Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update

[PappasArts]

I might have to purchase the 5D in a few weeks myself. The newer contenders look good and all but I really want 1080p. I can live with the converted 24p from 30p for a while. At least we know that even if canon does not implement 24p we still have a hacker working on the issue. These manufacteres should be ashamed of themselves.

On Saturday my local dealer had one in stock ( 5D ) and it would have been $2,625 out the door after taxes. The impulse to do so was strong, however there are a few things, most importantly 24fps is missing that just stops me. The rumors in the LA film scene are the firmware is in beta to add 24fps. Still a vaporware-rumor until is official. 30P is TV video cameras, and 24Fps is for narrative films/television.

The GH1 hits most points of a well designed camera except the one little mistake. ( The Codec bit rate and no 24 in 720-Mjpeg )

Like I said in another post. It's like putting stone wheels on a SLR Benz; one of the best built/designed cars on the planet with great features, is reduced to it's weakest link , the stone tires......

 

[plasmasmp]

The 5D is really the perfect cam, minus the 30p. With 30p to 24p conversion you have 3 options:

1. Weird motion blur
2. Weird Strobing
3. Slowdown footage 20%

None of these are acceptable to me, except option 3, but that isnt much use for talking heads.

So again we wait, for either 24p from the mk2, or 720p 24/updated 1080i from the gh1.

 

[PappasArts]

.

<<<< Canon 5D ( 30 to 24fps ) conversion>>>>



It's still no better than a standards conversion.

It's not a true 24fps that even a HV30 or DVX100 does.

It's fake...


On DVXUSER; Canon in the past has been hung upside down by it marbles with baling wire and sliced with a razor blade at gut level, to slowly bleed down over its own face by DVX-HVX 24fps fanboys because Canon tried to pass along frame mode or 24f/30f.


Let's not forget how many wars have been waged on DVXUSER since 2002 over Panasonic being true 24fps while Canon was less than antiquate to indie filmmaking cause it lacked the "" approved "" 24fps implementations that the DVX/HVX had. Or the Codec wars of Canon HDV vs HVX Codecs.

Now all of sudden it's "" Chic "" to say 30 is ok, because that's all you got on the GH1 that is truly usable. Sorry; unacceptable...

Take the rose colored glasses off. I did long ago. Better to be brand agnostic than a fanbooy...

Just like I think it's pathetic that Canon is stone walling the 24fps; the same goes to Panasonics GH1 not having a 720/24 at least to make up for the AVCHD crappola mode in 1080.

As I said above, let us not forget the wars waged on DVXuser for many many years over what was and what wasn't " true " 24fps ; and how Canon 30P, 30F, 30fps , 24F ( what ever you want to call it ) looks like video and is not real or "" true "" 24.....





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 }

.

 

[Daniel L.]

It amazes me how often the 5D sneaks into this discussion... Talk about off topic..

1. Weird motion blur
2. Weird Strobing
3. Slowdown footage 20%

For #1 and #2 you are doing something wrong.

 

[plasmasmp]

Well 30p to 24p isn't off topic, since the 1080i mode of the gh1 has some bugs. As for 30p converting to 24p, show me one example without artifacts. The best example I'll give you is Open Water, everythng had a weird motion blurry haze. You can certainly take a look at all the other attempts on vimeo and yt HD and see that 30 does not go into 24 nicely. 60p goes into 24 nicely but only if you want that gladiator 90 degree shutter effect in every scene. Its a good thing the GH1 shoots amazing 60p. That alone is worth the price of the camera. Its at lesat as good as my HD-250 and its 20% of the cost.

 

[akaloith]

canon 500d 1280x720 30fps mono (30mbit/sec)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/ymovie_charlotte_720t.mov

panasonic gh1 1280x720 60fps HIGH quality stereo (17mbit/sec)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvid_AVCHD_1280x720_00029.MTS

Panasonic gh1 at 1280 is simply amazing!
At 1920 everything goes wrong:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvid_AVCHD_1920x1080_00008.MTS

1)image stabalisation
2)codec compression
3)autofocus

All the above are obvious if you see the comparison clips
1920 needs heavy debugging or a better processor!

