stephenvv
Well-known member
Thanks - that's a fairly modest system, so good to hear, but I could never, I repeat never stop using Vegas unless they broke it as the audio is still so superior to other NLE's. For me, audio always trumps picture.
Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update
- Thread starter commanderspike
- Start date
Thanks - that's a fairly modest system, so good to hear, but I could never, I repeat never stop using Vegas unless they broke it as the audio is still so superior to other NLE's. For me, audio always trumps picture.
John Caballero
Veteran
...........
Barry_Green
Moderator
I can make stuff look just like commanderspike's, but I have to pan like 90 degrees in 2 seconds to get it to do that. I don't think his particular camera is at fault, unless he's saying that he gets that kind of degradation when doing a 7-second pan.
I am coming to the same conclusion that Kholi, Illya, and Hunter have found -- it works if you shoot 24p like you should shoot 24p.
If you want the freedom to wave the camera around and pan 90 degrees in 3 seconds, and look at the still frames, then the 24p mode is not going to work for you. It just isn't. Game over. Unless, of course, you want to just look at your footage on the TV and not pixel-obsess over still frames, in which case yeah it gets softer but is it that big of a deal?
If you want to shoot holiday footage, use 60p. It's much better for that kind of thing.
If you want the ultimate end-all be-all, do as Kholi said and pony up the dough.
The GH1 is what it is, and it's $1500 (retail). Work within its limitations, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or, refuse to work within its limitations, and pay the dough to get a camera that doesn't have these limitations.
What other option is there?
John Caballero
Veteran
I guess people want a Varicam for $1500.00! LOL. commanderspike should put up some footage on Vimeo so we can see the "whole picture" not one frame at a time. That way we can see how fast and furious he was panning.
dcloud is correct. Given what we presently know, to assume the culprit is an underpowered CPU, is completely logical.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
I'm confused. I thought this was a known issue from the beginning? Or am I just stuck in some strange time vortex? Maybe I can write to myself the winning lotto numbers.
stephenvv
Well-known member
Excellent summary. The aliasing issue on the 5D Mkii (which showed up on normal shots) did not stop nice work being done (much less the manual control issues which only today have been addressed).
I have the the other option in this price range - the Canon HV20/30/40 series and can't wait move to a GH1.
DVX100B, HPX170, HVX200, HV20, HV30, HF10, HF100, EX-1, EX-3, Canon XH-A1, Canon XL-H1, Canon 5D MKii
Add a 35mm Adapter to any of those equations and pan, whip pan, go crazy to your heart's content. You don't need a RED to do excellent work.
Sure as hell don't need it to sell something WORTH seeing in the first place.
The GH-1 is what it is right now. Everyone has been warned from several different users that the 1080/24 isn't as robust as other options but is totally usable for traditional narrative environments.
Either buy something that works like you want it too or just wait. But it's already been told, this story here, and now Barry is confirming it.
Drop off the Pre-Order list, let those who want to get one get theirs EARLY and do what you must. I'd sure like to have my US pair earlier.
Boz
Well-known member
mkeep said:
While I disagree that the artifacts are "minor", I do agree that 30P > 24P is ugly no matter how you slice it.
Two points:
1. It costs $1500, yet a vid cam costing half as much will out-perform it when doing any sort of aggressive movement. It's not like we're asking for perfection, we're just asking for it to at least hold up to low-end vid cams when panning. In my book that is not an outrageous request.
2. It may 'only' be $1500 to you. But not everyone has the money buy a Red, 2 GH1s, an HVX200, and a 5Dii. (You're a pro, I get that, so your cameras are part of your income.) For some of us, we can only afford one camera every few years, and $1500 is a significant chunk of change. So obviously, we'd like the best that we can get within our means.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
It's weird, it's like this forum is caught in a circular discussion. I really think I am stuck in this strange time vortex. I really do think this camera is awesome for the price and there is no reason somebody could not get some great material out of this. Every camera from the beginning of time has had limitations and yet countless great works have come out of them. Take a chill and look at it for what it is instead of what it is not. Just my opinion. But then again the darker side of me says the more people that talk themselves out of the camera the better chance I have getting one quicker.
Winning number for 05/23/2009 is 19,23,34,52,57,PB21
Winning number for 05/23/2009 is 19,23,34,52,57,PB21
It's pretty obvious what you should do then: by the one that can handle aggressive movement. I'm confused as to how this is even hard to consider? If movement is the most important factor to you, then the obvious solution is to grab a camera that you can whip like a red-headed nargle.
