The Truth About Compression - Re: "mud"

[Illya Friedman]

There is a lot of needless hysteria that is repeated over and over about the GH1 compression. I think it's mostly reported and re-reported by people who watch web videos and don't actually own a GH1. Until recently, I thought that the issue was dead but clearly with what I read online it is not.

At a conference this past weekend Liam Finn showed many shots from his feature film Rejouer, there was even a section of the presentation called "The Great Unknown" which talked about and showed the problems of the GH1.

Undoubtedly the GH1 compression is a weak point of the camera, and it would be wonderful if it were improved- however, How many shots do you think contained the dreaded "mud" compression issues?

zero!

That's right, none.

There were other surprises/problems, but after hours and hours of material being shot and edited, the "mud" that has permeated the web/blogs in relation to the GH1 is not present. I do mean n o t p r e s e n t.

What did Liam and team do that was different?

They didn't shoot with the 14-140 except on two occasions very briefly (one had a problem with exposure, the other focus, but no "mud"), they didn't shoot "garbage cam" by swinging the camera wildly, and they didn't fill the frame with fast moving objects without an subject/point of focus in the foreground. Also the camera was 100% manual, no auto anything.

While not shown in the presentation, green screen was shot successfully, generally considered the torture test of compression. After the screening- in which 80% of the material had no color correction, I was treated to a barrage of questions and comments all of which were extremely complementary.

If I'm not mistaken, all the pro camera folks on DVXuser have weighed in on the "mud" issue and reported it a non-issue. After 18-days (of mostly hand held and tracking shots) and over 50 cards of GH1 images without "mud", I think it's safe to say if you are seeing "mud" there's a good chance the "mud" is being introduced by the shooter and not the camera.

I hope that next time someone thinks to complain about "mud" artifacts in the GH1, they first take a look at the startling good work done on REJOUER.

[Ben_B]

Well said. Hopefully this will help inject some sanity into those fleeing from the GH1 to the 7D which, at present, has little to no good looking footage that I have seen.

It's about the shooter, not the camera.

As for web video compression, I've found that in many situations this actually can make GH1 footage look even better (relativistically.) :)

[Cranky]

You confuse good shooting techniques with hardware deficiencies. There are plenty of other cameras that do not exhibit any noticeable mud when they are used in "garbage cam" style or shoot fast moving objects, including Panasonic's own consumer AVCHD camcorders.

[Ben_B]

The kit lens works pretty damn well actually, I haven't had any mud problems with it.

[Car3o]

this topic has been muddied up

[Indyreel]

They didn't shoot with the 14-140 except on two occasions very briefly

Could this have anything to do with it, or were you just stating that you didn't use this lens?

[Ben_B]

Look what it comes down to is this, and this is true with any camera, and is especially true with cameras like the GH1, etc, that might be a little more finicky:

If you are bad at shooting a movie, then your footage will look bad, if you are good at it, then your footage will look good. that's it. plain and simple. I'm a decent photographer/videographer but I know people that could outshoot me with a disposable CVS-brand film point and shoot if I was using a D3. Skill, patience, and artistic eye matter a whole lot more than what you're shooting on.

That said, the GH1 is surely no disposable camera.

[Indyreel]

Originally Posted by Illya Friedman http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1732175#post1732175)
They didn't shoot with the 14-140 except on two occasions very briefly


Could this have anything to do with it (the mud), or were you just stating that you didn't use this lens?

[Ben_B]

There's another thread out there with a theory that the lens' electronic image correction, etc, help contribute to mud but so far it's mainly hearsay.

[Ozpeter]

Well said, Illya. Although the stuff I'm doing is distinctly domestic compared with most here, I don't want to use obviously defective images, and so far I've not had to ditch a single frame due to so-called 'mud'. Operator inadequacy has accounted for a quite a few sequences hitting the cutting room floor, however... I only have the kit lens.

One particular hand held test shot surprised me - it showed some evergreen and other trees in quite a high wind, with two flags blowing about in front of them, and a chain link fence in the lower part of the picture (handy for checking sharpness). Good codec-breaking stuff.

Now one shot I recall seeing on vimeo had some flags blowing in front of a tiled roof, and every time the flags moved relative to the tiled roof, the tile pattern in the image broke up then re-formed. But in my shot (in 720 and 1080), I see nothing of the sort. Nothing untoward at all that I can see in my broadly-equivalent shot. So why the difference?

[Nitsuj]

Illya Friedman I thank you for your contribution to the community on what you found works well with the GH1. because of you and your website I was able to go right to my GH1 as soon as I got it and know exactly what to do with it. I agree 100% with your statement. *salute*

[ydgmdlu]

Well said. Hopefully this will help inject some sanity into those fleeing from the GH1 to the 7D which, at present, has little to no good looking footage that I have seen.
Come on now, there's no need to put down the 7D like that. Don't you remember the very first GH1 video samples posted by Panasonic itself? They looked like crap. I remember people saying here that it looked "worse than HDV" when HDV was in its infancy. Now the only thing people complain about the GH1 footage here is the "mud"; even the crop factor stopped being controversial months ago. You love your GH1, and that's fine. I'm a fan of it myself, though I am not an owner. But you don't have to undercut the enthusiasm for the new camera with such short-sighted statements.

[ydgmdlu]

Look at all of the GH1 videos on this page, which were the first samples ever released: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh1/movie.html

Is your mind blown by any of them? Do they make you think that the camera is a "must buy"? Can you honestly say that they look better than the samples released for the 7D?

I can easily imagine somebody saying, all those months ago, "Hopefully this will help inject some sanity into those fleeing from the D90/5D Mark II to the GH1 which, at present, has little to no good looking footage that I have seen." But look where we are now.

[Nitsuj]

I was impressed by the original GH1 video myself. I knew it could be better but looked good to me for streaming video. I still think it is funny somebody will completely judge a camera performance by how it looks streaming over the net. It's like trying to buy a suit from an online shoe salesman. It might not fit and sure as hell doesn't make any sense.

I'm still at a loss why this 7D gets brought up in a GH1 forum. Same as the D90/5D and Pentax K7. They get thrown into almost every GH1 forum topic for some reason. It's a big ol' pissing contest and some people forgot to bring their rain coats. I guess it's fun to watch at least. But I'm mostly here to discuss my GH1 and how to get the most out of it.

[Car3o]

why don't you guys just get it over already and start comparing who's lens is bigger. sheesh.

[Ben_B]

First GH1 video I saw was P. Bloom's at Re: Frame Austin and it blew my mind. Anyway I think the issue that myself and others had with the 7D video was that this was more than just a few shots that they stuck on a page, it was an actual, produced, thought out, video that required complex location shooting, etc.....and yet looked pretty lousy.

[Mike@AF]

You guys realize you're arguing about a camera that no one has even touched yet?

[paulgandersman]

it's still frames like these that make me terrified to ever shoot anything in 1080 on my GH1 again. i was shooting 1080 with the stock lens with an ND filter on and everything set to manual.


http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/paulgandersman/Screenshot2009-09-02at12452AM.png

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/paulgandersman/Screenshot2009-09-02at12517AM.png

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/paulgandersman/Screenshot2009-09-02at12538AM.png

[paulgandersman]

First GH1 video I saw was P. Bloom's at Re: Frame Austin and it blew my mind. Anyway I think the issue that myself and others had with the 7D video was that this was more than just a few shots that they stuck on a page, it was an actual, produced, thought out, video that required complex location shooting, etc.....and yet looked pretty lousy.

which video are you talking about?

[Cranky]

it's still frames like these that make me terrified to ever shoot anything in 1080 on my GH1 again. i was shooting 1080 with the stock lens with an ND filter on and everything set to manual.
Ilya will have about three months to retool his production for the 7D.

[Car3o]

it's still frames like these that make me terrified to ever shoot anything in 1080 on my GH1 again. i was shooting 1080 with the stock lens with an ND filter on and everything set to manual.


http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/paulgandersman/Screenshot2009-09-02at12452AM.png

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/paulgandersman/Screenshot2009-09-02at12517AM.png

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/paulgandersman/Screenshot2009-09-02at12538AM.png


where's the video? you can pretty much dissect any image frame by frame, but a picture in motion is a different story. firstly, it looks like the image isn't any focused. and by the looks of it, the person handling the camera appears to be experiencing an earthquake or m.j. fox is the camera operator.

