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

nomad said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was a bit unclear. I didn't mean to say that AVCHD itself is 5 times better than HDV, but that bit for bit the encoding method is, but because they don't operate at the same bit rate, this is not the case. AVCHD also has the advantage of being able to encode with variable bit rates, as opposed to fixed, so it doesn't have the motion problems that HDV does. It still remains to be scene how well the GH1 will fit your needs, because in spite of its superiority to HDV, that still doesn't mean that it will give you images acceptable for a professional product.
 
Some of the problems with these H264 DSLR cameras are color and lack of oversampling, so that you have zero headroom for reframing or motion stabe. I believe these are 4:2:0 color, which gets killed by RAW.

Once you are used to shooting RAW with significant oversampling, it's tough to shoot with locked down exposure, color and framing.

Not to mention that these DSLRs lack overcranking, which is vital for many of us.
 
Here's some pics of the older G1 at different ISO. I read that the GH1 is suppose to be better in low light, but this does not look hopeful. http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/12/panasonic-g1-nikon-d700-iso-shootout.html

The Scarlet 2/3" uses photosites that are one-third the size of the photosites in the RED ONE. (Photosites on the RED ONE are .0054mm, photosites on the Scarlet 2/3" are 0.003mm. Square these and the RED ONE photosites have 3x's the area.)

I don't know the relationship to photosite size and low light sensitivity, but I hope the Scarlet 2/3" shows less grain at medium ISOs than the G1 did.
 
For me there's absolutely no question. I'm sick of shooting in low quality, highly compressed codecs. I'm tired of not being to shoot at frame rates any higher than 30p. I want to be able to reframe or downscale an image to reach my output format. I will want to upgrade my camera in the future, and I want my accessories to work with the new one.

The GH1 could be a fairly good camera, and will fill some people's needs. But I'm pumped about Scarlet, since not only is it going to be an awesome camera, it's very affordable for me...
 
It's coming to a point where I have to consider which way my savings go right now.
Im a director and photographer by trade.

I can buy a complete 2/3rd package for under $4K however the 5mp stills wont cut it. Fair enough. 3K RAW and 120fps are fantastic options. I have my DSLR, viewfinder 35mm and Lomo Medium Format cameras for stills.

However...

I have alot of Nikon glass, I want to take stills and video in one small camera and the S35 Scarlet seems to be the first out the gate and it has larger pixels for better DR. Caveat emptor: the brain alone costs $7K.

I just watched Phillip Bloom's GH1 footage HERE and I like what I see FOV and DOF wise.

To be honest in alot of circumstances, Im fine with shooting at the longer end of the lens to cheat the shallow DOF look. My one question is: how similar is the FOV and DOF between the micro 3/4's sensor and the 2/3 Mysterium-X if I were to compare them with the same lens?
 
It is my understanding that if you shot wide open at f2.8 the whole time and were able to zoom in a little bit you might have enough for most shallow DOF appetites. Though the crazy shallow stuff will only happen at the long end.

Being a director and photographer: if you already have a still camera I'd stick to Scarlet 2/3 but if you need it to do both, then it sounds like you might have to go with the GH1 and be happy with it.
 
Thanks for the quick reply Roberto.
Im not even considering buying the GH1. Scarlet all the way. I was just wondering if the sensors were of a similar size so that I could learn about what to expect from 2/3 by getting my hands on a GH1 temporarily.

The S35 model is still very tempting. If we include extenders my lens collection's total focal range goes from 10mm to 1000mm: that's a versatility I would very much like to exploit with the Scarlet. I simply cannot aford to buy a prime set, not even with crazy Jannard's low-low prices. Well, not at the moment any how.

Still havent heard about the mini prime pricing yet so 2/3 cinema may be he way to go.

In a perfect world i'd have the Epic 645 and shoot video and stills on nothing else...
C'est la vie.
 
Eren Ozkural said:
My one question is: how similar is the FOV and DOF between the micro 3/4's sensor and the 2/3 Mysterium-X if I were to compare them with the same lens?
Click to expand...

The 4/3 is larger, I'd peg it at about a 1.5 crop factor, but don't quote me on that, I don't have the exact sizes in front of me.

And regarding s35 vs 4/3, super 35 has a 28 mm diagonal and 4/3 has a 21mm diagonal, and 4/3 has a 4:3 aspect ratio versus s35's 2:1, so the crop factor is even more significant when shooting at cinematic aspect ratios.
 
