Ernesto Mantaras

o say no, it is not better, without at least a simple green screen test seems unfair. I can't see why people were expecting a drastic difference

I don't understand that either. Perhaps they thought they were getting RAW or something? And didn't think about the expense and hassle of an external recorder. And the fact that you'll need an external monitor! I wasn't aware of that one, I thought Canon had solved that.
"Free magical firmware update (doesn't include mandatory extra equipment)."

And you can't deny that in-camera compression radically effects the perceived detail in an original recording.

 

And what if it was destroyed before YT had a chance to do its own damage?

 

Convince me you know that the baseline compression, matrix, all the goodies are set the same as they are for the GH2 and that Panasonic hasn't pulled a typical corporate move and de-tuned an existing setup designed to go into a lower-spec camera than the original platform.

 

Convince me that the uploader rendered to a professional codec before then compressing to MP4 with a high quality encoder.

 

Convince me that they didn't render to MP4 straight out of their editor.

 

All of that is incidental, however, to the fact of YT delivering bad quality content from unsophisticated or non-technical accounts.  Even playing back the HD streams with the window scaled down didn't serve to filter the ugliness of their compression.   And, sorry, but compression and bandwidth does affect detail and sharpness.  Otherwise stock GH2 would look as sharp as Moon Trial 5.  And it does not.

But of course Moon Trial 5 looks amazing! There is a very noticeable difference between that patch and the stock GH2 footage, and in all cases YT compression will affect detail and sharpness, I never said it didn't.
Perhaps we're not understanding each other correctly (maybe the fact that I'm a non-native English speaker gets in the way).

I AM saying that the footage was destroyed (or rather just plain bad) before being uploaded to YouTube.

I AM stating that I BELIEVE (I don't know for a fact, I'm inducing) that Panasonic did in fact made the quality of the G6 video mode not be as good as the GH2 to protect the GH3.

I AM considering the possibility that the uploader took all the wrong steps to end up with a shitty MP4 that misrepresents the G6 video quality, but considering all the sources I've seen so far (from several different uploaders) are just as soft, I am more inclined to believe in the "crippling" theory.

I think we're pretty much in the same line, but we're not quite tuned.

By this logic all hacks/patches must render near identical detail...

Why? YouTube compression will destroy the quality of a video, but it doesn't do it to the extent that, say, a camera that supposedly shoots just like the GH2 ends up looking like an FZ200. If that was the case, then all the GH2 footage uploaded to YouTube should look like that, and it doesn't. In fact, that DrewNET video I posted was the reason I became crazy about the GH2 after learning a lot from it from EOSHD, and convinced me to take the plunge two days before I bought a Canon. You can't deny there's a lot of detail there in spite of YouTube trying to obliterate it.

I've never seen a single YouTube 1080p stream that looked anywhere near the original camera file, so for me all the YouTube uploads are invalid. Vimeo streams too are only 7Mbit. Much better to wait until people with a clue get hold of the camera :)

I have to insist, Andrew, and I don't mean to be negative but I don't want there to be false hope either. YouTube won't give you the original file quality, but it will certainly not destroy it as much to make this big a difference between two videos that, according to our expectations, should look very similar in terms of detail under the same conditions.

The detail present in the first video can't compete with the one you see in the second one, and considering they've both been equally destroyed by YouTube compression they should both look just as good or bad, and instead there's a clear winner in the GH2 video.

G6 video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oijsASQQ6k
 

GH2 video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcKuGoMN-VQ

Again, I hope I'm wrong on this, but what if Panasonic didn't want to take sales away from the GH3 and crippled the image quality in the G6? Because considering how popular the GH2 is, and if it has been improved in every way by this new compact model, then many people will think about it more than twice before spending almost double as much on the GH3. I know I would. The GH2 competes with the GH3 in video quality, but now it has been discontinued. Would Panasonic allow the G6 to compete against the GH3 as well?

And just to make it clear, the GH2 unhacked delivers great images by itself. The hack only boosts that up (and by far!) but detail is there to begin with, you can see it right out of the box. On the available G6 sample videos there's no such thing.

