Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update
- Thread starter commanderspike
- Start date
squig
Veteran
lol
I miss it......It has this aesthetic quality to it....lo-fi but just a bit too lo-fi. if they would just raise the bit-rate a bit and manual controls I'd shoot with it.
squig
Veteran
same goes for house building and indie filmmaking
Barry_Green
Moderator
I wouldn't. If you can get ahold of $30,000 -- what would you be doing using a $1500 consumer camera to shoot on? Since when did a $1500 tool become the product you'd want to shoot a $30,000 picture on? Why not rent someone's HPX170 with adapter, or you could probably find some poor Red One owner who'd rent you a month's usage for cheap, or something like that instead of spending $1500 on a DSLR?
Now, if someone's doing a nights 'n' weekends thing on $3,000 charged to their credit cards, and trying to make a "no-budget" feature, then yes, I think the GH1 would be quite useful for that. Ideal, in fact.
No. Because it had an intraframe codec (DV). So the footage never broke up due to the codec. Instead, it looked like mud throughout the entirety of it because it was shot on a low-res XL1 using the even-lower-res Frame Mode, followed by lopping off 1/4 of the frame because they wanted it widescreen. I don't think I've seen a worse-looking film in the theater. Looked like it was shot on VHS.
I wish I could get that look out of a $20,000 cam. But you can't. A Red, configured for use, is $30,000 minimum. I for one recognize that you can't get a $30,000 product for $1500.
I'm pretty impressed with what you CAN get for $1500 though.
But I certainly wish the codec were better. I have advised the broadcast division that they would have to seriously improve the codec situation if they wanted to make a broadcast version of the GH1, because as it is, it wouldn't pass muster.
Doesn't mean it can't be used, and used to good purpose. Hell, HDV is the worst format I've ever seen for breakup, but lots and lots of people use it every day.
Boz
Well-known member
I simply love this paragraph.
Essentially, in my eyes, it's the replacement for the HV20 - which also had many limitations, but an excellent picture for the price. Perhaps if I think about it more that way instead of concentrating on the shortcomings (as frustrating as they are), I'd be happy with it. Of course, the one thing that will sell me quicker than anything else is some good narrative content. Especially anything high-energy like music videos and action shorts, which I tend to shoot.
Lmfao. I wish I would have seen this in the theater, man. Hilarious.
stephenvv
Well-known member
Yeah, people always freaking out over still frames with new cams. I will never forget all the freakouts over the DVX100 - I had unit #6 in the US (before DVXuser existed) and the "dark line on the edge of the frame and "purple fringing" artifacts had people in the same hub-bub as this. Then the HVX "noise" etc. etc. There have only been a handful of truly dud cameras released and if an issue is problematic, so far it's been addressed or work around.
That's a great link - just goes to show that a great idea well executed with great sound/music trump PQ every single time.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No knock against Anthony Dod Mantle, I love that guy's work, but man, a 4:3 frame-mode XL1 was just not up to the task. Consider that a standard-def DVX is about twice as sharp as the XL1... that was just too premature.
About four of us cinematographers went to see it in the theater, we sat six rows from the front, and it was hideous. I bet if we'd sat in the back row it would have looked fine. But any wide shot was so blurry that you constantly felt like you had to check your glasses. Closeups looked good. Wide shots of London looked hideous, with massive edge enhancement that looked like someone'd drawn around the buildings with a crayon.
Okay, let me put it this way -- ever watch SDTV on your HDTV and think it looks bad? Okay, now blow that screen up to 20' wide and put lower-than-SDTV content on the screen. Yeah, that's about what it was like.
Of course, sooner or later the content gets to you and you quit obsessing over the look of the thing (which was, we all recognize, a deliberate artistic choice).
I've heard it looks good on standard-def DVD though.
When we went to see "November", we sat about 2/3 of the way back, and it looked a lot more solid (except the completely unacceptable red darkroom scene; that scene looked like it'd been constructed from legos!)
rubberbandito
Active member
I love reading this forum, all the back and forth, esp from kholi, barry, etc. And to see the still frames, etc. I am ready 10 times over to buy the camera. i need it for simple interviews and slow pans, etc.
But, i downloaded the mts file from the link above (posted by the anti-christ here, just kidding boz) into vegas 9, rendered it to windows media at full 1920 x 1080 and it is shockingly bad at some points. and his pan is about 90 degrees at 5 seconds, not superfast. i hope going on what you pros have been saying, this won't be the case with most shots. i was extremely impressed with the thirft store panning. but just don't understand why the grass is totally messed up in this pan. my hv30 would not do that. i know this for sure. the reviewer did have a problem with the lens, but doubt this was the case.
Barry, you specifically said that Panasonic just couldn't give a better image for the money. I simply pointed out that that cannot possibly be the case, because sub $200 pocket cams have better codecs.
It seems to me that it is either Panasonic being lazy, stupid, or protecting their professional video lineup by crippling this camera. But to say they simply can't do it is asinine.
All I want is for them to admit that it's actually a problem and fix it. There has to be a way to do that. EXCEPT for the codec, this is a groundbreaking camera. If enough noise gets made, maybe someone will listen and do something about it. That's all I want- I SO want this camera to be what it is inches from being.
That's all.
I appreciate that you admit that the footage sucks in 1080. I honestly didn't know you had, so I apologize for assuming you were ignoring it. There are a lot of people who are pretending it's not an issue.
