Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Panasonic GH series 4K model coming  (Read 3895 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5162


« on: January 08, 2014, 05:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Shown off by Panasonic at CES 2014 apparently, with a few tech specs mentioned, like up to 200 Mbps in ALL Intra mode: http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/panasonics-4k-mirrorless-gh-camera/

bcooter's next camera?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:16:54 PM by BJL » Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2014, 10:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Samsung is about to come out with an 8K screen. I'm not sure why.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2014, 07:34:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Shown off by Panasonic at CES 2014 apparently, with a few tech specs mentioned, like up to 200 Mbps in ALL Intra mode: http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/panasonics-4k-mirrorless-gh-camera/

bcooter's next camera?


I dunno.

The reports were a 4/3 camera with sdi and xlr inputs/outputs and there is still missing information about the codec they plan to use and if you have to buy separate cameras for europe 50 mhz PAL, and 60 mhz NTSC.

If they hit this points I guess I'll bite, but if they hobble it I may wait.

IMO

BC
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2014, 07:59:15 AM »
ReplyReply

The real shame is still no-one makes a camera I want.

SDI, XLR, Nice 1080 codec, Usable Ergonomics; some demonstration that the designer has ever used a camera..
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
tjbates
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2014, 12:12:38 PM »
ReplyReply

The real shame is still no-one makes a camera I want.

SDI, XLR, Nice 1080 codec, Usable Ergonomics; some demonstration that the designer has ever used a camera..

Totally agree. There's nothing out there for me either.
Now the market swings to 4K and they haven't even got 1080 right.

Hoping for a GH series with a broadcast codec and XLR etc. Not holding my breath tho!
Logged
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2014, 02:53:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeh, I just don't understand why anyone tolerates these crappy H.264 on-board codec cameras.

I think we're still in the "accelerating takeoff" phase for video tech, the way we saw in the early days of digital stills when the step from generation to generation was huge: like the difference between Canon D30, D60, Canon 5D mark one, 5D Mark 2 for example. That's settled down now, the step to the newest dSLRs is more like consolidation than revolution.

Lots of manufacturers have half a great digital cine camera. No-one has put the package together yet, certainly not for the indie owner/operator end of the food chain.

Blackmagic has the image quality, but the ergonomics sound like a nightmare (no time remaining counter? Honestly? Have you guys ever actually shot anything live?)

Panasonic had the ergonomics pretty solidly on the AF100 (at least once they added 1:1 zoom for focussing) but the image quality sucked.

Sony has some nice cameras, but seems to deliberately cripple them to protect their higher models or to charge you a few thousand pounds for a firmware update which they'll later give away for free.

Canon had an unexpected winner in the 5D2 and still hasn't really figured out what the hell it is doing- although if the C300 was half the price, I'd have bought one.

RED has the Scarlet, but it doesn't even have XLR in its compact configuration and the accessory costs are eye-watering. Image quality absolutely rocks, though, and the on-board codec is unbeatable.

What I'd really like? A Blackmagic sensor/codec in an AF100 body. With working autofocus so I could fly the thing on the junior version of the MOVI firefly as a one-man band.

And I think we'll get something like that, just not for a few years. They are still working the bugs out and figuring out how to cope with reading these sensors out at full chat for 24/25/50/60 fps.

Whether it is 4K or not I don't really care. It probably will be, because adding the resolution is actually one of the easiest things to improve and use as a marketing label, and 4K Bayer footage makes the nicest 1080p output footage I've ever seen. Oversampling always helps.

Cheers, Hywel

« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 02:54:46 PM by Hywel » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2014, 08:26:12 PM »
ReplyReply

There really is nothing wrong with h264 if it has a high bit rate, 4:2:2 and 10 bit minimum.   In fact it's almost as heavy as pro rez in the same configuration at least with the gh series.

