The Truth About Compression - Re: "mud"

paulgandersman said:
it's still frames like these that make me terrified to ever shoot anything in 1080 on my GH1 again. i was shooting 1080 with the stock lens with an ND filter on and everything set to manual.

Screenshot2009-09-02at12452AM.png


Screenshot2009-09-02at12517AM.png


Screenshot2009-09-02at12538AM.png
Click to expand...

where's the video? you can pretty much dissect any image frame by frame, but a picture in motion is a different story. firstly, it looks like the image isn't any focused. and by the looks of it, the person handling the camera appears to be experiencing an earthquake or m.j. fox is the camera operator.
 
i was holding the camera with a monopod and was either panning or zooming in and what not, as far as the video goes, i can upload something if necessary, but these sorts of frames are very noticeable during playback
 
sure. upload away. it's only as necessary to validate everyone's mud concern. plus i'd like to see that chics boobs at 1080, mud or not.
 
The only time I've seen something like that was when doing a follow pan of a vehicle travelling at about 30mph and passing about 12 feet away. Indeed it's not a good idea with the GH1 but it's not a very cinematic thing to do in the first place.

The so-called mud effect is actually quite 'painterly' at times.
 
i just looked at the video again, and those frames happened with the dumb camera operator (me) was either zooming in real fast or shaking the hell out of the thing. so the cause of those was probably my fault. makes me scared to shoot anything in 1080p though, i just wouldn't wanna shoot something 1 of a kind and then have a few frames screwed up due to "mud" or something. sigh. i guess i'm just paranoid.
 
No, not paranoid...just cautious. Like I tell others...I see mudd in 5Dll videos also (just not to the same degree). I've seen mudd in the new 7D cam as well (not nearly to the same degree). It's an I-frame thingy (or lack of it). It's just that the GH-1 has it worse...which is due to the lower bit rate. Even Canon admits that the reason they upped the bit rate in the 5Dll was to compensate for the lack of b-frames. Panasonic will have to do the same. Under controlled conditions though...it's avoidable just like rolling shutter skew/wobble.
 
Illya Friedman said:
They didn't shoot with the 14-140Also the camera was 100% manual, no auto anything.
Click to expand...

There's your first problem. A lot of people are going to use the 14-140 exclusively.

Also, full manual mode will help a lot, but using the zoom is probably the worst culprit.

I think it's safe to say if you are seeing "mud" there's a good chance the "mud" is being introduced by the shooter and not the camera.
Click to expand...

It is fair to say the shooter can try to identify what causes the mud, and try to avoid it, but the camera is still producing the mud.

I hope that next time someone thinks to complain about "mud" artifacts in the GH1, they first take a look at the startling good work done on REJOUER.
Click to expand...

I watched the teaser a while back and didn't care for it. I don't actively complain about mud, but it exists even if you want to deny it.
 
I did some shots in my backyard with a Steadytracker extreme and on a tiny handful of frames I got mud very similar to paulgandersman. And yes the camera was moving, but not so fast I felt the mud was a reasonable response. It was only a few frames but those frames were pretty much ruined. Yes it's fairly painterly like. And for a home movie I wouldn't have been bothered. But since I was planning to motion track the shot and add 3D, it was kind of a killer. In the end it didn't really matter, since I'm still learning what I need to do get my workflow smooth enough to use. I wasn't really setup to get the kind of shots I wanted even if the mud wasn't there. I may have been able to edit around the mud even. But the mud was definitely there. And if it was "operator error", then my problem is that's how I wanted to move the camera. I need the camera to take cleaner shots even with that "error".

Will I have a mud problem when I go back to do this again? Who knows. It's very possible that by adding standin markers so I can better target where I'm going to place the 3D and a few other things my camera movement will become more compatible with the GH1. It was just a quick and dirty test. To be fair I'm sure I could have worked around the mud, just not used those sections that had mud problems. But if the codec can break down like that, it will break down like that most likely when you can least afford for it to.
 
If the Illya team can shoot a whole movie without "mud" what does that tell you? That they must be doing something right! Very right. That is what separates the pros from everybody else. They get the proper results. If you can produce a whole movie without encountering the problem it means it can be done correctly, if you really know what you are doing.
 
so no 1080 boobs? ****. i'm wondering if the mud really does have something to do with the kit lens. it seems like it occurs when it's trying to auto focus. even if you have it on manual, it's like the camera is still trying. dunno. i'd like to see some manual lens on there in the same situation. what ever happened to the mud theory thread?
 
