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

Barry_Green said:
That's why I say they will need to have something very special up their sleeves. I don't think the existing Scarlet announcements hold the same kind of sway that they did a couple of years ago. The market's moved way too fast, and the existing Scarlet would probably be CinePorter II if released as-is.
Click to expand...

That is why I've always said that RED should have already released that first version of the Scarlet that was announced at NAB 2008.

red_scarlet.jpg


It was the less boxy looking one, before they had this whole DSMC thing going on with all the various 'brain' models of Scarlet.

I think there is too much camera uncertainty up in the air now for me to justify buying a Scarlet anytime soon, that is if it actually is released before 2009 is over. I think those that wait it out with their current cameras until spring 2010, will have much better choices than are available now.
 
A few quotes out there about eventually realizing the features given up by the GH1, etc, and wanting them back.

In my opinion the features we gained far outweigh what we lost. We gained the ability to have a small camera that we can shoot with anywhere, without causing any problems. We get an amazing looking image thanks to a large sensor. We get shallow DOF, prime lens quality, and interchangeable lenses.

In exchange we gave up some major features. In my opinion the largest of these is a robust codec. The other ones, such as certain control features (which are features, not necessities, we have, essentially, all the manual control we need on the GH1), Audio features (I do sync-sound with a boom and recorder for narrative filmmaking anyway, and for most everything else I don't need clean production sound), etc.

Not a bad trade off in my opinion...and, as I mentioned in the first part of this post, buying one of these other cameras means compromising quite a bit, not just in price.
 
Ben_B said:
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?!"
Click to expand...
But then again, I have to argue the other side. XLRs, anyone? Variable frame rates? Live monitoring? The ability to execute a power zoom? Proper audio monitoring? HD-SDI output, plus (seriously?) a headphone jack? DVCPRO-HD recording? P2 reliability and workflow? There are a million things a proper video camera does, that a specialty tool like the GH1 just doesn't.

If you're willing to work around those things, you can get some fantastic results with a GH1, but that doesn't mean that all those benefits aren't there, and well worth the price increase to most any video professional who's actually earning a living with his gear.

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.
Click to expand...
Solid gold. Put AVC-Intra on there while you're at it.
 
Looking at the DSMC line as a whole, you have 2500 to like 60k... That's a pretty huge swath of the market :)

Then, you have the whole modularity thing to consider... I know some people get off on buying a new camera every six months... Personally, I like the idea of having a range of modules that allow me to configure my camera anywhere from a dslr style to a massive shoulder mount rig. And, knowing that those modules will work across any of the 9 (that we know of at last news) brains, and any future brains... including that destined to come at some point, sub-3k S35 brain.

Then, I start to think about the camera market moving faster and faster and faster in this vdslr realm and buying a new camera every 6 months (many people undoubtedly do)... suddenly getting an interchangeable 2/3" scarlet for 2500, building a lens collection (even a 35mm one if planning to ultimately upgrade your brain) and building a modules collection that can stay with me as I move up or down the food chain... and still being able to sell that brain to recover some of the investment while moving to another brain... doesn't seem all that much more expensive than buying a d90... then a gh1, then a gh2, then.... all of which are lacking in some of those basic features that are going to be standard features on any of the dsmc brains.

If you start to think about it... there are many things that continue to make the dsmc line very attractive... For me, personally... the idea of being able to grow my equipment with my means is extremely attractive functionally, and from a long term cost perspective.

But, there is the impact of now. and now is what we have. But, when these things hit in whatever form... the now and the 1500 or 2,000 dollar options of now and 6 months from now may start to look a lot less attractive, once there is actually a tangible alternative on the market to compare them to.
 
The fact is that Red was announcing a revolutionary camera, Scarlet, way before they knew for sure if they could even bring it to life. A piece of electronic equipment like that takes a mighty long time before thought and actual product. You can dream it up in your brain and pretty renders but you have to build the first prototypes and see if they work. Thats when the buck slows down. I would love to have a Scarlet but I don't think is going to be here anytime soon. Hope I am wrong.
 
Ben_B said:
In exchange we gave up some major features. In my opinion the largest of these is a robust codec.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but... what if commanderspike is right, and using a manual lens frees up processor power to make the codec more robust? Tantalizing, but I'm not sure I'm buying the theory yet.

The other ones, such as certain control features (which are features, not necessities, we have, essentially, all the manual control we need on the GH1), Audio features (I do sync-sound with a boom and recorder for narrative filmmaking anyway, and for most everything else I don't need clean production sound), etc.

Not a bad trade off in my opinion...and, as I mentioned in the first part of this post, buying one of these other cameras means compromising quite a bit, not just in price.
Click to expand...
Having spent a week with the GH1, I can say that I really, really, really, really think the lack of live monitoring of the video is the #1 compromise that we just shouldn't have to make. I mean, I was laying on top of a jail cell because that's pretty much the only place we could get to where we could actually see the GH1's display, which (looking at the display) is the only way to monitor it. It's a problem.

The rest can be worked around, if you're willing to work around them. But that no-monitoring thing is a drawback. Even so, if you said "here, take a D90 with a swimming pool full of jello and no manual controls to speak of" versus "here's a jello-free GH1 with full manual control, only problem is you can't monitor the video during recording" I'd def. take the GH1 in that case.
 
