AM
Maybe there is a batch of faulty units. We will see.

But this artefact is everywhere... in many people's footage, in PAL cameras, in NTSC cameras. It's just unbelievable.

I am going back and forth outside and to my Macbook now, to see if there is a work around settings wise...

how does the panning look in 720p and mjpeg?

plasmasmp
06-02-2009, 01:37 AM
Additionally, have you tried turning the detail/sharpness settings to a minimum and comparing how an outdoor (high detail) pan looks?

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 01:45 AM
Seems to be at it's worst when panning at a higher shutter speed. If there is a lot of motion blur, the effect is somewhat less.

Also seems slightly better in manual mode, on the movie dial, than in any in auto, etc. But the effect is still pretty bad.

Illya Friedman
06-02-2009, 01:56 AM
It depends on the level of detail in the scene. Panning indoors I wasn't able to corrupt the picture.

Simply holding the camera and panning slowly outside today, as you see ABOVE, causes the problem to occur once every 10 seconds on average.

An intolerably bad level of performance.

There's a bunch of things you need to turn to "off" to actually get to a manual mode in "movie camera Icon mode". Was auto focus and intelligent iso on? Turn all that stuff off.

What was your focal length?

I just uploaded a simple tilt down here (http://www.vimeo.com/4959639)http://www.vimeo.com/4959639

It's ugly so I'm going to delete it day after tomorrow. If memory serves, this was shot with the G1 kit lens, and a mattebox that wasn't adjusted correctly (why vignetting in the lower corners) the lens was not all the way wide, probably about 20mm. I watched it frame by frame in QT and there was none of the "mud".

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 02:08 AM
All off apart from auto focus. OIS off, ISO fixed at 100. Shutter fixed at 1/30, aperture F4. Movie dial, and in menus M mode selected.

Until I can record footage myself with the kit lens, panning with plenty of detail outside in good sunlight, I cannot accept claims that the problem isn't serious or is fixable.

All due respect but it's not much of a fix having to turn off all the auto settings, a major GH1 advantage over the 5DM2, and abandoning the kit lens which makes up over 2 thirds of the GH1's retail price!

I hope to prove myself wrong, but all my testing so far has seen more artefacts than an archaeological dig.

Sometimes, at low shutter speeds, indoors, or in low light, the GH1 produces some very clean footage free of the breakage. But in bright light, outdoors with a lot of fine detail, things ALWAYS go awry for me... yet to prove myself wrong, even with this damned expensive white elephant of a memory card I just wasted my money on :Drogar-Smoke(DBG):

dcloud
06-02-2009, 02:20 AM
cuz i said so.. well actually it has been discussed before



http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031901panasonicinterview.asp

"In terms of resolution the camcorder is still better because they offer full 1080P (50i / 60i) codecs, and also the compression is a little bit different; a camcorder can manage compression wisely, with B pictures, which this one doesn't have. Of course in the future it will get better." -Mr. Ichiro Kitao, General Manager of Panasonic's DSC Product Planning Group.
no other reason why it wouldnt be the cpu that is causing the artifacts. It cant be the avchd codec itself.

if camcorders with 17mbps can produce far better results, why cant the gh1 too? They crippled it? Its most likely gh1 cant encode a 1080 video compared to 720. We should request for a 720 24p. perhaps that one would give a far more better result.

AdrianF
06-02-2009, 02:34 AM
All off apart from auto focus. OIS off, ISO fixed at 100. Shutter fixed at 1/30, aperture F4. Movie dial, and in menus M mode selected.

Didn't sonicstates have a problem with the shutter set at 1/30, or was that just while shooting 720?

Anyway,why should you be having this problem on external shots only? I've seen some of this mud in some other external shots with the kit lens, but only turning fuzzy in certain areas of high detail like grass. Your samples seem really extreme compared to the other footage i've seen and played with. Do you have another lens that you can try out and see if this is kit lens related in some way?

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 02:55 AM
I am slowly getting to the bottom of this.

It occurs in external shots because the light level is higher, and it seems to be worse for fast shutter speed pans than in 1/30 speed pans. It really does seem that my GH1 can't handle pans containing a lot of detail and little motion blur.

On a brighter note, I don't think the problem is with the sensor output, and maybe not even the GH1's CPU, because when recording the video, the live view output on the screen is fine. It is only what ends up recorded to the memory card which is crippled. (See my photos on page 9 RE: playback on GH1's lcd). It is not to do with anything in post or my computer software, etc.

Here is how 1/30 may help reduce the effect.... I am still double checking and testing however.

Here is the pan in 1/30, more motion blur but less evidence of artefacts (apart from top left corner maybe):

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/slowshutterbad.png

Here is the pan in 1/125, as you can see - this should be much more detailed, as it has less motion blur. But it's artefacted to hell:

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/fastshutterbad.png

Some evidence of rolling shutter / jello effect there too.

But it's the artefacts that worry me most about my GH1. It's not just pans this occurs on... does it on zooms as well.

Here is the static frame, full detail, for reference. Other than the jello effect this is what the 1/125 shot should look like, with maybe a bit of blur. I prefer motion blur at 1/30 rather than a high detail action pan at a fast shutter. At least motion blur is blur...and the detail is gone anyway.

http://www.brawnf1blog.com/GH1/slowshutterok.png

dcloud
06-02-2009, 03:06 AM
oh im guessing you didnt get what the hell i was talking about

heres the bottomline
the cpu handles the ENCODING of the video.
IMAGE > SENSOR (RAW) > CPU PROCESSOR (COMPRESS & ENCODES TO AVCHD) > MEMORY CARD (Compressed 17mbps AVCHD)

What you see in the live view is the raw output! if it can be outputed live via HDMI, you'll have the uncompressed 4:2:2 footage!

ergo, the gh1 cpu cant encode avchd well. it could be a limitation on the processor unless panny releases an update on the codec to prove me wrong!

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 03:25 AM
dccloud, I'd be interested to know how you seem to know for sure that the output on the live view is raw footage, direct from the sensor, untouched by the same processors that output the AVCHD stream to the memory card.

Have you reversed engineered your GH1???

As a work around, for now I will be avoiding pans and shooting with as slow a shutter speed as possible. You get less rolling shutter jello effect at 1/30 too. Downside is that AF is a lot slower than at higher shutter speeds. Fewer frames to compare in the same timeframe = slower AF.

plasmasmp
06-02-2009, 03:59 AM
If it really is only high shutter speeds that cause this then the workaround would be this:

1. Shoot only at 1/50 in 1080i mode, ( should approximate 180 degree shutter) stopping down with ND filters rather than increasing shutter speed (iris makes no difference)

2. Shoot in 720p 60 if you need a 24p look with the look of a 90 degree shutter. This can be done very easily by dropping the 60p footage into 24p timeline in many NLE's Additionally, you will have room to slow the footage down if need be. There is almost no decipherable difference between 24p shot at 1/120 and 60p shot at 1/120 and dropped into a 24 frame timeline.

drk3p
06-02-2009, 04:56 AM
To me it looks like the mud happens with the auto focus.
Maybe it just goes crazy when its at a set focus and then everything starts spinning on it?

Joe Shaw
06-02-2009, 05:01 AM
Nope. I have only used mine in MF and the artifacting still happens. This is not an AF issue.

dcloud
06-02-2009, 05:03 AM
im done arguing. ive said my piece

Joe Shaw
06-02-2009, 05:10 AM
im done arguing. ive said my piece

FWIW - I think you are probably correct with your assessment. Most logical explanation I've seen.

squig
06-02-2009, 05:18 AM
yeah AVCHD encoding is very processor intensive which is why you don't see mjpeg break up like that . And the 720p looks better because the processor has less pixels to squeeze into the 17Mbps stream.
that's my non-engineer take on it. Kholi also mentioned that he was seeing a lower average bit-rate on the 1080 compared to the 720 AVCHD.

Ian-T
06-02-2009, 06:13 AM
I really hate to admit it but I think dcloud might be right. The processor sucks...I mean can't handle the encoding properly. If this turns out to be true I wonder if the bit rate was increased to let's say 24Mbps would it have the same issues? It does not use B frames....just like the 5D Mark ll. And to be honest when I watch 5D ll videos very closely during pans I see sort of the same thing (but to a very miniscule degree). Someone recently posted info from a Canon site that explained how the 5D ll also does not use these B frames and to compensate they upped the data rate. Maybe that's the fix for the Panasonic.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 06:44 AM
I thought all this was discussed before? 1080 breaks down due to 17Mbps VBR - VBR is the problem from my understanding.

Martti Ekstrand
06-02-2009, 07:07 AM
Righty-O then.
There's definitely something going on not caused by GH1 being picky about the cards.

GH1 actually don't have one cpu, it had two unless I've totally misunderstood what the Venus Engine is. And it sure looks like that the 1080/24 mode makes the AVCHD encoding choke at quick changes in the image, most clearly manifested when using higher shutter speeds. Now I'd say most of here will end up using a shutter round 1/60 - 1/50 to get that 'filmic' look so it would be great seeing how that looks as that 1/30 frame isn't hopelessly bad.

But hang on, this doesn't end with that, I'd say there's something rotten in Denma... no, NTSC-land. OK, might be something rotten as I don't have all facts here. Attached is a frame grab from QTI's testing with his PAL version GH1 done in 1080/25 (I've scaled it to 50% size) This frame has lots of things that should be bad for the encoding; green foliage, a fast side motion (he's in a car) and a very quick vertical change due to a road bump. You see how the buildings in the background are smeared vertically of motion blur. The one thing the clip lacks is high hard contrast since there's no strong sunlight. Before anybody jumps to a incorrect conclusion the smudges I've exemplified inside the red circles are not codec breaks but rain drops on the car window also smeared by motion blur. And for the life of me I can't see any of the severe breakdowns that commanderspike has shown, not in this frame attached or anywhere else in that clip. And since it's handheld inside a moving car it's pretty jerky shaky all the way.

Some speculation then: It could be either that the NTSC version's encoding isn't tweaked properly and that might be a firmware upgrade to fix OR the combination of compressing to AVCHD and stuffing the 24p into a pulldown sequence inside the 60i stream is enough to choke the CPUs as opposed to compressing and getting 25p into 50i. Going up to 24 bps would in all likelihood reduce the artefacts now that card write speed has been ruled out. That quote about not using 'b pictures' is also interesting and is certainly a CPU related decision.

To round off I don't know exacly what settings QTI used to shot this clip but I will get my PAL GH1 on Friday and will try to test it out in the weekend. Maybe I can manage to break the codec in similar fashion and that would indicate that some pointy haired boss has forced the 1080 mode into a 720 cam so he gets a 'Full HD' sticker on the box. This is a consumer product and conventional business wisdom says that features sell better than quality. Not that I agree with that idea. Or simply the engineering team got overzealous and pushed the cam outside it's hardware envelope. Both things have happened before. To flat out say that GH1 can't encode AVCHD well isn't entirely correct, it does a nice job at 720.

