GH2 video, 24p vs 50i/60i

[tcglog]

If one doesn't care about the "cinematic look" then does 1080p24 24Mb/s of the GH2 have any benefits over 1080i50 17Mb/s? In my understanding interlaced and progressive footage should be pretty equal in static scenes but progressive would be better shooting motion if the fps is equal. Surely 50i derived from 50p has better looking motion than 24p even if the 24p has more Mb/s? What advantages in this case does 24p have over 50i for a non-filmmaker?

Thanks!

 

[tcglog]

Thanks for all the replys, I guess this proves that there NO BENEFITS to have 24p over 50i !

It seems that "filmmakers" and regular users have different needs. The regular user wants to capture motion and other video with the best quality and accuracy whereas the filmmakers really only care about "cinematic look" and other stuff that is quite frankly irrelevant. I wish Panasonic would stop listening to the "pro filmmakers" and start listening to regular users. Then the improvement would actually be 1080p50 and not the useless 24p.

 

[tcglog]

Quoting Barry Green:

they've made it better by giving it full 50i, instead of stuttery 25p. We here on this board disagree, of course, because 25p is a highly important thing for people who want to make film-like footage in PAL territories. But that's not the primary market they're after

Well I'd much rather have full 50i than stuttery 25p.

 

[Jay Birch]

the extra 7mbps might not sound much, but it will prove quite a difference in quality.

 

[Matthew P]

From the samples I've seen, the advantage of using 24p is that you'd get less compression artifacts, and it also looks FAR sharper than 50i (even in static scenes).

 

[mpgxsvcd]

If one doesn't care about the "cinematic look" then does 1080p24 24Mb/s of the GH2 have any benefits over 1080i50 17Mb/s? In my understanding interlaced and progressive footage should be pretty equal in static scenes but progressive would be better shooting motion if the fps is equal. Surely 50i derived from 50p has better looking motion than 24p even if the 24p has more Mb/s? What advantages in this case does 24p have over 50i for a non-filmmaker?

Thanks!

1080i is simply 1920x540 @ 30 or 25 frames per second. You can interpolate in the extra 540 lines of resolution and you can interpolate in the extra frames to make it 1080p @ 60 or 50 FPS. However, in the end you might as well use Sony’s 1440x1080 since it actually contains much more true resolution and 1080p @ 60 FPS cannot be transmitted efficiently in any form today.

 

[svecher]

If one doesn't care about the "cinematic look" then does 1080p24 24Mb/s of the GH2 have any benefits over 1080i50 17Mb/s? In my understanding interlaced and progressive footage should be pretty equal in static scenes but progressive would be better shooting motion if the fps is equal. Surely 50i derived from 50p has better looking motion than 24p even if the 24p has more Mb/s? What advantages in this case does 24p have over 50i for a non-filmmaker?

What you get with 1080p24 is more resolved detail. In the worst case scenario you lose up to up to half. And get this, the more motion there is the more real detail is lost. You may like the more fluid looking motion, but you are looking at Standard Def footage, in terms of amount of detail, not High Def. And yes, 1080 50/60p would do better in that regard.

 

[tcglog]

Thanks for all the replys!

the extra 7mbps might not sound much, but it will prove quite a difference in quality.

You mean shooting static objects or motion or both? What kind of quality?

From the samples I've seen, the advantage of using 24p is that you'd get less compression artifacts, and it also looks FAR sharper than 50i (even in static scenes).

Ok, and this is probably an advantage gained with the extra 7Mb/s and not 24p vs. 50i? So basically would be solved with 24Mb/s 50i, too bad we don't have it..

1080i is simply 1920x540 @ 30 or 25 frames per second. You can interpolate in the extra 540 lines of resolution and you can interpolate in the extra frames to make it 1080p @ 60 or 50 FPS. However, in the end you might as well use Sony’s 1440x1080 since it actually contains much more true resolution and 1080p @ 60 FPS cannot be transmitted efficiently in any form today.

In order to be 1920x540 it should really have every other line black shouldn't it? I don't see this, or do you mean the lines are so small that I can't make them out? Or is 50fps so fast that the fact that the lines are switching in every other image makes it impossible to notice? Either way why would 1080i50 produce worse video than 1080p50 if the eye isn't capable enough to notice anything? Or is the only difference in extracting still pictures from the video?

What you get with 1080p24 is more resolved detail. In the worst case scenario you lose up to up to half. And get this, the more motion there is the more real detail is lost. You may like the more fluid looking motion, but you are looking at Standard Def footage, in terms of amount of detail, not High Def. And yes, 1080 50/60p would do better in that regard.

But if my eye isn't fast enough to notice every other screen being black in every image (switching) than what harm can it be? Is this only a problem if I want to extract a still frame from my video?

Thanks again!

 

[svecher]

In order to be 1920x540 it should really have every other line black shouldn't it? I don't see this, or do you mean the lines are so small that I can't make them out? Or is 50fps so fast that the fact that the lines are switching in every other image makes it impossible to notice? Either way why would 1080i50 produce worse video than 1080p50 if the eye isn't capable enough to notice anything? Or is the only difference in extracting still pictures from the video?

But if my eye isn't fast enough to notice every other screen being black in every image (switching) than what harm can it be? Is this only a problem if I want to extract a still frame from my video?

Progressive display devices have to perform some method of deinterlacing on interlaced input. How exactly it is done depends on the actual device. The method you describe is called "discard" and its effects are quite visible. If I were to guess, a good example of what HDTVs do was posted in the main GH2 thread. In fact, if you are interested in the topic, you should download VLC and compare playback of original GH2 footage using different deinterlace methods it offers. I think you'll discover that your brain (via eyes) is quite a discerning viewer.

 

[tcglog]

Progressive display devices have to perform some method of deinterlacing on interlaced input. How exactly it is done depends on the actual device. The method you describe is called "discard" and its effects are quite visible. If I were to guess, a good example of what HDTVs do was posted in the main GH2 thread. In fact, if you are interested in the topic, you should download VLC and compare playback of original GH2 footage using different deinterlace methods it offers. I think you'll discover that your brain (via eyes) is quite a discerning viewer.

Thanks for the info svecher! I did not know that, I guess I have to read up on de-interlacing.