Vesku

And last year was the year of 3d.

Almost all good modern TVs what people buy now are 3d-models. The lack of material to watch is a problem though. It is the same problem with 4k. But amateurs like me can enjoy 4k quality by buying new 4k video camera. 4k experience is much more impressive than fullHD 3d.

Watching photos in 4k is very good buying factor to me too. All we have enough of that material.

I have been shooting in 4k and 5k for years now, and still haven't delivered a single project in 4k.
We are far from 4k being the standard medium. It will happen. But not yet.

But this is the year when 4k starts to show rapidly everywhere. 

 

I understand that a GH3 is sharper and I had one for a few months but I hated carrying around a tripod. I had it with me in Italy for two weeks and used it about 3 times. In the end I just couldn't be bothered and just used my Nikon DSLR and forgot about video.

 

The E-M1 is a amazingly fun to use for video and therefore I want to actually take it out and shoot with it. I think cameras like the E-M1 will actually get people like me who have been into photography for years but never bothered pushing the record button on their DSLR's, to actually start getting into video.

 

 

 

I can get steady and pleasing shots handheld with GH3 and OIS. Obviously best in wide end of lens. Difference is that those are tack sharp and with 50/60P motion and feel is much more lifelike than at 30P. I can use higher shutter and there is no blur in motion. I can see details all the time, not only when camera stops moving.

Did you try to use GH3 with unstabilized primes or why couldnt you get steady shots?

 

 

I'm a complete newb as far as video goes, but I am absolutely loving the E-M1 for video. The IBIS is incredible !! Just having a cam and a lens on the street with no other gear and filming away is so much fun.

 

This was the first clip I made. I'm usually into street photography but want to start doing some street clips :)

 

 

Sorry but this video is soft. Nothing like GH3 or RX10 level.

I have GH3 and 50 inch high end plasma tv. When watching GH3 1080P videos about 1-1,5 meters away those has not enough resolution to give perfect illusion of reality. It is even pretty far away from proper 1080P photo resolution. I am waiting for GH4 and 4K display because I feel it will be a significant improvement for me and for my videos. 4K is very welcome for me. It is time to step forward.

I have wondered why people want and like huge megapixel counts for photos but 1 megapixel video sharpness and quality with bad motion is OK for most.

What comes to original question it is of course true that best fullHD cameras are obsolete for 4k . Those are 2k. It is like can you edit a good bluray from DVD.

Many say hacked GH2 resolves more in video than GH3 but I havent seen any proofs of it ever. I have both and I have shooted resolution charts and I have compared resolution tests by others and my conclusion is that GH3 resolves a little bit better than GH2. GH2 has though less moire but more aliasing.

Thanks for sharing your review. It was quite praising. Are you perfectly happy with handling GH3 and managing settings. I find difficulties with changing photo/video because modes are not independant and camera suggest always same exp values for video and photos.

You say that GH2 has better resolution. It may be in paper (5000px vs 4600px) but in my tests GH3 still resolves more in video and photos.

I dont think that EM-1 can challenge GH3 in video. It is so much softer and codec is still weak.

Ergonomics something like this and sensible and programmable function buttons please. I know it is too late now but maybe in GH5-6.

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/mockup-lumix-gh4-camera.html

Now I can see that GH4 will be much like GH3 with inner improvements. So now we can only affect FW issues because GH4 is pretty much ready now. So here is new list for FW improvements over GH3. I hope Panasonic guys see this.

I want that!

Looks better than any fullHD could never be even in small monitor!

But of course when downscaling from 4k we get perfect 4:4:4 fullHD.

When I shoot sports (GH3 1080 50P) I use shutter speed 1/160s. If I want sharper motion I shoot 1/200 os 1/250s. Then I can get good still frames and sharp slow motion.

I can see clearly the difference between 50P and 60P with same shutter i.e. 1/160s. 60P is more fluid to watch. I think that 70-80 FPS would be even more fluid and I could then use shorter shutter speed.

Sports i.e. soccer is completely unwatchable when shooted 24P with any shutter speed. I have tried 1/25s - 1/100s. It is too soft of too flickery.

And what?

Funny and stupid mockup. Everyone can do it. Why it was shown at CES?  If GH4 is in same body than GH3 I would be dissapointed. They should do some improvements of ergonomics. Stupid EV-button was there.

Interesting to see what will happen.

Panasonic teased it with a mockup at CES. I think it will be revealed at NAB. Which could be a really interesting time if Blackmagic once again bring something new to the party.

That is GH3 with 4K text.

GM1 has no 60P.

GH3 has much cleaner video in good light than AVCHD little brothers.

I'd like to see some video of the d5300 beating up the gh3. I haven't seen footage that outshines what I've seen people do with the gh3 yet. Maybe it can, but i'd like to see some evidence of it. It looks less detailed. Hopefully I can find some footage of hdmi out video with the d5300. Haven't seen it yet.

Is there anyone who has d5300 and GH3. I am too curious because I have not seen any brilliant D5300 ot D5200 videos yet. The dynamic range too in those examples are not very impressive. There is massive noise in some flaat-profile videos too. I dont think that external recorder improves much not else than artefacts with D5300.

Can someone describe what is better in Nikon colors?

If using Creative mode HDYN in GH3 it uses whole sensor RAW dynamic and records about 12.5 steps dyn range video.

Yes unfortunately they don't do it. They just post some silly over sharpen video most of the time. For me I think that resolution is over hyped. Put a bad colour or DR video and at any resolution it will look crap. For me the cinematic look is a mix of Frame rate (24 fps), dof (super 16 minimum but cine 35 better), Dynamic range (11/12 stop at least) and Resolution .... (at least 1080P). Once you get about this mix you get an image which get near to the Cinematic look.

 

For me the big success of the dslr revolution was not just about DOF with the large sensor. What many did not realise is that the Dynamic range also had a big push compared to the typical camcorder of those days. The Canons where delivering about 10.5 to 11 stop of DR compared to general other camcorders that where in 8 stop DR at most. Most people associated the dslr look to be much closer to Cine look while the usual camcorder had better resolution than the Canon dslr which are closer to 720p. When you see peter jackson going backward in the latest hobbit film by using diffusion filter like promist to tame the resolution it tells you a lot. Now I am not saying that we should use some of those mushy Canon dslr footage, but a solid 1080p image is damn good. I have played back my d7100 images on my 50 inch plasma and it was really sharp. It did not pale to some 1080 p movies and I went to see 2k movies of very big screen and never saw a pixel. The strangest experience for me when I saw a 5d3 projected movie at a festival, the thing looked good. I don't and can't qualify why when projected the suppose not so high resolution of 1080p and 2k look so good.

Thank you for interesting reply.

Would you be happy if your camera shoots 1300x800 pixel photos while dyn range and colors are perfect?

Is it different matter with video?  Why video could be so lowres? My camera (gh3) shoots very sharp video but when comparing it to fullHD photo, it has much lower resolution. Is it OK nowadays to hope that camera could shoot even proper fullHD? 

I am with you in the matter of DR. The more the better. I dont though like 24P, it is a relic of old times like cinematic color grade with yellowish highlights and green sky and brownish blacks. Shallow DOF is also relic because you cant shoot 24P other way without flickering backgrounds.

I would like to introduce a new term "truematic look" as an opposite thinking against "cinematic look"  :)

I think that at Chrismas we can hope some things for coming year. GH4 is in horizon. Panasonic guys are reading our posts. GH3 got many features users wanted. So lets not be too modest. Here is my hopelist for coming GH3 successor:

-autoiso in M (there is a high demand in the field)

-autoiso limit for video or iso range

-every menu item programmable to every Fn (maybe not format). I have only 4 items now that I absolutely want for Fn and none of them are possible??

