The Truth About Compression - Re: "mud"

Martti - though networks may be sending out TV at 720p, the vast amount of delivery specs I receive are 1080p. In all honesty the need to shoot 720p is one of the main things that ended up killing the camera for me. 720p is going to be gone very soon. Upscaling loses a lot of detail.

I would just strongly suggest anyone without a GH1 wait until more footage is shown from the 7d. Unless Canon decided to change its H.264 implementation (that it uses in cheaper cameras than just the 5d already), the 7d will produce a superior image, specifically when it comes to the codec.

Something to consider with professional work - there is always a quality control department. You can shoot broadcast quality footage with the GH1, but blocky colors (nearly always present, less present in 720p) and mud will not pass quality control, that is, of course unless you're able to claim it a way as a stylistic choice. Meaning - they won't air it. Even if it looks good enough, they won't. This may sound stupid, and it kind of is, but it's true.

I think the camera is amazing for the price, especially for planned out personal narrative projects, but if you plan on using the camera to make a living I think it has major set backs - too many for me to risk.

It's rare that I shoot something and get to choose my selects. If there is mud in any of the footage, that is too much, and possibly enough for the production company never to hire you again. It doesn't look good to have to explain why the one take that everyone loved because of the whip pan looks terrible.

The more I work, the more I realize why so many companies stick to equipment they know works. When money is on the line, you can't be worried about whether you tip toed correctly around the codec.

Also - everything but the codec is INCREDIBLE on the camera. I personally think Panasonic knew what they were doing when they made the codec suck. I have seen many other cameras record far superior 17mbps, not to mention the fact that I have never seen programs register any files as higher than 15mbps.

With all of that being said, I had a GH1 preordered day 1. I was so excited for the camera. When I was at NAB this year I had very little desire to look at the 5d and just wanted to go to Panasonic and discuss using the GH1 for pro work. Panasonic didn't give me the time of day. All they said was "that's a consumer product" and tried to sell me an HVX. Canon on the other hand was willing to work with my production company and lend us 4 free 5d mark IIs for a high profile music video we were shooting.

At the time I was just bummed to not get my hands on a pre-production US GH1. In retrospect it is a testament to what we are now seeing come to fruition with the 7d. Canon takes this seriously. They see VDSLR filmmaking as a legitimate market. And why shouldn't they, these companies make far more on lenses anyway. Panasonic may have released the first broadly marketed hybrid camera, but the execution is severely lacking when it comes to the codec. I still can't wait for the GH2 though. I honestly believe that anyone who claims that there aren't major problems with the codec is lying to themselves or has very limited experience in post. All you have to do is try to pull a color key to see just how horribly blocky the color rendition is.

At the end of the day, my point is this. Enjoy the camera if you have it, if you don't I think there is a camera coming out that, if your main desire is a consistently solid and professional image, will best this camera by quite a large margin.

I realize that I'm complaining about a $1500 camera. AND ITS AMAZING for $1500, but if the 7d can do what it seems like it can at $1700 body only, well, that's crazy.
 
Last edited:
"This product is licenced unde the AVC patent portfolio under the AVC patent portfolio licence for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer [to encode and decode AVC video]. No licence is granted or shall be implied for any other use".

That's what it says in the manual for the GH1 (and for the little SD5 that I have, for that matter). It's a codec intended and restricted for amateur use. Under many conditions it is capable of producing professional results but that's not its intent.

The physical format (DSLR-style) seems to me to target the GH1 at photographers who want to take images of moving subjects primarily within a static frame - photos that move. Used in ways a photographer is unlikely to take a photo other than for a special effect, the codec can, under some conditions, reveal that it's not designed for such use.

Let's count ourselves lucky that it can do so much. There's no basis for disappointment that it doesn't do what it clearly and specifically is not intended to do.

