Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Olympus Micro Four Thirds (
-   -   This is why I keep saying video too bad (

sdcs Sep 2, 2010 3:35 AM

This is why I keep saying video too bad
2 Attachment(s)
See how bold the trees become in the video!

cshanaberger Sep 2, 2010 7:06 AM

Although I personally do not have to much video experience, the picture before your video capture indicates a very harsh contrast to begin with.
Video ,even high definition, records tremendously less information per frame than stills. a lot more light modifiers are required to make video look good.
Tiffen makes a high contrast reducing filter that I know is popular with video shooters, you may want to check it out.

sdcs Sep 3, 2010 1:25 AM

I have no complain when shoot within 10 feet or so. Beyond that, my $100 Kodak Zi8 does a much better job. Yes, no kidding, Zi8's video clarity really matches the first photo above, just the color and texture are not so great. But I do want to use EPL1 for video for its optical IS and zoom, and of course theoretically superior IQ.

Currently there is no good portable solution for HD video. The Sony Nex-6 does fantastic 1080p, but I really don't want to buy anything Sony. The new Panasonic MFT does 1080p too, but way too pricey. The sensors in $500 camcorders are all too small. I'm very happy with the Zi8, but no way to add optical zoom to it. This EPL1 was my only hope, especially after watching the youtube commercial, but so far I'm not satisfied beyond 10 feet.

If you guys watch the PEN commercial again, note that most scenes are indeed within the 10 feet or so range. Try compare it and all you can find samples to those of NEX-6, there is simply no comparison. But again, I do prefer EPL1's color.

cshanaberger Sep 3, 2010 9:28 AM

You are right about the commercial but you have to remember they can very easily control the light on the subject with light modifiers within 10 ft. your not seeing them in the frame even though it was shot with an epl-1 it probaly had a huge staff to make it look that good.
the newer lenses are supposed to be better at shooting video but again I have no real experience with video but I suspect its like stills in that you have to be able to understand how light affects your subjects.

Greg Chappell Sep 3, 2010 10:39 AM

I know absolutely zip about video, but that second image looks compressed to hell and is a very good example of why it's not a good idea to plan on pulling individual stills from video with these cameras.

sdcs Sep 3, 2010 12:03 PM

H.264 codec (used in NEX-6 etc.) does not have such issues of the motion-jpeg codec used in PEN and you can get usable stills from captured video. Yes, it is that good.

I really wish the next generation PEN use H.264. M-JPEG allows for the same art filters for both still and video, but there is no point to add art filters to garbage video. It does save cost though because no hardware required for adding video feature, all done in software. However, if a $100 camcodrer can do excellent H.264, cost should not be a big deal.

I heard that the color of Zi8 was tuned by the same Kodak guys who tuned PEN. No wonder the Zi8 is the only pocket camcorder I can accept in terms of IQ.

sdcs Sep 3, 2010 1:08 PM

Although the commercial was shot with a PEN, but absolutely not with the 14-42 kit lens that the one on the girl's hand may suggest. If you watch another youtube about how the commercial was made, you'll see HUGE lenses mounted on the shooting PEN!!!

At this moment, I don't want to buy a $$$ lens just to find out the video quality is still not I expected. This kit lens might be too crappy to get decent video, but how can a lens retailed for $300 cannot even match the quality of a $100 camcorder? Therefore I still think it is the M-JPEG, not much to do with lenses.

I may buy a cheap lens adapter on ebay for $20 or so and try a good full frame lens before I waste money on an expensive and hard to re-sell MFT one.

shoturtle Sep 3, 2010 4:39 PM

I would go with a decent 1080P HD camcorder. I still find that it does a better job then my t1i or epl-1 for video imho.

But I would not buy a 300 dollar m4/3 lens for the video. I would buy a lens for photos. But I honestly do not think an adapter and FF lens will work as well as a dedicated camcorder.

sdcs Sep 4, 2010 12:31 PM

The problem is all 1080P cameras including NEX-5 and GH1 cannot produce the Hollywood alike movie; EPL1 already does, just the clarity is DVD class, not Bluray class. As EPL1 has the same sensor as the one in GH1, it should be able to do Bluray grade, all needed is to drop m-jpeg. Olympus has a gold mine, but they don't dig it.

Camcorders are out of question for their small sensors that cannot produce shallow DOF, no need to mention their color.

shoturtle Sep 4, 2010 1:47 PM

The nex camcorder or m4/3 one looks impressive.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:10 AM.