zephyrnoid

Yeah, hacked GH2 is really not limiting creatively. Much more interested in finding the perfect concept or writing the perfect script to film!

Global shutter of the bmcc 4k version and agreement on lens mount that allows for use of most dslr lenses (either m43 or nex e mount) should be added to the list. Built in ND?

Nikon has enough engineering and marketing resources to develop just about any camera they want. The Nikon 1 system with a 1" sensor has the potential to be a Black Magic Pocket Cinema competitor. It's surprising to me that there's been little mention of the styling similarities between the Nikon 1 series and the BMPC. They have similar size sensors as well. Of course Nikon could also challenge the Canon C series if they chose to develop a large sensor cinema line. I hope Nikon has the vision and determination to develop a dedicated cinema/video camera division. They already have a vast array of lenses that could be integrated with Matrix metering, AF, Vibration Reduction and even a power zoom. An innovative adapter like the FT-1 could allow for the use of Nikon legacy lenses. IMO the biggest question is whether Nikon has the corporate vision and leadership to execute a dedicated video/cinema camera division. So far, Nikon has mostly been a sleeping giant when it comes to video and cinema camera development. I hope they awaken with a passion. Otherwise we'll all be waiting until 2020 when Black Magic finally announces it has an M4/3 mount with fully dedicated electronics for ANY feature offered by lenses from Panasonic, Olympus or other m4/3 lens manufacturer.

Nice review!
 
I've had the GH3 for a few months and a few extra cons for me:
 
- Ex-tele only works with 24/25/30fps modes. If you, like me, deliver to TV and have to shoot in 50/60i/p you don't have the ex-tele mode that worked in GH2. This is really disappointing!
 
- On-display info disappears after 10 seconds. If you shoot an interview and want to keep an eye on the audio levels or other settings you have to hit a button every 10 seconds to have the info displayed. Also after the info has disappeared and you want to change a setting like ISO you have to push the button twice; Once to "wake" up the screen and once to access the setting. I still don't understand this behavior.
 
- I'm not too sure about the build quality... I'm about to return my second GH3. On the first one the hot shoe came off, and the second one I have now shuts down randomly causing lost clips if I'm in record. Both these problems have been reported by others as well.
 
Other than that, great camera! 
 
 
 
AndersM

One of the factors limiting frame rates is the overall bandwidth that the camera can handle. Red used to rate things RedCode 28, RedCode 36, RedCode 42, etc., with the number signifiying the approximate overall data rate in megabytes per second. Assuming the sensor could handle a particular higher frame rate, either each frame had to be compressed more or the RedCode number had to increase. Of course, due to a number of factors, there was a  maximum a model could reach without overheating or otherwise failing.
 
If the same is true of BMD's 4K camera, why won't they consider a lossy compression format like CineForm RAW? By reducing the data per frame, more frames per second should theoretically be possible, and at 12 bits, the CMV12000 can do 90 fps.

Meanwhile, Canon can't manage to put 60fps in 1080p in their DSLRs...

Holly %$#@! That's cool. I thought I was looking at GH3 footage graded or something. My home movie cameras (modified flip MinoHD) are in the trash now. How much is this thing....

The comment about Nikon and CLIPPING, meah, whatever.
 
From the few native samples of C300 I've looked at it appears to be able to capture luma into 16 - 255, like many cameras. Certainly many Canon mpeg2 video camera sources I've seen are 16 - 255 luma but assume 16 - 240 chroma. Rec709 primaries, transfer and luma coeffs. But I don't think they use the mpeg2 sequence display extension to signal full levels, so unless some sort of luma scaling into 16 - 235 is done at decompression a 32bit float conversion to RGB will almost certainly be required to prevent software clipping of luma, all depending on camera use and exposure choice. Even then the preview will look clipped but the data safe to be 'graded' into 16 - 235 range for encoding out.
 
Nikon, Canon DSLR's & GH3 encoding into MOV all use full 8bit luma BUT also normalize chroma over the full range, not staying within 16 - 240. But use the h264 VUI Option 'fullrange' in the metadata of the h264 stream to signal to a well behaved decompressing codec to scale levels 16 - 235 before conversion to RGB.
 
VLC with hardware acceleration on ignores the fullrange flag so preview looks more contrasty with levels beyond 16 - 235 being crushed to black and compressed to white accordingly. NLE preview the same even at 32bit float as it's all display referred material but with 32bit float workspace the out of range data is held onto not lost.
 
Most NLE's these days respect the fullrange flag and avert any problem with software induced crushing and clipping.
 
It is possible to simply turn off the fullrange flag in the stream, which is something I personally do in order to avoid the scaling of levels into reduced range at import into the NLE, so you have access to super white and black, then work at 32bit float which holds onto RGB values beyond the 0.0 to 1.0 range but this needs care, then scale into strict rec709 for encoding out.
 
