dishe

All in the hands of the user. 
It can look pretty great if used properly.

 
I'm not sure why that short in the OP came out the way it did. Perhaps Nick was playing a big prank on all of us? I didn't care for the image either, but I know Nick is capable of better. 
 

the issue causing confusing with relation to dof and fov with different sized sensors is that people make the assumption that a bigger sensor gives you shallower depth of field.  This is actually incorrect.  The depth of field of a lens never changes with sensor size, but rather the field of view changes with the depth of field remaining the same.  
 
The effect is a wider field of view with the same depth of field.  As a result, on a bigger sensor you can use a longer lens and get the same fov, and thus create shallower dof for the given same field of view.
 
 
rather than removing crop factor, the focal reducer is simply changing a lens for a bigger format into a lens for a smaller one.  
 
on a typical speed booster of 0.7x your 50mm f1.4 full frame lens turns into a 35mm f1.2 apsc lens.
on this 'special' m4/3 focal reducer it'll change your 50mm f1.4 lens into around a 28mm f0.95 m4/3 lens 

FALSE! 
You sir, have missed the beauty of the focal reducer concept! It shrinks the entire image circle of light that was intended to cover a full frame sensor, giving you the similar FOV and DOF! You see what a sensor of that size would see, plus an extra light gathering stop because the photons are now condensed. 
 
Lenses become wider AND faster (and in many cases sharper because the imperfections are shrunk as well). It sounds like science fiction, but its just science!
 
I'm speaking from personal experience with these as well as from a physics perspective, THE DOF DOES IN FACT CHANGE.

FALSE! 
You sir, have missed the beauty of the focal reducer concept! It shrinks the entire image circle of light that was intended to cover a full frame sensor, giving you the similar FOV and DOF! You see what a sensor of that size would see, plus an extra light gathering stop because the photons are now condensed. 
 
Lenses become wider AND faster (and in many cases sharper because the imperfections are shrunk as well). It sounds like science fiction, but its just science!
 
I'm speaking from personal experience with these as well as from a physics perspective, THE DOF DOES IN FACT CHANGE.

I use the shrigg jig from Indiesystem. Its designed to fit a GH2 so its not too big (and fits with the camera mounted inside my gear bag) and I like the mounting points on the sides as well as top and bottom. Only catch is the battery door doesn't line up, so you have to actually REMOVE the camera to change memory cards (annoying).
 
Otherwise, its a great and inexpensive cage that isn't too big. 

Of course you should have lights- that's not the problem. Part of the point of the large-sensor look is being able to separate your subject from the background. Part of that is achieved by creative lighting (contrasting), and the other is with DOF (wide apertures). 

There is a balance, as maxotics mentioned, where you don't want to go TOO wide that your subject drifts in and out of focus, but saying you should shoot at f/5.6 in the average indoor interview environment sounds more unprofessional than showing up without lights IMO!
 
I usually use a lowel kit consisting of 3 lights with diffusers and reflectors. Still, my favorite interview lens is a 50mm F/1.4 and I stop it down to about f/2.8 to give a nice separation from the background. If that isn't possible or there is too much light, I'll place the camera farther away and use an 85mm instead. I just can't imagine trying to do this with that slow kit and getting results I am happy with.
Then again, to each their own and if that's working for you, keep doing it! I just can't imagine how it could work. Can you share an example perhaps?

Andy- I have it. Its sharp enough, but that's NOT what the OP is asking about. They want something suited for indoor interview situations, and the kit, while being pretty sharp for a kit, is not fast enough to be well suited. At 42mm (since you don't go wide on an interview), it only opens up to f/5.6, which I don't need to tell you pretty much stinks. I'd never go smaller than an f/2.8 in that sort of situation, and even on the widest end it only opens up to 3.5. If you think this kit is an ideal interview lens, I think you're kidding yourself!

