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

[Ben_B]

I disagree. 3D is there to raise ticket prices.

Very true! Part of that is also the theatres offsetting the price of buying not one, but two, $300,000 projectors...but honestly I expect once most of the theatres have adopted digital projection, which makes things much cheaper for the studios than sending out prints, we'll be seeing higher ticket prices for years to come while they try to offset the cost of the things, or so they'll claim...or not claim...all while we get what is, IMO, an inferior movie-going experience. Joy!

 

[Barry_Green]

again, GH1 is interchangeable though. So, 2500 for interchangeable SCarlet... slap a 1.4 on it...

Okay, yes, but... let's keep it apple-ish... the GH1 comes in Japan currently, body-only, at $800. That's a complete shooting kit, minus lens. The Scarlet is not a complete shooting kit; according to their page you have to add $750 to the fixed-lens one to make it a complete kit. So add that same $750 to teh Scarlet and you're talking about $800 to $3250. Four times the price.

For some, that's pennies. For many/most, that will probably be the deciding factor.

And the D90 is even cheaper, although it's got more jello in it than Bill Cosby. The GH1 is a jello match for the Red One, so it's not really an issue.

I can think of a whole host of features and functions (that used to be considered required elements in our cameras) that will outweigh that diff. in DOF. but, I'm only one person

Exactly -- you and Jack make two. And there will be many more. But how many more? When Scarlet was announced, I was right there with everyone else saying "well, that's it, game over, Panasonic and Sony can pack their bags." Now, it looks like a whole different world. Panasonic and Canon have startled us, and I think Panasonic moreso than Canon because the body-only on the GH1 is 1/3 the price of the body-only on the Canon.

How do you argue with a 4K cinema-sized sensor on an interchangeable-lens camera at $800?*

*of course, the answer is "mud" and "no B frames" :thumbsup:

 

[Kholi]

Well, see, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. You recognize, as I'm trying to, that it isn't about what *we want*, it's about what's gonna happen. You went on record as "hating" your HPX170, but you stuck with it because it rented all the time, for more than the Red One kit did! Doesn't matter whether you agree with it or you think people are being smart or dumb, what mattered is that's what the market was asking for, so you had to give it to them.

Man I hated that thing with a vengeance BUT that's exactly what I was thinking about. My Letus Ultimate + HPX170 Kit was going for much more than a RED kit a day.

By the way, I don't think anyone's dumb! I was just kidding about the dream thing. LoL

 

[Barry_Green]

And to stop piracy. Especially when a movie is copied off the screen at a theater. I don't know how 3D would play on Blueray but the pirates would then have to sell the glasses along with the illegal DVDs.

Interesting. Well, there will be 3-D blu-ray players, there are already some 3D movies on the market. But I assume a home-video-camera-taped presentation in the theater isn't going to translate too well to a bootlegged copy...

 

[Ben_B]

Barry very well put. Most of us are perfectly happy with a GH1 and it's great DOF, interchangeable lenses, small size, etc.

8 months ago I wanted an HVX-200 more than anything in the world (despite the fact that I had/have pretty ready access to one plus accessories that a friend owns) 5 months ago it was the HMC-150, nearly as good a camera, a whole lot cheaper, and in some ways (like the HPX-170) the superior camera.

Now, here I am with a GH1, and let me tell you, boy am I happy I didn't get an HVX, or an HMc, etc. I love this little camera. I love what I can do with it, the way it enables the kind of things that I want to do.

If you handed me a scarlet would I be happy with it? Yes. Would I love it? Probably.

If my school bought it would I check it out whenever I got the chance? yeah probably, when not using my GH1.

Would I buy one? No.

I can make the kinds of films I want to make with the look I want on a $1500 camera. Do I need a $4000-20,000 one to make these films? Will the camera make my films better? Will the camera make me a better DP? What about a better director? A better editor? A better writer? Certainly not.

Will it make my films look a little better? Maybe. Is that worth the extra money? I don't think so.

Any place that would base it's decision to hire me or not hire me based on differences in a film I made that are as small as the differences in the footage exhibited in the video that this thread is about is not a place that I would want to work. Hire me for the film I made, for the kind of worker and artist that I am...not because I had two frames of mud in my video, or because my DOF wasn't quite as shallow as it could have been.

I can make the same movie on a $1500 camera as a $10,000+ one, be just as happy with it, love it just as much, and get hired all the same.