Why Nikon uses BT470 luma coeffs I'm unsure but guess it's to do with noise or hiding it, like they hide noise or at least have done previously by skewing the color channels.
 
Difficult to compare and ultimately pointless I guess to try to compare C300 mpeg2 with DSLR h264 with regard to any benefit of super whites.

For those looking for simplification, a summary of what I've learned so far about the destructive aspects of video compression follows.
 
This is from the perspective of someone who likes to shoot but loses interest at the level of coding and mathematical formulas, or where the complexity of information outweighs the practical benefits gained from the knowledge outside of the lab/software or hardware development.
 
If you're the same, you'll probably like it. 
 
---
 
Bit-depth = number of possible shades.
 
8-bit allows 255 different levels of colour for each channel. 10-bit allows 1023 different levels. And so on.
 
Side effects of limited bit-rate such as 8-bit include banding in areas with subtle gradients such as sky and smoke, "plastic" looking skin tones.
 
Practical fix: shoot your footage as close to your final look as possible. If you shoot flat, colour grade in After Effects, DaVinci, or another application with a 32-bit processing mode.
 
---
 
Sub sampling = spatial resolution of colour channels. There are three colour channels in digital video.
 
Uncompressed is R G and B, all at full resolution.
 
Sub-sampled is Y (black and white, or luminance), Cb (blue) and Cr (red). 4:4:4 all channels are full resolution. 4:2:2 the colour channels are half resolution. 4:2:0 the blue channel is half resolution, the red channel is quarter resolution.
 
This is not a mathematically perfect way of describing it, but it's conceptually sound for most of us in practice. It's as much as we need to know.
 
Side effects of 4:2:0 sub sampling include jagged pixelation and edges to red areas such as red glow from lights or red clothing. 
 
Practical fix: use a cooler white balance and bring your red back in post using a finishing application like after effects.
 
---
 
Bit rate = the amount of data used for video encoding measured over time.
 
50mbps is 50 megabits per second = 6.25 megabytes per second, for example.
 
This data rate alone does not necessary directly reflect visual and aesthetic quality, as compression algorithms and implementations are extremely complex and varied. Some fall within standards, others do not.
 
I-frame codecs encode each frame individually. I-frame allows most film-like motion "cadence".
 
GOP encoding uses Groups Of Pictures. The longer the GOP the more the codec can struggle with lots of movement. Long GOPs can contribute to a digital video "feel"
 
Side effects of limited bit rates include pixelation in high-motion shots, very little data in under-exposed or dark areas leading to blockiness and inability to recover shadow detail. general masking of natural sensor noise (grain) with unattractive pixelation.
 
Practical fix: a low bit rate is very destructive even with an advanced codec like AVCHD. This is why Canon use AVCHD for the C100, and their implementation of MPEG2 for the C300.
 
If your camera has a "black level" or "pedestal" or "Cinestyle" or "DRO", you can shift this up a little to prevent data from being encoded where there is very little priority given to it by the codec. This does spread data more thinly though, also remember your 8 bits...  Hack your camera if you can ;)
 
---
 
In short, working with compressed footage is a bit of a balancing act. A huge amount of data is thrown away in order to make files small and to separate markets.
 
The process is destructive, and cannot be reversed, though being intelligent on set and in post can help a lot. 
 
The ideal is something like Red R3D: visually lossless compression that maintains raw processing capabilities. It is a joy to work with.
 
Ironically, it's actually more important  that you get your shot right with a cheaper consumer camera than with a RAW camera, as you can't do so much in post production. Though users of lower end DSLRs are the least likely to use a light meter, for example, they are actually the most likely to benefit from it.
 
Practice makes perfect.

Unless this camera is doing the C300's trick (when not in cine mode) and recording values above "clipping" in super white, so you can pull back in post, I'd guess clipped is clipped on this Nikon.
 
That's what the such an ND is for though, bring the sky down a bit to keep things in range, I don't see why it's funny! It's  a perfectly valid solution to such a problem. It certainly would allow someone to use a camera with low dynamic range and a filter to shoot a similar scene to that which could be shot without the filter and using a BMCC or similar raw camera.

Don't be pedantic.  Use in a film or art to serve a point is different.  At the very least, in jest, it's only appropriate between well acquainted friends who can communicate with each other without the need of pretense or editing.  Do you enjoy such a relationship with Andrew?
 
You were just being disrespectful and baiting so that you could play the part of the victim and create or turn this into a political issue with Islamist propaganda overtones.
 
 
 
Dude, you choose to live and work in a country that criminally indicts individuals residing in other countries for TWEETS they see as anti-Islamic.  GTFO with your very ironic hypocrisy.  