Joe Shaw
06-02-2009, 07:13 AM
Just a quick reply to say I have a PAL camera and I see the artifacts too. It is not an NTSC/PAL thing.

Ian-T
06-02-2009, 07:16 AM
Thanks for clarifying that jshaw300.....that's what i've been trying to explain to folks. I see this behavior in both NTSC and PAL footage.

squig
06-02-2009, 07:16 AM
damn and I was just about to say it's about time you NTSC biatches got screwed for a change

Ian-T
06-02-2009, 07:18 AM
We've got 3:2 pulldown to deal with....we are already screwed.

squig
06-02-2009, 07:20 AM
What I want to know is how robust is the 720, does it break up at all?

Martti Ekstrand
06-02-2009, 07:20 AM
Just a quick reply to say I have a PAL camera and I see the artifacts too. It is not an NTSC/PAL thing.
Dang. Do you have some example?

squig
06-02-2009, 07:22 AM
maybe we'll get lucky and Pentax will answer my call for 24p and manual control. That mjpeg looks tasty.

ROne
06-02-2009, 07:39 AM
Just a quick reply to say I have a PAL camera and I see the artifacts too. It is not an NTSC/PAL thing.

Really - did you buy from UK?

I've got stock reports of this friday.

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 07:44 AM
If a cheap consumer AVCHD camcorder like the SD9 or HF100 can handle a 1080p stream at 17mbps, I expect the twin CPU GH1 to have the horse power to deal with it.

This is a firmware problem and I expect a fix.

Nighthawk
06-02-2009, 07:54 AM
We've all seen examples of artefacts and codec breakdown in other peoples footage, some pretty bad for sure, but commanderspike's footage is something else again. No doubt this camera needs some sort of fix but I'm starting to be of the 'bad batch' school of thought. It just seems that much worse than anything out there and unlike the early amateur footage we saw when first released in Japan, commander seems to know what he's doing with it. Nothing that Kholi or Philip Bloom showed is quite this bad except for Kholi's action clip maybe.
I'm not as technically savvy as the rest of you so if this sounds like a dumb question, hey. If, as some of you are pointing to, it's a cpu issue is it possible it's a duration/ heat thing like the D90 had. I know Panasonic's claim that you could go for as long as the card has memory but maybe it just can't. So, for those who have the camera, do the problems you're having occur when 'cold' or after sustained shooting and if so is it in 1080 or 720? Grasping at straws here.

EDIT: Sorry commanderspike, your post went up when I submitted mine.

anthonybsd
06-02-2009, 08:05 AM
You have to get the fastest card you can get. That goes without question. This cameras are very demanding. You are going to compromise your recordings in order to save a few dollars? It makes absolutely no sense. You can get away with it for the stills but not video.
Did you read anything I wrote? I'm saying I find it extremely fishy that cards that are rated for 3-4 times the transfer rates required for this camera are supposingly showing problems with this camera. And for your information you are actually more likely to get away with it for video than for stills. 5D Mk2 in burst mode 3.9FPS outputting RAW images produces about 80-90 MB a second. That makes GH1 paltry 2MB/sec pale in comparison.

Use your head next time please.

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 08:15 AM
Simply holding the camera and panning slowly outside today, as you see ABOVE, causes the problem to occur once every 10 seconds on average.

An intolerably bad level of performance.

Once every 10 seconds while handheld panning in an intolerable level of perfomance? I can make just about any camera look like crap with handheld panning including an EX1 or Red. Plus, finally the info that the problem really shows up at higher shutter speeds on highly detailed shot - that's a terrible way to shoot anyway.

I would never, never do those sort of handheld, high shutter speed pans for any footage I intended on using, even casually. Especially when shots are detailed and high resolution, proper shooting is a must for watchable footage.

I work at IMAX rez and when projected that large unless footage is shot near perfect, it tends to make people physically ill.

Unless this problem occurs frequently at normal shutter speeds (1/40th or 1/50th) at proper 24p panning/tilt speeds (slow enough or fast enough) with detail/NR turned down, I fail to see it as an real issue at all.

It's certainly not "intolerable level of performance" - people bought that first JVC HDV cam despite some ugly footage that came out all the time. It also cost a lot more than this cam :)

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 08:33 AM
Just in case, Vegas doesn't show interlace lines unless the video monitor's preview quality is set to good full/ best full or similar. It seems to drop or blend fields in lower quality preview settings.
It was set to best/full.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 08:42 AM
So we are back to square one. What is exactly causing the bad break ups?
Exceeding the codec's ability to cope with the amount of detail.


I would just like to know how bad is it if you pan slowly and deliberately? Also do they show up on tracking shots?
I was abusing the camera to get it to look bad. And even then, in the WORST case I could make it, it still looked fine on an HDTV. Remember this was with an extremely short shutter speed, which would make the image harder to compress; motion blur makes everything easier.

I was trying to punish it. And I punished it pretty bad. But even then, playing the footage back, it was acceptable. In still shots, no way -- but in live video, it was okay.

I have some more gradual pans shot outdoors in a worst-case direct-sunlight foliage/trees/pine trees/grass scenario, done at 1/800 shutter, in 1080/24p and 720/60p, slow and fast pans. Haven't had a chance to review them yet.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 09:08 AM
the cpu handles the ENCODING of the video.
IMAGE > SENSOR (RAW) > CPU PROCESSOR (COMPRESS & ENCODES TO AVCHD) > MEMORY CARD (Compressed 17mbps AVCHD)
I believe this is correct insofar as it goes, but you're missing a step, which is that the raw sensor data gets processed by the venus engines and gets demosaiced, any white balance or ISO/gain is applied, detail enhancement, noise reduction, etc. all get done there. THEN it gets sent to the AVCHD chip.


What you see in the live view is the raw output!
Well, an incredibly downrezzed version of the processed but uncompressed video. Fully processed, but uncompressed, and then downrezzed to the live screen.

if it can be outputed live via HDMI, you'll have the uncompressed 4:2:2 footage!
Yes, but there is no live HDMI output.


ergo, the gh1 cpu cant encode avchd well.
I believe that this statement is probably accurate insofar as it pertains to 1080/24p mode. I am not prepared to accept this statement as related to 720/60p mode.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 09:09 AM
Nope. I have only used mine in MF and the artifacting still happens. This is not an AF issue.
Unquestionably it is unrelated to AF, all my testing has been done in MF.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 09:12 AM
yeah AVCHD encoding is very processor intensive which is why you don't see mjpeg break up like that .
Sort of. MJPEG is an intraframe-only codec, no long-GOP. It is in the nature of a long-GOP codec for this kind of stuff to happen (ergo, why I basically hate all long-GOP codecs unless they have adequate bandwidth and processing power!)

The HMC150 doesn't do this. Its codec is very robust, it has plenty of bandwidth and plenty of processing power. The earlier statement about not having "B" frames leads me to think that the codec chip in this camera is less powerful. And, at a price tag of almost 1/3 of the HMC150's, I can see how they would make that compromise. Doesn't make me happy, and I have advised the Panasonic folks that if they want to release a version of this camera to the broadcast division, I strongly encourage them to use the HMC150's codec chip.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 09:16 AM
I really hate to admit it but I think dcloud might be right. The processor sucks...I mean can't handle the encoding properly. If this turns out to be true I wonder if the bit rate was increased to let's say 24Mbps would it have the same issues? It does not use B frames....just like the 5D Mark ll. And to be honest when I watch 5D ll videos very closely during pans I see sort of the same thing (but to a very miniscule degree). Someone recently posted info from a Canon site that explained how the 5D ll also does not use these B frames and to compensate they upped the data rate. Maybe that's the fix for the Panasonic.
This sounds like a reasonable approach; if it truly doesn't have B frames, then it's not as efficient as it could otherwise be, and the only fix for that is more bandwidth. However, the GH1, being an AVCHD device, will be limited to a max of 24mbps if they were to attempt to throw bandwidth at it to reduce the compression errors.

Frankly I think the best solution would be to use the HMC150 chips. That would give them more bandwidth, B frames, and pN mode (and pN is extremely easier to compress than interlaced 2:3 pulldown footage).

I would not expect changes on the existing model, but I have hopes that they could be applied to a customized broadcast version.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 09:20 AM
And can everyone please keep in mind that I was *trying* to make the codec fail? I haven't seen evidence of unacceptable mud in my normal shooting, although I'll be the first to admit my testing has been very limited so far and is being cut short.

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 09:24 AM
We've all seen examples of artefacts and codec breakdown in other peoples footage, some pretty bad for sure, but commanderspike's footage is something else again. No doubt this camera needs some sort of fix but I'm starting to be of the 'bad batch' school of thought. It just seems that much worse than anything out there and unlike the early amateur footage we saw when first released in Japan, commander seems to know what he's doing with it. Nothing that Kholi or Philip Bloom showed is quite this bad except for Kholi's action clip maybe.
I'm not as technically savvy as the rest of you so if this sounds like a dumb question, hey. If, as some of you are pointing to, it's a cpu issue is it possible it's a duration/ heat thing like the D90 had. I know Panasonic's claim that you could go for as long as the card has memory but maybe it just can't. So, for those who have the camera, do the problems you're having occur when 'cold' or after sustained shooting and if so is it in 1080 or 720? Grasping at straws here.

EDIT: Sorry commanderspike, your post went up when I submitted mine.

Not tested in 720 yet, will do so tomorrow and see if it improves matters, as indeed some people have commented, that the 720 mode is more robust.

As for 1080p, I bet you will see the artefacts in even slow pans, on a tripod.

I don't think there is anything we can do but wait for a firmware update.

It's strange, as Panasonic are the co-developers of the AVCHD format and have plenty of products on the market which have robust processing.

It must be a combination of the nature of the CMOS in the GH1 and the new Venus engine.

dcloud
06-02-2009, 09:37 AM
I believe this is correct insofar as it goes, but you're missing a step, which is that the raw sensor data gets processed by the venus engines and gets demosaiced, any white balance or ISO/gain is applied, detail enhancement, noise reduction, etc. all get done there. THEN it gets sent to the AVCHD chip.
right i missed some.. im not an engineer :P hahaha


Well, an incredibly downrezzed version of the processed but uncompressed video. Fully processed, but uncompressed, and then downrezzed to the live screen.
Yes, but there is no live HDMI output.I said 'if' though :P but yes. :beer:


I believe that this statement is probably accurate insofar as it pertains to 1080/24p mode. I am not prepared to accept this statement as related to 720/60p mode.Yeah i forgot to mention the 720 performance is great. 1080p is acceptable at certain conditions.

CUSTOMIZED BROADCAST VERSION
music to my ears. I'd pay extra for that. Body only!

