Bitrate?

M

MeAgain

Carbonite Member
I know this is a very complicated issue, and the forum on the GH-1 is huge, but...

Basically, I'm looking to invest in a camera in the near future for a feature film. I don't make a living as a cinematographer.

My concerns are saving money while getting something good, since I'm going to be using this for a specific application.

Anyway, I've been researching both the HMC40 and Gh-1, their drawbacks, pros, cons, etc. Both cameras look really nice and have nice pricetags.

I've read fast movement with the Gh-1 is a problem, but my shooting style is either static or very slow pans or dollies. So that limitation works well for me.

But then I read about bitrates, and how the GH-1 has a comparitively lower bitrate than the HMC40 or other cameras. I know bitrate has to do with information, but what does it mean for the final image? More artifacts? Less sharpness? I've seen people warn that it's good for web based stuff, but to steer clear for "Serious" applications.

I couldn't find a thread on this, and there' s a decent chance it's been covered. If it has, can someone link me? "bitrate" grabs a lot of results in the search...
 
MeAgain said:
I've read fast movement with the Gh-1 is a problem, but my shooting style is either static or very slow pans or dollies. So that limitation works well for me.

But then I read about bitrates, and how the GH-1 has a comparitively lower bitrate than the HMC40 or other cameras. I know bitrate has to do with information, but what does it mean for the final image?
Click to expand...

Look at the results, they are great. For your applications: Nothing.
In my opinion there is too much yabbing about the bitrate.
The GH1 produces a great image, if you avoid too much fast pans on a tripod with OIS on and a forest in the background. :)

You will get great images from the GH1. If you want to film fast movements, use 720 50p otherwise 1080 is great too.
 
Last edited:
MeAgain said:
I've read fast movement with the Gh-1 is a problem, but my shooting style is either static or very slow pans or dollies. So that limitation works well for me.

But then I read about bitrates, and how the GH-1 has a comparitively lower bitrate than the HMC40 or other cameras. I know bitrate has to do with information, but what does it mean for the final image? More artifacts? Less sharpness? I've seen people warn that it's good for web based stuff, but to steer clear for "Serious" applications.

I couldn't find a thread on this, and there' s a decent chance it's been covered. If it has, can someone link me? "bitrate" grabs a lot of results in the search...
Click to expand...

Here's the thread I started on my simple 'test'. I show a couple of stills from the motion sequence, then the motion sequence. The sequence starts of with a 'slow' pan (actually probably faster than I'd do most of the time). Then a couple of 'whip pans', with a bit of yawing around. Probably out of my usual and customary 'style'. In any case, the results are not so displeasing, as the 'artifacts' are only noticeable when one single steps through the sequence. In 'realtime' the artifacts are almost unnoticeable... at least to me...


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=195990

As for what is 'dropped out' by the compression algorithm... that's a pretty complex issue, and I would bet that most people will not notice the difference between the 15Mbs data rate vs. the 24 Mbs, with perhaps the 'motion' artifacts.

I don't have the wherewithall to set up an 'action fight' scene to see how moving 'characters' close to the camera do with the compression. But Barry Green has posted some 'moving car' as seen from the curbside, and the car does not produce a readily visible amount of 'motion' artifacts... again, from my point of view...
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Here's the thread I started on my simple 'test'. I show a couple of stills from the motion sequence, then the motion sequence. The sequence starts of with a 'slow' pan (actually probably faster than I'd do most of the time). Then a couple of 'whip pans', with a bit of yawing around. Probably out of my usual and customary 'style'. In any case, the results are not so displeasing, as the 'artifacts' are only noticeable when one single steps through the sequence. In 'realtime' the artifacts are almost unnoticeable... at least to me...


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=195990

As for what is 'dropped out' by the compression algorithm... that's a pretty complex issue, and I would bet that most people will not notice the difference between the 15Mbs data rate vs. the 24 Mbs, with perhaps the 'motion' artifacts.

I don't have the wherewithall to set up an 'action fight' scene to see how moving 'characters' close to the camera do with the compression. But Barry Green has posted some 'moving car' as seen from the curbside, and the car does not produce a readily visible amount of 'motion' artifacts... again, from my point of view...
Click to expand...


