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

What really sucks about the GH1 here in Europe is that there is 1080 25p and 720 in 25p and 50p. Would really like to have 1080 24p (but thats not the Problem) and 720 30p (for minimal slomo) plus 60p (for a bigger slomo).
The hardest thing is the 30p. I really like the Idea to have scenes with that gentle slomo recorded in cam.

If someone in the US wants the 25p/50p Thing as hard as I want the 30p /60p thing maybe we could swap that thing ;-)
 
Isaac Brody said:
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.
Click to expand...

Holy CRAP!

Could this mean that we are in for a treat with DSMC? I mean that YouTube of the 1600ISO looks SO clean.
 
It is truly hard for me to believe that we are comparing the Scarlet to the GH-1. I have the Nikon d90, and the GH-1 may represent some improvement there (though the best d90 footage is quite filmic), but I am biding my time till Scarlet is released. Scarlet will have 3K resolution, a much wider DR, and MUCH better 'compression'/color space with its RAW codec.

The Scarlet (35mm frame size) will blast the d90/GH-1/5DMkii out of the competition in terms of quality. Price is the only downside, but I am hoping that as Nikon and Canon chip away at the 35mm imager market there will be some downward price movement in the Scarlet brains.
 
Robert Altman said:
The Scarlet (35mm frame size) will blast the d90/GH-1/5DMkii out of the competition in terms of quality.
Click to expand...

Yes, but only when it's available. :beer:

And I'm hoping that when it's available it's produced in such quantity that I'm not waiting in line after the first 5000 Red One users. If it's delivered based on Red One numbers then I can envision having to wait another six months before I have a Scarlet in my hands.
 
Robert Altman said:
:violent:
The Scarlet (35mm frame size) will blast the d90/GH-1/5DMkii out of the competition in terms of quality. Price is the only downside, but I am hoping that as Nikon and Canon chip away at the 35mm imager market there will be some downward price movement in the Scarlet brains.
Click to expand...

That's comparing a $1500 Ready to shoot camera to a well over $10,000 ready to shoot camera... it sure as hell better blast the GH1 out of the water!
 
Tanner Field said:
That's comparing a $1500 Ready to shoot camera to a well over $10,000 ready to shoot camera... it sure as hell better blast the GH1 out of the water!
Click to expand...

My point was simply that it makes more sense to compare the GH-1 to the Nikon d90 (@$850) and the Canon 5D MKII (@$2500) than the Scarlet in terms of what it is providing in terms of quality.
 
These hybrid still\video cameras (or whatever they may be) aren't my cup of tea. A couple of weeks ago I tested the new Canon 5D and was hugely disappointed - no manual controls, you can only use the lcd and, c'mon, how can you seriously take the H264 as the compression for your footage masters? :(Considering post-production work, it wouldn't be suitable even for a web-project. Obviously, the "movie feature" is just a nice and funny extra add, not the main reason to purchase the camera itself (which shoots pretty good stills btw - that's the reason to buy it, even though I know some fellas who bought it only for the video option!:yikes:).

The GH1 is a lil step further, but, again, it's AVCHD, which is pretty much an enhanced H264 codec - no way man!

At the moment, I am sticking to my EX1 and waiting to see what the Scarlet can offer.
 
Hardware said:
These hybrid still\video cameras (or whatever they may be) aren't my cup of tea. A couple of weeks ago I tested the new Canon 5D and was hugely disappointed - no manual controls, you can only use the lcd and, c'mon, how can you seriously take the H264 as the compression for your footage masters? :(Considering post-production work, it wouldn't be suitable even for a web-project. Obviously, the "movie feature" is just a nice and funny extra add, not the main reason to purchase the camera itself (which shoots pretty good stills btw - that's the reason to buy it, even though I know some fellas who bought it only for the video option!:yikes:).

The GH1 is a lil step further, but, again, it's AVCHD, which is pretty much an enhanced H264 codec - no way man!

At the moment, I am sticking to my EX1 and waiting to see what the Scarlet can offer.
Click to expand...

I am using a Nikon d90 as a supplement to my Sony V1--but I bought it with the understanding that I was basically buying an excellent still camera (which I needed anyway). In the mean time, I am developing a collection of Nikon primes, along with rods/mattebox/follow-focus that will all travel with me as I purchase a Scarlet (or an improved Nikon etc.) in the next year or so. For less than the cost of a 35mm adapter I have been getting some very good shallow DOF shots in the while I await a truly high quality 35mm size imager.
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/04/30/panasonic-lumix-gh1-first-impressions-and-first-footage/

The video's looking pretty damn good. Low-light is okay, but Vimeo is still pretty limiting as far as a critical annalysis of the video goes.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that footage looked awful to me. If you're logged into Vimeo, you can download the full 1920x1080p Mp4. I thought it was very bad at 1080p. :(

I couldn't seem to download the one with the dog. Can someone post a working link? It seems to be corrupted or something.
 
Its so awful that he's got 25K hits on his Vimeo page and engadget is promoting it in their site. So far the reaction to the camera is promising. We'll wait until it arrives in our shores and make a final judgement when we have it in our hands.
 
I'm sorry, but that footage looked awful to me. If you're logged into Vimeo, you can download the full 1920x1080p Mp4. I thought it was very bad at 1080p.

I couldn't seem to download the one with the dog. Can someone post a working link? It seems to be corrupted or something.
Click to expand...