I don't understand, are you trying to make my decisions harder or easier? ;)

Gh3 is a great deal for the money. G6 is not a whole lot different. But it has peaking and cleaner moire/aliasing. GH3 has audio and higher bitrates and build quality. G6 is compatible with my GH2 accessories (batteries, etc). GH3 has more wide spread support (popularity, other accessories, etc). 
 
::head explosion:: 
 
 
Andrew, we need a Non-RAW shootout! D5200, G6, GH3, heck throw in some Sony RX and whatever you have laying around that takes good quality without a crazy workflow and and unmanageable amounts of storage!

I don't understand, are you trying to make my decisions harder or easier? ;)

Gh3 is a great deal for the money. G6 is not a whole lot different. But it has peaking and cleaner moire/aliasing. GH3 has audio and higher bitrates and build quality. G6 is compatible with my GH2 accessories (batteries, etc). GH3 has more wide spread support (popularity, other accessories, etc). 
 
::head explosion:: 
 
 
Andrew, we need a Non-RAW shootout! D5200, G6, GH3, heck throw in some Sony RX and whatever you have laying around that takes good quality without a crazy workflow and and unmanageable amounts of storage!

hello friend, you seem lost.
 
this is a thread about nuances in cinematography: its an "In Depth Test" of Camera A vs Camera B vs Camera C vs Camera D

True, but don't forget this thing has peaking built into the body. The desire for an external screen is more for director/producer monitors, and other off-camera monitoring. Also, I want to see the framing and composition on a larger screen, and the ability to tap focus with an AF lens is extraordinary!

Sounds like more opinions, man.
 
I remember the first time I saw the team from BBC America covering the Dr. Who premiere in NY a couple of years ago... they wanted to get footage of the event for a promo spot, it was a 2-man team. One guy had a wind-screened boom mic and hip recorder, the other had what appeared to be a 5D on a light shoulder rig. Grabbed some footage and answers to questions, in and out with the crowd, and left. Since then, I've noticed less and less full-sized cameras at similar events, even weddings. I think it safe to say that perhaps YOU DO'T KNOW WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S DREAM CAMERA IS, so your opinions are just that- opinions. 
 
 
You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Are there some limitations? Sure. Are they drastic? Heck no, or else we wouldn't be using them, and looking for new ones to use as well! The workflow is different from my ENG days, that's for sure. But its not harder, just different. And I've been much happier with the picture quality, and have no intention of going back anytime soon.
 
 
Ok, we agree! That's why I'm not looking at RAW cameras! Fact of the matter is, not everyone shooting with these hybrids are strictly using them for film making. Remember the DVX100? That camera was a smash hit for both film makers and documentarians. There's often more than one camp of users for a particular product, but here one side of this group is looking down on the other and saying this equipment isn't for us. Which, quite frankly, is weird. 
 
Good thing I don't really find myself flipping through menus, then! I don't own a GH3, but on the GH2 I have shortcuts assigned to the function buttons, and manual aperture control on the lens. Only buttons I need to press is to change ISO, which really doesn't change much once the session begins. But sure, continue to tell me what works and what doesn't for me.   :)
 
The GH2's preamp shared the same specs and noise floor as the HMC-150. There have been some pretty interesting tests on that. They likely just used the same chip for mass-production, which means- yes, the GH2's audio is actually quite good. But you wouldn't know that, because most people just assume it isn't and don't bother trying it.
The problem is that there wasn't a way to monitor it, so even if the preamp quality and noise range is good, I wouldn't trust it for a production. That's why I generally have dual system audio. But if the GH3's is even close to the same specs, and offers a way to monitor on the body- yes, why not? 
 
