Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Scarlet vs GH1

I'm curious about how the sensor is doing the reading and how much of a rolling shutter problem it will have.

And checking the Panasonic website I could see that most of the 4/3" lenses have a maximum aperture of F4.
 
Impagliazzo said:
I'm curious about how the sensor is doing the reading and how much of a rolling shutter problem it will have.

And checking the Panasonic website I could see that most of the 4/3" lenses have a maximum aperture of F4.
Click to expand...

Take a look here http://www.vimeo.com/groups/12592/videos regarding the rolling shutter. It's not that bad. Looks better than the D90 ;-)

George
 
Impagliazzo said:
I'm curious about how the sensor is doing the reading and how much of a rolling shutter problem it will have.

And checking the Panasonic website I could see that most of the 4/3" lenses have a maximum aperture of F4.
Click to expand...

Olympus makes a series of premium quality F2 lenses for 4/3rds. These can be used with an adpator on micro 4/3rds with full electronic controls for most.
 
Isaac Brody said:
The GH1 will be available in less than a month (Being released in Japan on April 24th, expect models to pop up on ebay soon after), while the Scarlet has an unknown release date. Winner: GH1
Click to expand...
Getting a product to market first doesn't necessarily count for a win IMO. Look at the D90.
Isaac Brody said:
The GH1 price will be much more competitive in this economy and at 1500 not only does it come with a lens but you can buy an adaptor to use your photo lenses. The cheapest working ready to shoot Scarlet model is the 2/3 fixed lens model which costs $3750. Winner: GH1
Click to expand...

That is a sweet price for sure, but the standard lens is slow. With Scarlet you get XLR inputs. I know lenses and a field recorder might not add up to $2250 (or they might) but you see where I'm going with this.

Personally, I think the 5DMkII will be a much better camera for shooting video, based on the sensor size and the data rate, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we still have to wait to see how they taste.
Isaac Brody said:
It would be nice to have Scarlet soon. If we have to wait until fall we might as well all carve giant A's into our chests... :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
The giant A's thing went right over my head.
 
The GH-1 may well shoot better video than the Canon because Panny is not sub-sampling the sensor and it is a new sensor developed with video specifically in mind. Data rate is not everything. I have not been that impressed with the quality of Canon's video encoding.
 
Luke Stewart said:
That is a sweet price for sure, but the standard lens is slow. With Scarlet you get XLR inputs. I know lenses and a field recorder might not add up to $2250 (or they might) but you see where I'm going with this.

Personally, I think the 5DMkII will be a much better camera for shooting video, based on the sensor size and the data rate, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we still have to wait to see how they taste.
Click to expand...
I agree the lens is slow... but It is one hell of a lens other wise... 14-140.. so basically like 28-280mm (in 35 terms) Gives a nice range.. all you need is a few primes to fill in the wholes for when you need a faster lens... plus the silent AF is a nice feature... also a 3.5mm->xlr is like $30, and depending on some unreleased specs that might be all you need (depending on if you can control the levels on camera)

While I haven't shot extensively on the 5DMkII, my brief experience tells me that I don't think I'd want to. while the images *can* look great... there are just too many work around and short coming to make me the least bit interested in shooting anything substantial on it.

This thread has given me some good insight... I think I might pick this camera up when it gets release. Then depending where my finances when scarlet comes out.. sell the GH-1 and pick up a new toy... I wonder how the resale value would be??
 
Tanner Field said:
also a 3.5mm->xlr is like $30, and depending on some unreleased specs that might be all you need (depending on if you can control the levels on camera)
Click to expand...

Yes, but the onboard audio will almost certainly be laughably inadequate for anything professional. You'd almost certainly need an offboard mic preamp/recorder and use a clapboard to record any usable audio on site.
 
If you are not aware of the advantages of REDCode over AVCHD in post, then you should get the GH1, and be happy. AVCHD is a consumer format, with a pathetic colourspace and major compression artifacting.

If you are interested in making videos for youtube and your friends the the GH1 is ideal, and will no doubt take some nice stills to boot.

If you are serious about filmaking, or broadcast video or quality, you would wait to appraise Scarlet.

I'm not a RED fanboy, but I am someone who works with RED footage. As such, I simply cannot understand how you can make a comparison between a future REDcode product and an AVCHD one (and I own an AVCHD camera). Lenses and sensor sizes are irrelevent, as with the 5D, when the output is so badly compressed.
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
Yes, but the onboard audio will almost certainly be laughably inadequate for anything professional. You'd almost certainly need an offboard mic preamp/recorder and use a clapboard to record any usable audio on site.
Click to expand...

To some extent, as a Soundie, I could say the same thing about the Scarlet or just about any camera I have ever worked with. I wouldn't necessarily discount the Panasonic's audio input until it is actually tested. Having an XLR connector or not is not the ultimate determining factor of a device's audio fidelity. It is important to have an XLR connector somewhere in the signal chain, and for me, that is in an external mixer or preamp at the least, such as a Sound Devices 302 (mixer) or Sound Devices MP-1 (preamp). If the camera itself has an XLR, that is great, but unbalanced audio can have very good fidelity too... ultimately the best designs will be better balanced, but for constrained designs, which most cameras are, unbalanced is perfectly acceptable. Because the interconnect between the preamp and camera will only be a couple of inches or yards at most, the cable run is relatively short and therefore a balanced cable's benefit of driving long cables with minimal signal loss or induced RFI are not so critical. If the Panasonic has a very good straight up unbalanced stereo audio input, I'd say it is a successful audio design, regardless of a professional connection or not.