Down the track some of the features of the GH1 (& D5II and D7 etc) will find their way into a device like Ben's excellent mockup picture, intended ground up for video. It will hopefully be licenced for pro use (and doubtless there will be a cost attached to that). If that doesn't come with a codec adequate for that design intent and codec licence, then the complaints will be justified.
 
Ben_B said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Next time if you're going to ask questions, don't answer them yourself. A serious case of mud can completely ruin a shot, and not just one or two frames. Mud can be very visible and disturbing even for someone who knows nothing about codecs, and abruptly makes you realize you were watching a film on a television or screen. It gets you out of the mood.
I really don't see why we're having this discussion here. It's clearly an issue. Just because you don't have problems with it because of your style of shooting, doesn't mean it's not an issue in general.

Car3o said:
you're flawed.
Click to expand...
Calling people flawed because they don't shoot like you is just plain moronic.
 
Boz said:
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?
Click to expand...
Would Spielberg, Bay, or Greengrass shoot an entire film on a $1500 DSLR?

Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this entire 1080/24p 4K-sensor cinema-sized-frame lens-included package is $1500? HALF the cost of an HMC150?

Good heavens, folks -- NO it's not going to do everything that a $350,000 F35 is going to do. But yes, when treated properly, it's going to deliver an image that's "good enough" for probably 90% of the folks out there.

If you have to control your shooting in order to get an image like this at $1500, most of us are pretty darn happy with that. If anyone isn't happy with it, they're free to take their $1500 and go buy the other 4K-sensor, 1080/24p, cinema-sized-frame camera out there.

Oh, yeah, wait -- there isn't one.

Which is why we all have to learn what it can, and can't do, and compromise. Or save up some more dough and buy a product that doesn't make us compromise.
 
Just got my Nikon adapter yesterday. A quick test shows the bitrate of the files is the same as when using the kit lens. While it's possible there is some "processing" magic that gets turned off to support the auto-features, the resulting files don't seem to get a higher data rate. If you think about it, it would make sense. It's a lot harder to design(an near impossible to test) a system that dynamically scales based on available CPU vs a system with the hardware necessary to run it at a constant bitrate/constant processing all the time.
 
Ben_B said:
The GH1 would only fail if you overly vibrated the thing.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. But I'm beginning to realize a big discrepancy in opinions here. I, for the most part, am talking about 1080/24P mode, while you are talking about 720/60P mode. I agree mud is far less apparent in 720P mode. But I'm shooting for a filmlook that 60P simply does not deliver. Perhaps that helps clear some of the confusion were seeing here?


John Caballero said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see your TV shows, and raise you 24, Legend of the Seeker, Leverage, Band of Brothers, Generation kill. :grin: We can throw examples of both sides of the "camera shake" fence all day long. For every show that doesn't whip camera around, there is another that does. Especially today with the MTV generation viewing habits.


Car3o said:
the people that complain about how they can't, never do anyway.
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for the tidbit of wisdom. Can I get that on a fortune cookie? ;)


Barry_Green said:
Would Spielberg, Bay, or Greengrass shoot an entire film on a $1500 DSLR?
Click to expand...

Barry you forgot the next sentence in that quote: "An extreme example I know, but I'm making a point that even in the most controlled "Pro" circumstances the GH1 could fail."

The point being that even pros shoot which extreme motion from time to time. So to blame the shooter is ludicrous. (I'm not saying that you said that, but that's what my response was to.)

Also, everyone says it's not a pro cam, which means it's a consumer cam. Consumers DON'T SHOOT LIKE PROS. So many people will shoot poorly, whipping the camera here and there, and mud will be everywhere. The codec should at least hold up to Panasonic's consumer division video cameras (which it doesn't).

Barry_Green said:
If anyone isn't happy with it, they're free to take their $1500 and go buy the other 4K-sensor, 1080/24p, cinema-sized-frame camera out there.

Oh, yeah, wait -- there isn't one.
Click to expand...

Isn't there? How do you classify the 7D then?
 
The 7D is $1,700 body only, the GH1 is $600 body only. Barry earlier said nice-lens included or something but didn't mention it the second time.

