GH13, the bad and ugly
- Thread starter mitchell1074
- Start date
now that you've pointed out the 'ugly' i can see it if i look closely and pause the video. otherwise, seems perfectly acceptable to me while viewing....at least online, which is all i'd ever use this camera for anyway.
even so, we've all heard how well this holds up on theater screens. so its not a $100k camera for $1k, but then i never dreamed it was.
while its good for cinematographers to nitpick and strive for perfection, we need to be careful not to get caught up in it and let it keep us from telling a story.
even so, we've all heard how well this holds up on theater screens. so its not a $100k camera for $1k, but then i never dreamed it was.
while its good for cinematographers to nitpick and strive for perfection, we need to be careful not to get caught up in it and let it keep us from telling a story.
Covering it just keeps the possibility of image burn-in to a minimum. Cmos (and your viewfinder/LCD) can possibly have an image imprinted on them if the image is left on them long enough. Kinda like the old Plasma TVs used to have a problem with.
The theory is that the heat from the camera being on for long periods of time causes cleaning residue to *burn* off the sensor. A secondary theory is that the camera does some kind of self-calibration over time. Either way, when I got my camera the purple/yellow banding was so bad I couldn't use it. After about 3 days of being *burned in* those bands were gone.
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
mitchell1074
Member
now that you've pointed out the 'ugly' i can see it if i look closely and pause the video. otherwise, seems perfectly acceptable to me while viewing....at least online, which is all i'd ever use this camera for anyway.
even so, we've all heard how well this holds up on theater screens. so its not a $100k camera for $1k, but then i never dreamed it was.
while its good for cinematographers to nitpick and strive for perfection, we need to be careful not to get caught up in it and let it keep us from telling a story.
"Ugly" was probably too strong of a word, and it is nitpicky stuff. I pointed out somewhere before, less than 10 years ago there was a pretty steady supply of theatrical features being released that had been shot on miniDV (Tadpole, Pieces of April, The Anniversary Party, etc) There's no reason someone couldn't shoot a really nice looking feature with this camera as it is now.
As far as the camera cookery, mine has visibly improved, but I still see the vertical stuff in low-light, especially tungsten lit shots, maybe it never completely goes away?
mitchell1074
Member
Hi- I didn't record, just turned camera on and let it sit all night.
And I have to temper my initial enthusiasm, I think the vertical lines are less obtrusive, but still most definitely there. If it's a matter of unfixable fixed pattern noise (especially with tungsten lit scenes), then this is just one of those artifacts that you have to take into consideration at the outset of a project and decide if it's workable or not. Add a little detail and texture and it goes away, but blank blue skies or walls at a stop or more under and there it is.
And I have to temper my initial enthusiasm, I think the vertical lines are less obtrusive, but still most definitely there. If it's a matter of unfixable fixed pattern noise (especially with tungsten lit scenes), then this is just one of those artifacts that you have to take into consideration at the outset of a project and decide if it's workable or not. Add a little detail and texture and it goes away, but blank blue skies or walls at a stop or more under and there it is.