[paulgandersman]

i was holding the camera with a monopod and was either panning or zooming in and what not, as far as the video goes, i can upload something if necessary, but these sorts of frames are very noticeable during playback

[Car3o]

sure. upload away. it's only as necessary to validate everyone's mud concern. plus i'd like to see that chics boobs at 1080, mud or not.

[paulgandersman]

will have to upload tomorrow calling it quits for tonight

[Ozpeter]

The only time I've seen something like that was when doing a follow pan of a vehicle travelling at about 30mph and passing about 12 feet away. Indeed it's not a good idea with the GH1 but it's not a very cinematic thing to do in the first place.

The so-called mud effect is actually quite 'painterly' at times.

[Fluke]

It does look somewhat like an impressionistic oil painting, eh?

[paulgandersman]

i just looked at the video again, and those frames happened with the dumb camera operator (me) was either zooming in real fast or shaking the hell out of the thing. so the cause of those was probably my fault. makes me scared to shoot anything in 1080p though, i just wouldn't wanna shoot something 1 of a kind and then have a few frames screwed up due to "mud" or something. sigh. i guess i'm just paranoid.

[Ian-T]

No, not paranoid...just cautious. Like I tell others...I see mudd in 5Dll videos also (just not to the same degree). I've seen mudd in the new 7D cam as well (not nearly to the same degree). It's an I-frame thingy (or lack of it). It's just that the GH-1 has it worse...which is due to the lower bit rate. Even Canon admits that the reason they upped the bit rate in the 5Dll was to compensate for the lack of b-frames. Panasonic will have to do the same. Under controlled conditions though...it's avoidable just like rolling shutter skew/wobble.

[portishead]

They didn't shoot with the 14-140Also the camera was 100% manual, no auto anything.

There's your first problem. A lot of people are going to use the 14-140 exclusively.

Also, full manual mode will help a lot, but using the zoom is probably the worst culprit.


I think it's safe to say if you are seeing "mud" there's a good chance the "mud" is being introduced by the shooter and not the camera.

It is fair to say the shooter can try to identify what causes the mud, and try to avoid it, but the camera is still producing the mud.


I hope that next time someone thinks to complain about "mud" artifacts in the GH1, they first take a look at the startling good work done on REJOUER.

I watched the teaser a while back and didn't care for it. I don't actively complain about mud, but it exists even if you want to deny it.

[msorrels]

I did some shots in my backyard with a Steadytracker extreme and on a tiny handful of frames I got mud very similar to paulgandersman. And yes the camera was moving, but not so fast I felt the mud was a reasonable response. It was only a few frames but those frames were pretty much ruined. Yes it's fairly painterly like. And for a home movie I wouldn't have been bothered. But since I was planning to motion track the shot and add 3D, it was kind of a killer. In the end it didn't really matter, since I'm still learning what I need to do get my workflow smooth enough to use. I wasn't really setup to get the kind of shots I wanted even if the mud wasn't there. I may have been able to edit around the mud even. But the mud was definitely there. And if it was "operator error", then my problem is that's how I wanted to move the camera. I need the camera to take cleaner shots even with that "error".

Will I have a mud problem when I go back to do this again? Who knows. It's very possible that by adding standin markers so I can better target where I'm going to place the 3D and a few other things my camera movement will become more compatible with the GH1. It was just a quick and dirty test. To be fair I'm sure I could have worked around the mud, just not used those sections that had mud problems. But if the codec can break down like that, it will break down like that most likely when you can least afford for it to.

[John Caballero]

If the Illya team can shoot a whole movie without "mud" what does that tell you? That they must be doing something right! Very right. That is what separates the pros from everybody else. They get the proper results. If you can produce a whole movie without encountering the problem it means it can be done correctly, if you really know what you are doing.

[Car3o]

so no 1080 boobs? shit. i'm wondering if the mud really does have something to do with the kit lens. it seems like it occurs when it's trying to auto focus. even if you have it on manual, it's like the camera is still trying. dunno. i'd like to see some manual lens on there in the same situation. what ever happened to the mud theory thread?

[Cranky]

If the Illya team can shoot a whole movie without "mud" what does that tell you? That they must be doing something right! Very right. That is what separates the pros from everybody else. They get the proper results. If you can produce a whole movie without encountering the problem it means it can be done correctly, if you really know what you are doing.
You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.

[Barry_Green]

Well, *everything* is flawed. A 7' tall guy doesn't fit in a coach seat -- either he's flawed, or the seat's flawed. But it doesn't stop the airlines from flying millions of passengers every year, does it?

A Red One can't autofocus. It's "flawed". But if you don't need autofocus, then it's not flawed, is it?

It's a matter of finding out whether you can work with the product or not. Illya's assertion is that the film "Rejour" was able to work with it and encounter no flaws whatsoever. Therefore, for that purpose, it is not flawed. I would not under any circumstances want to use a GH1 for following high-action sports -- I think the compression would completely fail under those circumstances.

If you want ultimate, reliable performance under all circumstances, you can have that -- at a price. If you want a 4k chip and a killer lens at $1500, you HAVE to accept some compromises. Welcome to economics 101. :thumbsup:

[PappasArts]

You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.

This baby is far from flawed; and especially at it's ridiculously low price/performance factor. The problem is people want "perfect" or near "perfect". Nothing ever is, and nor will be for the most part. I find that people feel much more comfortable when they have to complain then be satisfied. It must be a human thing. Humans need to be in a constant wave motion of either slight to heavy discomfort about things. Humans for the most part just can't stand steady flow without spikes or dips.... :-)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d94/PappasArts/BWCAM3.jpg




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

[billy fattey]

Okay, I gotta know where you got that eyepiece. Does it work well? Would it fit on other DSLRs? Thanks.




http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d94/PappasArts/BWCAM3.jpg

[PappasArts]

Okay, I gotta know where you got that eyepiece. Does it work well? Would it fit on other DSLRs? Thanks.

Had it since the 90's; from my Sony broadcast Betacam way back. I wish they made these today. When this one dies, it's gone forever! Since I use the
Viewfinder on the GH1 for 80% of the time, it works perfect.

[Cranky]

If a coach seat is designed to accommodate a person up to say 6 ft and 200 lb relatively comfortably, and it does that, then the seat is not flawed. The passenger is not flawed either, he is simply using the seat that was not designed for his height. The seat works as expected, it is up to a passenger to decide whether to use it or not.

RED not having autofocus is not a flaw because this is how they have designed it and advertised it. If they had said the camera had autofocus and it did not work, then the camera would have been flawed.

The GH1 has been designed to work with given codec and bitrate and to produce results that an average consumer would deem acceptable. And by the way, "acceptable" for a consumer does not mean cell phone video, otherwise we would not have Blu-ray disc. The GH1 has not been designed as a bare-wire contraption for eggheads where you can press this button only after you pressed that button, and you can connect these wires only after you filled this container with goose oil. It is a consumer product and must behave as such. Consumer products must be bulletproof.

I would not have problems with the GH1 if it was advertised as "for trained professionals only, use with care."

[portishead]

Illya's assertion is that the film "Rejour" was able to work with it and encounter no flaws whatsoever.

That's incorrect. They didn't "work with it". They didn't use a 14-140 lens, and they didn't zoom. Also they didn't use autofocus. They only used about half the GH1 package.

I love the GH1 and I'm not complaining but you guys are total instigators here. I have only read a handful of people complaining that it was a deal breaker for them. The majority of us are aware that mud occurs under certain circumstances, and nearly all of us have admitted that we can mostly work around it.

I think it's the best Video DSLR *kit* for the price, and even if the 7D has the potential to be better in a lot of ways, I still wouldn't buy it because it's going to be too expensive when you factor in lens cost.

A lot of your guys need to quit denying that mud occurs, and start showing more beautiful images.

[John Caballero]

You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.

But the hardware does work properly if you shoot it right. Or if you are talented enough and shoot it properly within the "flaws" of the camera. And Illya and company PROVED IT. It can be done without mud. Again IT CAN BE DONE.


BTW: Pappas you have footage to show yet?

[Cranky]

But the hardware does work properly if you shoot it right. Or if you are talented enough and shoot it properly within the "flaws" of the camera.
Then affix "for talented shooters only" label on it and sell it in pro-video outlets, not in consumer electronics stores.

