Park Edwards
Veteran
you realize none of them have been shot using 24p right?
GH1 sample footy and pricing
- Thread starter squig
- Start date
you realize none of them have been shot using 24p right?
Park Edwards
Veteran
you do realize none of us want 30p right? well the majority. i think people much rather work with gh1's 24p lose a tiny bit of quality than have to deal with rendering 30p out to 24p.
and again, until you have both camera's in your hand, why do you continue to keep making assumptions?
jamesmallonuk
Well-known member
I didn't know the Japanese website stuff, but is also the international website stuff 24p? and definitely I have seen 24p from the crappy samples shot at PMA. I REPEAT sure its too early to call but you can get a flavour, and I'm not talking about compression etc I'm saying it to my eye has a video look, everything I have seen. I wonder if its the deeper depth of field.
the D90 samples on their website were compressed to s**t but they still looked very 'filmic' from the beginning.
Park Edwards
Veteran
the one clip at pma was 24p. the rest was 60p....but i've been wrong before.
I dont believe in this theory.
but thats just me.
As long as the final output loks great the theoretical side doesnt matter.
DavidNJ
Carbonite Member
Actually talked to a manufacturer today who told me they overcame it, or a least minimized it by shooting 48 frames/sec and throwing half away. Their limitation was the maximum rate that the sensor could be scanned. At 8Mp the GH-1 has one of the highest pixel counts of any sensor used for video. However, we KNOW it can do 60fps, so they should be able to fix this.
Maybe the GH-2 will record 1080p24&30 natively at 45Mb/s scanning at twice that rate. That would make it hands down the best camera out there, a limb I'd being willing to step out on based on technical specs plus what we know about Panasonic still camera images.
Maybe the GH-2 will record 1080p24&30 natively at 45Mb/s scanning at twice that rate. That would make it hands down the best camera out there, a limb I'd being willing to step out on based on technical specs plus what we know about Panasonic still camera images.
Robert Altman
Active member
Disagree with the d90 "super 8" comment--I think that the footage from the d90 looks very much like 16mm. Not 35 mm, but much better than old home movie quality. I am using my eyes--not a compression number. None of the GH-1 footage out there yet looks as good to my eyes--as filmic. The GH-1 will definitely be a better video camera.
The d90 look will still work for a lot of fiction/music video shoots very well as we await the true high quality that is a year or two down the road. There are a lot of features that I have been watching on Blu Ray that have very soft/atmospheric looks that could very well be duplicated by the d90. In the mean time my d90 lenses/mattebox/rails/follow focus, etc. all get to come along free for the ride.
The GH-1 may be better in the short run, but I still feel that the real solution will come in a year from Nikon (or Canon) as the get rid of the relatively small obstacles getting in the way now. (Or maybe it will be RED as they are forced to drop their 35mm size Scarlet prices to stay competitive).
Remember that Nikon is still the only one out there without a video camera business to hurt by improving it's product!
The d90 look will still work for a lot of fiction/music video shoots very well as we await the true high quality that is a year or two down the road. There are a lot of features that I have been watching on Blu Ray that have very soft/atmospheric looks that could very well be duplicated by the d90. In the mean time my d90 lenses/mattebox/rails/follow focus, etc. all get to come along free for the ride.
The GH-1 may be better in the short run, but I still feel that the real solution will come in a year from Nikon (or Canon) as the get rid of the relatively small obstacles getting in the way now. (Or maybe it will be RED as they are forced to drop their 35mm size Scarlet prices to stay competitive).
Remember that Nikon is still the only one out there without a video camera business to hurt by improving it's product!
jamesmallonuk
Well-known member
Yep and that is why I think Nikon will do it. I don't think there is any logical reason why Nikon wouldn't be racing to put video on a new camera. I believe the d400(or something similar) will happen and i bet they are working at this very moment to make it happen if it dosen't already. I think it will be within a year not two.
I have mentioned it before on threads but I think resolution is to some extent a red herring up to a point (1080p), the look which will develop will be due to complex algorithms which I have no idea about! to produce more film lilke footage.
I just watched Gran Turino and i noticed how soft 35mm is, sure its blown up but razor sharp video is not what we should be looking for anymore.
DavidNJ
Carbonite Member
Playback. All the Canon's do that. However, Dr. Frankenstein, is it live?
film stocks have evolved more than a bit since what you'd consider old, and why compare with home movies rather than shorts, music videos and the occasional feature? but i tend to agree, one major super 8 feature even if shot professionally is that it has *a lot* of grain, which the d90 doesn't. maybe the d90 has the sharpness of super 8, the grain/texture of 16mm, and the dof of 35mm.
/matt
yeah, it's funny how so many video shooters hunt pixels all the time while most people shooting 35mm can't stop figuring out ways to soften the image with filters, nets, smoke, post effects, and so on. i'm one of them myself, it's nice with that large neg for many reasons, but it's way too sharp for most purposes.
/matt
No. To everything.
Robert Altman
Active member
Yes. To everything. (Who needs discussions!!)
Exactly!
squig
Veteran
film stocks have evolved more than a bit since what you'd consider old, and why compare with home movies rather than shorts, music videos and the occasional feature? but i tend to agree, one major super 8 feature even if shot professionally is that it has *a lot* of grain, which the d90 doesn't. maybe the d90 has the sharpness of super 8, the grain/texture of 16mm, and the dof of 35mm.
/matt
sounds about right. I was just referring to sharpness when comparing it to super 8. Maybe others are getting sharper and I just can't focus.
John Caballero
Veteran
What a disservice to compare Super 8 film to the D90 video. I'll take Super 8 any day. No jaggies, image softness, bad compression, etc., etc., etc., etc.
squig
Veteran
maybe we need a certain degree of compression to get a 70's film stock look for instance. It's like how in the audio world we put stuff through valves before we digitise or use valve simulator plug-ins to warm things up.
variable bit-rate control would be great. If Nikon up the bit-rate too much it might look too video... cringe.
variable bit-rate control would be great. If Nikon up the bit-rate too much it might look too video... cringe.