GH1 quality on big screen TV.
- Thread starter rundavids
- Start date
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
I watch my footage on a 73" DLP and it looks fantastic, you can definitely project it on a huge screen with good quality.
People can bicker, pick apart, and complain all they want, but in the end the footage holds it's own just fine.
Last week some footage from my GH1 (A title sequence, specifically) was shown on a theatre-size screen in front of an audience of 500. The rest of the film was shot on the RED. Nobody in the audience noticed or knew that the title sequence was shot on a GH1*, and the filmmaker was complementary of the GH1.
*Due to the nature of the title sequence. I'm not meaning to suggest that you could seamlessly cut between a GH1 and a RED without anybody noticing.
Last week some footage from my GH1 (A title sequence, specifically) was shown on a theatre-size screen in front of an audience of 500. The rest of the film was shot on the RED. Nobody in the audience noticed or knew that the title sequence was shot on a GH1*, and the filmmaker was complementary of the GH1.
*Due to the nature of the title sequence. I'm not meaning to suggest that you could seamlessly cut between a GH1 and a RED without anybody noticing.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
Yes, and quite brutally. Join as a free member and download the film maker's uploaded files instead where they are made available.
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
Definitely - in most cases the video you see has been compressed at least twice. Once by the creator to make it compatible for vimeo without uploading an enormous file, and then vimeo does a number on it too. Vimeo is great, but you can't really get a good idea as to what the original GH1 footage looks like from it.
I was quite disappointed with the projection of my own GH1 onto my 1080p Panasonic projector 72" D65. This was via HDMI all native.
The resolution just isn't there, and the colour looks shabby on distant objects (not enough colour resolution or luma resolution.) That said was mainly interested in WSs where things are stressed.
And our HPX171 looked pretty good at the side of it.
That said this stuff is objective and dependant on material, but I was wholly disappointed. You need to make sure you've not got any nasty sharpening going off too.
The resolution just isn't there, and the colour looks shabby on distant objects (not enough colour resolution or luma resolution.) That said was mainly interested in WSs where things are stressed.
And our HPX171 looked pretty good at the side of it.
That said this stuff is objective and dependant on material, but I was wholly disappointed. You need to make sure you've not got any nasty sharpening going off too.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Hi ROne: I'm glad your HPX171 is working well.
However, I'm shocked to hear your GH1, which costs about 1/3 the price, doesn't produce video as good as your HPX171. What might possibly explain it? I wonder ... :happy:
Viewing raw footage via HDMI straight off the GH1 has always been a bit of a disappointment to me. I have a 55" Sony. But I believe it's because the only part of my filmmaker brain that's being activated is the "pixel-count, resolution, compression artifact, banding, mud" portion.
But when I view GH1 footage on my 55" Sony that has been edited, graded, with music and a sound mix, then another part of my brain gets activated and suddenly I'm not nearly as judgmental. In fact, the GH1 videos look better than anything I've shot before, with the exception of some things I've shot on a Varicam.
I suppose it depends on what function your footage is serving. But for my purposes, which is usually a narrative story with actors and good lighting, I think it looks fantastic on the big screen. I can't wait to see how it looks projected at a theater.
But when I view GH1 footage on my 55" Sony that has been edited, graded, with music and a sound mix, then another part of my brain gets activated and suddenly I'm not nearly as judgmental. In fact, the GH1 videos look better than anything I've shot before, with the exception of some things I've shot on a Varicam.
I suppose it depends on what function your footage is serving. But for my purposes, which is usually a narrative story with actors and good lighting, I think it looks fantastic on the big screen. I can't wait to see how it looks projected at a theater.
Ah my logic was that as good as the HPX171 is, I thought it might come unstuck against a full raster-ish DSLR Vis-à-vis pixel shifted HPX. I was wrong and suprised. Comparing 720p with both cameras the GH1 looks SD compared. The colour resolution just looks terrible. 1080p is better of course.
As a comparison the DSLR looks fine on my 42 Plasma.
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
For what it's worth I've only played my clips off the SD card through a PS3, I haven't done it via the HDMI out of the camera. It definitely looks better once graded, and I don't have an HPX to compare it to - I've only shot at 1080p with 35mm primes, I don't have the kit lens.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
When I put even compressed WMV files and show them on a Pioneer 50" it's really great. Much better than I would have thought.
rundavids
Well-known member
Do most of you agree that showing GH1 footage on a theatre-like size screen would be fine, or would the image quality fall apart? I'm in the process of purchasing a DSLR for a feature film, but don't know how the quality is on a gigantic screening. And with the GH1's low rate codec of 17, vs something like a Canon 7D's 40+ codec, would the image quality be better suited? I don't know much about codec and hoping you guys can help me out. Thanks for all the replies. You guys are helping me a lot. =-]
Ben_B
Veteran
Tomorrow some of my GH1 work is getting projected on a theatre sized (actually bit larger) screen (although I don't believe it's at full resolution.) We'll see what happens. Also being shown is a film I worked on where we used EX-1 for half the scenes and GH1 for the other half (different location) so we'll see how noticeable the differences are.
Ben_B
Veteran
Bitrates are not so easily comparable like that. It seems like the 7D's image is as compressed/poorly downscaled (IMO) as the GH1, it just doesn't break down with movement.
It's going to be fine. It will not fall apart. How it is perceived is partly based on the context. If you're showing it as a comparison to 35mm film, or some high-end HD footage, it may not cut it. But if it's to judge if the footage would be acceptable in the context of telling a good story, or a good documentary, then it's going to be just fine. It's a great camera, and the quality of well-exposed, well-composed GH1 footage trumps it's compression artifacts and banding.
If you're worried about it not making the grade on the big screen, I wouldn't consider the 7D as a possible alternative. You'd probably need to be thinking more like a RED, or a Varicam or something like that.
Barry_Green
Moderator
On static shots the GH1 codec can look great, but I've been doing some mud comparisons to check into the whole kit lens/af issues, and all I can really say is that yes, the Canon codec is simply FAR more resilient.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Yes, the 7D codec is more robust and does not introduce variations as the GH1 can do.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
If you have a 24" monitor on a desk at normal distance when you sit working it's probably covering more of your field of vision than most seats in a cinema theatre.