How likely is it that Panasonic will kick up the data rate in a firmware update or something? Maybe not likely at all, but squeaky wheel and all.
It seems to me that it is either Panasonic being lazy, stupid, or protecting their professional video lineup by crippling this camera. But to say they simply can't do it is asinine.
All I want is for them to admit that it's actually a problem and fix it. There has to be a way to do that. EXCEPT for the codec, this is a groundbreaking camera. If enough noise gets made, maybe someone will listen and do something about it. That's all I want- I SO want this camera to be what it is inches from being.
That's all.
I appreciate that you admit that the footage sucks in 1080. I honestly didn't know you had, so I apologize for assuming you were ignoring it. There are a lot of people who are pretending it's not an issue.
How likely is it that Panasonic will kick up the data rate in a firmware update or something? Maybe not likely at all, but squeaky wheel and all.
plasmasmp
Well-known member
I have one of the first DVX cams as well, I still use it frequently. It has all the same issues with the purple frigning, etc. The breakup issue of the GH1 is much worse than any problem the DVX ever had. The DVX does intercut nicely with the D90 though. HD-250... not so much..
Nitsuj
Well-known member
I gotta say Kholi I can't exactly agree. I truely think you could pull off a Sci-Fi motion picture no problem... just depends on what exactly that means of course. Think 12 Monkeys or Gattaca... you get the idea. If we are talking greenscreen action shots with a lot of whacky camera movements then that would be a problem. However Sci-Fi doesn't exactly have to have that sort of work involved. And I am sure you could still pull off keying with subtle movements. I've pulled off greenscreen with much much worse cameras. Just depends how much time you are willing to take in cleaning up the mess you have gotten yourself into. It also takes great editing skills. Cutting right before it goes bad is just a way to hide mistakes, but mistakes to you could mean creative expression to others. It's best to just say it is creative expression.
That's true. Depends on what sort'a sci-fi you're talking. My Sci-Fi looks like something else, but there's always different types of Sci-Fi.
PRIMER for example, which is by FAR one of my favorite feature films ever. They weren't even "filmmakers" and they knocked that out of the park on 16mm short-ends and 7K.
Nasty.
PRIMER for example, which is by FAR one of my favorite feature films ever. They weren't even "filmmakers" and they knocked that out of the park on 16mm short-ends and 7K.
Nasty.
squig
Veteran
I only got to see 28 days on my powerbook so I just enjoyed the content
30k has to pay for everything from the pizza to the soundtrack. Rental in Aus is not an option, a days rental is like 10% of the purchase price. The MKII is about as far as I can stretch the budget. I have a lot invested in glass, filters, rig etc. I'm looking long term so I like to own everything and it gives me the flexibility and fits with the "pick 2 and call me back" philosophy.
30k has to pay for everything from the pizza to the soundtrack. Rental in Aus is not an option, a days rental is like 10% of the purchase price. The MKII is about as far as I can stretch the budget. I have a lot invested in glass, filters, rig etc. I'm looking long term so I like to own everything and it gives me the flexibility and fits with the "pick 2 and call me back" philosophy.
Last edited:
Nitsuj
Well-known member
SWEET! I haven't seen that and it is on Netflix watch instantly... watching right this moment. I'm always thrilled to watch low budget movies I haven't heard of before. Especially if they are sci-fi/horror... oh and of course good. :thumbup:
Boz
Well-known member
Nice, I post a LINK to a review that's been linked on this site since the GH1 came out, and get dubbed anti-christ... followed by an AGREEMENT that there is a problem. Whatevah!
rogar-BlackEye(DBG
PappasArts
Veteran
Well Barry,
I'm sure for a similar reason that Steven Soderbergh shot a feature ( Full Frontal in 2002 ) with the Canon XL-1S on MiniDV, with an approximately 2 million dollar budget.
Or the same reason Peter Boyle Shot 28 days later using the Canon XL-1S MiniDV with a $9.8 million budget.
That's far far far far far cry from a $30,000 dollar budget; isn't?
Both those Directors could choose whatever they wanted to shoot with; however they're more about aesthetics, rather than mathematics......
A GH1 today, would look like 35mm vision stock compared to those films. Joking of course, not anywhere near that good. However not bad.
Like Soderbergh shooting anamorphic on Red. Many thought that was stupid, when he could crop the 2:35:1 from the 4K image . Those that said this; missed the whole point in the first place. The entire reason why Soderbegh and many others choose anamorphic, even though it's softer than spherical lenses of the same class is for personal choice and their desired ""aesthetics""
Another thing; todays 1,500 buys you quality that would have cost a ton load just 7 years ago.
So the " it just a 1,500 camera price " argument is outdated. Just like the 25,000 dollar Kodak DSLR in 2000; A $500 DSLR is way better today for cheaper. The Mark II quality for 2,600 in video has set a new standard and reset the quality bar. The consumer now expects much better and more at the 1,500 to the 2,699 range without excuses.
That's just how the technology world spins. Better, cheaper in the long run!
Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
Okay wait... I had to pause 10 minutes into this and do some research on this guy. Sorry to get off subject but... it is sort of on subject really. This guy pulled this off with limited resources and the first 10 minutes look really good. I could tell the shots were well thought out and after researching they shot 16mm stock at a 2:1 ratio! So he shot all of his shots on 35mm stills first for the storyboard. See the GH1 screams this kind of work. There is no reason somebody can't pull something great off. There is no convincing me that it is a broken camera. Okay back to watching.