-exposure values programmable to C1,2,3

-when recording video, ALL exposure values must show in automatic modes. Now those are blocked

-more C memory slots

-manual settings for creative mode

-AE/AF lock on-off-on-off etc., during recording

-better EVF resolution and better ocular

-no useless buttons

-4k video 50/60P (pal/ntsc switchable)

-bigger handgrip, better button layout ergonomics

-flat mode in video which uses whole sensor dyn range

-separate video/photo switch. So all modes and handy buttons is in use for video. And then all settings must be independant for video or photo.

-more options for bracketing. -2, 0,+2 steps would be handy for HDR

-playMODE button to right side. Now it is difficult to use because left hand holds objective.

-adjustable AF-range and mayby towards/backwards function if AF-C will not be good enough.

-iso 50 would be handy for video in bright light

-dual memory card slot and option to copy mem card.

-better microphone with wind shield option.

-more WIFI functions and recording options

-stepless aperture change in video

-better (louder) speaker

-more songs to slideshow and simple crossfade option

-if using slower than 1/25s shutter in video camera should go automatically to proper manual mode maybe with warning

-HDR video (dual iso) like ML canon

-faster timelapse (maybe 1/10s interval)

-obviously better and faster sensor. No more rolling shutter in silent mode and 1/100 000s SS.

-120 or more fps with proper resolution

-adjustable autofocus speed in video

-softer and better shaped eyecup

-adjustable tone curve via computer and other modifications like Nikon V1

-electronic stabilator (very handy especially with 4k)

-stepless smart zoom for video like rx10

-video editor with capability to smartrender finished program (smartphones have it)

-stepless adjustment wheel for exposure -rx10 has it (maybe switchable steps/no steps)

-in camera LED light for video

-open source firmware for developing or application store for new features - like sony nex5t

-cinematic look option button: (24P 1/48 ss, with greenish/brownish color cast) :o)

-red led with text VIDEO because every subject is always asking are you taking a photo or shooting video.

-lens cap which you can operate without taking it off camera

-small directional add-on mono microphone which sound you can mix with stereo mike.

The day we have something like DXOmark for video that all these nerd discussion will be resolved. Nowadays it has really become the standard at least for sensor/image performance and no need of endless discussion about which one is better etc.

This is the thing I have been wondered. Camera testing blogs shoots many many charts for photo but not a one for video. Is there any camera site other than slashcam.de who does some scientific study for video quality? EOSHD does some but I mean proper comparable results and common consumer cameras.

For me resolution is the most important factor of video. Of cource it has no use if video is othervise bad. I have GH3 and I am waiting for a hack which could make resolution a bit better. Obviously I move to 4k when it comes. Most todays cameras has so bad resolution in video that one want to watch those only at "far away sofa".

I've just replaced my Flaat 11 video test with a less compressed file that shows quite a bit more detail. Download the original file for best quality. Grading details in description on Vimeo page:

 

Why is there so much noise in this video. Was there dim light? What was iso?

I made test charts of GH3 and Nikon5200. Nikon is actually pretty good and moire is minimal. Is 5300 sharper than 5200?

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/5118/nikon-d5200-topic/p24

Nikon horizontal lines with 30% contrast difference: about 700 and GH3 about 850.

I cant load any photos here in this forum. I dont know why.

Have you BMCCP raw users any idea why often colors become very weak and with green/brown cast like old photos? Is there some systematic error in cc procedure?

Here are some examples

http://***URL removed***/forums/post/52756637

Hi guys.

Nikons seems to have very good dynamic range and pleasing video with good colors and high iso performance.

BUT

If you compare Nikons with GH-line, 5D3 raw, BMCCP or C100, Nikons are so soft that they compete in different league. Like halfHD vs fullHD. Nikons has about 600-700 lines horizontal resolution and these other 900-1000 lines.

So it is like comparing 10Mpixel photos vs 20Mpixel photos.

Trying to understand cc

http://***URL removed***/forums/post/52756637

I made a sample frame of this EOHD vimeo clip. I digged shadows and applied heavy sharpening and some color boosting to see clearer the differences of cameras. I cant post any photos now but I posted same frame to DPreview "Digital video talk" forum. http://***URL removed***/forums/post/52650036   By the way is that okay to post links to other forums? I am new in these matters.