PDA

View Full Version : GH13, the bad and ugly



mitchell1074
06-29-2010, 10:43 AM
Hi-

I don't know if this might be useful, but here's a short batch of clips that show *ahem* issues with the AVCHD/24p "C"

Not raggin' on the camera (i love it) but maybe interesting, maybe not.

12948828

Barry_Green
06-29-2010, 10:55 AM
Embedding: use the "vimeo" button, and put the number (and only the number) of the video in between the vimeo tags.

mitchell1074
06-29-2010, 11:00 AM
Thank you again!

Ian-T
06-29-2010, 11:03 AM
What am I supposed to see?

Blaine
06-29-2010, 11:13 AM
What am I supposed to see?
Good question.

averan
06-29-2010, 11:14 AM
was this the 'good' reel?

Luis Caffesse
06-29-2010, 11:17 AM
Agreed - not sure what "the bad and ugly" is in these clips.

Isaac_Brody
06-29-2010, 11:20 AM
Yup. It's a good thing that normal folk don't know what to look for and don't care about a couple of wavy lines. I'll take this ugly any day of the week over the amazing rainbow color moire acid trip.

averan
06-29-2010, 11:22 AM
alright! i'm normal after all!! :D

Lowlypawn
06-29-2010, 11:28 AM
I had to read the description on the video before I saw any problems at all! I kept thinking wow this looks really good, the only thing that would make this better would be a tripod!

Nektonic
06-29-2010, 11:40 AM
Yup. It's a good thing that normal folk don't know what to look for and don't care about a couple of wavy lines. I'll take this ugly any day of the week over the amazing rainbow color moire acid trip.

On most DSLR clips, I rarely ever notice the moire. Usually I have to have it directly pointed out to me on online clips as well, while others seem to make it a priority to hunt for the moire. You're right though, I don't think that 95% of the average non-filmmaker audience will notice these kinds of things. If they did, then we would've heard more complaints over the years about film grain and highlights being blown out and all those kinds of things that can happen even with 35mm film on a big budget movie, whether intentional or not.

On my own Canon DSLR, I've had to literally go out of my way so far just to get some moire patterns to show up. Even then, it wasn't that bad. I'm more concerned that there are no zebras or peaking functions to help with focusing. Those are bigger annoyances than the hugely blown out of proportion moire and aliasing issues.

I understand people shooting big important projects on a DSLR being annoyed with things like the moire/aliasing and rolling shutter, but then again, these cameras weren't designed for big crewed large scale projects that would commonly be shot with more high end cameras.

mitchell1074
06-29-2010, 11:59 AM
So sorry everyone! This is way out of context without the vimeo notes (below)

This was just a "slop test" bad shooting, not the best lens, etc. to see how it would look. The issues i think are marginal weighed against the incredible quality this little thing is producing.

For the record I think this camera rocks.

NOTES:
So here is some of the "Ugly" with the GH1. This was shot very sloppily (tourist mode!) with the not very good kit lens (14-140) while on a walk around downtown Portland. I'm embarrassed to even show it. Oh the shame, the unbearable shame.

First shot of freeway overpass has horrible vertical "stripes" in flat area of color (sky) along with the most noticeable compression artifacts. I understand I can bake out the vertical texture pattern by letting the camera sit, powered on at 1600 iso for a day or so, so it's in the corner doing that now (bad camera, bad camera!) The AVCHD artifacts are probably just a fact of life.

Second shot of Hawthorne Bridge/downtown skyline shows bad aliasing in the second building from the right.

Cargo ship, jaggies on the angled tie-down lines

Westbank esplanade, look at the fine vertical railings by the river, some aliasing but not too bad.

Pearl District/Union station bits of aliasing, but get real, what do you want from a $700 camera? :)

Shot of boat, any rolling shutter? I dunno, looks ok to me. Terrible shaky zoom? fire that cameraman.

AVCHD "C" settings/24p Native
Kit lens (14-140) ND .6
Shutter @ 1/125 or so, f11-16 or so (didn't really keep track)
MTS files dropped into 1080/24p After Effects project, exported as "Uncompressed 8-bit, 4:2:2, 1080/24p
FOR VIMEO: Uncompressed file exported from Quicktime Pro as 720 H264, "best" settings then uploaded

MattinSTL
06-29-2010, 07:38 PM
I feel bait 'n switched. I watched it twice... and all I can think is it looks like a 16mm film.

John Caballero
06-29-2010, 07:50 PM
I also saw a jumping pixel two thirds to the left of the screen that appeared every four frames for about 20 seconds then suddenly moved across the screen, with a few people noticing I am sure, to the other side. It was almost too awful and painful to watch. Said pixel laughed sarcastically two seconds before the end. That and the blinking artifact in the middle of those "wavy lines" in the window in the right totally ruined this piece technically. A real shame. We should all join together and dumped our beloved GH1s, hacked or not!

Lammy
06-29-2010, 08:03 PM
Oh it's the usual vertical stripes/banding and dancing bluey purple mushy smeary noise. It appears in stills too, not just in video. Take a raw picture and play with the levels to their extremes, it's there. Canon DSLRs definately have it worse, the only exception is the Nikons which have a more uniform monochromatic grain. It's normal.