Guilty admission: One of my first DSLR gigs was recording an interview for a talkshow on network television. There was a problem with my recorder, but Magic Lantern had just come out with audio monitoring for Canon DSLRs. In a pinch, I hooked it up and went with it. I turned the camera's preamps down to zero, and fed as hot of a pre-amplified audio into the camera as I could (using sennheiser wireless lav system and adjusting the AF out level) so it was just under red-lining and peaking, that way I could avoid the camera's weak amp as much as possible. I just hoped for the best. In-camera audio from a Canon DSLR (which has admittedly the lowest quality preamps of any video-enabled camera I've ever seen). I was really nervous it would come out like garbage. But you know what? It didn't. They accepted and aired the clip. 
Since that moment, I've been very skeptical about those who say what you can and can't do- what's good enough and what isn't. A lot of people like to be snobs about things they haven't actually tried doing. You just assume the audio can't be good enough because logically any small camera without XLR inputs MUST be subpar, right??
::rolls eyes::
 
 
What I don't miss, is running the tape through a firewire deck and waiting for it to transfer in real time. Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to that as logging. My mistake. Either way, a DSLR workflow in post is FAR simpler than those days, but we didn't complain about the tedious steps back then- why start now? How spoiled are we?
 
 
 
Sorry- I didn't mean to start an NLE debate. Its just that I've never needed to transcode anything to anything on this job, and I've been doing it since before DV tapes were standard. That's something I regularly hear my colleagues working with FCP 7 complaining about, and it was an unfair assumption that everyone needs to transcode as part of their workflow. If people like FCPX and don't find that they need to perform extra steps, power to them! I'm a big fan of being platform agnostic- whatever works for you, go with it! 
If you find that you prefer to use a different camera because the footage out of your camera doesn't play nicely with your NLE, than I might consider switching to a more friendly NLE without such limitations. Otherwise, the more the merrier!
 
I hear you. I don't see many people saying the 8 bit 4:2:0 is BETTER- rather, I see people saying the RAW workflow isn't worth the extra effort. I think everyone agrees that if everything else was the same, 12 bit RAW has more color information and lattitude, I mean its just simple mathematics. But like that guy on the previous page who is the producer of a Discovery TV show, sometimes it isn't worth all that effort and work in post to get something that arguably may not look any different to the audience at the end of the day.

Sounds like more opinions, man.
 
I remember the first time I saw the team from BBC America covering the Dr. Who premiere in NY a couple of years ago... they wanted to get footage of the event for a promo spot, it was a 2-man team. One guy had a wind-screened boom mic and hip recorder, the other had what appeared to be a 5D on a light shoulder rig. Grabbed some footage and answers to questions, in and out with the crowd, and left. Since then, I've noticed less and less full-sized cameras at similar events, even weddings. I think it safe to say that perhaps YOU DO'T KNOW WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S DREAM CAMERA IS, so your opinions are just that- opinions. 
 
 
You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Are there some limitations? Sure. Are they drastic? Heck no, or else we wouldn't be using them, and looking for new ones to use as well! The workflow is different from my ENG days, that's for sure. But its not harder, just different. And I've been much happier with the picture quality, and have no intention of going back anytime soon.
 
 
Ok, we agree! That's why I'm not looking at RAW cameras! Fact of the matter is, not everyone shooting with these hybrids are strictly using them for film making. Remember the DVX100? That camera was a smash hit for both film makers and documentarians. There's often more than one camp of users for a particular product, but here one side of this group is looking down on the other and saying this equipment isn't for us. Which, quite frankly, is weird. 
 
Good thing I don't really find myself flipping through menus, then! I don't own a GH3, but on the GH2 I have shortcuts assigned to the function buttons, and manual aperture control on the lens. Only buttons I need to press is to change ISO, which really doesn't change much once the session begins. But sure, continue to tell me what works and what doesn't for me.   :)
 
The GH2's preamp shared the same specs and noise floor as the HMC-150. There have been some pretty interesting tests on that. They likely just used the same chip for mass-production, which means- yes, the GH2's audio is actually quite good. But you wouldn't know that, because most people just assume it isn't and don't bother trying it.
The problem is that there wasn't a way to monitor it, so even if the preamp quality and noise range is good, I wouldn't trust it for a production. That's why I generally have dual system audio. But if the GH3's is even close to the same specs, and offers a way to monitor on the body- yes, why not? 
 
