Orangenz

Tiresome. I didn't say people don't give a rats ass about 4:2:2 I said most people don't give a rats ass about having their camera on a short-list drawn up by a man in a cupboard at television centre.

I've taken your argument back in time a bit and resized your image to SD.
 
Same argument, same flaw, but by taking it back in time hopefully you will see the flaws more clearly.
 
 
Technological progress is essential!

I'm pretty new here but I think the tone in Tim's mail is.... Unnecessarily harsh.

Why "you failed to" etc? It's not that eoshd.com owes this person anything.

The tone is a shame because there are some good points in Tim's mail.

Anyway I thought the article was a good read.

Great summary! Nice to know you are confident in good low light performance in the gh4, hope you are right!

Ladies and gentleman and not so gentleman we have a Mr Angry on the forum. Calm down Mr Angry. It's only a camera!
 
Contribute without the nastiness from now on, or lose your login privileges. Your choice.
 
I choose not to shoot with the AX100 because I prefer interchangeable lenses on the GH4. My choice.

Forgot to add - Awesome review, Andrew!! ... You cut through all the bullshit and delivered the exact info I needed to know.  The other GH4 hands-on reviews are pretty pathetic by comparison.

I braced myself for The Mark Response. Truth is I've been treading this moment. I'll try not to be too harsh on you, and try to keep it short.
 
You're wrong.

Uematsu-san said 4:2:2 sampling on the sensor, debayer, right through the imaging pipeline until the actual encoder, then it goes to 4:2:0.
 
Yes 10bit 4:2:2 over HDMI to your Ninja, which is how I intend to record 1080p on this beauty.

Ha. Someone who didn't read past the first line of the blog post. What did I say about crisp 1080p image? 4K gives you the crispest 1080p image out there and then you even have 10bit 4:2:2 from the HDMI port. Infuriating!

Hmm why no AX100 coverage. Well the AX100 is a camcorder and this is a DSLR blog. I've had my hands on a GH4 and I've not had my hands on an AX100. It isn't available to buy yet and it doesn't excite me as much as the GH4. It has a fixed zoom lens, with a spec that's a step backwards from the constant F2.8 aperture lens on the RX10. There's better stuff out there dude!

Panasonic didn't miss on anything. They heavily improved the GH3, it's a no brainer for journalist, high quality video and stills. What this release tells me is that a AF101 successor is right around the corner. Panasonic is smart IMHO, I bet we'll see a GH4, AF200 and the anticipated Vari Cam in 2014. I suspect what you're looking for you'll be happy once NAB rolls around. Coming out with a new AF series, 4K, 10 bit, higher frame rates along with the new Vari Cam could make Panasonic the new Blackmagic. Sonys not gonna beat down the F5, Canon has the c500, nothing from Nikon, Blackmagic needs to deliver before anything else, and sadly I haven't seen any normal decent footage from the DB yet, so the markets ripe. It's a great transition into 4k, terrific offering but the Gap is too wide between the GH4 and Vari cam, I think we'll all be happy this spring. I'll end with saying this review was one the best I've read in a while. Thanks

Because you have a great camera, one perfectly capable of capturing beautiful images? One that actually exists right now?

Don't be too torn up about this - you're looking at probably a $4000 package with the base brick, plus more on top for all your cords and cabling. And if, down the road, you want to make the switch, you're in luck - these MFT bodies actually hold their value reasonably well (especially the Olympus ones).

In the meantime, don't stress! You still have a highly capable shooter. There will always be new gear!

Based on a pre-production model

Since the GH1 I have been shooting with Panasonic's mirrorless system for video. Without this series of affordable cameras my early work as a cinematographer and filmmaker simply wouldn't be the same. The GH4 marks a much needed major leap for the line, the first to shoot 4K to an efficient internal codec AND output 10bit 4:2:2 1080p over HDMI to an affordable external recorder like the Atomos Ninja!

On a visit to Panasonic I got to see the camera, see 4K sample footage and give my feedback. Here's an account of what I saw...

Read the full article here

Great coverage!
What release date Panasonic is thinking? For what is for those hole in front of the adaptor? some sort of rods for MatteBox and Follow Focus?

