PDA

View Full Version : GH1 looking very much like cheap Video



colna
07-13-2009, 02:24 PM
Hi,

I have a GH1 since one week. I bought it cause I really enjoyed working with the Mark2 (which I rented for a DVD production) and a want to enjoy the benefits of a big sensor and a real shallow DOF. What we did with the Mark2 was just a little bit too much, it is nearly impossible working with it on a "run and gun" shooting, you need a lot of time for working out the sharpness - especially if the camera is moving.
So I thought the GH1 should be a good compromise - changeable lens, sensor smaller then Mark2 but still MUCH bigger then my XHA1 (which I really enjoy working with)- and much cheaper.
I watched a lot of footage on Vimeo and stuff you can download and I really liked what I saw. I read a lot of what is writen in this forum and I was quite enthusiastic when I decided to buy the camera. Now I am disapointed. I tried a lot, but the picture is extreamly looking like real cheap video - much too sharp, having this very "technical" atmosphere- I tried the different movie settings, I tried 1080i and 720p50, with a kit lens and with a 28mm Canon FD (2,8) I use FCP 6.0.6 and Prores.
I saw a lot of very good stuff but it has nothing to do with what comes out of my camera. And I also have a big problem with higher ISO. I have really a lot of banding and those vertical lines (already discussed in other threads - but mine donīt vanish.)

I hope it is my mistake. What makes all your examples so very smooth. (I mean except making everything blurry)

Thanks
(and sorry for my bad english)

colna

Spartacus
07-13-2009, 02:33 PM
Maybe you post some footage first, so people can see, what you are refering to...

PappasArts
07-13-2009, 02:48 PM
LOL, cheap video..

I guess you have never used a cheap video camera before.. Such BS!

Prove it with your footage; plenty of free ( vimeo- youtube ) sites to share HD clips you have.

Until then your assertion that can be pretty well challenged by a flurry of very good footage is 99.99% unsubstantiated and irrelevant IMO due to that very fact.

Though it may not be, your post feels like a stinky FUD bomb........


Why is it; posts that feel like "FUD" always come from 1st ( in this case 3rd ) timer newly joined members....? Hmmmm




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
****Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84
Facebook & Myspace:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com

PhilD
07-13-2009, 03:06 PM
I agree with you on the banding issue, I almost returned my GH1 because of that.

Almost.

Ben_B
07-13-2009, 03:07 PM
Shallow DOF on the kit lens zoomed all the way in, using the GH1's big sensor should almost never look like "cheap video." Maybe you should work on your shooting style? That said I'll buy your GH1 if you want (wait...PAL..nevermind.)

Anyway here's something that always helps..3 words: Magic Bullet Looks.

Ihr Englisch ist doch sehr gut!

Martti Ekstrand
07-13-2009, 04:49 PM
If I'd venture a guess without having seen any thing you've shot you haven't gotten neutral density (ND) filters for outdoor shooting so you can't keep the shutter speed at 1/50. Short shutter times can indeed make any cam including $500.000 35mm movie cameras look like 'cheap video'.

Ben_B
07-13-2009, 04:52 PM
Agree on shutter thing although we shot an action short on HVX (letus and nikon primes) this weekend at 720p60 with a 1/120 shutter and did reverse telecine to 24p. Looks freaking amazing.

herminiocordido
07-13-2009, 06:12 PM
1/120 is not too short... 1/300 and above is pretty short

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-13-2009, 09:12 PM
Hi colna: How does your GH1 video look when played back straight from the camera via HDMI on a good full-HD HDTV? Not on a computer, a HDTV.

Forget Final Cut, editing & post-processing software for now. It should be possible to make nice-looking video with a GH1 alone. Especially when you're trying to troubleshoot, reducing the number of variables should help.

For run & gun, start with 720p instead of 1080p. Again, just to keep things simpler.

