Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update

Barry_Green said:
Every new camera has issues.
Click to expand...

Yup, which is exactly why I will continue to wait. No harm in that. There's no point in running out and buying a camera right this second (especially one with admitted problems) when in the next few months A) there might be a firmware fix, B) Canon or Nikon might release something competitive in that price range. If I had to have a camera NOW, things would be a bit more difficult (hence Squig's quandry).

PappasArts said:
The 60D for sure is coming! I think that's one of a few reasons the Firmware came out. I think to make nice with current 5D owners before a more refined and the very latest technology installed in a newer camera gets released. Remember the 5D MII is almost a year old. The head of Canon spoke candid during a PMA interview with DPreview.com; and even stated that a lower price camera can leap upper ones that might be a little older in the technology implantations of the time of their design; ( referencing to the 5D leaping the 1DS questions ) that was just the way technology works he basically said. The 60D line is 1,700 approx costing camera. Not really far in price form the 5D. It will be interesting...
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. If it has manual controls, 24P and the like, I will probably go for that. Then I will be able to use my existing Canon glass with it and not have to worry about special lenses or adapters. If turns out to be like the 5Dii when initially released (no manual, no 24P), then hopefully GH1's issues will be worked out by then and I can go that way. In the meantime I'll just watch and learn. :)
 
Yeah if I wasn't cameraless and didn't have a paying gig next week I'd wait. 30-24p conversion on my macbook pro will be painfully slow. I expect we'll see a couple of less crippled DSLRs in the next couple of months. But it will be good to give full frame 42Mbps H.264 a run around the block and then compare it to the coming competition.
 
The mud however seems to be the only problem of the GH1. I don't want to go with a Nikon or a Canon because you are forgetting that we are not just comparing the codecs.

I like the GH1 because it is also smaller, lighter, no mirror, long battery, view finder for video too, autofocus, track focus, 10X zoom in the kit lens, not a ull frame sensor which might create an extremel shallow depth of field etc. So all these Nikons and Canon to come, will not very soon have all those things. I mean yes I would like to have a more solid codec but not so much in the expense of a very heavy huge camera I would not like to carry around, or one that would drain the battery as soon as I start filming.

So my only hesitation is ordering the GH1 and after some days Samsung announcing its rival. The other companies will take a lot of time to do a mirror less approach, if they ever bother.
 
Oh, someone asked once upon a time whether the GH1 has a physical shutter like the G1 does? Yes, it does. It's not used in video recording, it's used in still photography.
 
squig said:
it's at 1:55-1:56.
Click to expand...
It is very clear that at the specific point her head is very lit and therefore is overexposed. I don't know why you are insisting but there there is absolutely no mud in this video.

I don't know if its the black background that is very light for the compression or the high ISO but it is completely mud free. I am waiting for the "tests" that will determine if it is the details that are hard for the codec or the low ISO...

(referring to http://www.vimeo.com/groups/gh1/videos/4964678)
 
stav1606 said:
It is very clear that at the specific point her head is very lit and therefore is overexposed. I don't know why you are insisting but there there is absolutely no mud in this video.

I don't know if its the black background that is very light for the compression or the high ISO but it is completely mud free. I am waiting for the "tests" that will determine if it is the details that are hard for the codec or the low ISO...

(referring to http://www.vimeo.com/groups/gh1/videos/4964678)
Click to expand...

Ok I'll re-phrase how does "substantial loss of frame integrity" work for you. Granted that is re-compressed footage but I've seen enough of it in uncompressed footage to draw some conclusions. But again let me stress I was pixel peeping and the punters won't see it and it's up to everyone to do their own testing and draw their own conclusions.
 
Post processes are not my area, however:

What if you captured footage from the card via the GH1's HDMI to a Blackmagic intensity card and bypassed the hope that the software, Mac or PC, can figure out the proper frame sequences from the 1080P/24 AVCHD file. I assume the HDMI output of the GH1 is pre-converted and sent in a 1080P or i, 3:2 pulldown the normal way. Apposed to the AVCHD file on the card that needs to be figured out.. Couldn't you capture this footage straight to a much better codec on the fly too?

Just a thought.........?








.
 
Last edited:
it's up to everyone to do their own testing and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the conclusion from most of the people that evaluated and commented on this particular footage, with a lot of movement, is that there is no mud showing, or in in other words: no instances of "substantial loss of frame integrity" due to codec breakage. As for the seconds in question, no video camera in the same situation would show any detail on a frame by frame scrutiny, unless perhaps if the camera was shooting 120 fps. As a whole the GH1 is looking very good so far.
 
