GH1 Video what am I doing wrong?

[drcircuit]

Whenever I see video on TV from the news, or a talkshow, the video is crisp, very saturated, and looks like a glossy photo. The motion flows seemingly fast, smooth and lifelike. But when I see a TV drama episode - like White Collar or House M.D. The image is different. It is flatter, less sharp, less saturated, and looks like a matte photo. The motion is also seemingly slower, less lifelike and not as swift. I have always thought that this was due to different framerates. That the crisp footage from the news was interlaced 50 hz (I live in PAL - land) and the TV dramas used 25p. I've been trying to read, research, test and now I feel like I tried everything under the sun to replicate the look of the latter, but I have yet to succeed.

I purchased a GF1 a couple of years ago, and I was astounded by the video quality. After I learned about the third party firmware hack I wanted to venture out and try to get that certain look of the TV Dramas. But no matter what I did, the video still has that swift crisp motion, so it still looks like a talk show, but with shallow depth of field. I've tried several lenses, my old Konica fast primes, the kit lens, the 20mm 1.7 - none of them give me that motion I seek. I tried 50i, 25p, 60i, 30p and 24p modes and they all look roughly the same.

Next I tried to see if it is there was a relation between the shutter speed and the framerate. I read that the shutter speed should be twice that of the frame rate, which would yield a 180 degree shutter angle. The result of this was that I get more motion blur, but the speed of the footage still looks the same.

Next I watched youtube, read forums and tried every patch, setting, and combination possible, but still without any results. But I was able to see plenty of others capable of getting the look I'm longing for with the camera.

At this point I figured it was my GF1 that was the problem, and all I needed was to get the GH1 which was supposed to give me the desired look.
So I bought the GH1, and now I've just finished the same procedures and tests I did with my GF1, and I still cannot get the look and feel I'm after.

So now I'm starting to think that it is not the cameras, it is my obvious inexperience as a videographer.

So before I go insane, can somebody out there in the world please please pretty please with sugar on top, tell me the key ingredient to get the correct look?

i will be forever grateful to whoever can show me the way.

 

[DPStewart]

I'll toss out a few...

1. Color correction.
Post production color correction is really an art form. Color ALTERATION might be a better way to describe it. In the hands of those who know it well it can go a long way to producing the more artful look. I personally have NO talent in this area.

2. UNshapening techniques.
This is mostly done with very special lenses. Lenses that produce a certain look that is usually NOT as sharp as our modern video lenses. Canon FD lenses are commonly talked about for this. The small group of "artful" lenses can be expensive or tricky to use at times.
FILTERS are also commonly used. Many different types, from diffusion to color alteration - they play more of a role than is talked about sometimes.

3. Motion quality.
I have no idea beyond frame rate and shutter speed. The only part I've figured out yet is that Panasonic lenses ADD an over-sharpening that causes artifacts on the edges of moving objects that makes the motion look less smooth. A diffusion filter on the lens seems to help with this quite a bit. At the suggestion of other smart folks here (Like KHOLI) I have been using a Tiffen Black Diffusion #3 filter on my Panny lenses and it helps.

Hopefully more people will add some wisdom here.

 

[drcircuit]

Thank you so much for your comments. I'm going to look into that filter thing. Seems like you are correct when it comes to the Panasonic lenses. They are extremely sharp - a bit too sharp at times. When I tried using my Hexanon primes the results were a bit different, not as sharp and more in the direction I'm going for. The color contrast also changed making it less "video". But the motion is still not right. It is as if the videos off the cameras are playing too fast. They should be like 5 - 10% slower or something, but still have smooth motion.

This is the closest I've gotten. This was shot with my Hexanon 28mm f3.5 on my GF1 in smooth film mode (set at -2, -2, 0, -2).

The first 15 seconds are filmed with AVCHD full latitude 108mbit peak hack @ 17mbit 1080-25p (don't know why I cannot get a higher bitrate even though I am using a hack..)

The last 15 seconds are filmed with MJPEG @ 54mbit 720-30p.

After that I imported both clips into After Effects interpreted the footage to 24p, and time scaled them with Andrew Kramers (of Videocopilot.net) FPS Converter to fit the 24p timeline. Then I added a CC Force Motion blur set at 180 degree shutter angle, and a slight color correction and a little vignette for effect.

But even after all that, it is still close - but no cigar. The motion still seems too fast - it is more fluent, but still not quite right. Maybe I'm chasing ghosts here...

 

[brunerww]

Looks like film to me. I say go out and shoot your story!

 

[Kevin Lee]

I'll toss out a few...

1. Color correction.
Post production color correction is really an art form. Color ALTERATION might be a better way to describe it. In the hands of those who know it well it can go a long way to producing the more artful look. I personally have NO talent in this area.

2. UNshapening techniques.
This is mostly done with very special lenses. Lenses that produce a certain look that is usually NOT as sharp as our modern video lenses. Canon FD lenses are commonly talked about for this. The small group of "artful" lenses can be expensive or tricky to use at times.
FILTERS are also commonly used. Many different types, from diffusion to color alteration - they play more of a role than is talked about sometimes.

