GH1 vs. Red differences Questions

H

Homunculus

Carbonite Member
Hi guys. I am just wondering if ya'll can chime in and help me learn what makes the Red different than Gh1. Obviously I know Red is much better but I'm just trying to learn and understand the terminology of WHY it is better.

For example I read that the Red Mysterium X sensor is only 12megapixels just like the GH1 sensor. So obviously the Red's abilities do not come down to megapixel. But how does it obtain much greater sharpness and detail/resolution than Gh1 if it is not due to megapixels then? The whole 2k, 4k thing, what is that anyway? That is lines of resolution? GH1 at 1980x1080 is considered what then, 2k? (1980)?

My biggest question though is this: why does the Red have richer colors, or as others have phrased it "more colorspace", or basically far more "color information" in frame. I notice this in outdoor shots the GH1 outdoors seems a tad diluted compared to Red which has far more vibrant colors and bigger dynamic range. What does this come down to? Can someone tell me?

If the GH1 could record in RAW instead of codec file would this give it far more color information? Is it possible in the future to hack it to record RAW or does the data throughput limitations of the GH1 just not allow that much data to ever pass through at that rate no matter what the hack or what speed your card is?


Lastly, does anyone know of any GH1/Red comparison videos they can post? I already know of the one between 5dmkii, gh1, red where the lady is walking around on the street looking for someone. Are there others somenoe can post?

Thanks
 
Well, honestly, I don’t think you should judge the GH-1 by that video. That was when the GH-1 was new(er)…a lot has changed since then. People are able to tweak out a lot more of the GH-1 now (even pre-hack) Also…that Red One was pre- Mysterium X. I always thought the GH-1 and original Red One could be matched with no problem. But....I never shot Red....so what do I know.
 
The Pansonic GH1 shoots some amazing 4K RAW stills. It offers a massive headroom for grading, and when graded by an expert, these stills can look gorgeous, with enormous amount of detail, devoid of any subsampling/compression. Compare these stills to the video - massive difference in every respect. The GH1 can shoot RAW stills at 3 frames per second for 7 frames.

Now, imagine RED as a 4K RAW still camera which can shoot at 30+ frames per second continuously, with only very efficient compression. In fact, the upcoming Epic is capable of pushing out 5K at 120 fps at mathematically lossless RAW.

That is the difference. The M-X sensor runs at high clock speeds, and the system is designed to handle massive amounts of data with several times higher bandwidth than still cameras like GH1.

We can only speculate as to how the GH1 does 1080p video, but there's no doubt there are massive compromises being made. The GH13 hack makes these compromises/compressions lesser, and thus you get a much better image. But still, there are many compromises (Compare the RAW still vs the 8-bit AVCHD 1080p video). Considering that, it is still amazing how well the images hold up, particularly at 720p. If the GH1 were to shoot 30 frames per second RAW in the near future, you can be rest assured it would look and cost more akin to a RED One than a GH1 style still camera.

As for resolution, 1080p is 1920 lines horizontal, 1080 lines vertical. 2K is 2048 lines horizontal and depending on the aspect ratio, however many likes vertical. So, 1080p is close to 2K. 4K is 4096 lines horizontal. As you can see, assuming aspect ratio remains constant, from 2K to 4K is a 2 times increase in lines both horizontal and vertical; hence a 4 times increase in resolution. So, for a 2:1 aspect ratio, the 2K image is 2048x1024, 4K is 4096x2048. Of course, there are different naming conventions, whereby a 1920x800 image could still be called "1080p", even though it is technically 800p. But you get the idea of it. Also, important to remember that a 1920x1080 frame size does not mean a 1920x1080 image. Few cameras produces true 1920x1080 images. The GH1, for example, would resolve to something like 1500x800 or so, which is a pretty good result. The RED 4K 4096x2048 image would be more like 3200x1640. And so on.
 
Last edited:
GH1= $1200.00
RED ONE= $30,000.00

Just guess which would be the better camera. Do the most and perform the best. Which one would have an amazing image while the other one would have a great image for its price?

There is really no point of comparison. Well, both shoot digital video that emulates film. Thats it.
 
Last edited:
Kind of like the Yugo vs Ferrari comparision. They both get from here to there...end of comparision.
 
k how about this what if I purchase 10 GH1's and have them all set up to shoot next to each other, stills at RAW quality at intervals equivalent to that which would allow me to stitch all the still frames together to form a 24fps moving picture of RAW quality. This would cost about 10,000 and be as good as red?