That's the dream, and those of us with the GH1 get a shot at living it. A shot we might well have not had if companies like Panasonic had kept all their resources into only making cameras like the HVX, the HPX500, the Scarlet, the RED One, the EX-1, the EX-3...etc.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Okay, yes, but... let's keep it apple-ish... the GH1 comes in Japan currently, body-only, at $800. That's a complete shooting kit, minus lens. The Scarlet is not a complete shooting kit; according to their page you have to add $750 to the fixed-lens one to make it a complete kit. So add that same $750 to teh Scarlet and you're talking about $800 to $3250. Four times the price.

For some, that's pennies. For many/most, that will probably be the deciding factor.

And the D90 is even cheaper, although it's got more jello in it than Bill Cosby. The GH1 is a jello match for the Red One, so it's not really an issue.

competition is good... Probably, we can thank RED for a lot of the current competition in these cams. But, the market can also get saturated, and at the end of the day the cream will rise.

I dont' think very many people looking at a 750 dollar cam are looking at a Scarlet to begin with...

Jello replaced with mud though, right? You gain a lot of potential with the GH1, but how much functionality did you give up for the price point? When, I think of the Kholi's, and you, and a lot of the people who are posting about these cams and buying them, I think of the cameras that they are coming down from in terms of price. And, I think of the things that were standard no questions asked features in the cameras that they used before... even in the dvx100... that the gh1 and these other cams don't have... and then I think about all the necessary workarounds and limitations that they are now working with that they have become accustomed to NOT working with.

Then, I forget about these gh1's, etc for a moment and think about the cost of a dvx100, or an hmc150, or hvx, hpx, ex1 that include the features they've given up. then, I think of the price and feature set of a 2/3" fixed, or a 2/3" interchangeable... Heck... even the S35 Scarlet.

I don't know... we'll see... We don't know what the dsmc line is anymore since the last news we got was "two generations" old then, and they've gone silent since then. I just have a feeling that a lot of the folk I'm referencing are going to see it when it hits, and start to wonder why they were willing to live without some of the features that were required for so long in order to save a few buck, when those same competent folk are making that much 20 times over anyways with their camera... I just get the feeling, they are going to start yearning for that feature set again, and then the extra rez, and the robustness, and what will quite likely be far superior baseline of quality in the footy.

later,
Jason

 

[Barry_Green]

I can make the kinds of films I want to make with the look I want on a $1500 camera. Do I need a $4000-20,000 one to make these films? Will the camera make my films better? Will the camera make me a better DP? What about a better director? A better editor? A better writer? Certainly not.

Will it make my films look a little better? Maybe. Is that worth the extra money? I don't think so.

That's what I think will happen to a lot of folks. Personally I think we've long past the point of where today's tools are "good enough". The huge camera wars we used to engage in are (largely) a thing of the past, in that pretty much everyone offers a good-looking image in HD and 24P, which is what we needed.

So I think a lot of folks may end up thinking like Ben does. Which brings me back to: what magic will Red work with the Scarlet, to face this new world? Let's remember that the specifications they posted, and the thing we're all basing our speculations on, were last updated December 3, 2008. Scarlet's had over nine months to grow, metamorphosize, and adapt to the new world. I look forward to seeing what they've come up with.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

I'm not, at any point, saying the Scarlet won't be better than these other tools. I'm just acknowledging that rarely has "better" been the defining factor for marketplace success. Convenience and price are always bigger factors. And if the Scarlet proves to be more inconvenient to work with (due to raw workflow) and costs more... that's not a recipe for the "revolution" that we were expecting when it was first announced.

Convenience plays a huge part, again, it's that difference between using an ipod that's good enough versus dvd audio quality. I think this is one area where Red might be missing the boat. The GH1 is like the ipod equivalent and if Red has adjusted it's original plan to meet convenience and still deliver with Redcode it will still be relevent. I think of an interchangeable Super 35mm sensor 24P capable hybrid as the baseline now. I would not buy a 2/3 Scarlet if the specs were the same from last year. Not when Panasonic and Canon allow you to use any lens you want without that much of a hit in the crop department.

I'd be interested if Red has adjusted to meet this competition in not just sensor sizes but in price as well. In this economy it's much easier to justify a 1500 to 2K investment versus 7-10k.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

That's what I think will happen to a lot of folks. Personally I think we've long past the point of where today's tools are "good enough". The huge camera wars we used to engage in are (largely) a thing of the past, in that pretty much everyone offers a good-looking image in HD and 24P, which is what we needed.