That being said, I'm buying a GH-1, assuming that it performs within expectations, as it will be here first and I do actually need a still camera. I don't really think this impacts my decision to purchase a Scarlet. I feel that these are two different products aimed, potentially, at the same person. I can take the GH-1 places where I couldn't take a Scarlet. Assuming that the Scarlet performs up to its expectations, I don't delude myself into thinking that a GH-1 can match Scarlet's performance, so in those instances where I'm doing things and they aren't just for fun, family archival, or web delivery, the GH-1 would have to be put away for the better tool. If for some reason I don't have that better tool available to me, such as not being able to afford it, I'm confident that I can get the GH-1 to perform adequately, but I will know that there is room for improvement.

(Some day in the future, you might see this crazy guy with a Nagra VI over the shoulder with a GH-1 in his hands, and you will know it is me)
 
Ben Holmes said:
...AVCHD is a consumer format, with a pathetic colourspace and major compression artifacting...
Lenses and sensor sizes are irrelevent, as with the 5D, when the output is so badly compressed.
Click to expand...

I'm also looking for my first prosumer camcorder.

I wonder how long until something like an upgraded version of GH1 starts using AVC-Intra. With Sandisk introducing cheap solid state laptop hard drives that write at 200MB/sec, we we know the technology is there to cheaply record to a 10 bit, intraframe compression format, such as the 100Mb/sec AVC-Intra. Panasonic could use a slightly bigger body (a little like the JVC HM100U), with the micro 4/3 thing (17mm wide sensor), and still keep the camera and lens under 3 pounds.

Perhaps that WOULD be worth comparing to the the RED Scarlet...

Pardon the tangent. If I'm too off topic, please kindly disregard this post.:unsure:
 
Ben Holmes said:
If you are not aware of the advantages of REDCode over AVCHD in post, then you should get the GH1, and be happy. AVCHD is a consumer format, with a pathetic colourspace and major compression artifacting.

If you are interested in making videos for youtube and your friends the the GH1 is ideal, and will no doubt take some nice stills to boot.

If you are serious about filmaking, or broadcast video or quality, you would wait to appraise Scarlet.

I'm not a RED fanboy, but I am someone who works with RED footage. As such, I simply cannot understand how you can make a comparison between a future REDcode product and an AVCHD one (and I own an AVCHD camera). Lenses and sensor sizes are irrelevent, as with the 5D, when the output is so badly compressed.
Click to expand...

One Question in my mind, maybe you can help.
Is the Compression of the Footage better or worse than HDV? Or is it basically the same?

Oy cause you can't compare AVCHD wit Redcode, but you also cant compare film to Redcode, and we do this since years ;-) But I get what you're saying.

George
 
Chris Davis said:
I'm also looking for my first prosumer camcorder.

I wonder how long until something like an upgraded version of GH1 starts using AVC-Intra. With Sandisk introducing cheap solid state laptop hard drives that write at 200MB/sec, we we know the technology is there to cheaply record to a 10 bit, intraframe compression format, such as the 100Mb/sec AVC-Intra. Panasonic could use a slightly bigger body (a little like the JVC HM100U), with the micro 4/3 thing (17mm wide sensor), and still keep the camera and lens under 3 pounds.

Perhaps that WOULD be worth comparing to the the RED Scarlet...

Pardon the tangent. If I'm too off topic, please kindly disregard this post.:unsure:
Click to expand...

SSD speed isn't the limiting factor here, but the lackc of a high quality consumer accesible codec. A high bitrate/ low compression codec could be easily implemented on camera, but there is not widespread standard for such a codec, and so we get crap like AVCHD.
 
GPSchnyder said:
One Question in my mind, maybe you can help.
Is the Compression of the Footage better or worse than HDV? Or is it basically the same?

Oy cause you can't compare AVCHD wit Redcode, but you also cant compare film to Redcode, and we do this since years ;-) But I get what you're saying.

George
Click to expand...


Substantially better. HDV compression is based on MPEG-2, while AVCHD is based on MPEG-4 part 10, which has nearly 10 more years of development behind it and a near 5-fold increase in quality at the same bitrate.
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
Substantially better. HDV compression is based on MPEG-2, while AVCHD is based on MPEG-4 part 10, which has nearly 10 more years of development behind it and a near 5-fold increase in quality at the same bitrate.
Click to expand...

Then it's good enough for the Things I want to use it for :-) Thanks
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
… while AVCHD is based on MPEG-4 part 10, which has nearly 10 more years of development behind it and a near 5-fold increase in quality at the same bitrate.
Click to expand...

I've been looking at hundres of clips shot in both HDV and AVCHD, and while H.264 is considerably better than MPEG-2, I'd rather say it's at max a threefold improvement in quality and/or the size needed.
 
Depends how you look at it. If you have a crappy de-compressor, all formats look like crap. ..and quicktime is always the best choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top