John Caballero said:
The fact is that Red was announcing a revolutionary camera, Scarlet, way before they knew for sure if they could even bring it to life. A piece of electronic equipment like that takes a mighty long time before thought and actual product. You can dream it up in your brain and pretty renders but you have to build the first prototypes and see if they work. Thats when the buck slows down. i would love a Scarlet but I don't think is going to be here anytime soon. Hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think they just threw some specs on paper and dreamed something up and then said... great, now lets try to build the sucker... One would think they had the hard data and whatever else they needed to know that it was at least possible for them to largely accomplish what they advertised with the DSMC line.

I'd give them more credit than that :) As open as they have been in the past, there is still much we don't know...

I think back to the dsmc announcement... then think about how a relatively short period of time it was that we were starting to see footy and stills from the 2/3" sensors, and 5k sensors... And, I'd be willing to bet a dollar that they've been messing around with epic alpha's since the time they posted the first scarlet stills and such. They certainly didn't go from an idea to working test sensors in a few months... at least I highly doubt they did... Or, if they did... then they are probably a hell of a lot further a long than we think they are :)

later,
jason
 
In my view, the Scarlet makes no sense.

Pro film makers who make a living out of their profession, are gonna invest in the best camera money can buy regardless of value for money. A great deal more money rests on it being up to scratch in all areas.

This is the market RED caters for, and caters for well.

Why try and cater for the lower end, when it is sown up by Panasonic, Sony and Canon?
 
The GH-1 and on video output during recording, at least a freakin' COmposite out, is just about unacceptable. I can't believe they were that short-sighted NOT to at least allow the composite port to output a simple SD video feed.

The SD Video feed from the GH-1 actually is more useful than the MKii's. So many different places they went wrong and yet, so many places they went right.
 
Kholi said:
The GH-1 and on video output during recording, at least a freakin' COmposite out, is just about unacceptable. I can't believe they were that short-sighted NOT to at least allow the composite port to output a simple SD video feed.

The SD Video feed from the GH-1 actually is more useful than the MKii's. So many different places they went wrong and yet, so many places they went right.
Click to expand...

methinks it very deliberate ... sell more cameras with a GH1n or GH2
 
Well for all talk of what Scarlet might be, all Panasonic Broadcast needs to do now is put the GH1 sensor and m4/3 lens mount in a pro-body, a P2 or a SDHC writer and live full HD out over HDMI so we can pick a field recorder / laptop / workstation for uncompressed files at a $4 - 5000 price point and they would probably sweep the just-below-cinema-market clean. World wide. They got all the parts, they just have to assemble it into one unit.
 
commanderspike said:
In my view, the Scarlet makes no sense.

Pro film makers who make a living out of their profession, are gonna invest in the best camera money can buy regardless of value for money. A great deal more money rests on it being up to scratch in all areas.

This is the market RED caters for, and caters for well.

Why try and cater for the lower end, when it is sown up by Panasonic, Sony and Canon?
Click to expand...


It's not that sewn up yet, man. It's nice for what it is, but again...it's nice, for what it is. We still do not have the useability of even an HVX200 at this point out of the GH-1. There are quite a number of things missing that we can only hope begin to see correction in the next iteration.

Number one being a way to view WHILE recording out of the ports.
 
Jason Ramsey said:
If you start to think about it... there are many things that continue to make the dsmc line very attractive... For me, personally... the idea of being able to grow my equipment with my means is extremely attractive functionally, and from a long term cost perspective.
Click to expand...
There are indeed. I have the same feeling about my laptop; the Lenovo lineup lets me buy additional batteries, the UltraBay exchangeable modules where I have a DVD drive, a hard drive bay, and an additional battery, and the Docking Station. I could swap out my existing "brain" for a W500 workstation and keep and use everything else. That's downright appealing.

For professionals, I have no doubt that the Scarlet modularity system is the right tack to be taking.

I just don't think it'll play well with the consumers. $300 for a "cheese plate"? $250 for a handle?

We'll see. Upgradeability is a great thing, if folks will buy into it. Red offering the upgrade to the 100X models, and then a trade-in at full price for an Epic-X, are excellent moves on their part.

But, when these things hit in whatever form... the now and the 1500 or 2,000 dollar options of now and 6 months from now may start to look a lot less attractive, once there is actually a tangible alternative on the market to compare them to.
Click to expand...
But -- less attractive, to who? That's the question I'm asking. A complete shooting system for $1500 is always going to be more appealing to a larger swath of the market than a $3750 kit that you can potentially grow if you've got the dough. And for a smaller segment of the market it'll be a no-brainer as well; obviously the growth path would be of more value to them than a lower entry-level price tag.

Can't wait to see how it all actually plays out.
 
J Davis said:
but there is no upgrade path if you own a set of mini primes, what brain do you upgrade to?
Click to expand...

Izzy was shot with a 35mm lens if I'm not mistaken, and that was the 3k 2/3" sensor that they shot it with. If I end up with a 2/3" interchangeable... I have been thinking that an affordable stop gap on the way to an S35 sensor is using cheap nikon glass or whatever, and building a nicer lens collection along the way. Crop factor and such is something I'd be willing to live with. Then, buy a new brain and already have all my modules, some decent lenses, etc..

Not sure how feasible that will ultimately be, and not really sure it's the path I want to take... But, I think of the dsmc line as something I can work my way up the ladder of. Or, down... Or, fill out with additional brains, etc... for various reasons.

later,
Jason
 
To add to that, though. I'm riding on Panasonic for the next trophy-worthy release. Unless Canon suddenly gets the guts up that the company had when they released the XH-A1.

Oh, I remember that. I wanted the A1 so freakin' bad but couldn't figure out why I wouldn't get one... wait I remember: the HVX200 was still the better all around camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top