I will caveat this by saying that I have never shot a GH1. But that said...

What is noticeable to someone looking at an online video is VERY different from what is noticeable on a 40ft-80ft screen. It makes a difference.

The GH1 will probably look fine with limited movement on a tripod or dolly, but if the codec is pushed it WILL fall down. That's just the way it is. And why it's a $1k camera and not a $100k camera.
 
PerroneFord said:
I will caveat this by saying that I have never shot a GH1. But that said...

What is noticeable to someone looking at an online video is VERY different from what is noticeable on a 40ft-80ft screen. It makes a difference.

The GH1 will probably look fine with limited movement on a tripod or dolly, but if the codec is pushed it WILL fall down. That's just the way it is. And why it's a $1k camera and not a $100k camera.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is the 'hidden assumption'... yes, size does matter...

Since I've not been to a film festival in .... years... I don't know what the visual effect is for submissions that come on DVD. So, I don't know if the softness because of the effect of something that's 720x480 being projected 'big', or the motion artifacts, would override my appreciation. Obviously anything projected in HD would have a 'sharper' image, but still... the spatial resolution is still about half or a quarter what a current 'studio feature' is (original sensor resolution not withstanding...).

The largest I can personally display is on a 46" Sony at work, or my 36" Vizio at home...
 
I was the director of photography of a short that played at the Sundance Film Festival in 2006. It was shot on Mini-dv. A DVX-100.

At the festivals I've been to lately, there is quite a mixture of film-originated vs. video originated content. The audience doesn't seem to mind as long as it's a good movie. Certainly the film I shot wasn't accepted to Sundance because of it's cinematography. I'm being humble but it's true. We had no money and the lighting was nothing to write home about. It was grainy, low-light 720x480 video shown on a big screen in Park City. Certainly, the GH1 will look better than that even at it's worst.
I think the GH1 is a perfectly viable option to shoot a film if your intention is to show it at festivals.
 
dvbrother said:
I think the GH1 is a perfectly viable option to shoot a film if your intention is to show it at festivals.
Click to expand...

I totallty agree, especially if you use some decent primes that give a nice texture to the image and open up to f 1.4 or f 1.8, at least. And you invest in a decent sound recorder like the zoom h4, and a decent microphone.
 
We just submitted a short out on the festival circuit. I was first AD, gaffer, and colorist. It was shot on a 5D. We did bluray projection onto a 40ft screen locally since one of the producers is a theater projectionist and we could use the place. It looked very good. But you can still see where the issues are if you have a critical eye.

If I was shooting for my personal entertainment, I'd say the 7D/5D/GH1 are perfectly fine. Perhaps fine for going to the festivals too. But I'd be a bit cautious recommending them for feature work. That's just me.
 
PerroneFord said:
If I was shooting for my personal entertainment, I'd say the 7D/5D/GH1 are perfectly fine. Perhaps fine for going to the festivals too. But I'd be a bit cautious recommending them for feature work.
Click to expand...

I agree. Not only for the image quality reasons you mention, but also because of workflow. A short film is one thing. But the crew, time, effort and overhead that a feature demands...I would want something more streamlined. I would want an HD Out to a monitor so I could critically check focus and image. And of course, rolling shutter jello is an issue with any DSLR. If renting a higher-end camera solves it, I would gladly do that. Roll that cost into the budget.
 
dvbrother said:
I agree. Not only for the image quality reasons you mention, but also because of workflow. A short film is one thing. But the crew, time, effort and overhead that a feature demands...I would want something more streamlined. I would want an HD Out to a monitor so I could critically check focus and image. And of course, rolling shutter jello is an issue with any DSLR. If renting a higher-end camera solves it, I would gladly do that. Roll that cost into the budget.
Click to expand...

I totally agree... in fact, when I see someone post "I'm making a feature"... my thought is 'yeah, right, sure...'...

Of course examples of features on low end equipment exist. But there are two thoughts that cross my mind about 'feature' film making, given what I assume is the level of capability here (mine included) which is the amount of time required, and the costs. I have neither....