4/3rds is smaller than S35, 18mm wide sensor, exactly half of FF35, vs 24mm or so for S35 Red One or 30mm wide for Scarlet/Epic S35. It is twice as big as 2/3" though. I would still love to see a 4/3rds lens mount for 2/3" or S35 Scarlet. The lenses are telecentric designs specifically for digital sensors and Olympus makes a premium lens series with F2 speeds. 4/3rd lenses should cover 3k on S35.
 
Is it just me or are this youtube samples of the GH1 all off-focus? Seems like a big task judging focus with it. I suddenly realise the advantage of 2/3.
 
Luke Stewart said:
AVCHD vs. RAW... No comparison.

17mb/s Data rate vs. REDCODE 42...No comparison.
Click to expand...

Sorry for correcting, the GH have 24mbits.
I think the HV30 would be a better choice (25mbits).
But you are right Luke.....No comparison
 
All I can say is 4/3

All I can say is 4/3

I hope there is a 4/3 scarlet in the offing.
 
Deniz Dikmen said:
Sorry for correcting, the GH have 24mbits.
I think the HV30 would be a better choice (25mbits).
But you are right Luke.....No comparison
Click to expand...

I am actually about to buy a HV30 or 40 (our old camcorder broke) but I'd rather 24Mb/s H.264 over 25Mb/s MPEG-2 any day...

brainburst said:
I hope there is a 4/3 scarlet in the offing.
Click to expand...

Why? s35 is just a little bit bigger... Having a 4/3 Scarlet would be redundant...
 
boils down to the specific story / application / task you will need the tool for.

there are good things about all tools (cameras)... you might find a cheap Pier One china latern next to a industrial strength 18k on some film sets...

the Canon mkII... has insanely great low light capabilities and with some post tweaking/workflow voodoo, you can get 24p visuals

the GH1... 1080 24p, AFFORDABLE as all get out...

RED/Scarlet... I don't even have to list why those kick booty.

what I'm getting at is that we're living in an EXCITING time to be filmmaker, DP, visual story teller..... be thankful.... don't be a spoiled kid who whines no matter how big and shiny the toy mommy buys

it was only a few short years ago that the DVX100 / XL1 were the only options for the independent filmmaker, so keep that in perspective

and not to go way off the deep end but look at an artist like william blake... he scrawled his epics with ink and paper... story / vision = trumps resolution, DOF, data rates, etc...

ok let me have it :couch:
 
John Caballero said:
No it doesn't. 17mbits.
Click to expand...

What gets me about the GH1 is that Panasonic used such a low bit rate, and added a telecine to the 24P. It appears that this is for marketing reasons, so people still have a reason to buy their HMC150 (which records at 21mb/s and native 24p), for an extra $2500 and 2 lbs.

I would hope that the Scarlet forces the other manufactures to cut out this kind of thing out by next year.

Got a question for the people here...

Do video pro's care about low light performance? (I'm just a humble hobbyist). It seems that on a DSLR, one of the first things you ask is, "How high an ISO can you use before you start seeing too much grain?" But not so with video cameras -- low light performance seems to be more of an after thought.

For example, the RED Scarlet 2/3" will have photosites that are about a third the size of the RED One's. The photosites of the GH1 are actually a little bigger than that of the Scarlet 2/3". The photosites of the GH1 could have been quite a bit bigger if they had simply used less of them, but what photographer would buy a 6-8 megapixel camera? I don't think the relationship between photosite size and low light performance is linear, but the I doubt the Scarlet is going to be any Canon 5D Mk. II.

I hate AVCHD as much as the next guy. But I would gladly tolerate it if the camera were as light as the GH1, with an equally large sensor, native 24P, and had low light performance that equals the 5D Mk. II. Anyone else?
 
From the footage available so far the GH1's low light performance is very good. ISO800 looked very clean and even at 1600 it's still pretty decent.

Here's footage shot at iso1600.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrHsNreo6HE

If you click on more info you can download the original file. Very clean footage and I can't wait to shoot with this camera.

I'm not sure why they added the telecine to 24P, well, my best guess is that it's for the consumers plugging the GH1 into their televisions to screen footage. It's too bad you can't shoot native 24P, but perhaps they'll fix that issue on a firmware update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top