EP1 vs GH1 video performance

K

Kiri

Active member
Hi, I am a new user here, and would like to know what your opinion is about the video capabilities of the new olympus EP1 compared to the GH1.

I have been thinking about getting the GH1 for a while now, but having seen the EP1 come out, should I also consider it?

I notice the formats are a little different (EP1: AVI m-jpeg / GH1: AVCHD & m-jpeg)?
Though to be honest, I don't know enough technically to discern what the end result will be from the differences in the specs.

Can anyone shed some light for me on what to expect from each camera (in terms of video only)?

Much appreciated

Kiri
 
I think the 720p mode will be very comparable if not identical (EP1 doesn't get the 1080p). The samples seen at DPREVIEW are quite nice.
 
EP1 only shoots 30P M-JPEG at 720P.

GH1 shoots 30P M-JPEG at 720P, 24P 1080 AVCHD, and 60P AVCHD.

If all you need is 30P then pick up the EP1, but if you care about 24P and filmic framerates GH1 is the much more versatile choice.
 
Thanks for the replies. That pretty much confirms what I suspected.
One other question, I remember reading somewhere that the GH1 file format (for AVCHD I think) can be a bit tricky to use because not a lot of software supports it?
Do software editing programs like vegas, premiere, etc support it, and if not what are people using to edit the footage from the GH1?
 
According to Gizmodo the EP1 can only shoot 7 minutes of video regardless of card size (I think they mean total, which doesn't make sense to me, unless it's per clip which I assume would have to do with FAT32 file restrictions, sans a workaround in the firmware like the GH1 has.)

Lastly I assume given it's seeming dearth of video resolution, codec, and framerate variety like the GH1 has, that it probably lacks other video features (certainly auto focus but who cares) like manual shutter, manual exposure, or something....this is just me guessing I don't know much about the camera, but I think it seems probable....this is not the camera to buy if you want to shoot video. This is the camera to buy if you're going on vacassion and want to get a clip of your girlfriend screaming in a cute way as the cold ocean water touches her feet...it seems like your Canon PowerShot's video feature.
 
Kiri, basically most software now supports it, but for most software you will have to transcode it to something else, taking up a fair chunk of time and generating HUGE files in the process.

If your editor supports native editing then you do that instead (if you want.)

Here is the deal: editing huge files, or editing the highly compressed AVCHD natively, either way, requires a huge amount of computing power, or, lacking that, patience and lax deadlines. I myself have edited AVCHD on my white Macbook...it is not fun, but it gets the job done. I have to wait a long time to transcode, I have to deal with low quality playback or dropped frames (in playack) in editing, and I have to deal with a long wait to render things out, or when doing something like color correction.

Generally it is a pain. Is it worth it to use a camera like the GH1? In my opinion: hell yes. However, the GH1 does have its problems, and knowing how to use it is pretty technical, and highly integrated with your plans for post. Shooting 720p/60 and converting it to 24p, removing the pulldown from 1080/24p, etc.

Don't get your questions answered here and then go buy the thing, use this thread (if it continues) as a guide to all the other threads on this site you should be reading back to front. And look at lots of footage.

Cheers,

-Ben
 
Ben_B said:
According to Gizmodo the EP1 can only shoot 7 minutes of video regardless of card size (I think they mean total, which doesn't make sense to me, unless it's per clip which I assume would have to do with FAT32 file restrictions, sans a workaround in the firmware like the GH1 has.)


Lastly I assume given it's seeming dearth of video resolution, codec, and framerate variety like the GH1 has, that it probably lacks other video features (certainly auto focus but who cares) like manual shutter, manual exposure, or something....this is just me guessing I don't know much about the camera, but I think it seems probable....this is not the camera to buy if you want to shoot video. This is the camera to buy if you're going on vacassion and want to get a clip of your girlfriend screaming in a cute way as the cold ocean water touches her feet...it seems like your Canon PowerShot's video feature.
Click to expand...


I think the limit is because there is a 2GB limit to the filesize. So 7min clip limit for full res, or 14min for the lower res.



Thanks for the very descriptive image in your last sentence ;)
 
Ben B, thanks for the info about editing. It seems like I am going to have to do quite a lot of study before I can even use this thing :(
But I don't mind a bit of study :)
I just hope my computer is powerful enough to deal with the transcoding etc.
 
Kiri said:
I just hope my computer is powerful enough to deal with the transcoding etc.
Click to expand...


If you are on PC you can use the proxy trick. Convert all your original MTS files to lower res proxies for easier editing then once your done relink the original MTS files for final output. works for me when i work with 1080 clips.
 
the e-pl1 has manual controls for video, but it's still 30p and 7 mins...

what about the pentax k-x? it shoots 24p mpeg and has a higher bit rate, but doesn't have manual controls (I think you can lock and shoot though)...

and then there is the gf1... no manual or 24p but has some hack implementations...

all can be found under $500 (the gf1 would be body only though)

I'm actually pondering between these 3, simply because my budget is that low (can't afford a lot more for now...) any suggestions?
 
I have a quad core I7 3.2 with Win 7 64 bit & 12 gigs of ram and have no issues editing or encoding with either native AVCHD or transcoding to cineform and editing that. Everyone in the pro world says to transcode to cineform first and I still don't quite understand it... how can going to another codec first possibly be better if you are only doing mostly cuts and a few dissolves and not a lot of color grading or effects work. To me, I see some degradation of the quality of the footage EVEN when going to cineforms highest quality digital intermediate codec via neoscene. It is slight.. but there are little things there that I am not seeing when playing the original avchd footage direct to a monitor. People say it improves all the color because it brings it to a 4:2:2 color space but if still it's bringing the original 4:2:0 to that space so if you are not doing color correction work I don't see the need. On a movie, definitely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top