The 720p/60 mode can be perfectly reverse telecined in post. 9 out of 10 orphans can't tell the difference. I usually just drop it into a 24p timeline, this doesn't work on some shots, so I use compressor to convert them and it looks great.

720p works great, no mud. Codec only breaks with severe vibration (which for the thousandth time is a different thing than shakey handheld, I'm talking oscillation, back and forth, rapidly, in a somewhat fixed way, in addition to the already shakey nature of the shot, here people) that would really be a shot ruiner mud or not.
 
Isn't there? How do you classify the 7D then?
Click to expand...
7D is an announcement, not a product. It might be out in a few weeks or a few months, but until then, there's nothing else out there that you can actually buy.
 
That's exactly the way I've been thinking about it. Until I see a lot of footage, have read the manual back to front, and get the chance to shoot around with one I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the 7D and it's capabilities, for better or for worse. What I can tell you about it is that most of the footage I've seen looks pretty crummy. To quote that annoying segment on CNN: Just sayin'.
 
Ben_B said:
The 7D is $1,700 body only, the GH1 is $600 body only. Barry earlier said nice-lens included or something but didn't mention it the second time.
Click to expand...

Sweet! Can you point me to where anyone can buy a GH1 body for $600? I'm sure there are many here that would be interested.



Barry_Green said:
7D is an announcement, not a product. It might be out in a few weeks or a few months, but until then, there's nothing else out there that you can actually buy.
Click to expand...

C'mon, it will be out by the end of the month. Unlike Red, Canon won't take years to get their announced product out the door. Now will it be easily obtainable at the end of the month? Probably not. As you said, it's back ordered into December at some places. Which is why I'm leaning towards keeping my GH1, despite its limitations. My money will be tied up regardless of whether I keep the GH1 or pre-order the 7D with store credit.

BTW, Philip Bloom is testing the 'announcement' as we speak. So far: "Rolling shutter issues with 7d persist but appear to be improved over 5d mk2"

And can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that the GH1 wins this comparison?

GH1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1VIDEO.HTM
vs.
7D: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DVIDEO.HTM
 
Japan. People who speak Japanese can get it. :)

As for the rest of us, as Barry said: "Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this entire 1080/24p 4K-sensor cinema-sized-frame lens-included package is $1500? "

And there he said lens-included package. Which is why I said that in the line you quoted.

You're paying $1500 for a great camera and a great lens, with the 7D you're paying $1700 for what will probably be a great camera...but at $200 more and you don't get a great lens worth $900...lets say you buy that much in glass, you're already at $2600...$1100 more than the GH1.
 
Can anyone seriouly tell which is better from that comparison?

From a pure amateur point of view, in GH1 test, the dog had to go quite far to get it. The camera guy had to zoom in a little bit. I assume he felt safe to do it because of its continuous autofocus capability.
In 7D test, the dog was actually right in front of the camera when she catches it.

I would assume the crop images of the subject right in front of you would look always better than the crop images of the subject that is far from you.

Again it is just an amateur's thought.

Boz said:
And can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that the GH1 wins this comparison?

GH1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1VIDEO.HTM
vs.
7D: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DVIDEO.HTM
Click to expand...
 
All will be answered soon enough. Sooner or later someone is gonna have both, we'll put 'em through their paces, and then definitive information will be known.
 
FIRST PART FOR MARTTI: I think Narrative would present very few problems for you with this camera, and by all means a short would work out fine. On my show, we have 3 Sony Z7u's rolling all the time (with a 4th for backup) at any given location on the planet. It's all verite, and if scouted at all, it's done by a local that may not know production, or by a producer a few hours before we roll. While Varicams would be awesome, there just ain't enough room on the plane these days and budget allows us to get as many repairs or replacements as we have to on these relatively "cheap HDV cameras".