/kidding lol
 
The RED also offers several features and far more flexibility as a motion picture camera.

As for the final image - you have to consider your final deliverable.

If you are making something for the internet, DVD or, upto 720p, the GH13 will be very close to the RED, especially in ideal conditions. One could make a case that the money could be spent much more effecively in production values beyond the camera image.

It is in difficult conditions, 4K projection, and "future proofing" that the RED comes into its own.

In the end, consider the difference in price and your requirements, and make your decision.
 
Subhadip said:
The Pansonic GH1 shoots some amazing 4K RAW stills. It offers a massive headroom for grading, and when graded by an expert, these stills can look gorgeous, with enormous amount of detail, devoid of any subsampling/compression. Compare these stills to the video - massive difference in every respect. The GH1 can shoot RAW stills at 3 frames per second for 7 frames.

Now, imagine RED as a 4K RAW still camera which can shoot at 30+ frames per second continuously, with only very efficient compression. In fact, the upcoming Epic is capable of pushing out 5K at 120 fps at mathematically lossless RAW.

That is the difference. The M-X sensor runs at high clock speeds, and the system is designed to handle massive amounts of data with several times higher bandwidth than still cameras like GH1.

We can only speculate as to how the GH1 does 1080p video, but there's no doubt there are massive compromises being made. The GH13 hack makes these compromises/compressions lesser, and thus you get a much better image. But still, there are many compromises (Compare the RAW still vs the 8-bit AVCHD 1080p video). Considering that, it is still amazing how well the images hold up, particularly at 720p. If the GH1 were to shoot 30 frames per second RAW in the near future, you can be rest assured it would look and cost more akin to a RED One than a GH1 style still camera.

As for resolution, 1080p is 1920 lines horizontal, 1080 lines vertical. 2K is 2048 lines horizontal and depending on the aspect ratio, however many likes vertical. So, 1080p is close to 2K. 4K is 4096 lines horizontal. As you can see, assuming aspect ratio remains constant, from 2K to 4K is a 2 times increase in lines both horizontal and vertical; hence a 4 times increase in resolution. So, for a 2:1 aspect ratio, the 2K image is 2048x1024, 4K is 4096x2048. Of course, there are different naming conventions, whereby a 1920x800 image could still be called "1080p", even though it is technically 800p. But you get the idea of it. Also, important to remember that a 1920x1080 frame size does not mean a 1920x1080 image. Few cameras produces true 1920x1080 images. The GH1, for example, would resolve to something like 1500x800 or so, which is a pretty good result. The RED 4K 4096x2048 image would be more like 3200x1640. And so on.
Click to expand...
thank you that's the sort of very informative post I was looking for.

But that just covers the resolution aspect of it, how about the color space, color information. Why does the Red look so much richer and vibrant in colors, and has greater dynamic range where blowouts don't look as bad or deadly?
 
Subhadip said:
The RED also offers several features and far more flexibility as a motion picture camera.

As for the final image - you have to consider your final deliverable.

If you are making something for the internet, DVD or, upto 720p, the GH13 will be very close to the RED, especially in ideal conditions. One could make a case that the money could be spent much more effecively in production values beyond the camera image.

It is in difficult conditions, 4K projection, and "future proofing" that the RED comes into its own.

In the end, consider the difference in price and your requirements, and make your decision.
Click to expand...
well I already made my decision. I'd have to sell myself into male prostitution to afford the Red and even then I probably wouldn't make it. I'm happy with my super GH1 but I am just wondering and trying to learn more, that's why some of those dismissive posts others have posted are not that helpful towards that end.
I can see what you're saying that for internet/youtube purposes the gh1 and red look very similar as all the stuff gets super compressed and loses quality anyway, but still the COLOR information is far superior in Red. A typical outdoor scene for instance just looks so rich and vibrant in its various shades of greenery and foliage compared to the more diluted Gh1...or I could be wrong and shooting with saturation -2. Should I bump it to +2 to match the Red's vibrancy and richness of color?
 
Homunculus said:
thank you that's the sort of very informative post I was looking for.

But that just covers the resolution aspect of it, how about the color space, color information. Why does the Red look so much richer and vibrant in colors, and has greater dynamic range where blowouts don't look as bad or deadly?
Click to expand...