My gh3's which shoot 4:2:0 and I think 8 bit shoot way above their fighting weight and I assume the 4k version will be even better, though nothing I've tried shoots "prettier" than the mx version of the RED 1 and you can find those for 4 grand right now.  Sure RED parts are expensive, but they usually work well and it is a professional camera.  Also the R1 might look huge (though it does look impressive) but compared to an Arri it's tiny and actually the original R1 is bug free, has 4 xlr inputs, sdi out, two monitors, hdmi, produces a beautiful prorezz file (though I still don't know what you can do with it other than view it because it takes some kind of RED plug in to play it)., but the R1 to me is one killer camera.

Knock on wood, but I've used the R1's around the work in sub zero to a trillion degrees in thailand and never an issue.  The only problem with the R1 is if you run very, long takes and keep them running between sets you can get some very strange noise.   I've learned the hard way to turn them off when not in use, though they take a few minutes to start up.

I keep one  R1 set up in full heavyweight PL mount, with two V mounts an evf a side monitor, dovetail and a big ugly matte box so it's about the weight of a chevy impala, but it makes pretty film like footage, much prettier than the overly smooth scarlet.   I also keep one RED 1 with small ziess nikon mount still lenses and a battery belt, a shoulder mount and an evf.  It weighs in a 8 lbs which is barely under a Scarlet or Epic with Canon lenses, even up on weight if you use PL's on the Scarlet and shoots prettier (IMO).

Now I've finally got the Scarlet where I can stand it, (I hated it at first) but I use an evf, put the glossy monitor on the side for clients to see, and added an xlr box for sound input.  It works ok, I keep it at one of our studios though for 65% of my work I use the RED 1's, the other 35% the gh3s.   If the GH 4k turns out killer, I'll bet i shoot most location work with those.

IMO

BC

Yeh, I just don't understand why anyone tolerates these crappy H.264 on-board codec cameras.

I think we're still in the "accelerating takeoff" phase for video tech, the way we saw in the early days of digital stills when the step from generation to generation was huge: like the difference between Canon D30, D60, Canon 5D mark one, 5D Mark 2 for example. That's settled down now, the step to the newest dSLRs is more like consolidation than revolution.

Lots of manufacturers have half a great digital cine camera. No-one has put the package together yet, certainly not for the indie owner/operator end of the food chain.

Blackmagic has the image quality, but the ergonomics sound like a nightmare (no time remaining counter? Honestly? Have you guys ever actually shot anything live?)

Panasonic had the ergonomics pretty solidly on the AF100 (at least once they added 1:1 zoom for focussing) but the image quality sucked.

Sony has some nice cameras, but seems to deliberately cripple them to protect their higher models or to charge you a few thousand pounds for a firmware update which they'll later give away for free.

Canon had an unexpected winner in the 5D2 and still hasn't really figured out what the hell it is doing- although if the C300 was half the price, I'd have bought one.

RED has the Scarlet, but it doesn't even have XLR in its compact configuration and the accessory costs are eye-watering. Image quality absolutely rocks, though, and the on-board codec is unbeatable.

What I'd really like? A Blackmagic sensor/codec in an AF100 body. With working autofocus so I could fly the thing on the junior version of the MOVI firefly as a one-man band.

And I think we'll get something like that, just not for a few years. They are still working the bugs out and figuring out how to cope with reading these sensors out at full chat for 24/25/50/60 fps.

Whether it is 4K or not I don't really care. It probably will be, because adding the resolution is actually one of the easiest things to improve and use as a marketing label, and 4K Bayer footage makes the nicest 1080p output footage I've ever seen. Oversampling always helps.

Cheers, Hywel


« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 08:29:39 PM by bcooter » Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2014, 01:38:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hywell - I agree with all you say about none of the cameras quite meshing codec ergonomics, mass cost, none are quite right.

As for H264 I don't really know the tech but think 264 is like a jpg, just an encoding format.

A jpg can be 500px wide at level 2, or 6000px wide at level 12, obviously the first is basically dross, the second is an impressive file especially for the space used compared to a tiff of the same res.