Guilty admission: One of my first DSLR gigs was recording an interview for a talkshow on network television. There was a problem with my recorder, but Magic Lantern had just come out with audio monitoring for Canon DSLRs. In a pinch, I hooked it up and went with it. I turned the camera's preamps down to zero, and fed as hot of a pre-amplified audio into the camera as I could (using sennheiser wireless lav system and adjusting the AF out level) so it was just under red-lining and peaking, that way I could avoid the camera's weak amp as much as possible. I just hoped for the best. In-camera audio from a Canon DSLR (which has admittedly the lowest quality preamps of any video-enabled camera I've ever seen). I was really nervous it would come out like garbage. But you know what? It didn't. They accepted and aired the clip. 
Since that moment, I've been very skeptical about those who say what you can and can't do- what's good enough and what isn't. A lot of people like to be snobs about things they haven't actually tried doing. You just assume the audio can't be good enough because logically any small camera without XLR inputs MUST be subpar, right??
::rolls eyes::
 
 
What I don't miss, is running the tape through a firewire deck and waiting for it to transfer in real time. Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to that as logging. My mistake. Either way, a DSLR workflow in post is FAR simpler than those days, but we didn't complain about the tedious steps back then- why start now? How spoiled are we?
 
 
 
Sorry- I didn't mean to start an NLE debate. Its just that I've never needed to transcode anything to anything on this job, and I've been doing it since before DV tapes were standard. That's something I regularly hear my colleagues working with FCP 7 complaining about, and it was an unfair assumption that everyone needs to transcode as part of their workflow. If people like FCPX and don't find that they need to perform extra steps, power to them! I'm a big fan of being platform agnostic- whatever works for you, go with it! 
If you find that you prefer to use a different camera because the footage out of your camera doesn't play nicely with your NLE, than I might consider switching to a more friendly NLE without such limitations. Otherwise, the more the merrier!
 
I hear you. I don't see many people saying the 8 bit 4:2:0 is BETTER- rather, I see people saying the RAW workflow isn't worth the extra effort. I think everyone agrees that if everything else was the same, 12 bit RAW has more color information and lattitude, I mean its just simple mathematics. But like that guy on the previous page who is the producer of a Discovery TV show, sometimes it isn't worth all that effort and work in post to get something that arguably may not look any different to the audience at the end of the day.

Andrew,
 
Thanks for the review. I'm curious about Canon 50D -- I remember you took some interest in ML implementation on that camera.
 
Some time ago I made a brief comparison in terms of DR between BMCC and Canon 50D (it was published at ML forum), and my wild guess was that 50D is 1-1.5 stop behind BMCC in terms of DR.
 
So what do you think of 50D? Don't you think it would be a more appropriate choice over 7D? Thanks for your opinion in advance!
 
PLEASE PLEASE notice this post buried in fan-boys' nice fights ))

I think the problem is so many people think that if you remind folks that you can get a great image out of a 8-bit camera, that means we are saying one is better than the other. Not the case. For me, I just wanted to remind people that in the end - a camera is a tool - and while the BMPCC has more DR and a better codec - the camera doesnt make the filmmaker. (And I'm speaking from as a filmmaker).
 
Personally, I feel like we can't get wrapped up in the gear envy consumerism that has increased expotentially over the last few years. I've worked with alot of gear and equipment that might have provided great features but at the sacrifice of other key options. For me, I'll wait and see what comes out of the Pocket Cam over the next year.
 
Everyone has their opinion. From my experience, Magic Lantern RAW is awesome. Produces beautiful clean image, but to really take advantage of it, you need to get the 5D Mark III. And the files are very large. Even for narrative short films like I do on a small scale - this would be highly expensive: hard-drives, CF cards, and the time to process such data on a massive scale. I'm an Executive Producer for a Discovery TV Show and to shoot in RAW at the amount of footage we capture during an 10 hour day would be rediculous. We'd have to have to expand our building to just accommodate the harddrive-farm.
 