RAW has no color space, technically. You can't "see" RAW, it must first be transcoded into a viewable image. It is the same thing as your still RAW. It can produce 12-bit color depth, 4:4:4, and RED's own Color Space REDSpace produces some amazing results.

Your GH1, however, produces 4:2:0 8-bit YUV AVHCD images. Or 4:2:2 MJPEG, I believe, but personally, I prefer the AVCHD compression. Obviously a huge difference. You lose a lot of detail, including dynamic range in these subsampling/compressions. Once again, compare the GH1 still vs. GH13 video. It is also not just the compression, but the methods used to get 1080p video out of a 4K sensor. I am not going to speculate how it is done exactly - only the Pansonic engineers know the exact details.

But you can understand how there are big compromises. Once again, take a still image, and compare it to a grab of the 1080p video. You will see what kind of compromises are being made between 4K RAW and 1080p AVCHD/720p MJPEG.

Homunculus said:
well I already made my decision. I'd have to sell myself into male prostitution to afford the Red and even then I probably wouldn't make it. I'm happy with my super GH1 but I am just wondering and trying to learn more, that's why some of those dismissive posts others have posted are not that helpful towards that end.
I can see what you're saying that for internet/youtube purposes the gh1 and red look very similar as all the stuff gets super compressed and loses quality anyway, but still the COLOR information is far superior in Red. A typical outdoor scene for instance just looks so rich and vibrant in its various shades of greenery and foliage compared to the more diluted Gh1...or I could be wrong and shooting with saturation -2. Should I bump it to +2 to match the Red's vibrancy and richness of color?
Click to expand...

Yes, as they say, take the best camera you can afford, and use it the best you can. No one can ask anything more of you.

There are ways to make your GH13 look better of course, and I am sure the expert GH13 users can answer your question. However, don't expect the detail of a well graded RED image - that is beyond the capability of the GH13. So, do the best with what you have.
 
Homunculus said:
But that just covers the resolution aspect of it, how about the color space, color information. Why does the Red look so much richer and vibrant in colors, and has greater dynamic range where blowouts don't look as bad or deadly?
Click to expand...
Because better is better. The Red's sensor alone, costs 10x as much as the GH1's body. You can buy a body-only GH1 for $600 (or, at least, you used to be able to) and the Mysterium X sensor upgrade is $5750 just for the sensor.

Better engineering. Better design. More capabilities, more speed, more transistors, faster hamsters in the wheels, it all adds up. Red designed a chip that can run 12 megapixels at 30 frames per second. Panasonic has a chip that can run 12 megapixels at 3.5 frames per second. Red's chip does 10x as much, at 10x the price (well, probably more like 100x the price, because the chip alone costs 10x as much as the full GH1 camera).

This really shouldn't be that much of a surprise. The Red went into the PGA/ASC test against cameras that cost much more than it does (F35 @ $350,000, etc) and it finished pretty much in last place. But that should be okay, as it cost 1/20th as much as the F35. The Red easily far exceeds what a GH1 can do, and that shouldn't be a surprise, as a Red+lens costs about 20x as much as a GH1+lens.
 
Subhadip said:
RAW has no color space, technically. You can't "see" RAW, it must first be transcoded into a viewable image. It is the same thing as your still RAW. It can produce 12-bit color depth, 4:4:4, and RED's own Color Space REDSpace produces some amazing results.

Your GH1, however, produces 4:2:0 8-bit YUV AVHCD images. Or 4:2:2 MJPEG, I believe, but personally, I prefer the AVCHD compression. Obviously a huge difference. You lose a lot of detail, including dynamic range in these subsampling/compressions. Once again, compare the GH1 still vs. GH13 video. It is also not just the compression, but the methods used to get 1080p video out of a 4K sensor. I am not going to speculate how it is done exactly - only the Pansonic engineers know the exact details.

But you can understand how there are big compromises. Once again, take a still image, and compare it to a grab of the 1080p video. You will see what kind of compromises are being made between 4K RAW and 1080p AVCHD/720p MJPEG.



Yes, as they say, take the best camera you can afford, and use it the best you can. No one can ask anything more of you.

There are ways to make your GH13 look better of course, and I am sure the expert GH13 users can answer your question. However, don't expect the detail of a well graded RED image - that is beyond the capability of the GH13. So, do the best with what you have.
Click to expand...
I don't know the differences between the MJPEG and ACVHD modes at all, are you saying that MJPEG has better color space and richer colors? Can you please explain the difference to your best knowledge? thanks!
 