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:11 AM
Okay, some panning results. Remember, this is still an extreme case; I used 1/800 shutter to capture as much detail as I could and freeze it all, so that motion blur would not be an issue.

Results: under normal/rational panning conditions, it's fine. Not 100% ultimate perfect like AVC-Intra might be, but considering this frame will fly by in 1/24th of a second, it's basically fine. If you're panning to control 24p strobing, and avoiding CMOS jello, you're also going to avoid the mud. Here's a sample shot from 1/800 shutter, 100% wide angle, NR -2, as much detail as I could possibly get in the shot, and executing the fastest pan a reasonable person would do, while avoiding 24p strobing. This was a 90-degree pan in about 6 seconds:
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Tree%20Pan%20NR-2.jpg


Under hyper jerking of the camera, it goes to hell. But who would shoot that way? If you want to do cloverfield, this isn't the camera for you. I can make it look really, really bad... Whip the camera around like a madman (I'm talking about a 90-degree pan in less than 1 second), and you can make a shot that looks like this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Tree%20hyper-pan.jpg

Again, as the doctor said, if it hurts when you do that, don't do that. And if you simply must do that, this isn't the right camera for you.

Boz
06-02-2009, 10:13 AM
So in summation, there IS a problem. Apparently GH1 hardware can't handle it's own codec. lol! How sad is that? I've said it many times, and I'll say it again, if Panasonic can at least get 24P in to their 720 mode, that would be an improvement. In theory, upping the codec compression limit to 24mbs in 1080 mode (as an option) would also help somewhat (how much is unknown). It SEEMS as though both these options would be relatively doable with a firmware upgrade, but I'm no engineer. It's just sad that Panasonic signed off on this camera as is. Remember, it's a CONSUMER camera. And how do 90% of consumers shoot? Handheld. What do 90% of consumers shoot? Their kids, pets, sports, activities. So handheld camera whipping around to follow the action. Where does the GH1 fail? Handheld camera whipping around to follow the action. Ugh.

Boz
06-02-2009, 10:15 AM
Barry, 2nd image is asking for a password.

As for who would shoot crazy handheld footage? See my above post... or check about 90% of the videos on you tube. :-P

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:16 AM
Oh, and you can force some "mud" to happen under the same panning speeds in 720/60p mode. If you're hyper-jerking the camera around you can make 720/60p get muddy. But it doesn't go nearly as mushy, and it holds up a lot better in general.

Here's a reasonably quick pan from 720p mode:
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Tree-Pan-720p.jpg

Ian-T
06-02-2009, 10:18 AM
Oh, and you can force some "mud" to happen under the same panning speeds in 720/60p mode. If you're hyper-jerking the camera around you can make 720/60p get muddy. But it doesn't go nearly as mushy, and it holds up a lot better in general.Yes I've seen that also. I'm suprised no one else has not mentioned that until now. Like you said though, it is not nearly as bad.

Martti Ekstrand
06-02-2009, 10:21 AM
How do the same shots look with a 1/50 (or closest possible) shutter?

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:24 AM
So in summation, there IS a problem.
Depends on if you shoot in such a way as to cause the problem. You'd get comparable results from HDV, so was HDV an inherently flawed format? (I'd say yes, but that's me... :D )


And how do 90% of consumers shoot? Handheld.
And how do 99% of consumers shoot? 60i (or 60p). How many shoot 24p?


Where does the GH1 fail? Handheld camera whipping around to follow the action. Ugh.
Yes, in 24p mode. It's much more resilient in 60p mode.

I guess it comes down to this: you've got four video professionals (me, Illya, Kholi, and Hunter) all saying that if you use the 24p mode as intended, it's fine. And then you've got a million youtube videos whipping it around and showing it falling apart. So pick which method you want to use -- if it's for interviews, the GH1's 1080/24p is stellar. If it's for reasonable pans and typical cinema stuff, the GH1's 1080/24p is fine. If it's for cloverfield, then no.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:25 AM
Barry, 2nd image is asking for a password.
Shouldn't be... try it again?


As for who would shoot crazy handheld footage? See my above post... or check about 90% of the videos on you tube. :-P
And why don't those folks shoot on a FlipHD camera then? Or a conventional video camera? If those folks want to shoot with a GH1, I'd say they're being foolish. Why would you need shallow DOF and 1080/24p to shoot whip-pan kids and pets? Wrong tool for the job.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 10:28 AM
Okay, some panning results. Remember, this is still an extreme case; I used 1/800 shutter to capture as much detail as I could and freeze it all, so that motion blur would not be an issue.

Results: under normal/rational panning conditions, it's fine. Not 100% ultimate perfect like AVC-Intra might be, but considering this frame will fly by in 1/24th of a second, it's basically fine. If you're panning to control 24p strobing, and avoiding CMOS jello, you're also going to avoid the mud. Here's a sample shot from 1/800 shutter, 100% wide angle, NR -2, as much detail as I could possibly get in the shot, and executing the fastest pan a reasonable person would do, while avoiding 24p strobing. This was a 90-degree pan in about 6 seconds:
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Tree%20Pan%20NR-2.jpg


Under hyper jerking of the camera, it goes to hell. But who would shoot that way? If you want to do cloverfield, this isn't the camera for you. I can make it look really, really bad... Whip the camera around like a madman (I'm talking about a 90-degree pan in less than 1 second), and you can make a shot that looks like this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Tree%20hyper-pan.jpg

Again, as the doctor said, if it hurts when you do that, don't do that. And if you simply must do that, this isn't the right camera for you.


I think this sums it up and I thought it was already known to be the 17Mbps VBR causing this.

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 10:30 AM
If you want to do cloverfield, this isn't the camera for you.

Only if you are making cloverfield out of still frames :laugh:

This whole thread has become extreme pixel porno - the only good think is hopefully it means more camera available for those of us who are buying.

I think this in the perfect Cloverfield camera - small, low light, looks great, tons of lens choice and cheap, cheap. Only a idiot would shoot at high shutter speeds in the low light whip the camera around, then pause the frame on the worst one possible.

Under Cloverfield shooting conditions, say a 1/40th shutter, f 1.4, this camera will render great, and I mean great shakycam footage.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:35 AM
By the way, Premiere Pro CS4.1 friggin' ROCKS for doing stuff like this. Editing straight from the card, full res, nearly realtime playback, I forgot I was supposed to be all crying about how hard it is to edit AVCHD -- heh.

Boz
06-02-2009, 10:35 AM
Yeah, second image is working now, thanks.

My point was simply the it's a CONSUMER camera, and most of the people who will use it don't shoot reasonably. They're going to be whipping all over the place as the follow Timmy's birthday party full of over-sugared kids. However, that's the one area where the GH1 fails. Just seems odd to me.

Maybe someone should forward this thread to peeps over at Panasonic. :)

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 10:39 AM
By the way, Premiere Pro CS4.1 friggin' ROCKS for doing stuff like this. Editing straight from the card, full res, nearly realtime playback, I forgot I was supposed to be all crying about how hard it is to edit AVCHD -- heh.

What system config and OS?

Also, have you tried Vegas 9 yet?

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:40 AM
How do the same shots look with a 1/50 (or closest possible) shutter?
I tried at 1/50; the shot's overexposed and the light's different so it's not really a fair test, but... bah. Here it is. This was in the middle of a 5-second 90-degree pan (which is about twice as fast as you'd want to actually pan 90 degrees with this field of view!)
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Tree-1-50-5-sec-pan.jpg

On anything like 3 second pans, it's total mud.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 10:41 AM
What system config and OS?
Win XP SP3, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, NVidia NVS 140M discrete graphics.


Also, have you tried Vegas 9 yet?
No, but Vegas 8 doesn't hold a candle to Premiere's AVCHD support. Don't know how 9 performs as apparently 9 breaks Raylight, so I didn't upgrade, and if Premiere keeps this up, I probably won't bother to.

Boz
06-02-2009, 10:43 AM
By the way, Premiere Pro CS4.1 friggin' ROCKS for doing stuff like this. Editing straight from the card, full res, nearly realtime playback, I forgot I was supposed to be all crying about how hard it is to edit AVCHD -- heh.

Good to hear. I'm planning on upgrading this weekend. I can't wait!

Park Edwards
06-02-2009, 11:05 AM
By the way, Premiere Pro CS4.1 friggin' ROCKS for doing stuff like this. Editing straight from the card, full res, nearly realtime playback, I forgot I was supposed to be all crying about how hard it is to edit AVCHD -- heh.

how are you removing pulldown?

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 11:16 AM
I didn't for this stuff. I went through it frame by frame and selected pulldown-free frames, to make sure the images weren't being compromised in any way.

I tried dropping 1080/24p footage onto a 1080/24p timeline and telling Premiere to "interpret footage" to convert to 24p, and it looked like it was probably working but I didn't dig into it to really assess that.

I've also got Voltaic but I haven't tried it out yet.

commanderspike
06-02-2009, 11:20 AM
Come on get real people, this is a serious problem. It doesn't just effect 'cloverfield' style insane handheld footage, I have had pretty slow pans which have corrupted badly.

I have unintentionally ruined footage, simply by shooting handheld.

I want the create option when I need it, to shoot handheld.

The GH1 does not deliver.

I want the option to have ad hoc on the fly realism, docu style, as well as 'imax' cinematic slow pans.

Quite apart from the creative side, I am annoyed that so much of my holiday footage is effected so badly by this major flaw.

squig
06-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Thanks for the tests Barry and spike

I see muddy grass in the 6 sec 1080 pan and the 720 pan. I know it's just a single frame and probably not noticeable otherwise but I just got rid of my flawed D90 hoping to get something a little less flawed.

As far as "intended use" goes well if you intend to make nice web video's then the GH1 is worthy but if you want to project 35mm I personally wouldn't risk it unless the cam is going to be stationary for 90 min.

I'm really starting to like the Pentax K-7, that 58Mbps mjpeg 720p looks really robust. No manual shutter or ISO as yet but that never stopped D90 users from making great looking films. And 24p can be done slowly in post.

The big problem is manufacturers are adopting delivery codecs for acquisition. Now that we have cheap fast storage media mjpeg should be making a comeback in a big way. 58Mbps 720-24p mjpeg is the motion equivalent to a high quality jpeg still photo which is hard to distinguish from a raw file.

I don't mean to discourage anyone and I have no doubt that people will produce good work with this cam but I personally loathe AVCHD "A Very Crappy Holder of Data".

I'd love to see some similar pan testing of the MKII.

dcloud
06-02-2009, 11:38 AM
@commanderspike
id recommend selling it and wait out for a better one

Kholi
06-02-2009, 11:46 AM
Come on get real people, this is a serious problem. It doesn't just effect 'cloverfield' style insane handheld footage, I have had pretty slow pans which have corrupted badly.

I have unintentionally ruined footage, simply by shooting handheld.

I want the create option when I need it, to shoot handheld.

