Personally I don't care about 24p. If you want 24p, you can already shoot in 1080p24 or you can easily convert 720p60 to 720p24 in post. Nor do I care about the video output. But we will ALL benefit from increased image quality if Panasonic increases the bit rate of their AVCHD codec from 17Mbps to 24Mbps. And we will ALL benefit from a simpler workflow if Panasonic changes the 1080p AVCHD wrapper so that 1080p24 is represented as 1080p24 rather than 1080i60 requiring reverse telecine. So those two requests are to my mind the top priority.
Canon is listening. Will Panasonic Follow?
- Thread starter shzr
- Start date
I would think 720p24 would be at top of list. Unlikely that they will bump codec up. Processors are already pushing a lot for such a tiny cam at $1500 (but we can dream). At least in 720p the codec is more robust and there is much less mud and jello. It is mathematically impossible to get an even 24p out of 60p (Damn those PAL users). So to say "easy" to convert 60p to 24p is a little bit of an overstatement. The actual process may be easy, but the outcome varies on how good it's looks compared to native 24p.
The 25p PAL model really isn't anything compared to your US models with 24p. The look of 24p (or 23.9xx) makes a HUGE difference to the feel of the motion. 24p is a world standard and is used on almost all music vids, and films, regardless of country.
Even though I'm in pal land, I would gladly swap my 25fps pal GH1 for a 24fps ntsc GH1 any day.
Camera Expert
Well-known member
I don’t get what you mean. You either don’t care about 24p or you do care.
I love shooting in 720 60p over 1080 24p anyway but I do think it’s beneficial if Panasonic fixes it and that’s what I meant earlier.
Good to know. I knew 25 over 24 would make a difference, but I didn't know how global it was. Either way, it would be nice to get native 24p and anything else we are all asking for.
Barry_Green
Moderator
25p vs. 24p makes almost no difference in the perception of motion. A little tiny difference, yes, but only 4%. Movies for TV have been shot at 25fps in PAL territories for decades.
Camera Expert
Well-known member
I would say that in the case of the GH1, 25p destroys 24p. With 24p you must remove pull-down and with 25p you don't deal with all that headache although you do have an annoying time limit on Pal models.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
Not if you get the Hong Kong / Australian version, those are PAL and no taxation limit on recording time.
Ben_B
Veteran
Agreed. Those seem like the things that are easiest to implement and would help the most. Monitor out would solve a lot of problems because people could be sure of their footage on set (I watch critical shots back over HDMI to a production monitor but realtime would be nice...while most codec crap doesn't show up in real time and only on playback, things like banding do.) Improving the codec may not be feasible.
Barry_Green
Moderator
As far as workflow, certainly. The pulldown is nonsense and should be exorcised like a demon from any future products.
I'm just talking about the look. I seriously doubt there's any person alive who could tell the difference between something shot at 24p and something shot at 25p.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Indeed it may not be. But it might be. I say keep complaining if it's something that bothers you. Maybe it can be fixed. And if it can't, at least our voices will make them think twice before putting a similar codec in any future product.
In the meantime, you have to learn to work with the product you've got; recognizing that complaining about any particular shortcoming is not likely to change the camera that you have in your hands. So work with it, while directing your wishes and complaints to those who have the power to do something about them.
Ben_B
Veteran
Exactly. And lets not kid ourselves. "Improving" the codec is the correct phrase, "fixing" is not. This is a great camera and people can do kick ass stuff with it.
I can tell the difference, hands down, on the GH-1. Have taken blind tests of a GH-1 PAL and GH-1 NTSC and got it correct 100% of the time. The NTSC version just looks so much more filmic. There's no contest. It's not even subtle or guess work. Smashes me in the face.
When we ask for this 24p update, it should be for ALL models, not just the US one.
If they don't introduce 24p to PAL model soon (whether it be through 60i pull-down or not, any 24p would be a relief), then I'm going to have to consider moving across to the Canon 7D. I don't undestand how they could leave the major function of 24p off the european model. Do we not make music vids or films? Anyway, come on Panny give us a 24p firmware update please, in the UK.
The least they could do is allow a firmware update so we can choose whether we want PAL or NTSC. THat would seem to solve everyone's issues with frame rate.
Last edited:
I agree fully. There have been great things done with the current codec and although I would like an improvement, it is definitely not at the top of my list. I have personally been shooting a doc at 720p with lots of gun-stock hand held shots. 720p looks holds up great and if it had native 24p if would look even more filmic right out of the cam. Right now for $1500 I can deal with only using 1080p for very controlled narrative shots.
stevedocmaker
Well-known member
I've been in the business for over 25 years. Look at this video, you can tell instantly which scenes were shot with the stock lens and which were shot with primes. Using primes on the GH1 negates almost all the advantage of this camera over the 5dII or 7d (except price). Maybe they will release a high quality IS lens soon, but until they do there will be few converts.
John Caballero
Veteran
Can you please enlighten us which ones are they so Mr. Shaw can corroborate your findings?
Park Edwards
Veteran
and can you elaborate on this a bit more? i don't quite understand your thinking here. why is it that primes are worse than the kit lens?
edit: whoa? did anyone else see the naked chic hanging on the wall in that video?