Panasonic unveiled G1-HD...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gordon Prince said:
Can we infer that you defend the 5d mk2 codec as a lossless compression then?
Click to expand...


No...

There really isn't any 'lossless compression. Or interpolation. Cineform wavelets come close on the compression though.

What it appears is that H.264 is worth close to a factor of 2 at say 13Mb/s vs MPEG2. By the Canon's 45Mb/s, that maybe, say, 1.8? So it is equivalent to MPEG2 at maybe 80Mb/s vs HDV's 25Mb/s. Then...it is long GOP like HDV. That seems to add about 75% for a least frames with motion. Even moderate motion (walking, etc.) That would make it equivalent to 141Mb/s MPEG2 I-frame.

DVCProHD is 100Mb/s I-frame MPEG2. The Canon would be better (with less color, 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2.

AVC Intra is 100Mb/s H.264, so it would be better, but the Canon close.

Flash XDR is 100Mb/s MPEG2 GOP of 160Mb/s MPEG2 I-frame, so it is also better, but the Canon close.

Net: It is better than anything we are currently used to seening. And it is used in the $3500 5DM2, the $600 SX1, the $350 SX200 (@720p30), and in upcoming APS-C Rebel and other cameras (say $1000-2000).

If the Canon were a video camera with full video camera controls, it would have set the market on its ear.

GH-1 is 13.5 Mb/s at 1080p24, equivalent to 17.4 Mb/s at the Canon's frame rate. Otherwise similar although some have claimed the GH-1 may have a better algorithm. However, they are both H.264 High Profile@Level 4.1 so the gap, if any, won't be large. Leaving the GH-1 with 140% more compression than the 5DM2, 140% more compression than the SX1.

Worse, I would like to see if it has 4:2:0 24p over 60i chroma artifacts. Well, not worse than the rolling shutter skew being reported in the HPX300 forum.

However, if that HDMI port is live uncompressed 1080p 4:2:2...or 720p60 4:2:2
 
I have no your tech skills, David, that's for sure. But it does seem you have the Canon 5D Mark II in good count, right? A good theatrical release 35mm blow-up acquisition codec too?

I've seen the REDCODE 36, it rocks as the best one so far from its class -- I must say it, indeed. Any guess on the Canon 5D Mark II performance @ the big movie theater screen?
 
Canon really screwed up. If ithe 5D had 24p and manual shutter I'd be first in line to buy one.

The recent price drop on the D300 is probably an indication Nikon are clearing inventory to make way for the D400. I really hope they get it right this time, it won't be full frame like the 5D though.

The GH1 looks good on paper but I still have concerns about it's low light capabilities, compression, and deeper depth of field.
 
squig said:
the toy camera's don't look very toy like with rods, follow focus, matte box, big lens, stabilizer, etc. And they actually end up costing $5000.
Click to expand...

No, they just look stupid and not fit for the job in a lot of cases.

Agreed, clients are the wankers.
Click to expand...

Wankers are the ones who proclaim the superiority of their tools more often than they end up using them, mate.
 
Emanuel said:
I have no your tech skills, David, that's for sure. But it does seem you have the Canon 5D Mark II in good count, right? A good theatrical release 35mm blow-up acquisition codec too?

I've seen the REDCODE 36, it rocks as the best one so far from its class -- I must say it, indeed. Any guess on the Canon 5D Mark II performance @ the big movie theater screen?
Click to expand...

Both of us play in RED world a bit. I'm more hands on than David is, but you andI have seen REDCODE and how hard it really does rock. What RED gives you is pretty much all you would "need" to do anything with.

From what I see @ 1080/30 from the Canon put on a 46" Samsung 1080 LCD, raw material. And what I see of RED footage output to the same LCD, there's still something missing from MKII footage as far as a complete image goes. It looks "flatter" than RED footage.

However, I assume projected it would be adequate. As good as an image originating from REDCODE 36 (and any new interations?), I don't think so.

But, still, not to far off... which is saying a lot.
 
Ok I am actually selling my Nikon D90 on ebay right now to get the Canon 5D Mark II but after reading this thread I am thinking if I should just wait for the Panasonic GH1...What do you think guys.. Mark 5D II or wait for this.... :(
 
don't do it.....too pricey no manual shutter and 30p......the GH1 and D400 will be out soon and canon 50D. I'm keeping my D90 until i can get something with full manual control, better compression and of-course 24/25p. The GH1 will probably do for a while but I'd like a full frame sensor and a higher bit rate like the 5D
 
nyczSZx said:
...What do you think guys.. Mark 5D II or wait for this.... :(
Click to expand...

It´s hard to know what to do. I suppose currently nobody can give you the "best tip". By now we all don´t have exact infos about image quality, manual control, rolling shutter, compression artifacts... etc, especially for the upcoming products Nikon D400, D800 + Canon 500D.

I´d say in a couple of months (maybe august) the situation gonna look much better and a lot of guys have to make their own carefully thought out decision...
 
Last edited:
i don't think it's so hard if you know what you need it for, and when. the features of each camera are radically different; only one has full manual control, only one has a 24x36 frame, only one has 24p as well as a super 35 sized sensor, two of them are out, one isn't, and so on. if you don't know what you need you should probably wait.

