Homunculus
Carbonite Member
Wow that Red footage in nightscape was mind blowing. Are you telling me you think GH1 can go neck and neck with that? Please tell me how...
GH1(3) Vs Red?
- Thread starter JoeJITSU
- Start date
mitchell1074
Member
I should probably qualify that before I get myself in trouble... 
Is RED $17,000 better than this new incarnation of the GH1, or is the GH1 $17,000 worse than the RED? I think the answer to that is obvious.
The Nightscape promo (shot 4k but finished @ 1080) might be a good example of a project that could very well have gone with a GH1 (outfitted with the same zeiss primes, etc) instead of the RED and served the same purpose, and looked almost as good, and saved a chunk of cash in the process. My only hesitation in that particular instance would be with the possibility of write errors in the GH1, but it's not like the RED was bug-free during our Nightscape shoot either.
The bigger part of "how do you make it look good" is in production design, composition, lighting and basic photographic craft.
Maybe this is apropos of nothing, but remember only 10 years ago people were shooting theatrical features with mini-dv. Tadpole, Pieces of April, The Anniversary Party and on and on, so what's to keep anyone from shooting a great little film with a GH1?
Is RED $17,000 better than this new incarnation of the GH1, or is the GH1 $17,000 worse than the RED? I think the answer to that is obvious.
The Nightscape promo (shot 4k but finished @ 1080) might be a good example of a project that could very well have gone with a GH1 (outfitted with the same zeiss primes, etc) instead of the RED and served the same purpose, and looked almost as good, and saved a chunk of cash in the process. My only hesitation in that particular instance would be with the possibility of write errors in the GH1, but it's not like the RED was bug-free during our Nightscape shoot either.
The bigger part of "how do you make it look good" is in production design, composition, lighting and basic photographic craft.
Maybe this is apropos of nothing, but remember only 10 years ago people were shooting theatrical features with mini-dv. Tadpole, Pieces of April, The Anniversary Party and on and on, so what's to keep anyone from shooting a great little film with a GH1?
Last edited:
I own both (and a 300 and 171).
The GH1 is not close too me. It looks over-processed and the jello/aliasing is pretty horrible. The image is over-sharp too from the processing, which doesn't add detail - the RedOne looks smooth and detailed without any sharpening.
That said the GH1 is cheap and you can get some good results if you are careful with your image, but this is a fine line to walk.
I've just gone all around France with my GH1 on a motorbike with the new firmware and it's great that the mush is gone - but I couldn't fit the RedOne in my tank bag.
I'm also over to the new Panasonic class 10 cards for good - no problems anymore.
The GH1 is not close too me. It looks over-processed and the jello/aliasing is pretty horrible. The image is over-sharp too from the processing, which doesn't add detail - the RedOne looks smooth and detailed without any sharpening.
That said the GH1 is cheap and you can get some good results if you are careful with your image, but this is a fine line to walk.
I've just gone all around France with my GH1 on a motorbike with the new firmware and it's great that the mush is gone - but I couldn't fit the RedOne in my tank bag.
I'm also over to the new Panasonic class 10 cards for good - no problems anymore.
Last edited: