How good is a GH1 Filmout?
- Thread starter Indyreel
- Start date
PappasArts
Veteran
Of course S16 V-2 stock can. It's modern formulation that is Kodak's state of the art technology. Now these camera can give the predecessors s16 stocks a run though. That's good enough at this price!
Illya Friedman
Well-known member
I probably shouldn't address this details of this just yet, as I actually don't have the all-clear to speak about final results. I'll just do my best to sound neutral and say that the GH1 is impressive- especially when considering the price.
Having been part of the first feature on the GH1, I've got some perspective. There's a couple considerations when shooting with an HDSLR or a professional camcorder, like the HPX500. The two are just totally different animals. If you're not using cinema lenses on the GH1, the shooting process is going to be much easier with an ENG lens on an HPX500, verus a still lens on the GH1.
However, if you can work with professional cine optics on the GH1 and the HPX500 (i.e. PL mount lenses and Zeiss Digiprimes) it could be a toss-up for shooting style, if your situation is an HD ENG lens (Canon or Fuji) on the 500, and PL Cine lenses on the GH1, the GH1 is arguably easier to work with, especially for the AC. This is assuming one point in particular- you are planning to shoot double system sound in both scenarios. Obviously if you are set on using single system sound, the HPX500 will be a better on-set experience.
For the GH1 it's very helpful if your Director wants to be next to camera, or engaged with the actors- rather than at video village. If you have a "video village director" you're might be better off with a pro camcorder, unless your director doesn't mind spending the movie looking over the shoulder of the camera op. This was a non-issue on REJOUER, as Liam wants to be next to the camera/actors.
As for other considerations between the GH1 and HPX500, the 500 has a better viewfinder, but where you lose with the finder you make up in portability with the GH1, you also gain the ability to use very inexpensive SDHC cards that transfer very, very quickly. The SDHC cards are less expensive than most professional HD tape stock. If you have the budget I recommend buying your SDHC cards like tape/film stock, they are so cheap it's nice to have this security as you camera "negative", even though you are (or should be) backing up all your images to spinning drives.
I've worked a few times with the 500, most recently I shot an Office Depot commercial in May. While it's a capable camera, it's really not my favorite. It really feels like a dressed up HVX200. If you're really considering spending the money on a complete 500 package, you should SERIOUSLY consider the HPX3000. It's a real bargain right now through the trade-in program. I've been saying for two years that the HPX3000 is probably the most performance per $ spent in the realm of high-end camcorders, and with the ASC/PGA test set to debut in the coming months, I think it'll will start getting the recognician it deserves.
If you're 100% going to film, plan a test. Most reputable facilities in LA will (at the very least) refund your test shoot $ when you bring them the film out job.
Hope this helps.
There's a lot more with explanation behind this post, I'm wondering what the major difference that makes it more difficult would be between an SLR lens on the GH-1 and a CinePrime on the GH-1?
The only thing I could really think of is focusing mechanics being different and weight, the latter which that-- without proper counter weight or a steadi-like rig-- would only make it worse for any handheld application.
Say you're doing steadi-rig anyway? With the GH-1, 'less you've devised a way to view video while recording, seems like the ONLY person pulling focus is the operator, not the AC.
What did you guys do for focusing to where operator and AC could view the image at the same time from the small LCD?
These same thoughts apply to the MKii as well, but perhaps a little less so because of the 480P output during recording.
You're definitely right about over-the-shoulder that's for sure. Anyone who wants to see the image instead of waiting several seconds for a playback is going to want to be right near camera, which ultimately slows production.
I'm very sure there's something else I'm missing? Or it's that my operating equation doesn't include a Focus Puller, but combines the camera operator and focus puller into one entity. Other than that, how does strapping on CineGlass make the process easier than using comparable SLR optics?
Just curious and wanting to learn some more m'self.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
Nothing will ever be better than 8mm. But not Super8 mind. Double8! And you have to develop the 16mm double-perf Tri-X neg yourself in a taped closet pretending to be a dark room with the roll wrapped around a wire clothes hanger in two buckets with processor and stop bath. Rinse in the bathtub and leave to dry over night. Then split the roll manually with a razor blade. Watch the negative on a flickery pre-WWII projector that will have scratched off most of the emulsion in 6 runs. Nothing will ever beat that! Nothing!
Illya Friedman
Well-known member
The biggest differences is the ability to pull focus properly, lacking this ability is one of the most obvious sign of an amateur production. With PL lenses (perhaps most importantly) there are accurate (and many) distant marks. So the AC can compensate when an actor, dolly or steadicam misses their mark. You can tape off all your SLR lenses but it's a ghetto solution, and it ends up biting you in the end.