So I think a lot of folks may end up thinking like Ben does. Which brings me back to: what magic will Red work with the Scarlet, to face this new world? Let's remember that the specifications they posted, and the thing we're all basing our speculations on, were last updated December 3, 2008. Scarlet's had over nine months to grow, metamorphosize, and adapt to the new world. I look forward to seeing what they've come up with.

I agree with that in part... But, i keep thinking of the things you gave up...and when you are going to start demanding them back... and the workarounds you now have to employ thhat you didn't before... and when you are going to start getting sick of having to do them... or limiting the thigns you do or can shoot.. Of course, that will always be a factor on some level... I just think of the price performance benefit... what was gained along with the cheaper price tag, vs what has been given up...

With these vdslr's... In *some* ways... I think the bar has actually been lowered. In others, quite obviously raised... Most notably, that the cost of entry has gone down dramatically.

 

[Kholi]

I agree with that in part... But, i keep thinking of the things you gave up...and when you are going to start demanding them back... and the workarounds you now have to employ thhat you didn't before... and when you are going to start getting sick of having to do them... or limiting the thigns you do or can shoot.. Of course, that will always be a factor on some level... I just think of the price performance benefit... what was gained along with the cheaper price tag, vs what has been given up...

With these vdslr's... In *some* ways... I think the bar has actually been lowered. In others, quite obviously raised... Most notably, that the cost of entry has gone down dramatically.

Yeah I'm quite sick of the MKii and it's workarounds. For all it's worth, the Gh-1 is just a better outright video acquisition tool. Less workarounds.

 

[Barry_Green]

I dont' think very many people looking at a 750 dollar cam are looking at a Scarlet to begin with...

Perhaps -- but I think a lot who were looking towards the Scarlet, are gonna think twice about a $7,500 S35 camera when they can get a $750 S35 camera. That was where I was coming from.

You gain a lot of potential with the GH1, but how much functionality did you give up for the price point?

Lots. No live monitoring and no headphone jack are two huge ones. But, again, how much does that matter to folks? People have always been willing to jump through hoops to lower their price tag (look at all the HV20 guys trying to rig 'em up with Brevis or Letus Minis). For folks who have the dough, we don't put up with that. For folks who don't have the dough, they definitely will put up with it.

and then I think about all the necessary workarounds and limitations that they are now working with that they have become accustomed to NOT working with.

Oh, I agree. Remember that I said if the GH1 cost $10,000 I would throw it against the wall. But at $1500, it's amazing and a breakthrough. It's all about the price tag at that point.

So there are two markets, there's the Timur Civans who are saying "what are you thinking, forget this, just rent a Red" and then there are the Ben_B's who are saying "are you crazy? I could never afford that, this little thing does all I need and I paid cash for it." And I'm thinking that Red has done very, very well capturing that first market, but I doubt they'll have similar success with the second market unless they're very competitive in features and price.

I just have a feeling that a lot of the folk I'm referencing are going to see it when it hits, and start to wonder why they were willing to live without some of the features that were required for so long in order to save a few buck, when those same competent folk are making that much 20 times over anyways with their camera... I just get the feeling, they are going to start yearning for that feature set again, and then the extra rez, and the robustness, and what will quite likely be far superior baseline of quality in the footy.

Sure. And that's what ebay's for. You buy a GH1 for $1500, you do a few jobs for Kleenex and Heinekin, make your dough, and sell the GH1 six months later on ebay for $1100. That's been the working model for a lot of us for a long time. I paid off my HVX200 in the first job it ever did. Why on earth would I wait for something better to come along? Three years later, when something legitimately better came along (the HPX170), I sold the HVX and got the 170.

So why would anyone have to wait (other than supply issues, and I can't imagine today's earthquake and tsunami warning will help that any!)

Get what you need, get the best that's available, and if something better comes along, sell what you have and upgrade.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Convenience plays a huge part, again, it's that difference between using an ipod that's good enough versus dvd audio quality.

I think that argument is more applicable to the end consumer though, than it is the creator of said intellectual property... They aren't in the studio recording on their iphones

gh1 is a movie making device... Not a distribution medium... That argument 100% agree with in the distribution medium.

But, in the content creation medium... I actually worry that some people are willing to settle for not having some basic, standard functions at an increasing rate... So, these companies can continue to sell you cheaper and cheaper cams that raise the bar in some areas, while continuing to limit your creative freedom in many others by cutting corners, eliminating basic features, etc. Rather than us continuing to demand lower and lower prices, without any sacrifice of the things that we've come to know as standard, while continuing to raise the bar in picture quality, etc.

later,
Jason

 

[Jason Ramsey]

So there are two markets, there's the Timur Civans who are saying "what are you thinking, forget this, just rent a Red" and then there are the Ben_B's who are saying "are you crazy? I could never afford that, this little thing does all I need and I paid cash for it." And I'm thinking that Red has done very, very well capturing that first market, but I doubt they'll have similar success with the second market unless they're very competitive in features and price.