[bumkicho]

Do you own a GH1, Cranky? Did you actually shoot with GH1 and could not stand the footages? I am just trying to see if all your criticism comes from your first hand experience with it.

[commanderspike]

The way I understand it is that AVCHD is actually one of the best video format available.

All this talk of 7D massive 350mb per second Quicktime files makes no sense to me.

You don't get mud on top end consumer camcorders, and yes top end camcorders from Panasonic.

It's just something about the combination of the new GH1's sensor and image processor, which remember is first and foremost designed for photos, and the nature of AVCHD that Panasonic weren't able to fix in time.

They're probably waiting for image processor CPU to catch up with the new sensor technology and then hey presto. No mud.

[portishead]

But the hardware does work properly if you shoot it right. Or if you are talented enough and shoot it properly within the "flaws" of the camera. And Illya and company PROVED IT. It can be done without mud. Again IT CAN BE DONE.

Honestly, we're taking a 3rd parties word for it. I sure didn't see their raw footage. Just because they didn't mention it doesn't mean some mud didn't occur somewhere. And it could be they intentionally didn't want to get into the whole mud issue.

[Barry_Green]

A lot of your guys need to quit denying that mud occurs, and start showing more beautiful images.
Who's denying that it occurs? I've said I can make the image go to hell so quick it's like it's in a dragster-powered handbasket.

And we've also extracted exquisitely awesome images from it.

We've told plenty of people how to do that too.

Use it in certain circumstances, it'll go ugly. Don't do that, and you can get great results.

What about that is being an "instigator"?

[Barry_Green]

The way I understand it is that AVCHD is actually one of the best video format available.
When fully and properly implemented, it's the best format at its bitrate by a long shot.

Unfortunately the GH1 doesn't have a full and complete implementation of it, which is why we have to be more cautious with the usage of the camera to make sure we don't overload what the GH1's limited implementation of AVCHD can handle.


You don't get mud on top end consumer camcorders, and yes top end camcorders from Panasonic.
Because top-end camcorders from Panasonic are all intraframe-only. The HMC150 is a long-GoP system using AVCHD, but its implementation of AVCHD is pretty much the best one out.

You can also avoid mud entirely on the GH1 by using its intraframe recording mode, MJPG.

[portishead]

What about that is being an "instigator"?

I didn't mean to single you out, Sorry. Actually, I don't know why I quoted you what you said wasn't particularly instigating. I don't want to keep igniting the flame war, but there are certain people who seem to deny that the picture even has the possibility to break up. Anyway, I love my GH1 :thumbup:

[Barry_Green]

The picture can definitely break up. But hey, I can mirror Illya's experience, we shot for six days in Texas on two different narrative projects, and we had jib moves and dolly moves and fog and flashing ambulance lights and cop car lights, we had a very abbreviated stunt scene, we had steadicam and lockdown shots...

... but we didn't have mud. Not one shot was ruined because of mud. I could go detect some areas where the compression was less than optimal, but both the DP and the Director were yelling at me for pixel-peeping, saying that nobody would EVER see that. And I agree.

The GH1 puts out a simply wonderful, lush, smooth, detailed, fantastic image.

Under certain circumstances it can fall apart. You have to educate yourself as to what those are, and then not do them.

[Chibs]

But the hardware does work properly if you shoot it right. Or if you are talented enough and shoot it properly within the "flaws" of the camera. And Illya and company PROVED IT. It can be done without mud. Again IT CAN BE DONE.

IT CAN INDEED BE DONE, however, your 'right' might not be my 'right, your 'properly' might not be mine. Not all movies are to be shot from a tripod without any fast moving objects, or are they? It seems the only way to shoot without mud is to shoot your typical fictional film, that is NOT what I call properly working hardware. For the price I paid it's a damn great camera, but that does not mean you should deny the problem this way, and point at it as a user mistake. It is not.
I've personally experienced mud that ruined a shot, and this was not with the kit lens. It seems more obvious that it would happen with the kit lens due to the large DOF that you often get due to the wide end of te lens and the high aperture. If you shoot with a small DOF there's less detail to encode, which might result in less mud. That is my theory, at least.

[Ben_B]

Does grandma care if there's mud on the whippy shot of your kid playing soccer? No.

Do people care when there's no mud in your narrative short because you know how to shoot one? No.

If a giant monster attacks New York and your shakey mud filled video is the only thing left but you can still see what's going on are the survivors or the government going to care if there's mud? No.

If you shoot a movie with shakey-ass crap in it does experience tell you people are going to complain about mud or about your shakey-ass movie? People complain about shakey camera-work all the time. Bourne Ultimatium was freaking gorgeous (in it's own, ultra-realistic, way) but a lot of people still complained about the crazy camera work. Sort of lost my point here because that was a great movie....but if you go crash 100 cars together in your indi-flick that cut costs by shooting on the GH1, and have a shakey shot with a bit of mud in it, and I watch your movie, I'm going to be going: holyyyy shit that was amazing! Not, oh no, mud, thumbs-down. Same goes if your movie is good.

[timbook2]

I think the thread opener is right: you can avoid mud ! I dont think the lens is the issue, its the automatic stuff that muddies up fast moving footage. Maybe focus tracking is an additional issue?
unfortunately this makes the GH1 not a guerilla style camera where you can whip it from the car, set it to full idiotic mode and shoot away as fast as possible, but I didnt think it was thought for that ;-)

[timbook2]

both the DP and the Director were yelling at me for pixel-peeping, saying that nobody would EVER see that. And I agree.



:grin:

[SpecialEdFX]

Been shooting with the cam for 2 days. Having worked on running gun shows for years, I can tell you that this mud issue makes much of this kind of shooting "un-doable". Yes, you shouldn't pretend that you can support a broadcast quality product on this thing. It's fun, you can pickup shots that you would otherwise need a Letus or Redrock for with less setup time. You can be sneaky and shoot locals. It's the unpredictability of the mud that makes it unacceptable for serious shooting. We use HDV, and while I hate it and the compression is sh*t, I've gotten a total of 20-30 "hits" from QC on over 50 hours of programming (not bad for a crappy format). I understand the bandwith issue, and it's a cool auxilary unit for the money.

My sum-up here is that no pro should have to think about whether they're panning or zooming too fast. We've already got enough going on.

Now what about built in sharpening? how is that affecting the encode onto the card? Anybody try this?

[Ian-T]

.... Yes, you shouldn't pretend that you can support a broadcast quality product on this thing...

I would have to strongly disagree with you on that (even though I don't own the cam). Check out this user who's doing the total opposite of what you've stated (mind you , he's using both the GH-1 and the 5D2....but GH-1 on most of the shots):

http://vimeo.com/6257412

http://vimeo.com/6374764

All those opening studio shots on both videos are....the GH-1 (and most everything else in between).

Your mileage may vary. :)

[Ben_B]

Built in sharpening seems to reduce the weakness of the codec upon in movement on areas with fine detail, especially things like say, a sea-gull's wing, or a wall, because the camera sharpens before it gets encoded (is what I've heard and seen) and therefore, since you're using a codec which essentially only records the image as it changes, sees that something is changing, when earlier it wasn't, and doesn't let details get as muddled...not sure how it effects macro-blocking.

[Barry_Green]

Having worked on running gun shows for years, I can tell you that this mud issue makes much of this kind of shooting "un-doable". Yes, you shouldn't pretend that you can support a broadcast quality product on this thing.
If anyone told me that was their intended usage, I'd advise against the GH1 for that. It's not a broadcast product, it's not sold by the broadcast division. I've been asking the broadcast division to consider introducing an upgraded version that would have a bulletproof codec; if they did so, that would be the right tool for the job.


My sum-up here is that no pro should have to think about whether they're panning or zooming too fast. We've already got enough going on.
Agreed. Which is why pros should be using professional products! :thumbsup:


Now what about built in sharpening? how is that affecting the encode onto the card? Anybody try this?
It seems to help.

[SpecialEdFX]

Ian-T: It looks good. Most of the shots are pretty slow and open (big skies and such), giving bandwidth for the compression to properly take place. I'd still say that there's no way I would trust a producer/director that said "sure, just use that thing" on a shoot. The issue is unpredictability. I've been shooting with this for only 2 days, and really love it, but would never, ever, ever use it to support a show. I don't know how local news QC's, but international is pretty tight stuff and I'd hate to lose a shot because the pan looked like it came off an iphone.