The GH1 does not deliver.

I want the option to have ad hoc on the fly realism, docu style, as well as 'imax' cinematic slow pans.

Quite apart from the creative side, I am annoyed that so much of my holiday footage is effected so badly by this major flaw.

Sorry to be that guy but lets really get real: the camera costs 1500. There's no real problem at all. There are already cameras out that can do what you want. Pay for it.

Seems like few can graspthis concept. Just spend the money instead of complainng. Or wait unil the tech improves then

squig
06-02-2009, 11:49 AM
yeah like most of us have the money for a red

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 11:56 AM
If it's for cloverfield, then no.

This has been my sentiment from the start. Thats why I asked about doing normal pans. If you plan to do a lot of quick moving shots, up and down, left and right, like you said, then you have to get another camera that works better for you. Kholi already used it for the beer commercial and other stuff so I am sure it works for many intended uses. Now the challenge for everybody that gets it and is going to use profesionally is lets see how good can you make your footage look within the limitations.


Thank you Barry for your input.

mkeep
06-02-2009, 12:01 PM
I'm really starting to like the Pentax K-7, that 58Mbps mjpeg 720p looks really robust. No manual shutter or ISO as yet but that never stopped D90 users from making great looking films. And 24p can be done slowly in post.

LOL, so these minor compression artifacts aren't acceptable but you're ok with the major strange artifacts you get from interpolating 30p to 24p?

dmoreno
06-02-2009, 12:07 PM
It was set to best/full.

My bad in that post, i didn't have my computer with me (posted on my cellphone) :).
What needs to be done to see the interlace lines in Vegas is dissable "Scale Video to fit preview window" in the monitor's properties. Also make sure that the projects properties are HD 60i. I am seeing the interlace lines right now from footage shot by the GH1 in 1080 mode (don't have the camera, I downloaded it)

Nighthawk
06-02-2009, 12:08 PM
Kholi already used it for the beer commercial and other stuff so I am sure it works for many intended uses. Now the challenge for everybody that gets it and is going to use profesionally is lets see how good can you make your footage look within the limitations.



Couldn't agree more with this assessment but back to the commanderspike dilemma; doesn't it seem that his problems seem a bit extreme compared to what else we've seen. Commander, is there any possibility to exchange this cam at your point of purchase (provided they have one) and see if the results are the same? Granted we all know the Gh1 has it's limitations but your cam just don't seem right.

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 12:10 PM
Win XP SP3, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, NVidia NVS 140M discrete graphics.


No, but Vegas 8 doesn't hold a candle to Premiere's AVCHD support. Don't know how 9 performs as apparently 9 breaks Raylight, so I didn't upgrade, and if Premiere keeps this up, I probably won't bother to.

Thanks - that's a fairly modest system, so good to hear, but I could never, I repeat never stop using Vegas unless they broke it as the audio is still so superior to other NLE's. For me, audio always trumps picture.

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 12:10 PM
No manual shutter or ISO as yet but that never stopped D90 users from making great looking films.

...........

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 12:14 PM
doesn't it seem that his problems seem a bit extreme compared to what else we've seen
I can make stuff look just like commanderspike's, but I have to pan like 90 degrees in 2 seconds to get it to do that. I don't think his particular camera is at fault, unless he's saying that he gets that kind of degradation when doing a 7-second pan.

I am coming to the same conclusion that Kholi, Illya, and Hunter have found -- it works if you shoot 24p like you should shoot 24p.

If you want the freedom to wave the camera around and pan 90 degrees in 3 seconds, and look at the still frames, then the 24p mode is not going to work for you. It just isn't. Game over. Unless, of course, you want to just look at your footage on the TV and not pixel-obsess over still frames, in which case yeah it gets softer but is it that big of a deal?

If you want to shoot holiday footage, use 60p. It's much better for that kind of thing.

If you want the ultimate end-all be-all, do as Kholi said and pony up the dough.

The GH1 is what it is, and it's $1500 (retail). Work within its limitations, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or, refuse to work within its limitations, and pay the dough to get a camera that doesn't have these limitations.

What other option is there?

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 12:19 PM
I guess people want a Varicam for $1500.00! LOL. commanderspike should put up some footage on Vimeo so we can see the "whole picture" not one frame at a time. That way we can see how fast and furious he was panning.

superzero
06-02-2009, 12:20 PM
oh im guessing you didnt get what the hell i was talking about

heres the bottomline
the cpu handles the ENCODING of the video.
IMAGE > SENSOR (RAW) > CPU PROCESSOR (COMPRESS & ENCODES TO AVCHD) > MEMORY CARD (Compressed 17mbps AVCHD)

What you see in the live view is the raw output! if it can be outputed live via HDMI, you'll have the uncompressed 4:2:2 footage!

ergo, the gh1 cpu cant encode avchd well. it could be a limitation on the processor unless panny releases an update on the codec to prove me wrong!

dcloud is correct. Given what we presently know, to assume the culprit is an underpowered CPU, is completely logical.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 12:21 PM
Yes I've seen that also. I'm suprised no one else has not mentioned that until now. Like you said though, it is not nearly as bad.

I'm confused. I thought this was a known issue from the beginning? Or am I just stuck in some strange time vortex? Maybe I can write to myself the winning lotto numbers.

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 12:24 PM
What other option is there?

Excellent summary. The aliasing issue on the 5D Mkii (which showed up on normal shots) did not stop nice work being done (much less the manual control issues which only today have been addressed).

I have the the other option in this price range - the Canon HV20/30/40 series and can't wait move to a GH1.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 12:27 PM
yeah like most of us have the money for a red


DVX100B, HPX170, HVX200, HV20, HV30, HF10, HF100, EX-1, EX-3, Canon XH-A1, Canon XL-H1, Canon 5D MKii

Add a 35mm Adapter to any of those equations and pan, whip pan, go crazy to your heart's content. You don't need a RED to do excellent work.

Sure as hell don't need it to sell something WORTH seeing in the first place.

The GH-1 is what it is right now. Everyone has been warned from several different users that the 1080/24 isn't as robust as other options but is totally usable for traditional narrative environments.

Either buy something that works like you want it too or just wait. But it's already been told, this story here, and now Barry is confirming it.

Drop off the Pre-Order list, let those who want to get one get theirs EARLY and do what you must. I'd sure like to have my US pair earlier.

Boz
06-02-2009, 12:28 PM
LOL, so these minor compression artifacts aren't acceptable but you're ok with the major strange artifacts you get from interpolating 30p to 24p?

While I disagree that the artifacts are "minor", I do agree that 30P > 24P is ugly no matter how you slice it.



Sorry to be that guy but lets really get real: the camera costs 1500.

Two points:

1. It costs $1500, yet a vid cam costing half as much will out-perform it when doing any sort of aggressive movement. It's not like we're asking for perfection, we're just asking for it to at least hold up to low-end vid cams when panning. In my book that is not an outrageous request.

2. It may 'only' be $1500 to you. But not everyone has the money buy a Red, 2 GH1s, an HVX200, and a 5Dii. (You're a pro, I get that, so your cameras are part of your income.) For some of us, we can only afford one camera every few years, and $1500 is a significant chunk of change. So obviously, we'd like the best that we can get within our means.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 12:32 PM
It's weird, it's like this forum is caught in a circular discussion. I really think I am stuck in this strange time vortex. I really do think this camera is awesome for the price and there is no reason somebody could not get some great material out of this. Every camera from the beginning of time has had limitations and yet countless great works have come out of them. Take a chill and look at it for what it is instead of what it is not. Just my opinion. But then again the darker side of me says the more people that talk themselves out of the camera the better chance I have getting one quicker.

Winning number for 05/23/2009 is 19,23,34,52,57,PB21

Kholi
06-02-2009, 12:34 PM
While I disagree that the artifacts are "minor", I do agree that 30P > 24P is ugly no matter how you slice it.




Two points:

1. It costs $1500, yet a vid cam costing half as much will out-perform it when doing any sort of aggressive movement. It's not like we're asking for perfection, we're just asking for it to at least hold up to low-end vid cams when panning. In my book that is not an outrageous request.

It's pretty obvious what you should do then: by the one that can handle aggressive movement. I'm confused as to how this is even hard to consider? If movement is the most important factor to you, then the obvious solution is to grab a camera that you can whip like a red-headed nargle.



2. It may 'only' be $1500 to you. But not everyone has the money buy a Red, 2 GH1s, an HVX200, and a 5Dii. (You're a pro, I get that, so your cameras are part of your income.) For some of us, we can only afford one camera every few years, and $1500 is a significant chunk of change. So obviously, we'd like the best that we can get within our means.

Once again, if you want the best that you can buy for your money and your needs are to move the camera around in a fashion that is not standard for typical cinematic acquisition you have choices for your 1500.00: HFS10 comes to mind.

I'm not seeing people complaining about the camera not being adequate, I'm seeing complaining that it isn't everything you want for 1500.00. Like everything in life, you rarely get everything you want when you spend your money.

The iPhone is the hottest cellular module out right now, but it's FAR from perfect. Sometimes it takes me sixty or more seconds to get my damned internet browser to pop up on it.

I'd like the GH-1 to be perfect as well, but it isn't. Everyone's been warned before hand, it's not like it's a big surprise now that everything that was said before is being repeated. Is it frame-by-frame worthy? no. Is it worthy of general cinematic application? Definitely.

superzero
06-02-2009, 12:35 PM
The GH1 is what it is, and it's $1500 (retail). Work within its limitations, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or, refuse to work within its limitations, and pay the dough to get a camera that doesn't have these limitations.

What other option is there?

Your point is well taken, Barry. However, you must understand how frustrating it is that we are so close to having a perfect DSLR and yet the manufacturers keep screwing it up. I can only hope that Nikon, who have no video division to protect, will finally release a product that combines the video friendly features of the GH-1 with the image quality and low light sensitivity of the 5D. Until then, I'm not going to reward manufacturers for releasing products that appear intentionally crippled.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 12:37 PM
It's weird, it's like this forum is caught in a circular discussion. I really think I am stuck in this strange time vortex. I really do think this camera is awesome for the price and there is no reason somebody could not get some great material out of this. Every camera from the beginning of time has had limitations and yet countless great works have come out of them. Take a chill and look at it for what it is instead of what it is not. Just my opinion. But then again the darker side of me says the more people that talk themselves out of the camera the better chance I have getting one quicker.

Winning number for 05/23/2009 is 19,23,34,52,57,PB21


This happens with EVERY single camera released. EVERY camera. And it'll always happen even when it's perfect, because it's human nature to want more than you're given.

I'm as guilty as everyone else, indeed. You'll catch me here buying a new camera every few months if I see something I like. But I know that I'm not going to get everything I want for nothing.

the GH-1 is adequate for the typical cinematic environment. If you're going atypical (Bourne, Cloverfield, etc) then you should look elsewhere or wait it out.

