Vertical Streaking: Got my camera back from Panasonic...

cordvision

cordvision

Well-known member
I bought a hackable camera a couple months ago that had very strong vertical color streaking. I sent it to panasonic, asking them to get the vertical streaking fixed without updating my firmware. After a little over three weeks, I finally got my camera back. The good news is that they didn't touch the firmware, and it is still hackable, the bad news is that I still have pretty pronounced vertical color streaking. The streaks are still clearly visible, even at low ISOs:(

I realized today that I can take still pictures, even with high ISO settings, and I don't get any streaks... How come? If it is a sensor issue, wouldn't still images show streaking as well?
 
so what does pana have to say about it if they were given the task to fix it? are the lines fixed as in they appear in the same spot all the time no matter what your shooting?
 
It's no surprise. It is a feature of the camera as far as i am concerned and am unconvinced by tales of burn ins or old vs new models.

Annoying ++ - but the GH2 sounds like it has improved this dramatically
 
I tried the burn-in process before I sent it to panasonic, and again after I got it back. It simply didn't work for me :( I'll post some frame grabs later....
 
Yes it is. Pretty much in any kind of dramatic lighting, you will have parts of the picture that are underexposed. Many people here always say: "you just need to expose better" (put more light on the subject), this simply does not work for dramatic lighting, unless you are willing to throw away a lot of your latitude and crush the picture in post. Just putting more light onto your subject is not a solution!
 
i have to say without testing that my camera will result in the same footage underexposed like that. unfortunately that's pretty much a normal underexposed footage off a gh1.
 
Last edited:
cordvision said:
Yes it is. Pretty much in any kind of dramatic lighting, you will have parts of the picture that are underexposed. Many people here always say: "you just need to expose better" (put more light on the subject), this simply does not work for dramatic lighting, unless you are willing to throw away a lot of your latitude and crush the picture in post. Just putting more light onto your subject is not a solution!
Click to expand...
This is strictly my opinion, but this clip is not representative of "dramatic" lighting. Unfortunately, GH1 has its problems and underexposure in video is not handled gracefully. I don't think it has anything to do with the sensor, but the image processing routines that interpret raw data. In any event, again IMHO, a scene that is not properly lit will not look good no matter what it is shot with.
 
svecher said:
This is strictly my opinion, but this clip is not representative of "dramatic" lighting. Unfortunately, GH1 has its problems and underexposure in video is not handled gracefully. I don't think it has anything to do with the sensor, but the image processing routines that interpret raw data. In any event, again IMHO, a scene that is not properly lit will not look good no matter what it is shot with.
Click to expand...

This clip isn't an example for dramatic lighting. All it does is show what happens in underexposed areas, which you will often have in dramatic lighting situations. Properly lit doesn't mean that there are no underexposed parts in the picture. If that would be true, most of "The Social Network" and "Fight Club" would not be properly lit....
 
Here's a picture to illustrate what I'm talking about. We shot the same scene on 35mm / 16mm / 7D / GH13 in a soundstage with proper lighting. This picture is properly lit, but of course contains parts that are several stops under base stop. The screen grab is from the GH1. Unfortunately you don't see the streaking very well in the screen grab but when the actress moves her head, you can see streaks all over her face...


gh13Streaking.jpg
 
cordvision said:
Here's a picture to illustrate what I'm talking about. We shot the same scene on 35mm / 16mm / 7D / GH13 in a soundstage with proper lighting. This picture is properly lit, but of course contains parts that are several stops under base stop. The screen grab is from the GH1. Unfortunately you don't see the streaking very well in the screen grab but when the actress moves her head, you can see streaks all over her face...
Click to expand...
Yes, the picture illustrates the problem very well. There is some ugliness going on the arm as well. Perhaps, in the context of "proper" lighting we need to talk about proper lighting for a GH1, as in the subject, the center of attention, cannot have uneven exposure. So for this scene there would need to be a fill light coming from the right side. If this type of shot is important, then perhaps a GH2 deserves a long hard look.
 
svecher said:
Yes, the picture illustrates the problem very well. There is some ugliness going on the arm as well. Perhaps, in the context of "proper" lighting we need to talk about proper lighting for a GH1, as in the subject, the center of attention, cannot have uneven exposure. So for this scene there would need to be a fill light coming from the right side. If this type of shot is important, then perhaps a GH2 deserves a long hard look.
Click to expand...

This makes the GH1 pretty much useless for narrative work, unless you only shoot comedies with high key lighting. I'm really a bit disappointed....
 
It looks like something shot with a $600 consumer-level still camera that has home video strapped on as an added "feature". If it doesn't look as good as the same shot taken with the 35mm motion picture camera, it must be defective, and returned to Panasonic. ;)
 
cordvision said:
This makes the GH1 pretty much useless for narrative work, unless you only shoot comedies with high key lighting. I'm really a bit disappointed....
Click to expand...
It doesn't make the GH1 useless for narrative work. It just makes it challenging. I shot a dramatic narrative short on the GH1 and got burned in one scene because I underexposed a bit. There's a a zone in the shadow areas that is very prone to vertical streaking with the GH-1. It seems especially prone to this when warm-colored lighting is involved. So, below middle-gray and into dark shadows, the GH1 has a bit of a problem. The trick is to treat the GH1 as if you were shooting on video and not film. Because it is video. It has a narrower contrast range. You can still get a dramatic look with low-key contrast ratios, but you you have to be more careful. I've found that it works best to overexpose skin tones by 1/3 or 1/2 a stop, add a bit more fill in the shadow ares than you think you should....then in post print everything back down and add contrast. This brings skin tones back to where they need to be and adding contrast darkens the shadows. This approach seems to eliminate the vertical streaking, as giving the sensor a healthy exposure avoids the problem altogether. It's completely different than working with film, but you CAN get dramatic results.
The one problem I HAVEN'T been able to avoid, and it's visible in your still image of the woman, is the blue cast on skin tones on the transition between highlight and shadow. Look at the middle of her neck...how her skin goes from pink to blue and back to pink as you go from left to right. That drives me crazy. I hope the GH2 solves this problem. It is also apparent on stills.
 
swyzlstyx said:
It looks like something shot with a $600 consumer-level still camera that has home video strapped on as an added "feature". If it doesn't look as good as the same shot taken with the 35mm motion picture camera, it must be defective, and returned to Panasonic. ;)
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha..
 
dvbrother said:
The one problem I HAVEN'T been able to avoid, and it's visible in your still image of the woman, is the blue cast on skin tones on the transition between highlight and shadow. Look at the middle of her neck...how her skin goes from pink to blue and back to pink as you go from left to right. That drives me crazy. I hope the GH2 solves this problem. It is also apparent on stills.
Click to expand...


What mode are you shooting in? I assume it's in nostalgic or smooth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top