Do some more test shoots. For example, can you shoot video that looks like this? (I believe this was only very lightly post-processed.)
http://www.joe-shaw.co.uk/?p=341

Here are some good tips:
http://www.hotrodcameras.com/category/tips-and-tricks/

Let us know what you discover.

pailes
07-14-2009, 04:35 AM
Why is it; posts that feel like "FUD" always come from 1st ( in this case 3rd ) timer newly joined members....? Hmmmm
Maybe because he joined in here looking for help?

Stop replying with your conspiracy theories, lend the people a helping hand instead. I hardly doubt people join here just to slam the GH1.

Ozpeter
07-14-2009, 05:05 AM
Interesting links above. The Thames Barrier short is simply photos that move - no panning, no zooming, tripod mounted throughout. And nothing wrong with that. The use of music strongly affects one's perception of it - you'd get quite a different experience with ambient sound. A great many such shorts posted from the GH1 pull that trick - in essence, back to the days of silent movies (and there were some great silent movies, of course!).

Ken7
07-14-2009, 06:46 AM
I think part of colna's problem is coming from a typical camcorder video world. He's been using a Canon XHA1 that's not unlike my Sony Z5. It's the same video world I come from and I think he's having some of the same 'adjustment issues' I'm having.

There's no argument that using a camera like the Z5 or XHA1 is easier for many tasks and for many 'run & gun' type projects. The GH1 presents a different image that requires more care. If you're used to shooting HDV in typical 60i settings, the motion of the GH1's 1080 can be quite disconcerting.

I've found that this group tends to be quite comfortable with 24p and that may be why some (like me) coming from the 29.97/60i world, are having some adjustments to make.

However, with that said, I think using 720p should bring about results that are far less alien to colna than 1080 24p and still have a good chance of still bringing superior video relative to his XHA1.

nobbystylus
07-14-2009, 08:23 AM
First time poster here.

I've been weighing up the GH1 for ages now, checking everything posted on Vimeo/Youtube and everything talked of here.

From the footage i've seen that looks very much more filmic, people are using prime lenses with adaptors, (such as the Canon FD 1.4) to get shallower focus than the kit lens, and a softer image, using the built in 'smooth' film mode, plus dialling down contrast and sharpness down -2. Also, clearly using ND filters or Grads to keep the shutter @ 1/50th and lens wide open will help.

a good example is this stuff

http://www.vimeo.com/5033677

A lot of the other wide shots i've seen from this camera (apart from the stuff in Matzeb's lovely little film) don't look so cinematic, but again might be to do with the default settings being quite oversharp and over contrasty.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-14-2009, 08:54 AM
One of my favorite GH1 videos:
http://www.vimeo.com/4570763

It's completely different from Joe Shaw's video (the link I posted earlier).

Meawk's video is so silly, the LensBaby tilt-shift effect is fun, and the girl is so embarrassed & not into it (and kinda cute).

It looks like the video's pulldown isn't handled correctly, and it's hand-held & jerky, but I like it anyway. It comes across as innocent and unrehearsed. Refreshing.

colna
07-14-2009, 02:01 PM
Sorry, it took some time, but I am in the discussion again.
It is absolutly not my intention to get the GH1 down. In contrary, I want to find out how to get to these fabulous experiences. One reason might be the tripod, music and even more important - slow motion!
But if you look at the picture as it comes out of the camera, it has this hard, very sharp (too sharp) look of video (okayokay its not cheap video).

A reason for a better look might be a very good DF - but you can give an iPhone to Mr. Bloom and we will make good pictures with it. But what about those normal everyday runandgun shooters like me? Maybe the GH1 is not the tool we need?
And what we see is most of the time in vimeo - after encoding the picture always becomes smooth and nice.

