tosvus

Sounds like you distilled this down really well.  For now, for my shooting I think the GH4 would probably be the best way to go, but it will be interesting to see how both compare in real life.

+Should be a low light beast

 

---No internal 4K is a really big minus in my book

-lenses (selection, size)

 

..ok 120 fps for 720p, would have been a plus if it was 1080p, now I'm not sure.

? No mentioning of price yet, I think, but guessing it may be around $2K or higher?

 

I still think the Panasonic GH4 sounds really good. This will probably mess up Canon's sales unless they do something drastic though.

Anyone surprised??

The compression algorithm it's not important here. I did some synthetic tests (post #118) simulating a best case scenario (a full 4K 4:4:4 8-bit image to a 2K 4:4:4 32-bit). I've tried different scaling algorithms and even adding noise doesn't give us any extra colour information. 

 
We technically get an image with increased bit depth(since we're blending some pixels), but it doesn't translate in smoother tonality or better colours.

not THAT algorithm... The one that works on the 10 bit 4K to make it an 8 bit 4K....

I'm sure when the gh4 starts hitting stores there will be people showing that it is possible to pull out 444 and somewhere between 8-10 bit in a image downconverted to 1080p from 4K 420 8bit. The exact performance will depend on the algorithms that panasonic utilized.

 

 

Example images? Can post a 4K and 1080p* image for a single blind trial  B)

 

 

 

*1080p and 540p would also work.

Regarding bitrates, just keep in mind that unless you use a codec that compresses each frame separately (think jpg for reference), most codecs store only a few keyframes, and in between, only record the difference between each frame, so lower bitrate is ok considering there are less changes between each frame at higher framerates.

it is not interpolation or dithering. Pretty much everyone gets that you do get true 4:4:4 (i.e less color compression). The 8-bit vs 10-bit is a bit more difficult to agree on. It is clear that even with the worst possible method of downconverting to 8 bit, you can retrieve at least on average 25% of the difference between 8 and 10 bit. The best scenario can yield the full 10 bit original (no dithering). However, I doubt panasonic implemented it this way. I will put together a simple spreadsheet. This is pretty basic math.....

 

I'm not sure why you seem agitated with Panasonic either. AFAIK, they have never said this. Guys who understand math brought it up and it was validated by the gentleman referenced in the article. No offense, but I don't know your credentials, however his are pretty impressive... Google his blog and you can see he knows more about color-space, dithering, dynamic range etc, than you or I ever will...

 

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

zephyrnoid:

 

good points, though keep in mind that the algorithm panasonic uses to go from 10-bit to 8-bit could in fact make sure the 4 pixels average out to one 10-bit pixel. There are also variations in between they could do, so accuracy would range from 25-100% depending on the algorithm.

I like the analogy of Bit depth being like rulers for this argument, I see a "10bit HD" source as one person having to produce a measurements in full 1/4 centimeter while "8bit 4k to HD" is like 4 different people measuring in full centimeters then averaging to the median of their measurements.

 

For example let's say they have to measure a subject that is 3.25 cm. 

 

The guy measuring in 1/4 centimeters easily and accurately produces the measurement of 3 1/4cm.

 

The four guys measuring in full centimeters would have to choose between 3cm or 4cm initially, if three of the four measured it as 3cm and one guy measures it as 4cm then their result would be accurate at 3 1/4cm.  But if they ended up with a different set of initial measurements they could result in an inaccurate measurement of 3 1/2cm or 3 3/4cm.

 

So it is possible to down sample 8bit 4k and gain more accurate color depth very similar to 10bit HD but you will be introducing an opportunity to get slightly inaccurate results compared to an actual 10bit source, in fact each pixel has only a 1 in 4 chance of being accurately sampled to 10bit, this would be noticed on edges of color objects and in gradients.  I don't think it's worth it as a 10bit replacement but it's definitely worth it for 4:4:4 and hey it's better than 8bit so if you're stuck with it I would down sample it.  

 

Bit-rate compression is another story, as 100mbps is not enough for 4:4:4 HD.  Luckily we are bloating to 4:4:4 after recording so we are able to reset the bit-rate, allowing adequate room for the extra information to keep the same detail of the original, I would suggest 400mbps at least up to 1.6gbps if you really think it's 10bit. 

