PDA

View Full Version : GH1 quality on big screen TV.



rundavids
11-18-2009, 09:49 PM
has anyone tried watching their footage on a 50+ TV. And how does the image quality look? Could the image on the GH1 ever go on a giant projector screening?

thisisapocalypse
11-18-2009, 09:53 PM
has anyone tried watching their footage on a 50+ TV. And how does the image quality look? Could the image on the GH1 ever go on a giant projector screening?

I watch my footage on a 73" DLP and it looks fantastic, you can definitely project it on a huge screen with good quality.

saaby
11-18-2009, 09:59 PM
People can bicker, pick apart, and complain all they want, but in the end the footage holds it's own just fine.

Last week some footage from my GH1 (A title sequence, specifically) was shown on a theatre-size screen in front of an audience of 500. The rest of the film was shot on the RED. Nobody in the audience noticed or knew that the title sequence was shot on a GH1*, and the filmmaker was complementary of the GH1.

*Due to the nature of the title sequence. I'm not meaning to suggest that you could seamlessly cut between a GH1 and a RED without anybody noticing.

rundavids
11-19-2009, 12:25 AM
Does anyone know if the videos on Vimeo are compressed even more when uploaded to their site? The other people's videos I've seen seem to be horrible.

Martti Ekstrand
11-19-2009, 01:01 AM
Does anyone know if the videos on Vimeo are compressed even more when uploaded to their site?

Yes, and quite brutally. Join as a free member and download the film maker's uploaded files instead where they are made available.

thisisapocalypse
11-19-2009, 06:29 AM
Does anyone know if the videos on Vimeo are compressed even more when uploaded to their site? The other people's videos I've seen seem to be horrible.

Definitely - in most cases the video you see has been compressed at least twice. Once by the creator to make it compatible for vimeo without uploading an enormous file, and then vimeo does a number on it too. Vimeo is great, but you can't really get a good idea as to what the original GH1 footage looks like from it.

ROne
11-19-2009, 06:42 AM
I was quite disappointed with the projection of my own GH1 onto my 1080p Panasonic projector 72" D65. This was via HDMI all native.

The resolution just isn't there, and the colour looks shabby on distant objects (not enough colour resolution or luma resolution.) That said was mainly interested in WSs where things are stressed.

And our HPX171 looked pretty good at the side of it.

That said this stuff is objective and dependant on material, but I was wholly disappointed. You need to make sure you've not got any nasty sharpening going off too.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
11-19-2009, 08:06 AM
I was quite disappointed with the projection of my own GH1 onto my 1080p Panasonic projector 72" D65. This was via HDMI all native. ... And our HPX171 looked pretty good at the side of it. ...

Hi ROne: I'm glad your HPX171 is working well.

However, I'm shocked to hear your GH1, which costs about 1/3 the price, doesn't produce video as good as your HPX171. What might possibly explain it? I wonder ... :happy:

dvbrother
11-19-2009, 08:48 AM
Viewing raw footage via HDMI straight off the GH1 has always been a bit of a disappointment to me. I have a 55" Sony. But I believe it's because the only part of my filmmaker brain that's being activated is the "pixel-count, resolution, compression artifact, banding, mud" portion.
But when I view GH1 footage on my 55" Sony that has been edited, graded, with music and a sound mix, then another part of my brain gets activated and suddenly I'm not nearly as judgmental. In fact, the GH1 videos look better than anything I've shot before, with the exception of some things I've shot on a Varicam.
I suppose it depends on what function your footage is serving. But for my purposes, which is usually a narrative story with actors and good lighting, I think it looks fantastic on the big screen. I can't wait to see how it looks projected at a theater.

ROne
11-19-2009, 10:12 AM
Hi ROne: I'm glad your HPX171 is working well.

However, I'm shocked to hear your GH1, which costs about 1/3 the price, doesn't produce video as good as your HPX171. What might possibly explain it? I wonder ... :happy:

Ah my logic was that as good as the HPX171 is, I thought it might come unstuck against a full raster-ish DSLR Vis--vis pixel shifted HPX. I was wrong and suprised. Comparing 720p with both cameras the GH1 looks SD compared. The colour resolution just looks terrible. 1080p is better of course.


As a comparison the DSLR looks fine on my 42 Plasma.

thisisapocalypse
11-19-2009, 12:56 PM
For what it's worth I've only played my clips off the SD card through a PS3, I haven't done it via the HDMI out of the camera. It definitely looks better once graded, and I don't have an HPX to compare it to - I've only shot at 1080p with 35mm primes, I don't have the kit lens.