What can I do?
First: Its not diffcult to get a soft image with a shallow DOF by going miles away from your background and use the tele. I am doing this with my XH, if I have the space. What I want from the GH1 is a shallow DOF when I am close to my objects! This can be solved by primes? I am using a 28mm 2,8. There are better ones, but it should work - and it does - only this hard, very sharp technical look is still there.
Second: I am using ND filtes and a Soft FX - doesnīt change much.
Third: I canīt try HDMI playback, cause I donīt have a full HD HDTV Screen. And my customers donīt have one either. Most of the people use SD DVD and thats what I am looking for.
And I am only using 720p (PAL) because I had a lot of problems with 1080i

Yes I am coming from the video world and I want to leave it (just as everybody in here looking for the "film look"). The GH1 seems to be a solution affordable for people like me - but it still looks like video.

Okay, enough of that.

I put two clips on my me.com account

1. Is 24 MB and Apple Intermediate but half size (640 x 360).
Look at the people and look at the ship. (It is all done with shutter 50)

http://files.me.com/region2/gystg0.mov

2. Is 64 MB and ProRes Full size, with Canon FD 28mm 2,8.
(This one is really bad.) (Text at the end doesnīt belong here!)

http://files.me.com/region2/hhfaat.mov

Lets assume Mr PappasArts is totaly right and I am totaly wrong. That means I make a mistake while shooting. Any ideas?

So I am off for shooting for two days (yes, with the GH1). And Friday is the last day for me to give it back to the seller. Donīt know yet...

Thanks a lot

colna

PS This video from Berlin was initial for me to buy the GH1

mikeydvx
07-14-2009, 03:01 PM
One of my favorite GH1 videos:
http://www.vimeo.com/4570763

It's completely different from Joe Shaw's video (the link I posted earlier).

Meawk's video is so silly, the LensBaby tilt-shift effect is fun, and the girl is so embarrassed & not into it (and kinda cute).

It looks like the video's pulldown isn't handled correctly, and it's hand-held & jerky, but I like it anyway. It comes across as innocent and unrehearsed. Refreshing.

Wow! I get motion sickness just looking at that... it's like a bad trip on drugs or something. ;) Seriously, I don't care for that at all! I appreciate that people have different tastes though. Glad you like it.

Hey, could someone explain why a 1/50 or 1/60 shutter would look so much better than say 1/300 and why 1/300 would look like "cheap video". Not understanding why the shutter would matter much.

Mike

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-14-2009, 03:17 PM
Wow! I get motion sickness just looking at that... it's like a bad trip on drugs or something. ;) Seriously, I don't care for that at all! I appreciate that people have different tastes though. Glad you like it. ...

Hi MikeyDVX: I have pretty wide-ranging tastes, what can I say. :cheesy:

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-14-2009, 03:25 PM
... Hey, could someone explain why a 1/50 or 1/60 shutter would look so much better than say 1/300 and why 1/300 would look like "cheap video". Not understanding why the shutter would matter much.

Consumer video cams (and some prosumer cams running in auto mode) can automagically set their shutter speed quite high as they adjust exposure.

The resulting "look" is one of many possible characteristics of what one might call a "cheap video" look.

kenn michael
07-14-2009, 03:59 PM
Colna...

Both your clips are at 50fps. Are you looking for the film look - because you'd want to get those clips to 24fps (or in your case 25fps). That's probably responsible for a lot of the 'video look'.

mkeep
07-14-2009, 04:00 PM
First of all, both of your clips are at 50fps. Try 24fps maybe. But I agree that they area both overly sharp and contrasty.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-14-2009, 04:17 PM
Hi Colna: The 2 video clips you posted are very, very different from the example of the "Carnival of Cultures 2009 Berlin" street festival -- for a whole lot of reasons which I don't think for the most part are because of which camera was used.

Also, comparing the GH1 to cameras which cost several times more: What's the point? One would expect very differently priced gear to have very different capabilities -- perhaps they have some things in common, but why wouldn't they be mostly different? Apples & oranges.

