Panasonic DMC-GH1 - Debut

Most of the wildlife documentries the BBC was famous for in the 60's and 70's were shot on 16mm film and had great broadcast quality. The Canon ties your hands in so many ways that the Panasonic does not, like auto focus and metering.

For a stock photographer who is into stills and video it could be a very creative tool, especially when traveling.

Yeah it is great, I suggested to Bryan to get it. Red one is 16mm and its great too.

For me personally though, im comfortable with the workarounds of the 5d.

I'm holding out for a 60fps, 1080p without avchd compression. :-P. Then I am also gonna get my flux capacitor installed into my accord.

There is nothing wrong with avchd compression, its the same compression used for blueray. AVCHD uses a combination of inter and intra framing methods, and it varies based on the complexity of the scene. I shot one clip with the 5d that was practically uncompressed:
https://www.pond5.com/it/stock-footage/345124
(thats why its so big)


Pros don't use uncompressed footage, because they cant deal with the work flow. The file sizes are too big... and they can't deliver on time. Pond5 only sells compressed footage, so does istock, shutterstock etc.
Think about it....
For the most part the people who say uncompressed footage is good don't do this for their day job. Ask someone who actually produces stuff, and they will tell you compressed footage is better because the quality loss is minimal, and the file sizes are doable.

I'm thinking AVCHD with H.264 will be industry standards in time for web delivery of stock footage and broadcast standards in the U.S

I agree video compression from a camera is no big deal.........

Good points Mark. I guess when you pay that much money you want to be sure you get something that doesn't go out of style in a few weeks after purchase. There is always a debate of compression and MB/s, I guess if no one can tell the difference then why would it ever matter

I have seen lots of new cameras and everybody gets excited by the "image quality". But most of people miss an important aspect, the most one for video cams: motion artifacts. Have you ever seen a 100% crop of a fast moving subject shot with your most desirable camera? While I was excited by Sony's Z5 I went around internet and found lots of charming, cool, exciting video clips shot with Z5 but all of them where mostly static shots, with very or not at all motion. How could one judge a video camera image quality only by static or almost static subjects?

After a long research I came to the following conclusions:
- neither 5D nor other DSLR is worth investing in for its video.
- HDV codec is a crap meant for consumer level. Hence: all cameras using the HDV codec are simply consumer cameras, no matter their price.
- At this time, CMOS is not the best solution for video. Video means first of all motion, and CMOS has serious problems with motion (I read an EX3 owner post complaining on the quality of image shot with that camera). CMOS is the cheapest workaround for a camera producer, not the best for the buyer.

After all this post: shoot me!

Cheap crap HDV camera goes Hollywood......

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7771/tcid/1


Consider yourself shot...... :-)
Jake

Interesting to see that a high action flick with lots of extreme motion is being shot this way. I have seen the previews - look pretty darn good.

Sure does, for a consumer camera that is...

Love this excerpt from his interview:

“We love red cameras, we’re going to shoot with them again, but it’s like shooting a 35mm film and you need a ton of AC’s and it takes a lot of time for set up,” admits Mark Neveldine. “With the cameras we’re using we literally can point and shoot and we have the same image quality that we had on Crank 1.”