Pocket Cam has a beautiful film-like image. And I'll probably end up purchasing one if it can stand the test of time. While it has a wider dynamic range and in a 10bit ProRes file - it comes at the cost of a lack of audio meters, a lack of a hot-shoe mount, a lack of anykind of weather resistant design, the lack of a full white-balance control, equipped with a viewscreen that reflects everything, equipped with a firmware that doesn't allow you to control your iris (without a ND filter), and riddled with SD card compatibility issues. Definitely not something I would want to buy on a run and gun shooting like I do for a living or even for narrative when every minute you are spending money on cast and crew. I'd like to know the tool that I use is going to work. Not randomly drop frames or not even read a card.
 
Additionally, I would hate to spend that 'easy' $1k and then Blackmagic devalue the product next year at NAB like they did with it's big-brother.
 
I'd also like to just say that everything you watch on the internet, either Vimeo, Netflix, Youtube, DVD, and most HDTV's are in 8-Bit. 
 

Agreed. Now, can we move on and get a shootout for the non-RAW workflow folks?? Pretty please?? :D

User has been banned. Thanks for the reports.

Lots of good points back and forth here- but what about folks who want the best non-RAW camera for news/event gigs? 
I love the cinematic look as much as the next guy, but when I interned for a news team, faster workflow always won over better image quality. 
 
I was recently offered a position in a company to handle video-PR for them- ie, make little promotional clips about what they are doing lately, sometimes record events and lectures. Its a mix of creative work and live event work. I'm trying to figure out which camera would be a worthy upgrade from my GH2 I currently use, so I was excited to see this test. But clearly a hacked 5Dm3 is overkill with a workflow not conducive to what I'm trying to do, and I sort of feel the same way about anything from black magic. 
 
So, for us shooters who are not interested in RAW, where's *our* shootout, Andrew? ;)
 
Can we get a D5200 vs G6 vs GH3 vs whatever shootout? A non-RAW test, if you will. 
 
I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in that!

Andy- hate to be "that guy", but this clip doesn't prove a darned thing.
 
You posted it earlier as well, and as someone else already pointed out there is so much motion going on that you wouldn't be able to spot a clean key versus a messy one in the first place. Not to mention it has been down sized to 480p. I mean, any HD camera downsized to 480p will work according to my explanation above about resampling. I'd say you could have probably shot this on an iPhone4 and gotten roughly the same results. 
 
Just saying.

man, ive been trying to wrap my brain around the whole color sampling thing for awhile now, and ive understood it enough to be successful in practice, but conceptually the little illustrations in this article really helped me a lot, thank you dishe! 

It would not be any less accurate than a camera recording that resolution in 4:4:4 color. 
 
The accuracy of the color isn't in question- the resolution of it is. The accuracy of any given pixel is really a side effect of how much resolution each color channel gets. As I understand it, color sampling is reducing the resolution of certain color channels in order to save bandwidth on compressed video. The idea is that your eyes will see the difference in contrast more than the difference in color, therefore not every channel of color needs the full resolution. This is mostly true, as side-by-side the images look identical to the human eye, until you isolate colors.
So when we say 4:2:2, you are saying that for every 4 pixels, cB gets 2 and cR gets 2. If you isolate the red channel in After Effects, and you'll see the resolution is lower than the full image, with the borders around objects much less precise and blocky looking/pixelated Here's an example of this:

Top part shows the full color sample, bottom is the resolution of the actual color channels. 

But like any enlarged picture that looks heavily pixelated, if you scale it down the discrepancy between the lost pixels is gone, resulting in a resampled fine pattern around the borders instead of the blocky pixels. In other words, there would be no difference from a picture taken at that correct resolution.