3. Motion quality.
I have no idea beyond frame rate and shutter speed. The only part I've figured out yet is that Panasonic lenses ADD an over-sharpening that causes artifacts on the edges of moving objects that makes the motion look less smooth. A diffusion filter on the lens seems to help with this quite a bit. At the suggestion of other smart folks here (Like KHOLI) I have been using a Tiffen Black Diffusion #3 filter on my Panny lenses and it helps.

Hopefully more people will add some wisdom here.

Hey Stewart, I'd like to see footage with that filter used on it. Sounds like it doesn't make it look too soft or out of focus from reading about it. Do you or Kholi have a link for that?

 

[dvbrother]

I think you may be chasing ghosts as you say. 60i and 50i should look quite different than 24p and 25p in terms of motion. At first glance I thought you may be seeing the difference between a film camera's mechanical shutter and a DSLR's electronic shutter (which does create a difference in look between film and video), but then you said you've seen plenty of other DSLR examples that attain your desired look. Perhaps it's not the frame rate/shutter speed that is giving other videos their filmic look? The video you provided of the little boy looks filmic to me, at least in terms of frame rate.
Can you post an example of a DSLR film that exhibits the look you are going for? Perhaps we can all figure out the look you're trying to get.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

But even after all that, it is still close - but no cigar. The motion still seems too fast - it is more fluent, but still not quite right. Maybe I'm chasing ghosts here...

For me, rather than worrying about 'motion artifacts' and differences between 24 and 30 fps... I'd suggest studying 'lighting'. You shot has a couple of issues for me...
1) the yellowishness of tungsten.
2) 2-D lighting.
3) camera position.

The latter two really can 'set the shot' apart from 'ordinary' to 'filmic'...

 

[drcircuit]

The video of my son is color corrected using a filter to make it look like film - the raw footage is actually pretty well white balanced, there are no tungsten lights, this is just available daylight from the windows in my living room.

Here is an example of what I'm trying to get:

If you watch in particular where there are swift movements, they are swift, but they are still fluent and smooth. Where as in my footage, even the slightest movements seem swift and staccato.

I have another clip to show you that I made, but vimeo wouldn't let me upload another in HD this week, but still you get the idea. This is straight from the camera, without any processing. 1080 25p. Lighting setup is a 1 side light, and one backlight, and using the window as the key light. Shutter was a 1/50 in this shot.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The video of my son is color corrected using a filter to make it look like film - the raw footage is actually pretty well white balanced, there are no tungsten lights, this is just available daylight from the windows in my living room.

Hum.... well, I don't know about the 'look like film'... but to me it suggested a white balance issue... what such a filter doesn't do is change the lighting ratios, etc.

As for the 'choppy' motion. I really didn't see it in the kid picture. I'll use the below clip.

I have another clip to show you that I made, but vimeo wouldn't let me upload another in HD this week, but still you get the idea. This is straight from the camera, without any processing. 1080 25p. Lighting setup is a 1 side light, and one backlight, and using the window as the key light. Shutter was a 1/50 in this shot.

There is an effect called 'strobing' which occurs in 'fast motion'. There are rules about how to avoid strobing, and the American Cinematographer's manual has tables dealing with such things as objects, moving, at some distance from the camera, direction, and shutter speeds (aka shutter angles), and what settings to use to avoid or minimize the effect.

One 'rule' is to require a moving object to take 5 seconds to cross a whole screen. In your clip, the talent is moving, as well as the camera, so this ads up to 'lots of motion', which may induce or enhance strobing.

The other issue is 'rolling shutter'. For DSLR's this is due to how the sensor is 'read out' over the 'shutter open time'...

Another effect with camera movement and the 'low end' camera... is artifacts from the encoding to a codec, which may be seen as strange 'macro' block, or strange 'detail' in images if one looks at the clip 'frame by frame'.

While one has to find out under what circumstances these effects happen, or are more noticeable, one does need to adjust one's 'film style' to the limits of the camera and the encoding.

Film film has its own set of artifacts due to shutter speed, etc. But we have grown use to some of them... such as car wheels 'turning backwards' when traveling at certain speeds relative to the camera. So, it's not like film film doesn't have problems, just they have been assimilated...

 

[Gary Huff]

How did you do the move to the close up shoot in that second example? Did you use a zoom lens? If you did, that's one problem because zooms are almost never seen. Instead, they move the entire camera closer to the talent using a dolly move.

 

[DrDave]

The main difference between your vid and TV or Movie vid is lighting. If you are not using good, high CRI lighting, your vid will look dull. Then Color Correction, as mentioned by the posters above. If you aren't using CC you will have various issues. A Canon G10 will give you pretty good vid right out of the cam, BTW. But it and any other cam will benefit from lighting and CC.

 

[drcircuit]

How did you do the move to the close up shoot in that second example? Did you use a zoom lens? If you did, that's one problem because zooms are almost never seen. Instead, they move the entire camera closer to the talent using a dolly move.

The lens in that shot is the 20mm 1.7 so I filmed in 1080P and did a sort of fake dolly move with ny tripod, then I continued the move with reframing and scaling in post because the target media for this project is 720p.