We need to shoot 24fps in full HD. While networks don't love HDV, it makes the grade if you're dumping serious time/talent/cash into your online edit. Even then I've ended up spending serious time using directional blurs to hide mud from HDV shots. We've recently been using a Letus to mount decent lenses in front of our cameras, but it's a real hassle on the road (setup times, maneuverability, etc.)

The GH1 gives a very similar look to a 35mm adapter and that's why I got it and am recommending we purchase a couple to capture beauty stuff. Again, that's what I'm using it for, and I think it would be much better for very controlled situations. Being someone that's personally on an indie budget, but spends a much higher budget for our show I understand both of the points of view here. When we don't have much to spend, we don't like hearing guys that drop 1500 bones like it was popcorn poo-poo our new toy. But they're right, as are MOST people on this post about expecting more from our manufacturers.

As for the Defenders Of Mud, saying it's a display of talent to compulsively make sure you're not breaking the camera's frail codec rules is complete, childish, apologist BS. If you talk like/ work like that around any kind of DP, you will ensure yourself a lifetime of budget equipment to work with.
 
bumkicho said:
Can anyone seriouly tell which is better from that comparison?

From a pure amateur point of view, in GH1 test, the dog had to go quite far to get it. The camera guy had to zoom in a little bit. I assume he felt safe to do it because of its continuous autofocus capability.
In 7D test, the dog was actually right in front of the camera when she catches it.

I would assume the crop images of the subject right in front of you would look always better than the crop images of the subject that is far from you.

Again it is just an amateur's thought.
Click to expand...

That Dog video is infamous. I have never seen anything like that with my camera or with any other tests out there. Either this guy had a faulty unit, or a pre-production unit, or really just absolutely had the settings shot to hell.
 
Boz said:
And can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that the GH1 wins this comparison?

GH1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1VIDEO.HTM
vs.
7D: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DVIDEO.HTM
Click to expand...

I think that guy should redo the test and not use a 1/1000 shutter on GH1. That clip is totally devoid of motion blur. And even if we presently can't get the GH1 body without the kit lens it's still a $700 body vs a $1600 one, of course the 7D should give a better result, anything else would be embarrassing for Canon.

@ Ryan and SpecialEdFX, thanks for the info,. Here in Sweden we are in dark backwaters regarding HD broadcast. 5 years ago the politicians and the broadcasters in cahoots rolled out digital terrestrial TV with only SD - the transmitters only supported mpeg2. Then 2 years later they started to talk about maybe upgrading to mpeg4 transmitters while all consumers had in the meantime been made to buy mpeg2 digital receivers... HD channels can be had over cable or satellite - mostly at a premium which makes most viewers skip it. So all my deliveries of commercials are still in SD mpeg2 format! BTW since my main clients are record companies most of the sources I get are archive material in SD so even if HD is rolled out I will have to deal with making SD upscaling work.

However I do sometimes get material on 1080 originating from cameras with 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" sensors. After comparisons with a bunch of clips I had available on my harddrives I can honestly say that I can upscale the GH1 720 material to 1080 in After Effects and the difference in sharpness is pretty much negligible from 1/3" and 1/2" cameras, it's not until 2/3" sharpness really gets visibly better. It appears to me like the larger sensor and good still primes is a better start for the image even when crammed into a pretty coarse encoding and 720. I was actually surprised about this, expecting the GH1 to fare far worse. Of course in a news situation upscaling in After Effects is not a realistic workflow.