Nighthawk
06-02-2009, 12:37 PM
Winning number for 05/23/2009 is 19,23,34,52,57,PB21

God, I was hoping you would post it.

In answer to the vortex. We're in that awful stage of waiting for delivery trying to figure out what we might be in for before using our own grubby little mitts to cause even more problems to post here and maintain our, sometimes, tenuous link with each other. Can't wait.

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 12:40 PM
1. It costs $1500, yet a vid cam costing half as much will out-perform it when doing any sort of aggressive movement. It's not like we're asking for perfection, we're just asking for it to at least hold up to low-end vid cams when panning. In my book that is not an outrageous request.

2. It may 'only' be $1500 to you. But not everyone has the money buy a Red, 2 GH1s, an HVX200, and a 5Dii. (You're a pro, I get that, so your cameras are part of your income.) For some of us, we can only afford one camera every few years, and $1500 is a significant chunk of change. So obviously, we'd like the best that we can get within our means.

Two counterpoints:



It does hold up as well, if not better, when panning - unless you do crazy pans that no one should do. Crazy pan with an HV20 like that and it will go jello and often stop recording when bumped. Uprez a DVX100 crazy pan to 1080p and it's gonna look pretty muddy too.
Most 35mm adaptors cost $1500 - this cam is a bargain. Yeah, I'm cash starved too but I'm selling my K10d and HV30 to buy this. The real benefit for us starving folks is that we can replace the body and keep our investment in lenses. There will be a GH2, GH3 and it only gets better.

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 12:42 PM
Drop off the Pre-Order list, let those who want to get one get theirs EARLY and do what you must. I'd sure like to have my US pair earlier.

EXACTLY! I want mine because within the limitations I will make money with it in so many different ways, including of course still photographs. I'll make my $1500 back, put it in the bank until the next version with which I would probably be able to whip pan until my hands fall off. Whoever feels they can't handle it is fine. You have been informed of what it does and doesn't so don't clog the line for those of us who are going to get it without any complains.

Illya Friedman
06-02-2009, 12:46 PM
I guess it comes down to this: you've got four video professionals (me, Illya, Kholi, and Hunter) all saying that if you use the 24p mode as intended, it's fine. And then you've got a million youtube videos whipping it around and showing it falling apart. So pick which method you want to use -- if it's for interviews, the GH1's 1080/24p is stellar. If it's for reasonable pans and typical cinema stuff, the GH1's 1080/24p is fine. If it's for cloverfield, then no.

I couldn't say it better myself.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

Ian-T
06-02-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm confused. I thought this was a known issue from the beginning? Or am I just stuck in some strange time vortex? Maybe I can write to myself the winning lotto numbers.
LOl.. No, what was known from the beginning was this issue in 1080/24p. But it was not really stressed on being an issue in 60/720p (at least I didn't pick up on that). for me at least, it has always been a 24p issue.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 12:47 PM
1. It costs $1500, yet a vid cam costing half as much will out-perform it when doing any sort of aggressive movement.
Agreed.

And it will beat the living poopie out of that half-price video camera when it comes to noise, low light performance, shallow depth of field, and interchangeable lens capability. Or did we forget all those bonus features? Because, frankly, if none of those things matter to you, by all means go get the cheap video camera.

Not to mention, I'd like to see the still photos that the low-end video camera takes, and compare those to the pimpness that a GH1 can output.

I've never yet found a minivan that can take corners quite the same way as a Mazda Miata. But I have found that if you want to haul a lot of stuff, that minivan sure does seem to do the job better...


2. For some of us, we can only afford one camera every few years, and $1500 is a significant chunk of change. So obviously, we'd like the best that we can get within our means.
Of course. And you're entitled to go find that. What we've done in this thread is identify exactly what the GH1 cannot do. If you have $1500 to spend and you need to do what the GH1 cannot, then you're now able to cross this one off your list.

However, we've also identified things that the GH1 CAN do. Like use interchangeable lenses. Can you name a $1500-or-under video camera that can do that? Oh, it also does the shallow-depth-of-field that most people are out there paying $1200 to $4500 *additional* to get, when buying a Brevis or Letus or Redrock adapter. And, it takes 14-megapixel still images.

Keep it in context please. And evaluate it for what it *is*, not for what you wish it was.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 12:51 PM
And it will beat the living poopie

Not to mention, I'd like to see the still photos that the low-end video camera takes, and compare those to the pimpness that a GH1 can output.

I've never yet found a minivan that can take corners quite the same way as a Mazda Miata. But I have found that if you want to haul a lot of stuff, that minivan sure does seem to do the job better...




lmfao. I laughed pretty loud when I read the poopie part. Dude in the other bay was like "WTF is WRONG with you!?"

But yeah, couldn't agree more. There are way too many POSITIVES about the GH-1. I'm surprised they're being ignored like they are.

Boz
06-02-2009, 12:52 PM
Hmmm... this is a bit frustrating. Yeah, all cameras have limitations. I have an HV20 - it may be the king of camera with limitations. Which is why the GH1 is so special. It has a LOT going for it. And if it had just a LITTLE more (why the artificial cap at 17mbs when it's handicapping the image so much?), it would be down right perfect (for me). I'm the one that has been saying over and over that I would be happy with at 720-24P mode. I would probably never shoot 1080 at that point. I'd (re)order one today. But when I hear comments like 'just use an HVX200' for the shakey cam bits, I know we're in two different worlds. Oh well, I've made my point, and I thank those who have patiently listened and commented. In the end it is what it is. For me it's not good enough (yet), but I'm sure there's something better right around the corner.

Illya Friedman
06-02-2009, 12:54 PM
Yes I've seen that also. I'm suprised no one else has not mentioned that until now. Like you said though, it is not nearly as bad.

It's impossible to read it all on an active site like DVXuser, and ingest and discern fact from fiction and speculation. A lot of stuff get's said. I stand by my assertion back on 05-06-2009 when I wrote here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1629923&postcount=32

"Yes, the same artifacts are present in the Countryside 720 just as in the 1080 version. In case anyone has any doubt, pause when bright/contrasty foliage passes close to the cabin window, and step through frame by frame- same codec faults."

The 720p mode is just as breakable, but you get the benefit of 60 samples per second rather than 24; plus in 24 any "broken" frames get repeated with the pulldown so they hang on the screen in view longer, thus giving the appearance of being a less robust method of shooting.

I'd say truly if you are going to end up in 24p, it's a toss up what's going to give you a better image when shooting normally. more resolution in one format, more samples in the other- either way you have to do 'something' in post to process your images to get to a true 24p.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 12:55 PM
I guess it comes down to this: you've got four video professionals (me, Illya, Kholi, and Hunter) all saying that if you use the 24p mode as intended, it's fine.

And that is what it comes down to.


2. It may 'only' be $1500 to you. But not everyone has the money buy a Red, 2 GH1s, an HVX200, and a 5Dii. (You're a pro, I get that, so your cameras are part of your income.) For some of us, we can only afford one camera every few years, and $1500 is a significant chunk of change. So obviously, we'd like the best that we can get within our means.

If anybody is purchasing a fairly expensive camera to use it as a hobby or for capturing family memories then it might be a high ticket purchase, but if you are buying a $1500 motion capture camera that can produce a very good image under carefully controlled cirscumstances and make you the money back in say, one dirt cheap music video, then its a bargain. If it is a tool for your work is an investment if it is anything else is a luxury.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 12:57 PM
However, you must understand how frustrating it is that we are so close to having a perfect DSLR and yet the manufacturers keep screwing it up.
Do they? Or are they building in what they can, at the given price point?


I can only hope that Nikon, who have no video division to protect, will finally release a product that combines the video friendly features of the GH-1 with the image quality and low light sensitivity of the 5D.
And yet we have the jello-ridden D90 with its absurdly underpowered codec. Is that not a case of Nikon "screwing it up"?

I would argue that no, it is not. It's what they could make at that under-$1000 price tag.

What I don't understand is: why is it that people are perfectly willing to understand that an octo-core Mac Pro costs $3300, and has more performance than the $599 Mac Mini, and they're okay with that. But when a video camera that costs $1500 doesn't perform to the same level as a $10,000 camera, all of a sudden it's the "manufacturers purposely crippling the unit to protect their higher end"?

Is Apple purposely crippling the Mac Mini to protect the Mac Pro?

Is Hyundai purposely crippling the $10,000 Accent so as to protect the $32,000 Genesis?

Or is it a case of "man, I sure wish I could afford that Mac Pro, but I've got a Mac Mini wallet, and look how happy I am that for $599 I get a dual-core Intel Mac that runs circles around the older G5."

Anyway, it is what it is, and it costs what it costs, and it performs really well as long as you don't exceed its limitations. I predict you're going to see some *startling* footage come out of the GH1 in the next few months.

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 01:05 PM
I predict you're going to see some *startling* footage come out of the GH1 in the next few months.

But only by the ones who have what it takes. And again, that will be the challenge: show me how good you are using this little camera. Like Kholi said, it has so many pluses to it. And for $1500? I can't wait to get mine.

cowpunk52
06-02-2009, 01:05 PM
Nailed it, Barry

Nighthawk
06-02-2009, 01:17 PM
To all Canadians who are on the pre-order list ahead of me; Please do not buy this camera. It's bad. To the people behind me on the list; Your welcome and no cutting in.

Much has been stated ad nauseam about the pluses and minuses of the Gh1 and it comes down to what's right for you. The price vs limitation factor has to ultimately boil down to personal choice. Choose wisely, grasshopper.

DrBlaz
06-02-2009, 01:38 PM
The mud is not a limitation of the GH1 due to $1500 "low" price,

its simply a camera flaw, an error, a panasonic bug,

if other video cams, even the cheap ones, using 17mbps AVCHD codecs can manage fast panings corretly, giving not so good blur but blur anyway, its ridiculous that the $1500 GH1 cannot, anyway we don't know if the codec is the problem.

Important: the mud apears when paning, but ALSO sometimes when not paning, I've posted caps when mud appears when camera is only focusing.


could anyone do some testing using MJPEG mode to see if the mud appear? this could discharge the AVCHD compression...

shoqman
06-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Do they? Or are they building in what they can, at the given price point?


What I don't understand is: why is it that people are perfectly willing to understand that an octo-core Mac Pro costs $3300, and has more performance than the $599 Mac Mini, and they're okay with that. But when a video camera that costs $1500 doesn't perform to the same level as a $10,000 camera, all of a sudden it's the "manufacturers purposely crippling the unit to protect their higher end"?


The problem with your arguments is that my sub- $200 Flip Mino HD has a better looking codec than the GH1's 1080 codec. I'm not kidding, I pull this thing out of my pocket and shoot REALLY good 720p. I know it's 720 vs 1080, but for $200? The Sony webbie is 1080p and looks great. So you can't say "Well, for $1500 you just can't get any better!" because that's absurd when there are plenty of pocket cameras out there with much better looking codecs.