[mtan]

If I can't shoot footage that is worthy of a broadcast then there is no sense in paying $1500 for it. I will just pay a few hundred more and get the 7d. I am not using it for broadcast but still, I will have to live with what I purchase for a while, probably years so I guess buying this toy makes no sense.

[Barry_Green]

If I can't shoot footage that is worthy of a broadcast then there is no sense in paying $1500 for it.
You can certainly shoot footage that is way worthy of broadcast with it. You can shoot footage that is worthy of theatrical projection with it. When it's "right", the GH1 is simply phenomenal.

You just can't take it into every scenario and get 100% performance from it. You have to know what it can handle and what it won't.


I will just pay a few hundred more and get the 7d.
We don't know anything about the 7D yet. It may be a jello mess, or it may have similar codec issues, etc. Not saying that it will, just saying that nobody knows anything about it yet.

[mtan]

yea, I am just a mess right now trying to decide what to do. I don't want to get it wrong with my purchase. I have an hv30 that needs to be fixed but I was thinking of replacing it with one of these cameras, I don't want to pay $1500-$2000 for something that gives the same or worse image.

[Ben_B]

This will do better than an HV30 for sure. The codec is actually much more robust than HDV from what I've seen. Plus you get great DOF, etc, out of the box, with the ability to mount just about any prime lens with the right, cheap (compared to a 35mm adapter for HV30) adapter.

Also keep in mind that at $200 less than the 7D body only you're getting a kit lens worth nearly $900 that is very versatile and useful in many situations...it kind of reminds me of the stock lens in a video camera, although yes, it's a bit slow, which means it's not great for low light, but from what I can tell still gets better DOF than faster video camera stock lenses that are being used on smaller sensors.

[Indyreel]

The GH1 puts out a simply wonderful, lush, smooth, detailed, fantastic image.

Under certain circumstances it can fall apart. You have to educate yourself as to what those are, and then not do them.

Barry,

So far I've deducted that the circumstances that cause it to fall apart are:
1) Rapid Panning
2) Rapid Zooming
3) Shaky-cam movements

Are there any others to be aware of, as I am definately trying to educate myself completely in this area.

Thanks.

[ryansheffer]

The image can be amazing, yes.

But, it's not just "mud."

I rarely saw mud. When I did, it pissed me off beyond belief.

You can avoid it, but what you can't avoid is the problem the codec causes with color. So much blockiness.

[Ben_B]

It depends on how you define shakey, rapid, etc. For example, I've done some car-mount type shots with mine (window mount) and everything is moving very fast, all without mud...I've also done some with mud. Mud was caused when there was excessive, rapid vibration. The same is true with fast, handheld, tracking type shots....I've noticed no mud at all unless there was excessive vibration.

I don't care what anyone says, regardless of the artistic style of your film, whether it's an action movie, or what not, and you want fast handheld work, there is no way that vibration is ever a good thing in a movie. Sorry. There's no way you're going to convince me.

Watch movies like Cloverfield, Bourne Ultimatium, etc...is there a lot of fast, jerky, handheld stuff? Yes. Is there ever excessive vibration? No. Because the operators know what they're doing.

I've seen the camera handle a lot of amazing stuff with no mud...it's vibration that can kill it, but you shouldn't have vibration in your movie anyway. If a shot vibrated enough to show excessive or inexcusable amounts of mud, I wouldn't want to use it anyway thanks to the vibration.

The only pans I've even been able to get mud on have been ones that were so fast that you can only see it going frame by frame to pick out the mud, not even really on a subconcious level.

[portishead]

I don't care what anyone says, regardless of the artistic style of your film, whether it's an action movie, or what not, and you want fast handheld work, there is no way that vibration is ever a good thing in a movie. Sorry. There's no way you're going to convince me.

Not everyone is shooting a film. Actually, most people are probably not shooting films with the GH1.

I just watched District 9, and I know the style they were going for, but I thought the camera movement was a bit excessive in certain scenes. We all have our opinions.

[Ben_B]

So excessive vibration is a good thing when you film your kid's soccer game? Still not.

As for D9, that's exactly my point! They didn't have vibration in their heavy-motion shots, because they know how to film...it was just lots of movement, but not like oscillation or vibration which is what really destroys the GH1.

And for those of us shooting films, note that they managed to shoot District 9 on the RED One, with lots of movement, without tons of rolling shutter artifacts people have complained about with that camera.

[Car3o]

You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.

you're flawed.

[Ben_B]

Well said.

[John Caballero]

I would have to strongly disagree with you on that (even though I don't own the cam). Check out this user who's doing the total opposite of what you've stated (mind you , he's using both the GH-1 and the 5D2....but GH-1 on most of the shots):

http://vimeo.com/6257412

http://vimeo.com/6374764

All those opening studio shots on both videos are....the GH-1 (and most everything else in between).

Your mileage may vary.

The gentleman producing these videos is proof that you really need to be talented to do excellent work with the GH1 or any other camera for that matter. There are the complainers then there are the doers, like these two videos clearly show. And by the way, he broadcast them over the air. Like real television. Again, IT CAN BE DONE. You can shoot really good stuff at 1080P on the GH1, but only if you are really good at your craft.

BTW: Barry, do we get to see some samples on your recent collaboration with JDS?

[Car3o]

if you really look at the bourne movies and d9 and how Peter Berg shoots, a lot of it comes down to proper/quick edits, not really shaky camera movements. the shots just aren't static like something you would see in a Kevin Smith film. the zooming however would probably break the codec up. Now, what I don't think the gh1 would be capable of doing is a scene(s) out of Children of Men, in particular 2 of the 3 one take scenes, where there's a lot of movement and fast motion. if production came down to that and i was using a gh1, i'd probably hit up a rental shop for something that would be capable of handling it better.

[Car3o]

The gentleman producing these videos is proof that you really need to be talented to do excellent work with the GH1 or any other camera for that matter. There are the complainers then there are the doers, like these two videos clearly show. And by the way, he broadcast them over the air. Like real television. Again, IT CAN BE DONE. You can shoot really good stuff at 1080P on the GH1, but only if you are really good at your craft.

BTW: Barry, do we get to see some samples on your recent collaboration with JDS?

i don't think they were broadcasted on national tv. i didn't see anything like that mentioned.

[Ben_B]

Yeah but if you did a 5 minute long take with tanks blowing up buildings and stuff a'la Children of Men I know I for one wouldn't care if your footage was a little muddy :P


The gentleman producing these videos is proof that you really need to be talented to do excellent work with the GH1 or any other camera for that matter. There are the complainers then there are the doers, like these two videos clearly show. And by the way, he broadcast them over the air. Like real television. Again, IT CAN BE DONE. You can shoot really good stuff at 1080P on the GH1, but only if you are really good at your craft.

BTW: Barry, do we get to see some samples on your recent collaboration with JDS?

I don't think you need to be super super talented to do good work with the GH1. I am pretty happy with what I threw together just shooting around (720p) and I am not a cinematographer, in fact the stuff I've done since getting the GH1 is probably more cinematography than I've done in my whole life up to this point. I am an editor, a director, and a writer first and foremost but I managed to throw this together. Not saying it's amazing. Just saying I am not an amazing DP and I put out a decent looking video.

http://www.vimeo.com/6340277

I suppose I'd make a decent producer too with all my shameless self promotion.

[Boz]

Sorry, I came into this discussion way late. I've cherry-picked some comments throughout the thread:


What did Liam and team do that was different?

They didn't shoot with the 14-140 except on two occasions very briefly (one had a problem with exposure, the other focus, but no "mud"), they didn't shoot "garbage cam" by swinging the camera wildly, and they didn't fill the frame with fast moving objects without an subject/point of focus in the foreground. Also the camera was 100% manual, no auto anything.

So... you're saying step one is throw out the $900 lens that came with the camera? Seriously? This is the fix? There's been plenty of speculation, but I've to see anyone confirm the lens has anything to do with the problem. As for manual, I've shot full manual and got mud, so that ain't it.



If I'm not mistaken, all the pro camera folks on DVXuser have weighed in on the "mud" issue and reported it a non-issue.

It is an issue. What they have said is that it's a problem that can be worked around. That's different than a non-issue.


I hope that next time someone thinks to complain about "mud" artifacts in the GH1, they first take a look at the startling good work done on REJOUER.

I'd love to! When/where can we see it?


It's about the shooter, not the camera.

If I have to be super careful about not moving my camera too fast, even when it's appropriate, then it's the camera, not the shooter. Speilberg, Bay, and Greengrass, to name a few, have all shot scenes (and sometimes whole films) with shakey cams. Would you really tell them it's their fault if the camera failed them? An extreme example I know, but I'm making a point that even in the most controlled "Pro" circumstances the GH1 could fail.



If the Illya team can shoot a whole movie without "mud" what does that tell you? That they must be doing something right! Very right. That is what separates the pros from everybody else. They get the proper results. If you can produce a whole movie without encountering the problem it means it can be done correctly, if you really know what you are doing.

I can shoot a whole movie without mud too. Look at Kevin Smith's films. The camera rarely moves fast. Its not hard to avoid mud if you don't move the camera much. But again, there are times when it's right to move the camera like mad.


All this talk of 7D massive 350mb per second Quicktime files makes no sense to me.

Where the heck did you get that number? Using that number, this clip should 500MB in size (350mb/s x 11.4 secs), it is 62.2MB: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/FULLRES/YE7VID_1080_24_P_MVI_1908.MOV

The true data rate is about 45 Mb/s.



If a giant monster attacks New York and your shakey mud filled video is the only thing left but you can still see what's going on are the survivors or the government going to care if there's mud? No.

First, how are you going to track your monster into your shot if their is mud? No tracker on the planet can solve for that. Second, is Adobe going to come out with a mud plugin, so I can match my monster to the footage?



Watch movies like Cloverfield, Bourne Ultimatium, etc...is there a lot of fast, jerky, handheld stuff? Yes. Is there ever excessive vibration? No. Because the operators know what they're doing.

It's actually because a fully loaded camera weights 20 or more pounds. Its hard to 'vibrate' something that big and heavy, even if you wanted to. And the GH1 would muddily fail on both the films you mentioned.

Mud does happen on the GH1. Quite easily, if you're not careful. Trying to sweep it under the rug or downplay it, solves nothing. If anything there should be continued pressure on Panasonic to fix the problem! Then we all win.

Now I will don my flame-retardent and stand by for the replies. :grin:

[Ben_B]

The GH1 would only fail if you overly vibrated the thing. I've got mine on a rail system with two vertical handles on either side...pretty hard to vibrate that thing. Want something like it for cheap? I've got a DIY version (minus the rails) that's even heavier than my real one (if you think of that as a good thing) and costs like $30 to make.

Maybe you guys got crummy units or something but I've really only gotten bad mud in mine in a few places: while walking at a fast pace with it hanging from the neck strap at chest level, with barely a hand on it, as it jostled around all over the place. While getting a window-mount car shot at night while the camera was hanging upside down from a windshield using a modified GPS mount with nothing wedged between it in the dashboard (which solves the vibration problem) and while trying to get a handheld shot out of a moving subway train as it went over a bridge, pointed at another subway train. In all those situations the camera was vibrating excessively and those are literally the only times I have gotten mud in my whole time using the thing. I have I been less than happy with the way the codec looks for other things? Yeah sometimes. But have I had a problem with mud on fast motion shots? No. Not really. Only a few times, out shooting a new york montage, when I was doing something wrong, and knew that I was. Any other artifacting on fast moving shots (like the train shot at the beginning) is a result of web compression. Not there on the footage.

Was the mud bad enough to keep me from using those shots? Nope. They're all in my New York montage. More shameless self promotion after the jump.


Check it out, not to nice to look at eh? But not to bad either...especially considering that they're the only shots I've ever really had a problem with, and that you ended up watching my whole video anyway just to see them :)

http://www.vimeo.com/5973768

[Car3o]

that 900 dollar lens is 900 dollars because it's 14-140 and has silent auto focus for video. other than that it's not that great. f4? sell it and get primes.

[John Caballero]

I can shoot a whole movie without mud too. Look at Kevin Smith's films. The camera rarely moves fast. Its not hard to avoid mud if you don't move the camera much. But again, there are times when it's right to move the camera like mad.

Go to hulu and check Rescue Me, Warehouse13, Psych, Monk, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Eureka, CSI: Las Vegas, Royal Pains and countless other tv series shot on film or digital video, hugely successful and done by professionnals, and tell me which one is doing crazy whipping pans that would in the same case show the "mud" side of the GH1 if used on a similar shoot. Even the action sequences are done in a way that don't require crazy movement of the camera. They are all shot with a flawless sequence of wide angle shots, medium shots, close-ups and extreme close-ups. Combined to give the sequence its flow. And when they move the camera they use slow crane shots, tracking shots and stabilizer shots. All shots than can be achieved successfully by a professional operator with the GH1.


I don't think you need to be super super talented to do good work with the GH1. I am pretty happy with what I threw together just shooting around (720p) and I am not a cinematographer, in fact the stuff I've done since getting the GH1 is probably more cinematography than I've done in my whole life up to this point. I am an editor, a director, and a writer first and foremost but I managed to throw this together. Not saying it's amazing. Just saying I am not an amazing DP and I put out a decent looking video.

But you are very talented. And it shows in the good work you have done. It is not about talking but going out and doing. Now lets see how good you are at a higher level: 1080P! LOL!

[Ben_B]

Thanks.

You've raised a good point which is this: most of us are buying these cameras and reading this website because we want our films to have that professional look, and one of the best ways to do that is to learn to shoot like the pros do.

So there you go: the GH1 hardware limitations are a feature! Shoot unprofessionally and instead of just having unprofessional looking footage that you can convince yourself is good, you'll just have a muddy mess, signaling to you that it's time to hone your skills. Boom! Slap it on the box! It's a feature. :D

[Car3o]

the people that complain about how they can't, never do anyway.

[Martti Ekstrand]

I've been shooting with this for only 2 days, and really love it, but would never, ever, ever use it to support a show. I don't know how local news QC's, but international is pretty tight stuff and I'd hate to lose a shot because the pan looked like it came off an iphone.

I don't get this - for many of us here the big thing with GH1 and it's ilk is that finally short DOF is available for a low cost in an very small package. That's the big attraction. But using short DOF on moving images usually means at least having to find the focus points before shooting and even rehearse if possible. Or at least in a documentary situation do several attempts to get a take that works in editing. So unless I'm totally mistaken; in a Get-It-Now-Or-It-Is-Gone news situation you are way more likely to ruin the shot by being out of focus than having mud if using a GH1. So for that kind of gigs any short DOF camera would be a secondary one anyway, wouldn't it?

And right now, how many news channels are actually broadcasting in 1080p? Last I tried 720p upscales pretty well to 1080i. Especially if you shoot at 50/60 fps. In my experience I have to abuse the GH1 pretty bad in 720 to get any show stopping mud.

I'm asking honestly and humbly, just trying to figure out how things work out there in the world, not being a smarty pants or prove anybody wrong. And you seems to be working daily in this environment thus being a good person to ask.

[Ben_B]

Well put. Seems like most are buying this camera for narrative filmmaking because they want the shallow DOF look at a lower price. Generally this means more methodically planned shoots, etc.

[ryansheffer]

Martti - though networks may be sending out TV at 720p, the vast amount of delivery specs I receive are 1080p. In all honesty the need to shoot 720p is one of the main things that ended up killing the camera for me. 720p is going to be gone very soon. Upscaling loses a lot of detail.

I would just strongly suggest anyone without a GH1 wait until more footage is shown from the 7d. Unless Canon decided to change its H.264 implementation (that it uses in cheaper cameras than just the 5d already), the 7d will produce a superior image, specifically when it comes to the codec.

Something to consider with professional work - there is always a quality control department. You can shoot broadcast quality footage with the GH1, but blocky colors (nearly always present, less present in 720p) and mud will not pass quality control, that is, of course unless you're able to claim it a way as a stylistic choice. Meaning - they won't air it. Even if it looks good enough, they won't. This may sound stupid, and it kind of is, but it's true.

I think the camera is amazing for the price, especially for planned out personal narrative projects, but if you plan on using the camera to make a living I think it has major set backs - too many for me to risk.

It's rare that I shoot something and get to choose my selects. If there is mud in any of the footage, that is too much, and possibly enough for the production company never to hire you again. It doesn't look good to have to explain why the one take that everyone loved because of the whip pan looks terrible.