 

[akaloith]

the pal version has better compression from the ntsc at 1920?
is this correct? because of the difference of 50i 60i (more frames for the ntsc model at the same bitrate)
is this correct?
the pal model also shows mud?

 

[squig]

I like everything about this cam except the final picture....and that is what's most important to me. it does not really matter HOW I get there but that the image looks the best that it possibly could. Unfortunately I might have to purchase the 5D in a few weeks myself. The newer contenders look good and all but I really want 1080p. I can live with the converted 24p from 30p for a while. At least we know that even if canon does not implement 24p we still have a hacker working on the issue. These manufacteres should be ashamed of themselves.

I feel the same way. It just kills me that panasonic got everything right except the codec. Even Pentax appears to have gotten the codec right why can't panasonic? 24p 60Mbps+ mjpeg shouldn't be hard to implement in firmware.

 

[stephenvv]

To me this isn't some wicked crazy pan, but a medium fast pan that I could see being used in nearly any movie. To MY eyes the mud is painfully obvious. YMMV

That's simply incorrect. When shooting 24p, the worst thing to do is a medium speed pan - this shot being perfect example of what not to do. Read your ASC manual. You rarely see pans like this is a movie and if you do, the strobing is far more annoying that any mud.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

The ASC "rule" for 24p is 11 seconds to cross a given point in order to avoid strobing.

Tell that to the Borne Identity or any other action movie though. PLUS it's acceptable to pan faster than that following a subject because the subject won't be strobing, only the background, and you'll be looking a the subject. I only find strobing annoying when it's a prolonged shot and I'm too close to the screen because I got to the theater too late for whatever new release it is I'm seeing.

In those instances mud could be an issue.

 

[sunburst]

I feel the same way. It just kills me that panasonic got everything right except the codec. Even Pentax appears to have gotten the codec right why can't panasonic? 24p 60Mbps+ mjpeg shouldn't be hard to implement in firmware.

Well there all just hooking you - with enough features. There's been massive,
interest in this camera. How about sales? some cancels so far. many still
on fence.

But will they sell enough to hook you till you have to buy a gh-2? gotcha!

PENTAX: They don't seem as focused in purpose, More like Nikon, Just getting something out there. Maybe they need a pre launch email campaign - lol.

CANON: bets on whether 60d will be THE ONE?

 

[PappasArts]

The ASC "rule" for 24p is 11 seconds to cross a given point in order to avoid strobing.

Tell that to the Borne Identity or any other action movie though. PLUS it's acceptable to pan faster than that following a subject because the subject won't be strobing, only the background, and you'll be looking a the subject. I only find strobing annoying when it's a prolonged shot and I'm too close to the screen because I got to the theater too late for whatever new release it is I'm seeing.

In those instances mud could be an issue.

What happen to the 7 second rule?

Now it's 11?

Wait, back in the day they taught it as 7.

Great thing about rules: THERE FUN TO BREAK....!




.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Woops 7 is right I think.
I was typing off memory / the hip from 3 years ago and haven't thought about it much since, since it doesn't bother me unless it's a looong pan that's too fast, and then I just slow down til I don't see it.

But the timing wouldn't change unless physics has recently

 

[stephenvv]

Tell that to the Borne Identity or any other action movie though. PLUS it's acceptable to pan faster than that following a subject because the subject won't be strobing, only the background, and you'll be looking a the subject.

Well, I've still yet to see filmic shot where it's the problem. And the Bourne films, if you watch carefully, have almost no medium fast pans shots anyway. Fast/whip pans, hand held jerks amidst fast cuts, jerk zooms, handheld running shots, slo-mo - that's Bourne filmls. I'm not convinced that this supposed bug is problem with those kind of shots and edits. But until I can find GH1 and test some stuff or somewhere else posts Bourne-like stuff, we have no idea still. Not saying there is no problem but what's been posted is not a problem. Until someone posts some shot that display a real problem in footage that shows a shot you would actually want ruined by this, the jury is way out on "the problem".