The 1080p on the GH1 is a joke. Saying "you can use it if done correctly" is ridiculous- watch anything anywhere and you will see innumerable instances where the GH1's codec would completely fall apart. So yes, you can shoot super shallow DOF talking heads. Terrific- if that's all you shoot.

Before everybody starts freaking out about "but the flip doesn't have a giant sensor! and OIS and low light blah blah.." please realize I'm not talking about anything other than the QUALITY of the codec.

Look up the flip hd on vimeo, or the sony webbie, or the sanyo xacti. If these guys can do it at those ridiculously low price points, what's panny's problem?

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 01:47 PM
its simply a camera flaw, an error, a panasonic bug,

if other video cams, even the cheap ones, using 17mbps AVCHD codecs can manage fast panings corretly, giving not so good blur but blur anyway, its ridiculous that the $1500 GH1 cannot, anyway we don't know if the codec is the problem.

Uh, none of these cams is nearly as sharp nor is typically shot with such high shutter speeds as people are using outside with the GH1. Until someone shoots a side by side test (and the GH1 will have to be softened alot with filter and/or cam setting as it's much sharper than my HV30), we have no idea if this is valid.

PappasArts
06-02-2009, 01:54 PM
Look up the flip hd on vimeo, or the sony webbie, or the sanyo xacti. If these guys can do it at those ridiculously low price points, what's panny's problem?

There is no good argument when you point that out in that context. Simply, Panasonic's choice to do so; well it was a FUBAR in some eye's.......


.

AdrianF
06-02-2009, 01:57 PM
The artefact problem is in reality probably far more of a problem for Panasonic than it is for most of us, who are generally speaking used to shooting with a variety of cameras in a variety of situations. Contrary to what some have said, Panasonic haven't failed at the last hurdle in producing the perfect low budget camera for a handful of indy shooters around the world. Instead they've been the first to put a high quality point and shoot video camera into the body of a compact SLR, which most people will use to shoot home movies. The problem, it's this exact group of shooters who are going to be whipping and zooming the camera all over the place, if you know what I mean :Drogar-Dum(DBG):

So from this point of view, I think if this problem really is that evident when more cameras start shipping, then Panasonic will have to respond fairly quickly ( if they can ) to fix the problem, unless they want these images plaguing consumer reviews of the new HD video camera.

That aside, I can't wait to start shooting with the camera, even if I have to work around some aspects of shooting.

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 02:08 PM
The problem with your arguments is that my sub- $200 Flip Mino HD has a better looking codec than the GH1's 1080 codec. I'm not kidding, I pull this thing out of my pocket and shoot REALLY good 720p.

This is just hilarious. Thats exactly the point. If you are very happy with the quality of your camera and it is producing the image quality you are looking for by no means spend $1500 on a GH1 because you are not going to be happy. It is great that you can shoot music videos, commercials, interviews, etc. with that little marvel. I am sure the shallow DOF and interchangeable lens option works wonders. And most importantly free of all artifacts and such as you do that beautiful whip pan.

mkeep
06-02-2009, 02:09 PM
Important: the mud apears when paning, but ALSO sometimes when not paning, I've posted caps when mud appears when camera is only focusing.

I would think that fast, drastic changes in focus, whether they're auto or manual would be very similar to rapid pans from the point of view of the codec. In both situations you're talking about lots of pixels suddenly changing all at once.

Boz
06-02-2009, 02:17 PM
So from this point of view, I think if this problem really is that evident when more cameras start shipping, then Panasonic will have to respond fairly quickly ( if they can ) to fix the problem, unless they want these images plaguing consumer reviews of the new HD video camera.

You mean like this? http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1A.HTM#vids

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 02:21 PM
LOl.. No, what was known from the beginning was this issue in 1080/24p. But it was not really stressed on being an issue in 60/720p (at least I didn't pick up on that). for me at least, it has always been a 24p issue.

But that is what this whole discussion has been about. It is about 1080p breakdowns and I thought this had already been a known subject. It's already been discussed that 720 is not getting the same results. It's like people look at a muddy picture and freak the hell out but not taking into account that this has already been a known thingamajigger.But honestly this isn't the point I have been getting at... the point is this.


EVERYBODY IN HERE! EVERY SINGLE PERSON! WATCH THIS! I DID A SIMPLE SEARCH AND JUST FOUND THIS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrDxe9gK8Gk

Now there is no excuse. Everybody can be creative with the GH1 no matter what it's little problems are.

Now read this...
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2450500120080424?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews

...and be inspired. It's great to have knowledge of what this camera can and can't do but what is even better is what it actually has the potential TO do. I'm optimistic so sue me. ... And... discuss... :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

shoqman
06-02-2009, 02:25 PM
This is just hilarious. Thats exactly the point. If you are very happy with the quality of your camera and it is producing the image quality you are looking for by no means spend $1500 on a GH1 because you are not going to be happy. It is great that you can shoot music videos, commercials, interviews, etc. with that little marvel. I am sure the shallow DOF and interchangeable lens option works wonders. And most importantly free of all artifacts and such as you do that beautiful whip pan.

Dude, I have the Flip so that I can have it with me everywhere. I own 5 cameras including an XH-A1, so don't talk down to me like I'm the idiot consumer that just wants to shoot random crap in the yard. You'd be surprised what I've done professionally.

I am excited by this camera because I could take it instead of my XH-A1 plus RedRock getup, but the codec fails to get me the same image, and there's a lot of Panny butt kissing going on saying that it's just not possible for them to get a better image. I think that's ridiculous, and the Flip HD is a great example of why.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 02:25 PM
Don't waste your time, Nitsuj. There are plenty of people that already know what's up, the others can just keep waiting and complaining.

If THE SIGNAL (XL-H1 with 35mm Adapter - 60K Budget and sold for 1.5 Million) can't inspire someone, or even 28 Days Later (Canon XL-S1 with NO 35mm Adapter, Mini DV, etc) then there's no helping people.

Just let them continue to find something wrong and take advantage of their waylay.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Don't waste your time, Nitsuj. There are plenty of people that already know what's up, the others can just keep waiting and complaining.

If THE SIGNAL (XL-H1 with 35mm Adapter - 60K Budget and sold for 1.5 Million) can't inspire someone, or even 28 Days Later (Canon XL-S1 with NO 35mm Adapter, Mini DV, etc) then there's no helping people.

Just let them continue to find something wrong and take advantage of their waylay.

Yep I guess you are right. It's like I always say... there are talkers and there are doers and like my little green friend always said... "Do or do not, there is no try."

mhood
06-02-2009, 02:38 PM
Thanks Nitsuj...now in addition to the trials of a totally frustrating day, I have been brought to tears by an iPhone.

Boz
06-02-2009, 02:39 PM
"Blair Witch Project" Sure you can shoot with any camera. That doesn't mean it will LOOK good. Anyway, I'm not going to complain anymore. No point. Either Panasonic will fix it or they won't. Or someone else will come out with something better. In the meantime, I'll just watch and hope for the best. :-)

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 02:40 PM
Just let them continue to find something wrong and take advantage of their waylay.

Exactly. We should know by now that what everybody else does or not is their business. It doesn't affect you at all. Let them complain.

BTW: Panasonic, where the heck is my GH1?

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 02:43 PM
Thanks Nitsuj...now in addition to the trials of a totally frustrating day, I have been brought to tears by an iPhone.

It is moving isn't it? I guess that little search was brought on by this forum so I gotta at least thank this disccussion for me finding that little gem. Inspiring.

shoqman
06-02-2009, 02:44 PM
Don't waste your time, Nitsuj. There are plenty of people that already know what's up, the others can just keep waiting and complaining.

Kholi,
Your work with the GH1 is what gives me hope for it- I really appreciate everything you've done for the people who don't have their hands on one. I do think the 720p is pretty good, and some have suggested that it can be used in a 24p timeline without any issues, so that's exciting.

I'm just trying to be realistic, and from a production standpoint, the 1080p is useless for SO MANY kinds of shots. I know your thrift store stuff looks awesome, but you have to admit it is all fairly particular kinds of shots. For those kinds of shots, I'm sure it's fine. But there's no ignoring the codec problems on something as simple as a nature shot of pretty much anything.

I really am excited about this camera, I have just been let down by the inability to capture many shots without problems in 1080p.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 02:50 PM
"Blair Witch Project" Sure you can shoot with any camera. That doesn't mean it will LOOK good. Anyway, I'm not going to complain anymore. No point. Either Panasonic will fix it or they won't. Or someone else will come out with something better. In the meantime, I'll just watch and hope for the best. :-)

Not a single person mentioned the Blair Witch Project. I said The Signal and 28 Days Later.

Shogman -- I understand. Even since then I've used the 1080/24 and I've been fine with it. If you saw the thread, the entire Heineken spot was shot @ 1080/24 and there was a LOT I would have avoided prior to.

In the end, the footage looks incredible and convinced me to plunk down on two US GH-1's.

Once people get it in their hands the story will change, that's how it always goes. It was the same with the HVX200 and it'll be the same here. People will finally be able to relax, stop pixel-peeping and shoot something of their own that really counts as far as content goes and not analytic frame-by-frame viewing and it'll all just fade away.

It's the story of every single camera released, and RED was no different. =P

Boz
06-02-2009, 02:59 PM
Still waiting for that action short, Kholi. That should speak volumes, no?

squig
06-02-2009, 03:02 PM
The GH1 clearly has its uses but would any of the 4 professionals be confident enough to invest 30k of their own money and shoot a feature solely with the GH1? I won't call me crazy. I'm not talking about a bourne film either just something with motion. I think it could be a great b roll camera and cool for music vids and shorts but a feature is probably a stretch no pun intended for the poor little GH1.

Did 28 days later have codec breakup mud?

Yes Nitsuj I ruled out 1080 when I saw Kholi's kung fu footage, it's the 720 I'm concerned about.

And yes Kholi I know content is king and I can get by without a red but that's the look most wish they could get out of a $1500 cam. if we weren't dreamers we wouldn't be here. I'm taking your suggestion of using the MKII seriously. let me know if it's any good for mud-free kung fu action.

squig
06-02-2009, 03:06 PM
yeah Kholi bring it

relax.....hehe I've got 2 baby girls

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Dude, I have the Flip so that I can have it with me everywhere.

The great thing is that you are going to be able to continue doing that with it because it shoots great 720P with a pretty strong codec. Everything will be OK.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 03:09 PM
The GH1 clearly has its uses but would any of the 4 professionals be confident enough to invest 30k of their own money and shoot a feature solely with the GH1? I won't call me crazy. I'm not talking about a bourne film either just something with motion. I think it could be a great b roll camera and cool for music vids and shorts but a feature is probably a stretch no pun intended for the poor little GH1.

