Talent versus 'mud, jello and banding'

Anyone who says "ignore the evidence and go shoot anyway" is asking for trouble sooner or later. Your video on the steadicam was a perfect storm of exactly what we'd already identified as mud 101 - gobs of detail, gobs of fine detail with high contrast, light shining through tiny leaves, and motion. So yes, you did ignore your own best advice and went into the exact wrong circumstance, and ... yes, you got what you got.

Know what the product does, and don't put it in situations where it's not going to succeed. That goes for any low-cost product. And if you don't want to make those compromises, buy a product that doesn't need compromises! (and yes, surprise surprise, it's gonna cost more!)
 
Barry the general consensus from many people, which I rallied against, was that the GH1 only had mud on poorly shot footage, whip pans and ugly jerky handheld work.

I hope the music video, it being first and foremost an 'idea' and secondly a perfect storm in a tech sense, can give people an idea of in what situations the GH1's codec isn't as suitable as other cameras. But I'd sooner swap the camera out of the setting rather than take the setting out of the idea, because the park, tape and highly detailed surroundings were integral to the music video idea I had.

Just so we're clear. I did not ignore you advice or mine, I just chose to take a risk to see what would happen. It wasn't paid work. I only had the GH1 and did the best I could with that tool. If I had shot it on the 5D it would have looked better, in my opinion. That's what began my change of mind with regards the GH1 image quality. It's a big difference, not something only a pixel peeper can see. Even my mum can see the difference!
 
Last edited:
commanderspike said:
Barry the general consensus from many people, which I rallied against, was that the GH1 only had mud on poorly shot footage, whip pans and ugly jerky handheld work.
Click to expand...
I don't care whatsoever for "general consensus", I care about facts and what actually happens. Those are frequently not the same.

But I'd sooner swap the camera out of the setting rather than take the setting out of the idea, because the park, tape and highly detailed surroundings were integral to the music video idea I had.
Click to expand...
No problem whatsoever with that. Just know what product can or can't deliver in that scenario.

I just chose to take a risk to see what would happen. It wasn't paid work.
Click to expand...
Well, that's good news. I didn't know that part. Glad to hear it didn't cost you a job.
 
Barry_Green said:
No problem whatsoever with that. Just know what product can or can't deliver in that scenario.
Click to expand...

And I am now perfectly (painfully?) aware that the GH1 can't deliver in that scenario. Surprised? Well yes I am really. I expected better.

Barry_Green said:
Well, that's good news. I didn't know that part. Glad to hear it didn't cost you a job.
Click to expand...

Far from it, singer was very happy with the video. It was all a bit of fun. But I won't be taking the GH1 into Berlin's Teirgarten again purely for image quality reasons. I loved shooting with it though. It was great fun to use.
 
Last edited:
Had that detailed park scene featured camera movement, I can guarantee it would have completely gone to hell. Speaking from personal experience.
 
You're only talking about 1080, right? If you'd shot your music video in 720 do you think you'd have had the same problems? I realize you used 1080 for a reason - just wondering.
 
commanderspike said:
Had that detailed park scene featured camera movement, I can guarantee it would have completely gone to hell. Speaking from personal experience.
Click to expand...

Note that it's not just camera movement that can generate mud but in theory all movement in a frame...that video has kids jumping through water in front of bushes and it all looked pretty nice....that's worth noting.
 
I tossed a couple of shots because of the mud. This was caused by a high level of detail in the greens - leaves etc and panning. As this was my first outing with the camera, I hadn't found the limitations. But nothing 'went to hell'.

Also worth noting - the shadow area in the opening shot of the train arriving also has some mud - this is not compression artefacts, but was present in the original footage. Most people don't even notice it, as they are looking at the train.
 
I think if you watch it fullscreen you'll see it.

If you don't mind, I won't post the other clips - for a couple of reasons - The fact that they're archived on another drive now being the main one. But there is nothing particularly revealing about them. Panning across a green area of high detail the codec breaks up.
 
After all, Panasonic has never said that the GH1 is a camcorder in still camera body. It said that the GH1 is a still camera that happens to shoot video too. You get what you pay for, and you are paying for a still camera. I mean, it sucks that the GH1 records poorer video than Panasonic's own consumer camcorders, but if it is not intentional, if it "just so happened", then no hard feelings, nobody promised that this were a videocam.
 
Cranky said:
I mean, it sucks that the GH1 records poorer video than Panasonic's own consumer camcorders
Click to expand...
That is a blanket statement that shouldn't be made. The GH1 records shallow-DOF and low-light footage much better than consumer camcorders. It has its flaws, but to blanketly declare that a consumer camera does better is not fair.
 
this video did fine. wonder what their magic trick was.
Click to expand...

There was actually no magic. The truth is that the shooter knew what he was doing. He knew the limitations of the camera and did not go foolishly whipping it around. This is what real creative people do with their equipment when they know it has limitations. I have seem "mud" in some shots I've done and all of the ones with it have been with sudden movement of the camera and a lot of the times on purpose to see how the camera performed. If you know what causes the breakup of the image it is very easy to avoid. The 1080p footage from the GH1 is excellent, there is no doubt about it because my "magical" camera is shooting it everyday.
 
John Caballero said:
There was actually no magic. The truth is that the shooter knew what he was doing. He knew the limitations of the camera and did not go foolishly whipping it around. This is what real creative people do with their equipment when they know it has limitations. I have seem "mud" in some shots I've done and all of the ones with it have been with sudden movement of the camera and a lot of the times on purpose to see how the camera performed. If you know what causes the breakup of the image it is very easy to avoid. The 1080p footage from the GH1 is excellent, there is no doubt about it because my "magical" camera is shooting it everyday.
Click to expand...

screw you john, if i want to believe the shooter had a magical baby dragon nesting inside his camera that allowed him to achieve such flawless video...then that's what i'll believe...until someone proves to me there isn't such a mythological creature...it's just like your opinion man.
 
crew you john, if i want to believe the shooter had a magical baby dragon nesting inside his camera that allowed him to achieve such flawless video...then that's what i'll believe...until someone proves to me there isn't such a mythological creature...it's just like your opinion man.
Click to expand...

Actually I've always said that there was a "magical batch" of GH1 cameras out there. So by the same reasoning there must be an "evil batch" that gives some shooters a lot of "mud hell". At least it is a great excuse not to go and shoot.
 
A magic baby dragon inside your camera usually aggravates rolling shutter....but it burns off the magical "coating" on your sensor and prevents banding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top