Derek Weston

12mp = 8mpx in 16/9 = 4K full sensor read out = amazing low light for stills = amazing high FPS for stills = amazing still quality (see D700 12mpx pictures, 6years old camera...) = smaller files to work with = finally the first world camera with no compromise : 4K + FF stills in a compact body. What I have been waiting.... Yesterday I had a 2h conversation with a friend about how should we do with GH4 because it sucks in stills (I had 5D2, Fuji Xpro, XE1, GH3, Olympus EM1 ... I know what I talk about : M43 sucks for landscape as it has very poor colour depth and DR, go on 500px.com and compare shots done with 5DIII, D800 and EM1 (wich is a pro body as well) ) so we were wondering what to do as we are 50% in video and photo. Sony .... Please don't disappoint with any major issue, and take my money. 
RIP GH4

GH3 has better dynamic range than the 5D III. Go look at the sensor charts on dxomark. It doesn't quite have the resolution, though. 

Have you played around yet with dropping/pushing shadows/highlights in camera? (there was a setting for that, I remember reading, past the regular profile adjustments)

Also. . . have you noticed what the exposure time limit is for electronic shutter exposures is? With the GH3 it was 1 second -- it'd be awesome if we had longer exposures for night timelapses. 

Thanks.

Bit confused on time recorded as it relates to space on card.

You noted that it was around 100 megabyte per 10 sec of video. That's 600MB per minute. The math on 100mbps is 750MB per minute.

You then state that it's about a GB per minute. Was that just lazy rounding on your part or am I missing something?

Thanks.

Also... link to footage? If you're talking about the camcorder linking, no, I don't think that was more impressive.

Sensor on the gh4 is better than gh3, so the stills will be. Though I wouldn't expect a giant difference.
 

Not only because of video processing, but because they don't have raw....  look how Raw video improve DR on the 5D3 for instance. But even with RAW video on the GH3, the quality is nothing to compare with RAW Stills of 5D3, or this RED. Probably because it is 1080P... 

The 5D3 would film in RAW 6K, the video quality would be as good as a Raw picture you take which the 5D3, which is amazing. 

The Red is the first to do that, and this is crazy. 

Yeah, raw is the lack of processing.

As I've noted before, dxomark is useful for measuring sensor capability in existing dslr video enabled products.

The gh3, for example, has 12.x stops of DR.

It's how the video is processed of course, that affects actual realized DR.

The red dragon, for example, could have very poor processing and output only, say, 10 stops of DR range. (it doesn't, it's a 30 thousand dollar camera)

My point is... most of the DSLRs we see have really good DR should it be realized, but they're all saddled with poor video processing that causes this not to be realized.

I don't get these external recorders.  I haven't seen any video comparison where the HDMI out looked better than the internal CODEC.  From what I understand, the HDMI out is essentially after video compression.  

 

In dynamic range, there is no comparison between the video of my Blackmagic Cinema Camera compared to my D600.  

 

Obviously, if you don't have $1,000 lying around, the video out of the Nikon cameras seems very good to me.  Whatever problems aside, I like the colors and DOF of the Nikon videos shown in this thread (though I would prefer the G6 for ergonomic/video shooting simplicity).  

 

Or maybe I'm saying, if you had the money for an external recorder why not buy a BMPCC and a $15 Nikon to MFT mount adapter?  

They're useful for cameras that can actually output unprocessed 10bit 422... most cameras don't. 

Something like the GH4 should compare very favorably -- even better than -- the blackmagic prores. The sensor should support it.

Of course it probably won't beat raw, because it doesn't offer... raw.

The d600 would easily beat the blackmagic if it could output raw or prores 422

You're never going to create good art without strong content. Content is primary.

Good art gets a higher ceiling with good technology.

The end.

Found the comment on recording time with a 64gb card at 100mb/s to be odd.