The codec is a bit too weak to go flat, I just set it to Vivid for rich tonality and used the GH3-Vivid preset in Film Convert. Not received wisdom but I did several tests with the picture profiles and that was the one that gave the nicest results.

Sorry to dwell on this topic again but I too am confused about the reason for using Prores in the timeline settings. The only way I found it possible to select prores in the timeline setting is for the video previews if the editing mode is set to custom, preview file format is set to quicktime(at least on Mac) then the preview codec can be set to whatever. Are we saying here that in order to really dial in things like grain during the edit process and be able to judge them correctly the recommendation is to set the preview codec to ProRes rather than h264? The only way these settings would affect export is if the "use previews" option is selected in the export window. Is my understanding correct?

Seriously only 30p with no PAL version? Our electricity is 50Hz... Bizarre.

Indeed, but as Andrew said, like with the D800, they can tell you all they want that it's clean 4:2:2 10 bits from the HDMI, but if it's just 4:2:0 8bits, "rewrapped" in a 4:2:2 10 bits signal, it doesn't matter, it's just the same "crappy" signal in a beautiful box ;) but they get to tell you that it's great, cause they're not actually lying...

A really great article!Spot-on all around. Thanks

4:2:2 is better color than avchd. Raw is basically the best the sensor can do though.

It wouldn't be M43 to M43 that would be impossible! This takes a FULL FRAME lens and reduces it down, giving you a brighter image as a side-effect.
 
It can also take an APS-C lens and reduce that down to M43.
 
If you take a M43 lens and reduce it down you will have black edges to the image Powderbanks. Also focus would be completely broken.

For the record, a 24-70 2.8 does not suddenly become a 24-70 1.8. It gives you the same look as a 24-70 2.8 on FF.
So more like 18-50 1.8 or whatever the math would be.
a 50mm does not become a 35mm, it just acts as a 50mm is menat to act.
This is a pretty interesting product though, hopefully they can make more mounts.
We can pretty much leave math out of it and pretend you have FF sensor, much easier. 

This is a really exciting product, however...  there are a lot of posts getting excited about using all sorts of cheaper lenses.  But from what I see the adapter will turn your cam into an ef mount, alpha mount or leica r mount.   You are then going to have to adapt your FD or what ever legacy lens to one of those 3 mounts.  Not so easy and not so straight forward as many need extra glass for infinity focus and finding good ones is more difficult.  Also you then have 2 adapters, and possibly more 'play' in the lens mounting.    
 
I have several canon FD lenses and would love to have them at full frame equivalent on m43, but I'm not sure the current road map for this gives me what I need.  I hope I'm wrong.  But this may not be aas good for legacy lenses as it seems at first.
 
Also I don't think it will make f2.0 into f1.4 lens.  It will give the equivalent brightness of a f1.4 due to conentrated image, but not change the dof characteristics, surely it will still give the original characteristics of the lens.  dof will be as f2.0.  When the website talks about .71wider it is talking about .71 wider on a s35, which brings the lens back to 50mm full frame, so when it talks about 1 stop increase in apeture, again bringing it back to FF equivalent??
 
So will this mainly be for current lenses(ef etc) or can we use legacy glass?

Before we all get too excited, I think there are technical reasons why optical reducers aren't commonplace.
 
They are used on astronomical telescopes, but that's a different situation from using them on video or stills cameras.
 
If I recall correctly from the dim distant days when I was into amateur astronomy, optical reducers can suffer from vignetting and also limit the range of distances at which the setup can be focussed. With an astronomical telescope that's no problem as you are almost always focusing near infinity - but with a camera for terrestrial use not being able to focus closer than (say) 100 feet would be a big limitation!
 
So I think it remains to be seen what the practical issues are - it may be that these things will only be workable with certain camera/lens combinations.
 
If it was a panacea for getting the FF look on small sensor cameras I'm sure the big manufacturers would have been on to it by now...

[quote name='Dr. John R. Brinkley' timestamp='1351126729' post='20255']
Great interview. I loved the persistent questions and the remarks to the side. Well done.
[/quote]

Thank you, hope it was somewhat an antidote to the usual PR.