S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2014, 04:49:14 PM »
ReplyReply

You are both right of course. It isn't H264 per se that's at fault, it is the 8-bit, 4:2:0 28-ish megabit low bit rate AVCHD implementation that's very common across the low-end cameras that I object to.

In static tests, it didn't seem to make too much difference whether the AF100 was used with its on-board codec or an external recorder. But when the going got tough- hand-held shaky cam, or smooth gradations like in a diffuse air glow produced by a hazer and a backlight, the footage just fell apart. It was effectively ungradeable, and detail turned to mush.

It was such a shame, especially the 8-bit banding. I'm still disappointed by how good the ergonomics are but how crap the final images are from that camera. In the right circumstances it can look awesome, but more often than not I found myself noticing the flaws. So I'm prejudiced against 8-bit over-compressed formats now.

  Cheers, Hywel.
 

Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2014, 03:25:42 AM »
ReplyReply

There's no free lunch, but it's getting closer all the time.

Like I said you can buy a red for 4k a evf for 2k, a few other parts for $1,500 and use Zeiss F mount lenses and you'll have a file good enough for hollywood and louis vuitton.

Or if you don't want a film like look there are 2k eng 4:2:2's falling out of the trees in 1080i that look good though look like the video from nfl today, but they work and they're cheap, but don't look to push them to +16 db, cause they'll snow storm.

I don't know what camera your using now, but those little gh3's I use next to the RED are good, you just got to be dead on with exposure and might need some decent lights . . . real  lights.

Personally I'd rather have a 420 camera with a high bit rate intra file than a 422 2/3's eng that only shoots 28mbs.

Keep in mind the new gh4 will be 200 mbs, 422 and 10 bit, all for two grand a camera which is somewhere around 50mbs in 2k, which is good enough for broadcast (whatever that is).

In the movie and TV world just a couple of years ago $20,000 to $75,000 engs were the norm and any camera that shot like the RED was film.   

If the 10 grand RED I just mentioned is considered cheap, 2 thousand for the panasonic is like being paid and you can push a RED file all over the place if you don't over run the camera and let it get too hot, but honestly, I've shot all my REDs next to the gh3 and it's hard to tell the difference except the RED looks like film out of the box, the gh3 looks like film if you understand how to grade.

I do agree with you that the cameras are sometimes hobbled, Sony is the master at this, but Panasonic FOR THE PRICE, doesn't leave much on the table.

I'm not in the camera selling business, but I can tell you after buying a closet full of cheap plastic cameras, medium priced, video prosumer cameras, expensive (to me) RED's I think the gh3 is like somebody slapped me on the head and said hey, just buy a box of good lenses, learn the camera, learn the autofocus, and start shooting.

IMO

BC



You are both right of course. It isn't H264 per se that's at fault, it is the 8-bit, 4:2:0 28-ish megabit low bit rate AVCHD implementation that's very common across the low-end cameras that I object to.

In static tests, it didn't seem to make too much difference whether the AF100 was used with its on-board codec or an external recorder. But when the going got tough- hand-held shaky cam, or smooth gradations like in a diffuse air glow produced by a hazer and a backlight, the footage just fell apart. It was effectively ungradeable, and detail turned to mush.

It was such a shame, especially the 8-bit banding. I'm still disappointed by how good the ergonomics are but how crap the final images are from that camera. In the right circumstances it can look awesome, but more often than not I found myself noticing the flaws. So I'm prejudiced against 8-bit over-compressed formats now.

  Cheers, Hywel.
 


Logged

fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2014, 10:35:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it looks good.

Intra is good, bitrate is good, Price point is really good
4.2.2 10 bits is good, camera size is great.
Let's see.

The big missing info is the codec.

Do we really need Raw and the extra steps? IMO, the answer is very simple: most Alexa Works were not shooted in ArriRaw.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad