Canon's recent announcement. Will it hurt GH1?

also full frame!)
Click to expand...

LOL. It can't be full frame because Panasonic is commited to the 4/3 s format. For some reason I get the feeling that they are even going to go with it in the video lines.

BTW: The GH1 has a Histogram that I think works with the video. Its in the manual posted in another thread. No zebras.
 
had canon just included the 24p in this latest update i would have already put my order in. since that's not the case, i continue to sit on my hands and wait to see what kind of reception the gh1 gets when it arrives.
 
had canon just included the 24p in this latest update i would have already put my order in.
Click to expand...

One little baby step at a time for Canon. It'll get there eventually. I don't think it should be hard to get it to 24p. I think the manual settings would be more difficult to achieve.
 
codeloss said:
I think you have that backwards. 50/f1.4 on full frame would be equal (in 35mm terms) to 100/f1.0 on a GH1, if you wanted identical depth of field.
Click to expand...


Right that's backwards. Sorry.

20mm on an MKii looks like a 50mm on the GH-1.
 
pix2pixels said:
A 50/1.4 would be way cheaper than a 24/1.8 or 20/1.8.

Also, accessing the pictures in a friendly fashion is much more difficult from GH1: is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?
If that is the case, a hardware solution like Matrox or AJA could be used for GH1.
Click to expand...


Depends on the person. my 20, 24 and 28 are pretty well rated 1.8's and cost me about 1200 for the set. However, they aren't Contax Zeiss.

Haven't tried them out yet but will when I get the MKii and my GH-1 back.

And, I don't know where you got that number from, but I don't think it's accurate at all. Will look into it.

But if we have to add processing to the list, then the MKii files are not too friendly. Please note the number of users that can't playback full 1080P H264 on their computers.

I suppose I should throw that under the MKii's negatives. Because you still have to convert it to ProRes or something else to edit, and again-- the H264 is pretty intense on hardware.
 
Last edited:
pix2pixels said:
Also, accessing the pictures in a friendly fashion is much more difficult from GH1: is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?
If that is the case, a hardware solution like Matrox or AJA could be used for GH1.
Click to expand...

This is not true. I haven't timed it but my 8-core transcodes quite quickly.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras
 
Kholi said:
Pretty odd to calculate but...

FF @ 50/5.6 is about a 100/11 for 35mm

So, somewhere around 100/11 on the GH-1 would look like a 50/5.6 on the MKii.....

Might have that wrong but something similar.
Click to expand...

Focal length is correct, F-stop is incorrect.

This topic is bandied around a lot, and I feel like the point is totally moot; because the "elusive film look" in HD is not 135-sized/VistaVision with the wider lens FoV/DoF.

Film is based around 35mm Academy, or Super35. While their are a variety of other ways to shoot 35mm film, these two are probably the most common formats of 35mm motion picture film being shot today. If you would like more scholarly information on the subject consult the ASC manual (8th edition pages 4-43 will be particularly helpful.)

If "35mm film" as in MOTION PICTURE FILM is the look that you want- and you are comparing the GH1 and the Canon 5DmkII, then the GH1 is much closer to FoV/DoF of 35mm Film. VistaVision/135 (The DALSA Origin II and Evolution were also quite similar to VistaVision) is a far less common way to shoot.

I like the Canon quite a bit, although between the two I'd chose the GH1 in an instant for several reasons in the GH1's favor. The biggest reason for me against the Canon is the remarkably bad aliasing which seems to appear at semi-unexpected times. I imagine this is a direct result of their pixel skipping rather than full-frame scaling, to crunch images to 1920x1080/30. With so much data to crunch it's not an easy problem to overcome, and they did an admirable job getting it to where it is now..... I just think it should actually be much better. The 5Dmk2 aliasing is a deal breaker for me. Nothing reminds me more of bad video than aliasing, except for maybe clipped highlights and aliasing.


I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras
 
Oh, Iilya my man, trust me: I am with you ALL the way. I'm not a fan of the paper thin field at ALL. It DEFINITELY looks like Vistavision to me and I said the same thing in the other thread.

I'll get an MKii but I won't shoot on it too much because of that reason. For stuff that could use the "Grande" appeal, music videos, etc, I'll use it.

I may also try to crop 720 out of it and start shooting with guidelines to do so. That could be cool.

Otherwise, still camera fo rme.
 
What I want to know is will the 5D lose it's low light advantage over the GH1 at a comparable DOF and FOV. The advantage of stopping down is that lenses are performing at their best so that's something in the MKIIs favor if you want a sharp image which I don't particularly. I think its more like 2 stop difference between full frame and 2x crop to match the DOF and FOV but I could be wrong.
 
Nothing wrong with vistavision "episode 4 a new hope" The advantage of the MKII is you can have that look or like you said Kholi you can crop to 720. Good to have framing options in post too.
 
pix2pixels said:
is it true that transcoding to ProRes , 1 hour of AVHD data takes 12-14 hours on a fully pumped 8 core Mac?
Click to expand...

Encoding 1.5 hours of AVCHD at 21 Mbps from my HMC150 takes about ~30 minutes on my 2006 8-core MacPro. I'd imagine it would take even less time on a fully pimped out Nehalem 2009 8-core.

My MacBook Pro encodes at about 1:1.
 
squig said:
Nothing wrong with vistavision "episode 4 a new hope" The advantage of the MKII is you can have that look or like you said Kholi you can crop to 720. Good to have framing options in post too.
Click to expand...