 

[Boz]

That's simply incorrect. When shooting 24p, the worst thing to do is a medium speed pan - this shot being perfect example of what not to do. Read your ASC manual. You rarely see pans like this is a movie and if you do, the strobing is far more annoying that any mud.

It's not incorrect. Just watch pretty much any recent action movie. I was watching a bit of "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" over the weekend and there were plenty of pans that were that fast if not faster in the two action sequence that I saw (assault on the house, freeway chase). If you're going to shoot static dramas, no problem, if you're going to shoot any action, plan on doing some serious planning about how you compose your shots to minimize mud.

 

[stephenvv]

It's not incorrect. Just watch pretty much any recent action movie. I was watching a bit of "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" over the weekend and there were plenty of pans that were that fast if not faster in the two action sequence that I saw (assault on the house, freeway chase). If you're going to shoot static dramas, no problem, if you're going to shoot any action, plan on doing some serious planning about how you compose your shots to minimize mud.

Faster, yes, in fact much faster. With 24fps, for fast and whip pans, you to a 180 degree shutter or more and use plenty of motion blur to cover strobing. Nobody has posted footage like that yet. With fast pans, I don't care what the still frame looks like, it's what it looks like in motion. But medium speed pans are the big problem with 24fps and also any pan at high shutter speed. Strobing issues alone give people headaches, especially projected large.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Well, I've still yet to see filmic shot where it's the problem. And the Bourne films, if you watch carefully, have almost no medium fast pans shots anyway. Fast/whip pans, hand held jerks amidst fast cuts, jerk zooms, handheld running shots, slo-mo - that's Bourne filmls. I'm not convinced that this supposed bug is problem with those kind of shots and edits. But until I can find GH1 and test some stuff or somewhere else posts Bourne-like stuff, we have no idea still. Not saying there is no problem but what's been posted is not a problem. Until someone posts some shot that display a real problem in footage that shows a shot you would actually want ruined by this, the jury is way out on "the problem".

I agree about not knowing it's a problem till we see it, but I disagre that in at least one of the bourne's (can't remember which) there's not some near headache inducing strobing (esp. if you are too close to the screen, as I was), but they def. get some strobe on.

 

[Jackson Miller]

That's simply incorrect. When shooting 24p, the worst thing to do is a medium speed pan - this shot being perfect example of what not to do. Read your ASC manual. You rarely see pans like this is a movie and if you do, the strobing is far more annoying that any mud.

I have always heard this, and I always wonder, well what about action movies? The Bourne series especially, but literally ALMOST EVERY action movie has fast pans. Take 24 (shot on film) or even horror films. Lots of genres use fast pans now. How are they able to do that?

Thanks.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I have always heard this, and I always wonder, well what about action movies? The Bourne series especially, but literally ALMOST EVERY action movie has fast pans. @4 (shot on film) or even horror films. Lots of genres use fast pans now. How are they able to do that?

Thanks.

Well if it's so fast it's a whip, then you can't see it. Otherwise they just have strobing. It's a natural / organic artifact of 24p.

In fact when the DVX came out, people were complaining about the strobing. Until Barry Green put a 16mm film camera and a DVX next to each other and panned them at the same rates and they saw that the strobing was not a defect but an actual by product of actually accurately imitating the frame rate of film.

Strobing is not a heinous issue like mud, again it's a natural by product of the frame rate. You just keep in mind the panning rule to use depending on whether you want to avoid strobing or not. I think it adds somethingt to rough handheld action like Bourne. Pan fast you can get strobing. Push your film too many stops in post and you get grain. Sometimes either is cool.

 

[stephenvv]

I have always heard this, and I always wonder, well what about action movies? The Bourne series especially, but literally ALMOST EVERY action movie has fast pans. @4 (shot on film) or even horror films. Lots of genres use fast pans now. How are they able to do that?

Thanks.

Again, I never said fast pans were a problem - but medium speed pans (like the footage CS posted) are the problem. But when you do fast or whip pans, you usually shoot slower shutter speed/angle. Isaac - yeah, there was some strobing issues but those IMO are caused by sitting to close and your eyes following the background (which does often strobe in films) and not the subject.