Then affix "for talented shooters only" label on it and sell it in pro-video outlets, not in consumer electronics stores.
The Truth About Compression - Re: "mud"
- Thread starter Illya Friedman
- Start date
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
The way I understand it is that AVCHD is actually one of the best video format available.
All this talk of 7D massive 350mb per second Quicktime files makes no sense to me.
You don't get mud on top end consumer camcorders, and yes top end camcorders from Panasonic.
It's just something about the combination of the new GH1's sensor and image processor, which remember is first and foremost designed for photos, and the nature of AVCHD that Panasonic weren't able to fix in time.
They're probably waiting for image processor CPU to catch up with the new sensor technology and then hey presto. No mud.
All this talk of 7D massive 350mb per second Quicktime files makes no sense to me.
You don't get mud on top end consumer camcorders, and yes top end camcorders from Panasonic.
It's just something about the combination of the new GH1's sensor and image processor, which remember is first and foremost designed for photos, and the nature of AVCHD that Panasonic weren't able to fix in time.
They're probably waiting for image processor CPU to catch up with the new sensor technology and then hey presto. No mud.
portishead
Member
Honestly, we're taking a 3rd parties word for it. I sure didn't see their raw footage. Just because they didn't mention it doesn't mean some mud didn't occur somewhere. And it could be they intentionally didn't want to get into the whole mud issue.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Who's denying that it occurs? I've said I can make the image go to hell so quick it's like it's in a dragster-powered handbasket.
And we've also extracted exquisitely awesome images from it.
We've told plenty of people how to do that too.
Use it in certain circumstances, it'll go ugly. Don't do that, and you can get great results.
What about that is being an "instigator"?
Barry_Green
Moderator
When fully and properly implemented, it's the best format at its bitrate by a long shot.
Unfortunately the GH1 doesn't have a full and complete implementation of it, which is why we have to be more cautious with the usage of the camera to make sure we don't overload what the GH1's limited implementation of AVCHD can handle.
Because top-end camcorders from Panasonic are all intraframe-only. The HMC150 is a long-GoP system using AVCHD, but its implementation of AVCHD is pretty much the best one out.
You can also avoid mud entirely on the GH1 by using its intraframe recording mode, MJPG.
portishead
Member
I didn't mean to single you out, Sorry. Actually, I don't know why I quoted you what you said wasn't particularly instigating. I don't want to keep igniting the flame war, but there are certain people who seem to deny that the picture even has the possibility to break up. Anyway, I love my GH1 :thumbup:
Barry_Green
Moderator
The picture can definitely break up. But hey, I can mirror Illya's experience, we shot for six days in Texas on two different narrative projects, and we had jib moves and dolly moves and fog and flashing ambulance lights and cop car lights, we had a very abbreviated stunt scene, we had steadicam and lockdown shots...
... but we didn't have mud. Not one shot was ruined because of mud. I could go detect some areas where the compression was less than optimal, but both the DP and the Director were yelling at me for pixel-peeping, saying that nobody would EVER see that. And I agree.
The GH1 puts out a simply wonderful, lush, smooth, detailed, fantastic image.
Under certain circumstances it can fall apart. You have to educate yourself as to what those are, and then not do them.
... but we didn't have mud. Not one shot was ruined because of mud. I could go detect some areas where the compression was less than optimal, but both the DP and the Director were yelling at me for pixel-peeping, saying that nobody would EVER see that. And I agree.
The GH1 puts out a simply wonderful, lush, smooth, detailed, fantastic image.
Under certain circumstances it can fall apart. You have to educate yourself as to what those are, and then not do them.
Chibs
Active member
IT CAN INDEED BE DONE, however, your 'right' might not be my 'right, your 'properly' might not be mine. Not all movies are to be shot from a tripod without any fast moving objects, or are they? It seems the only way to shoot without mud is to shoot your typical fictional film, that is NOT what I call properly working hardware. For the price I paid it's a damn great camera, but that does not mean you should deny the problem this way, and point at it as a user mistake. It is not.
I've personally experienced mud that ruined a shot, and this was not with the kit lens. It seems more obvious that it would happen with the kit lens due to the large DOF that you often get due to the wide end of te lens and the high aperture. If you shoot with a small DOF there's less detail to encode, which might result in less mud. That is my theory, at least.
Ben_B
Veteran
Does grandma care if there's mud on the whippy shot of your kid playing soccer? No.
Do people care when there's no mud in your narrative short because you know how to shoot one? No.
If a giant monster attacks New York and your shakey mud filled video is the only thing left but you can still see what's going on are the survivors or the government going to care if there's mud? No.
If you shoot a movie with shakey-ass crap in it does experience tell you people are going to complain about mud or about your shakey-ass movie? People complain about shakey camera-work all the time. Bourne Ultimatium was freaking gorgeous (in it's own, ultra-realistic, way) but a lot of people still complained about the crazy camera work. Sort of lost my point here because that was a great movie....but if you go crash 100 cars together in your indi-flick that cut costs by shooting on the GH1, and have a shakey shot with a bit of mud in it, and I watch your movie, I'm going to be going: holyyyy **** that was amazing! Not, oh no, mud, thumbs-down. Same goes if your movie is good.
