Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 video problem?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Glenn - 18 Mar 2007 12:13 GMT

Hi. I recently purchased the above camera and have been HUGELY
impressed with the image quality for stills. However, part of the
reason for not going true DSLR is that I wanted some video
capabaility. While I never expected anything like 'handycam' quality
video, I have to say that the video produced is very average, to the
point where I think I must be doing something wrong! The video is
generally very murky, highly pixelated and far from smooth, this is in
30fps mode - I haven't dared check out 10fps! I usually use the
widescreen mode because I like this format for video, but I don't
think there's much difference between that and 4:3, quality-wise.

When I compare recent footage I've taken with the lumix to some older
stuff on my quite dated Canon Powershot A70 3.1MP point and shoot, the
A70 footage appears clearer, far higher resolution, and far smoother
to watch. It even looks ok at full screen size. I'm in disbelief that
my new far-more-expensive 10MP Panasonic's video doesn't come close to
this.

Am I missing something here?

Glenn
P.S. Apols if this gets posted twice - problems posting initially.

Reply to this Message

Grumpy AuContraire - 18 Mar 2007 17:45 GMT

> Hi. I recently purchased the above camera and have been HUGELY
> impressed with the image quality for stills. However, part of the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Glenn
> P.S. Apols if this gets posted twice - problems posting initially.

While I cannot speak for the FZ50, I have taken "acceptable" pics with
my FZ10 @ 30 fps. They are no where near professional quality and my
standards in *that* area are quite high as for a number of years, it is
how I earned my income as a cinematographer (film).

That said, the Lumix (FZ10) is of low resolution, has no zoom capability
while shooting and "spotty" aperture control when panning. Also, a
still camera is not well suited to tracking without a tripod.

JT

(Who loved the Arriflex S for general motion picture work)

Reply to this Message

Robert A. Cunningham - 19 Mar 2007 08:42 GMT

I don't have the model that you do, I have the FZ30. Be that as it may, I
am not sure if my comments will apply to your camera; however, my camera
will shoot 16-9, 4-3, or 3-2 in still photographs, but will revert to 4-3,
no matter what setting you choose, when you go into movie mode. The video
is acceptable, and it looks ok at 30FPS at the highest resolution when
displayed on regular TV, but it is less than ideal when uploaded to U-Tube
at 30FPS at the lower resolution. However, since the main reason for my
purchase was to take advantage of the superb still photos, with the super
zoom capability, and the outstanding image stabilization, I have not placed
that much emphasis on the video quality.

Reply to this Message

Bill Again - 19 Mar 2007 12:14 GMT

>> Hi. I recently purchased the above camera and have been HUGELY
>> impressed with the image quality for stills. However, part of the
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> zoom capability, and the outstanding image stabilization, I have not
> placed that much emphasis on the video quality.

I have the FZ30 as well, and I agree with your comments Robert. It has
always puzzled me that these cameras are made to take any kind of video at
all. I have always used cameras to take still pictures and expect them to be
designed to do that job really well. If I want a video then I turn to my
specialist video camera.

Bill

Reply to this Message

Andrew MacPherson - 22 Mar 2007 16:57 GMT

> If I want a video then I turn to my
> specialist video camera.

I see people saying things like this all the time. And it really annoys
me. :-) Anyone who wants the best camera picture quality buys a DSLR.
Anything less is a compromise, so does that mean you don't care about
picture quality?

No, it means you value the compact size, zoom range, sealed unit, or
whatever on a "bridge" camera. For many of us a good video mode is a
useful and important part of the compromise, and manufacturers and
marketing departments appreciate that. Hence superb video modes on
cameras like the Canon S3. Obviously though it's asking a lot to get all
these features right in one camera, hence regular threads like this in
just about every newsgroup and forum.

Andrew McP

Reply to this Message

Bill Again - 22 Mar 2007 18:09 GMT

>> If I want a video then I turn to my
>> specialist video camera.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Andrew McP

If I was really serious about photography I would go out and spend several
thousand on a decent camera. As it is, I am not that serious. But I do like
to be able to take reasonable photographs of things that interest me. A
so-called bridge camera provides me with that opportunity in aces. In many
instances I defy anyone, amateur or profi, to tell me whether some of these
pictures were taken on bridge or DSLR.

Nevertheless, I still don't expect a camera designed to take still pictures
to provide me with all singing and dancing video.

That's all.

Bill

Reply to this Message

Ed - 20 Mar 2007 03:32 GMT

I have the FZ30 and find the video quality just ok. What I really don't
like is the sound quality. Very muffled with background noise. I also have
a Casio Z-850, a little tiny 8 mp. The video quality is slightly better but
the sound quality is way better, crisp and clear. I took movies of baby
birds with both cameras. With the Panasonic, you could hardly hear the
birds song, with the Casio is was clear as if you were there. I wonder if
that got improved on the FZ50.
ed

Reply to this Message

Glenn - 21 Mar 2007 04:57 GMT

> I have the FZ30 and find thevideoquality just ok. What I really don't
> like is the sound quality. Very muffled with background noise. I also have
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> that got improved on the FZ50.
> ed

Sound is pretty good on the FZ50. Pretty clear and good levels.

Re the video, I've had a close look at the screen at normal size while
video is playing, and the image is broken into an array of squares
that are quite plain to see within the image, if you get close up.
These are not pixels, as each square is maybe 2 or 3mm x 2 or 3mm and
within each square there is more detail to be seen, however if you
look closely then quite often the detail in one square doesn't seem to
'line up' with the detail in the square beside it. This is still
readily viewable as an overall picture of course, but one where the
details becomes a bit confused and ultimately lost. Effectively they
are pixels, forming a very low res image, where each pixel contains a
detailed portion of the image that doesn't quite match with the one
next to it.

This is most noticiable where there is a lot of texture e.g. grass,
and is far less evident or invisible on smooth surfaces like walls. I
don't know what these squares are, whether they are a product of the
camera or a product of QuickTime, which is playing the video, but they
seem to contribute significantly to the loss of video quality that I
see.

Am a describing something normal? I don't see this in the Canon
footage I have (I don't think).

Glenn

Reply to this Message

Andrew MacPherson - 22 Mar 2007 16:57 GMT

> Am a describing something normal?

The FZ50 and other Venus III/10MP Panasonics all seem to suffer from
horrible "upsampling", so you only really have half the advertised
vertical resolution. If you trawl through the various review movie
examples on dpreview you'll see what I mean, and it's a real shame IMO.
Video on the FZ30/Venus II "vintage" range doesn't have the same problem.

FWIW I'm similarly disappointed with my SP-550. I'm increasingly
enjoying the pictures it takes (in good light anyway!) but the good
visual movie quality is offset by horrible sound quality.

As ever, the technology bandwagon takes two steps forward, and one step
back! :-)

Andrew McP

Reply to this Message