Osslund
11-20-2009, 09:51 AM
When I put even compressed WMV files and show them on a Pioneer 50" it's really great. Much better than I would have thought.

rundavids
11-20-2009, 01:36 PM
Do most of you agree that showing GH1 footage on a theatre-like size screen would be fine, or would the image quality fall apart? I'm in the process of purchasing a DSLR for a feature film, but don't know how the quality is on a gigantic screening. And with the GH1's low rate codec of 17, vs something like a Canon 7D's 40+ codec, would the image quality be better suited? I don't know much about codec and hoping you guys can help me out. Thanks for all the replies. You guys are helping me a lot. =-]

Ben_B
11-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Tomorrow some of my GH1 work is getting projected on a theatre sized (actually bit larger) screen (although I don't believe it's at full resolution.) We'll see what happens. Also being shown is a film I worked on where we used EX-1 for half the scenes and GH1 for the other half (different location) so we'll see how noticeable the differences are.

Ben_B
11-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Do most of you agree that showing GH1 footage on a theatre-like size screen would be fine, or would the image quality fall apart? I'm in the process of purchasing a DSLR for a feature film, but don't know how the quality is on a gigantic screening. And with the GH1's low rate codec of 17, vs something like a Canon 7D's 40+ codec, would the image quality be better suited? I don't know much about codec and hoping you guys can help me out. Thanks for all the replies. You guys are helping me a lot. =-]

Bitrates are not so easily comparable like that. It seems like the 7D's image is as compressed/poorly downscaled (IMO) as the GH1, it just doesn't break down with movement.

dvbrother
11-20-2009, 01:51 PM
Do most of you agree that showing GH1 footage on a theatre-like size screen would be fine, or would the image quality fall apart? I'm in the process of purchasing a DSLR for a feature film, but don't know how the quality is on a gigantic screening. And with the GH1's low rate codec of 17, vs something like a Canon 7D's 40+ codec, would the image quality be better suited? I don't know much about codec and hoping you guys can help me out. Thanks for all the replies. You guys are helping me a lot. =-]

It's going to be fine. It will not fall apart. How it is perceived is partly based on the context. If you're showing it as a comparison to 35mm film, or some high-end HD footage, it may not cut it. But if it's to judge if the footage would be acceptable in the context of telling a good story, or a good documentary, then it's going to be just fine. It's a great camera, and the quality of well-exposed, well-composed GH1 footage trumps it's compression artifacts and banding.

If you're worried about it not making the grade on the big screen, I wouldn't consider the 7D as a possible alternative. You'd probably need to be thinking more like a RED, or a Varicam or something like that.

Barry_Green
11-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Bitrates are not so easily comparable like that. It seems like the 7D's image is as compressed/poorly downscaled (IMO) as the GH1, it just doesn't break down with movement.
On static shots the GH1 codec can look great, but I've been doing some mud comparisons to check into the whole kit lens/af issues, and all I can really say is that yes, the Canon codec is simply FAR more resilient.

Osslund
11-20-2009, 02:57 PM
Yes, the 7D codec is more robust and does not introduce variations as the GH1 can do.

rundavids
11-20-2009, 02:59 PM
I just finished my script and it's a romantic comedy, with not much action. Maybe a pan, here and there, but nothing crazy. I'm just worried about it not looking decent when projected onto theatre screens.

Also, what is "mud"?

Martti Ekstrand
11-20-2009, 03:12 PM
Do most of you agree that showing GH1 footage on a theatre-like size screen would be fine, or would the image quality fall apart?

If you have a 24" monitor on a desk at normal distance when you sit working it's probably covering more of your field of vision than most seats in a cinema theatre.

Ben_B
11-20-2009, 03:16 PM
Martti get out of my room.

rundavids
11-20-2009, 03:16 PM
Another thing is about the playback and image quality of the 1080p 24 frames. Do any of you guys think the GH1 records nicely? I've probably asked before, can't remember. Most samples and videos off Vimeo and Youtube seem to be 720p. Seems like no one likes 1080p on GH1?

Barry_Green
11-20-2009, 03:19 PM
It should look just fine on the big screen. DVX films look good on the big screen, HVX projected footage looks great on the big screen.

Barry_Green
11-20-2009, 03:23 PM
If you have a 24" monitor on a desk at normal distance when you sit working it's probably covering more of your field of vision than most seats in a cinema theatre.

I use the "cow horns" technique to gauge relative viewing distance; hold your hand up making the Texas Longhorns "steer" symbol (pinkie and index finger sticking out to the sides). Then hold your arm out as far as you can in front of you, and see how many "cow horns" it takes to cover the screen.

In the theater, at normal viewing distances, it's usually two to three cow horns.

On my 24" monitor, at normal distance, it's two and a half cow horns. Sitting back in the chair, it's two. That's the same size as my 67" DLP TV in my living room, when sitting on the couch 10 feet away.

So what Martti is saying is, if you have a 24" screen, you're effectively seeing what your footage would look like when projected on "the big screen" (from a reasonable viewing distance).

Martti Ekstrand
11-20-2009, 03:34 PM
Seems like no one likes 1080p on GH1?

I do. http://vimeo.com/6997918 - 1920x1080 Quicktime available for download if you are a Vimeo member.


I use the "cow horns" technique to gauge relative viewing distance; hold your hand up making the Texas Longhorns "steer" symbol (pinkie and index finger sticking out to the sides). Then hold your arm out as far as you can in front of you, and see how many "cow horns" it takes to cover the screen.

