The Truth About Compression - Re: "mud"

[Ben_B]

This will do better than an HV30 for sure. The codec is actually much more robust than HDV from what I've seen. Plus you get great DOF, etc, out of the box, with the ability to mount just about any prime lens with the right, cheap (compared to a 35mm adapter for HV30) adapter.

Also keep in mind that at $200 less than the 7D body only you're getting a kit lens worth nearly $900 that is very versatile and useful in many situations...it kind of reminds me of the stock lens in a video camera, although yes, it's a bit slow, which means it's not great for low light, but from what I can tell still gets better DOF than faster video camera stock lenses that are being used on smaller sensors.

 

[Indyreel]

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.

Barry,

So far I've deducted that the circumstances that cause it to fall apart are:
1) Rapid Panning
2) Rapid Zooming
3) Shaky-cam movements

Are there any others to be aware of, as I am definately trying to educate myself completely in this area.

Thanks.

 

[ryansheffer]

The image can be amazing, yes.

But, it's not just "mud."

I rarely saw mud. When I did, it pissed me off beyond belief.

You can avoid it, but what you can't avoid is the problem the codec causes with color. So much blockiness.

 

[Ben_B]

It depends on how you define shakey, rapid, etc. For example, I've done some car-mount type shots with mine (window mount) and everything is moving very fast, all without mud...I've also done some with mud. Mud was caused when there was excessive, rapid vibration. The same is true with fast, handheld, tracking type shots....I've noticed no mud at all unless there was excessive vibration.

I don't care what anyone says, regardless of the artistic style of your film, whether it's an action movie, or what not, and you want fast handheld work, there is no way that vibration is ever a good thing in a movie. Sorry. There's no way you're going to convince me.

Watch movies like Cloverfield, Bourne Ultimatium, etc...is there a lot of fast, jerky, handheld stuff? Yes. Is there ever excessive vibration? No. Because the operators know what they're doing.

I've seen the camera handle a lot of amazing stuff with no mud...it's vibration that can kill it, but you shouldn't have vibration in your movie anyway. If a shot vibrated enough to show excessive or inexcusable amounts of mud, I wouldn't want to use it anyway thanks to the vibration.

The only pans I've even been able to get mud on have been ones that were so fast that you can only see it going frame by frame to pick out the mud, not even really on a subconcious level.

 

[portishead]

I don't care what anyone says, regardless of the artistic style of your film, whether it's an action movie, or what not, and you want fast handheld work, there is no way that vibration is ever a good thing in a movie. Sorry. There's no way you're going to convince me.

Not everyone is shooting a film. Actually, most people are probably not shooting films with the GH1.

I just watched District 9, and I know the style they were going for, but I thought the camera movement was a bit excessive in certain scenes. We all have our opinions.

 

[Ben_B]

So excessive vibration is a good thing when you film your kid's soccer game? Still not.

As for D9, that's exactly my point! They didn't have vibration in their heavy-motion shots, because they know how to film...it was just lots of movement, but not like oscillation or vibration which is what really destroys the GH1.

And for those of us shooting films, note that they managed to shoot District 9 on the RED One, with lots of movement, without tons of rolling shutter artifacts people have complained about with that camera.

 

[Park Edwards]

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.

you're flawed.

 

[Ben_B]

Well said.

 

[John Caballero]

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.

The gentleman producing these videos is proof that you really need to be talented to do excellent work with the GH1 or any other camera for that matter. There are the complainers then there are the doers, like these two videos clearly show. And by the way, he broadcast them over the air. Like real television. Again, IT CAN BE DONE. You can shoot really good stuff at 1080P on the GH1, but only if you are really good at your craft.

BTW: Barry, do we get to see some samples on your recent collaboration with JDS?

 

[Park Edwards]

if you really look at the bourne movies and d9 and how Peter Berg shoots, a lot of it comes down to proper/quick edits, not really shaky camera movements. the shots just aren't static like something you would see in a Kevin Smith film. the zooming however would probably break the codec up. Now, what I don't think the gh1 would be capable of doing is a scene(s) out of Children of Men, in particular 2 of the 3 one take scenes, where there's a lot of movement and fast motion. if production came down to that and i was using a gh1, i'd probably hit up a rental shop for something that would be capable of handling it better.

 

[Park Edwards]

The gentleman producing these videos is proof that you really need to be talented to do excellent work with the GH1 or any other camera for that matter. There are the complainers then there are the doers, like these two videos clearly show. And by the way, he broadcast them over the air. Like real television. Again, IT CAN BE DONE. You can shoot really good stuff at 1080P on the GH1, but only if you are really good at your craft.