Did 28 days later have codec breakup mud?

Yes Nitsuj I ruled out 1080 when I saw Kholi's kung fu footage, it's the 720 I'm concerned about.

And yes Kholi I know content is king and I can get by without a red but that's the look most wish they could get out of a $1500 cam. if we weren't dreamers we wouldn't be here. I'm taking your suggestion of using the MKII seriously. let me know if it's any good for mud-free kung fu action.


A guarantee you somebody is going to make a feature length movie with this. :zombie_smiley:

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 03:12 PM
A guarantee you somebody is going to make a feature length movie with this.

Oh, somebody will. No doubt about that.

Nighthawk
06-02-2009, 03:17 PM
A guarantee you somebody is going to make a feature length movie with this. :zombie_smiley:

Hell, I'm going to try and if it wasn't for the input, both sides, provided by this forum I wouldn't know most of the difficulties and workarounds needed to get it done. It's a good thing I'm not as bright as the 4 pros mentioned or I wouldn't even try. In some cases ignorance is bliss.

Nitsuj, thanks for the links.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 03:23 PM
The GH1 clearly has its uses but would any of the 4 professionals be confident enough to invest 30k of their own money and shoot a feature solely with the GH1? I won't call me crazy. I'm not talking about a bourne film either just something with motion. I think it could be a great b roll camera and cool for music vids and shorts but a feature is probably a stretch no pun intended for the poor little GH1.

Depends on the feature. Zombies? Yes. Intimate drama? Yes.

Sci-Fi? No

Comedy? Yes



And yes Kholi I know content is king and I can get by without a red but that's the look most wish they could get out of a $1500 cam. if we weren't dreamers we wouldn't be here. I'm taking your suggestion of using the MKII seriously. let me know if it's any good for mud-free kung fu action.

I didn't suggest you use the MKii. My MKii thread is specifically stating that the best reason to own an MKii is its still capability. To ME anyway. I still think the GH-1 is the better all around video acquisition tool. My opinion hasnt' changed, has just been taken out of context like always.

And let's face it: most of us around here don't REALLY believe Content is King. If we did, we wouldn't be here fighting over pixels. We'd be writing, shooting, etc.

It's a good thing I finished my script and now I'm actually using these cameras to decide which one (or a pair of) we'll be shooting the feature on in July. Or I'd be wasting my time worrying about a camera I didn't really have a personal project already written and ready to go to use it on. =T

squig
06-02-2009, 03:27 PM
A guarantee you somebody is going to make a feature length movie with this. :zombie_smiley:

no doubt.....could even be numero uno flip-flopper

squig
06-02-2009, 03:34 PM
I didn't suggest you use the MKii. My MKii thread is specifically stating that the best reason to own an MKii is its still capability. To ME anyway. I still think the GH-1 is the better all around video acquisition tool. My opinion hasnt' changed, has just been taken out of context like always.



you did suggest the MKII as an alternative after my not having the money to fork out on a red post which was what I was replying to.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 03:38 PM
you did suggest the MKII as an alternative after my not having the money to fork out on a red post which was what I was replying to.

Ah, I got ya. Those are alternatives indeed. Thought you were saying that I said any of those would be better. But now that we're all cleared up. A-

squig
06-02-2009, 03:38 PM
unfortunately for those who have to suffer me I'm a perfectionist. So pixels, content, and the color of the carpet at any given location are equally important

Kholi
06-02-2009, 03:42 PM
Yet you bought a D90....

I just scratched my head.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 03:42 PM
I am excited by this camera because I could take it instead of my XH-A1 plus RedRock getup
Yes, you could. And it'd be much smaller and lighter. But what does the XHA1 plus redrock cost? $5,000.

I don't really see what's so hard to grasp about the concept of: "you want it good, fast, and cheap? Pick two and call me back."

And yes I'm WELL AWARE that other cameras, even cheaper cameras, have more robust codecs. Spilled milk, fine. But the milk is spilled. Now we can either cry about it, or get to work figuring out what we're gonna do with the product, or decide the product isn't for us. Personally I think the latter two choices are a more valuable use of time.


and there's a lot of Panny butt kissing going on saying that it's just not possible for them to get a better image. I think that's ridiculous, and the Flip HD is a great example of why.
Okay, so let me get this straight -- if we acknowledge that something is sub-par, but that it can be made to work with, that's "Panny butt kissing"? Give me a break. And everyone else too.

Did I or did I not say that the codec can break up in such a way that it goes to hell in a dragster-powered handbasket? Is that "Panny butt kissing?"

The codec is sub-par. Yes. So is the D90's. If you have a problem with that, then -- great! Stop reading right now. The GH1 (and the D90) have NOTHING to offer you. You're done. I can save you a lot of time and hassle and stress and energy by saying "ignore the GH1 forum from now on." Anyone else who's outraged that a $200 flip HD's codec holds up better than the GH1's, please, don't buy a GH1. Don't bring more pain and stress on yourselves.

Now -- for those who are left, both of you, raise your hands -- okay, please re-evaluate whether you want an interchangeable-lens, shallow-DOF DSLR-style camera that also shoots very good 720/60p and can shoot 1080/24p and costs about $1500. If that's what you're interested in, be aware that excess detail will cause the codec to implode worse than the world's economy, so you will have to baby it and watch out for it and make sure to be cautious about what you shoot. You will have to watch your panning rates, you'll have to play your footage back to check if the codec got overloaded. That's the price you have to pay, to have an interchangeable-lens shallow-DOF camera at $1500.

squig
06-02-2009, 03:43 PM
It's a good thing I finished my script and now I'm actually using these cameras to decide which one (or a pair of) we'll be shooting the feature on in July. Or I'd be wasting my time worrying about a camera I didn't really have a personal project already written and ready to go to use it on. =T

You shooting 1080 or 720?

this gonna be a shaolin temple sequel?

Daniel L.
06-02-2009, 03:46 PM
all of you have way too much free time :D

squig
06-02-2009, 03:47 PM
Yet you bought a D90....

I just scratched my head.

lol

I miss it......It has this aesthetic quality to it....lo-fi but just a bit too lo-fi. if they would just raise the bit-rate a bit and manual controls I'd shoot with it.

squig
06-02-2009, 03:49 PM
I don't really see what's so hard to grasp about the concept of: "you want it good, fast, and cheap? Pick two and call me back."



same goes for house building and indie filmmaking

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 03:55 PM
The GH1 clearly has its uses but would any of the 4 professionals be confident enough to invest 30k of their own money and shoot a feature solely with the GH1?
I wouldn't. If you can get ahold of $30,000 -- what would you be doing using a $1500 consumer camera to shoot on? Since when did a $1500 tool become the product you'd want to shoot a $30,000 picture on? Why not rent someone's HPX170 with adapter, or you could probably find some poor Red One owner who'd rent you a month's usage for cheap, or something like that instead of spending $1500 on a DSLR?

Now, if someone's doing a nights 'n' weekends thing on $3,000 charged to their credit cards, and trying to make a "no-budget" feature, then yes, I think the GH1 would be quite useful for that. Ideal, in fact.


Did 28 days later have codec breakup mud?
No. Because it had an intraframe codec (DV). So the footage never broke up due to the codec. Instead, it looked like mud throughout the entirety of it because it was shot on a low-res XL1 using the even-lower-res Frame Mode, followed by lopping off 1/4 of the frame because they wanted it widescreen. I don't think I've seen a worse-looking film in the theater. Looked like it was shot on VHS.


And yes Kholi I know content is king and I can get by without a red but that's the look most wish they could get out of a $1500 cam.
I wish I could get that look out of a $20,000 cam. But you can't. A Red, configured for use, is $30,000 minimum. I for one recognize that you can't get a $30,000 product for $1500.

I'm pretty impressed with what you CAN get for $1500 though.

But I certainly wish the codec were better. I have advised the broadcast division that they would have to seriously improve the codec situation if they wanted to make a broadcast version of the GH1, because as it is, it wouldn't pass muster.

Doesn't mean it can't be used, and used to good purpose. Hell, HDV is the worst format I've ever seen for breakup, but lots and lots of people use it every day.

Boz
06-02-2009, 03:58 PM
Now -- for those who are left, both of you, raise your hands -- okay, please re-evaluate whether you want an interchangeable-lens, shallow-DOF DSLR-style camera that also shoots very good 720/60p and can shoot 1080/24p and costs about $1500. If that's what you're interested in, be aware that excess detail will cause the codec to implode worse than the world's economy, so you will have to baby it and watch out for it and make sure to be cautious about what you shoot. You will have to watch your panning rates, you'll have to play your footage back to check if the codec got overloaded. That's the price you have to pay, to have an interchangeable-lens shallow-DOF camera at $1500.

I simply love this paragraph. :)

Essentially, in my eyes, it's the replacement for the HV20 - which also had many limitations, but an excellent picture for the price. Perhaps if I think about it more that way instead of concentrating on the shortcomings (as frustrating as they are), I'd be happy with it. Of course, the one thing that will sell me quicker than anything else is some good narrative content. Especially anything high-energy like music videos and action shorts, which I tend to shoot.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 04:00 PM
No. Because it had an intraframe codec (DV). So the footage never broke up due to the codec. Instead, it looked like mud throughout the entirety of it because it was shot on a low-res XL1 using the even-lower-res Frame Mode, followed by lopping off 1/4 of the frame because they wanted it widescreen. I don't think I've seen a worse-looking film in the theater. Looked like it was shot on VHS.


Lmfao. I wish I would have seen this in the theater, man. Hilarious.

stephenvv
06-02-2009, 04:06 PM
EVERYBODY IN HERE! EVERY SINGLE PERSON! WATCH THIS! I DID A SIMPLE SEARCH AND JUST FOUND THIS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrDxe9gK8Gk

Now there is no excuse. Everybody can be creative with the GH1 no matter what it's little problems are.

Yeah, people always freaking out over still frames with new cams. I will never forget all the freakouts over the DVX100 - I had unit #6 in the US (before DVXuser existed) and the "dark line on the edge of the frame and "purple fringing" artifacts had people in the same hub-bub as this. Then the HVX "noise" etc. etc. There have only been a handful of truly dud cameras released and if an issue is problematic, so far it's been addressed or work around.

That's a great link - just goes to show that a great idea well executed with great sound/music trump PQ every single time.

Barry_Green
06-02-2009, 04:08 PM
Lmfao. I wish I would have seen this in the theater, man. Hilarious.
No knock against Anthony Dod Mantle, I love that guy's work, but man, a 4:3 frame-mode XL1 was just not up to the task. Consider that a standard-def DVX is about twice as sharp as the XL1... that was just too premature.

About four of us cinematographers went to see it in the theater, we sat six rows from the front, and it was hideous. I bet if we'd sat in the back row it would have looked fine. But any wide shot was so blurry that you constantly felt like you had to check your glasses. Closeups looked good. Wide shots of London looked hideous, with massive edge enhancement that looked like someone'd drawn around the buildings with a crayon.