I like that now that APS-C has been invented 100+ of photographic teaching is wrong.  When I was in high school taking photography one of the first lessons was how to use depth of field.  I used a 50mm 1.8 lens on a full frame camera.  Actually we didn't call it full frame.  All consumer film SLRs were "full frame" back then.  Any effect can be abused.  That doesn't make the camera used in the abuse a PoS.  Full frame is about more than just depth of field.  It also means if you want a 50mm field of view all you have to do is drop $100.  If you want a 17-40mm field of view you can pick up a weather sealed premium lens for about $800.  Full frame means less distortion and cheaper lenses.  Full frame is versitile.  Reasonably priced OEM parts work as intended without utilizing third party adapters with varying degrees of functionality.

 

As far as depth of field is concerned I would rather have the option of having limited depth of field built in and stopping down than being stuck with a limit on depth of field or having to use an expensive third party adapter.  My problem is the cost of good full frame bodies.  The cost of the bodies are prohibitive for people like me.

 

As others have mentioned, motion film cameras were never "FF", so unless you go for the feel that was created by Digital FF DSLR's in the last few years, you might as well stick with APS-C or similar for video. Besides if you want ultra-thin DoF, you can accomplish that with something like a speedbooster & sigma 18-35 f1.8 zoom. In the end, FF or APS-C doesn't mean much. There are other qualities far more important to get great video/film.

Just read the photozone.de test. It might not sound pretty for people who invested money into this lens, but if you look at the objective measurements, then it's a lens that should cost at best half of what it costs right now. (It performs worse than a comparable Sigma or Tamron, at a price for which you can get a professional Canon L or Nikon lens.)

 

What has been described here as the "clinical look" of the lens is actually the product of software correction: distortion compensation, CA filtering, brightening up the margins to compensate for vignetting, software sharpening at the margins. It looks clinical and artificial because it's not naturally sharp, but in-camera photoshopped to look better.

 

These are tricks adopted from consumer camcorders and compact digital cameras where it's normal to design lenses with optical flaws and compensate them in the camera firmware. Which explains why this and other Panasonic zoom lenses look "camcorderish" or "video-ish" when mounted on a Panasonic G body.

 

You'll encounter compatibility problems as soon as you mount the lens on any non-Panasonic body because even Olympus' Micro Four Thirds cameras do not support all of the software corrections (such as CA filtering).

 

- Btw., you can test all of the above yourself even with a Panasonic camera body if you isolate the electronic contacts of the lens (with a thin piece of plastic or paper) before mounting it. Then the camera will no longer recognize it as a system lens and skip software corrections. I once tried that with the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom, and it was quite an eye opener.

 

For photos, I have done a similar test on m43 lenses by opening the RAW files in DXO instead of Lightroom, and disabled all corrections. You are right that it changes a lot, but in the end, I am building a system around GH3 (and later GH4), so this does not bother me, and for instance if you look at the 35-100 I own (I do not own the 12-35 yet), it is incredibly liberating to stick a camera with a 70-200 equivalent 2.8 lens in what I would consider a tiny camera-bag.

 

If you are want the ultimate in quality that works on any lens, go with a Nikon mount lens and adapt it for sure. The FF glass is of course no compromise (easier to design glass of that size), and for sure, manual focusing will be better etc. Plus if you want to leave m43 completely, you can probably use your glass on another camera-system too. (unless you go full frame)

while I think it is good to point out it works best on a panasonic camera, your judgement seems a bit harsh, and not in agreement with most of the owners of that lens.

 

ps; the pana 25 had pretty bad CA on my gh3...

In reality, the 12-35mm is an optically poor and way overpriced lens. Look at its real distortion by hovering the mouse over the chart on in this page: http://www.photozone.de/m43/766_pana1235f28?start=1

 

It suffers from terrible CAs, distortion and disappointing sharpness. These are all masked on native MFT cameras like the GHs through software corrections of the image - but will hit you when you mount the lens on a Blackmagic camera.

 

Any Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm/2.8 APS-C lens is optically much better while costing only a fraction. Even in combination with a Speed Booster (which would make their focal length the same as the Panasonic's, with one stop aperture gain at f2.0), those lenses cost less than the Panasonic alone.

 

The only advantage of the Panasonic is its compact size and optical stabilization.

lots of lens-flares :)

Well, you may give people the impression that 8-bit means only 256 color choices per pixel, and 10-bit means only 1024 color choices per pixel. This is of course not correct.

 

To take your ruler example, say the ruler is 10 centimeter long. That means you have 10 values in 8-bit, and 40 values in 10-bit. (This example is a bit unfair as the low numbers used may give the impression that the colors are way more off than they would be in reality, but that is another topic).