Lucky I said 'normal' distance. If I do this I touch the screen just like Phil Collins. But then again I never sit further back than 5th row in cinemas.


Martti get out of my room.
Here's looking at you kid...:evil:

Kellar42
11-20-2009, 03:36 PM
Seems no one that doesn't use the GH1 likes 1080p, and most of us that do keep saying it's beautiful most of the time.

rundavids
11-20-2009, 03:44 PM
Wow. Nice job Martti. Really nice quality. =-]
Do I need some sort of downloader? When I click on download on vimeo, it just plays back the video.

Barry_Green
11-20-2009, 03:49 PM
Okay, if I have to be the one to say it, I'll say it:
I don't like the 1080 mode on the GH1 when shooting forests. There. I said it. For anything else, it seems pretty good, but a wide shot of a forest -- nope. Unless maybe it's a static shot, but if it's a moving pan in a forest, the GH1 1080 mode just ain't good enough. In my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

For anything else, it's almost always perfectly acceptable and I use it almost always in 1080 mode.

Martti Ekstrand
11-20-2009, 03:59 PM
Agreed on the forrest - when doing a wide shot with a deep depth of field. For that use a good camcorder and then make the short DOF medium and close-up shots with the GH1. Ditto for a ocean or lake background.


Wow. Nice job Martti. Really nice quality. =-]
Do I need some sort of downloader? When I click on download on vimeo, it just plays back the video.
Thanks. As I said in my first post in this thread - if you join as a free Vimeo member you can download most clips - unless the film maker don't allow it. You have more info about the spot here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=186392

ydgmdlu
11-20-2009, 04:04 PM
Bitrates are not so easily comparable like that. It seems like the 7D's image is as compressed/poorly downscaled (IMO) as the GH1, it just doesn't break down with movement.
Here we go again... :)

Objectively, technically speaking, the 7D's image is less compressed (because of the higher bitrate) but more poor down-scaled (because of lower effective resolution and worse-looking aliasing) than the GH1's. You may call that a mere semantic difference, but it does effect how you use the cameras.

rundavids
11-20-2009, 04:27 PM
Hey Barry, what happens to the shot if you pan in the forest?? Really curious. Is it only the forest?

John Caballero
11-20-2009, 04:35 PM
Hey Barry, what happens to the shot if you pan in the forest?? Really curious. Is it only the forest?

Oh boy you don't want to know. You may come face to face with Bigfoot!

Barry_Green
11-20-2009, 04:50 PM
Hey Barry, what happens to the shot if you pan in the forest?? Really curious. Is it only the forest?
A pan in the forest will turn your footage to absolute complete nondescript muddy crapola.

Martti Ekstrand
11-21-2009, 01:22 AM
I just finished my script and it's a romantic comedy, with not much action. Maybe a pan, here and there, but nothing crazy. I'm just worried about it not looking decent when projected onto theatre screens.

Before the trolls rush in from the forests to scare you; have you seen dvbrother aka Todd Norris trailer for the short he's working on? Sounds like it's a good reference for you and the film you want to make.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=189447

Chris Light
11-21-2009, 01:31 AM
my family owns a citrus and avocado ranch north of san diego, and i've been taking footage all around, and i havent noticed any of the "crapola" thats being mentioned here....sorry Barry...
i do, however, control my shots, and i have shot in 1080/24p, as well as the 720p settings....just not seeing it. trees/leaves/complex landscape everywhere....is there harm in controled shots?....seems to be working fine for me.

Kellar42
11-21-2009, 09:02 AM
How much editing or viewing on a larger screen have you started to do, Skinny? I did some stuff in the jungle a couple of weeks ago, and I thought it looked fine until I started really messing with it, then the mud became apparent. However, I was able to get useable video out of most it, but it does take a hit.

On the original topic, I tried plugging my GH1 directly into an HDTV (something I hadn't done) and for whatever reason it looks terrible in comparison to importing the footage into the computer. I think we're used to an Hv30 or something giving really amazing quality plugged into a T.V, but this seems like the wrong route to go for the GH1!

rundavids
11-21-2009, 02:20 PM
Hi Kellar, is it with all your videos from the GH1 that look terrible when directly plugged into the HDTV?

Chris Light
11-21-2009, 03:35 PM
I did some stuff in the jungle a couple of weeks ago, and I thought it looked fine until I started really messing with it, then the mud became apparent. However, I was able to get useable video out of most it, but it does take a hit.

well, i suppose i could have been more specific, but my exprience is along the lines of your response...thing is, for the most part, i don't "mess" with my footage too much. but when i do, it's usually with the intent of seeing how FAR i could push it, since i haven't been editing gh1 footage for long. I came from Canon xha1 hdv footage that was somewhat of a nightmare at times.

at no point was i implying that my footage is always perfect, and i apologize for my poor phrasing. i am becoming aware of the limitations with the gh1's footage, and i've been paying a lot of attention to these boards for insight. i've just been fortunate thusfar, as i don't have all the professional tools that some people have.

Chris