The encoding on those YT streams is absolute garbage.  They must throttle bandwidth and encoding quality depending on the account type because they're not even at the same quality as several YT "partners" that I semi-regularly check out there.   That or the encoding done by the uploader was very bad as well.  

 

I honestly don't understand why people still use it in this capacity.  I'll add duplicate streams of stuff I put on VIMEO, acknowledging the ubiquity of YT but I don't actually share those links with people.  

 

In the case of both sites whatever you upload gets further compressed (heavily) so your upload needs to be of exceedingly high quality if you expect anything decent by the time a stream goes live.

That is absolutely correct, but just to make it double clear: while YouTube compression can bring a bazzillion types of artifacts it will not render your perfect full HD resolution, carefully encoded video into something this soft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oijsASQQ6k&feature=share&list=UUxSt5kmZG3dNXsBJqtzIKmQ (or, in other words, it cannot turn GH2 worthy footage into that low resolution video)

And if there are differences made between partners and other regular channels, then those aren't to blame either, because you can find perfectly detailed videos like this one in the same PanasonicLumixVideo channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT-2VF3-fWo

you are watchin on youtube - mega compressed so beware...- lets not write it off before we have all downloaded files direct off the camera,

If it has Venus engine inside then its hackable....its been done before by Vitaliy and Driftwood etc

I understand YouTube compression and those videos' softness has nothing to do with it (though I deeply wish it did). That can only come from either a bad encoding on the uploader's side or indeed the camera's true capabilities. Watch any good GH2 video uploaded to YouTube and you'll see there's no such softness in them, in spite of YouTube's compression. Here's one, for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcKuGoMN-VQ

Still, I'm rooting for this camera to be what all of us are hoping.

Here's some footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oijsASQQ6k&feature=player_embedded

 

Looks like GH2 to me. 

Tempted to pick one of these up.

I saw that video last night, along with several others (which I posted below) but although colors seem to match, resolution is way off! That's soft, incomparable to what the GH2 can deliver. As much as I'd love for this to be a true GH2 improvement/replacement, I'm afraid the video capabilities are not up to par. I really hope I'm wrong, but if these videos are any indication of video image quality, then it's a bummer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qhS49-_nHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHoCFgzwibs

It looks as if the background was overexposed, but in post, like what would turn out if I brought the whites to the left with a levels adjustment. Weird. Perhaps the camera was applying some sort of rare contrast? Which is difficult because the subject looks a bit washed out.

I know the background's supposed to be white, but perhaps the light shouldn't have been as bright and have the backdrop be a very light grey, just underexposed under 100 IRE? It looks to be overexposed, pure white, if you haven't touched the colors.

Perhaps this is a case of the gamma problem in Mac? Where blacks and whites get crushed into a 16-235 palette.

It remains to be heard, too, but leaving microphone options aside, don't you think the Tascam DR-60D would be a better option for recording on-location sound?

Keep the list growing! This is very useful stuff. Thanks guys. :)

The 17.5mm f0.95 Voigtlander would be a normal lens on the Pocket Camera, so perhaps that'd be a good choice to use in both that and the GH2 camera.

One other thing, would an 8.5mm lens designed for 2/3" (while still vignetting) be useable (versus that $5 eBay 8mm f/1.2 fixed iris lens for 1/3" sensor)?
 

Very illustrative, Julian! And I'm waiting for those pics, Andy, I wanna see how the bokeh looks on the Pentax.

Here here's another lens that isn't on the list but could perhaps be a good addition to the list?

Pentax 12.5mm f1.4

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/553973-REG/Pentax_C21211KP_C21211KP_1_C_Mount.html

If it performs as well as the Cosmicar then I'm getting one!

 

Wouldn't the 17.5mm be good for portraits? (52.5mm equiv), and the 25mm would be more telephoto? How do you think bokeh will look with an 8mm f/1.4? This is driving me crazy, especially with the FF 4K for $4k... Too much though, still.

Rungunshoot said it right. A 50mm is a normal lens, while an 85mm is a portrait lens, and a 75mm would be close (that 25mm by 3 on the BMPC).
The idea of 4K for $4K is great but the EF mount turns me off. E mount would've been the ideal choice! And right now I wouldn't be able to handle 4K RAW. Now HD and 2.5k are a different thing... The BMCC, with that same sensor and more physical buttons (and a swivel screen... and a compressed RAW codec like Cineform RAW...) would be the ideal camera for me right now. But the BMPC looks to be quite sexy in its own right.

