GH1 sample footy and pricing

John Caballero said:
In the meantime we know that if you need to shoot professional stuff in the near future you can't go bellow the HVX 200, HPX 170, HMC 150 or any comparable camera at their price points. You will get nice stuff with less but it ain't professional. Neither is the D90.
Click to expand...


That's so weird, I have had lots of stuff broadcast on (UK BBC1/BBC2/C4) Tv shot on FX1, HV10 and HV30 ?

I will call them up tomorrow and tell them to pull it as it is not 'professional', I also have a friend who has some stuff running at the moment, she shot it on a Sony HC1, I will get in contact with her as well and give her the bad news.
 
Neither is the Hvx200.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Take a look around. There is plenty of extremely professional stuff shot with that little beast. Thats why a lot of us put a lot of $$$$ into it and made our investment back. That's what is all about.

That's so weird, I have had lots of stuff broadcast on (UK BBC1/BBC2/C4) Tv shot on FX1, HV10 and HV30 ?
Click to expand...

You can put anything on TV nowadays. But you can't compare stuff from say an HV20 to stuff from an HPX 170. It doesn't take much brain to figure that one out.
 
John, the point was that even though you may consider the hvx200 highly professional, there are some that won't shoot anything other than film. kind of like how you disregard the d90 so much. Go over to cinematography.com and mention how you think the hvx200 is professional and you'll get burned at the stake. it's just like your opinion man, and quite frankly, it's redundant.
 
John Caballero said:
But you can't compare stuff from say an HV20 to stuff from an HPX 170. It doesn't take much brain to figure that one out.
Click to expand...
That might be true in regards to the caliber of work folks are putting out on each of these cams...but not necessarily on their potential. With a little carefulness and good light anything can look good.
 
exactly...look at Crank 2: High Voltage. It was shot with Xh-A1 and HF-10??(<--i think) And that movie's going to tank. It's dumb. He hooks up batteries to his nipples so his heart will last. It wouldn't matter if that movie was shot on Arri or Red it's still gonna be dumb. Point being, content is king. Always will be. "The Departure" could've been shot on the same cam as Crank 2, and would probably had the same amount of success it did on film.
 
LOL...right. I agree with all your points. But I'll still be the first in line to check out these "non-pro" cams in action ...just because some folks say it can't be done.
 
John Caballero said:
You can put anything on TV nowadays. But you can't compare stuff from say an HV20 to stuff from an HPX 170.
Click to expand...

Your argument seems to have changed from:

If you need to shoot professional stuff you cannot go bellow (sic) the HVX 200, HPX 170, HMC 150 or any comparable camera at their price points.

to . . .

You cannot compare a HV20 to stuff from an HPX 170.

John Caballero said:
It doesn't take much brain to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

'Brains' - or 'Brain power' accepted.
 
Ian-T said:
That might be true in regards to the caliber of work folks are putting out on each of these cams...but not necessarily on their potential. With a little carefulness and good light anything can look good.
Click to expand...

Right there ! Listen to this man. :thumbup:
 
DavidNJ said:
That may say "MB" but it is megabits. 13.7 MB would be over 100Mb/s
Click to expand...
why wouldn't it be? prores is typically around there, even though it's a constant quality vbr codec. why are we discussing the bitrate of a prores file in his mac? i can take 3gp footage from my phone and transcode it to prores, even that becomes 100mbps. hey, i can even make it uncompressed 4k, that's some serious bitrate but it doesn't really say anything about my nokia, does it?

/matt
 
let john think what he wants. it's annoying and all but ultimately it's just his own problem. my dad builds houses using nothing but an axe and a drill (and occasionally a chainsaw), i'm sure many people would call that highly unprofessional too.

/matt
 
C'mon how much better can a HMC150 be than a GH1, it uses the same codec 21Mbps vs 17Mbps with a smaller sensor and shitty low light ability. Panasonic would have to seriously cripple the GH1 to lose that shootout.

A HVX with a DOF adapter looks like ****....muddy bokeh....it looks nothing like 35mm. And you can forget about shooting anything in the dark.
 
Production quality is an interesting concept. Blair Witch Project certainly didn't have high production quality. And an SD DV camcorder exceeds a pro TV cam from 15 years ago.

You can use a $600 camera, with good work and a good script, and have a great film. However, when we see video, especially short videos (commercials, YouTube, etc) we are drawn in my good production quality in video and sound. Prior to the 5DM2, in our price range, there really wasn't much difference. The differences between an HVX200/HPX170, XL-H1s/A1s/G1s, and various Sony's were less than the difference between operator skills and shooting environments (lights, grip skill, etc.).

35mm adapters added DOF control, but it was an effect. The 5DM2 changed that. One look at the footage says there is something that makes this better. Less noise? Dramatically better low light performance (who needs lights anyway!). It couldn't be color correction and exposure control becasue the camera had less control than a $600 consumer camcorder. It has just a tremedous increase in contrast through spatial frequences where there was no contrast before.

The GH-1 offered the promise to come close to matching the 5DM2's strengths while avoiding its weaknesses. Manual control. A sensor that didn't skip rows. The mythical 24p. All at less than 1/2 the price.

Then it seems to have near totally dashed those hopes on the sharp rocks (and other jaggies) of extremely high compression. Higher compression than that $600 camcorder (21 Mb/s Sony CX100).
 
squig said:
camcorderinfo.com has some detailed reviews of the HV's and the newer AVCHD based panny and canon camcorders. They've found the panny's to be a bit softer than the canon's but far better than the D90.

If I can get HV20 detail with D90 shallow depth of field, dynamic range, and low light capability out of the GH1 I'll be satisfied. I'm not going to be looking for every artifact and crying over it, I've got a story to tell. And if it makes some money then I can get a red and jerk off.
Click to expand...

It should be better than the HV20 by far. The sensor ( pixels too ) are way bigger than the HV20. Now that said, I have HDMI captured straight from the HV20 and if you bypass that crappy HDV codec, then the HV20 is quite nice for a 3MP HD-camera. It's the low bit rate codecs and such on the HV20 and cameras alike that ruin all this.
 
Up until around October of last year (maybe later) 17 Mbps was standard for AVCHD. No one complained then. That AVCHD data rate is touted as being better than HDV's 25Mbps. I can tell you that my HV20 makes some spectacular pictures and if this cam at least does as well as the HV20 then I really don't see what the complaint is about. It will still smoke the D90. Sure Panasonic had the opportunity to do better but...c'mon it's not a loss in my eyes.
 
There are a few trade-offs. Since we are comparing H.264 High Profile@Level 4.1 we can use the compression ratio as a rough indicator. These all use DCT which favors correlated values with similar spatial frequencies.

1238119201.jpg



Update: I forgot to highlight 25Mb/s at the top row...the HMC150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top