/matt
 
Every time some talks about any of the sub-$20k camcorders I fire back with the Canon.

Note, Canon was probably designing Digic 4 in 2007. The chip probably went to production last summer. At that time they thought they were breaking the envelope. Their alpha/beta testers probably were virtually all photo people. That they moved it so far lets everyone see what the parameters are. Let's hope Panasonic, Sony, and Canon's video division get it quicker than Ford and GM understood the minivan.

In all these posts there was talk about MTF. I just got my hand charts from a EX1 with Letus, 5DM2, and D90 shot at the same time by the same person. Unfortunately reduced to 1280x720. From that it is clear the Canon has more contrast over a broader range of spatial frequencies with less sharpening. The RED and SI2k, which capture RAW mosiaced footage with light wavelet compression have less chroma noise, more accurate gamma, white balance, gamat, etc., less compression (unless you are capturing HD-SDI or HDMI directly to Cineform), and equal or better sensors and glass than the Canon, which is better than almost anything else under $20k.

JImage is a neat free tool to see some of this stuff. And I wish people put sine wave greyscale bars up for every camera in its native format.

Let me add something we don't talk about. While SDHC can do 50Mb/s with class 6, the common x133 CFs can do 180, the x266s over 250Mb/s. x600s have been announced. And a new spec changes from an IDE to a SATA interface, shipping in a year more or less. The move is single sensor Bayer filter array cameras. The RED and SK2k capture RAW footage like a still camera. In a few years (say by 2012-2014) we will probably start to see lots of cameras have a RAW capture option.
 
To me the decision a few months ago to get a d90 was simple--the best low-cost entree into real 35mm imaging and lenses. All of my accessories--lenses, rails, mattebox, follow-focus, etc. get to come with me in a year or so when a less compromised body is released by Nikon or Canon (or a cheaper RED). Nikon lenses will work well on all of these systems.

I would not invest in the GH-1--it too will likely have compromises, and it is not looking to be cheap. Do you really want to invest in a compromised 4/3rds system and lenses when larger imagers and better compression and controls will be around the corner? I will be able to walk away from my $850 Nikon body in a year much easier than a $2500 Canon body. (Of course the Nikon is always going to be an excellent still SLR). The GH-1 style systems will never be able to provide images as good as the 35mm cameras--simply a matter of physics/optics in terms of depth of field and light gathering ability.

So if you are testing the waters, the Nikon makes the most sense. If you are able to justify the cost, the Canon would be a better choice right now--but abandoning it will be accompanied by greater financial pain when better imagers appear in a year. The 4/3rds systems can simply never match up, and the best of them will always be a compromise.

My 2¢.

Robert A.
 
You're aware that the Nikon isn't a 35mm-sized sensor, right? It's DX-sized, less than half the size of the Canon. The GH1's 4/3 sensor is smaller than the Nikon, but not by as much as the Nikon is smaller than the Canon.

The Nikon sensor is 1.6x bigger than the GH1. The Canon is 2.35x bigger than the Nikon.

The GH1's sensor is 4x bigger than a 4:3 2/3" video chip, and 3x bigger than a 16:9 2/3" video chip. It's huge in terms of a video sensor or Super16 film, but it's smaller than a DX-sized sensor or full-frame 35mm still cameras.
 
Why haha?

Depth of field is optically tied to imager size--there is NO way around that!! If you want the narrowest depth of field you need a big imager (hence the 35mm adapter craze).

Light sensitivity is improved by larger imagers--each pixel has a better chance of gathering photons. One again--simple physics that is not arguable.

So, in a year or so, when the dSLR guys have figured it out, or RED drops its prices, the 4/3rds systems will clearly be relegated to a prosumer/casual user category. Any perceived advantages that the GH-1 has now will all be gone. The dSLR manufacturers just have to get some electronic issues (compression/etc.) taken care of--they don't have to alter the physical laws of our universe to improve!

Robert A.
 
I bet you, with Nikon lens on the GH1 and the D90, you would have no idea which camera took the picture. Oh yeah, Nikon is looking into
making 4/3rd camera. Hmmm? Plus, the D90 retailed brand new for $1399.00, GH1 expected to be under $1500.00. Do you realize the the Mk2 is the ONLY camera out right now with a FF sensor that records video?
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that Nikon will produce 4/3rds cameras--they also make point and shoots. They don't want do give up the lower-end market.

Using your reasoning of A being somewhat smaller than B which is somewhat smaller than C . . . you will have us all convinced that we all might as well go back to our 1/3" imagers!!

Your statement about the Canon MkII is of course correct--and perhaps my next camera body will be a full frame 35mm (which is actually a good deal bigger than standard 35mm motion picture film). The d90 size sensor is actually very close to the true imaging dimensions of standard 35mm motion picture film.

No matter how hard you try, at some point size does matter!!

--RA
 
Anybody that doesn't want to buy a particular camera has the full right not to do it. You don't want the GH1, well, don't buy it. You don't want the 5D, don't get it. It is a very simple process. You get what you want and what you need at what you can afford. Look at the plusses and minuses and decide for yourself. And by the way, one more time, the Nikon D90 is a terrible video camera, anything slightly better will be a huge improvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top