 

Say your 10-bit ruler has a value of 39

 

The 8-bit ruler may on the other hand have values of 9,10,10,10. In this case, the value would be correct, though of course, there are several scenarios where it would end up wrong (but not likely as wrong as just one 8-bit value).

 

As far as I can see, the resulting 10-bit value will be less accurate than a source 10-bit, but most likely well above 8-bit as well. I believe the down-converting process could actually try to hit the "39" thus be very close to 10-bit in practice, but whether this is something the GH4 actually works hard at achieving, is unknown to me.

 

 

You don't have 4 boxes of 256 colors versus 1 box of 1024. You have four rulers that measure in cm increments versus one that measures in 1/4 cm increments.

 

 

There's advantages and disadvantages with m43. A benefit is that you can actually use some aps-c lenses with the speedbooster. That is not possible on aps-c cameras.

This is old news that some may not have figured out. The speed boosters for the APS-C and M43 both use the same magnification of 0.71x despite the difference in crop factor.

 

This means a 35mm lens adapter with speed booster will work out as:

35 * 0.71 = 24.85

For APS-C: 24.85 * 1.5 = 37.275mm

For M43: 24.85 * 2 = 49.7mm

 

This essentially means that on Micro Four Thirds, lenses adapted with speed booster end up close to the focal length if you were to just attach the lens to an APS-C camera (because a 35mm lens on APS-C becomes 52.5mm once you calculate the 1.5x crop).

 

Granted you still get the extra aperture stop from the speed booster, but it's still a shame that the focal length isn't closer to actual 35mm full frame.

 

Do you think there will be a company out that will engineer a 0.5x magnification adapter?

 

PS: Will the bokeh circles of a 17.5mm f0.95 be the same size as those on a 35mm f2 lens?

 

PSS: Anyone have any recommendations on small manual lenses in 28mm, 35mm and 50mm focal lengths with apertures wider than f2?

I suggest you check out the video examples at filmconvert.com. That should give you an idea of the power of post processing. I can certainly agree that  you may find a camera that has better "out of the box" presets, or that can possibly be tweaked better in camera to suit your idea, than others. It certainly helps with minimizing work if you find something  you can use as is - hopefully not at the cost of other useful video features though.

 

These are all good questions.  I don't have a Vimeo account, but maybe I should open one.

 

I have a feeling there is more to this than specifications and settings.  I'm thinking along the lines of the transfer function from light to codec.  I suspect some cameras mimic film more than others due the sensor's response, and what happens in the data pipe, just as some cameras have greats specs but really don't look great subjectively.  There is some art to camera design still.

 

Michael

Agree. I get the feeling people confuse this with something like a 8-bit gif picture where they could have 256 colors, stored in a palette and that is all each pixel could pick from.

 

While this is not my area of expertise, I will say that I have seen examples ranging from video-compression to disk storage algorithms that give mind-blowing results, and few normal people would understand how it could even be possible.

 

If someone like David Newman is confirming this is real, I don't see any reason to doubt it.

This really is NOT the same as "truncating" to 8 bit and then re-inventing data to get 10 bit.    More data really is there to begin with!

 

David lays the math out neatly:   4,  8-bit values combine to make one 10 bit.  Easy math isn't it?      (256+256+256+256=1024).  In other words you have 4 pixels each with a value between 0 and 255, which gives you 1024 possible combined values.

 

I asked David Newman the same general question about downsampling earlier in the week and got this reply:

 

"Very nicely, overkill even. 4:2:0 maps to an effective 4:4:4 with root-2 the image size. So 2.7k 4:2:0, is a nice 1920x1080 4:4:4 -- notice 2.7K is one of GoPro video modes partly for this reason."

 

For those who don't know, David Newman is not just "some software guy from Gopro" -  He invented the Cineform Codec and is clearly technically/mathematically gifted.

 

I don't think the workflow needs to be complicated either.  Set up your NLE with cineform codec installed (free from GOPRO) and then render an intermediate file with the correct resolution/luminance bits/colour sampling specified in the codec dialogue box.

 

Looks to be a really good camera!

should be easily testable as someone with an external recorder could do both types of recording on the gh4.

What camera does real acquired 4:4:4 though? Not many, especially not at $1999.

 

Let's see the end results and compare to 10bit 1080p 4:2:2 on other cameras and then judge it.

 

The theory holds tight mathematically.