Just did a shoot with the D5200 last night and I was very impressed. Used it along side my GH3. Footage cuts nicely together so far and if I didn't know which camera was which, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Very close.

I don't even understand why the question is so difficult to answer. If the 'capture format' is known that defines the outer limit of the color space, 4:4:4 being 100% uncompressed. Minute that you apply compression you can bet that color compression is going to be one of the losses, thus 4:2:2, 4:2:0 etc.
Unless your dealing with fully uncompressed color space there's not much point in talking about Chroma Key.
Let's focus on the overall look to the eye and the vectorscopes for grading in post.
Based on the side-by-side with the GH3 the D5200 footage looked visibly better in most shots with less obvious macroblocking in the deepest values.
We've been through this exact discussion before, when the Nikon D800 was first released.
Bottom line is we're looking for RAW out of HDMI.

Smoothness in the bottom image ? What is see is an just an awful lot of noise reduction.
 
On an image like that, you don't/can't really see the advantage of 4:2:2 over 4:2:0 or 4:1:1.
 
4:2:2 is not about detail in luminosity, but in chroma. As there is not much chroma information in this image, there is almost no chroma contrast/details/sharpness. We can't say for sure that it is 4:2:2.
 
The compression artefacts are 4:2:2 but just hoping that the camera is not wrapping 4:2:0 information in a 4:2:2 format.

@QuickHitRecord
Pretty sure what you're seeing isn't the result of the color space, it's the result of the massive overall bitrate increase going from H264 to ProRes.  Detail and clarity come from bitrate increase, color data change is more hard to discern.

D800 is littered with moire and aliasing.... Surely that negates any plus points (and yes, for nature and shots you can avoid the aliasing/moire, it has a beautiful image).
 
Canon get alot of stick... but Nikon are the real no-show in this... They could completely dominate

A scrip is brewing in my head. A comic parrody of the Moire Fear Mongering. I fear it will be a hit ;)

There are no cameras out there that do what the Epic does.  Internal S35 highspeed raw.  REDraw is amazing, as has been stated above.  It fires right into Premiere, and REDCineX is a great tool for colouring.  And there's a long ass waiting list to get one now that the price has dropped.  
 
Red's also delivering RedRay players and soon, projectors.  And they're putting together a 4K digital distribution network for theatres and individuals.  As far as I can tell, they're crushing it, and they're not going anywhere.
 
I think that it's more likely Canon will be in trouble.  C300s and especially C500s are going to be very hard sells at their current prices.  The HDSLRs are crippled and over priced, and the lens business is getting more competitive every year.

I am blown away by the image, but this statement is so true. The 2.3x crop factor is a huge draw back that very few BMC fans boys mention. 2 weeks ago, I shot a music video that took place primarily in a car. We had to use a Tokina 11-16 on an FS700. On the 16mm end, it was tough to fit both people in. With a 2.3x crop factor, it would have been impossible to get those shots. I'm not a wide angle shooter at all, in fact I generally prefer longer lenses. With that said, there have been numerous times where I had to pop on the Tokina 11-16 or else the shot just would not have worked because of crazy tight spaces.
 
I think the real revolution will come when BMC comes out with the Super 35mm version with some higher frame rates. Then the S#!T will really hit the fan. But this camera is an great start. 
 
After using the FS700 with it's high frame rates which is amazing for projects like music videos, artistic pieces, B-Roll for docs and sports, I just cannot go back to a camera that only shoots 24fps, which is fine for narrative, but 24fps is just too limiting once you've had a taste of high frame rates and the amazing drama and sexiness that is created, especially when done correctly and not gratuitously. 
 
For me, I would gladly sacrifice some image IQ for a super 35mm or wider sensor and high frame rates.

Heads are squished!!? OH GOD NO!!

Glad you liked it Matt. Slow-mo is nice to have on the GH3. I think rolling shutter is almost at FS100 level with it. That is to say - very very good!

There are some technical advantages of full frame in terms of image quality. Of course resolution is one of them, and maintaining resolution along with better low light and dynamic range. We certainly don't need any more 22MP or 36MP full frame sensors for video though. 10MP is optimal.

What exactly is the fascination of a FF GH3? Seems unnecessary.. If Panasonic decide to increase the size of the sensor it should be to S35 not 35mm FF............... Why drastically increase the price for near to no benefit whatsoever? Just look at what the BMCC does with an even smaller sensor............................ Tell me again why Panasonic should make a 35mm FF camera?

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353991858' post='22392']
Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.
[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. For simple medium to close up shots moire is less of an issue because you'll most likely be shooting at a wider aperture, the 5D is fine for this. But things get messy when you need landscape, having to lose that shallow depth of field can show the bigger issues of the 5D. Thats where the GH2 seems to shine, incredible amount of detail.

http://vimeo.com/29549553

Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.