Panasonic Removable Lens Four Thirds HD AVCHD Camera

if that is true then youd have to use a whole new set of fullframe lenses... like a leica M or something.

edit:
that concept isnt half bad either though! except youd have to make new expensive lenses again!:violent5:
 
Last edited:
LizaWitz said:
The 5D would be a joke of a video camera if it didn't come from Canon and have such a big sensor. But what does that sensor give you? It doesn't give you a 4k original image like the GH1, it gives you a bit shallower depth of field. That's not a compelling advantage, for me at least. And not nearly enough to overcome the many other compromises in that camera.
Click to expand...

What does she say?
4K from GH1...?

I was expecting it to give at least 1080i (if not 1080p) live from HDMI.

Now this seems pretty Weird...! Haha!
 
Last edited:
squig said:
We're gonna have to start another petition for panasonic to push the AVCHD bit-rate to 24mbps
Click to expand...

I don't see much point... what I'd like to see is camera makers give up this pointless AVCHD Format and just store in regular standard MP4 files. Then you wouldn't have arbitrary bitrate limits like 17Mbps or 24Mbps. You could have your camera do 26MBps if you wanted, or whatever the storage medium supported.

The only use of AVCHD is compatibility with Blue Ray players and TVs which are also built with the AVCHD standard. They could just as easily support MPEG4, but you know how Sony is-- why be interoperable when you can waste millions of consumers' time by having a pointless proprietary standard.

RaviSun3D said:
What does she say?
4K from GH1...? I was expecting it to give at least 1080i (if not 1080p) live from HDMI. Now this seems pretty Weird...!
Click to expand...

The HDMI is probably 1080p, as that's the reason the 24fps footage is embedded in a 60i stream is so that you can plug your HDMI cable into a TV and watch your footage.

What I'm pointing out is that the sensor in the GH1 is 4k pixels across and the GH1 starts with a 4k pixel image which it then scales to HD. This produces a better image quality than having a 4k pixel sensor and only reading every other pixel of it to get your HD resolution image.
 
Last edited:
I that Case...

Canon EOS 5D Sensor is 36 x 24 mm (i.e. Full 35 mm size frame) CMOS.
With 5616 x 3744 (21.0 MP) quality.

While Lumix GH1 sensor is 18 x 13.5 mm (4/3") Live MOS.
With 4000 x 3000 (12.1 MP) quality.

And I think 5D also works in same way with HD.
 
well it was said before (like a hundred times)
canon skips lines when scanning for videos to achieve 1080p

not sure how the GH1 does it. but if the GH1 scales it like liza is saying, thats pretty bad ass.
 
Kholi and Hunter can you run some comparisons of the AVCHD vs the mjpeg. I'm noticing the introduction of some artifacts when I do the prores/24p reverse telecine conversion of barry's footage. The birdy/nature footage H.264 file from youtube looks a lot cleaner.

Liza I'm no fan of any compression algorithm but I have a feature to shoot and I'm just being realistic. Panasonic could push the GH1 to 24Mbps easily and the more bits the better. We could be waiting a while for something with a lot less compression.
 
RaviSun3D said:
And I think 5D also works in same way with HD.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The 5D just samples one out of every several pixels to get the HD image. The 5D has a rather old CPU and so it doesn't have the horsepower to do much image processing to a realtime video stream.... I don't think Canon was taking Video seriously when they made the 5D and that it ended up being a tacked on feature. I would hope that Canon will make a serious effort in the future, but I think it will be a year or more before they do.
 
Just uploaded Barry's footage converted in 1080/24p MPEG2 (25Mbps) .m2v file.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1619212&postcount=4

LizaWitz said:
Unfortunately, you're wrong. The 5D just samples one out of every several pixels to get the HD image. The 5D has a rather old CPU and so it doesn't have the horsepower to do much image processing to a realtime video stream.... I don't think Canon was taking Video seriously when they made the 5D and that it ended up being a tacked on feature. I would hope that Canon will make a serious effort in the future, but I think it will be a year or more before they do.
Click to expand...

Well, then, Canon definitely wasn't serious on 5D. That resulted 24p issue too.

Panasonic too (not serious) for some parts...
Now it's up to Panasonic to take the 24Mbps (or more) thing seriously.
 
squig said:
Liza I'm no fan of any compression algorithm but I have a feature to shoot and I'm just being realistic. Panasonic could push the GH1 to 24Mbps easily and the more bits the better. We could be waiting a while for something with a lot less compression.
Click to expand...

The more bits the better is right. I don't know that you would necessarily see the difference if it was a 24Mbps stream or not. I don't think we can say that they could do this "easily". We don't know- there are a lot of compromises and issues involved with making a good working electronics product.

I wouldn't call 24Mbps "a lot" less compression, and image quality is not a simple matter of compression bitrate.

We really won't know about this camera until we can get some competently produced footage shot without the in-camera image "improvements" that are the default.
 
Strewth do get this right. The 5DII is at least two leagues higher than the GH1. You're comparing a full-frame, 21 Mp Magnesium Alloy weather sealed semi-pro camera with a 12 Mp just-above-entry plastic camera.
The 5DII is a DSLR Not a video camera. It wasn't designed or marketed as such. Stop bleating about it not doing what it wasn't designed to do.
 
daveswan said:
The 5DII is a DSLR Not a video camera. It wasn't designed or marketed as such. Stop bleating about it not doing what it wasn't designed to do.
Click to expand...

You got that right, which is why it really shouldn't even enter the discussion here, since this is a forum of filmmakers.

BTW, I find the phrases "full frame" and "professional" kinda funny. Both are essentially meaningless. There have been many frame formats in fillmmaking smaller than the GH1 sensor. There's a huge difference between a 4/3 or APS-C sensor and a 1/3" sensor in terms of Depth of Field... but going larger doesn't gain you much but does increase size and weight, etc. Secondly, how do you measure "professional"? It is a brand perception, not a specification.

Companies like Canon have paid a lot of really good money to get people to reject more capable cameras because they are not "professional"... just as people buy BMWs when other cars have the same capabilities.

It never bothers me when beemer dweebs hang out in beemer forms and talk about how smart they were to buy a beemer.... because I never hang out in said beemer forums. But if they come into the Honda forum and talk about how the Honda sucks, I have to laugh at them.... cause to me they just look like fools who were parted from their money.
 
Last edited:
Canon is built better. Will be interesting to see if the GH1 can match the image quality of the 5DII, which is itself reckoned to be better than the 1DsIII.
Again for the umpteenth time, don't judge the 5DII as a cine camera, it isn't. The video output is an accidental by-product of the live view. That it is so good is a bonus.
Canon could easily produce a Game-Changer. They did so with the original 5D, so good in fact that Canon could wait 3 yrs to upgrade.
 
Full-Frame gives you bigger photosites, which in turn give you better high-ISO performance. And wide-angles are easier to design.
 
daveswan said:
Canon is built better.
Click to expand...

Than a camera you've never held?

Will be interesting to see if the GH1 can match the image quality of the 5DII, which is itself reckoned to be better than the 1DsIII. Again for the umpteenth time, don't judge the 5DII as a cine camera, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you would say not to judge it when you yourself just made a comparison to it yet again. IF you want to bring it up in contrast to the GH1 don't then get upset when we point out its problems.

Canon could easily produce a Game-Changer.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. In order to do this they have to understand what the market is. They are not apparently interested in this market, or they don't understand it. Hell, they haven't produced an interesting camcorder in many years either.

daveswan said:
Full-Frame gives you bigger photosites, which in turn give you better high-ISO performance. And wide-angles are easier to design.
Click to expand...

I think we all knew that. I think we all knew that months ago. Technology also advances and the ability to pull a 4k image and downscale it allows you to eliminate a lot of noise that exists in low light. So when you have 4 times the starting resolution and the same ending resolution, you may find that despite being a smaller sensor, you have comparable image quality at the same ISO. We'll have to see how it turns out. But why do you feel the need to bring this up, if the 5D isn't appropriate as a cinema camera?

But why are we talking about the 5D at all?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call the XH A1 an un-interesting camera. But yeah, don't know what happened with the 5D.
 
Finster said:
Can someone explain to me how this 4/3" Live MOS sensor compares to:

1/3" 3-CCD
1/3" 3CMOS

That's all I've ever known - the Panasonic DVX100A and Sony Z7U.

What would I be giving up and/or gaining with the 4/3" Live MOS sensor???
Click to expand...

Barry_Green said:
You gain shallow depth of field and extreme image sharpness.

What you give up (for video) is the rolling shutter, as vs. a 3-CCD system.
Click to expand...

So is the GH-1 image actually better than, say, the Z7U? Or is it just that you now have DOF, and so the image appears to look better, but isn't really? You know what I mean?

Or is it all subjective?
 
I was comparing like with like, ie their photography potential, which is still the GH1's main aim. Just, say 60 / 40 compared with the 5DII 90 /10, and of course the 1DsIII, 100 / 0.
The only reason I can see to diss the 5DII is fear.
BTW, I'm not a Canon fan-boy (Too old for one thing) I was mightily dis-chuffed when they changed the mount from FD to EF, and in such a way as to make FD lenses unusable, unprofesional, I thought, and still do. Not the change, but forcing 'togs to buy a whole new lens-set (Didn't think much of ditching the BL mount either). Swore I'd never buy Canon again. Still ended up with a 5D, simply because it was the best bet at the time.
I may yet buy a GH1, but it will have to have demonstrably better stills performance as well as cine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top