Nothing to do with the compression, more to do with the sensor and how the processor interprets that. I don't think any hack can fix that.

I'd suggest you crush some of the blue channels and add in film grain to disguise it abit.

Aliasing... yeah I always thought the GH1 looked too digitally sharp in places. But still nice.

mitchell1074
06-30-2010, 07:07 AM
I feel bait 'n switched. I watched it twice... and all I can think is it looks like a 16mm film.

wait is that a compliment or insult? :)

It's hard to see the aliasing on the skylne/building I mentioned in the Vimeo version; at 1080 it looks like a special effect and is very distracting. I don't know if there is post fix for isolated instances like that (other than softening the image) or if shooting with a very mild diffusion filter might be the only bet.

MattinSTL
06-30-2010, 08:02 AM
wait is that a compliment or insult? :)

Just having fun with you and the thread... I think if you had prefaced your video with the aliasing you just mentioned (and how to clearly see it)... that would have helped.

I've seen some CLEARLY bad aliasing videos... even in the small vimeo window. I was expecting something easy to spot.

mitchell1074
06-30-2010, 03:38 PM
To update, I baked the camera yesterday for about 12 hours and it looks like it completely removed the vertical bands, i think that calls for a beer!

Richard Sutcliffe
06-30-2010, 04:06 PM
come again? Baked? Im intrigued...

mitchell1074
06-30-2010, 04:29 PM
Hi- In my case I plugged the camera into AC, set it (in manual movie mode) to 1600 asa, wide open, OIS off (i don't know if that mattered) lens cap on, and let it just sit there, powered up for 12 hours or so. It made a huge difference in the blue sky shots I compared, helped not quite as much in a dark, tungsten lit set up, but still some improvement from out of the box. Right now it's still kind of a deal-breaker for me for pro use cause the tungsten shots just can't have that noticeable, vertical texture. I really want this to work though!

I wonder if the camera has a similar issue like RED (well, pre mysterium at least) with a noisy blue channel and aversion to 3200k...

cbrandin
07-01-2010, 08:26 AM
Just powered up? Were you capturing any data? If not, what difference does the lens being wide open make if it's covered?

Chris

averan
07-01-2010, 09:33 AM
now that you've pointed out the 'ugly' i can see it if i look closely and pause the video. otherwise, seems perfectly acceptable to me while viewing....at least online, which is all i'd ever use this camera for anyway.
even so, we've all heard how well this holds up on theater screens. so its not a $100k camera for $1k, but then i never dreamed it was. ;)
while its good for cinematographers to nitpick and strive for perfection, we need to be careful not to get caught up in it and let it keep us from telling a story.

Svart
07-01-2010, 10:07 AM
Just powered up? Were you capturing any data? If not, what difference does the lens being wide open make if it's covered?

Chris


Covering it just keeps the possibility of image burn-in to a minimum. Cmos (and your viewfinder/LCD) can possibly have an image imprinted on them if the image is left on them long enough. Kinda like the old Plasma TVs used to have a problem with.

The theory is that the heat from the camera being on for long periods of time causes cleaning residue to *burn* off the sensor. A secondary theory is that the camera does some kind of self-calibration over time. Either way, when I got my camera the purple/yellow banding was so bad I couldn't use it. After about 3 days of being *burned in* those bands were gone.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

mitchell1074
07-01-2010, 10:18 AM
now that you've pointed out the 'ugly' i can see it if i look closely and pause the video. otherwise, seems perfectly acceptable to me while viewing....at least online, which is all i'd ever use this camera for anyway.
even so, we've all heard how well this holds up on theater screens. so its not a $100k camera for $1k, but then i never dreamed it was. ;)
while its good for cinematographers to nitpick and strive for perfection, we need to be careful not to get caught up in it and let it keep us from telling a story.

"Ugly" was probably too strong of a word, and it is nitpicky stuff. I pointed out somewhere before, less than 10 years ago there was a pretty steady supply of theatrical features being released that had been shot on miniDV (Tadpole, Pieces of April, The Anniversary Party, etc) There's no reason someone couldn't shoot a really nice looking feature with this camera as it is now.

As far as the camera cookery, mine has visibly improved, but I still see the vertical stuff in low-light, especially tungsten lit shots, maybe it never completely goes away?

hernan
07-06-2010, 05:28 PM
[12502040].

one dog
07-06-2010, 10:24 PM
Did you bake it while recording footage?

mitchell1074
07-07-2010, 07:59 PM
Hi- I didn't record, just turned camera on and let it sit all night.

And I have to temper my initial enthusiasm, I think the vertical lines are less obtrusive, but still most definitely there. If it's a matter of unfixable fixed pattern noise (especially with tungsten lit scenes), then this is just one of those artifacts that you have to take into consideration at the outset of a project and decide if it's workable or not. Add a little detail and texture and it goes away, but blank blue skies or walls at a stop or more under and there it is.