The more I work, the more I realize why so many companies stick to equipment they know works. When money is on the line, you can't be worried about whether you tip toed correctly around the codec.

Also - everything but the codec is INCREDIBLE on the camera. I personally think Panasonic knew what they were doing when they made the codec suck. I have seen many other cameras record far superior 17mbps, not to mention the fact that I have never seen programs register any files as higher than 15mbps.

With all of that being said, I had a GH1 preordered day 1. I was so excited for the camera. When I was at NAB this year I had very little desire to look at the 5d and just wanted to go to Panasonic and discuss using the GH1 for pro work. Panasonic didn't give me the time of day. All they said was "that's a consumer product" and tried to sell me an HVX. Canon on the other hand was willing to work with my production company and lend us 4 free 5d mark IIs for a high profile music video we were shooting.

At the time I was just bummed to not get my hands on a pre-production US GH1. In retrospect it is a testament to what we are now seeing come to fruition with the 7d. Canon takes this seriously. They see VDSLR filmmaking as a legitimate market. And why shouldn't they, these companies make far more on lenses anyway. Panasonic may have released the first broadly marketed hybrid camera, but the execution is severely lacking when it comes to the codec. I still can't wait for the GH2 though. I honestly believe that anyone who claims that there aren't major problems with the codec is lying to themselves or has very limited experience in post. All you have to do is try to pull a color key to see just how horribly blocky the color rendition is.

At the end of the day, my point is this. Enjoy the camera if you have it, if you don't I think there is a camera coming out that, if your main desire is a consistently solid and professional image, will best this camera by quite a large margin.

I realize that I'm complaining about a $1500 camera. AND ITS AMAZING for $1500, but if the 7d can do what it seems like it can at $1700 body only, well, that's crazy.

[Ozpeter]

"This product is licenced unde the AVC patent portfolio under the AVC patent portfolio licence for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer [to encode and decode AVC video]. No licence is granted or shall be implied for any other use".

That's what it says in the manual for the GH1 (and for the little SD5 that I have, for that matter). It's a codec intended and restricted for amateur use. Under many conditions it is capable of producing professional results but that's not its intent.

The physical format (DSLR-style) seems to me to target the GH1 at photographers who want to take images of moving subjects primarily within a static frame - photos that move. Used in ways a photographer is unlikely to take a photo other than for a special effect, the codec can, under some conditions, reveal that it's not designed for such use.

Let's count ourselves lucky that it can do so much. There's no basis for disappointment that it doesn't do what it clearly and specifically is not intended to do.

Down the track some of the features of the GH1 (& D5II and D7 etc) will find their way into a device like Ben's excellent mockup picture, intended ground up for video. It will hopefully be licenced for pro use (and doubtless there will be a cost attached to that). If that doesn't come with a codec adequate for that design intent and codec licence, then the complaints will be justified.

[Chibs]

Does grandma care if there's mud on the whippy shot of your kid playing soccer? No.

Do people care when there's no mud in your narrative short because you know how to shoot one? No.
Yes. Next time if you're going to ask questions, don't answer them yourself. A serious case of mud can completely ruin a shot, and not just one or two frames. Mud can be very visible and disturbing even for someone who knows nothing about codecs, and abruptly makes you realize you were watching a film on a television or screen. It gets you out of the mood.
I really don't see why we're having this discussion here. It's clearly an issue. Just because you don't have problems with it because of your style of shooting, doesn't mean it's not an issue in general.


you're flawed.
Calling people flawed because they don't shoot like you is just plain moronic.

[Barry_Green]

Speilberg, Bay, and Greengrass, to name a few, have all shot scenes (and sometimes whole films) with shakey cams. Would you really tell them it's their fault if the camera failed them?
Would Spielberg, Bay, or Greengrass shoot an entire film on a $1500 DSLR?

Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this entire 1080/24p 4K-sensor cinema-sized-frame lens-included package is $1500? HALF the cost of an HMC150?

Good heavens, folks -- NO it's not going to do everything that a $350,000 F35 is going to do. But yes, when treated properly, it's going to deliver an image that's "good enough" for probably 90% of the folks out there.

If you have to control your shooting in order to get an image like this at $1500, most of us are pretty darn happy with that. If anyone isn't happy with it, they're free to take their $1500 and go buy the other 4K-sensor, 1080/24p, cinema-sized-frame camera out there.

Oh, yeah, wait -- there isn't one.

Which is why we all have to learn what it can, and can't do, and compromise. Or save up some more dough and buy a product that doesn't make us compromise.

[msorrels]

Just got my Nikon adapter yesterday. A quick test shows the bitrate of the files is the same as when using the kit lens. While it's possible there is some "processing" magic that gets turned off to support the auto-features, the resulting files don't seem to get a higher data rate. If you think about it, it would make sense. It's a lot harder to design(an near impossible to test) a system that dynamically scales based on available CPU vs a system with the hardware necessary to run it at a constant bitrate/constant processing all the time.

[Boz]

The GH1 would only fail if you overly vibrated the thing.

This is simply not true. But I'm beginning to realize a big discrepancy in opinions here. I, for the most part, am talking about 1080/24P mode, while you are talking about 720/60P mode. I agree mud is far less apparent in 720P mode. But I'm shooting for a filmlook that 60P simply does not deliver. Perhaps that helps clear some of the confusion were seeing here?



Go to hulu and check Rescue Me, Warehouse13, Psych, Monk, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Eureka, CSI: Las Vegas, Royal Pains and countless other tv series shot on film or digital video, hugely successful and done by professionnals, and tell me which one is doing crazy whipping pans that would in the same case show the "mud" side of the GH1 if used on a similar shoot.

I see your TV shows, and raise you 24, Legend of the Seeker, Leverage, Band of Brothers, Generation kill. :grin: We can throw examples of both sides of the "camera shake" fence all day long. For every show that doesn't whip camera around, there is another that does. Especially today with the MTV generation viewing habits.



the people that complain about how they can't, never do anyway.

Wow. Thanks for the tidbit of wisdom. Can I get that on a fortune cookie? ;)



Would Spielberg, Bay, or Greengrass shoot an entire film on a $1500 DSLR?

Barry you forgot the next sentence in that quote: "An extreme example I know, but I'm making a point that even in the most controlled "Pro" circumstances the GH1 could fail."

The point being that even pros shoot which extreme motion from time to time. So to blame the shooter is ludicrous. (I'm not saying that you said that, but that's what my response was to.)

Also, everyone says it's not a pro cam, which means it's a consumer cam. Consumers DON'T SHOOT LIKE PROS. So many people will shoot poorly, whipping the camera here and there, and mud will be everywhere. The codec should at least hold up to Panasonic's consumer division video cameras (which it doesn't).


If anyone isn't happy with it, they're free to take their $1500 and go buy the other 4K-sensor, 1080/24p, cinema-sized-frame camera out there.

Oh, yeah, wait -- there isn't one.

Isn't there? How do you classify the 7D then?

[Ben_B]

The 7D is $1,700 body only, the GH1 is $600 body only. Barry earlier said nice-lens included or something but didn't mention it the second time.

The 720p/60 mode can be perfectly reverse telecined in post. 9 out of 10 orphans can't tell the difference. I usually just drop it into a 24p timeline, this doesn't work on some shots, so I use compressor to convert them and it looks great.

720p works great, no mud. Codec only breaks with severe vibration (which for the thousandth time is a different thing than shakey handheld, I'm talking oscillation, back and forth, rapidly, in a somewhat fixed way, in addition to the already shakey nature of the shot, here people) that would really be a shot ruiner mud or not.

[Barry_Green]

Isn't there? How do you classify the 7D then? 7D is an announcement, not a product. It might be out in a few weeks or a few months, but until then, there's nothing else out there that you can actually buy.

[Ben_B]

That's exactly the way I've been thinking about it. Until I see a lot of footage, have read the manual back to front, and get the chance to shoot around with one I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the 7D and it's capabilities, for better or for worse. What I can tell you about it is that most of the footage I've seen looks pretty crummy. To quote that annoying segment on CNN: Just sayin'.

[Boz]

The 7D is $1,700 body only, the GH1 is $600 body only. Barry earlier said nice-lens included or something but didn't mention it the second time.

Sweet! Can you point me to where anyone can buy a GH1 body for $600? I'm sure there are many here that would be interested.




