GH1 vs. Red differences Questions

Barry_Green said:
MJPG mode can be made 4:2:2.


Not possible. GH1 has no HDMI output, other than during playback.
Click to expand...


but there's no way to make MJPG into native 24p is there?

so are you telling me MJPG mode has more color information and possibly more dynamic range? I'm not fully sure yet what the 4:2:2 means, if that's just the color bit depth only, or is that all dynamic range as well?
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Barry... I guess you'r referring to the RED One (of course, since Epic is just specs so far), right?
Click to expand...
The Red One is their only product on the market, so it is the only one that can be actually evaluated and compared.

Just curious to know what if you look at Epic as a considerable evolution or not.
Click to expand...
That is a question that can only be answered after evaluation.
 
Homunculus said:
but there's no way to make MJPG into native 24p is there?
Click to expand...
Not properly, not yet.

so are you telling me MJPG mode has more color information and possibly more dynamic range? I'm not fully sure yet what the 4:2:2 means, if that's just the color bit depth only, or is that all dynamic range as well?
Click to expand...
4:2:2 has nothing to do with color bit depth or dynamic range. It has to do with the overall resolution of the image, in terms of color sampling. A 1920x1080 frame, in 4:2:0, has color resolution of 960x540. In 4:2:2, it would have color resolution of 960x1080.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not properly, not yet.


4:2:2 has nothing to do with color bit depth or dynamic range. It has to do with the overall resolution of the image, in terms of color sampling. A 1920x1080 frame, in 4:2:0, has color resolution of 960x540. In 4:2:2, it would have color resolution of 960x1080.
Click to expand...
so in layman's terms does that mean that 4:2:2 mjpeg has more 'color space', more color information than acvhd 1080p equivalent? i.e. the colors are more vibrant and a little closer to what things like Red can do? Or no?
 
Honestly I have to say I am not a big fan of the red one yet. I know it is technically superior, but I have seen a lot of things shot on it that look very 'videoish' to me. I assume that I have just seen mostly bad operators or poor post work then... but I would say 90% of the things I have seen shot on the red have not impressed me. It seems that it's such a big deal that producers jump to say 'make sure he knows how to shoot on the red' and so a lot of people shoot on it without properly understanding how to get the best out of it during shooting or in post. Then it gets dumped to a straight for video DVD anyway. As it stands, the red gives almost an ugly raw image, and you must know what you are doing in post to get the most out of it, and it appears to me the most people - DO NOT know what they are doing with red footage.

Now, that being said, I have seen some really amazing stuff, but it's rare, it's almost like a whole bunch of tweens got their parents money and bought red cams and are just out shooting crap with them.
 
Last edited:
Shooting crap with them. Same as anybody with a DSLR or some kind of DV camera. There are a few awesome examples and lots and lots of crap examples. It takes a real EYE for the art and detail of making a film. Yeah we all talk about how good a camera is technically and we talk about how the camera is only as good as the person behind it and all that but I don't think there is really any way to convey how truly important that last part of the statement is nor anyway of really educating the forum readers on that. I think everyone should pick up a camera and shoot something but I don't think very many people will actually get anywhere with it.

That's why there are only a handful of really good directors, cinematographers and directors of photography in the world compared to the millions of people who attempt it to any serious degree. It just takes a perfect combination to come out ahead.

If those same folks really wanted to do something with a DSLR, they could make it work. Just check out that HOUSE episode with the 5D again. That looked really good for being a 5D. Do you think anybody could just pick that camera up and make something like that? Not a chance. I surely couldn't do that. I like to practice and try but I'm realistic too.

Don't take me as a fanboy for RED. I think their bate/switch and carrot-on-a-string type of marketing is really really shoddy, as well as their merciless censorship on their forums which takes some of their credibility away. I do, however think they make a good product overall even with it's quirks and I have seen some really good looking movies done on their cameras.
 
Last edited:
Svart said:
Shooting crap with them. Same as anybody with a DSLR or some kind of DV camera. There are a few awesome examples and lots and lots of crap examples. It takes a real EYE for the art and detail of making a film. Yeah we all talk about how good a camera is technically and we talk about how the camera is only as good as the person behind it and all that but I don't think there is really any way to convey how truly important that last part of the statement is nor anyway of really educating the forum readers on that. I think everyone should pick up a camera and shoot something but I don't think very many people will actually get anywhere with it.

That's why there are only a handful of really good directors, cinematographers and directors of photography in the world compared to the millions of people who attempt it to any serious degree. It just takes a perfect combination to come out ahead.

If those same folks really wanted to do something with a DSLR, they could make it work. Just check out that HOUSE episode with the 5D again. That looked really good for being a 5D. Do you think anybody could just pick that camera up and make something like that? Not a chance. I surely couldn't do that. I like to practice and try but I'm realistic too.

Don't take me as a fanboy for RED. I think their bate/switch and carrot-on-a-string type of marketing is really really shoddy, as well as their merciless censorship on their forums which takes some of their credibility away. I do, however think they make a good product overall even with it's quirks and I have seen some really good looking movies done on their cameras.
Click to expand...

good points..any idea where i can watch that house episode on 5d? I still haven't been able to find it
 
Blackout said:
Honestly I have to say I am not a big fan of the red one yet. I know it is technically superior, but I have seen a lot of things shot on it that look very 'videoish' to me. I assume that I have just seen mostly bad operators or poor post work then... but I would say 90% of the things I have seen shot on the red have not impressed me. It seems that it's such a big deal that producers jump to say 'make sure he knows how to shoot on the red' and so a lot of people shoot on it without properly understanding how to get the best out of it during shooting or in post. Then it gets dumped to a straight for video DVD anyway. As it stands, the red gives almost an ugly raw image, and you must know what you are doing in post to get the most out of it, and it appears to me the most people - DO NOT know what they are doing with red footage.

Now, that being said, I have seen some really amazing stuff, but it's rare, it's almost like a whole bunch of tweens got their parents money and bought red cams and are just out shooting crap with them.
Click to expand...

Definitely crap post.

You can't bake curves and sharpening in camera. So operating it badly would be a hard thing.

You can miss exposure, which was a huge problem, can't say it was corrected (never used newer firmwares) but RED made the efforts for this with FLUT.

I've seen a lot of crap stuff shot on the RED, bad lighting, bad art direction, bad grading.

I think we notice because the image quality is so good and we expect to see superiority in every aspect.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Definitely crap post.

You can't bake curves and sharpening in camera. So operating it badly would be a hard thing.

You can miss exposure, which was a huge problem, can't say it was corrected (never used newer firmwares) but RED made the efforts for this with FLUT.

I've seen a lot of crap stuff shot on the RED, bad lighting, bad art direction, bad grading.

I think we notice because the image quality is so good and we expect to see superiority in every aspect.
Click to expand...


If anyone has actually seen raw film before coloring, it doesn't really look like anything special. It's rather bland and washed out looking, much more bland than flat digital camera footage IMHO.

We do expect these cameras to do more than we should really be expecting of them. To get the degree of color/contrast we get out of them is pretty amazing really.

Although the director can set the story in motion and a type of camera can give you a certain look, a colorist can really make or break something as well. I've seen too many movies lately that just look they were colored by cavemen. I just saw that AVP:Reqiuiem on TV the other day and the sickly green/yellow they put on everything just turned me off(almost more than the terrible acting/script).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top