GH1 vs Red One vs Canon 5D Mk II footage comparison shoot out!

[ryansheffer]

Just got off a shoot that chose 5d over RED. Definitely big enough budget for RED. Will not be able to post any more info for a little while.

People love the 5d. However, very few people I have shown the GH1 too have been as excited about it. Bright reds and heavy motion pretty much destroy the GH1's image, which makes most Dps scared.

Also - I've shot a bunch with both the 5d and RED. Shooting more and more with the GH1. While neither 5d nor GH1 can shoot the same quality as RED (aside from lowlight with 5d), the comparison is much more viable between the 5d and the RED. There are so many issues with the color space of the GH1. Many shoots are choosing the 5d because of the simplicity of the size of the camera. Depending on what you're shooting the size of the 5d can be more than enough to justify choosing it over a RED.

 

[TimurCivan]

my response wasnt directed at you man, sorry it came across that way.

but alot of times i think some folks lose sight of what a camera system is about. Its about making your job easier. you shouldnt have to fight a camera...

Just because the VDSLRs share a portion of the "look" of a red, it really functons nothing like it. The RED is full, complete production system, and recording format.

Its important to remeber that the pleasure a DP takes in shooting, has to be considerate and thoughtfull to the post production process.. because, your mistakes, and poor choices become someone elses problem.

 

[Ian-T]

Not really. But it should surely scare the bejeebers out of the Scarlet team. They will need to have something really, really, really special now.

Exactly. I just can't justify myself getting a 2/3 Scarlet over these cams.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Well if the Scarlett is in th $3K range, is just as usable, and has no BS issues, no mud, no banding, has monitor out, etc, I'd be interested.

 

[Ian-T]

For the moment, consider that 4 years ago there was no HVX.
The DVX was around $3,000. I was completely psyched to pick mine up for $2700 off Ebay in July of 2005. Thought it was a steal.
Now you have 1080 24p with interchangeable lenses and much greater latitude (albeit with some real work around issues) for half that.

Go make movie(s).

...and with that said I'll just shut up and follow sound advice..:thumbsup:

 

[ChipG]

here's where the GH1 can do things that the Red One couldn't even begin to imagine. Specialty uses, yes, but from such new capabilities spring new shooting styles and new creative expressions.

I love the Red but these are also the exact reasons why I also love the gh1 & 5dii so much with the gh1 taking the cake for the stealth factor!

 

[Kholi]

Well if the Scarlett is in th $3K range, is just as usable, and has no BS issues, no mud, no banding, has monitor out, etc, I'd be interested.

Exactly. The 2/3" scarlet's supposed to have a 16mm coverage area. If it's getting that, Redcode Raw + new Color Science support, a much more production friendly form factor AND various Frame Rates (30p, come on now) then it's absolutely an option.

I was thinking that they shouldn't even bother with it, but after so long with the MKii I understand the validity of the baseline scarlet.

 

[Ian-T]

Well if the Scarlett is in th $3K range, is just as usable, and has no BS issues, no mud, no banding, has monitor out, etc, I'd be interested.

Oh sure. But for now my point is that there are much more options on the market "now" for one to make up their mind while at the same time Scarlet has not seen the light of day. Scarlet would be great to have but it's not "the' cam for me anymore. Give it a few months and there will be even more options to make one's head spin. I'll settle for a good compromise.

 

[commanderspike]

I'd happily fight a camera if it means I can own one. Owning a RED is 100% out of the question.

The GH1 is actually a good form factor, a good hybrid. The 5D is not. That's a tacked on video mode with awful controls. It doesn't compare in terms of functionality and usability to the GH1, which has a EVF from Panasonic's pro broadcast division and a rotating LCD, which professionals would probably laugh at but creative amateur film makers absolutely find useful.

Of course, I'd never compare a tidy GH1, with it's DSLR form factor to a full blown production camera on the basis of usability alone - but like I say, it's far better than the 5D2 in this respect and people should factor that into their decisions as well as image quality.

The GH1's modern sensor is something to behold and things will only get better and more accessible once the codec flaws disappear, processing pipeline gets faster and the video feature set gets more professional - it's only a matter of small software and hardware evolutions, step by step.

Whilst to my perspective, RED's next step is a lot lot steeper. Both in terms of the hardware needing to be very special and the price needing to be competitive with the next generation of VDSLRs.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Forget Red for the moment. Are we really in the same market, ballpark, universe for $1500 + $500 in accessories vs $17,000 + $10K to $30K in accessories?

For the moment, consider that 4 years ago there was no HVX.
The DVX was around $3,000. I was completely psyched to pick mine up for $2700 off Ebay in July of 2005. Thought it was a steal.
Now you have 1080 24p with interchangeable lenses and much greater latitude (albeit with some real work around issues) for half that.

