PDA

View Full Version : GH1 Action Short / Field Test



Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 12:44 PM
FINAL VERSION/NEW TITLE updated 11/29/09
FILERO GRANDE vs. PIPA CHICA

7073011
GH1 ACTION FIGHT SCENE FIELD TEST


Early working title: "MACHETE vs. PIPE"
middle version of the cut
an early beginning, middle, end rough cut with some slapdash color grading:
"complete short"

5656943

the original partial version with raw footage and frame rate info is below in blue.

__________________________________________


GH1 ACTION FIGHT SCENE FIELD TEST
with STUNTMAN LOUIS GUTIERREZ and MARTIAL ARTIST JESSE CROUCH.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1224

Putting this here in general discussion rather than under footage, because hopefully we'll address a range of topics as I try to "Soup to Nuts" a first GH1 short, and an action one to boot.

OK this is part 1 & 2 of however many it takes me to finish editing this / as I have time to post.

The standard def / smaller size embeds on Vimeo and Motion Box are more comparable to what I’m seeing on my computer screen watching my full quality CineForm version from my desktop. The web compression falls apart really bad full screen with all the motion blur / motion we’re throwing at it, adding it’s own mud (which is not really present in the source – check out the whip pan at 32 seconds, some skew but no mud, just motion blur). So .... the smaller size player handles the detail and motion more like the original.

PARTIAL VERSION WITH RAW FOOTAGE AND FRAME RATE INFO:
5222078



Again, the embed player at the embed size is comparable to what I see in the full quality version, full screen at home. The streaming web version blown up is awful.

On my scree at full quality, I'm not really seeing mud. I see some soft images and motion blur and some loss of image during movement like any lowish end rolling shutter camera, but I'm not seeing the macro blocking or clumping.

I am going to reshoot the first few opening shots today and insert them in. Reason being, we incorrectly shot with a shutter of 1/50 during our 60fps to be reverse telecined to 24. This is a mistake, you shouldn't go lower than 60 if your target frame rate is 24fps real time / reverse telecined. If you are shooting 60p for slowmo you should shoot with a shutter no lower than 1/120.

Anyway we shot 1/50th shutter and this forces the camera in to some kind of hack for the 60p. Either it forces the camera into a lower frame rate (presumably 30fps) / and or it drops half the resolution.

The good news - this is as bad as GH1 footage should ever look if you take the right approach to shooting (and remember we screwed up our shutter speeds / focus).

WHY THE HECK DID I SHOOT IN THESE DIFFERENT MODES IF I WANTED A FULL 24p PROJECT?
Sorry. If you haven't been following all the threads here you might be wondering why I'm trying to mix all these modes as evidenced by the following question posted later in the thread:


Really well done video. Action isn't exactly the easiest thing to try and pull off and you (and your team) created a well-shot, believable piece with some great cinematography. Very nice. And thanks too for going the extra mile and posting all of the info about your settings and workflow.

I was wondering why, when you wanted to create a final video in 24P, that you chose to shoot so much of the footage at 720 30P and 720 60P instead using the actual 24P mode at 1080? I get for the slo-mo part but didn't you force yourself into doing a lot of extra conversions to get 24P when the camera shoots 24P natively in the first place?


Thanks for the positive comments - just wait the scene goes nuts from here.

As for the why the different modes thing (and this is my bad for assuming people would know thism, so I'll ad it to the top of the thread) but it's been fairly well documented that while the GH1 has mightily conquered the skew issue (it's there but minimal) that DSLR cameras suffer from, it's introduced a new (probably worse issue) "Mud" or image clumping / macro blocking under extreme motion in the AVCHD modes. If I could shoot 108024 for everything I would be a happy camper. But theoritically it was impossible to do what I have done to the degree that I've done it - intense action shooting with the camera. In 1080 24 AVCHD the "mud issue is worst. In 720 60 AVCHD it's there but not as bad. In 720 30 MJPEG, it's not there. This is because the AVCHD modes are Long-GOP meaning the camera tries to only redraw the changing parts of the image. With too slow a bandrate it too much of the image changes between redraws and creates weird clumping. The Mjpeg is Intraframe - it takes 30 progressive indivudal pictures per secon redrawing the whole image every time. In AVCHD maybe the 60p has less mud because it's a smaller image to redraw with more samples? Dunno, but that's the way it works.
SO


1080 24 AVCHD - most resolution, best frame rate, most mud with too much movement.
720 60p AVCHD - less resolution, less mud, useable for most
720 30p MJPEG - less resolution, more compression artifacts, no mud

So the strategy for shooting intense action stuff suggests itself somewhat (provided a good frame rate conversion method can be implemented) and goes as follows:


For wow resolution shots, look at that landscape, look at that whiskers on the character actors chin, gee what quality without too much movement - wow 'em with 1080 24p.
For a scene with average movement, crossing to the fence and back, you can use 720 60p AVCHD. You've already established the "wow what quality!" feel with a few 1080 shots and this mode will serve you well
But fling the camera around like a madman, and you must be in 720 30 MJPEG. To my eye there's a bit of line sharpening in the MJPEG mode, but it's minimal, can be minimalized further by reducing sharpening in camera, and won't be noticed if you're flinging the camera around like a madman. But for beauty shots use 1080 24, for compromise between beauty and motion use 720 60, for best motion in extreme circumstances use 720 30.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 11:05 PM
From the "Mud" thread regarding the Action Short Field Test project (discussion move to this thread now)


That's messed up man! It looks so cool! You are the man JDS. Movement, grading, action, colorista, gun shots and a machete! This cam is gonna be awesome. Kholi, I think a support group should be started to deal with all the mad symptons of waiting and waiting and waiting. It's like waterboarding.


Jack Daniel Stanley - I wish I had an actor that looked like that around. He reminds me of Danny Trejo in a way. He is a keeper dood. hehe. I'm just jealous of the talent you got handy.


His name's Louis Gutierrez and he's Trejo's stunt double.
I go to an Austin Film Meetup group every Monday.
I stood up for three weeks saying I was looking for a "crazy stuntman" that would collaborate on a piece to showcase himself and test the GH1.
The 4th week Louis called me.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3644/3557591978_c7176dd0bb.jpg?v=0


Well holy $%#$ no wonder. Haha... you lucked out my friend. I gotta get in on those meetings. Guess I'll have to move. Nice land my man.


Watched it again and it looks even better! Great test. Would you tell us where in the sequence is each format? Thanks for the piece, it starts showing how the camera + talent can work wonders.


Yes, the next "part" I put up will be followed by same footage with no CC at all and labelled with whatever I've written down / can remember / or can deduce about how it was shot.

The point of this field test BTW was to take the mud head on rather than run from it. The shoot was kind of halfway between just for fun and lets make a real finished product. In otherwords $10 was spent on it in total for two stunt machetes. If it came out great - cool. If mud killed us then lesson learned.

So far it's somewhere in between. Coming out very good and watchable with a few lessons learned on what not to do for next time. But all with work arounds to shoot anything you want with this camera.

John the new video has the raw footage at the end. Labelled with each shooting mode.


Great test, Jack! The footage looks really good. So, if I am to understand you correctly, you shot this test using all three formats? Can you go into your workflow a bit? I'm assuming you conformed the whole thing to 24P in the end, but I'd love to know the process of how you got there. Looking forward to part II!

I'll get into detail soon.


where do you get your sound fx from?

I have several extensive libraries. Hollwood SFX, Earshot SFX and Apple loops. I also download from the FREE SOUND PROJECT
http://www.freesound.org/


Very inspiring! Really great to see some action shots. Looking forward to seeing the next part!


Nice clip.. That dude and sure put on the mean bastard look; you wouldn't want running after you!
No sir - see the slow mo at the end of the new clips.

Is there a Vimeo or a 1080P to download? The problem with these small windowed embedded clips on any test, even a Hi-8 camcorder looks good from the down sample!



Jack, this is looking good, I'd love to see a couple of shots on Vimeo/QT download too if you get the chance.

Links in first post for download. Again though the smaller window is more representative than the blown up HD one - too much motion for the compression to handle. You can download the new 200mb file though. It's comparable to the full quality NeoScene I'm watching at from my desktop - comparable but not nearly as good.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 11:06 PM
Reserved for workflow.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 11:06 PM
Reserved for Tips / lessons learned.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 11:06 PM
Reserved for gear.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 11:07 PM
Reserved for BTS gallery.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-18-2009, 11:09 PM
Reserved for retired clips.

Hunter Hampton
06-19-2009, 12:12 AM
Cool stuff!

Martti Ekstrand
06-19-2009, 12:39 AM
Awesome! Great job! Eagerly waiting for the sequel!
And the extra effort of adding notes to the raw footage is really generous of you.

Mike@AF
06-19-2009, 01:31 AM
Awesome! Reminds me of El Mariachi.

Do you notice the jittery movement on some of the pans and tracking shots? It's not jello I'm noticing. It's jittery like there's missing frames. Is it just that you need to be more careful with camera movements or is this caused by something else?

ROne
06-19-2009, 03:38 AM
Good stuff, could be out of a QT flick. (meant as a compliment.)

This stuttering/dropping frames is popping up in a few threads in differing forums, and I've witnessed it on my own PAL GH1. It appears that the 720/50 mode suffers from the frame rate not being sustained - almost like the 50fps trade-off on fast shots is frame drop, whereas the 1080/25 trade-off is compression artefacting. Either way it happens on my camera during fast pans.

pailes
06-19-2009, 04:38 AM
I want to buy this camera and I could live with the "mud" thing, but this dropping frames issue in the PAL version is a total showstopper :(

AdrianF
06-19-2009, 04:45 AM
Thanks for showing the raw footage, it shows what a great look you can achieve in camera. The only stuttering I'm seeing I think is from my connection?
Plenty of fast pans and camera movement and still looking good.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-19-2009, 07:20 AM
Thanks Hunter and Martuu :beer:

Awesome! Reminds me of El Mariachi.

Do you notice the jittery movement on some of the pans and tracking shots? It's not jello I'm noticing. It's jittery like there's missing frames. Is it just that you need to be more careful with camera movements or is this caused by something else?


Good stuff, could be out of a QT flick. (meant as a compliment.)

This stuttering/dropping frames is popping up in a few threads in differing forums, and I've witnessed it on my own PAL GH1. It appears that the 720/50 mode suffers from the frame rate not being sustained - almost like the 50fps trade-off on fast shots is frame drop, whereas the 1080/25 trade-off is compression artefacting. Either way it happens on my camera during fast pans.


I want to buy this camera and I could live with the "mud" thing, but this dropping frames issue in the PAL version is a total showstopper :(


Thanks for showing the raw footage, it shows what a great look you can achieve in camera. The only stuttering I'm seeing I think is from my connection?
Plenty of fast pans and camera movement and still looking good.

