Panasonic GH5?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chamber005 said:
I see a dramatic improvement in image quality (less noise) from 5 to 12 to 17 to 24 mbps on my cam. Why is that?
Click to expand...
You've totally missed the point. Barry was saying that bit rate has little meaning when you're comparing different codecs and different implementations of those codecs on different cameras.

Within a single codec implementation, on a single camera, of course using higher bit rates will always yield better quality. The higher the bit rate, the less compression used. Less compression means fewer artifacts.

If you care about image quality, then two main things about a codec matter: How efficient it is and how high the bit rate is. If you care about image quality, then there is no reason why you would not want the highest bit rate possible. But you also want a highly efficient codec, which can compress better with less data. Efficient codecs lead to space savings on storage media.

H.264 is more efficient than MPEG-2, which is more efficient than MJPEG. If you decide to go with MJPEG, then the bit rate that you'd want to use would be much, much higher than anything on MPEG-2 or H.264. This was one of the major shortcomings of the Nikon DSLRs: They used MJPEG at shockingly low bit rates, and the image quality suffered for it.
 
Last edited:
Chamber005 said:
I'm not a tech guy, but is mbps just the "robustness" of the codec? I see a dramatic improvement in image quality (less noise) from 5 to 12 to 17 to 24 mbps on my cam. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Yes, within the same codec, adding more mbps will always make the quality better.

What you can't compare is mbps across *different* implementations of the codec, or (especially) between different codecs entirely.

So on an AVCCAM camera, unquestionably the quality goes up as the bitrate goes up -- 21 is better than 17 which is better than 13 which is better than 6.

But 9mbps of AVCCAM is better than 25 megabits of MPEG-2. And 21 megabits of AVCCAM is better than 35 megabits of MPEG-2.

And you can't even count on the same family being equivalent -- AVCCAM uses AVCHD, and the GH1 uses AVCHD, but 21mbps of AVCCAM is embarrassingly better than 17mbps of GH1 AVCHD.

So -- megabits are meaningless as a statistic to compare, unless you're talking about the exact same codec.
 
JMG100 said:
... As for more usable A/V qualities in DSLR form- I'd love that, too. But why would they want to do that- then we wouldn't buy their HPXs!
Click to expand...

When we want a cam with, say, built-in XLR audio connectors, we can use a traditional form factor prosumer handycam or pro shoulder mount camcorder.

If the manufacturers want to make one with a >1/2" sensor for under $5K, great, but given the price of a EX1R, don't hold your breath.*

I'm advocating for a relatively inexpensive (<$2K) DSLR cam w/o dumb limitations.

A DSLR with simple, cheap design improvements like full-time audio out via a headphone jack, audio recording w/o AGC, full-time live video out for monitoring, recording w/o pulldown, a slightly improved codec implementation (like a 7D), swivel LCD _and_ hi-res VF (like a GH1), preferably using a M4/3 mount & sensor (like a GH1), and so forth. Nothing fancy, difficult or expensive to implement.

The physical form factor (DSLR vs. handycam vs. shoulder-mount) will partly determine features and allow for market segmentation. For example, a DSLR doesn't have room for XLRs, but there's no reason to leave out a headphone jack, or to not allow turning off AGC, etc.

Importantly, these simple changes I'm advocating don't interfere in any way with the primary mission in life of a DSLR: Sell as many units as possible to as many (primarily) photography users as possible. It won't cost these customers any more if these features are added. However, the manufacturers will also sell thousands of extra units to prosumer and pro users who want those few simple additional features.

Plus, many of these prosumer & pro customers will _also_ buy or rent -- in _addition_ to the DSLRs they buy -- more capable & more expensive cams for projects which require it, too. It's a win-win.


* But sure, anything's possible!
 
Last edited:
I bet you that if Sony delivers a product they're gonna tack on some proprietary format or recording method that involves having to invest in some technology no one uses.
 
Actually, Sony will use SxS cards in their new cam, just to drive us all crazy.

Of course, if it means we get variable frame rate stuff in a <$2K cam, even I will finally break down and buy a SxS card! :-)
 
Hey, I'd be plenty happy with AVCCAM and SD cards. If they go P2, it'd better have AVC-Intra on it. That'd make it a killer, killer app -- 10-bit 4:2:2 at visually uncompressed quality with shallow-DOF 35mm look...