I'm sure you will see good comparisons soon. An alternative is also checking out the 200mbps for 1080p. I am pretty confident that will look great and edit easily.

Also, keep in mind that relatively speaking, the more content you compress, the better it compresses. This goes for both higher resolution and for increased framerates. Try to compress a small picture with jpeg and it doesn't work well. A high rez picture however compresses much better.

 

To be honest, I'm having a pretty difficult time interpreting your metaphor... But if I understand correctly, you're saying 1080p is a bit on the way out? Otherwise you may need to provide me with a new metaphor :P

 

I'm worried that the 4K footage will show compression artefacts, even if it's shot at 100mbps.  

you wasted a lot of effort proving my point, and clearly not having understood my original remark. Dslr sales are largely driven by stills photographers. I was talking about the filmmaking community.

 

 

Besides, while Americans are a bit slow to adopt in general (bigger is better syndrome), we will start coming around eventually, I have no worries about that.

Hi tosvus it should be the mirroless crowd who should be afraid >

 

As you can see from the latest numbers the sale of Mirrorless is down by 47% while the dslr only by 12%. So if I was you I would be a bit concern because Panasonic has given an ultimatum to all its branches, either you get profitable or we close the section down. I am sure that I will still be able to buy Nikon cameras in 10 to 20 years. By then they perhaps will have but some evf in place of the mirror system, but I am not loosing my full frame d800 quality optical viewfinder for some video geekness. There is a plethora  of other ways from back lcd with a loupe and external monitor or evf to use. They, and I completely understand them, are not going to alienate millions of photographers that cater for 95% of their business to put today's inferior evf comparer to optical viewfinder.

 

I feel dumb to write what I wrote above, because I think that Panasonic is doing a fantastic job with the gh line, but it was... For soccer mum ... when people have been doing fantastic job with much lesser Canon cameras the last 7 years.

I didn't mean I don't believe you. I am sure some guys have commented that it's a good camera, but that doesn't mean it is the camera of choice for anyone with good budgets.. Besides, the D800 is more expensive than a gh4, and it has very little to do with the D5300 so this is off topic in my opinion.

Do you really want me to post links to all the interviews to convince you it's not just "anecdotal"?
Why would you need a trained crew for that? If you have a budget to hire a gaffer and sparks why wouldn't you have money to hire proper lighting - still not my point; A cinematographer working on a budget should be able to operate, light and act as a grip on a budget film and use (and know what) equipment fits the budget and purpose.

I respect your opinion that you don't see any reason for using the D800, all I'm saying is, that if DOPs use it, and use it instead of BMC, Canon and Panasonic, surely there must be a reason for it?

Another thing that I haven't mentioned is why DOPs use the D800. Have seen a few videos with the D800 and the D4 and the highlight rolloff is (what I would call) incredibly close to that of an Alexa. It's looks very realistic and it holds so much detail in the shadows, which is another reason why it's becoming wildly used in productions.

I think the previous poster goes by a different definition of soccer mom. Afaik they mostly shoot full auto everything and will get very good results for the money with a d5300. For amateurs, it makes sense adding a few hundred to the budget and go for a bmpcc or gh3. Why work around limitations more than necessary, we have enough frustrations and limitations as is.

Matt I think that the term nightmare is not appropriate. I don't know why on the internet people always talk to extremes when camera X will blow camera Y because it has 4 megapixel more, 1/2 stop more DR etc etc. Put a loupe on the back screen, add a pistol grip if you need more handling, or add rail system etc etc. You can also add a Ninja and get peaking, false colour/zebras for exposure, visual sound monitoring and a 3.5 jack to monitor with a headphone. I don't have any of these unless you buy a Cannon 5dmark 3 in the canon world. So you have all these solution and when the the $ +300 D7200 will have a weather sealed metal body with a headphone jack and all the buttons so that you have to go very rarely in the menu. So I would not say nightmare in case of the D5300 handling.

most celebrated is a mighty strong word for very limited anecdotal "evidence", no offense.

 

I agree on lighting, but if you think along the lines of adding a bunch of trained crew for that, those productions would probably rent that arri.

 

 

I don't see any reason to ever use D800 compared to the Panasonics, blackmagics or hacked 5dmk3 for smaller budget stuff, and most certainly not the D5300 which is what the topic is about..