Most of the Berlin street festival video appears to have been shot when the sun was very low in the sky. This alone gives that video a very different emotional and visual feel compared to the 2 examples you posted. For example, in the festival video the warm-colored sun back-lights & flares through people's hair and makes their skin glow -- it's called magic hour. The way it looks _feels_ good. That's just one important difference between the street festival video and yours -- just the fact that the street festival video's DP made good use of the light available at that time of day.

It's hard for me to evaluate the brief clips you posted because they're either so unsteady or out of focus or both -- yet you're asking us why your footage doesn't look like "pro video"? I'm avoiding using the "cheap video" phrase here to keep things positive. :cheesy:

There are limitless ways to shoot any scene, but I would have either shot the big ship with the cam on a tripod (so the ship doesn't bounce around in the frame), or shoot it hand-held at a "Dutch" angle -- to either have a perfectly horizontal horizon & let the ship glide by, or shoot it shaky & skewed for "story" reasons. Other than that, the non-motion aspects of your ship video aren't horrible to my eyes, but maybe the cam's detail settings can be dialed down a bit if that's part of the look your after.

As for your 2nd clip, the one of the pan across the flowers: To my taste the motion distracts from the non-motion aspects of the clip. The pan is way too fast to "see" the flowers -- and the intermediate-speed pan isn't helpful for video compression throughout the production process, either. During the pan the lens isn't focused on the flowers in the foreground, which I find distracting. The horizon is smack down the middle, often not a good choice. During the pan the flowers are under exposed, and the only other "subject" in the frame during the pan is the blown-out sky. So again, my eyes go "bleah". :shocked:

At the end of the 2nd clip the focus changes at bit more in favor of the flowers, but the camera is shaking so much I don't have a chance to say to myself "oh, pretty flowers!". Instead it feels like "nothing to see here, move along!".

You asked why your _GH1_ video doesn't look "pro", but gave us footage that shows very little of how you're using the _camera_. Instead it mostly shows how you're using camera motion, composition, lighting, framing, and so forth. If you shot these same scenes using a diferent camera I'd probably feel the same way.

I'm not sure if my comments are what you're looking for. I'm definitely not trying to give you a hard time or make excuses for the GH1. Just trying to help. If this wasn't what you were looking for, please advise.

Ben_B
07-14-2009, 08:02 PM
If you want shallow DOF pretty close to your subject pick up a faster lens, like a 50mm f1.4.

colna
07-14-2009, 10:55 PM
Hi Peter,

thank you very much for your long an detailed reply.

You are quite right with your comments about my footage. It is shaking but it reperesents very good what I am trying to say.

First of all: The DP of the Berlin video has best circumstances (light, atmosphere). But if you go out to do a job, how often do you find things perfect? 10% should be a lot. So you need a cam that works well even when the light is not perfectly 33min before sundown.
Second: I am quite sure, that if you take colorcorrection and the slow motion and the encoding for vimeo away, you will find the same structure of the picture I am talking about. The sharp parts are too sharp, looking somehow technical!
Its very strong in my example with the flowers. Thats why I decided to post it here.
ALso with the boat (by the way its the River Rhine ;-) ). Forget about the shaking, step back and look at the structure, at the borders of things. It does look like video. And I donīt aim to have pro-video, I think that is what I can have with the GH1 using better lenses and a tripod. But I want more!

Okay, maybe the solution is - that is what you can do with this camera. And its is very much for the money you have to spend! But the limitations are still to high (for me).

I am off for a production and I will post some pictures on friday - made with tripod then.

Thank you again

colna

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-15-2009, 11:05 AM
Hi Colna: Apologies in advance for the long post ...

I may be misunderstanding what you mean, but in my opinion it's unrealistic to expect the GH1, a $1,500 video camera -- actually, a camera which costs less than half that amount, plus the cost of the kit lens -- to produce footage which looks like well-shot, high-quality motion picture film.

The GH1 produces motion pictures which look like video because it's a video camera. And a relatively inexpensive one, too. It's not a film camera. Simple as that.