And, perhaps the Scarlet line of DSMC's are placed squarely right in the middle of both of those... could be a great thing. could be a bad.

 

[commanderspike]

I can make the same movie on a $1500 camera as a $10,000+ one, be just as happy with it, love it just as much, and get hired all the same.

That's the dream, and those of us with the GH1 get a shot at living it. A shot we might well have not had if companies like Panasonic had kept all their resources into only making cameras like the HVX, the HPX500, the Scarlet, the RED One, the EX-1, the EX-3...etc.

Bang! On head... nail...

However be careful not to give Panasonic too much praise... CMOS sensors were getting faster and faster, video was an inevitable add on. It's just that some genius in the Panasonic G systems team - most likely the project leader himself, thought to do it justice as much as he could, in the consumer camera constraints he was given by Panasonic.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax - they are all making a giant fist of it.

If these companies could really put their mind to it, and do a GH1 aimed properly at film makers rather than the consumer dollars, they'd nail a video camera so special nobody would be upgrading for YEARS to come.

Not a great business strategy, and I guess for that reason we have to live with a bit of mud and toy audio functionality... for now.

 

[Barry_Green]

I agree with that in part... But, i keep thinking of the things you gave up...and when you are going to start demanding them back... and the workarounds you now have to employ thhat you didn't before... and when you are going to start getting sick of having to do them... or limiting the thigns you do or can shoot.. Of course, that will always be a factor on some level... I just think of the price performance benefit... what was gained along with the cheaper price tag, vs what has been given up...

Preachin' to the choir. There's a reason I bought the 170 instead of the 150. I think the 150's a great little cam, but I'm not giving up my variable frame rates, 4:2:2 recording, intraframe recording, standard-def, HD-SDI, and all its other goodness.

But what you and I will give up, versus what the beginners/low-cost guys are willing to do without... I'm looking at the mass market. Scarlet has been positioned as a mass-market product. If it's going to be redefined as a "Red Two", aimed as a b-camera to the same group who bought the Red One, well, that changes everything. But if it's still aimed at the mass market, I wonder if it'll be nearly as big as it was originally envisioned to be.

With these vdslr's... In *some* ways... I think the bar has actually been lowered. In others, quite obviously raised... Most notably, that the cost of entry has gone down dramatically.

Y'know, with everything the bar gets lowered. HDV was a huge lowering of HD quality versus the existing standards. DV meant 4:1:1 color, horrifying to folks who were used to 4:2:2. As the price tag goes down, so do the features, the performance, and the expectations.

I was talking with a guy in India who was lamenting that every advancement in video development has actually been a step DOWN in picture quality. He was romanticizing the first time he saw 1" gear, and what a gorgeous picture it made, and how today's stuff just doesn't match up. And in some ways I can see what he's getting at: we seem to be stuck in a cycle of "hey, this is *almost* as good as that other thing that I can't afford, so it's good enough for me!" Witness the HVX200, vs. the VariCam. Then witness the HMC150, vs. the HVX200. Then witness the HMC40, vs. the HMC150. Then witness the GH1, vs. all the video cameras. Every step of the way there's a compromise made, along with the price tag.

But, I'd also argue that every step down the price rung brings a 2x to 10x increase in the size of the customer base.

 

[commanderspike]

People have always been willing to jump through hoops to lower their price tag (look at all the HV20 guys trying to rig 'em up with Brevis or Letus Minis). For folks who have the dough, we don't put up with that. For folks who don't have the dough, they definitely will put up with it.

This is the kind of ingenuity that has always attracted me to the idea of paying less and someway... somehow... getting much more out of it. That's why from a creative and tech point of view the GH1 is so exciting when it gets pitted against the might of RED in situations like we saw earlier.

When I chose to sell my Sony FX1 last year, I did without any kit at all for a while, thinking I'd not bother making anything else for a while... until I could do it justice and could afford it. The GH1 was a way out of this trap. Technology like this, which is available and affordable, is a dream... an inspiration... well, it is to a camera geek like I.

 

[Ben_B]

If these companies could really put their mind to it, and do a GH1 aimed properly at film makers rather than the consumer dollars, they'd nail a video camera so special nobody would be upgrading for YEARS to come.
.