Daniel L. said:
Sorry, must be just a misunderstanding on my part. For some time people here were under the impression that nobody was shooting narrative work with the other cameras. The other day I demonstrated how this was false.

....
Click to expand...
Our newest mod Zak Forsman was interviewed in Filmmaker Magazine for his work with the D90.
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/spring2009/still-cameras.php
I think most DVXuser's know people are doing narrative work with those cams even though I don't really see how due to the jello. I saw how in Zak's peice - with his cheeks clinched moving the camera very slowly (and it looked great, the sedentary style suited the peice) - but as a general tool I don't see how and jello is a deal breaker for me.
 
squig said:
but no mirror giving you a wysiwyg EVF live view
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, that's the whole point of "Micro" Four Thirds. If you want a mirror, get a full-size Four Thirds camera. The "Micro" in Micro Four Thirds does away with the mirror, thus making the whole system quite a bit more compact.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Our newest mod Zak Forsman was interviewed in Filmmaker Magazine for his work with the D90.
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/spring2009/still-cameras.php
I think most DVXuser's know people are doing narrative work with those cams even though I don't really see how due to the jello. I saw how in Zak's peice - with his cheeks clinched moving the camera very slowly (and it looked great, the sedentary style suited the peice) - but as a general tool I don't see how and jello is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...


I saw that article the other day: The filmmakers shooting "Searching For Sonny" using the 5D are also profiled.




.
 
That Pentax K-7 mjpeg footage of the kid with the baseball bat retains the detail. It seems to me that it's something inherent with long GOP codecs and the lower the bit-rate the lower the frame integrity with fast motion. The mjpeg stuff from the GH1 that I've seen handles motion much better than the AVCHD stuff.
 
squig said:
That Pentax K-7 mjpeg footage of the kid with the baseball bat retains the detail. It seems to me that it's something inherent with long GOP codecs and the lower the bit-rate the lower the frame integrity with fast motion. The mjpeg stuff from the GH1 that I've seen handles motion much better than the AVCHD stuff.
Click to expand...

You mean this shot Squig..

The K-7 has an interesting organic look. The green leaf shot especially..

BTW, the K- 7 footage is the only one I can apply USM to it, and it doesn't get ugly. All others do, including the 5D. Very interesting!

kidwithball.jpg


.

K71.jpg






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 }
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
I think most DVXuser's know people are doing narrative work with those cams even though I don't really see how due to the jello. I saw how in Zak's peice - with his cheeks clinched moving the camera very slowly (and it looked great, the sedentary style suited the peice) - but as a general tool I don't see how and jello is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

The D90 jello is controllable to a point. Shooting wide and using a stabilizer helps. Zak shot everything handheld but he's a crazy bugger. 2 guys here have shot features with it with no major complaints. If the D90 was the only DSLR available I'd shoot my feature with 2 of them. Mud is more a deal breaker for me, each to his own.
 
PappasArts said:
You mean this shot Squig..

The K-7 has an interesting organic look. The green leaf shot especially..
Click to expand...

that's the money shot. I've sent some feedback to Ned who runs Pentax in the US about a manual control firmware update so fingers crossed. That shot is 50Mbps+ mjpeg. looks filmic to me. If somebody with a GH1 cares to shoot a swinging bat with similar light and background detail it would be very interesting to see. my money is on the Pentax for frame integrity.
 
PappasArts said:
You mean this shot Squig..

The K-7 has an interesting organic look. The green leaf shot especially..

BTW, the K-& footage is the only one I can apply USM to it, and it doesn't get to ugly. All others do, including the 5D. Very interesting!
Click to expand...

But look, the baseball bat turns to mud! Unacceptable!

:grin:
 
I recall reading somewhere that the rolling shutter on the K-7 is about as bad as on the D90. Can't seem to find the source now... Maybe this will be improved by the time it's ready.
 
squig said:
that's the money shot. I've sent some feedback to Ned who runs Pentax in the US about a manual control firmware update so fingers crossed. That shot is 50Mbps+ mjpeg. looks filmic to me. If somebody with a GH1 cares to shoot a swinging bat with similar light and background detail it would be very interesting to see. my money is on the Pentax for frame integrity.
Click to expand...



BTW, the K- 7 footage is the only one I can apply USM to it, and it doesn't get ugly. All others do, including the 5D. Very interesting!

However the above I don't have any USM applied.


.
 
I think overall mjpeg looks more "organic" than AVCHD. When AVCHD does a dummy spit it gets blocky and muddy. mjpeg gets more blurry and fuzzy. The problem with mjpeg is if the bit-rate is too low then every frame looks a bit fuzzy just like a jpeg still compressed for the web. Sorry if I've confused anyone with the highly technical jargon. :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top