As far as I can tell, this is why having higher color sampling makes a difference to chroma keying in particular, not because it is hard to see what is "green", but because the borders of color aren't as well defined, and it can wreck havoc on the edges of your key. Again, its not about color accuracy, but resolution of the color channel you are trying to key out. 
 
If this is going over anyone's head, there's a great write up here on DVXUser about it:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/
 
Yes, shooting full res 4:2:0 and even 4:2:2 won't give as smooth of a key as 4:4:4, as the edges are inherently less defined by the very nature of color sampling. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, and that doesn't mean you can't pull of a great key regardless... especially if you are able to reduce the image being composited to clean it up. 

But this isn't just "smoke and mirrors", Andy. Its science. None of these cameras operate on magic. Understanding how it works in order to make an educated decision vs. just recommending perhaps a great all-around-camera is important! He isn't asking what's the best all-around camera right now! There are cameras around the same price point as the G6 that are capable of recording more color information per frame.
I understand what you are saying about RAW file management being a beast- I agree. But a 4:4:4 compressed image, or heck even a 4:2:2 will be far cleaner than a 4:2:0. And that's my own real-world experience backed up with science!

The whole idea of 4:4:4, 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is, as has been said, the ability to create low-bandwidth video by compromising on color space, which we are less likely to notice (over contrast/sharpness).  
 
The better color information you have, the easier to key.  Andy should write all the people who spent $5,000+ on cameras that do 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 and tell them they wasted all their money ;)
 
Andy, all you need to say is, yes, color keying is easier on a 4:4:4 camera, but for what you want to do, your money is better allocated on a 4:2:0 camera like the G6 and good green screens, lighting and software.  No one here has argued against that!  We've only tried to educate the OP on the issues.
 
You're effectively saying that some of us don't know anything about real-life shooting, only academic theories.  Also, you shoot music videos that are so busy, visually, that no one would notice green in the hair, etc.  We don't know what the OP is wanting to shoot.  
 
It's Murphy's law that one day, Andy, you will get a job where the client will notice the difference.  Remember to report back to us ;)

4:2:2 is all you need. It sounds like people are trying to give you the best here but not taking into account time management and affordability as a whole package. Most broadcast is keyed with 4:2:2 cameras. You still get definition around hair and fuzz. It is completely manageable. I would never go back to 4:2:0 after working with a live digital key, you notice the difference instantly. Yes the G6 is a great camera, yes it is adequate, but you are going to get more value out of the bmpcc.

Jiban, just in case you don't understand the issues from the beginning...
 
The generic term for green screen (or blue screen) is chromakey.  It means you "key" out a color (chroma), like a keyhole, and now you can see what is behind it (the chroma/color).  
 
In order for this to work, the software must go through the image, pixel by pixel, and determine if each pixel is the chroma you have selected, green in your case.  Naturally, every pixel will not be an exact green.  Some will be dark, some light, some may be bluish from the lighting, or reddish, etc.
 
In the software you can set the lattitude of what is, or is not, a green.   This leads to problems.
 
To key out the bluish green around an edge of the screen, you may pick up a bluish-green part of someone's shirt, and then that ends up being keyed through.  
 
Green, may reflect off the screen, onto someone's hair, and then that gets screwed up.
 
IN SHORT, GREEN SCREEN, IN PRACTICE, iS DIFFICULT TO DO VERY WELL.
 
Optimally you need
 
1. A large screen
2. A long distance between screen and subject to prevent spill
3. A well lit screen
4. A well list person, lit in a way that will match the visuals you'll key in.
 
If you think about this stuff, you'll realize that the better the camera knows a green from a not-green, the better it can apply a key.  Most video cameras throw out a lot of color information in compression, 4:2:0 (instead of 4:4:4) that one doesn't notice much in most circumstances BUT is a serious problem for green screen work.
 
