Andrew Reid

It's a variable bitrate codec and it probably leaves 20Mbit in reserve for a particularly challenging few frames to avoid corruption.   Try a sudden whip pan of a forest of trees at F5.6 or a sudden flare up of the entire frame whilst shooting something with tons of detail in it, that will really push the codec to the limit!

  All CineLike D -5,-5,-5,-5,0 and no change to the highlight / shadow curves.

  Yes that's pretty much my single reservation as well, that it isn't full frame! A7S is definitely high up my list to try out.   As for sharpness, the GH4 at -5 sharpness is actually quite soft in 4K at 1:1... when the image is down sampled to 2K certain downsampling methods can make it look a bit too sharp. Simply add a slight Gaussian blur in post. It will be interesting to use my LOMO anamorphic on it wide open too.

  The Blackmagic is practically designed from the ground up to deliver a cinematic look out of the box, whereas with the GH4 it is more at the discretion of the user. If you mishandle it, then it is easy to end up with an image which is too sharp, too flat and too lacking in character. If handled correctly the GH4 is as cinematic as just about anything else out there if not more so.

  A low contrast look is not superior. You can make the GH4 and 5D raw look as flat as a pancake if you want to. Question is what is the benefit? If your monitor had a low contrast look you'd return it to the shop! I don't know why people think a flat look is superior. For grading raw has no look. It isn't flat. It is raw data straight off the sensor that describes colours, whites and blacks. Why compress all that into the mids and get grey? I blame stuff like CineStyle for the confusion.

Already tested for those paying attention, it isn't a big win for the 5D actually!  

  There's nothing wrong with the skin tones on the GH4 at all. They benefit from 10bit luma at 2K for a start. 10bit everything at 4K if you are going to use a Shogun. The colour reproduction is good and skin tones grade well especially with a boost to the red channel in post.

  It was a good test in my opinion. It clearly shows that the Epic has a stronger OLPF and a softer result ungraded. Ungraded raw is very different to GH4 4K where a certain level of sharpening is already applied in-camera even with sharpness all the way down at -5.   Yes the Epic looks surprisingly soft, almost as soft as upscaled 1080p from the 5D Mark III raw footage.   But with a little sharpening in post it would have been much closer.   Am I the only one surprised at how well the 5D Mark III blow-ups look under the microscope at 4K? I expected there to be a bigger difference. My opinion is that in terms purely of detail, 4K vs 1080p depends on how you're going to present / show the end footage to the audience and even on the eyesight of the audience, but clearly taking a full pixel readout of the sensor in the GH4 for 4K has resulted in overall image quality leaping forwards, not just in terms of resolution. Said this all along.

  I stay off that forum, it's a total abject waste of my time to be involved in defending cameras. Defend a country! Defend a person. But not a bloody camera :)

Dilemma of the century. Do you take the advantages of raw or 4K? Do you take the full frame sensor or the crop? Do you take the DSLR form factor or the advantages for video of mirrorless? This is something I've been really trying to draw a conclusion on in recent weeks for my own sanity! Read the full article here

  Once again... Panasonic are not using this Driftwood thing to promote the GH4.

I just miss the full frame sensor and 14bit colour.   You will see in my review if it is a big issue or not.

The 5D Mark III raw has a very similar look. I've shot with the GH4 and that side by side and the video is coming soon with the main review. There's nothing really 'wrong' with the colour, it just depends how you grade it. The main drawback for me is that it isn't full frame.

This isn't a centre piece for Panasonic's promotion of the GH4, it is just what Nick Driftwood wants you to believe. Because he presumably thinks there's some kind of career reward in being nice to big companies. The thing is there really isn't. Panasonic just want to sell cameras and make money, they're not really in the best position to be picking sensitive artists to give demo units to. I just walked past a DPReview gold badge on a GH3 box today, just randomly on a store shelf. I realised if it wasn't for me writing the GH3 video page in that review and putting my argument across to the editor that it deserved a gold reward because of the video capabilities (DPR felt it merited a silver, because as a stills camera it lacked any real outstanding spark) that badge wouldn't exist. I felt a bit sad that in some ways my review and my views were being commercialised to sell cameras, without any reward for me, and nor should there be as it would cause bias. That's why I prefer to get minimally involved with stunts like this and marketing. If I make a short film with the GH4 it will be because the camera suits the material, not because I want to score attention with Panasonic, because like I say, there's no real reward for doing so and it is not really what I want. I want attention from other filmmakers and the audience instead. You have to question Nick's motives for making this to be honest and trying to pass it off as a wannabe Panasonic promo video.

It all depends on what you want to do.   For some stuff I prefer the 5D Mark III and certainly raw video on it is mind-blowing for work involving rich colour saturation, heavy grading and low light. I also love the full frame rendering of my lenses.   The GH4 in terms of 4K and usability of course is a big win, but the smaller sensor and the stills are not up to 5D Mark III level. Still pretty good though... how much stills quality do you NEED? That's the question to ask, not so much whether the GH4 is rated that way or this way.

  I agree. You are now upgraded to mod status sir  :)   Now then... if all the mods fall out... who will mod the mods? ;)

  This was shot on film...     Therefore I have decided film is incapable of producing a filmic image!   The first comment on nofilmschool kind of sums it up   If I was the CEO of Panasonic, I would buy this film and immediately take it down. Then tell these “filmmakers” to stop using the GH4.   Give a hack a camera, and a hack of a film comes out...

Why the hell is this kind of thing annoying?

RichG101, mtheory, jonpais, JohnBarlow and Andy Lee you are now mods :)

  You're very confused aren't you.   It isn't all about aperture and you're really highly dramatising any issues. Soft corners, vignette, purple fringing, are really not much of an issue compared to the lens used normally wide open on a larger sensor. In fact the image in the centre of the frame gets sharper. I suggest you use one before critisising!   You do get true Super 35mm rendering of the lens with Speed Booster and that means all the characteristics of a larger sensor.   Instead of using a 25mm for example you can use a 35mm lens. Longer focal length = shallower depth of field.

  Hmm. Purple fringing at F1.2 on any lens is there. Even the Canon 50mm F1.2L. Same with the Nokton.   When you stop down on the Speed Booster chromatic aberrations and fringing disappear.

I had hesitated to try this for so long, but finally today a brave EOSHD reader sent me a tweet saying he had fitted his BMCC Speed Booster (with protruding rear-glass) on his GH4. It just goes straight on. First a BIG disclaimer. Speed Booster adapters have adjustable glass which can sit closer or further away from the sensor to fine tune infinity focus. On some adapters this will mean potentially it will clash against the inner housing of the mount and be damaged if used on a Micro Four Thirds stills camera. Therefore I do not take responsibility for any loss or damage if you try this. Read the full article here

  Would Fukushima have happened without one?

  Yes all correct.   But still no tsunami or magnitude 9 earthquake in central Germany. Odd.

  This is a great thread, has been wonderful to read and actually thank you to the original poster because it is well intentioned and interesting.   Thank you even more though to the people curious enough to do some proper research, because hysteria is everywhere today and it is not constructive. Most people don't have any real threats effecting them, so they invent them. This is human nature. One example is the complete decommissioning of nuclear in Germany due to a one-in-1000 year 5000 mile away tsunami which happened to one plant on the coast of Japan combined with a magnitude 9 earthquake.   Clearly nuclear is very dangerous in such circumstances. As it would be in your kitchen.   So the Germans decided to kill their perfectly safe nuclear industry and become dependant on expensive, ugly windmills and Russian nuclear power (a whole lot less safe) because of the threat of a magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami!   Logical?!   About as logical as being scared of a 35mm F2 :)