There's no stuttering here other than what's normal for 24p. Remeber 2 things:
1) the ASC rule book says that to pan properly in 24p without stuttering you need to take 11 seconds to complete your pan.
2) People complained of strobing when the the DVX came out - until Barry Green put one on a tipod next to a 16mm film camera that is. Same strobing. The DVX had strobing BECAUSE it so accurately represented the framerate / motion of film. 24 samples a second is not enough to not have strobing at some framerates.

Now a possible 3rd issue - the software I was using which has since been fixed but was initially buggy, was not removing the pulldown correctly from the 60p and it was very, very jittery.

Each camera can have it's own "special sauce" / needs for the way pull down should be implemented. So there's a good chance that strobing people are seeing is because either it's supposed to be there (when minimal) or because pulldown has not been removed (when aggregious), or thirdly due to bad web streaming (when REALLY bad). Could be the camera. But those are 3 things to keep in mind.

But again. When played at non streaming normal motion, there's no stutter or strobing in my footage other than what would be appropriate for 24fps on any format, even less so actually I would say since our shutter speed was too low and tha offsets stutter.

I'll imbed the standard def version here of pts. 1 & 2 - maybe it will play smoother for those with slower connections. And remember you can download the source file from links in the first post

Also if it's jittery. Press pause, let it fully load. Drag the bar back. Press Play. Maybe that will help.
SD version:
7a9fd2b4111ce1c3f5

timbook2
06-19-2009, 07:59 AM
First of all thanks for the invite here, AWESOME footage! well shot, cut and exciting!

I see nothing that really disturbs me but I am not a pixelpeeper by profession :2vrolijk_08:

The artifacts I see are quite ok IMO and I can only state that good content makes up for any quality-lacking. I have no doubts the GH1 can be used to shoot exceptional footage.

As I see it even action footage with quick movements is possible...
I am in PAL world here and have not had dropouts or frame jumping once, after I learned how to import and transcode the "PRIVATE" folder into FCP and transcode to ProRes.

Since then I am really wondering when I will use the HVX next....so far the GH1 is my prime tool at the moment.

*edit*

downloaded the file to see it better: absolutely none of the blocking stuff from the other thread. even the fast pan @ the pool, back and forth: perfect motion blur with no disturbances!!! also the fast pan at the wooden fence: no artifacts that disturb me and I went frame to frame and looked hard. Maybe I need a course in pixelpeeping but I see nothing that tells me the GH1 is not capable of shooting action stuff.

Mark Harris
06-19-2009, 09:50 AM
Hey Jack,

Thanks for putting this together.

Even the 720 QT looks pretty bad on my HDTVs, regarding pixelation and blocking. But I assume it's just compression stuff. How does an uncompressed one read on your biggest TV?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-19-2009, 12:31 PM
Thanks Timbook.


Hey Jack,

Thanks for putting this together.

Even the 720 QT looks pretty bad on my HDTVs, regarding pixelation and blocking. But I assume it's just compression stuff. How does an uncompressed one read on your biggest TV?

Mark, I've been editing on my 1080 21". Afte the reshoot of the openning shots this afternoon I'll throw it on the 46" for you and report some time this weekend.

Maybe I will try uploading 10 second intervals of ProRes or DVCproHD that people can download. What high qual codec would be most Windows / Mac friendly?

As for the 1080 21" monitor, which I'm sittin pretty close to, I would say it's almost ... almost on par with Rekindled if that gives you any frame of reference , since that was a 720 shot flick with lots of focus, sharpness and shooting errors, as opposed to RPDM or A Little Mouth to Feed with their super sharpness. We screwed up a lot in shooting and were trying to do it in worst case scenarios. Right now, I think ... think for Model Photographer, Constance, Cold Calls, it would be a fine camera, for Bourne Identity it would not be the best choice, you could get through it, and it would look better than what we did if you avoid our mistakes, but it would not be the best - not as good as the sub 1K Panny, Samsung, and Canon camcorders I think. But for more sedentary character drama - and I don't mean talking heads, I mean with normal blockoking (Hitchcock's Rope comes to mind for some reason) I think ... think this would kill much more expensive cams.

Mark Harris
06-19-2009, 12:42 PM
Hmmm, might require a trip to Texas...


Thanks Timbook.



Mark, I've been editing on my 1080 21". Afte the reshoot of the openning shots this afternoon I'll throw it on the 46" for you and report some time this weekend.

Maybe I will try uploading 10 second intervals of ProRes or DVCproHD that people can download. What high qual codec would be most Windows / Mac friendly?

As for the 1080 21" monitor, which I'm sittin pretty close to, I would say it's almost ... almost on par with Rekindled if that gives you any frame of reference , since that was a 720 shot flick with lots of focus, sharpness and shooting errors, as opposed to RPDM or A Little Mouth to Feed with their super sharpness. We screwed up a lot in shooting and were trying to do it in worst case scenarios. Right now, I think ... think for Model Photographer, Constance, Cold Calls, it would be a fine camera, for Bourne Identity it would not be the best choice, you could get through it, and it would look better than what we did if you avoid our mistakes, but it would not be the best - not as good as the sub 1K Panny, Samsung, and Canon camcorders I think. But for more sedentary character drama - and I don't mean talking heads, I mean with normal blockoking (Hitchcock's Rope comes to mind for some reason) I think ... think this would kill much more expensive cams.

androoow
06-19-2009, 01:31 PM
looks more filmic than this... http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/ ( the film clip especially ) this just looks like bad early 80's ultravox videos!!

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-19-2009, 06:03 PM
Something is wrong with the Public Enemies clip. You can see that same clip in the trailer and it looks different / right. Also the QT player shows gray, not black at the beginning and end of the clip.

hish
06-19-2009, 06:55 PM
looks more filmic than this... http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/ ( the film clip especially ) this just looks like bad early 80's ultravox videos!!


It's Michael Mann, it should look like video. See Collateral/Miami Vice.

Mike@AF
06-19-2009, 08:37 PM
I haven't compared them side by side, so my observation could be off, but it seems they've been really working on the color correction and grading because the same shots in the newer trailer look a lot better to me. Either that or I've just gotten used to it. It still looks like video though, which isn't that bad. It's just different and the majority of the movie-going public wouldn't notice and wouldn't care anyways. What really matters is a good story and good acting combined with decent shots and sound.

Mike@AF
06-19-2009, 08:40 PM
I played the 200MB download on a 50" DLP TV. A lot of the shots seemed pretty good, but I did notice a lot of noise in a few. One that really comes to mind is the shots of them running by the wall in the beginning when when he throws the gun against the wall. Reminds me a little bit of the HVX200 noise in low light situations, but this seems worse/more noticeable and it's a fairly bright shot. Is this due to compression or camera settings or something else?

PappasArts
06-19-2009, 08:54 PM
I played the 200MB download on a 50" DLP TV. A lot of the shots seemed pretty good, but I did notice a lot of noise in a few. One that really comes to mind is the shots of them running by the wall in the beginning when when he throws the gun against the wall. Reminds me a little bit of the HVX200 noise in low light situations, but this seems worse/more noticeable and it's a fairly bright shot. Is this due to compression or camera settings or something else?



I noticed this noise too and thought the same thing ( HVX200 ). However i know the GH1 can look better. It can't be the 800iso, we have seen plenty from Japan that is very clean...

Why was there noise? It doesn't seem compressed well either.

Take a look at this video by ( Commanderspike ) , shot at night at 400-800-1600iso which can be tough on any camera, however looks damn good. The lit market scenes look very filmic with good DR on all the overexposed lights as well!

Panasonic GH1 low light footage test in Taiwan:

http://www.vimeo.com/5179973



My question is why does this action video not look as good or better...?



.

Mike@AF
06-19-2009, 09:11 PM
Okay, I got home and played it back on my own TV. The noise I see on my TV doesn't look the same. Rather than HVX200-type noise it looks like some kind of macro-blocking... basically like high compression. Is that the AVCHD or is it just the conversion/compression after edit?

BTW, my TV is a Pioneer Elite 60" plasma (Pro150FD). I'm going to try some other samples and see how those look since the only thing holding me back is how it looks on a TV. Just about anything I playback on my Mac screen looks awesome. I'll report back here with my findings.

Mike@AF
06-19-2009, 10:13 PM
That didn't take long. Because I don't want to hijack this thread I posted my findings in a new thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174979.

I will say this though... I'm impressed.

Mike@AF
06-19-2009, 10:17 PM
Also if it's jittery. Press pause, let it fully load. Drag the bar back. Press Play. Maybe that will help.

The stuttering I was noticing was with the QT download. However, I didn't play the second half (didn't even notice it for some strange reason) and so didn't realize so much of it was 1/50 shutter. Every shot I saw the stuttering/jitteriness in was 1/50 so that might be it.

Still... this looks awesome and is pushing me closer to pulling the trigger. Good work!

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-20-2009, 08:49 AM
The noise = 800 ISO + Grading + Compression. Even in the ungraded version you have there's some weird flicker etc in the walls but not on mine. In the raw version there's just a hair of noise in mine due to the 800 ISO. We reshot with a lower ISO yesterday and no noise, almost too clean. I may keep the old shots because they are better content wise - but we'll see. I'm going to try and post 10 second clips in whatever the best codec is people can watch because web compression is just not made for this kind of movement - your 200mb version is much much more marco blocky / artifacty than my 1.25GB CineForm version.

Mark Harris
06-20-2009, 09:14 AM
The noise = 800 ISO + Grading + Compression. Even in the ungraded version you have there's some weird flicker etc in the walls but not on mine. In the raw version there's just a hair of noise in mine due to the 800 ISO. We reshot with a lower ISO yesterday and no noise, almost too clean. I may keep the old shots because they are better content wise - but we'll see. I'm going to try and post 10 second clips in whatever the best codec is people can watch because web compression is just not made for this kind of movement - your 200mb version is much much more marco blocky / artifacty than my 1.25GB CineForm version.

Cool, that's what I wanted to know. Can't wait to see some of this stuff uncompressed.

dmoreno
06-20-2009, 09:18 AM
Jack, if you have the chance to upload any raw 720 60p action clip it would be great to try our 60p to 24p workflows! I want to see how Vegas, Premiere and After Effects do.

Nitsuj
06-20-2009, 10:37 AM
Bravo! Now that is how the camera should be handled to make a good judgment. I'm still just as impressed with the GH1 as I ever was. Thanks for the work JDS.

John Caballero
06-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Thank you Mr. JDS, great ground work. Can't wait to see the new stuff.

Boz
06-20-2009, 11:51 AM
Thanks Jack, for posting this along with the RAW and settings. I also noticed the stuttering as well, and I believe it to be an artifact of the 30P to 24P conversion (which by its very nature is stuttery due to dropped frames). And this is what concerns me a bit as it being used as a valid workaround. So many people have been saying that they'll just shoot in 720P modes and convert, but it doesn't always look right. As we've seen here it can actually be distracting. It's tricky and it will work in a pinch, but to rely on it as workaround seems a bit risky in my opinion. If Panasonic had just given us a 720-24P MJPEG mode so much of this could have been avoided. It's nice work though, Jack, especially considering how quickly you turned it around!

Nathan Troutman
06-20-2009, 12:01 PM
Really well done video. Action isn't exactly the easiest thing to try and pull off and you (and your team) created a well-shot, believable piece with some great cinematography. Very nice. And thanks too for going the extra mile and posting all of the info about your settings and workflow.

I was wondering why, when you wanted to create a final video in 24P, that you chose to shoot so much of the footage at 720 30P and 720 60P instead using the actual 24P mode at 1080? I get for the slo-mo part but didn't you force yourself into doing a lot of extra conversions to get 24P when the camera shoots 24P natively in the first place?

Mike@AF
06-20-2009, 12:21 PM
The noise = 800 ISO + Grading + Compression. Even in the ungraded version you have there's some weird flicker etc in the walls but not on mine. In the raw version there's just a hair of noise in mine due to the 800 ISO. We reshot with a lower ISO yesterday and no noise, almost too clean. I may keep the old shots because they are better content wise - but we'll see. I'm going to try and post 10 second clips in whatever the best codec is people can watch because web compression is just not made for this kind of movement - your 200mb version is much much more marco blocky / artifacty than my 1.25GB CineForm version.

Nice. That's really good to hear. I'm guessing ProRes422 would be the best codec to use?

Nathan Troutman
06-20-2009, 12:25 PM
I'm guessing ProRes422 would be the best codec to use?

If you're on a Mac but the PC people are going to feel a little left out. DVCPro HD would be more platform universal.

John Caballero
06-20-2009, 12:36 PM
Nathan check this out:

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/desk/e/download.htm#avchd (https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/desk/e/download.htm#avchd)

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/avchd-home.asp?cm_sp=Provideo%20Site%20Promotions-_-Right%20Hand%20Promo-_-AVCHD%20Professional (http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/avchd-home.asp?cm_sp=Provideo%20Site%20Promotions-_-Right%20Hand%20Promo-_-AVCHD%20Professional)

Mike@AF
06-20-2009, 12:39 PM
If you're on a Mac but the PC people are going to feel a little left out. DVCPro HD would be more platform universal.

I thought you couldn't play DVCProHD files on a PC without some special software that would need to transcode to a different codec. When did this change? Admittedly I haven't used a PC in years. What about H.264 at best quality? Good enough?

John Caballero
06-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Edius 5 and Premiere CS4 do native P2 MXF natively with no problem. The AVCHD to DVCProHD is free from Panasonic.

Mike@AF
06-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Then I guess the DVCProHD codec should work then if you keep the same 1920x1080 resolution and pixel aspect ratio of the AVCHD files.

John Caballero
06-20-2009, 01:45 PM
The AVC support from Panasonic is originally for the HMC 150. It should work with the GH1 1080p. I am in the process of experimenting with that workflow. I am using some original files posted here. But I really going to get more into it when I get my camera. Its in the best interst of Panasonic to make sure they support their AVC formats as they do P2 MXF.

PappasArts
06-20-2009, 01:51 PM
We reshot with a lower ISO yesterday and no noise, almost too clean. .

No such thing as to clean............ I would rather start out noiseless ( on the senor level ) then add through ISO or post to dirty it up. To have the choice is better then to not to have one; every and any time!

Still confused why your footage ( large downloaded file ) looks more noisy, videoish than ( comminderspike' ) night footage shot at 400-800-1600 iso in 1080/24 mode. Blooms desert piece as well looks more filmic and that was in 1080 mode. Khoile GF shopping spree vid and hunters stills also look more filmic. I think your having some kind of pulldown artifacts too unrelated to the above obsevations...

DrBlaz
06-20-2009, 03:02 PM
Still confused why your footage ( large downloaded file ) looks more noisy, videoish than ( comminderspike' ) night footage shot at 400-800-1600 iso in 1080/24 mode. Blooms desert piece as well looks more filmic and that was in 1080 mode. Khoile GF shopping spree vid and hunters stills also look more filmic. I think your having some kind of pulldown artifacts too unrelated to the above obsevations...

same here! also the 720p60 parts use 1/50 so its really 720p30, exactly like mjpeg parts, the stuttering seems to be related to 30p-24p conversion.

better use a HDV at 24p for these parts... more quality and the DOF is the same.

John Caballero
06-20-2009, 03:17 PM
also the 720p60 parts use 1/50 so its really 720p30, exactly like mjpeg parts, the stuttering seems to be related to 30p-24p conversion.

better use a HDV at 24p for these parts... more quality and the DOF is the same.

He clearly explained what happened with the 1/50. HDV? LOL.

PappasArts
06-20-2009, 03:58 PM
He clearly explained what happened with the 1/50. HDV? LOL.

However,

What hasn't been explained is why the footage ( large downloaded file ) looks more noisy, videoish then ( comminderspike' ) night footage shot at 400-800-1600 iso in 1080/24 mode and exhibits less noise. As well, Blooms desert Joshua Tree piece looks more filmic, and that was in 1080 mode. Kholi's girlfriend running a muck in a thrift store shopping spree vid and hunters stills also look more filmic and less noise. Pulldown artifacts from the extracted 1080/24 are apparent as well! Why would this be? I thought the process for perfect extraction had been addressed too.. This camera has done better; why in this test has it's performance seem to take a hit compared to others mentioned above....





.

Isaac_Brody
06-20-2009, 04:04 PM
However,

What hasn't been explained is why the footage ( large downloaded file ) looks more noisy, videoish then ( comminderspike' ) night footage shot at 400-800-1600 iso in 1080/24 mode and exhibits less noise.

My guess is encoding compression and the fact that most of the footage was shot at 30P and 60P.

Noel Evans
06-20-2009, 04:14 PM
Great Jack. Thanks so much for posting all this info. Sometimes I love being in PAL land without all the pulldown hassles.

Isaac_Brody
06-20-2009, 04:25 PM
One more thing, the 30P MJPEG footage I've seen looks like it has some sharpening applied at default settings. I've seen this on some other 30P shots from the GH1. I'm curious to see MJPEG with sharpening dialed all the way back.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-20-2009, 04:29 PM
Thanks Jack, for posting this along with the RAW and settings. I also noticed the stuttering as well, and I believe it to be an artifact of the 30P to 24P conversion (which by its very nature is stuttery due to dropped frames). And this is what concerns me a bit as it being used as a valid workaround. So many people have been saying that they'll just shoot in 720P modes and convert, but it doesn't always look right. As we've seen here it can actually be distracting.
I don't know about distracting - if we're seeing the same thing anyway - because I've watched it over and over again and I'm only 80% sure I even know what you guys are talking about. Barry Green says he's not seeing it in the 200mb file either.

But I kind of think I'm seeing it now and am researching the 30p tp 24p thing and will try a new method and detail the new and old methods shortly.



It's tricky and it will work in a pinch, but to rely on it as workaround seems a bit risky in my opinion. If Panasonic had just given us a 720-24P MJPEG mode so much of this could have been avoided. It's nice work though, Jack, especially considering how quickly you turned it around!
Although I didn't do it by dropping frames. Which is what it would be if you just dropped it into a 24p timeline. I did it by interpolating to 24p via compressor (I think) with all of the best rate conversion settings. (But now I'm questioning some of the settings and may have made some faulty assumptions) Let me research this and I'll see if I can get a better process.

Really well done video. Action isn't exactly the easiest thing to try and pull off and you (and your team) created a well-shot, believable piece with some great cinematography. Very nice. And thanks too for going the extra mile and posting all of the info about your settings and workflow.

I was wondering why, when you wanted to create a final video in 24P, that you chose to shoot so much of the footage at 720 30P and 720 60P instead using the actual 24P mode at 1080? I get for the slo-mo part but didn't you force yourself into doing a lot of extra conversions to get 24P when the camera shoots 24P natively in the first place?
Thanks for the positive comments - just wait the scene goes nuts from here.

As for the why the different modes thing (and this is my bad for assuming people would know thism, so I'll ad it to the top of the thread) but it's been fairly well documented that while the GH1 has mightily conquered the skew issue (it's there but minimal) that DSLR cameras suffer from, it's introduced a new (probably worse issue) "Mud" or image clumping / macro blocking under extreme motion in the AVCHD modes. If I could shoot 108024 for everything I would be a happy camper. But theoritically it was impossible to do what I have done to the degree that I've done it - intense action shooting with the camera. In 1080 24 AVCHD the "mud issue is worst. In 720 60 AVCHD it's there but not as bad. In 720 30 MJPEG, it's not there. This is because the AVCHD modes are Long-GOP meaning the camera tries to only redraw the changing parts of the image. With too slow a bandrate it too much of the image changes between redraws and creates weird clumping. The Mjpeg is Intraframe - it takes 30 progressive indivudal pictures per secon redrawing the whole image every time. In AVCHD maybe the 60p has less mud because it's a smaller image to redraw with more samples? Dunno, but that's the way it works.
SO


1080 24 AVCHD - most resolution, best frame rate, most mud with too much movement.
720 60p AVCHD - less resolution, less mud, useable for most
720 30p AVCDH - less resolution, more compression artifacts, no mud

So the strategy for shooting intense action stuff suggests istelf somewhat (provided a good frame rate conversion method can be implemented) and goes as follows:


For wow resolution shots, look at that landscape, look at that whiskers on the character actors chin, gee what quality without too much movement - wow 'em with 1080 24p.
For a scene with average movement, crossing to the fence and back, you can use 720 60p AVCHD. You've already established the "wow what quality!" feel with a few 1080 shots and this mode will serve you well
But fling the camera around like a madman, and you must be in 720 30 MJPEG. To my eye there's a bit of line sharpening in the MJPEG mode, but it's minimal, can be minimalized further by reducing sharpening in camera, and won't be noticed if you're flinging the camera around like a madman. But for beauty shots use 1080 24, for compromise between beauty and motion use 720 60, for best motion in extreme circumstances use 720 30.


Nice. That's really good to hear. I'm guessing ProRes422 would be the best codec to use?
I've been using CineForm. Smaller file size than Pro Res, 422 colorspace and less noisey. ProRes adds a bit of noise.


If you're on a Mac but the PC people are going to feel a little left out. DVCPro HD would be more platform universal.
From what I understand DVCpro HD has been implemented differently on Mac and PC and doesn't work well cross platform???


I thought you couldn't play DVCProHD files on a PC without some special software that would need to transcode to a different codec. When did this change? Admittedly I haven't used a PC in years. What about H.264 at best quality? Good enough?


Then I guess the DVCProHD codec should work then if you keep the same 1920x1080 resolution and pixel aspect ratio of the AVCHD files.
After discussing with Barry Green what I'm going to do is upload BlueRay quality H.264's. Everybody should be able to play these, and if BlueRay quality ain't enough then we're screwed :)


No such thing as to clean............ I would rather start out noiseless ( on the senor level ) then add through ISO or post to dirty it up. To have the choice is better then to not to have one; every and any time!
I tend to agree though I've always found the HVX noise to have a fairly organic pleasant feel and not distract from the image (within reason - never shot at gain +6 with no light, etc.) And yes even some film stock is so clean it has to have grain added in post for a filmmic look, lol.


Still confused why your footage ( large downloaded file ) looks more noisy, videoish than ( comminderspike' ) night footage shot at 400-800-1600 iso in 1080/24 mode.
Well maybe it has a lot to do with the rate conversion. He's shooting in 24p - perhaps I'm not getting a good simulation of 24p in my post process. Also he's picking beauty shots - and is he shooting with lenses besides the stock lens? I've done my best to make a pleasing image, but I'm shooting in a crappy apartment complex with tan walls and a blown out overcast sky trying to follow the action with a near infinite DOF and trying and get this whole thing shot in 5 hours. I would say the shots of the kids and people in front of their hotel is pretty filmmic. That's got SDOF and real 24p and looks pretty damn filmmic to me with the nice backlight and the nice way CMOS blows out etc. But I would say not cherry picking my shots, mixing frame rates (perhaps with poor rate conversion in post) and being near infinite DOF following action certainly sounds like a recipe for less strikingkly filmmic.


Blooms desert piece as well looks more filmic and that was in 1080 mode. Khoile GF shopping spree vid and hunters stills also look more filmic. I think your having some kind of pulldown artifacts too unrelated to the above obsevations...
Bloom's desert piece was shot with filters and lenses that cost 4 times the price of the entire camera EACH. Kholi was also using fast primes. I was using stock lens. I'd put the shots of the kids beyond the fence up against the other footage you just mentioned. My point is that those guys weren't running around with the stock lens covering stuff doc style.

Also we'll have to see about the post conversion. As I mentioned, looking into that more now ...


same here! also the 720p60 parts use 1/50 so its really 720p30, exactly like mjpeg parts, the stuttering seems to be related to 30p-24p conversion.

better use a HDV at 24p for these parts... more quality and the DOF is the same.


He clearly explained what happened with the 1/50. HDV? LOL.

Yeah that's gone over in the first post and on a title card in the video in big block letters.

BUT .... BUT .... BUT .... What if you are shooting 720 60p AVCHD witha a shutter of 50 (as I did) and this forces the camera into 30p (as the folks at NeoScene confirmed for me) .... might this not be a anti mud AVCHD hack? Perhaps? Less image than the 720 to deal with, you've haved the frame rate from 60 to 30 maybe thereby doubling the efficiency of the 17mbs bandwidth ... could this be? Could this be why I had almost no mud issues? Could this be why I did have mud issues when I went back and did my reshoot at 720 60p? I don't know. There could verywell be a flaw in this logic or ... perhaps it's so crazy it just might work! Barry Green and I are sharing a camera right now and it's his turn to get it back. If there's a mad genious that could confirm or debunk such a crazy theory it's him.

Thanks for your interest and support all. Will have more shortly hopefully. This is fun and exciting to be on the cutting edge, be able to share what I'm learning and learn from you guys in this uncharted territory from me. I'm 90% of the way convinced that the cost to bag to art to usibility ratio of this camera is incomparible. If we keep the back and forth SOLUTION oriented as all of you guys are I'm optimistic about bridging that last 10%.

:beer:

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-20-2009, 04:32 PM
One more thing, the 30P MJPEG footage I've seen looks like it has some sharpening applied at default settings. I've seen this on some other 30P shots from the GH1. I'm curious to see MJPEG with sharpening dialed all the way back.
Isaac all of my 30 MJPEG has the sharpening dialed as low as possible, plus contrast as low as possible and shot in the "SMOOTH" preset for "low contrast and smooth slightly destaturated colors". I've added some sharpening in the color graded section, but the raw section at the end fits your bill.

Isaac_Brody
06-20-2009, 04:36 PM
Gotcha, will rewatch that clip. Looked good to me, just noticed this on some other clips on vimeo.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-20-2009, 04:39 PM
I definitely still see some line sharpening around faces, but I see it in other modes too - maybe as a result of hacking the camera in to 30p in the 60p mode due to my 1/50th shutter????

But 30MPJEG's great for intense motion when you won't have time to notice the sharpening.

Mike@AF
06-20-2009, 05:06 PM
I don't know about distracting - if we're seeing the same thing anyway - because I've watched it over and over again and I'm only 80% sure I even know what you guys are talking about. Barry Green says he's not seeing it in the 200mb file either.

But I kind of think I'm seeing it now and am researching the 30p tp 24p thing and will try a new method and detail the new and old methods shortly.


Although I didn't do it by dropping frames. Which is what it would be if you just dropped it into a 24p timeline. I did it by interpolating to 24p via compressor (I think) with all of the best rate conversion settings. (But now I'm questioning some of the settings and may have made some faulty assumptions) Let me research this and I'll see if I can get a better process.


What I'm noticing with the stuttering can be seen in a frame by frame look at the shot of the camera moving along the fence at about 00:00:18. When you go frame by frame the distance the camera moves jumps about every 4 frames. I'm guessing this is something to do with the 1/50 shutter. I guess it could be the frame rate change as well and a look at the raw footage would tell us if that's it or not.

Personally I prefer the clean (or "too clean" look), and by clean I don't mean a real deep or infinite DOF. Too me it's more realistic. When you look through your eyes, do you see grain or noise? I'd rather have the need to add noise or grain or softness in post if necessary. Some may think too clean is too video-ish, but you can have a very clean look that still appears film-like. It comes down to proper composition, lighting, movement, DOF, etc. and then a good post process. This is all just me and my opinion, so I'm actually happy with what you've done here and think you did a great job for only 5 hours of work and being that the camera is new to you.

I just ordered a GH1 for myself and am looking forward to it, and this action sequence you threw together so quickly really helped push my decision over the edge. So thanks!

DrBlaz
06-20-2009, 05:16 PM
He clearly explained what happened with the 1/50. HDV? LOL.


he explained that 1/50 was a mistake, but not that using 1/50 gives 720p30 instead of 720p60


HDV? LOL ?

could you explain us why its better to use mjpeg at 30p than HDV at 24p for a 24p video?

Mike@AF
06-20-2009, 05:20 PM
Also, there's two frames (00:00:27.36 and 00:00:27.40 in QT). These are consecutive frames and it just seems like his leg traveled far for one frame so it seems like a frame was dropped/skipped.

DrBlaz
06-20-2009, 05:22 PM
BUT .... BUT .... BUT .... What if you are shooting 720 60p AVCHD witha a shutter of 50 (as I did) and this forces the camera into 30p (as the folks at NeoScene confirmed for me) .... might this not be a anti mud AVCHD hack? Perhaps? Less image than the 720 to deal with, you've haved the frame rate from 60 to 30 maybe thereby doubling the efficiency of the 17mbs bandwidth ... could this be? Could this be why I had almost no mud issues? Could this be why I did have mud issues when I went back and did my reshoot at 720 60p? I don't know. There could verywell be a flaw in this logic or ... perhaps it's so crazy it just might work! Barry Green and I are sharing a camera right now and it's his turn to get it back. If there's a mad genious that could confirm or debunk such a crazy theory it's him.




Jack, no way! as said before panasonic did a good job crippling the encoder, when using 1/50 and 1/30 shutter speeds in 720p60, the encoder uses only P frames to reduce quality (in 720p60 it uses an I frame every 30 "bad" P frames), at least it is so in all the 1/30 mts's I've downloaded

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-20-2009, 06:01 PM
he explained that 1/50 was a mistake, but not that using 1/50 gives 720p30 instead of 720p60


HDV? LOL ?

could you explain us why its better to use mjpeg at 30p than HDV at 24p for a 24p video?

What I said was:

Anyway we shot 1/50th shutter and this forces the camera in to some kind of hack for the 60p. Either it forces the camera into a lower frame rate / and or it drops half the resolution.

I've amended it to:
"... Either it forces the camera into a lower frame rate (presumably 30fps) / and or it drops half the resolution."

But we don't know exactly how it's hacking to get the 1/50th shutter. Do we? The people at CineForm confirmed for me that my 1/50th shutter 60p clips were 30p in a 60p wrapper though.


Jack, no way! as said before panasonic did a good job crippling the encoder, when using 1/50 and 1/30 shutter speeds in 720p60, the encoder uses only P frames to reduce quality (in 720p60 it uses an I frame every 30 "bad" P frames), at least it is so in all the 1/30 mts's I've downloaded
OK. How are you arriving at this? Just clicking through? I'm not saying your wrong - really asking. I've said it forces a lower frame rate or drops resolution - but we really don't know yet. I DO know that I got less mud at 720 60p with 1/50 than I did at 1/60. I said thinking of this is a mud hack was a crazy idea, but I don't see how your point suggests it couldn't be a crazy idea that might work.

John Caballero
06-20-2009, 06:39 PM
could you explain us why its better to use mjpeg at 30p than HDV at 24p for a 24p video?

HDV, thats a fading format. Got to look forward.

DrBlaz
06-20-2009, 06:57 PM
What I said was:

But we don't know exactly how it's hacking to get the 1/50th shutter. Do we? The people at CineForm confirmed for me that my 1/50th shutter 60p clips were 30p in a 60p wrapper though.

well, I haven't the camera yet, so all the info I have is from downloaded mts's, when using 1/50 and 1/30 in 720p60, the GH1, like other video cams when using shutter speeds over framerate, records repeated frames, it is not 30p in a 60p wrapper, its just repeated frames. If the GH1 allowed 1/15 then you'll get groups of 4 repeated frames.



OK. How are you arriving at this? Just clicking through? I'm not saying your wrong - really asking. I've said it forces a lower frame rate or drops resolution - but we really don't know yet. I DO know that I got less mud at 720 60p with 1/50 than I did at 1/60. I said thinking of this is a mud hack was a crazy idea, but I don't see how your point suggests it couldn't be a crazy idea that might work.

If you examine the mts with any h264 analizer you can see the mts structure. The gh1 does NOT use b-frames (all $500 avchd cams including panasonic use b-frames), 17mbps is too low for 1080p24 and 720p60 without b-frames.

When recording 720p60, the gh1 uses a I frame every 30 P frames. If selecting 1/50 or 1/30 shutter then we get 30 repeated frames (or what is really interesting, 25p on the pal model) , if the encoder structure is the same, then we could get in theory 720p30 or p25 at 17mbps, this is, the same bitrate for half frames (like panasonic P&S photo cams), so the mud could dissapear.

But, it seems panasonic thought about this mud workaround , and it seems when recording at 1/50 and 1/30 in 720p, it changes the way the encoder works by eliminating all the I frames, this is, only an I frame at the beggining and then all P frames, also it seems to use a lower bitrate, so the mud is still there. This is my "conclusion" from the few mts I've downloaded, I think all were 720p60 at 1/30, if you upload a 1/50 original mts I can check it.

But anyway, the only mud workaround would be in the PAL model, cause to get mud free images at 30p, you better go with a 5dII.