YES, you can pull a good key with 4:2:0 video cameras, like the G6, but it is MORE difficult than a camera that doesn't compress the video image in that way.  I don't know whether it would be better to invest in a better green screen and lighting and use a G6, or invest in a camera that does 4:4:4, maybe $4,000 used and go cheap on lights, etc.  There is NO hard answer.  
 
In short, I am giving background behind what mtheory is saying--no one in their right mind would choose a 4:2:0 camera to do professional level green screen work unless they had a perfect studio setup.
 
The ML setup works because the RAW video contains 14bits of true color information at every pixel location.  Yes, the workflow is monstrous, but if you end up spending all your time trying to light your screen screen to get a good image, and can't, with a 4:2:0 camera, you might not think it so bad ;)
 
Almost every camera your friends will own is probably 4:2:0.  Borrow on and try it first.  Don't invest money in any camera until you go through chromakey workflow at least once to understand the issues I've explained.  Then you'll know what is, or is not important to you.

I actually don't like the battery mentioned in the OPs video and others like it, because you will have no idea what the discharge status of the battery is while using it. I bought one of these on ebay for about $60:
http://www.amazon.com/Naztech-PB15000-Universal-Charger-Extended/dp/B007URKIGC/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1382108393&sr=1-3-catcorr&keywords=15000+mah

Over a year ago, except mine was 18000 instead of 15000mah. And it was a silver version, but otherwise identical unit. I had to record a concert and couldn't swap batteries in the middle of the show, so I wanted to be safe. This thing comes with tons of plugs, and a 5V USB DC-out plug that works independently of the regular DC out. So what I generally do is run the main DC out to the camera at 9v, and the 5v USB goes into my Tascam audio recorder. It powered everything I needed to go on for well over 8 hours. It comes with all the plugs I needed, and it worked so well that I've used it for all-day shoots (8+ hours) and have never had the battery run down on me yet!
 
A couple of things you should know:
The DC-coupler from Panasonic has a weird polarity- the positive and negative parts of the plug are the opposite of what is generally accepted in the electronics world. Some say this was done on purpose to keep parts being proprietary to Panasonic, but who knows. I bought a new standard sized plug from radio shack for less than $1, cut off the plug on the DC Coupler and attached my own with some solder and Sugru (I *love* sugru!). Plug works great, but for a less messy approach, I've seen some adapters for sale that might work too.
 
As far as how the voltage thing works... there's been a ton of research on the GH2 doing this on other forums, but I'll give you the gist of it.  These cameras have a range of voltage. The battery for the GH2/G6 is 7.2v fully charged, and as long as the camera recognizes it as a Panasonic battery (with the ID chip embedded inside), it will happily chug along until it reaches low enough that it is in danger of shutting off (I don't recall where that is, maybe 6.8v?), and will signal the camera to gracefully shut down so you don't lose your footage. 
 
But here's the thing- without an ID chip telling the camera it is a Panasonic battery, the camera WILL NOT ACCEPT an 7.2v power source. It will complain and say you aren't using authentic equipment. But it will accept a 9v one. 
 
Why? Because Panasonic's DC-coupler has no ID chip either. It's just a pass-through that feeds direct current to the battery cavity of the camera. It seems that Panasonic designed the camera to be able to tell if it is running off a battery vs AC adapter by looking at how much voltage is coming in. Is it more than 8.4v of direct current? Must be using that AC adapter, don't bother checking the battery ID. It is less than 8.4v? It must be a battery and we must require a chip ID!
 
Long story short... assuming the G6 uses the same batteries and adapters as the GH2, it is designed to operate at 9v constant power. The problem is, it assumes that the source is consistent and not coming from a battery. That means that unlike using batteries, where it will detect voltage dropping if the battery is dying and gracefully shut off, here if your external battery pack drops too low it will just suddenly shut off without warning. So you really need to watch the voltage on the external battery. This is why I don't recommend the battery in that video above. It will work fine, but it has no battery meter and neither will the camera when using it. The one I linked to has a life meter on the LCD display, which is really wonderful if you need to keep an eye on it.