That said I wouldn't either go out and blindly promise perfect HD images with the GH1 in a paid pro gig. It is a still a high-end consumer camera that we can bend into semi-pro work. I think Taylor Wilson is doing some amazing stuff in that regard. With a client that I know and who trust me I could explain these things and proceed when they know the limitations and are prepared to get a from a technical point not perfect image. For a SD target I have no hesitation, I can just do it, in fact I will use the GH1 for a SD commercial next friday. GH1 material is miles ahead of the SD stuff I'm asked to deal with from this particular client on a regular basis. I'd just have to explain the small form factor beforehand :)

I just put out these views as some people scream "GH1 SUCKS!!1!!1!!!" without explaining their starting point and target. And mostly they haven't shot a second with it. Like Ryan says, for $1500 it's pretty amazing camera, best bang for the buck ratio I've ever had in any gear. As a long-time pro (30+ years now) being used to work with gear so expensive to rent that a quick one to the loo cost $400 of wasted time it's quite a relief to own such a inexpensive camera that can give such great results. GH1 has done miracles for my inspiration and creativity just over this summer, so much that I'm planning to get out of my editing room where I've camped cosily for ten years and back to shooting more regularly.

To sum it up, the mere fact that GH1 was used to shoot an entire feature in just weeks after it was released do speak more than I can put to words. Hope to see that movie soon!
 
Illya Friedman said:
There is a lot of needless hysteria that is repeated over and over about the GH1 compression. I think it's mostly reported and re-reported by people who watch web videos and don't actually own a GH1. Until recently, I thought that the issue was dead but clearly with what I read online it is not.

At a conference this past weekend Liam Finn showed many shots from his feature film Rejouer, there was even a section of the presentation called "The Great Unknown" which talked about and showed the problems of the GH1.

Undoubtedly the GH1 compression is a weak point of the camera, and it would be wonderful if it were improved- however, How many shots do you think contained the dreaded "mud" compression issues?

zero!

That's right, none.

There were other surprises/problems, but after hours and hours of material being shot and edited, the "mud" that has permeated the web/blogs in relation to the GH1 is not present. I do mean n o t p r e s e n t.

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.

While not shown in the presentation, green screen was shot successfully, generally considered the torture test of compression. After the screening- in which 80% of the material had no color correction, I was treated to a barrage of questions and comments all of which were extremely complementary.

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. After 18-days (of mostly hand held and tracking shots) and over 50 cards of GH1 images without "mud", 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.

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...
man.. you need to change your core business.. there's a new cam out there.. they called it 7D
 
Also, everyone says it's not a pro cam, which means it's a consumer cam. Consumers DON'T SHOOT LIKE PROS. So many people will shoot poorly, whipping the camera here and there, and mud will be everywhere. The codec should at least hold up to Panasonic's consumer division video cameras (which it doesn't).
Click to expand...
I guess I'm the consumer representative round here :) and I don't think the GH1 is going to appeal a lot to whip panners wandering into a camera shop looking for a typical camcorder. They won't even know that it does video unless they've read up on it in advance, and if they've done that reading, they'll know its strengths and weaknesses, and they'll be pretty serious amateurs shelling out that much.

My chief reason for buying it was deep dissatisfaction with the low light performance of my previous AVCHD device, which was at the time of purchase a top of the range domestic camcorder, the SD5. In interiors other than on really bright days, and from evening onwards, I was getting end-to-end mud, not just momentary. The GH1 is in a totally different league in that respect. In my domestic use I'm not getting mud (or if I am, I'm not recognising it and thus not being worried by it) and I'm getting the benefits of the shallow DOF that I'd previously not even thought about, because on domestic camcorders it's simply not available. So I personally don't have any concerns about the codec, and the bitrate displayed during replay in Nero seems typically slightly higher than the SD5, so no complaints there.

In the last 24 hours I've been playing around with GH1 footage converting it to various other formats using software which provides a GUI to FFmpeg. Two things surprised me - one, that it holds up very well to being transcoded to lower or higher resolutions and even to lower bitrates, but also, when I accidentally converted a clip to a stupidly low bitrate, the result looked just like the stills posted here showing "mud". Now my understanding was that when there was a great deal of motion, the bitrate used should increase to cope with it. But it seems like if you do a whip pan or shoot sideways from a car, the GH1 reduces the bitrate radically instead, giving the muddy results. That seems to me to support the theory that the GH1 kind of overloads or panics in such situations (particularly with the highly processed kit lens, which is all I have). Does that make sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top