I just requested in the other forum 720p PAL footage at 1/30 to check it , we'll see, but probably panasonic crippled it also.

Mike@AF
06-20-2009, 07:33 PM
If you're on a Mac but the PC people are going to feel a little left out. DVCPro HD would be more platform universal.


After discussing with Barry Green what I'm going to do is upload BlueRay quality H.264's. Everybody should be able to play these, and if BlueRay quality ain't enough then we're screwed

Actually you can go with ProRes. Apple has the codec for windows here:
http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Mac

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-20-2009, 07:42 PM
Actually you can go with ProRes. Apple has the codec for windows here:
http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_MacI've been a big fan of ProRes for a long time - it does add some noise though plus we're talking the internet here and ProRes = Ginormous.

So goin the BlueRay qual H.264 route. Don't worry, if it's not representative of what I'm seeing right out of FCP I'll look into ProRes - posting inferiorly compressed stuff with imperfections I can't see in the source material for the sake of pixel peeping is frustrating. :cry:

:)

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-22-2009, 10:29 PM
Hey guys sorry for the delay. I wanted to get to the bottom of this frame rate / conversion issue so I've done some more tests which I hope to have up Wednesday.

Basically I shoemounted a GH1 atop a HPX 170, went to an intersection and taped cars crossing (it was just after a speed bump so they're going 10 miles an hour or so). Anway the idea with taping cars crossing the frame is that they move at a constant speed and any breaks in cadence or jerkiness will show.

The results of the test are interesting and it was surprising how the GH1 image held up and in many ways surpassed the 170 for a locked down early evening shot.

As for the motion results, the motion of 720 60p conformed and retimed to 23.98 in compressor is virtually identical, or incredily close to, if not exactly like native 24p. And - it appeared to have higher resolution than the HPX at 1080. As for 30p? Never going to be as smooth of a conversion buty you can get away with it if you're not showing something like a car which should basically be gliding across the screen instead of jerking across it.

So will have that up today (Wednesday) then hopefully get back to finishing the short / implementing the new conversion methods I've learned.

In the meantime, this was PMed to me:

Hi Jack.

Thought better to ask this outside of the thread as it is slightly off the topic. (Thanks for doing that, your work no matter what the situation is always excellent and inspiring!)

Anyways, I was just curious what you used to do the color correction and what if any steps, tricks or presets etc. you used?

I bought a panasonic hs300 off ebay, and would love to try to grade it to that look.

If you have a moment I'd love to know any info on the color grading.

Thanks, look forward to more of your work!
Staven thanks for the comments.

Grading questions are totally appropriate here sense this is about putting the GH1 through all phases of a beginning to end process.

I shot in the camera's "SMOOTH MODE" a setting that is supposed to be "lower contrast slightly desaturated with smooth colors". I did this because one theory I was testing to not get mud was to lessen extremes in the image. There are three or four settings in each scene file. Contrast, Color, Sharpness, and Noise Reduction. I basically zeroed out Contrast, Sharpness and Noise Reduction. I didn't want any weird artifacts from the noise reduction. A reduction in sharpness might reduce mud, and same for contrast. Also reduced since I was shooting in some MJPEG modes where I've seen some oversharpening in the compression.

BUT I don't think this set me up for grading very well. I need to switch gears from how I worked with the HVX, HPX500, HPX 170 with their higher color space to how I used to work with the DVX. When Shooting with the mentioned HD cameras I found it best to zero everything out, shoot neutral or slightly desaturated colors, and neutral or low contrast. This gave me a lot to work with in post - but when I began with the DVX, I used to shoot with the saturation pushed in an effort to force a little more color information through to the sensor. Though this was kind of faux color information, it nonetheless helped in grading. So if I had to do it again, I might up the saturation or shoot in a more saturated mode.

I do think the "Smooth" and "Nostalgia" modes produce very good in camera, filmmic looks but may not work best for post work.

As for the grading I did itself, it always comes down to three basics, contrast, color, saturation.

I just used Apple's 3 way color corrector for these. I hit auto black, mids, whites, then look at the scope and tweak to make sure I have my black level set all the way to the bottom and probably ever so slighty crushed. I make sure the white level is correct for the shot - nearly blown out if there's a bright sky, just under for a lot of shots, not near the top for dark shot. Then with the mids fader I tweak the contrast and brightness. For these I dragged the white wheel into the yellow a bit, and I think the mids to a touch of green and desaturated.

That was basically it I think.

EDIT: Woops, how can I forget vignetting! Almost every shot has a subtle vignette on it. When you look at the shot and aren't sure if there's a vignette, but then toggle it off and suddenly all the edges get brighter, then toggle it back on and the eye is drawn to the part of the image that should be the focus, and again you don't really notice the vignette, then you're doing it right (or right for the subtle way).

Also I used power windows (Colorista) to pull the exposer of the family in the wide shot up through the fence. In other words drew a big egg around that area with colorista and brought the exposure of that area only up in post.

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 12:01 AM
And - it appeared to have higher resolution than the HPX at 1080.

This is probably because the true resolution of 1080 on the HPX is 1280x1080 and the sensor size is really smaller than that. The GH1 is giving you a real 1280x720 frame from what a 4000x3000 sensor? The DVCProHD codec is also an old codec. The newer AVCHD codec can get pretty close at a smaller bit rate.

Thanks for the continued tests and reports.

PappasArts
06-23-2009, 12:29 AM
Hey guys sorry for the delay. I wanted to get to the bottom of this frame rate / conversion issue so I've done some more tests which I hope to have up Wednesday.

Basically I shoemounted a GH1 atop a HPX 170, went to an intersection and taped cars crossing (it was just after a speed bump so they're going 10 miles an hour or so). Anway the idea with taping cars crossing the frame is that they move at a constant speed and any breaks in cadence or jerkiness will show.

The results of the test are interesting and it was surprising how the GH1 image held up and in many ways surpassed the 170 for a locked down early evening shot.

As for the motion results, the motion of 720 60p conformed and retimed to 23.98 in compressor is virtually identical, or incredily close to, if not exactly like native 24p. And - it appeared to have higher resolution than the HPX at 1080. As for 30p? Never going to be as smooth of a conversion buty you can get away with it if you're not showing something like a car which should basically be gliding across the screen instead of jerking across it.


Thanks Jack,

Very intriguing about so many things. 23.98 from 60 is very cool. The fact that the The GH1 720 appearance of having higher resolution than the HPX at 1080 is very interesting. Makes me think that the 1080/24 will be even more. Look forward to seeing the examples..


.

pailes
06-23-2009, 12:51 AM
I've been a big fan of ProRes for a long time - it does add some noise though

I want to see the proof for that. It's a wavelet based codec, whatever it does, it does NOT add "noise" but it might introduce some compression artifacts. But I doubt that you will ever see a difference between ProRes transcoded material of the GH1 and the original GH1 AVC because the AVC compression is already very heavy.

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 01:17 AM
I want to see the proof for that. It's a wavelet based codec, whatever it does, it does NOT add "noise" but it might introduce some compression artifacts. But I doubt that you will ever see a difference between ProRes transcoded material of the GH1 and the original GH1 AVC because the AVC compression is already very heavy.

Any time you transcode to a different compression-type codec you can get more "noise". It's not really noise though. It's a loss of quality due to the compression. The only way to avoid that would probably be to use an uncompressed codec, but even then there's a chance for quality loss, especially if you do it enough times.

pailes
06-23-2009, 03:18 AM
Any time you transcode to a different compression-type codec you can get more "noise". It's not really noise though. It's a loss of quality due to the compression.
Yeah I did say exactly the same thing I my posting:2vrolijk_08:

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 03:27 AM
Yeah I did say exactly the same thing I my posting:2vrolijk_08:

Yeah, I was actually responding to the last part about AVCHD to ProRes. You'd still lose quality because it's still re-compressing. I shouldn't have quoted the whole thing.

pailes
06-23-2009, 03:37 AM
Still you will have a very hard time to recognize the differences between ProRes transcoded AVC material and AVC material. That's what I was trying to say. ProRes has many advantages over AVC in post production. Ok file size is not one of them ;-)

Barry_Green
06-23-2009, 05:46 AM
It's a wavelet based codec, whatever it does, it does NOT add "noise" but it might introduce some compression artifacts.
Where is it shown that ProRes is wavelet based? Gary Adcock's article on provideocoalition says it's DCT based.

Martti Ekstrand
06-23-2009, 05:53 AM
I want to see the proof for that. It's a wavelet based codec, whatever it does, it does NOT add "noise" but it might introduce some compression artifacts.
No, ProRes is not using wavelet compression, it's using DCT just like JPEG, MPEG or DV. Red Code and Cineform are on the other hand wavelet based codecs.


But I doubt that you will ever see a difference between ProRes transcoded material of the GH1 and the original GH1 AVC because the AVC compression is already very heavy.

For the above technical reason you can indeed add 'noise' or edge ants around high contrast edges when transcoding from for instance AVCHD to ProRes, whether it becomes visible is highly dependant on image content. And they can also aggregate on multiple render passes which really should be kept to a minimum with ProRes. If I ever get around to do something aimed for big screen viewing with GH1 footage I'd try to get a Cineform workflow running before choosing ProRes.

Also worth noting is that re-timing processes can have a tendency to pixalate blurry edges against backgrounds of contrasting colours, like motion blur areas, so even for this reason there can be more artefacts with ProRes material than with a fully uncompressed codec like QuickTime Animation. Despite the decades old hype around digital processing being 'lossless' small things like this can quickly add up to flaws.

pailes
06-23-2009, 07:17 AM
No, ProRes is not using wavelet compression, it's using DCT just like JPEG, MPEG or DV. Red Code and Cineform are on the other hand wavelet based codecs.
Yes it's true, for some reason I thought ProRes was also based on wavelets rather than DCT. My bad.

xbourque
06-23-2009, 08:00 AM
And they can also aggregate on multiple render passes which really should be kept to a minimum with ProRes.

Apple touts ProRes as being robust for multi-generation work. Have you experienced generational losses with it yourself?

See page 10 of their white paper: http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf

-X

pailes
06-23-2009, 08:25 AM
Apple touts ProRes as being robust for multi-generation work. Have you experienced generational losses with it yourself?

See page 10 of their white paper: http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf
That's actually why I started arguing in the first place. I've been transcoding my HMC150 AVCHD material into ProRes for quite some time and there is absolutely no visual quality loss. I doubt you will see any quality loss when transcoding material from the GH1 and if you're worried about image quality that much you should never buy a GH1 ;)

Isaac_Brody
06-23-2009, 08:30 AM
I doubt you will see any quality loss when transcoding material from the GH1 and if you're worried about image quality that much you should never buy a GH1 ;)

I've been testing the GH1 post workflow for the past two months and like Martti have also noticed that Prores can add noise and "edge ants." You can test it yourself by viewing your native AVCHD files in toast, saving PNG stills and then comparing to Prores files. It's odd and the process definitely adds some ugly artifacts. Going to intermediate codec was actually cleaner and didn't introduce those edge ants. I'm waiting to test a GH1 myself so I can control the shooting and figure out the best method from production to post. From what I've seen so far with careful controlled shooting you have quite a bit of wiggle room in post for correction and tweaking, but if you blow exposure it's pretty much garbage in garbage out.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 08:34 AM
First - when I mentioned it added some noise - you should know I'm not one of these sky is falling people crying GH1 Mud , or HVX noise or what have you, and I'm not saying ProRes sucks or doesn't do what it claims to. I merely mentioned a personal preference and a mild one at that. If you took Cineform away from me and I had to work with ProRes I wouldn't slit my wrists. If you took ProRes away and I had to work with DVCproHD, I wouldn't cry.

