Ben Corwin

Isn't this on the colorists? The behind the scenes footage almost looks like they are shooting day for night with how bright everything is lit.

Isn't this on the colorists? The behind the scenes footage almost looks like they are shooting day for night with how bright everything is lit.

Come on Andrew... commenting on EVERYTHING except the Black Magic 4K Pocket? I hate to say it, but you are quickly becoming irrelevant. It's a massive bummer because I've been such a big fan of this site over the years.

Come on Andrew... commenting on EVERYTHING except the Black Magic 4K Pocket? I hate to say it, but you are quickly becoming irrelevant. It's a massive bummer because I've been such a big fan of this site over the years.

No in camera NR and Sharpening.
That's what I want from Panasonic, and they're actually able to do that (EVA-1). Why is this so hard?

I found this, but this is obliviously pre ProRes Raw.
"Mitch Gross
11-08-2014, 03:41 AM
Mitch since you're experienced in that field I would like to hear your take on HDMI raw output. Is it technically possible to transfer a raw signal via an HDMI cable? Or does HDMI only carry encoded video signal?

Many arguments out there on the matter.
It is technically possible but not a great idea. RAW data can be encoded to be carried in a video stream, you just need to establish a decoder on the other side. The ARRI ALEXA does this with the T-Link RAW data stream, which is carried over dual link SDI cables. Plug them directly into a monitor and the picture looks like some crazy green-yellow Star Trek nonsense, but it is in fact a video signal. But all that means is that ARRI inserted vertical and horizontal blanking pulses and other signal structural elements and clocking so that it would seen as a video signal that could be carried over. The big difference between SDI and HDMI is that HDMI needs a linking between the two ends. There is a transmitter and a receiver circuit and they must "handshake" for the signal to go through.

So if you were to build a device with RAW output over HDMI, you would likely also have to build the device on the other end. And if you are going to do that, you are going to be spending a lot of time and money to make this system work, and it will all be a technical cheat and jumping through a lot of hoops in order to make it work with the limiting factors of the signal path that must be adhered to in order to remain HDMI-compliant. At that point it is likely to be far, far easier to simply add another output port to a camera which is just a proprietary buss connection -- a bunch of pins that carry all the RAW data in whatever way is easiest for you as a manufacturer. That's what is on a camera like the F5/F55.

So short answer is yes it is technically possible to send RAW over HDMI, but it is also not particularly attractive or viable a solution."
 
I am surprised how low the Mbps rate is for ProRes Raw in 4k! Impressive.
It also looks like HDMI 2.0 can do 12 bits in 4k video. So that might be enough to do the ProRes Raw??
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/hdmi-2-0-vs-1-4-2913356
It looks like this ProRes Raw is along the lines of 4.4.4 which I have seen as low as 10 bit. So I am sort of sure we are going to see it going over HDMI. They are not going to put SDI ports on DSLR, Mirrorless cameras I would think?

Great post as always Andrew, but my concern is what we might LOSE if the GH5 goes with a larger sensor. What Panasonic has done so well with the GH line is exploiting all the benefits of a smaller sensor. For instance, if a m43 sensor means giving us 240fps at 1080p as opposed to 120fps on a s35 sensor, I would go with the m43 sensor every time. Hell, maybe we could even get a global shutter this time around? At any rate, there are certainly many benefits of a smaller sensor that can potentially outshine the step up to s35. I still think Panasonic should continue separating this format by offering kick ass specs that larger sensors can't offer. That might even mean having to do a complete technology overhaul for m43, which it sounds like they are already working on. See below.
http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/02/a-sensor-that-can-shoot-in-starlight-panasonics-apd-cmos-could-change-low-light-forever/
 
 
 
 
 