Once again, if you want the best that you can buy for your money and your needs are to move the camera around in a fashion that is not standard for typical cinematic acquisition you have choices for your 1500.00: HFS10 comes to mind.
I'm not seeing people complaining about the camera not being adequate, I'm seeing complaining that it isn't everything you want for 1500.00. Like everything in life, you rarely get everything you want when you spend your money.
The iPhone is the hottest cellular module out right now, but it's FAR from perfect. Sometimes it takes me sixty or more seconds to get my damned internet browser to pop up on it.
I'd like the GH-1 to be perfect as well, but it isn't. Everyone's been warned before hand, it's not like it's a big surprise now that everything that was said before is being repeated. Is it frame-by-frame worthy? no. Is it worthy of general cinematic application? Definitely.
Your point is well taken, Barry. However, you must understand how frustrating it is that we are so close to having a perfect DSLR and yet the manufacturers keep screwing it up. I can only hope that Nikon, who have no video division to protect, will finally release a product that combines the video friendly features of the GH-1 with the image quality and low light sensitivity of the 5D. Until then, I'm not going to reward manufacturers for releasing products that appear intentionally crippled.
This happens with EVERY single camera released. EVERY camera. And it'll always happen even when it's perfect, because it's human nature to want more than you're given.
I'm as guilty as everyone else, indeed. You'll catch me here buying a new camera every few months if I see something I like. But I know that I'm not going to get everything I want for nothing.
the GH-1 is adequate for the typical cinematic environment. If you're going atypical (Bourne, Cloverfield, etc) then you should look elsewhere or wait it out.
God, I was hoping you would post it.
In answer to the vortex. We're in that awful stage of waiting for delivery trying to figure out what we might be in for before using our own grubby little mitts to cause even more problems to post here and maintain our, sometimes, tenuous link with each other. Can't wait.
stephenvv
Well-known member
Two counterpoints:
- It does hold up as well, if not better, when panning - unless you do crazy pans that no one should do. Crazy pan with an HV20 like that and it will go jello and often stop recording when bumped. Uprez a DVX100 crazy pan to 1080p and it's gonna look pretty muddy too.
- Most 35mm adaptors cost $1500 - this cam is a bargain. Yeah, I'm cash starved too but I'm selling my K10d and HV30 to buy this. The real benefit for us starving folks is that we can replace the body and keep our investment in lenses. There will be a GH2, GH3 and it only gets better.
John Caballero
Veteran
EXACTLY! I want mine because within the limitations I will make money with it in so many different ways, including of course still photographs. I'll make my $1500 back, put it in the bank until the next version with which I would probably be able to whip pan until my hands fall off. Whoever feels they can't handle it is fine. You have been informed of what it does and doesn't so don't clog the line for those of us who are going to get it without any complains.
Illya Friedman
Well-known member
Ian-T
Veteran
LOl.. No, what was known from the beginning was this issue in 1080/24p. But it was not really stressed on being an issue in 60/720p (at least I didn't pick up on that). for me at least, it has always been a 24p issue.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed.
And it will beat the living poopie out of that half-price video camera when it comes to noise, low light performance, shallow depth of field, and interchangeable lens capability. Or did we forget all those bonus features? Because, frankly, if none of those things matter to you, by all means go get the cheap video camera.
Not to mention, I'd like to see the still photos that the low-end video camera takes, and compare those to the pimpness that a GH1 can output.
I've never yet found a minivan that can take corners quite the same way as a Mazda Miata. But I have found that if you want to haul a lot of stuff, that minivan sure does seem to do the job better...
Of course. And you're entitled to go find that. What we've done in this thread is identify exactly what the GH1 cannot do. If you have $1500 to spend and you need to do what the GH1 cannot, then you're now able to cross this one off your list.
However, we've also identified things that the GH1 CAN do. Like use interchangeable lenses. Can you name a $1500-or-under video camera that can do that? Oh, it also does the shallow-depth-of-field that most people are out there paying $1200 to $4500 *additional* to get, when buying a Brevis or Letus or Redrock adapter. And, it takes 14-megapixel still images.
Keep it in context please. And evaluate it for what it *is*, not for what you wish it was.
lmfao. I laughed pretty loud when I read the poopie part. Dude in the other bay was like "WTF is WRONG with you!?"
But yeah, couldn't agree more. There are way too many POSITIVES about the GH-1. I'm surprised they're being ignored like they are.