Tom, this clip was shot with the camera straight out of the box, I don't think he had spent any time with the camera before that. However, I was quite surprised given this fact it held up as well as it did. The slow mo shots from Hawaii looked pretty good to me, considering this is a small prosumer cam.

Going on what was said earlier in the thread, I'd also like to see a Four Thirds mount for the Scarlet. I think it would be a smart move, given there were enough people requesting it.

Adrian
 
Years ago in the recording industry there was MUCH controversy about size of each track on two inch recording tape. 16 track got you a wider individual track but the appeal of having eight more tracks was undeniable. I remember an engineer at the time saying that all he knew is that the best sounding tracks he had ever heard in his life had been done two inch 24 track. In other words: the smaller track size was good enough. Good enough to be great. Guess what? The size of the GH1 sensor (almost as big as the red one) is good enough to be great. True, it would be better if you could take the signal live uncompressed out of the HDMI port. And it would be better if that signal were 2K. Because 2K of course is the transfer rate of some of the best looking films of the last few years. But somebody soon will offer that. Probably at around the same price as the GH1. Then we'd better do some fast thinking on what it is to be great because our tools will be good enough.
 
To me, the footage looked soft, the compression looked bad in a lot of places, it was dark, the DR was quite bad, etc. Have you guys pixel-peeped the 1080p video, or are you going off the downresed Vimeo video? What percentage of those 25,000 views actually downloaded the clip and looked at it pixel for pixel?

If your goal is SD or 720p, then sure, this camera might work. But if your goal is a 1080 finish, maybe not.
 
Billy Barber said:
Years ago in the recording industry there was MUCH controversy about size of each track on two inch recording tape. 16 track got you a wider individual track but the appeal of having eight more tracks was undeniable. I remember an engineer at the time saying that all he knew is that the best sounding tracks he had ever heard in his life had been done two inch 24 track. In other words: the smaller track size was good enough. Good enough to be great. Guess what? The size of the GH1 sensor (almost as big as the red one) is good enough to be great. True, it would be better if you could take the signal live uncompressed out of the HDMI port. And it would be better if that signal were 2K. Because 2K of course is the transfer rate of some of the best looking films of the last few years. But somebody soon will offer that. Probably at around the same price as the GH1. Then we'd better do some fast thinking on what it is to be great because our tools will be good enough.
Click to expand...

The best sounding tape decks that I'm aware of are specially modified 2" decks using 8 track heads. 24 tracks at 2" is of course "worse" than even prosumer 2-track 1/4" playback / mastering decks, but your engineer friend is probably right, the best recording he heard were on Studer A8## 24 track machines because that is what professionals were using at the time. Substandard equipment in the hands of competent engineers will win out every time over superior equipment in the hands of novices. Professionals with access to lots of cash, well... they will make products that will even impress their peers, but for general consumption, its probably all about the same.
 
John Caballero said:
Its so awful that he's got 25K hits on his Vimeo page and engadget is promoting it in their site. So far the reaction to the camera is promising. We'll wait until it arrives in our shores and make a final judgement when we have it in our hands.
Click to expand...

Why's it awful? He's the first guy to get his hands on it, so he can do whatever he want with it.
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
Why's it awful? He's the first guy to get his hands on it, so he can do whatever he want with it.
Click to expand...

You should read that as "Its so awful (pause - smirk) that he's got 25K hits on his Vimeo page and engadget is promoting it in their site." John is commenting on Tom's statement that he feels the footage is awful. John chose to use a sardonic reply to express his disagreement, somewhat telling of his passive aggressive nature or perhaps insecurity of his own wit, rather than using Hemmingwayesque plain-speak in his response to Tom :)
 
BTW, I am not dissing the renowned Mr. Bloom nor any other of the shooters. I'm dissing the camera, its compression, and the DR, based on this one video. The dog video looks better, at least on the limited size I can see on youtube.

Can anyone upload the ISO 1600 dog video to sharebee or megauploads or something?
 
Tom said:
BTW, I am not dissing the renowned Mr. Bloom nor any other of the shooters. I'm dissing the camera, its compression, and the DR, based on this one video. The dog video looks better, at least on the limited size I can see on youtube.

Can anyone upload the ISO 1600 dog video to sharebee or megauploads or something?
Click to expand...

As the first person to actually get a GH-1 around here, i'll tell you that Philip Bloom's footage is not an accurate representative of what the camera can do.

He treated it like a consumer would: rip it out of the box and shoot with it.

How's RED footage look when you rip it out of the box and shoot with it, speaking in relatives.

No offense to Philip, great composition and eye, the man had an English manual and didn't even read it. There's several things I see in his footage that could have been corrected just by having a glance at the manual and adjusting color profiles, etc.


I'll tell you right now, pixel count or not, when this camera hits the US and with the knowledge I and Hunter have provided to the community, it may be the first time that people say "this is enough".

The 1080/24P is grotesque, the 720 is downright awesome, and at 1500.00 a pop buying several and lensing them to hell is the kind of option that I bet several successful Filmmakers in the past would have ripped throats to have.

I agree, Scarlet vs Gh-1 on a technical level is just no serious comparison. And it better not be with Scarlet boasting so many dream-worthy features.

But the GH-1 @ 720 is unfukwitably adequate for low budget application.

Just wait til some narrative pops up. You'll see.
 
I didn't even realize that the bitrate on this camera is only 17Mbps. That definitely explains a few of the things I noticed in Bloom's sample.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top