BTW: Barry, do we get to see some samples on your recent collaboration with JDS?

i don't think they were broadcasted on national tv. i didn't see anything like that mentioned.

 

[Ben_B]

Yeah but if you did a 5 minute long take with tanks blowing up buildings and stuff a'la Children of Men I know I for one wouldn't care if your footage was a little muddy

The gentleman producing these videos is proof that you really need to be talented to do excellent work with the GH1 or any other camera for that matter. There are the complainers then there are the doers, like these two videos clearly show. And by the way, he broadcast them over the air. Like real television. Again, IT CAN BE DONE. You can shoot really good stuff at 1080P on the GH1, but only if you are really good at your craft.

BTW: Barry, do we get to see some samples on your recent collaboration with JDS?

I don't think you need to be super super talented to do good work with the GH1. I am pretty happy with what I threw together just shooting around (720p) and I am not a cinematographer, in fact the stuff I've done since getting the GH1 is probably more cinematography than I've done in my whole life up to this point. I am an editor, a director, and a writer first and foremost but I managed to throw this together. Not saying it's amazing. Just saying I am not an amazing DP and I put out a decent looking video.

http://www.vimeo.com/6340277

I suppose I'd make a decent producer too with all my shameless self promotion.

 

[Boz]

Sorry, I came into this discussion way late. I've cherry-picked some comments throughout the thread:

What did Liam and team do that was different?

They didn't shoot with the 14-140 except on two occasions very briefly (one had a problem with exposure, the other focus, but no "mud"), they didn't shoot "garbage cam" by swinging the camera wildly, and they didn't fill the frame with fast moving objects without an subject/point of focus in the foreground. Also the camera was 100% manual, no auto anything.

So... you're saying step one is throw out the $900 lens that came with the camera? Seriously? This is the fix? There's been plenty of speculation, but I've to see anyone confirm the lens has anything to do with the problem. As for manual, I've shot full manual and got mud, so that ain't it.

If I'm not mistaken, all the pro camera folks on DVXuser have weighed in on the "mud" issue and reported it a non-issue.

It is an issue. What they have said is that it's a problem that can be worked around. That's different than a non-issue.

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.

I'd love to! When/where can we see it?

It's about the shooter, not the camera.

If I have to be super careful about not moving my camera too fast, even when it's appropriate, then it's the camera, not the shooter. Speilberg, Bay, and Greengrass, to name a few, have all shot scenes (and sometimes whole films) with shakey cams. Would you really tell them it's their fault if the camera failed them? An extreme example I know, but I'm making a point that even in the most controlled "Pro" circumstances the GH1 could fail.

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.

I can shoot a whole movie without mud too. Look at Kevin Smith's films. The camera rarely moves fast. Its not hard to avoid mud if you don't move the camera much. But again, there are times when it's right to move the camera like mad.

All this talk of 7D massive 350mb per second Quicktime files makes no sense to me.

Where the heck did you get that number? Using that number, this clip should 500MB in size (350mb/s x 11.4 secs), it is 62.2MB: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/FULLRES/YE7VID_1080_24_P_MVI_1908.MOV

The true data rate is about 45 Mb/s.

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.

First, how are you going to track your monster into your shot if their is mud? No tracker on the planet can solve for that. Second, is Adobe going to come out with a mud plugin, so I can match my monster to the footage?

Watch movies like Cloverfield, Bourne Ultimatium, etc...is there a lot of fast, jerky, handheld stuff? Yes. Is there ever excessive vibration? No. Because the operators know what they're doing.

It's actually because a fully loaded camera weights 20 or more pounds. Its hard to 'vibrate' something that big and heavy, even if you wanted to. And the GH1 would muddily fail on both the films you mentioned.

Mud does happen on the GH1. Quite easily, if you're not careful. Trying to sweep it under the rug or downplay it, solves nothing. If anything there should be continued pressure on Panasonic to fix the problem! Then we all win.

Now I will don my flame-retardent and stand by for the replies. :grin:

 

[Ben_B]

The GH1 would only fail if you overly vibrated the thing. I've got mine on a rail system with two vertical handles on either side...pretty hard to vibrate that thing. Want something like it for cheap? I've got a DIY version (minus the rails) that's even heavier than my real one (if you think of that as a good thing) and costs like $30 to make.