Hey, guys, what about this lens? The Pentax 8-48mm f1.0.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/341297-REG/Pentax_C60812_C60812_8mm_to_48mm.html

I know it says it is for 1/2" sensors, but it amazed me how sharp and free of CA (for the most part) it is! I saw how it performs on a video tested using a GH2 on ETC mode (which effectively turns it roughly into a 1/2" camera).

https://vimeo.com/25024473

Is it too much of a stretch to think it will be useable on the BMPC?
 

Correct, I understand that an 8mm is considered "fisheye". So do you know how exactly an 8mm would look on this camera? Would it look more like a 24mm, due to the 3x crop?

Exactly!

That lens will nowhere near cover it. I'll show it tomorrow with my $8 8mm f/1.2.

It'll be great to see that GH2 test you mentioned. Let us know once it's done!

I just picked up one of these 3.5-8mm c mount zooms - very well made and very cheap!

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Professional-CCTV-lens-3-5-8mm-varifocal-manual-iris-CS-/160426428637?pt=UK_CCTV&hash=item255a2908dd

So do you think this lens would cover the BMPC sensor? I still haven't received my Pentax 25mm f1.4, but the look I've seen on the GH2 is great. If I can get a similar look on the BMPC with that zoom I'll be satisfied!

Thanks for the cool recommendations you're throwing.

I have a set of these they are great Russian lenses made by KMZ who make the Helios

TAIR-41

VEGA-7-1

MIR-11

From KIEV-16U camera

 

Vega-7-1:
focal length: 20mm
relative aperture: F/2
field of vision angle: 35
Mir-11M:
focal length: 12,5mm
relative aperture: F/2
field of vision angle: 54
Tair-41M:
focal length: 50mm
relative aperture: F/2
field of vision angle: 15
 

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LOT-Of-THREE-Lenses-TAIR-41-VEGA-7-1-MIR-11-From-KIEV-16U-Movie-Camera-/111035368973?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item19da39460d

Here's a thought I haven't read anyone talk about yet: because of the size of the sensor, wouldn't we be able to use EF-S lenses via Speed Booster? Unlike the case of Super35 sensors, where you need a full frame lens.
 

Bigget sensor - better bokeh?

Just more, not better. That's up to the lens.

Stupid question, cause I know this is way off. But once the Speedbooster comes out for 4/3, what will the focal lenght be for this camera?  since the sensor is 16mm.

Close to Micro 4/3 I'd say.

Not quite. Micro 4/3 in the GH2 is a 1.86x crop factor relative to 35mm full frame, and 2x in the case of the GH3.

Super 16mm is about 3x, so that's a lot more DOF.

It's funny how now cameras are the accesories of lenses.




I'm actually really excited about these two new cameras and what they'll mean for the competition!

Thanks! Looks very promissing, especially with Speed Booster. Any ideas on what lens could be used as "normal". I considered Slr Magic 25mm f0.95 for Gh3, buts thats around 75mm fov on BMDPC.

As for wide angle, there are many 16mm c-mount lens, but what I found weren't that good. On 4/3 side there are some good  7-14 f4 zooms.

 

Edit: 18mm lens will be about 50mm considering 2.7 crop.

You could get the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 to get a kinda normal lens, but it's quite expensive.

One problem with the BMCC mini: how the hell do you record uncompressed RAW to SD cards?

 

EDIT: Looking around, seems you'd want a bunch of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/841569-REG/Lexar_LCF128CTBNA1000_128GB_CompactFlash_Memory_Card.html

You'd need at least a 125 MB/s write speed. 128GB gets you 15 minutes of footage, so still better than the film days. And of course, you can reuse the cards.

Pro-Res is of course the saner option.

Not quite, I think, since 1080p isn't as much data as 2.7k, but I hear you. Still, I bet they've figured it out somehow if they're offering that option.
I wish they'd get around to using Cineform RAW as a recording format or something like that. I guess it'll come around to that sooner than later.