Great post as always Andrew, but my concern is what we might LOSE if the GH5 goes with a larger sensor. What Panasonic has done so well with the GH line is exploiting all the benefits of a smaller sensor. For instance, if a m43 sensor means giving us 240fps at 1080p as opposed to 120fps on a s35 sensor, I would go with the m43 sensor every time. Hell, maybe we could even get a global shutter this time around? At any rate, there are certainly many benefits of a smaller sensor that can potentially outshine the step up to s35. I still think Panasonic should continue separating this format by offering kick ass specs that larger sensors can't offer. That might even mean having to do a complete technology overhaul for m43, which it sounds like they are already working on. See below.
http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/02/a-sensor-that-can-shoot-in-starlight-panasonics-apd-cmos-could-change-low-light-forever/
 
 
 
 
 

Great post as always Andrew, but my concern is what we might LOSE if the GH5 goes with a larger sensor. What Panasonic has done so well with the GH line is exploiting all the benefits of a smaller sensor. For instance, if a m43 sensor means giving us 240fps at 1080p as opposed to 120fps on a s35 sensor, I would go with the m43 sensor every time. Hell, maybe we could even get a global shutter this time around? At any rate, there are certainly many benefits of a smaller sensor that can potentially outshine the step up to s35. I still think Panasonic should continue separating this format by offering kick ass specs that larger sensors can't offer. That might even mean having to do a complete technology overhaul for m43, which it sounds like they are already working on. See below.
http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/02/a-sensor-that-can-shoot-in-starlight-panasonics-apd-cmos-could-change-low-light-forever/
 
 
 
 
 

Just noticed there's a 10 minute test of the new firmware and V-Log. Maybe that answers some questions - *watching*
 

Come the fuck on, Panasonic.

Praise dey laww'd! Only had to wait half a decade...

Praise dey laww'd! Only had to wait half a decade...

Wait a minute... To be able to record 25p or 30p in 10bit 4:2:2, it has to be interlaced??? Did I hear that right? If so, that majorly sucks!

I'd rather take ProRes home from my Shogun than MJPEG from my 1D C internally so the internal 4K recording is of no advantage to me.
 
That's just me :)
I cannot use the LCD on the 1D C for focus or exposure in 4K, it needs a monitor with peaking, zoom, zebra etc. So does the A7S yet I have 4K over that HDMI. Huge advantage in my book!
 
I can understand totally the need to justify a purchase that costs in the region of $12,000 and delivers such a lovely image but when it comes to functionality and the A7S comparison I'm only pointing out the facts!

Is anyone else experiencing slower autofocus on their GH4 than on their GH3?

I think unlike other people, we've been conditioned to know what bad stabilization looks like and we can't see it as a cool effect like everyone else on youtube might. It's hard to make that disconnect sometimes, especially when you know what's behind it.     

All that time for rigging and not enough time to balance a MoVI? Yikes.

*UPDATE*
 
So I figured out that Quicktime is only averaging the bit rate. When you play the clips in VLC and view the statistics while it plays, there are peaks that get closer to the 100Mbps mark. 

I was very impressed with the cinema 100mb/s 4kc mode compared to the 200mb/s 1080p mode. I brought both into after effects for some color grading, and the 4k footage grades and keys a LOT better than high bitrate 1080p. Macroblocking is way less visible in 4k, but for some reason, the recording time available on my card shows a lot more time remaining when in 4K cine mode than in 1080 200mb/s; nearly double the amount of recording time! There's something about how 4k compression that just works much more efficiently than 1080p, giving much more color depth and resolution even at lower bitrates.

Shoot static on an old TV set.

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!

Don't think that has to do with the card. More likely the subjects you are filming. Try something with a lot of small details or high iso.

I have one of those new panasonic 16GB cards, when i get my GH4 ill compare it to some other older cards regarding bitrate.

The GH3 doesn't have a full 16MP raw output on the electronic shutter.
 
So much better.
 
Since GX7 and GM1 Panasonic have had the full pixel readout for stills without mechanical shutter.

Fughen (spelling?) make one specifically for the GH3 with HDMI lock.