Barry_Green said:
Because better is better. The Red's sensor alone, costs 10x as much as the GH1's body. You can buy a body-only GH1 for $600 (or, at least, you used to be able to) and the Mysterium X sensor upgrade is $5750 just for the sensor.

Better engineering. Better design. More capabilities, more speed, more transistors, faster hamsters in the wheels, it all adds up. Red designed a chip that can run 12 megapixels at 30 frames per second. Panasonic has a chip that can run 12 megapixels at 3.5 frames per second. Red's chip does 10x as much, at 10x the price (well, probably more like 100x the price, because the chip alone costs 10x as much as the full GH1 camera).

This really shouldn't be that much of a surprise. The Red went into the PGA/ASC test against cameras that cost much more than it does (F35 @ $350,000, etc) and it finished pretty much in last place. But that should be okay, as it cost 1/20th as much as the F35. The Red easily far exceeds what a GH1 can do, and that shouldn't be a surprise, as a Red+lens costs about 20x as much as a GH1+lens.
Click to expand...
really? Interesting about the pga/asc test can you tell me more about this? I find it highly interesting why red is never participating in tests like Zacuto shoot out etc..almost like there's some sort of industry moratorium on saying anything negative about Red or putting it in negative light. What exactly did it do worse in against things like F35 etc just curious...
 
The Producer's Guild teamed up with the American Society of Cinematographers to do an exhaustive test between the top digital cinema cameras and film. They assigned an individual ASC member to be the representative cinematographer for each camera, as well as having overall supervising ASC cinematographers directing the overall test efforts. I don't know if there has ever been a comprehensive test report released to the public; the results weren't ever intended for the public anyway, these tests were put on by these organizations for the benefit of their members. From the public commentary I've seen on various forums, it is generally recognized that the Red One was in over its head. However, Red has said that the post-production workflow that was employed was not really appropriate or flattering to the Red footage, and I believe they asked for the results to be re-evaluated once the Red footage was put through an approved workflow. I don't remember how that all played out.

Okay, updated with some googling:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=192532

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38345

http://www.ascmag.com/news/News_Articles/News_218.php

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Publications/In_Camera/Technical_File/cameraTests.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7119/is_200909/ai_n39230245/
 
Last edited:
Homunculus said:
I find it highly interesting why red is never participating in tests like Zacuto shoot out etc..almost like there's some sort of industry moratorium on saying anything negative about Red or putting it in negative light.
Click to expand...
There's no "moratorium" whatsoever. There was, for a while, a rabid cult of fanboys who would eviscerate anyone who dared say anything negative, but I think that's largely dissipated now that the products are in the hands of more working folks. In fact, it seems like that same culture of rabid fanboyism moved down the scale; the same determined visceral hatred and attack-dog mentality that Red defenders used to use about the Red (basically chasing master cinematographer Claudio Miranda off the RedUser boards), moved down the scale to the 5D/7D. Six months ago you could be vilified, excorciated, crucified and burned in effigy (if not in person) if you dared say anything negative about the "all-holy capabilities" of the 7D. Today, cooler heads seem to prevail and we appear to be "allowed" to again discuss actual performance and rational evaluations, without the emotional jihadism that prevailed on the boards through much of the last year.

As to why a Red wouldn't be in the Zacuto shootout -- why should it be? Zacuto was comparing $1,000 to $3,000 DSLRs, not $30,000 digital cinema cameras. There's been millions of "Red vs. film" comparisons done, so why add another?

The Red is very good, especially at its price. It has its share of issues, it has improved substantially since I had one, and it's being replaced with the Epic which should potentially be better in most every way. The Red is a viable and valid alternative to 35mm film production. It's just in a completely different class, school, and university than the DSLRs. It however isn't in the same graduate school as the Arri Alexa or F35.

Put simply, the Red is to the F35, as the GH13 is to the Red.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Put simply, the Red is to the F35, as the GH13 is to the Red.
Click to expand...

Barry,

So what makes the F35 cost 10x more than the Red? I assume it doesn't come with glass, although that would be a huge factor. Is it an even better sensor? Is it the codec? I mean, how far can you go in the digital realm today?
 
is there any way to get more bit depth into gh13 more than 4:2:0 so that there's more color information?

for example what's this nano flash i hear about..I think that's what it's called. what if you use gh13 with nano flash??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top