So, my focus is short subject narrative films... that also happens to be my focus in script writing as well, for somewhat the same reasons, although the 'cost' issue is not there... the time issue is...

At the very least... if it's crappy, it's short crappy...
 
OK, looking at the other thread, I get bitrate and codecs now.

So, barring the idea of a feature film for a second, if you had the 600 bucks extra, the HMC40 is worth it? I've heard some not great things about that as well. Like I said, I'm not a cinematographer, I'm shooting with the DVX right now. I'd like to buy a new camera in the future, but don't have 5 or 6 grand to invest. Besides the idea of a feature film, I'd like the idea of having a decent but affordable camera around to shoot shorts. But I don't do snowboarding or wedding or sports events, and my style is usually tripod and not handheld.

I'll probably just see how affordable (and improved) these things get before throwing cash down.
 
Well I agree & disagree.


For internet it is perfect as well as Dvd media. The fastest outlet is internet, the second fastest is DVD which can be distributed with endless outlets. If I were actually shooting a film for a theater then No I would probably not use a Gh1, but in reality why even think like that?



The truth is youtube/vimeo is the #1 form of someone watching/noticing your work. Then comes DVD which every house has. Even if I were showcasing at SunDance or any other film expo I seriously doubt that that any HD camera would not perform at least average to good.

IMO it is more about the story , actors, direction/setting of the film etc. Many blockbuster hits were made with the best gear at not all of those movies were good, heck most of them were pretty bad. So imo internet is KING and for that our cameras are more than enough.
Also there have been very good films shot on a dvx, a good friend of mine states that "lighting" is key and if you achieve very good lighting then your image will look excellent.


dvx100b ie:
http://vimeo.com/3940219


Lighting, filters, techniques are key. Stop worrying about which tool you are going to use and do the work because many many people have shown us that it can be done.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't have delusions of grandeur.

But if I try not make a low-budget film on my own funds, and I can't get a cinematographer with a nice expensive camera to help, I gotta do what I can. And if I'm going to go shoe-string, I might as well go with the most affordable and impacting HD camera, in the chance that it'll be on a huge screen at a festival or somewhere else.
 
MeAgain said:
OK, looking at the other thread, I get bitrate and codecs now.

So, barring the idea of a feature film for a second, if you had the 600 bucks extra, the HMC40 is worth it? I've heard some not great things about that as well. Like I said, I'm not a cinematographer, I'm shooting with the DVX right now. I'd like to buy a new camera in the future, but don't have 5 or 6 grand to invest. Besides the idea of a feature film, I'd like the idea of having a decent but affordable camera around to shoot shorts. But I don't do snowboarding or wedding or sports events, and my style is usually tripod and not handheld.

I'll probably just see how affordable (and improved) these things get before throwing cash down.
Click to expand...

One factor for me was the interchangeability of lenses, with no special adapters, holsters, or gantries... The other issue, don't know how this would affect the HMC40, but when I test drove the HMC150, the zoom lens at the minimum had quite a bit of distortion, for close in subjects.

However, a video camera is a video camera, and may have features that are desirable as such, like the audio section, or the video monitor features. In the case of the GH1, you do have the histogram, but no zebras and no video monitors, as well as no realtime output.
 
The thing for me, is that for a few hundred more, the 7D just brings so much more to the game, it's hard not to seriously consider it.

If I had to shoot a feature with a $2k camera, and I could take my time, that would be my first choice right now.
 
I think the GH1 would kick the HMC-40's @$$ -in a few major ways.

1. Lenses. Now that I've shot on a camera that allows me to swap lenses and get amazing low light and DOF, I don't ever intend to go back to "normal" video. I'd have to get a DOF adapter and all the gear to support it which makes it much bigger-

2. Compact size means I can take it anywhere and shoot anytime. Shooting on the Las Vegas strip? Nobody even knew I was doing it -including the people I was shooting. (got their releases after the fact)

3. I can take production stills at the same time. 12.1 megapixel ones :)

That said, audio is an issue, especially shooting a feature. And, depending on your system, so is encoding/workflow. I work fine with iMovie to import, JES to inverse telecine, and an older version of FCP for actual editing.
 