I don't think you got my point? The point was not that people should use Alexas. My point was that people seem to say that the D800 is a bad camera even though it is the most celebrated DSLR by real cinematographers.
My whole point was that people should worry less about the camera, but more about the lighting (and camera for that matter) Ask any cinematographer and in sure they'll say, that light, movement and lenses are more important than the actual camera, hence why you could use a D800 and cut it seamlessly with an Alexa.

I don't think this site is aimed too much at producers of content to big budget productions. Correct, you won't find GH2/GH3/Blackmagic, or D800 or Canon 5d mk3 there for that matter. (maybe any of these as funny experiments or very limited scenes where they don't want to risk more expensive equipment).

 

 

The nice thing about a camera like the Blackmagic, is that it affords filmmakers who can't afford a big crew of lighting people etc to still end up with good footage.

 

So:

 

Nikon 5300 - soccermoms

Blackmagic/GH2/GH3/GH3 - indie, smaller productions

Arri (mostly) - large budget digital

 

Am I wrong to assume that actual working cinematographers would have something to say here? Not saying that I'm one of these endangered species, but I'm specifically thinking of Bradford Lipson (Wilfred) and Jeff Jur (Dexter). Jeff Jur said in an interview, that most of the time the post production team had a hard time telling the difference between their A and B can and the Nikon D800, which is fair enough if it wasn't for the fact that the A camera was an Alexa.
Again, not claiming to be a cinematographer equally skilled to the above mentioned I think their on to something. Why else would two very successful cinematographers use them? If Blackmagic and GH2/GH3/GH4 are such amazing cameras why is that only amateurs and small businesses uses them and not big studios with budgets large enough to use whatever camera they like?

Nothing bad about mr. Reid, but I think people are focussing to much on what, in my opinion, are facts, numbers and presumptions.
Blackmagic might very well have packed 13 stops of dynamic range into their cameras but if that's what you're relaying on as a cinematographer, you're not really doing you're job. It does indeed challenges your knowledge of light and the way you (or rather the camera) sees it, but if you can't adjust to that you should probably find another line of work or admit that you don't have what it takes.

And yes, some people are probably going to argue that the GH2 was "voted" the winner of the Zacuto shoutout and that it was only because of the expensive light gear they had access to, but you'll be surprised how much you can achieve with work lights, fluorescent tubes, gels, baking paper, reflectors, foam core and flags (all of which are very cheap) At least that is my personal experience.

...and hey, then you don't have to worry about carrying tons of batteries and spend thousands on storage.

Coming from a photographic background that makes me think of the most famous (and annoying) quote amongst photographers: "the camera doesn't make the creative decisions" also sometimes heard as "the camera doesn't create the photographer"

I haven't tried the GH4 yet, but two points you may take into consideration;

 

1. I think you can get a speedbooster for your Contax Zeiss lenses. If you do, it makes the crop factor much closer, and the added light sensitivity will likely make up for most of the advantage a larger sensor would have with the same lenses.

 

2. By downsizing 4K signal to 1080p in post, theoretically it should boost the picture to something like 10bit 422 or better and I would expect it would hold up very well in grading.

 

I was wondering. I'm considering buying either a 5D mark III for RAW or a GH4. Both have their ups a downs, but both of them (as far as I've been able to see) produce stunning images. Sensor size is kind of a biggie for me though.

 

I've put the ups and downs for me here:

 

I own Contax Zeiss lenses, which are 35mm. Full frame ftw. (+1 for 5D)

I already own a Sandisk 64gb extreme pro card, which I can use with the GH4. (+1 for GH4)

GH4 is much cheaper (+1 for GH4)

Recording modes (+1 GH4)

Rolling shutter (I'm guessing +1 GH4)

Noise (I'm guessing 5D still beats the GH4 here?)

External Add on with XLR and SDI (+1 GH4)

Magic Lantern (+1 5D)

 

Here are my concerns really, can anyone tell me how the 5D's RAW holds up against 4K H264? As far as I can see, both look great... on the internet that is.

 

Cheers

Good article, Andrew. There sure seems to be a few annoyed/scared Nikon/Canon people on the forum.  You may want to cater a bit more to them, even if *we* know they are wrong ;) haha

 

Seriously though, there is no denying that the picture/video quality can be very good on a D5300, but it is about more than that (and it's built-in codecs falls flat against GH3, GH4, BMPCC as well..). Ergonomics, Audio features (esp. GH3/GH4) is in a different league, and with the speedbooster, they can compete with FF on DoF and low light performance.

 

If you primarily want to take pictures, and some occasional home movies, the D5300 is great, but this is a FILMMAKING website.