I am very keen on learning more about camera moves, actors moves and strobing, any suggestions on where I might start?

 

[dvbrother]

I think your lighting of the window shot is not bad at all. Lighting issues aside, I think the motion difference in the clip of the woman at the window is shutter speed. I'm determining this by the lack of motion blur on her hand when it moves. By my own eye, it looks like that shot has a shutter speed of 1/100th or 1/125th. Are you sure the camera is on 1/50th shutter?

On the camera's dial, are you on the icon that looks like a movie camera? Is your exposure mode set to M? It should be. Not S, P, or A.

P.S. The post-zoom doesn't help matters as it looks electronic and not optical like a real zoom would look. Real zooms cause motion blur, too if they are fast enough.

 

[DPStewart]

Hey Stewart, I'd like to see footage with that filter used on it. Sounds like it doesn't make it look too soft or out of focus from reading about it. Do you or Kholi have a link for that?

Kdawg,
I just shot a Butoh dance performance on Saturday with the 20mm pancake and the Black Diffusion 3 filter. The venue background was ugly as hell but I can tell I'm going to be using this filter almost all the time. The softening is minimal and very natural looking - very uniform. There is a very slight misting effect around light bulbs that get in the shot, but not enough to generate the "halos" seen with strong diffusion, diffusion "special effects", or "misting" filters.
I'll try to get a clip up soon - the director's cutting it. Also I was the 4th camera on the shoot and he intentionally had me underexpose a bit to get a noisier look to exploit in post. I'm just north of the Art's district. This was from an event over on Grand downtown.

 

[DPStewart]

The video of my son is color corrected using a filter to make it look like film - the raw footage is actually pretty well white balanced, there are no tungsten lights, this is just available daylight from the windows in my living room.

Here is an example of what I'm trying to get:

If you watch in particular where there are swift movements, they are swift, but they are still fluent and smooth. Where as in my footage, even the slightest movements seem swift and staccato.

I have another clip to show you that I made, but vimeo wouldn't let me upload another in HD this week, but still you get the idea. This is straight from the camera, without any processing. 1080 25p. Lighting setup is a 1 side light, and one backlight, and using the window as the key light. Shutter was a 1/50 in this shot.

Dude - I'm with you.
I can't find the right words to describe it either, but I agree with your conclusions.
I'll concede that some of the effect is lighting and simply employing slower movements...but NOT all of it.
There have been sensitive-eye types who have said they never liked the motion quality of the LUMIX and ultimately they gave up on it. THey swore it wasn't a DSLR thing but a LUMIX specific issue.

Suggestion: since you seem pretty sharp with your tests thus far - would you try setting your shutter speed to 40 instead of 50? Nothing to lose and I would be VERY interested to hear your opinion on your results.

Also- are you using a GOP-1 hack? Pure INTRA can only help.

~DPS

 

[John Caballero]

1- News, talk shows, reality shows= Interlaced video
2- TV series, movies= Progressive Digital video or better yet, REAL FILM.

Of course they look different. That is the point of different formats for different needs.

Another thing to understand is that all the stuff you see on t.v. is done with tons of top of the line professional grade equipment by top professionals. And it has to look perfect, otherwise you won't see it on any of the networks.

 

[drcircuit]

Dude - I'm with you.
I can't find the right words to describe it either, but I agree with your conclusions.
I'll concede that some of the effect is lighting and simply employing slower movements...but NOT all of it.
There have been sensitive-eye types who have said they never liked the motion quality of the LUMIX and ultimately they gave up on it. THey swore it wasn't a DSLR thing but a LUMIX specific issue.

Suggestion: since you seem pretty sharp with your tests thus far - would you try setting your shutter speed to 40 instead of 50? Nothing to lose and I would be VERY interested to hear your opinion on your results.

Also- are you using a GOP-1 hack? Pure INTRA can only help.

~DPS

GOP 1? I wasn't aware that it was possible. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the AVCHD codec?

 

[drcircuit]

1- News, talk shows, reality shows= Interlaced video
2- TV series, movies= Progressive Digital video or better yet, REAL FILM.

Of course they look different. That is the point of different formats for different needs.

Another thing to understand is that all the stuff you see on t.v. is done with tons of top of the line professional grade equipment by top professionals. And it has to look perfect, otherwise you won't see it on any of the networks.

Of course I understand that a network with incredible competent professional people with a bajillion resources will get a top notch look. I am a mere amateur trying to learn, so I do not expect my attempts to look like a million bucks. But I want to somewhat the same feel and flow of motion, not lighting, hair, makeup, actors, and so on, but the motion quality.

Check this footage out, it is filmed with a RED, a 5d2 and a GH1:

Look at how different the motion in the image is - in particular on the roof scene. It can't just be the $14k lens?

 

[drcircuit]

Another example of the motion quality I am after

 

[Gary Huff]

The lens in that shot is the 20mm 1.7 so I filmed in 1080P and did a sort of fake dolly move with ny tripod, then I continued the move with reframing and scaling in post because the target media for this project is 720p.

That right there makes your test unworkable for those of us trying to help you out with your motion issues. Next time when you say the footage is unprocessed, it shouldn't include this kind of post work.