Highly skilled top-of-their-game motion picture production professionals struggle mightily to make multi-hundred-thousand-dollar digital cinema video cameras produce output which looks like well-shot motion picture film. At least half the time they don't fully succeed. Why? Because video and film are _different_.

I'm not saying it's impossible to produce GH1 video which exhibits _some_ characteristics of motion picture film.

With appropriate lens technique (and, depending on circumstances, using a fast lens other than the kit lens) one can shoot GH1 video with depth of field very similar to 35mm motion picture film.

Shooting at 1080p24 NTSC or 1080p25 PAL -- or 720p60 NTSC or 720p50 PAL converted to 24p/25p -- one can create GH1 video which has the identical frame rate and motion characteristics as motion picture film when using the same shutter speed settings.

You can use the same brands & models of optical filters in front of a GH1's lens and get virtually identical optical filtration effects in its video as you can using them with a motion picture camera, lens & film. One needs to do tests to determine which strength filter is appropriate for your needs, and this is true for both the GH1 & film.

You can use the exact same camera stabilization techniques and equipment with a GH1 as you can with a motion picture camera & film, and get the exact same benefits.

Leaving aside for the moment the infinite range of processes you can apply to both video and film footage in post-production, the above are things the GH1 has in common with film.

But film typically has much, much more dynamic range than video cameras. The GH1 has pretty good dynamic range for its price, but it's nowhere close to film's dynamic range.

Film also typically has much, much more resolution than video cameras. Again, for it's price the GH1's video resolution is pretty good, but it's nowhere close to 35mm motion picture film resolution.

Because of the way video cameras create images the video they produce tends to suffer from aliasing & moire artifacts. GH1 video can exhibit this, too. No surprise there; it's a relatively inexpensive video camera. Sometimes these artifacts can be reduced by lowering the cam's sharpness and contrast settings (increasing the cam's noise reduction settings may slightly soften its video, too). A special optical filter such as the CapRock can help a bit. But at best these techniques may only reduce the artifacts. They can't eliminate them, because it's video and inherent in the technology.

Don't get me wrong, some folks produce lovely footage with the GH1. Just because a GH1 is a video camera doesn't mean it can't produce pleasing motion pictures. Of the GH1 videos I've seen and liked, most of what I've enjoyed about them is either the shooter making the most of what the GH1 does best and/or their video's "fun" quotient, the latter usually having nothing to do with which camera was used.

But can GH1 footage look "just like film" or "not like video"? No, the GH1 can't fully do that because it's not a film camera. It's a relatively inexpensive video camera, and a darn good value at that. As noted above, GH1 video might include some film-like characteristics, but overall, no it can't look like film, because it ain't film.

Concerning post-production techniques to make video look "like film": Sure, go wild. There are applications, plug-in and solutions-in-a-can (Magic Bullet, etc.) which can sometimes closely approximate specific film-like characteristics, but unless handled with great skill, usually at least some of part of the frame still looks like video. But that's often OK, too. Whatever works. It's all good. Like I said, post-production: Knock yourself out. :2vrolijk_08:

Important post-production note: Workflows for handling the pulldown structure in GH1 footage is well documented in the forum we're in right now. If not processed properly, pulldown can wreak havoc in post-processed footage. See:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=178

But wait, there's more: Almost as pointless in my opinion is hoping a $1,500 video camera system can produce video which overall is "as good" as that shot with a VIDEO camera costing several times the price. Generally speaking this isn't going to happen. As with the GH1-vs-film situation described above, some aspects of GH1 video can be similar to video from a pro camera -- and one might say "better" in certain situations (for example DOF) -- but generally speaking major manufacturers price their products more or less in line with other products in the market. Sure, a GH1 can do certain things which are very valuable to some shooters some of the time. But production requirements vary greatly, and no video camera, including the GH1, can do it all.

As for making aesthetically-pleasing video of a cargo ship on a bright overcast day? That's a challenge worth attempting!