Go make movie(s)

....and with that said I'll just shut up and follow sound advice..:thumbsup:

And the very good news is that within 2 years (on the outside). The GH1 will have "B" frames, a 21mbps codec, control over audio, gain, and monitor out for the same or lower price. And if not, someone else will have all the GH1 bells and whistles plus the above for the same or lower price.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well if the Scarlett is in th $3K range, is just as usable, and has no BS issues, no mud, no banding, has monitor out, etc, I'd be interested.

But if it's still 2/3" with an f/2.8 lens, you're going to have DOF that's on par with what you can get out of a DVX right now. Maybe a little shallower, but if you want that cinema look, you're still going to need a 35mm lens adapter. And that's gonna drive the price up and bring back the "BS issues" of hassling with an adapter.

If you buy the lensless model ($2500) then you're going to need an adapter and a relay lens, and now you'll be in the $6,000 or $7,000 bracket again.

Now, if they drop the 2/3" idea entirely and go with a full-frame sensor at $3k, then yes, that changes a whole lot of things. But it seems to me like the 2/3" f/2.8 lens is DBA (dead before arrival) in comparison to what Nikon/Canon/Panasonic have already released.

 

[Kholi]

The GH1's modern sensor is something to behold and things will only get better and more accessible once the codec flaws disappear, processing pipeline gets faster and the video feature set gets more professional - it's only a matter of small software and hardware evolutions, step by step.

Whilst to my perspective, RED's next step is a lot lot steeper. Both in terms of the hardware needing to be very special and the price needing to be competitive with the next generation of VDSLRs.

It depends on what you call competitive. Say this whole thing has gotten the RED and SCARLET team's attention and now they're going... "Well, let's just release the Full Frame version and let them decide if they want to shoot 5k @ full frame or 4k @ S35mm for ultimate flexibility. We'll price it as a fully working camera for 10k w/enough accessories to get shooting and they can BYOG (Bring your own Glass."

10K for what RED does now with an updated sensor, a complete professional shooting kit that only needs your choice of mount and glass?

There's really no reason to consider. That would be a steal to me.

 

[TimurCivan]

Well let me give you an example, i just budgeted a shoot in Spain.


In all honesty, once travel, accommodations, production costs, insurance, post, onset storage, and DIT were concerned, not to mention my fee, and that of my crew and the director and produer, the hvx200 / ex1 was our logical choice.

But i opted for a EX1 and am taking a chance on the 5DmkII. Why, for all the reasons you said, our end delivery is Hulu, so i wanted to make sure i could offer a bit of high quality 35mm look while not breaking the bank. RED would have killed the production in its tracks. it costs too much.

Believe me i am thankful for the cool cameras we have now, but i just think having the right tool for the job is an essential part of film making. i dont think in this age, we need to compromise. we get SO much for our money now a days. I think getting the best you can for the budget is your responsibility as a DP.

 

[Kholi]

Now, if they drop the 2/3" idea entirely and go with a full-frame sensor at $3k, then yes, that changes a whole lot of things. But it seems to me like the 2/3" f/2.8 lens is DBA (dead before arrival) in comparison to what Nikon/Canon/Panasonic have already released.

Barry! Wake-up You're having a really good dream! Wake up man wake up!

Barry: *snorechoke* 6k for 3k! Where am I!?!?!

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

But if it's still 2/3" with an f/2.8 lens, you're going to have DOF no better than you can get out of a DVX right now. You're still going to need a lens adapter for that cinematic look. And that's gonna drive the price up and bring back the "BS issues" of hassling with an adapter.

Now, if they drop the 2/3" idea entirely and go with a full-frame sensor at $3k, then yes, that changes a whole lot of things. But it seems to me like the 2/3" f/2.8 lens is DBA (dead before arrival) in comparison to what Nikon/Canon/Panasonic have already released.

If I had the same DOF that we did on UNAWAKENING with a HPX 500 + Stock. I'd be interested. That degree is shallowness is where I aspire to be 90% of the time (don't quote out of context ). Not the one-eye-only in focus I-just-got-a-35mm-adpater-yesterday-and-think-everything-blurry-but-one-eye=filmmlook club. Yes that's needed occasionally.

But if I had filmmic lattitude and 2/3" DOF (which=16mm right), and it was as solid in terms of image reliability as the HVX, HPX, etc, I'd be interested. Remember an HPX 500 is what $8K? Basically a much smaller HPX with filmmic lattitude, changeable lense, and maybe even a wireless follow focus. Yeah I'd be interested.

 

[ryansheffer]

I would always choose 5d over ex-1 unless I absolutely needed to run sound into camera or had absolutely no time to convert to 24p and final result being 24p was of absolute importance.