I don't care what papers say. Telling you what I see with my eyes working with FCP and DVCproHD for three years. You can't tell me my opinon / what I see is wrong. IF I have time I will post proof. BUT this ain't really a thread about ProRes.

And Pro Res is awesome. It's a great Codec. I'm not worried about image quality I merely stated my opinion that I see more noise when going out to ProRes than otherwise. I also like Coke vs. Pepsi. Doesn't mean Pepsi is a sucky useless thing. Maybe Coke is just a bit sweeter to me. I like Cineform better than ProRes. My ProRes masters have a bit more noise than my DVCproHD masters but the tradeoffs are worth it.

I can see a bit more noise in it. I'm not gonna look at a chart in a PDF and not see what I see. Perhaps this noise is always there and Pro Res just brings it to the fore. I don't really care if it's wave encoding or DCT or ABC or PDF or XYZ - I sees what I sees.

All my experience up to this thread has been DVCproHD to PoRes, and now AVCHD to ProRes and same holds true in both instance. As for comparision - going from AVCHD to ProRes is a tad noisier than Cineform, also a 422 Codec. Cineform has smoother transistions, is less noisey, and has a smaller file size. Perhaps it's not really as good as ProRes and ProRes is just showing all the warts in the initial image while Cineform is smoothing them over by blending some pixels. To me the end product i s cleaner and smoother than ProRes. This is my opinion.

Pailes, also curious to know what you're viewing your 150 files on to see the native AVCHD to compare it to the ProRes?

When I mentioned ProRes noise it was not being worried about my image for my uses. It was about picking the cleanest thing for the pixel peepers, which are welcome since that's part of the point of this thread - evaluating the GH1 footage.

Isaac_Brody
06-23-2009, 08:38 AM
All my experience up to this thread has been DVCproHD to PoRes, and now AVCHD to ProRes and same holds true in both instance. As for comparision - going from AVCHD to ProRes is a tad noisier than Cineform, also a 422 Codec. Cineform has smoother transistions, is less noisey, and has a smaller file size. Perhaps it's not really as good as ProRes and ProRes is just showing all the warts in the initial image while Cineform is smoothing them over by blending some pixels. To me the end product i s cleaner and smoother than ProRes. This is my opinion.

I've had the exact same experience and have done plenty of my own pixelpeeping to confirm.

pailes
06-23-2009, 08:45 AM
I've been testing the GH1 post workflow for the past two months and like Martti have also noticed that Prores can add noise and "edge ants." You can test it yourself by viewing your native AVCHD files in toast, saving PNG stills and then comparing to Prores files.
I've been doing exactly this. Absolutely no visual difference. Please post your images with the differences.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 08:53 AM
Here's some PNG's

ProRes
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1244


NeoScene
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1245

:evil:

KEEEEEEDING

Park Edwards
06-23-2009, 08:53 AM
coke is better than pepsi.
is it possible to transcode AVCHD to REDcode?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 09:50 AM
Ok. For cereal this time:
(and not bad for the stock lens eh?)

CINEFORM PNG
http://files.me.com/jdanstan/hls2g5
CINEFORM JPEG
http://files.me.com/jdanstan/l5wjko
http://files.me.com/jdanstan/nels5s

PRORES PNG
http://files.me.com/jdanstan/bnl3r9
PRORES JPEG
http://files.me.com/jdanstan/psnyjj


http://files.me.com/jdanstan/w7knlz

Kholi
06-23-2009, 09:53 AM
Cineform wins. Just look at the edges of her face, forehead and the upper cheek. The edges of the little boys hands, etc.

Might be negligible but with the GH-1 footage I think every lil' bit counts.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 10:00 AM
Look at the yellows in the out of focus leaves and the gold in the backlit highlight on her face and the general goldeness vs. redness of the baby in the cineform too. More there / more pleasing than ProRes, imho.

Again this is not ProRes bashing - it's a great Pro codec, I just stated my preference, a mild one at that, and was asked to show examples. I have a slight .. SLIGHT preference for neoscene.

ALSO NOTE: This is shooting through a fence. So if you're wondering what any faint floaties are it's likely the fence.

jenningsp
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
i was messing around with codecs in FCP last year when i was doing some extreme colour grading. like turning a scene red to look like a dark room...

Everything fell apart. Prores went blocky. dvcproHD was better but still went blocky. The only thing that held up was photojpeg and uncompressed. Photojpeg rules! :) and it's free!

pailes
06-23-2009, 12:19 PM
...and the general goldeness vs. redness of the baby in the cineform too.
Sorry but I cannot believe that those two codecs would result in such a huge color difference. There must be something else going on because such color variation can only be explained by different color space conversion algorithms or different color profiles. I never used Cineform before, but I can certainly transcode to uncompressed images and the colors between ProRes and uncompressed do match exactly.

I transcoded the same AVCHD clip from my HMC150 twice: ProRes (HQ) and a lossless animation codec. The results are almost identical but with the animation codec the file is 5 times bigger than the ProRes clip. Colors are identical.

Just look at the attached pictures.

ProRes:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/attachment.php?attachmentid=11586&d=1245784410http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/000180094_prores.jpg

Uncompressed:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/attachment.php?attachmentid=11587&d=1245784410
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/000180094_prores.jpg

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 01:32 PM
Those don't look the same to me. The ProRes looks like it has more contrast. Look at the shadows in her face. The uncompressed image looks smoother. The color looks different too. More neutral and natural in the uncompressed. It's ever so slight and if I couldn't see them side by side I never would notice.

Kholi
06-23-2009, 01:33 PM
Those don't look the same to me. The ProRes looks like it has more contrast. Look at the shadows in her face. The uncompressed image looks smoother. The color looks different too. More neutral and natural in the uncompressed. It's ever so slight and if I couldn't see them side by side I never would notice.


Yup. The color's differences are probably a direct effect of the contrast shift. This is one thing I've always been annoyed with as far as Apple and Post goes: it's like it refuses to give you accurate contrast in your image.

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 01:39 PM
If you want to test whether there is generational loss with a codec, just recompress the clip with that codec 10 times. You'll see the difference. My method for testing this has been to put a few clips in a FCP timeline set up as ProRes or even uncompressed. Export as a Quicktime movie using that sequences settings. Do it again 9 times with whatever you export, rearranging the clips as you go so you can be sure it's actually recompressing. Want even more noticeable results? Change the codec. Go from ProRes to Uncompressed to Cineform to ProRes to Uncompressed, or however you want.

No lossless codec or uncompressed codec is truly lossless.

The same applies to lossless audio codecs whether it's Apple Lossless, FLAC, or anything else. Do the same with those and you'll hear a difference compared to the original.

Martti Ekstrand
06-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Apple touts ProRes as being robust for multi-generation work. Have you experienced generational losses with it yourself?
I've helped out troubleshooting a project where clips had bounced back and forth between FCP, Motion, Color and After Effects using ProRes and edge crawl had become a nuisance. Redoing the steps after capture with QT Animation codec (hopeless name for a codec...) yielded zero added edge crawl.


See page 10 of their white paper: http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf
Based on the above experience I wrote off that info as another example of the Jobs Reality Distortion Field™ pushing things just a little bit too far. Don't get me wrong, I only use Macs, both professionally and privately.


Everything fell apart. Prores went blocky. dvcproHD was better but still went blocky. The only thing that held up was photojpeg and uncompressed. Photojpeg rules! :) and it's free!
Yup, PhotoJPEG at 75% is fantastic, very little degradation and small file sizes. I typically capture material as Pjpeg75%, edit and then in every subsequent step I use QT Animation up to delivery where better skilled people than me transcode for transmission format. If image quality is really critical I go back and recapture with Blackmagic uncompressed.
One can use ProRes for capture instead in the above workflow but the file sizes swell. This avoid open up FCP to hack a settings file for realtime SD support which Apple only allow Pjpeg to have at quarter size of NTSC/PAL for 'offline' use.

Here's some PNG's
ProRes (Extremely noisy pic)

NeoScene
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1245

:evil: KEEEEEEDING

Hahahahaha! But seriously Shirley, look at that picture. If I didn't have a GH1 myself and somebody showed my a moving HD clip looking like that and said it comes from a $1500 consumer device I'd think somebody was pulling my leg. Or yanking my tail. Or both.


Cineform wins. Just look at the edges of her face, forehead and the upper cheek. The edges of the little boys hands, etc.

Might be negligible but with the GH-1 footage I think every lil' bit counts.

Yes, as lovely as it is the clips coming out of GH1 are on the fragile side and should be handled with care if aiming for a big screen.

As for colour matching when I was comparing methods to transcode AVCHD to something editable I noted that while ProRes, Animation, Apple Intermediate Codec and Pjpeg are very close to each other Cineform mostly closely matched the AVCHD image. And when checking the results with histogram the Cineform file looked smooth as baby butter. For matters of convenience I opted for AIC anyway for the Closing Time gig as I'm fairly certain it will never go beyond vimeo. If it does I can fairly quickly redo it in Cineform anyway as then I would spend a whole lot more time on colour correcting it.


No lossless codec or uncompressed codec is truly lossless.

True but just for kicks I've once re-rendered a QT Animation file one hundred times and not a pixel was different. I'm not the only one who comes to this conclusion. Check out Marco Solario's codec page - it's a pity he hasn't added newer codecs in a long while. http://www.onerivermedia.com/codecs/ Check the 4:4:4 tab.


This is one thing I've always been annoyed with as far as Apple and Post goes: it's like it refuses to give you accurate contrast in your image.

That's why I like old codecs like Animation and PhotoJPEG, they don't have support and metatags for 'colour management', ie; some software designer who thinks he can pre-cognitively outsmart my system and workflow setup without letting me in on it.

Kholi
06-23-2009, 02:03 PM
That's why I like old codecs like Animation and PhotoJPEG, they don't have support and metatags for 'colour management', ie; some software designer who thinks he can pre-cognitively outsmart my system and workflow setup without letting me in on it.

I was told this same thing by a longtime FCP guru, to render EVERYTHING out in Animation if you can. He also hates, with a passion, that P2 footage has to go through ProRes to get to FCP. For those reasons he almost quit FCP in general because it's a forceplay to an image that's not at it's best.