Now, about the worrisome reports from some GH1 users concerning random noise/banding in some GH1 footage, I'm not sure what to make of that yet ... :cheesy:

nobbystylus
07-16-2009, 03:20 AM
i would still say its worth dialing down sharpness and contrast in-camera to as low as possible, as well as using the 'smooth' preset..

Thats what matzeb did for the berlin stuff, as well as using FD primes. (Of course your subject matter makes a huge difference). An FD 1.4 is a portrait lens, so will provide the right kind of dof for shooing people, and blurring out the background.

The 'technical' look you mention i always found using my HV30 in TV mode, (rather than cinemode, which has much less in-camera sharpness and contrast, mimicking film's higher latitude and helping with post production colour correction), but by dialing down sharpness and contrast in-camera, you could get a bit closer to a more filmic look.

pailes
07-16-2009, 06:36 AM
@Peter:

Nice post from your side. Thumbs up :thumbsup:

dvbrother
07-16-2009, 05:34 PM
The DP of the Berlin video has best circumstances (light, atmosphere). But if you go out to do a job, how often do you find things perfect? 10% should be a lot. So you need a cam that works well even when the light is not perfectly 33min before sundown.

Professional videographers have been shooting outdoors in bright, contrasty lighting for years. The solution is not necessarily the camera. The GH1 has better dynamic range than the best video cameras from just a few years ago.
So what's the solution? There are 3 I can think of.

1)If you're working on a production with a crew and have bit of money here's what you do: use lighting to fill in the contrasty shadows of high noon sun. Or use silks to cut the glaring toplight. Or use reflectors and foamcore for bouncing light. It's all about controlling the contrast range.

2)If you don't have a crew or a budget, be selective in what and where you shoot. Try to keep your subjects in an area that has a limited range of brightness (either all in the shadows or all in the bright sun). Try to place people near buildings that reflect the sun so that fill light bounces back at them.

3) Using polarizers, ND's, and maybe even low-contrast filters may help in really contrasty, sunny scenarios. And as others here have already suggested, using the Smooth setting and/or dialing down the contrast and sharpness in the menu will help.

These are things most professional photographers do in a contrasty outdoor situation. An expensive camera with lots of dynamic range helps, but there still needs to be a creative thought process behind the camera.

The GH1's dynamic range is not one of it's negatives. It's a positive.

colna
07-17-2009, 04:36 AM
Hi Peter,

I think there is nothing more to say but: You are absolutly right with what you are saying!

And I never expected a 1500 Euro Camera to work like a Red. And I am very sure, that the picture is much better then anyone can expect regarding this price. And its video and video does look like video.

As I was shooting with this camera during the last two days (examples will follow, I am in a hury right now) I found my main mistake. I am not a real DF (I am a producer who shoots himself when budgets are low!)!
I am good in run and gun with my XHA1, when thinks happen fast and when you have to find an exaptable perspective in 10 seconds and shoot with available light. My customers are always happy and so am I.

My expactation according to the GH1 was to have more or less (I knew it would be less) the same way of working with a much better picture, FORGET IT!
Yeah I knew before that I need to work with NDs and check out more and longer for what I can do or what I canīt do, I have to use different lenses and so on. And it is big fun for me to handle with all that stuff. But to be true - I donīt really know how to work with it.
And when ever it comes to this kind of shooting I usually hire a DF and I rent the camera I need (eg a Mark2).

So that means I donīt say anything against the GH1 (I never did), but I can give a good advice to everybody who is thinking about buying one - you really have to know what you are doing with it or you need time to learn it (which I donīt have - learning to be a good DF is something you have to study in many years!!).

So what is there to do for me? The camera is lying here on my desk, I can take a weekend or two and learn some of the technical limitations and options and do some mote or less very nice pictures.

But, it is allready back in its packing and I will bring it back to the dealer later. Two reasons that are not acceptable in my eyes. When shooting with 200ASA I allready have vertical lines (for example-1, her face!) and I canīt control the mud thing (see the trees in the background in 1080i and 720p).