But if they go with AVCCAM, that means we'd get cheap SD memory card recording, and I'm fine with that!
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
When we want a cam with, say, built-in XLR audio connectors, we can use a traditional form factor prosumer handycam or pro shoulder mount camcorder.

If the manufacturers want to make one with a >1/2" sensor for under $5K, great, but given the price of a EX1R, don't hold your breath.*

I'm advocating for a relatively inexpensive (<$2K) DSLR cam w/o dumb limitations.

A DSLR with simple, cheap design improvements like full-time audio out via a headphone jack, audio recording w/o AGC, full-time live video out for monitoring, recording w/o pulldown, a slightly improved codec implementation (like a 7D), swivel LCD _and_ hi-res VF (like a GH1), preferably using a M4/3 mount & sensor (like a GH1), and so forth. Nothing fancy, difficult or expensive to implement.

The physical form factor (DSLR vs. handycam vs. shoulder-mount) will partly determine features and allow for market segmentation. For example, a DSLR doesn't have room for XLRs, but there's no reason to leave out a headphone jack, or to not allow turning off AGC, etc.

Importantly, these simple changes I'm advocating don't interfere in any way with the primary mission in life of a DSLR: Sell as many units as possible to as many (primarily) photography users as possible. It won't cost these customers any more if these features are added. However, the manufacturers will also sell thousands of extra units to prosumer and pro users who want those few simple additional features.

Plus, many of these prosumer & pro customers will _also_ buy or rent -- in _addition_ to the DSLRs they buy -- more capable & more expensive cams for projects which require it, too. It's a win-win.


* But sure, anything's possible!
Click to expand...

Hey- I hope you're right and they do it- I would love a DSLR like that!
 
Last edited:
My prediction is that this DSLR thing will last only a little while longer before "traditional" camcorders are all but forgotten and large sensors in ENG formats become the norm. At least among the professional gear - for consumers that kind of depth of field would only be a problem. I think the form factors required for photography and video work are different. Video cameras need to be operated in a certain manner that is different than still cameras. It's cool now that you can use still cameras to shoot video, but the only cool thing about it, ultimately, is the larger sensors. Eventually that will migrate over to the "normal" video cameras and photographers will get their cameras back :)
 
Jester2138 said:
My prediction is that this DSLR thing will last only a little while longer before "traditional" camcorders are all but forgotten and large sensors in ENG formats become the norm. At least among the professional gear - for consumers that kind of depth of field would only be a problem. I think the form factors required for photography and video work are different. Video cameras need to be operated in a certain manner that is different than still cameras. It's cool now that you can use still cameras to shoot video, but the only cool thing about it, ultimately, is the larger sensors. Eventually that will migrate over to the "normal" video cameras and photographers will get their cameras back :)
Click to expand...
Large sensor, ENG format cameras with interchangeable lenses under 10k. I think you're right. Once the companies figure out a business model for these, that will happen- although, I still like the portability of the DSLRs. Let's have it all!!!
 
I think I may know what's going on here between Sony and Panny?? I reckon Sony have first dibs on the new spec that both companies have worked on together, after that Panny will rerelease the GH1 as a GH1.3 with marketing/ads and a big update, thus giving the general consumer a feeling of well being when they are buying a third gen product this christmas....and us our bloody frame rates and codec!
 
It may be that the larger sensors will migrate to traditional camera layouts and pros will keep using them because of the better ergonomics, but I doubt they're ever going to take the video out of still cameras again (at least in this price range.)
 
Barry_Green said:
Hey, I'd be plenty happy with AVCCAM and SD cards. If they go P2, it'd better have AVC-Intra on it. That'd make it a killer, killer app -- 10-bit 4:2:2 at visually uncompressed quality with shallow-DOF 35mm look...

But if they go with AVCCAM, that means we'd get cheap SD memory card recording, and I'm fine with that!
Click to expand...

they should make a p2 and an sd card version

hmc with interchangeable lens would be great.
Id definitely buy that.

p2 gear is tough for me :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top