PL mount lenses put the witness mark where they should be at 3:00 and 9:00 where an AC needs it. Most SLR lenses put them at 12:00. Mounting accessories like MB and FF, works perfectoly with PL mount lenses. SLR lenses need work, and even then there are a multitude of issues, including breathing during pulls, Zooming with an SLR causes the front element to hit the filters in the MB. There's also not enough focus barrel rotation for the focus puller to feel good about anything, many lenses are external focusing (which means you can't use a clamp on MBs) and SLR lenses were not designed for proper remote focus systems, (Cmotion was our system of choice). We also did several iris pulls during one particularly long dolly shot, it would have been a nightmare doing an iris pull on the kit lens.
;-) I'll save this answer for another thread.
;-) I'll also save this answer for another thread. Too tired to keep typing.
All absolutely valid. One major point is iris pulls while doing focus pulls. With an SLR lenses that hasn't been de-clicked this would be a nightmare if not unfeasible due to the sudden stops in exposure.
This is all another thread and IMO a discussion that should be had, I'll take it elsewhere.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Of course it's compatible with a filmout. Any video or film format is suitable for transferring to film; once you get it into a digital form it can be output to film.
The HVX200 makes lovely looking projected footage. The GH1 is much sharper, and if you've got mud-free footage it should look very, very good when transferred to film.
The HVX200 makes lovely looking projected footage. The GH1 is much sharper, and if you've got mud-free footage it should look very, very good when transferred to film.
Last edited:
Stupid question, but will the GH1 film out look as good (when projected onto the big screen) as an HPX500?
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Define "as good". And this really an apples & oranges comparison -- they are very different cams suited for different applications. (And hugely different costs!)
The HPX500 has three 2/3" standard definition resolution CCDs (only somewhat more than 0.5 megapixels each) in a pixel-offset configuration compared to the GH1's single 4/3" many-multiple-megapixel sensor. The HPX500 can record using the respectable DVCPRO-HD format, which generally speaking should handle fast action & color "better" than a GH1.
Like the less expensive HVX200, in capable hands the HPX500 can produce pleasant-looking 720p video. The HPX500 has pro audio features (and 4 channels!) compared to the GH1's consumer-style stereo audio.
The GH1's features & capabilities are well documented here & elsewhere. They are fairly different from the HPX500's. In some respects they can be considered "better" than the HPX500, but only if you actually need them & know how to make use of them.
"As good" meaning, will the GH1 footage look as clear, sharp, undiffused as the HPX500 footage, when projected on to the big screen?
Also, is the AVCHD codec a "respected" format among professionals (like the DVCPro HD codec) or is it a prosumer type format?
The reason for my asking these odd type questions is because I don't want to start production with the GH1 and find that it is a hard sell to distributors who want a product capable of a theatrical release.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Hi Indyreel: If the GH1 were a film stock, and the HPX500 was another film stock (important note: one which costs more than 10 times more than the GH1), I'd think it would be advisable to shoot some tests -- and take them all the way to filmout -- to determine which "stock" is appropriate for your production.
You may be aware the GH1 has only just recently begun shipping worldwide, and hardly anyone has one in the US, so the odds of getting confident answers to your question from the resulting small pool of "others" is very small. But really, only you can make the determination "what's best" for your needs.
The GH1 is a consumer digital still cam which shoots HD video, designed for well-off "soccer Moms" to shoot vacation snapshots & home movies. Seriously.
Beyond that, I'd recommend shooting some tests.
P.S.: In case you haven't already seen this (relevant info from Illya Friedman):
http://www.hotrodcameras.com/category/tips-and-tricks/
You may be aware the GH1 has only just recently begun shipping worldwide, and hardly anyone has one in the US, so the odds of getting confident answers to your question from the resulting small pool of "others" is very small. But really, only you can make the determination "what's best" for your needs.
The GH1 is a consumer digital still cam which shoots HD video, designed for well-off "soccer Moms" to shoot vacation snapshots & home movies. Seriously.
Beyond that, I'd recommend shooting some tests.
P.S.: In case you haven't already seen this (relevant info from Illya Friedman):
http://www.hotrodcameras.com/category/tips-and-tricks/
Last edited:
I don't take that view of the design intent at all. For that purpose a 'normal' AVCHD camcorder would be a better bet. I'm starting to think that perhaps it's intended for a new kind of hybrid video/photo creation - photos that move, along the lines of the Thames Barrier Park vimeo that someone linked to yesterday - video for photographers, if you like. (Thinking aloud here, you understand).
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
My point was that for taking better-than-average quality stills _and_ video, a typical video camcorder would not suffice. Again, the GH1 body & kit lens are priced for the high end ("well-off") end of the _consumer_ digital still & video market. As always, pros will also make use of it, when appropriate, just as they've long done with many "consumer" pieces of gear.
That was me. I see Joe Shaw's TBP video as an example of where many people might start their explorations using the GH1 -- first working with the cam's strengths, and then work their way out from there to find it's limits. But everyone has their own approach.
Wow, I don't see that as their business plan at all. I don't see a soccer mom using a cam like this. Compact point and shoot for them. If they want nice quality video, there are plenty of consumer cams that can provide very nice HD video that are cheaper and much easier to use.