Somebody will cry out loud now „donīt shoot trees“, but what if I want to or have to?

So I will wait a few more months or a year for a camera with maybe a better codec or the Mark2 with 25p or something like that. I am sure this is the beginning of a new developement in the market - and if not? Then I can buy the GH1 again (then for sure much cheaper) and learn to live with the limitations.
But for me it is not ready for professional use (my way of porfessional use).

Thanks to everybody trying to help.
And I really donīt want to offend anybody or attack the camera, it is just that I donīt find my "love" here ;-)

Colna

(Anybody interested in a Canon FD Adapter ;-) )

http://files.me.com/region2/aowzvu
http://files.me.com/region2/84tc3m
http://files.me.com/region2/lt0fao

Ben_B
07-17-2009, 07:58 AM
Pulldown not removed on second picture, it's interlaced.

Looks like you haven't removed it on any of them and it's causing problems.

Ew on the banding in the first picture.

For a filmmaker who is able to shoot shorts with this camera and add light, use different lenses, and wants shallow DOF it is quite excellent.

If you're trying to run and gun why expect it to look better than a camera that was designed to run and gun (be it a pro ENG camera or a consumer HD camera.)

pailes
07-17-2009, 08:03 AM
Pulldown not removed on second picture, it's interlaced.
It's PAL, there is no pulldown necessary.

Ben_B
07-17-2009, 08:15 AM
Hmmm. Guess so. Doesn't look like streaking or macroblocking--looks interlaced. Weird.

colna
07-17-2009, 08:46 AM
@Ben_B Thats exactly what I am saying after two weeks working with it. For a filmmaker with experience and time its is for shure a cheap alternative. Not for MY PERSONAL Way of working.

And yes, its PAL. And even if you deinterlace it, do you thing the banding or the mud will become better?

OPHERBA
07-17-2009, 08:47 AM
Colna, can you please be kind and put the first picture here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174654&page=18

So all samples of vertical lines are under the same roof.

Thanks!

Johnnie

Ben_B
07-17-2009, 09:06 AM
I do think banding won't be a problem if you light the footage properly and macro-blocking mud won't be a problem if you shoot stable handheld, pan at a reasonable rate, or shoot 720p...or all of the above.

Again not fitting your style.

My point was nobody ever really though this camera would be good for that kind of thing IMO. I saw it, saw the limitations, saw the features, and me and lots of other people said: indie filmmaking camera.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
07-17-2009, 11:33 AM
... I never expected a 1500 Euro Camera to work like a Red. ... I am good in run and gun with my XHA1... My expactation according to the GH1 was to have more or less (I knew it would be less) the same way of working with a much better picture, FORGET IT! ...

... Yeah I knew before that I need to work with NDs and check out more and longer for what I can do or what I canīt do ... you really have to know what you are doing with it or you need time to learn it (which I donīt have - learning to be a good DP is something you have to study in many years!!). ...

... I will bring it back to the dealer later. Two reasons that are not acceptable in my eyes. When shooting with 200ASA I allready have vertical lines (for example-1, her face!) and I canīt control the mud thing (see the trees in the background in 1080i and 720p). Somebody will cry out loud now „donīt shoot trees“, but what if I want to or have to? ...

... So I will wait a few more months or a year for a camera with maybe a better codec or the Mark2 with 25p or something like that. ... for me it is not ready for professional use (my way of porfessional use). ...

The XHA1 camcorder's price is more than twice that of the GH1 -- so of course the XHA1 can produce "better" run & gun (spur of the moment shakey handheld) video than the GH1! That's what a cam like the XHA1 is designed to do & is priced accordingly.

Learning the basics of using ND, polarizer & diffusion filters usually doesn't take much time. Enthusiasts & pros have been using them for photography for more than a century and for video for decades. And because of digital still & video's instant feedback (compared to film), the benefits of appropriate use of these basic techniques is usually easy to see.