I just don't think that the image of a ex-1/ex-3 compares to the 5d.

 

[commanderspike]

Indeed the right tool for the job is a subject, but this is a slightly different topic. I think the RED & GH1 debate is about where the technology is going.

And the very good news is that within 2 years (on the outside). The GH1 will have "B" frames, a 21mbps codec, control over audio, gain, and monitor out for the same or lower price. And if not, someone else will have all the GH1 bells and whistles plus the above for the same or lower price.

My guess is... at the end of the 2D cinema era, you will be able to shoot normal footage easily and inexpensively at quality unimaginable to us even now... but because we are nearing that peak already, the camera technology is beginning to plateau and we see the law of diminishing returns on first the high end stuff and then the consumer gear before the next revolution begins apace... 3D.

It will be hard for the pro kit people to stay in business as they reach the peak and the consumer side begins to catch up, which I believe the GH1 is indicative of this process having started already.

What RED need to do is turn the page, look carefully at what the future holds, and begin work already so they have a head start on indie film maker 3D cameras.

But then a lot of that depends on how quick the 3D display systems come onto the market.

And yes, it is cyclic. There are many 'first times' over the history of both technology and film. The benchmark just keeps getting moved higher. First black and white, then sound, then colour, then digital, next 3D. After 3D, probably some direct nervous system link between technology and biology.

Sorry... getting ahead of myself a bit there. But man... am I excited about the way camera technology is progressing right now.

 

[TimurCivan]

I'd happily fight a camera if it means I can own one. Owning a RED is 100% out of the question.

Why do you need to own a camera? Spend that money on your film! rent it from someone, and then you dont have to count pennies to have an additional lens....

You can have EXACTLY what you want!

8mm Ultra prime? You got it! Optimo 24-290? at your command!

Seriously, for let say youre going to shoot a short, ad youre planning on getting a VDSLR... for example. one you can "own".

The 3,000-5,000$ you're going to spend on a GH1/MkII, a couple lenses, and some accesories is about a fair price.

If you rent and pull one or two favors you can have for your shoot:

RED one package, Optimo 24-290, Set of ultra primes, a dolley, a 3ton grip package with a gaffer an grip!


this is the SAME MONEY!!!!!!!!!! Now you can focus on your story.

now your short will have some visual firepower, with real tools, and therefore will make it more competetive in the film market. Godforbid you make some money.... then you can have the same awesome tools for your next film / musicvideo/ commercial...



For example, Some friends of mine, that i met at the HVX bootcamp in NYC a couple years ago, had just bought a HVX package, lights, tripod, macbook etc... they spent 10grand!

They apprached me to shoot some of their films. i asked them what their budget was. They said they didint have one. Why because they spend their lifes savings on camera gear. They wound up returning the gear, sans the macbook, and now im proud to say with that 8K$ have made three beautiful films.

 

[Barry_Green]

If I had the same DOF that we did on UNAWAKENING with a HPX 500 + Stock. I'd be interested.

But you won't, because Unawakening was using an f/1.4 lens. You'd have 4x as much DOF on the Scarlet. Unless using a lens adapter and a 1.4 lens.

[quot]But if I had filmmic lattitude and 2/3" DOF (which=16mm right)[/quote]
It's close to 16mm, yes. Not quite as shallow as Super16; 16mm is pretty much a dead format because it's 4x3.

Remember an HPX 500 is what $8K?

Body-only, then you need batteries and glass and recording media...

Basically a much smaller HPX with filmmic lattitude, changeable lense, and maybe even a wireless follow focus. Yeah I'd be interested.

Yes, but -- if it follows the Red One model, it'll also mean raw-only workflow, no internal camera processing, no ready-to-deliver footage, etc. It'll be a different class of camcorder entirely.

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry! Wake-up You're having a really good dream! Wake up man wake up!

Barry: *snorechoke* 6k for 3k! Where am I!?!?!

Yeah, forget that whole "full frame" sensor, I meant to say S35. Full frame isn't where it's at, even the S35 sensor is bigger than the Red One's.

And yeah, is it a dream? The GH1 has a nearly 35mm-sized sensor, body-only at (presumably) ~$800. Red's about the REVOLUTION, right? Doing things the other guys can't (or won't)? Why would it be such a snorechoke dream to think that they'd at least match what's going on with the others? Nikon's got a bowl of jello in their 35mm-sized sensor, but it's $900 including lens.

And forget 6K, or 5K, or any of that. Just give me a solid robust 1080p. Shoot it at 3K and downconvert to a 1080p recording, and that's all I need. And monitoring. And proper audio recording. And VFR up to 120. That'd be enough.