MeAgain said:
Well, I don't have delusions of grandeur.

But if I try not make a low-budget film on my own funds, and I can't get a cinematographer with a nice expensive camera to help, I gotta do what I can. And if I'm going to go shoe-string, I might as well go with the most affordable and impacting HD camera, in the chance that it'll be on a huge screen at a festival or somewhere else.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I look at it. I think this is the right attitude. Shoot big (as you can) but don't expect the world. At the same time sharpen your skills with a cam like this.
 
We recently played some footage from our GH1 at one of our local movie theater (that one of us manages) on pretty top notch digital projectors and in most situations it was quite acceptable. Not optimal, but all the talk about image quality is fine for all the tests. Ultimately, when you put your GH1 footage in front of the average person, it will hold its own. If you have a good story, good production values, especially good audio, the audience won't care if it doesn't look as crisp as Avatar.

Not to mention that I've told a few of my buddies that my GH1 footage was from the Red One that we rented and that I shot at 2k (shown on a 65" plasma) and they praised it as being so crisp and clear. Then I revealed my ploy and they were pretty impressed (though a couple of them gave me the, "Oh, I thought I saw a few compression artifacts in there" which could be the case, but still.)

Ultimately, if you're looking to shoot a feature with this camera, it is not a high budget feature. I would say with careful planning and limited high motion shots, it would be as good a choice as any this side of the Red One. It gets a very film like DOF, interchangeable lenses and a sensor big enough for many low light situations.

I'm planning on doing full on shorts with this, and in all my tests so far, I don't doubt that it will do the job.
 
Last edited:
I have a commercial shot with GH1 on Vimeo, check my sig link. If you register as a member there you can download the 1080 Quicktime clip I uploaded to see how GH1 footage can look when posted carefully (and somewhat kludgely shot, I'm not really a cinematographer).

PerroneFord said:
The thing for me, is that for a few hundred more, the 7D just brings so much more to the game, it's hard not to seriously consider it.

If I had to shoot a feature with a $2k camera, and I could take my time, that would be my first choice right now.
Click to expand...

And I would chose GH1. When the 7D came I tried it - for video it brings not that much more to the game GH1 except a more discernable moire with green-purple colour fringing. Thanks to that the 7D video image has a 'electronic' feel to it whereas GH1 is more 'organic' and I'd say as much as the 720 mode on 7D has so low resolved resolution that it's useless but GH1s 720 60p is OK for slow-motion shots. So I passed on buying it. I'm not alone in this observation:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1795042&postcount=95

Here's the trumpet chart test Barry did that confirmed my gut feeling:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187165

The only that 7D has over GH1 that I've seen is live video output, on the other hand GH1 electronic viewfinder is live all the time and is rather excellent for handheld work instead of having to strap on a costly loupe furthering the price difference even more.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
I have a commercial shot with GH1 on Vimeo, check my sig link. If you register as a member there you can download the 1080 Quicktime clip I uploaded to see how GH1 footage can look when posted carefully (and somewhat kludgely shot, I'm not really a cinematographer).
Click to expand...

I'm a member. I'll take a look at your commercial.

Martti Ekstrand said:
The only that 7D has over GH1 that I've seen is live video output, on the other hand GH1 electronic viewfinder is live all the time and is rather excellent for handheld work instead of having to strap on a costly loupe furthering the price difference even more.
Click to expand...

Live video output, larger sensor, better low light performance, better still performance if that's important, better codec, more frame rate choices, live output so the codec can be bypassed.

I wouldn't rely on the screen on either of these cameras. I don't rely on the screen on the EX1 except when I have to. I am quite familiar with Barry's tests. Neither camera is really suitable in my opinion, but no one wants to hear that. Everyone want's to believe that a $1500 camera can do what a $10k camera can do or a $100k camera can do. So whatever.

I may end up with both these cameras, or whatever replaces them. But I have no delusions of gradeur about any of these DSLRs. They'll get there in a few years maybe, or maybe a video camera will come along that will use the same sensors and be able to read it fast enough to remove some of the inhere problems. These are pretty good first efforts by Canon and Panasonic though, and the price point is marvelous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top