7D is an announcement, not a product. It might be out in a few weeks or a few months, but until then, there's nothing else out there that you can actually buy.

C'mon, it will be out by the end of the month. Unlike Red, Canon won't take years to get their announced product out the door. Now will it be easily obtainable at the end of the month? Probably not. As you said, it's back ordered into December at some places. Which is why I'm leaning towards keeping my GH1, despite its limitations. My money will be tied up regardless of whether I keep the GH1 or pre-order the 7D with store credit.

BTW, Philip Bloom is testing the 'announcement' as we speak. So far: "Rolling shutter issues with 7d persist but appear to be improved over 5d mk2"

And can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that the GH1 wins this comparison?

GH1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1VIDEO.HTM
vs.
7D: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DVIDEO.HTM

[Ben_B]

Japan. People who speak Japanese can get it. :)

As for the rest of us, as Barry said: "Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this entire 1080/24p 4K-sensor cinema-sized-frame lens-included package is $1500? "

And there he said lens-included package. Which is why I said that in the line you quoted.

You're paying $1500 for a great camera and a great lens, with the 7D you're paying $1700 for what will probably be a great camera...but at $200 more and you don't get a great lens worth $900...lets say you buy that much in glass, you're already at $2600...$1100 more than the GH1.

[bumkicho]

Can anyone seriouly tell which is better from that comparison?

From a pure amateur point of view, in GH1 test, the dog had to go quite far to get it. The camera guy had to zoom in a little bit. I assume he felt safe to do it because of its continuous autofocus capability.
In 7D test, the dog was actually right in front of the camera when she catches it.

I would assume the crop images of the subject right in front of you would look always better than the crop images of the subject that is far from you.

Again it is just an amateur's thought.



And can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that the GH1 wins this comparison?

GH1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1VIDEO.HTM
vs.
7D: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DVIDEO.HTM

[Barry_Green]

All will be answered soon enough. Sooner or later someone is gonna have both, we'll put 'em through their paces, and then definitive information will be known.

[SpecialEdFX]

FIRST PART FOR MARTTI: I think Narrative would present very few problems for you with this camera, and by all means a short would work out fine. On my show, we have 3 Sony Z7u's rolling all the time (with a 4th for backup) at any given location on the planet. It's all verite, and if scouted at all, it's done by a local that may not know production, or by a producer a few hours before we roll. While Varicams would be awesome, there just ain't enough room on the plane these days and budget allows us to get as many repairs or replacements as we have to on these relatively "cheap HDV cameras".

We need to shoot 24fps in full HD. While networks don't love HDV, it makes the grade if you're dumping serious time/talent/cash into your online edit. Even then I've ended up spending serious time using directional blurs to hide mud from HDV shots. We've recently been using a Letus to mount decent lenses in front of our cameras, but it's a real hassle on the road (setup times, maneuverability, etc.)

The GH1 gives a very similar look to a 35mm adapter and that's why I got it and am recommending we purchase a couple to capture beauty stuff. Again, that's what I'm using it for, and I think it would be much better for very controlled situations. Being someone that's personally on an indie budget, but spends a much higher budget for our show I understand both of the points of view here. When we don't have much to spend, we don't like hearing guys that drop 1500 bones like it was popcorn poo-poo our new toy. But they're right, as are MOST people on this post about expecting more from our manufacturers.

As for the Defenders Of Mud, saying it's a display of talent to compulsively make sure you're not breaking the camera's frail codec rules is complete, childish, apologist BS. If you talk like/ work like that around any kind of DP, you will ensure yourself a lifetime of budget equipment to work with.

[Ben_B]

Can anyone seriouly tell which is better from that comparison?

From a pure amateur point of view, in GH1 test, the dog had to go quite far to get it. The camera guy had to zoom in a little bit. I assume he felt safe to do it because of its continuous autofocus capability.
In 7D test, the dog was actually right in front of the camera when she catches it.

I would assume the crop images of the subject right in front of you would look always better than the crop images of the subject that is far from you.

Again it is just an amateur's thought.

That Dog video is infamous. I have never seen anything like that with my camera or with any other tests out there. Either this guy had a faulty unit, or a pre-production unit, or really just absolutely had the settings shot to hell.

[Cranky]

7D is an announcement, not a product. It might be out in a few weeks or a few months, but until then, there's nothing else out there that you can actually buy.

Well, he did not exactly buy it, but the product does exist already:

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/09/03/pimp-my-canon-7d-road-testing-the-latest-video-dslr/
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/09/03/the-constantly-updating-thoughts-on-canon-7d-blog/

[Martti Ekstrand]

And can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that the GH1 wins this comparison?

GH1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1VIDEO.HTM
vs.
7D: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DVIDEO.HTM

I think that guy should redo the test and not use a 1/1000 shutter on GH1. That clip is totally devoid of motion blur. And even if we presently can't get the GH1 body without the kit lens it's still a $700 body vs a $1600 one, of course the 7D should give a better result, anything else would be embarrassing for Canon.

@ Ryan and SpecialEdFX, thanks for the info,. Here in Sweden we are in dark backwaters regarding HD broadcast. 5 years ago the politicians and the broadcasters in cahoots rolled out digital terrestrial TV with only SD - the transmitters only supported mpeg2. Then 2 years later they started to talk about maybe upgrading to mpeg4 transmitters while all consumers had in the meantime been made to buy mpeg2 digital receivers... HD channels can be had over cable or satellite - mostly at a premium which makes most viewers skip it. So all my deliveries of commercials are still in SD mpeg2 format! BTW since my main clients are record companies most of the sources I get are archive material in SD so even if HD is rolled out I will have to deal with making SD upscaling work.

However I do sometimes get material on 1080 originating from cameras with 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" sensors. After comparisons with a bunch of clips I had available on my harddrives I can honestly say that I can upscale the GH1 720 material to 1080 in After Effects and the difference in sharpness is pretty much negligible from 1/3" and 1/2" cameras, it's not until 2/3" sharpness really gets visibly better. It appears to me like the larger sensor and good still primes is a better start for the image even when crammed into a pretty coarse encoding and 720. I was actually surprised about this, expecting the GH1 to fare far worse. Of course in a news situation upscaling in After Effects is not a realistic workflow.

That said I wouldn't either go out and blindly promise perfect HD images with the GH1 in a paid pro gig. It is a still a high-end consumer camera that we can bend into semi-pro work. I think Taylor Wilson (http://vimeo.com/6374764) is doing some amazing stuff in that regard. With a client that I know and who trust me I could explain these things and proceed when they know the limitations and are prepared to get a from a technical point not perfect image. For a SD target I have no hesitation, I can just do it, in fact I will use the GH1 for a SD commercial next friday. GH1 material is miles ahead of the SD stuff I'm asked to deal with from this particular client on a regular basis. I'd just have to explain the small form factor beforehand :)

I just put out these views as some people scream "GH1 SUCKS!!1!!1!!!" without explaining their starting point and target. And mostly they haven't shot a second with it. Like Ryan says, for $1500 it's pretty amazing camera, best bang for the buck ratio I've ever had in any gear. As a long-time pro (30+ years now) being used to work with gear so expensive to rent that a quick one to the loo cost $400 of wasted time it's quite a relief to own such a inexpensive camera that can give such great results. GH1 has done miracles for my inspiration and creativity just over this summer, so much that I'm planning to get out of my editing room where I've camped cosily for ten years and back to shooting more regularly.

To sum it up, the mere fact that GH1 was used to shoot an entire feature in just weeks after it was released do speak more than I can put to words. Hope to see that movie soon!

[filmmaker's gang]

There is a lot of needless hysteria that is repeated over and over about the GH1 compression. I think it's mostly reported and re-reported by people who watch web videos and don't actually own a GH1. Until recently, I thought that the issue was dead but clearly with what I read online it is not.

At a conference this past weekend Liam Finn showed many shots from his feature film Rejouer, there was even a section of the presentation called "The Great Unknown" which talked about and showed the problems of the GH1.

Undoubtedly the GH1 compression is a weak point of the camera, and it would be wonderful if it were improved- however, How many shots do you think contained the dreaded "mud" compression issues?

zero!

That's right, none.

There were other surprises/problems, but after hours and hours of material being shot and edited, the "mud" that has permeated the web/blogs in relation to the GH1 is not present. I do mean n o t p r e s e n t.

What did Liam and team do that was different?