Maybe you guys got crummy units or something but I've really only gotten bad mud in mine in a few places: while walking at a fast pace with it hanging from the neck strap at chest level, with barely a hand on it, as it jostled around all over the place. While getting a window-mount car shot at night while the camera was hanging upside down from a windshield using a modified GPS mount with nothing wedged between it in the dashboard (which solves the vibration problem) and while trying to get a handheld shot out of a moving subway train as it went over a bridge, pointed at another subway train. In all those situations the camera was vibrating excessively and those are literally the only times I have gotten mud in my whole time using the thing. I have I been less than happy with the way the codec looks for other things? Yeah sometimes. But have I had a problem with mud on fast motion shots? No. Not really. Only a few times, out shooting a new york montage, when I was doing something wrong, and knew that I was. Any other artifacting on fast moving shots (like the train shot at the beginning) is a result of web compression. Not there on the footage.

Was the mud bad enough to keep me from using those shots? Nope. They're all in my New York montage. More shameless self promotion after the jump.


Check it out, not to nice to look at eh? But not to bad either...especially considering that they're the only shots I've ever really had a problem with, and that you ended up watching my whole video anyway just to see them

http://www.vimeo.com/5973768

 

[Park Edwards]

that 900 dollar lens is 900 dollars because it's 14-140 and has silent auto focus for video. other than that it's not that great. f4? sell it and get primes.

 

[John Caballero]

I can shoot a whole movie without mud too. Look at Kevin Smith's films. The camera rarely moves fast. Its not hard to avoid mud if you don't move the camera much. But again, there are times when it's right to move the camera like mad.

Go to hulu and check Rescue Me, Warehouse13, Psych, Monk, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Eureka, CSI: Las Vegas, Royal Pains and countless other tv series shot on film or digital video, hugely successful and done by professionnals, and tell me which one is doing crazy whipping pans that would in the same case show the "mud" side of the GH1 if used on a similar shoot. Even the action sequences are done in a way that don't require crazy movement of the camera. They are all shot with a flawless sequence of wide angle shots, medium shots, close-ups and extreme close-ups. Combined to give the sequence its flow. And when they move the camera they use slow crane shots, tracking shots and stabilizer shots. All shots than can be achieved successfully by a professional operator with the GH1.

I don't think you need to be super super talented to do good work with the GH1. I am pretty happy with what I threw together just shooting around (720p) and I am not a cinematographer, in fact the stuff I've done since getting the GH1 is probably more cinematography than I've done in my whole life up to this point. I am an editor, a director, and a writer first and foremost but I managed to throw this together. Not saying it's amazing. Just saying I am not an amazing DP and I put out a decent looking video.

But you are very talented. And it shows in the good work you have done. It is not about talking but going out and doing. Now lets see how good you are at a higher level: 1080P! LOL!

 

[Ben_B]

Thanks.

You've raised a good point which is this: most of us are buying these cameras and reading this website because we want our films to have that professional look, and one of the best ways to do that is to learn to shoot like the pros do.

So there you go: the GH1 hardware limitations are a feature! Shoot unprofessionally and instead of just having unprofessional looking footage that you can convince yourself is good, you'll just have a muddy mess, signaling to you that it's time to hone your skills. Boom! Slap it on the box! It's a feature.

 

[Park Edwards]

the people that complain about how they can't, never do anyway.

 

[Martti Ekstrand]

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.

I don't get this - for many of us here the big thing with GH1 and it's ilk is that finally short DOF is available for a low cost in an very small package. That's the big attraction. But using short DOF on moving images usually means at least having to find the focus points before shooting and even rehearse if possible. Or at least in a documentary situation do several attempts to get a take that works in editing. So unless I'm totally mistaken; in a Get-It-Now-Or-It-Is-Gone news situation you are way more likely to ruin the shot by being out of focus than having mud if using a GH1. So for that kind of gigs any short DOF camera would be a secondary one anyway, wouldn't it?

And right now, how many news channels are actually broadcasting in 1080p? Last I tried 720p upscales pretty well to 1080i. Especially if you shoot at 50/60 fps. In my experience I have to abuse the GH1 pretty bad in 720 to get any show stopping mud.

I'm asking honestly and humbly, just trying to figure out how things work out there in the world, not being a smarty pants or prove anybody wrong. And you seems to be working daily in this environment thus being a good person to ask.

 

[Ben_B]

Well put. Seems like most are buying this camera for narrative filmmaking because they want the shallow DOF look at a lower price. Generally this means more methodically planned shoots, etc.