Barry's right about FCP, man... it's old hat in general. There are so many other options for AVC-HD and especially AVC-INTRA, working natively so you've no worry about what this codec or that compression scheme is doing.

Sigh, alas, it's also very hard to get away from FCP. =(

cowpunk52
06-23-2009, 02:05 PM
Those don't look the same to me. The ProRes looks like it has more contrast. Look at the shadows in her face. The uncompressed image looks smoother. The color looks different too. More neutral and natural in the uncompressed. It's ever so slight and if I couldn't see them side by side I never would notice. Have to disagree with you there. Took both stills, opened them in photoshop, then put them in separate layers on top of each other. Turning the top layer on and off results in no visible difference between the two images. And the histograms only show the minutest differences. For all practical purposes, they are perceptually identical.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/briancweed/histograms.jpg

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 02:09 PM
True but just for kicks I've once re-rendered a QT Animation file one hundred times and not a pixel was different. I'm not the only one who comes to this conclusion. Check out Marco Solario's codec page - it's a pity he hasn't added newer codecs in a long while. http://www.onerivermedia.com/codecs/ Check the 4:4:4 tab.


I will admit I haven't worked that much with Quicktime Animation codec. I'll have to try it out. If it's such a great codec why isn't there a lot of talk about using it more? Does it work real time in FCP? Does it work with Color? Any reason why you would want to use it, aside from file size? I'm not concerned about file size. Hard drives are cheap these days.

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 02:13 PM
Have to disagree with you there. Took both stills, opened them in photoshop, then put them in separate layers on top of each other. Turning the top layer on and off results in no visible difference between the two images. And the histograms only show the minutest differences. For all practical purposes, they are perceptually identical.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/briancweed/histograms.jpg

Look closely at those histograms. There are differences. They are slight, but there are differences.

EDIT: And like a side, if I couldn't look at them side by side I wouldn't have noticed, but I do see a difference and from Kholi's response it sounds like I'm not the only one.

androoow
06-23-2009, 04:08 PM
i take it all images on this page have been converted to jpg then uploaded... shouldn't you be putting the original still image files through photoshop to reach conclusions?? wouldn't compressing the files into jpg's do away with any important tech information?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 04:19 PM
I gave links to the png's right out of QT above my jpegs.
Because that's how I role.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 04:20 PM
Here's how I got my images:
MTS -> Cineform or ProRes via NeoScene -> pct via QT -> jpeg via preview (but JPEG and Png are posted)
Maybe NeoScene doesn't reconstruct the chroma as well with ProRes?

Ian-T
06-23-2009, 05:00 PM
Yes, the histograms are definitely different. Prores shows that it is an ever-so-slight more contrasty (or really more in the lower end).

squig
06-23-2009, 05:16 PM
Yup. The color's differences are probably a direct effect of the contrast shift. This is one thing I've always been annoyed with as far as Apple and Post goes: it's like it refuses to give you accurate contrast in your image.

Didn't apple address this in the latest quicktime update?

the cineform looks better but you can't import it into color :cry:

FCS3 isn't far away

Mike@AF
06-23-2009, 07:11 PM
No. But hopefully that fix will be part of QuickTime X.

Ken7
06-23-2009, 07:43 PM
Guys, I've got a question that's really bugging me! I've seen many clips shot at 1080p on this cam that seem to show motion very smoothly. I just received my GH1 today and I just don't get that same fluid motion at 1080p..at least when displayed on my Pioneer Kuro plasma. I do get the expected fluid motion at 720p though.

Is there some setting I'm overlooking? I can't see how since the frame rate is 24p and should not be as smooth as some of these clips I've seen. Other than that the camera is superb!

Just as an example of one of those fluid 1080p clips:

http://vimeo.com/5243537

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-23-2009, 09:23 PM
Ken how are you removing pulldown?

Isaac_Brody
06-23-2009, 09:34 PM
And post a clip if you can, if you pan too fast or are shooting with too high of a shutterspeed you're not going to get smooth movements.

pailes
06-24-2009, 02:00 AM
Look closely at those histograms. There are differences. They are slight, but there are differences.

EDIT: And like a side, if I couldn't look at them side by side I wouldn't have noticed, but I do see a difference and from Kholi's response it sounds like I'm not the only one.

Sorry but this is an illusion. You can place those two still images on a timeline and toggle between them like a hundred times and you will not see any difference in contrast. Even if the histograms show slightest differences it doesn't mean it would turn out that dramatically in the final image.

If ProRes would alter color/contrast in a visible way it would be almost useless for practical use.

Ken7
06-24-2009, 04:15 AM
Ken how are you removing pulldown?

No Jack, not removing pulldown at all, played either straight from the camera or by taking the chip and placing it in a PS3 and playing it directly to my plasma that way. In both cases it's straight HDMI out...no editing. Are you saying that posted 1080p clips would also have stutter if they were native clips straight from the cam?

To address Isaac's post, the clip I posted showed very significant motion on the train as the guy was shooting. So it doesn't seem to be a case of 'too rapid motion'. I tend to pan slowly, but whenever there's a subject with significant movement (car, etc.) you can see the stutter.

So does that mean if you do remove pulldown (something I've never done in my editing program, since I've never had a need to), you can get smooth motion from 24p?

Ian-T
06-24-2009, 06:09 AM
So does that mean if you do remove pulldown (something I've never done in my editing program, since I've never had a need to), you can get smooth motion from 24p?Yes.

Schmoe
06-24-2009, 07:28 AM
As long as this thread has turned into a "which intermediate codec is best" discussion, let me just throw in:

If you like to do complex sound editing in Audition 2 or 3 - Cineform won't work. You get no video preview. And things aren't much better in (the vastly inferior) Adobe Soundbooth, where Cineform codec files will play about 3 frames before video freezes and stops updating.

So far, Cineform is the only codec I've ever encountered this with.

Ken7
06-24-2009, 08:41 AM
Has anyone done pulldown in Edius Pro? I've used if for years, but have never done it.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-24-2009, 08:51 AM
There's two things you have to do. 1) Pulldown, and 2) make sure whatever method you're using is also properly reconstructing the interlaced chroma, this is where software like Voltaic and NeoScene come in handy. I don't fully grasp the chroma reconstruction - maybe Isaac or Barry will pop in and enlighten us.

Ken7
06-24-2009, 09:10 AM
Thanks Jack. Now only to find where the 'pulldown' option in Edius is located. Does an option like this tend to go under other names in different editing programs?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-24-2009, 09:15 AM
Reverse Telecine.
Pulldown Method.
Advanced Pulldown Method.

jpsheets
06-24-2009, 08:15 PM
Wow, this footage looks great. I was all ready to get me an HPX and use my M2, but this little camera's footage just looks better imho. And I can get rid of that clunky M2 adapter. Thanks for doing this test Jack, we all really appreciate it.

best,
JP

PappasArts
06-24-2009, 09:04 PM
Basically I shoemounted a GH1 atop a HPX 170, went to an intersection and taped cars crossing (it was just after a speed bump so they're going 10 miles an hour or so). Anway the idea with taping cars crossing the frame is that they move at a constant speed and any breaks in cadence or jerkiness will show.

The results of the test are interesting and it was surprising how the GH1 image held up and in many ways surpassed the 170 for a locked down early evening shot.



So will have that up today (Wednesday) then hopefully get back to finishing the short / implementing the new conversion methods I've learned.




Jack where did you post these tests you did of the GH1 on top of the HPX 170?



.

John Caballero
06-24-2009, 09:09 PM
I would like to know about how Edius deals with pulldown and with dropping 720p60 on a 24p line also.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-24-2009, 10:08 PM
Jack where did you post these tests you did of the GH1 on top of the HPX 170?



.
hope to finish up the cut / post the results tonight.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-24-2009, 10:10 PM
I would like to know about how Edius deals with pulldown and with dropping 720p60 on a 24p line also.
I'm clueless about Edius. Maybe Isaac or Barry can help.

DEPTH OF PHIL
06-24-2009, 10:14 PM
WOW, that looks fantastic, great work .
How did you handhold it , pull focus etc...
Cheers

PappasArts
06-24-2009, 10:16 PM
hope to finish up the cut / post the results tonight.

Awesome!


.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-25-2009, 12:02 AM
WOW, that looks fantastic, great work .
How did you handhold it , pull focus etc...
Cheers

Heh, thanks very much but I think you are too kind. And this is high praise coming from you.

It's not as polished as its coming off I think - basically we tried to control the DOF and for the shots where they are charging the camera we cut just before or just after it goes out of focus. Also it's crazy action so going a bit soft right before a cut is OK for example, maybe adds to it.

It's just the stock lens. We were afraid to trust auto focus, we set the focus as best we could before each scene.

The only gear we used was the Spider Brace
http://www.spiderbrace.com/
Perfect for such a light camera, a real joy actually. Takes your wrists out of the equation and makes you pivot at the waist to pan so you operate more like with a film camera. It's like holding air.



Awesome!


.
Hey sorrt Pappas, I'm beat. Will take me twice as long to do it now as if I start fresh tomorrow. It's quite detailed and organized though. Hopefully the effort that went into it / is causing the delay will be apparent - then it'll be time to get back to finishing the fun stuff - the fight. But since we leaped before looking on this one (which was the point, get in their and learn from mistakes - total budget was $8), I needed to do the frame rate conversion tests with teh GH1 on top of the 170 in order to figure out my post processes with the fight scene based on the way I shot.

Miñana gents.

PappasArts
06-25-2009, 12:13 AM
Hey sorrt Pappas, I'm beat. Will take me twice as long to do it now as if I start fresh tomorrow. It's quite detailed and organized though. Hopefully the effort that went into it / is causing the delay will be apparent - then it'll be time to get back to finishing the fun stuff - the fight. But since we leaped before looking on this one (which was the point, get in their and learn from mistakes - total budget was $8), I needed to do the frame rate conversion tests with teh GH1 on top of the 170 in order to figure out my post processes with the fight scene based on the way I shot.

Miñana gents.


I know the feeling Jack; can't blame you. Sleep is more important then the test results at midnight anyhow.

Lights out!

.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-25-2009, 12:24 AM
Midnight for you. 2 Am for Me.
A little E.C. Comics Anthology Archive to unwind and then sleep ;)
http://overlookconnection.com/images/ShockSuspenseVol1HC.JPG

PappasArts
06-25-2009, 01:30 AM
Midnight for you. 2 Am for Me.
A little E.C. Comics Anthology Archive to unwind and then sleep ;)
http://overlookconnection.com/images/ShockSuspenseVol1HC.JPG


Hell yeah E.C.!

Fodder for dreams & nightmares........ :-E


http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d94/PappasArts/tftclandlord.jpg

"" And in the morning ""......... Pulldowns & codecs!


.

DEPTH OF PHIL
06-25-2009, 01:44 AM
Heh, thanks very much but I think you are too kind. And this is high praise coming from you. It's not as polished as its coming off I think
It's just the stock lens.