Okay, let me put it this way -- ever watch SDTV on your HDTV and think it looks bad? Okay, now blow that screen up to 20' wide and put lower-than-SDTV content on the screen. Yeah, that's about what it was like.

Of course, sooner or later the content gets to you and you quit obsessing over the look of the thing (which was, we all recognize, a deliberate artistic choice).

I've heard it looks good on standard-def DVD though.

When we went to see "November", we sat about 2/3 of the way back, and it looked a lot more solid (except the completely unacceptable red darkroom scene; that scene looked like it'd been constructed from legos!)

rubberbandito
06-02-2009, 04:13 PM
You mean like this? http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1A.HTM#vids

I love reading this forum, all the back and forth, esp from kholi, barry, etc. And to see the still frames, etc. I am ready 10 times over to buy the camera. i need it for simple interviews and slow pans, etc.

But, i downloaded the mts file from the link above (posted by the anti-christ here, just kidding boz) into vegas 9, rendered it to windows media at full 1920 x 1080 and it is shockingly bad at some points. and his pan is about 90 degrees at 5 seconds, not superfast. i hope going on what you pros have been saying, this won't be the case with most shots. i was extremely impressed with the thirft store panning. but just don't understand why the grass is totally messed up in this pan. my hv30 would not do that. i know this for sure. the reviewer did have a problem with the lens, but doubt this was the case.

shoqman
06-02-2009, 04:14 PM
Barry, you specifically said that Panasonic just couldn't give a better image for the money. I simply pointed out that that cannot possibly be the case, because sub $200 pocket cams have better codecs.

It seems to me that it is either Panasonic being lazy, stupid, or protecting their professional video lineup by crippling this camera. But to say they simply can't do it is asinine.

All I want is for them to admit that it's actually a problem and fix it. There has to be a way to do that. EXCEPT for the codec, this is a groundbreaking camera. If enough noise gets made, maybe someone will listen and do something about it. That's all I want- I SO want this camera to be what it is inches from being.

That's all.

I appreciate that you admit that the footage sucks in 1080. I honestly didn't know you had, so I apologize for assuming you were ignoring it. There are a lot of people who are pretending it's not an issue.

How likely is it that Panasonic will kick up the data rate in a firmware update or something? Maybe not likely at all, but squeaky wheel and all.

plasmasmp
06-02-2009, 04:14 PM
I have one of the first DVX cams as well, I still use it frequently. It has all the same issues with the purple frigning, etc. The breakup issue of the GH1 is much worse than any problem the DVX ever had. The DVX does intercut nicely with the D90 though. HD-250... not so much..

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 04:16 PM
Depends on the feature. Zombies? Yes. Intimate drama? Yes.

Sci-Fi? No

Comedy? Yes
=T

I gotta say Kholi I can't exactly agree. I truely think you could pull off a Sci-Fi motion picture no problem... just depends on what exactly that means of course. Think 12 Monkeys or Gattaca... you get the idea. If we are talking greenscreen action shots with a lot of whacky camera movements then that would be a problem. However Sci-Fi doesn't exactly have to have that sort of work involved. And I am sure you could still pull off keying with subtle movements. I've pulled off greenscreen with much much worse cameras. Just depends how much time you are willing to take in cleaning up the mess you have gotten yourself into. It also takes great editing skills. Cutting right before it goes bad is just a way to hide mistakes, but mistakes to you could mean creative expression to others. It's best to just say it is creative expression. ;)

Kholi
06-02-2009, 04:17 PM
That's true. Depends on what sort'a sci-fi you're talking. My Sci-Fi looks like something else, but there's always different types of Sci-Fi.

PRIMER for example, which is by FAR one of my favorite feature films ever. They weren't even "filmmakers" and they knocked that out of the park on 16mm short-ends and 7K.

Nasty.

squig
06-02-2009, 04:24 PM
I only got to see 28 days on my powerbook so I just enjoyed the content

30k has to pay for everything from the pizza to the soundtrack. Rental in Aus is not an option, a days rental is like 10% of the purchase price. The MKII is about as far as I can stretch the budget. I have a lot invested in glass, filters, rig etc. I'm looking long term so I like to own everything and it gives me the flexibility and fits with the "pick 2 and call me back" philosophy.

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 04:38 PM
That's true. Depends on what sort'a sci-fi you're talking. My Sci-Fi looks like something else, but there's always different types of Sci-Fi.

PRIMER for example, which is by FAR one of my favorite feature films ever. They weren't even "filmmakers" and they knocked that out of the park on 16mm short-ends and 7K.

Nasty.

SWEET! I haven't seen that and it is on Netflix watch instantly... watching right this moment. I'm always thrilled to watch low budget movies I haven't heard of before. Especially if they are sci-fi/horror... oh and of course good. :thumbup:

Boz
06-02-2009, 04:42 PM
But, i downloaded the mts file from the link above (posted by the anti-christ here, just kidding boz) into vegas 9, rendered it to windows media at full 1920 x 1080 and it is shockingly bad at some points. and his pan is about 90 degrees at 5 seconds, not superfast.

Nice, I post a LINK to a review that's been linked on this site since the GH1 came out, and get dubbed anti-christ... followed by an AGREEMENT that there is a problem. Whatevah! :Drogar-BlackEye(DBG

squig
06-02-2009, 04:46 PM
maybe you need an avatar facelift

PappasArts
06-02-2009, 04:48 PM
I wouldn't. If you can get ahold of $30,000 -- what would you be doing using a $1500 consumer camera to shoot on? Since when did a $1500 tool become the product you'd want to shoot a $30,000 picture on?


Well Barry,

I'm sure for a similar reason that Steven Soderbergh shot a feature ( Full Frontal in 2002 ) with the Canon XL-1S on MiniDV, with an approximately 2 million dollar budget.

Or the same reason Peter Boyle Shot 28 days later using the Canon XL-1S MiniDV with a $9.8 million budget.

That's far far far far far cry from a $30,000 dollar budget; isn't?

Both those Directors could choose whatever they wanted to shoot with; however they're more about aesthetics, rather than mathematics......



A GH1 today, would look like 35mm vision stock compared to those films. Joking of course, not anywhere near that good. However not bad.

Like Soderbergh shooting anamorphic on Red. Many thought that was stupid, when he could crop the 2:35:1 from the 4K image . Those that said this; missed the whole point in the first place. The entire reason why Soderbegh and many others choose anamorphic, even though it's softer than spherical lenses of the same class is for personal choice and their desired ""aesthetics""


Another thing; todays 1,500 buys you quality that would have cost a ton load just 7 years ago.

So the " it just a 1,500 camera price " argument is outdated. Just like the 25,000 dollar Kodak DSLR in 2000; A $500 DSLR is way better today for cheaper. The Mark II quality for 2,600 in video has set a new standard and reset the quality bar. The consumer now expects much better and more at the 1,500 to the 2,699 range without excuses.


That's just how the technology world spins. Better, cheaper in the long run!


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 }



.

squig
06-02-2009, 04:51 PM
I'm more about feeding my kids beans to fund a film......and aesthetics

I'm with stupid and shooting anamorphic.....these cams need softening anyway

Nitsuj
06-02-2009, 04:58 PM
That's true. Depends on what sort'a sci-fi you're talking. My Sci-Fi looks like something else, but there's always different types of Sci-Fi.

PRIMER for example, which is by FAR one of my favorite feature films ever. They weren't even "filmmakers" and they knocked that out of the park on 16mm short-ends and 7K.

Nasty.

Okay wait... I had to pause 10 minutes into this and do some research on this guy. Sorry to get off subject but... it is sort of on subject really. This guy pulled this off with limited resources and the first 10 minutes look really good. I could tell the shots were well thought out and after researching they shot 16mm stock at a 2:1 ratio! So he shot all of his shots on 35mm stills first for the storyboard. See the GH1 screams this kind of work. There is no reason somebody can't pull something great off. There is no convincing me that it is a broken camera. Okay back to watching.

Boz
06-02-2009, 05:05 PM
maybe you need an avatar facelift

I'm the Terminator, not the anti-christ. Get it right! :D

John Caballero
06-02-2009, 05:09 PM
BTW: Whatever happened to commanderspike? he dissapeared in the firestorm!

squig
06-02-2009, 05:10 PM
the boy one or ther girl one?

squig
06-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Okay wait... I had to pause 10 minutes into this and do some research on this guy. Sorry to get off subject but....

he talks a lot for a noob. I think he'll fit right in. I've put it on my to watch list, now I get to see if Kholi knows what he's talking about.

Jim Klatt
06-02-2009, 05:20 PM
I also heart Primer.

DrBlaz
06-02-2009, 05:20 PM
The 720p mpeg video from imaging-resource is fine, no mud at all, whereas the AVCHD both 1080 and 720 are mudded.

if this is right, it means the bug is in the avchd codec.

PappasArts
06-02-2009, 05:22 PM
Hell, HDV is the worst format I've ever seen for breakup, but lots and lots of people use it every day.

I couldn't agree more. HDV is the VHS of HD.

However, I wonder if we took a HV30 and a GH1 and attached them to a horizontal tripod rod and locked them on the same FOV then panned them; which codec would be the least distorted or exhibit break up?

.

shoqman
06-02-2009, 05:36 PM
However, I wonder if we took a HV30 and a GH1 and attached them to a horizontal tripod rod and locked them on the same FOV then panned them; which codec would be the least distorted or exhibit break up?

.

Oh my gosh, not even a question. Canon's HDV codec is rock solid compared to the GH1. It is stunningly sharp and even fast panning doesn't break noticeably.

squig
06-02-2009, 05:41 PM
The 720p mpeg video from imaging-resource is fine, no mud at all, whereas the AVCHD both 1080 and 720 are mudded.

if this is right, it means the bug is in the avchd codec.

then that would suggest that the processor is too slow to encode cleanly would it not? Doesn't sound promising for a 24Mbps AVCHD firmware update. But they might be able to do 24p mjpeg with a higher bit-rate.

Kholi
06-02-2009, 05:44 PM
Okay wait... I had to pause 10 minutes into this and do some research on this guy. Sorry to get off subject but... it is sort of on subject really. This guy pulled this off with limited resources and the first 10 minutes look really good. I could tell the shots were well thought out and after researching they shot 16mm stock at a 2:1 ratio! So he shot all of his shots on 35mm stills first for the storyboard. See the GH1 screams this kind of work. There is no reason somebody can't pull something great off. There is no convincing me that it is a broken camera. Okay back to watching.

Caruth was an engineer that found a topic he liked, wrote a script with what would be considered WAY too much dialog in it, and shot that piece with as much money as he could get: 7K and some favors.

Check the win record for it.

The movie is very hard to understand, demands several watches, but is quite amazing to me.