Do people care when there's no mud in your narrative short because you know how to shoot one? No.
If a giant monster attacks New York and your shakey mud filled video is the only thing left but you can still see what's going on are the survivors or the government going to care if there's mud? No.
If you shoot a movie with shakey-ass crap in it does experience tell you people are going to complain about mud or about your shakey-ass movie? People complain about shakey camera-work all the time. Bourne Ultimatium was freaking gorgeous (in it's own, ultra-realistic, way) but a lot of people still complained about the crazy camera work. Sort of lost my point here because that was a great movie....but if you go crash 100 cars together in your indi-flick that cut costs by shooting on the GH1, and have a shakey shot with a bit of mud in it, and I watch your movie, I'm going to be going: holyyyy **** that was amazing! Not, oh no, mud, thumbs-down. Same goes if your movie is good.
I think the thread opener is right: you can avoid mud ! I dont think the lens is the issue, its the automatic stuff that muddies up fast moving footage. Maybe focus tracking is an additional issue?
unfortunately this makes the GH1 not a guerilla style camera where you can whip it from the car, set it to full idiotic mode and shoot away as fast as possible, but I didnt think it was thought for that ;-)
unfortunately this makes the GH1 not a guerilla style camera where you can whip it from the car, set it to full idiotic mode and shoot away as fast as possible, but I didnt think it was thought for that ;-)
:grin:
SpecialEdFX
Member
Been shooting with the cam for 2 days. Having worked on running gun shows for years, I can tell you that this mud issue makes much of this kind of shooting "un-doable". Yes, you shouldn't pretend that you can support a broadcast quality product on this thing. It's fun, you can pickup shots that you would otherwise need a Letus or Redrock for with less setup time. You can be sneaky and shoot locals. It's the unpredictability of the mud that makes it unacceptable for serious shooting. We use HDV, and while I hate it and the compression is sh*t, I've gotten a total of 20-30 "hits" from QC on over 50 hours of programming (not bad for a crappy format). I understand the bandwith issue, and it's a cool auxilary unit for the money.
My sum-up here is that no pro should have to think about whether they're panning or zooming too fast. We've already got enough going on.
Now what about built in sharpening? how is that affecting the encode onto the card? Anybody try this?
My sum-up here is that no pro should have to think about whether they're panning or zooming too fast. We've already got enough going on.
Now what about built in sharpening? how is that affecting the encode onto the card? Anybody try this?
Ian-T
Veteran
I would have to strongly disagree with you on that (even though I don't own the cam). Check out this user who's doing the total opposite of what you've stated (mind you , he's using both the GH-1 and the 5D2....but GH-1 on most of the shots):
http://vimeo.com/6257412
http://vimeo.com/6374764
All those opening studio shots on both videos are....the GH-1 (and most everything else in between).
Your mileage may vary.
Ben_B
Veteran
Built in sharpening seems to reduce the weakness of the codec upon in movement on areas with fine detail, especially things like say, a sea-gull's wing, or a wall, because the camera sharpens before it gets encoded (is what I've heard and seen) and therefore, since you're using a codec which essentially only records the image as it changes, sees that something is changing, when earlier it wasn't, and doesn't let details get as muddled...not sure how it effects macro-blocking.
Barry_Green
Moderator
If anyone told me that was their intended usage, I'd advise against the GH1 for that. It's not a broadcast product, it's not sold by the broadcast division. I've been asking the broadcast division to consider introducing an upgraded version that would have a bulletproof codec; if they did so, that would be the right tool for the job.
Agreed. Which is why pros should be using professional products! :thumbsup:
It seems to help.
SpecialEdFX
Member
Ian-T: It looks good. Most of the shots are pretty slow and open (big skies and such), giving bandwidth for the compression to properly take place. I'd still say that there's no way I would trust a producer/director that said "sure, just use that thing" on a shoot. The issue is unpredictability. I've been shooting with this for only 2 days, and really love it, but would never, ever, ever use it to support a show. I don't know how local news QC's, but international is pretty tight stuff and I'd hate to lose a shot because the pan looked like it came off an iphone.
If I can't shoot footage that is worthy of a broadcast then there is no sense in paying $1500 for it. I will just pay a few hundred more and get the 7d. I am not using it for broadcast but still, I will have to live with what I purchase for a while, probably years so I guess buying this toy makes no sense.
Barry_Green
Moderator
You can certainly shoot footage that is way worthy of broadcast with it. You can shoot footage that is worthy of theatrical projection with it. When it's "right", the GH1 is simply phenomenal.
You just can't take it into every scenario and get 100% performance from it. You have to know what it can handle and what it won't.
We don't know anything about the 7D yet. It may be a jello mess, or it may have similar codec issues, etc. Not saying that it will, just saying that nobody knows anything about it yet.
yea, I am just a mess right now trying to decide what to do. I don't want to get it wrong with my purchase. I have an hv30 that needs to be fixed but I was thinking of replacing it with one of these cameras, I don't want to pay $1500-$2000 for something that gives the same or worse image.