Like 30P, Vistavision isn't a norm. I only see the Full Frame advantage in lens application, that you can use a 50/1.4 and get a pretty wide field. The Depth of Field characteristics, however, are not pleasing to me.

So for me, there is something wrong with it.

Also, if the crop were in-camear it would be optimal. as of right now we have no idea how framing on the LCD and dropping into a 720 frame will turn out. I can't imagine it doing anything terrible, but without actually doing it nobody knows.

At that point, and I think a lot of MKii owners would agree, why even bother? Is the cropped 720/30P Frame technically (compression, etc) better than the 720/60P frame from the GH-1? It should still be faster, because the crop isn't in camera it's in post, but as far as compression goes I'd be interested to see if they match.

My guess is that the GH-1 @ 720/60P and MKii @ 720/30P Crop would be on the level, with Jello Control nod remaining with the GH-1 and Low Light performance remaining with the MKii.

In short, might as well just shoot 1080/30 to get the maximum out of it and compose closer to subjects, stop irises down, etc etc.
 
I don't care about the MII because of Jello.

Deal breaker. Don't see how anyone works with it. To me it's like saying there's a 300X300 pixel black square in the lower left hand corner of all your shots but other than that it's awesome! I want a camera that can - you know - pan with.

Jello on MII is way worse than any aliasing or artifacts I've seen on GH1, so what good does the robust codec do me?

Great - with the MII when measurbators put their noses to the 50" plasma they sees no aliasing! Never mind that the whole image looks like it's reflected in a jiggly fun house mirror.

I'm not looking to buy a $3K camera then have to borrow an HVX with an adaptor for action work.

I'm looking to buy ONE camera that is an inexpensive easy to use tool that gets great results whether my actors are sitting at a table talking or running around doing back flips. Or maybe two of them for the price of the one I'd never consider using anyway.

So:
Pricepoint.
Actually USEABLE footage regardless of the circumstance.
Auto focus in video mode.

Done.
 
squig said:
Nothing wrong with vistavision "episode 4 a new hope" The advantage of the MKII is you can have that look or like you said Kholi you can crop to 720. Good to have framing options in post too.
Click to expand...


StarWars: A New Hope principal photography was most certainly not shot in Vista Vision. Retooled Vista Visions by John Dykstra were used for process shots. A New Hope was filmed in various 35mm stocks like 5243, 5247 and 5253. Other stock Lucas messed around with was CRI. A New Hope has the most unique look of the series.



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:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
I'm not looking to buy a $3K camera then have to borrow an HVX with an adaptor for action work.

I'm looking to buy ONE camera that is an inexpensive easy to use tool that gets great results whether my actors are sitting at a table talking or running around doing back flips. Or maybe two of them for the price of the one I'd never consider using anyway.
Click to expand...

Definitely the GH1 wins for run and gun. Also the DOF at F/4 is quite exactly what you would want for narrative shooting in most situations.

Said that I just canceled my GH1 order and changed to the MK II. Flame me, blame me, do what you want. But I LOVE the look of the MK II (it's highly subjective) and with the - often underestimated - f/4 stock lens too shallow DOF is not so much of an issue. We've simply seen too much 50mm at f/1,4 stuff. For narrative indie shooting in small environments it might be even an advantage to get shallow DOF with a 35mm lens.

But for my final decision also weighed in that the MK II is simply the better still cam.
 
That's what I like about this place it's full of know it all's

Does the MKII really have a low light advantage if you have to close down 2 stops to match the DOF of the GH1?

I'm flip flopping back to the GH1 but it's still early in the morning
 
Also consider the GH1's low light performance compared to an HVX with an adaptor and a lens.

We get in this mentality of, if it's not THE best in a certain statistic, it's not enough. When in reality we've reached the point of useable technology on a lot of fronts. Already I've seen low light footage from the GH1 that looks like liberation from my HVX and adapter.

...

Joe, I won't flame you or blame you, but I will say, as for the look, just wait till some heavy hitters get out there and bring in some narrative work with the GH1. We haven't seen that yet.

I do agree with your point on the DOF being about the "default" area of most 35mm film. The NEURTAL choice. Usually you're wanting to stop down to 4 or 5 so you can control the DOF. For the crazy 1.4 135mm look, stick your nikon or canon prime on there. Most of us already have lenses, just get the fit adapter.
 
No doubt there will be great GH1 footage. For a certain shooting style it will the better choice - I've seen Miami Vice again on TV (wasn't it even shot with a 2/3" with primes???) And I thought: That could have been done with a GH1. Devinitively no MK II area.

Then I saw Spring, Summer, Auutmn, Winter - and Spring from Kim Ki-duk and thought that for that narrative style the better choice would be the MK II (though in the movie he never exagerates the DOF).

It's a highly subjective choice for me and the final point was that the MK II is such a great still camera, too.

Anyway, all this will be temporary, the next generation from Canon and Panasonic probably will be so close to perfection that all this actual discussion will be obsolete. Meanwhile we should be happy with what we can have. I personally got tired of waiting, I'm loosing too much of my lifetime sitting around and watching all these tecnological artefact improve... :beer:
 
I ran around with my D90 shooting everything at f/1.4 because I could. When I went to cut a music vid I had to do 1.7sec cuts because everything was OOF. It worked but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top