Concerning the noise/streaks visible in the underexposed areas of your example frames: Underexposed video often exhibits artifacts. The scene you show here is way, way underexposed. Normally a scene lit/exposed like this wouldn't be used as-is in a paying production -- not because of the noise artifacts, but because of the exposure. If it were necessary to use this particular footage, I'd expect it to be at least blurred or color-corrected a bit in editing to make it more appealing. But sure, underexposure demonstrates the current limits of GH1 video. If you frequently need to use underexposed footage then the GH1 might not be the appropriate camera.

As for the other 2 example frames you posted: If the camera was handheld or panning when this scene was shot, then the artifacts don't surprise me, knowing the GH1's published specs. It's possible this scene could be improved if the camera were stabilized (walking stick, monopod, tripod, tree, rock, chair, signpost, car, whatever). With or without stabilization, a polarizer filter to reduce glare-induced detail may have helped somewhat, as might using a diffusion filter.

But, sure thing: Currently, getting great run & gun video out of a hybrid digital still/video camera can be a bit more work -- and depending on circumstances, might be impossible -- compared to using a video camcorder designed for the purpose.

colna
07-17-2009, 02:03 PM
Okay, here are some examples from my shooting the last days. I resigned from using any music or color correction. The 1080i part is a little less sharp because I threw everything in one timeline.
What you see is all shot with tripod (no shaking no panning, but with mud) with different ND, most of the time a circular pol. I shot more or less everything in 720 AND 1080, just to be shure to always have a good take.

http://files.me.com/region2/4l6rmf


About the exposure: If you find a situation when the light is a little low and you want to shoot a scene in a street, eg people sitting in a restaurant and you donīt have any light, what will you do? Using a XH or any video cam, you will go to 3dB or maybe 6dB. Thats about ok.
And if you use a GH1 or D90 or whatever, you use a higher Iso, right? Thats what is writen in every forum, how wonderfull the cams work, when its dark, you can use 800ISO. I tried, but it looked on the LCD as if I was shooting through a curtain. So a recorded the take with 200 ISO just to show you. I wonīt use any of those pictures for my film.

Here is another link to some more footage we made (What I produced the last days were some missing shots for that production). It is done with another camera that can only make 30p....But has no problems with artefacts.

(Its a bit off topic, but I like to here your opinion about these pictures - it is just a collection without cc, not the finished film! Music is from "Manny" - Jamendo)

http://files.me.com/region2/6r733a

However, the GH1 is back in the shop, the money in my pocket. I am a little sad, because many things are great and I made some really good pictures with it. But I didnīt have a very good feeling with it, I was always afraid of making mistakes. Its not my camera, but I am very sure it is perfect for indies with an experienced DF.

Thanks

colna

pailes
07-18-2009, 02:45 AM
Okay, here are some examples from my shooting the last days. I resigned from using any music or color correction. The 1080i part is a little less sharp because I threw everything in one timeline.
What you see is all shot with tripod (no shaking no panning, but with mud) with different ND, most of the time a circular pol. I shot more or less everything in 720 AND 1080, just to be shure to always have a good take.

http://files.me.com/region2/4l6rmf

Hey those are fine shots in there. Unfortunately the resolution is so low that you can hardly say whether the bad shots are really bad.


About the exposure: If you find a situation when the light is a little low and you want to shoot a scene in a street, eg people sitting in a restaurant and you donīt have any light, what will you do? Using a XH or any video cam, you will go to 3dB or maybe 6dB. Thats about ok.Well I'm no expert but I think it's pretty much a CMOS vs CCD thing. With a CCD chip camera you would raise the gain and also raise the noise and with a CMOS camera you would make the banding come out. I think both is not desirable but it's kinda difficult to tell what's worse. But I think with a proper lens you can still make low light shots without heavy banding.

http://www.vimeo.com/5630696