GH1 sample footy and pricing

Yeah we need these cameras. The films I'm making couldn't be made otherwise...see kholi's epic thread
 
ehehehehe me likes both..

eddy..

me likes your attitude.. your posts too.. but you're not fair w/ david.. he's just the most knowledgeable poster here.. nobody.. nothing compares him.. it's also interesting to read his finds..

first glance he was allover gh1.. don't you remember?.. me do.

now he's getting the difficult conclusion.. w/ no hdmi live the panny promise means NOTHING.. don't you like it?

he's just being fair.. 5dmk2 is a cinema camera.. sorry but couldn't resist.. :D

where's the girl (liza) by the way?.. matsushi*a fired her? lol
 
mattsand said:
it would be better if the codec was interlace aware though, having every other line change once in a while is a sure way of messing with interframe compression.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and we can't be sure about that until it's used outside of a tradeshow or lab.

FG, might be so, but I don't think it's an excuse for a pissing contest, especially not one which substitutes a reputation for an argument. That's all I'm gonna say about that. I don't think LisaWitz has anything to do with Panasonic, she's got a Samsung or 3 now and is just looking for the next camera to move up to (per another forum where we both post). No doubt I'll see you on RedUser when next I have time to post there - it's one or the other for me, these days.
 
Eddy Robinson said:
Agreed, and we can't be sure about that until it's used outside of a tradeshow or lab.
Click to expand...
well, they are using a standard so there's not much they can do that we don't know already. does avchd even have an interlaced profile? i thought it was always frame based.

/matt
 
mattsand said:
well, they are using a standard so there's not much they can do that we don't know already. does avchd even have an interlaced profile? i thought it was always frame based.

/matt
Click to expand...

Well, it does cater for 1080 @ 50/60i so superficially the answer is yes...but I'd need to go back and reread it in detail to see what's actually happening - so a more honest answer is 'I think so, not sure'.

It strikes me that the reason for the 17mbp/s bitrate is to maintain compatibility with main profile @ level 4.0 rather than high profile @ level 4.1, which won't play back properly on some older HDTVs. I'm not sure whether this issue arises from the level or the main-high profile, but I understand they would want to be as widely compatibile as possible at this price point even at the expense of some loss in image quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Profiles suggests both profiles handle both interlaced and progressive slices, though.
 
Most codecs encode entire frames even for interlaced material, some use adaptive schemes like dv, i only know of mjpg that can do true field encoding. But you're right, we'll know soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top