John Caballero said:
If the Illya team can shoot a whole movie without "mud" what does that tell you? That they must be doing something right! Very right. That is what separates the pros from everybody else. They get the proper results. If you can produce a whole movie without encountering the problem it means it can be done correctly, if you really know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.
 
Well, *everything* is flawed. A 7' tall guy doesn't fit in a coach seat -- either he's flawed, or the seat's flawed. But it doesn't stop the airlines from flying millions of passengers every year, does it?

A Red One can't autofocus. It's "flawed". But if you don't need autofocus, then it's not flawed, is it?

It's a matter of finding out whether you can work with the product or not. Illya's assertion is that the film "Rejour" was able to work with it and encounter no flaws whatsoever. Therefore, for that purpose, it is not flawed. I would not under any circumstances want to use a GH1 for following high-action sports -- I think the compression would completely fail under those circumstances.

If you want ultimate, reliable performance under all circumstances, you can have that -- at a price. If you want a 4k chip and a killer lens at $1500, you HAVE to accept some compromises. Welcome to economics 101. :thumbsup:
 
Cranky said:
You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.
Click to expand...

This baby is far from flawed; and especially at it's ridiculously low price/performance factor. The problem is people want "perfect" or near "perfect". Nothing ever is, and nor will be for the most part. I find that people feel much more comfortable when they have to complain then be satisfied. It must be a human thing. Humans need to be in a constant wave motion of either slight to heavy discomfort about things. Humans for the most part just can't stand steady flow without spikes or dips.... :-)

BWCAM3.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 & Myspace:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
billy fattey said:
Okay, I gotta know where you got that eyepiece. Does it work well? Would it fit on other DSLRs? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Had it since the 90's; from my Sony broadcast Betacam way back. I wish they made these today. When this one dies, it's gone forever! Since I use the
Viewfinder on the GH1 for 80% of the time, it works perfect.
 
If a coach seat is designed to accommodate a person up to say 6 ft and 200 lb relatively comfortably, and it does that, then the seat is not flawed. The passenger is not flawed either, he is simply using the seat that was not designed for his height. The seat works as expected, it is up to a passenger to decide whether to use it or not.

RED not having autofocus is not a flaw because this is how they have designed it and advertised it. If they had said the camera had autofocus and it did not work, then the camera would have been flawed.

The GH1 has been designed to work with given codec and bitrate and to produce results that an average consumer would deem acceptable. And by the way, "acceptable" for a consumer does not mean cell phone video, otherwise we would not have Blu-ray disc. The GH1 has not been designed as a bare-wire contraption for eggheads where you can press this button only after you pressed that button, and you can connect these wires only after you filled this container with goose oil. It is a consumer product and must behave as such. Consumer products must be bulletproof.

I would not have problems with the GH1 if it was advertised as "for trained professionals only, use with care."
 
Barry_Green said:
Illya's assertion is that the film "Rejour" was able to work with it and encounter no flaws whatsoever.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. They didn't "work with it". They didn't use a 14-140 lens, and they didn't zoom. Also they didn't use autofocus. They only used about half the GH1 package.

I love the GH1 and I'm not complaining but you guys are total instigators here. I have only read a handful of people complaining that it was a deal breaker for them. The majority of us are aware that mud occurs under certain circumstances, and nearly all of us have admitted that we can mostly work around it.

I think it's the best Video DSLR *kit* for the price, and even if the 7D has the potential to be better in a lot of ways, I still wouldn't buy it because it's going to be too expensive when you factor in lens cost.

A lot of your guys need to quit denying that mud occurs, and start showing more beautiful images.
 
You still don't get it. It is not about shooting it right, it is about hardware that does not work properly. The camera is flawed. You can find your ways around it, but the camera is still flawed.
Click to expand...

But the hardware does work properly if you shoot it right. Or if you are talented enough and shoot it properly within the "flaws" of the camera. And Illya and company PROVED IT. It can be done without mud. Again IT CAN BE DONE.


BTW: Pappas you have footage to show yet?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top