They didn't shoot with the 14-140 except on two occasions very briefly (one had a problem with exposure, the other focus, but no "mud"), they didn't shoot "garbage cam" by swinging the camera wildly, and they didn't fill the frame with fast moving objects without an subject/point of focus in the foreground. Also the camera was 100% manual, no auto anything.

While not shown in the presentation, green screen was shot successfully, generally considered the torture test of compression. After the screening- in which 80% of the material had no color correction, I was treated to a barrage of questions and comments all of which were extremely complementary.

If I'm not mistaken, all the pro camera folks on DVXuser have weighed in on the "mud" issue and reported it a non-issue. After 18-days (of mostly hand held and tracking shots) and over 50 cards of GH1 images without "mud", I think it's safe to say if you are seeing "mud" there's a good chance the "mud" is being introduced by the shooter and not the camera.

I hope that next time someone thinks to complain about "mud" artifacts in the GH1, they first take a look at the startling good work done on REJOUER.man.. you need to change your core business.. there's a new cam out there.. they called it 7D

[Ben_B]

man.. you need to change your core business.. there's a new cam out there.. they called it 7D

Great, link me to some footage you've shot with the GH1 and some footage you've shot with the 7D to help me make my decision.

[Ozpeter]

Also, everyone says it's not a pro cam, which means it's a consumer cam. Consumers DON'T SHOOT LIKE PROS. So many people will shoot poorly, whipping the camera here and there, and mud will be everywhere. The codec should at least hold up to Panasonic's consumer division video cameras (which it doesn't).I guess I'm the consumer representative round here :) and I don't think the GH1 is going to appeal a lot to whip panners wandering into a camera shop looking for a typical camcorder. They won't even know that it does video unless they've read up on it in advance, and if they've done that reading, they'll know its strengths and weaknesses, and they'll be pretty serious amateurs shelling out that much.

My chief reason for buying it was deep dissatisfaction with the low light performance of my previous AVCHD device, which was at the time of purchase a top of the range domestic camcorder, the SD5. In interiors other than on really bright days, and from evening onwards, I was getting end-to-end mud, not just momentary. The GH1 is in a totally different league in that respect. In my domestic use I'm not getting mud (or if I am, I'm not recognising it and thus not being worried by it) and I'm getting the benefits of the shallow DOF that I'd previously not even thought about, because on domestic camcorders it's simply not available. So I personally don't have any concerns about the codec, and the bitrate displayed during replay in Nero seems typically slightly higher than the SD5, so no complaints there.

In the last 24 hours I've been playing around with GH1 footage converting it to various other formats using software which provides a GUI to FFmpeg. Two things surprised me - one, that it holds up very well to being transcoded to lower or higher resolutions and even to lower bitrates, but also, when I accidentally converted a clip to a stupidly low bitrate, the result looked just like the stills posted here showing "mud". Now my understanding was that when there was a great deal of motion, the bitrate used should increase to cope with it. But it seems like if you do a whip pan or shoot sideways from a car, the GH1 reduces the bitrate radically instead, giving the muddy results. That seems to me to support the theory that the GH1 kind of overloads or panics in such situations (particularly with the highly processed kit lens, which is all I have). Does that make sense?

[Car3o]

Calling people flawed because they don't shoot like you is just plain moronic.

Doh!. I'll put that into consideration....sort of. but not really. i'd get what you're trying to say, but i'm moronic.


Sweet! Can you point me to where anyone can buy a GH1 body for $600? I'm sure there are many here that would be interested.

ah man, i would give you my next tid bit of wisdom where you could get one, easily i might add, but you mocked me. now get out there and start making films. dammit, looks like that fortune cookie was on the house.

[Cranky]

my previous AVCHD device, which was at the time of purchase a top of the range domestic camcorder, the SD5.
The SD5? Top of the range? With 1/6-inch CCDs? Are you serious? The SD1 kills the SD5 anytime, and Canon's HG10, which was released about the same time, in summer 2007, kills them both.

[Ozpeter]

Well, it was top of the Panasonic domestic range at the time... all I'm saying is that anyone likely to be in the upgrade market from anything like those devices will be mightily impressed with the GH1 (I would have thought) - and thus it will hit its target. I was comparing some recordings from both just now, and setting aside DOF and low light, the GH1 looks like moving photos, whereas the SD5 looks like, well, video - and it used to impress me no end.

[Tameside]

If the bitrate was made to be cbr instead of vbr, this may indeed make a world of difference, not sure we need more bitrate, 1080p can be stunning, just make its constant!

[SpecialEdFX]

Car3o might be my 17 y/o brother. Douggie? It's me.

[Ben_B]

If the bitrate was made to be cbr instead of vbr, this may indeed make a world of difference, not sure we need more bitrate, 1080p can be stunning, just make its constant!

I've never seen it drop below 17Mbps looking at the files? What's the issue here? I don't think it varies too much...I haven't seen any problems.

At 1080p on this camera you're dealing with about 9% more pixels per second than at 720p at the same bitrate which probably explains the higher frequencies of mud in 1080p footage vs 720p. Also since it's recording at 24p in a 60i stream it might be sampling the scene less often for changes vs 60p?

If they gave us 1080/24pn that would actually mean fewer pixels per second (less information needing compression) than 720p/60 at the same bitrate which maybe would improve things? Assuming my other theory about the higher framerate rather than less data being what makes 720p better is incorrect.

[Car3o]

Car3o might be my 17 y/o brother. Douggie? It's me.

Gah dammit. Mom said you coudn't use the computer anymore because you d/l too many "hand exercise movies"...but whatever. I wont tell her.

[Boz]

In the last 24 hours I've been playing around with GH1 footage converting it to various other formats using software which provides a GUI to FFmpeg.

What software is that? I'm always interested in playing with new conversion software. Right now I'm leaning toward VoltaicHD, which seems to be the best bang for the buck.


If they gave us 1080/24pn that would actually mean fewer pixels per second (less information needing compression) than 720p/60 at the same bitrate which maybe would improve things? Assuming my other theory about the higher framerate rather than less data being what makes 720p better is incorrect.

Any of the following would actually make me very happy:

1. 24P w/o 60i wrapper in 1080

2. 24P in 720

3. Bump up the AVCHD codec from 17mbs to 24mbs.

[Ozpeter]

Converters etc using FFmpeg (which is part of VoltaicHD I believe) are listed at http://ffmpeg.org/projects.html The Hall of Shame lists others at http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html but they are products not properly complying with FFmpeg licencing terms.

Ones I have tried are EncodeHD, WinFF, and Free AVCHD Converter (the last being in the hall of shame but at least their product is free and they do say it uses FFmpeg). I'm about to try Avanti. (Can't quite remember why but I'm a sucker for freeware...)

I tend to use MediaShow Espresso as it's very fast on a Cuda-enabled PC but it has very few settable options - it's good for creating high bitrate mpeg2 intermediaries / proxies in minimum time.

[Ozpeter]

Woah, Avanti has all the options anyone could want. Took a little while to get it going and for best results knowing the ffmpeg options helps (eg "-threads 4" so it makes the best of a quad core) but for geeks it's handy.

[Car3o]

if people are willing to sit through the rendering process on a mk2 to get 24p, then why aren't people discussing using the mjpeg codec for your mud scenes and covert it to 24p?

http://vimeo.com/groups/gh1/videos/6420063

genius...i know.

[Ben_B]

Honestly cause the MJPEG mode sucks.

No seriously though, I find the image quality inferior to AVCHD.

I guess you could switch to it for shots giving you mud problems...but I am not sure how good it would look edited together with the AVCHD stuff.

[filmmaker's gang]

Great, link me to some footage you've shot with the GH1 and some footage you've shot with the 7D to help me make my decision.not online.. not 7D yet.. but the web is plenty of 5d2 footage

[Ben_B]

man.. you need to change your core business.. there's a new cam out there.. they called it 7D


not online.. not 7D yet.. but the web is plenty of 5d2 footage

Right, so it's all well and good for you to think you want to buy one based on information that's out, etc. However, until you've shot with both of them and can offer reasons why you personally feel that one is better than the other, that goes beyond stuff you've read on the internet, or the 2 videos you've seen, and can post footage you shot to back it up, I don't think it's fair for you to tell Illya that it's time for him to change his business (one that he's clearly invested a lot of time, money, and effort in) just because a new camera is out.