Totally. I mentioned that I know I would regret having gotten an HMC-150 or an HVX or HPX-170 now that the GH1 is out. That had little to do with price and everything to do with feature set. I wouldn't have been saying "oh look here's a camera that gets almost as good an image and has almost as many features and is good enough for so much cheaper" I would have been saying "why did they just release a camera that gets a BETTER image (for the stuff that I want to do...narrative short filmmaking mostly) for less than 1/2-1/3 the price?!"

Now, give me a CMOS m4/3 interchangeable lens, P2 recording, HPX-170 @ under $6000 the only thing keeping me from regreting the GH1 is the price difference.

Right now price is not the only reason. There is no reason. I don't regret it or see myself regretting it. It's not "good enough" and that's not what I was trying to say...it's truly an amazing camera, and after shooting with it for awhile, now that people ask me about it the one thing I ALWAYS forget to say is "and it was only $1500!" Before i got the camera that was the first thing. Now my intention is to just let what I make speak for itself...like I think the OP video does.

 

[Barry_Green]

So, these companies can continue to sell you cheaper and cheaper cams that raise the bar in some areas, while continuing to limit your creative freedom in many others by cutting corners, eliminating basic features, etc. Rather than us continuing to demand lower and lower prices, without any sacrifice of the things that we've come to know as standard, while continuing to raise the bar in picture quality, etc.

Undoubtedly this is exactly what will happen.

Sometimes things get a little better (witness the HV20, which actually has zebras, even if they're a bit of a pain to use!) and the GH1, which gives you manual controls that the D90 and 5DM2 didn't have. But in general, undoubtedly, the lower the price tag goes, the more you'll be asked to give up.

Red did the same thing; they were able to bring out the One at such a competitive price because they did away with all the complex stuff inside like the image processing, the 3-chip prism, all that stuff. But they aimed that product directly at a niche that *wouldn't mind* losing those things, and as such they made compromises that their target market didn't feel like were actually compromises. It was brilliant, and profoundly successful.

With the Scarlet they are (or, at least, they WERE) aiming at a much wider swath of the market, so they'll have to accomodate those folks. Look at the acceptance the 5DM2 has had, even when it had no manual controls, no audio capabilities, horrific jello and not even 24p! Go on DVInfo, you'll usually find the 5DM2 is the most-trafficked of all the camera forums, and it's the camera that makes the users give up the most.

Again, my speculations and prognostications are based on what I believe the mass market is looking for, not in what I myself would buy or would prefer.

 

[Barry_Green]

And, perhaps the Scarlet line of DSMC's are placed squarely right in the middle of both of those... could be a great thing. could be a bad.

Well, that's the thing -- I think there's a definite niche there, guys who are trying to shoehorn an HPX170 or EX1 into doing what they want, strapping on adapters and whatnot... I think the 2/3" scarlet is passe, but a $3500 or $4000 Scarlet with the S35 sensor... even without a lens... that's a market-share-taker.

But that wouldn't be the market they were originally aiming at, the mass market. That'd be a niche market, a small subset of the HPX170/EX1 buyers. Only those who are shoehorning an HPX170 or EX1 would likely be attracted to that; those who are doing weddings/events/sports/broadcast/news/etc wouldn't want to go with a shallow-dof, manual-lens, raw-workflow product, so it would be a niche. A bigger niche than the Red One, but not nearly like what the D90/5DM2/GH1 will do.

If they want that niche, they're going to have to substantially outperform the existing products, at a comparable price. Even offering the same features at the same price won't do it, because we've already got these products. They'll have to offer more, substantially more, at the same price, in order to truly displace the existing products.

My take, anyway.

 

[Barry_Green]

If these companies could really put their mind to it, and do a GH1 aimed properly at film makers rather than the consumer dollars, they'd nail a video camera so special nobody would be upgrading for YEARS to come.

And...would they want that? :evil:

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that they make innovations as big and fast as they can, specifically to entice you to upgrade.

I do not think they purposely cripple products (well, I do believe Sony used to do that, but not really anymore) but I think they all recognize that if they want the cash flow to continue, they have to innovate and improve things...

With that said, I've been harassing Panasonic as to what I think they should build, and the big question is whether they see the future the same way we DVXUsers do, and whether we're a big enough market to justify them pursuing it directly. I have a good feeling about it (based on the revolutions that the DVX and HVX were) but only time will tell.

In the meantime, the ball is in Red's court and I very much look forward to what they spring on us.