Mate, thanks for your gracious reply, but don't under estimate your talent , especially if you shot it with stock lens and focus, i'm even more impressed.
This made us realize the "professional potential "of the GH1 in broadcast use and there are a lot of GH1 clips out there. Hats off!

Look forward to the finished piece.

Cheers,

PappasArts
06-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Has the GH1 mounting the HPX170 video been posted yet?


.

danny dale
06-27-2009, 07:19 AM
Has the GH1 mounting the HPX170 video been posted yet?


.

yes, been waiting for that test.

btw, anyone else having trouble with this site?... seems it's been going down often.

Ken7
06-27-2009, 09:23 AM
Yes, the last couple of days it's down more than it's up.

PappasArts
06-28-2009, 12:15 PM
Will take me twice as long to do it now as if I start fresh tomorrow. It's quite detailed and organized though. Hopefully the effort that went into it / is causing the delay will be apparent - then it'll be time to get back to finishing the fun stuff - the fight. But since we leaped before looking on this one (which was the point, get in their and learn from mistakes - total budget was $8), I needed to do the frame rate conversion tests with teh GH1 on top of the 170 in order to figure out my post processes with the fight scene based on the way I shot.

Miñana gents.



Jack is this GH1 on top of the 170 test ready yet?


.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:59 AM
Test up!
thanks for your patience all.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175852
:beer:

PappasArts
06-29-2009, 11:57 AM
Test up!
thanks for your patience all.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175852
:beer:


Thanks Jack, very much appreciated! :-)

.

danny dale
06-29-2009, 01:15 PM
Test up!
thanks for your patience all.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175852
:beer:

very cool... thanx for getting this up!

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 04:54 PM
Posted this in the "Should I" thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175708
which is now discussing support of the GH1, particularly the Spiderbrace.

Anyway, my friend Cherdon took 100's of pictures and looking through them to bring to the Spiderbrace discussion, I was reminded how much fun the pics were / we had shooting this thing and wanted to share them with you here.


hmm i see even if a gh1 would look weird on a spiderbrace i guess what you say makes sense


PS:.... it still would look weird


Lol. Not so weird. Should have thought of this before.
Co-DP on the action short DVXuser Brandon Boggs with Spiderbrace.
http://humblebee.smugmug.com/photos/565616517_dKgRD-S.jpg

http://humblebee.smugmug.com/photos/565620417_J3C7D-S.jpg

Me on what's been described as "Monkey Cam" (with Spiderbrace)
http://humblebee.smugmug.com/photos/565640862_sA45r-M.jpg

DVXuser Drew Ott on Steadicam
http://humblebee.smugmug.com/photos/565638331_7oEzW-S.jpg http://humblebee.smugmug.com/photos/565639827_6DmDJ-S.jpg

Just for fun;
http://humblebee.smugmug.com/photos/565645012_naMg5-M.jpg

Photos by H. Cherdon Bedford.
Gallery At:
http://humblebee.smugmug.com/gallery/8581699_cUZeZ

Steve Dave
06-29-2009, 07:06 PM
just wondering how many cameras did u have to film this short

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 09:28 PM
Just the one. It would be evil to have two when so many are waiting on theirs. As I mentioned on the previous page, I'm actually sharing mine with Barry Green who's violating it with a barrage of tests as we speak. So having withdrawal.

stephenvv
06-30-2009, 08:20 AM
Just the one. It would be evil to have two when so many are waiting on theirs. As I mentioned on the previous page, I'm actually sharing mine with Barry Green who's violating it with a barrage of tests as we speak. So having withdrawal.

BG testing - I look forward to that - any word on when we can expect some info?

Abstract Photog
07-01-2009, 01:14 AM
great job with this! fun to watch, well shot, well directed, well edited.
between this and your extensive comparison and conversion test with HPX 170,
youv just about covered all bases with the GH1.

diggin the production stills too. this must have been a blast to shoot!
ok now, back to reading through the rest of the thread...

Matthew Bennett
07-01-2009, 11:46 AM
RULES~!!!
Way to 'use the world as your set.."

Jack Daniel Stanley
07-29-2009, 09:03 PM
FINISHED!
(more or less. Here's a beginning, middle, end rough cut with some slapdash color grading)
GH1 ACTION FIGHT SCENE FIELD TEST
"MACHETE vs. PIPE"
"complete short"
http://vimeo.com/5656943 (http://vimeo.com/5656943)
will tweak / update later.

the original partial version with raw footage and frame rate info is still available in first post

Mike@AF
07-29-2009, 10:23 PM
Awesome!

Boz
07-30-2009, 10:31 AM
Nice work, Jack! Now that you've learned so much about conversions (and graciously shared them with us), are you planning to shoot a true 24P project?

AdrianF
07-30-2009, 02:46 PM
Great shot and stunt at the end. Have really enjoyed these posts on the making of this, it should inspire everybody to just go out there and shoot.

jpsheets
07-30-2009, 02:56 PM
Great stuff Jack! Even with vimeo compression it looks darn good to me. Gonna have to get me on these GH1's!

Jack Daniel Stanley
07-30-2009, 03:47 PM
Thanks Mike & Jonathan
:beer:


Nice work, Jack! Now that you've learned so much about conversions (and graciously shared them with us), are you planning to shoot a true 24P project?
Already did :) Almost entirely 24p and almost already all in the can (one scene to reshoot and a couple of pickup shots)
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/707/shadyarticlecrop.jpg (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=178936)

(MORE and FULL ARTICLE IN USER FILM THREAD) (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=178936)


Great shot and stunt at the end. Have really enjoyed these posts on the making of this, it should inspire everybody to just go out there and shoot.

Thanks Adrian. That's the idea hopefully.

I have to get to updating workflow info. Basically I wound up preferring drop frame telecine (drag and drop 60p onto 24p timeline) for frenetic motion. I'm doing a slight variation but it's basically drag and drop.

For subjects that should be moving super smooth - like the cars in the frame rate test - use one of the interpolation or frame blending methods in the frame rate conversion tutorial.

But for frenetic motion, like a guy waving his arms wildly and running around a corner, drop frame is better. Why? Because his hands turn into all sorts of weird Dali painting type hands with interpolation or double frames if you use frame blending. Also since the motion is irregular, drops in the cadence will be much harder to notice than with a smooth gliding car.

So for non glass smooth moving subjects the 60p dropped onto a 24p timeline is smooth enough and has none of the weird abstract frames that can occur on such movement with interpolation and none of the double framing from frame blending. Again, if it's a car or a skateboarder or a canoe, use interpolation or frame blending. 2 reasons. 1 this is where cadence breaks will show and 2 interpolation is based on guessing what happens between frames. For a constant speed object it does well. For Elaine (from Seinfeld) dancing, an epileptic fit, or any other irregular movement, use drag and drop or my slightly modified method.

... ok so what is my modified method - well I'm not sure it's doing anything different than drag and drop and if it is I'm not sure what but it I THINK it looks smoother. Basically I'm slowing the 60p down (conforming to 24p) then speeding it back up to 24p but with no interpolation or frame blending. This means it has to drop frames just like dragging it onto the 24p timeline without ever changing it's speed in the first place - but which frames. I think different frames with a more regular cadence when I do the slow down, then speed up. But I could be totally imagining this. I have a test in mind that should show which frames are being dropped. Who knows when I'll get to it though.

Boz
07-30-2009, 10:49 PM
Thanks Mike & Jonathan
:beer:

Already did :) Almost entirely 24p and almost already all in the can (one scene to reshoot and a couple of pickup shots)

Wow! That's super cool. I can't wait to see BTS and footage!



I have to get to updating workflow info. Basically I wound up preferring drop frame telecine (drag and drop 60p onto 24p timeline) for frenetic motion. I'm doing a slight variation but it's basically drag and drop.

For subjects that should be moving super smooth - like the cars in the frame rate test - use one of the interpolation or frame blending methods in the frame rate conversion tutorial.

But for frenetic motion, like a guy waving his arms wildly and running around a corner, drop frame is better. Why? Because his hands turn into all sorts of weird Dali painting type hands with interpolation or double frames if you use frame blending. Also since the motion is irregular, drops in the cadence will be much harder to notice than with a smooth gliding car.

So for non glass smooth moving subjects the 60p dropped onto a 24p timeline is smooth enough and has none of the weird abstract frames that can occur on such movement with interpolation and none of the double framing from frame blending. Again, if it's a car or a skateboarder or a canoe, use interpolation or frame blending. 2 reasons. 1 this is where cadence breaks will show and 2 interpolation is based on guessing what happens between frames. For a constant speed object it does well. For Elaine (from Seinfeld) dancing, an epileptic fit, or any other irregular movement, use drag and drop or my slightly modified method.


Thanks for the breakdown. Given what I've seen from your tests your methodology makes perfect sense. I had a much cruder methodolgy in mind, but I think I'll adopt yours. One question though, just to be clear, you're shooting your 60P for 24P stuff at 1/60 shutter?

Jack Daniel Stanley
07-30-2009, 10:56 PM
Well I should have been shooting 60p with a 1/60th shutter but I messed up and shot 1/50th. Which forces the camera into a hacked 30fps in a 60p wrapper. So this is as jerky as things should get. If you stay at 1/60th or above it will be smoother. I did it wrong in other words. The short is AVCHD 60p (hacked to 30p in a 60p wrapper, or double frames in other words) and MJPEG 30p mixed together on a 24p timeline. The only AVCHD 1080 24p is the family in the courtyard.

Martti Ekstrand
07-31-2009, 03:01 PM
Well I should have been shooting 60p with a 1/160th shutter.

Shirley you mean a 1/60 shutter.

Great to see the finished rough cut. Awesome job, from all involved!

Jack Daniel Stanley
07-31-2009, 07:32 PM
D'oh. Yes. I meant 1/60. Corrected above.

Steve Dave
08-01-2009, 12:22 AM
hey i saw the first half like a month ago and i was always wondering how this would end.
looks like a pipe just doesnt compare to a machete ;)
lol i really like this short it was cool
but there was some jello but i guess thats something you should expect from a small dslr camera

Jack Daniel Stanley
08-01-2009, 09:25 AM
...
but there was some jello but i guess thats something you should expect from a small dslr camera
For cereal? Where? In the whip pan?

Let me know where you're seeing jello other than the whip pan, because I don't see any. It's is very minimal with the cam. General consensus goes D90 (worst), MII (better), then GH1 and Red are about the same level of Jello, which is almost none.

Ian-T
08-01-2009, 03:39 PM
Yeah, let me know too because I didn't see it.

Jack Daniel Stanley
11-28-2009, 10:34 PM
BTW. Final version of this is done:
New TITLE
FILERO GRAND vs. PIPA CHICA
(first post updated as well)
7073011

Martti Ekstrand
11-28-2009, 11:49 PM
Coolio! Great music and I love the look of the new titles.

Jack Daniel Stanley
11-28-2009, 11:57 PM
Thanks. The music is Herman Witkam.

Noel Evans
11-29-2009, 12:42 AM
Thats fucking great!!!