Shouldn't it be: 

100/8 = 12.5 megabyte per second. 12.5 x 60 = 750mb per minute. 64,000mb/750mb = 85.33 minutes of video.

Perhaps I'm just  not reading very closely, but is 96fps on available as slowmo in 24/30 as converted by the camera? Or does it actually record 96 and allow you to edit as you wish in post?

I agree with Illya on most things but not Speed Booster, I think it's a great tool and has its place! Sharpness isn't a problem. Perhaps you get a bit of low contrast around out of focus areas with it. In my practical experience it hasn't been bothersome. But ask me again in a few weeks when I have shot with my Cooke PL lenses. This is the benchmark someone like Illya is used to.

Good to hear. For me I'll need it to pair with a 8-16mm sigma lens to get the widest field possible for landscapes. Really hope it does it's job at infinity focus, as I'll be there a lot.

Interesting to hear him talk down the quality of the metabones speed-booster. From all the analysis I've seen it looks to perform quite well. Anybody else notice what he speaks of?

my honest opinion is that 4K will not be a standard for at least another 5 years. Just think of all those cinema's that had to upgrade to DCP 2.5K not two years ago. They aren't jumping up and down to upgrade their system AGAIN let alone that one screening room they upgraded to 5K HFR Hobbit crap 48FPS that is going to be gathering dust for the next millenium.

 

I'm also on the fence for a new camera, and have just sold my GH2, because it just wasn't my cup of tea. The GH4, or what has been shown so far, has this incredibly plastic video feel. Reminds me of old Red One footage, but with extra THIS IS VIDEO smacked on it.

Resolution isn't everything. Just think about the fact that an Alexa shoots 1080P prores (when not paired with ARRIRAW) and an Epic shoots 5K and it's not that the 5 times more resolution is being noticed in the real world. I've shot with both and although i prefer the RAW workflow of the epic, the overal filmic look of the Alexa is just gorgeous in full 1080P.

I'd say stick with your 5D. Who know what those wizzkids of magic lantern will be doing the coming year. NABB will also be interesting...

Depends also what you're shooting for. I mean, who is surfing the internet with 4K monitors? A 2.5K WHQD screen alone sets you back at least 1000 bucks and that's not what the average consumer will be buying. What about apple retina displays? Who cares? They aren't even 10-bit colorspace.

Probably the standard profile used for the GH4, gives it the plasticy look you saw in videos. Most DSLR video looks like that with overly contrasty/colored shots.

I'm talking about raw. Maybe I can't it a codec; it's more like a lack of codec. But you know what I mean. 

Ah, yeah. That was confusing. Raw is lack of anything.

I haven't tried it, but probably not. But if your main use of 4K is to slightly re-frame your shot and deliver in 1080P, I think that it's fine for that.

 

Also, using the 5D with anamorphic lenses can offer pretty high resolutions. Using the 1600x1200 crop mode with a 2x lens can give you a 3200x1200 image, in raw.

 

I'm not saying that the 5Diii is going to be better for everyone. I think that the GH4 will probably be a really nice camera. But even before production models start rolling out, we already know that it can't match the 5D's 1080P codec. So, if you're mostly interested in really good-looking 1080P, I think that the 5D with Magic Lantern remains a strong contender.

What do you mean it can't match the 5D III codec? Everybody considers the gh3(and 4 surely) codec to be superior. (unless you're talking raw, which, of course, doesnt have a codec)

To be exact I think it's 2.17x in 4096 and 2.33x in 3840.

 

In order words the 4096 x 2160 DCI 4K mode is 17% smaller than the sensor area used in 16:9 1080p mode.

Although the actual horizontal crop is less, around 11% for DCI, 17% for 3850. (I guess I worry more about horizontal space loss and feel a bit better know there isn't as much lost there)

If you are doing 1080 stuff only, which camera would be a better option, the new GH4 or the ML RAW 5Diii? What do you guys think?

It's going to be hard to beat raw quality, even if with good 10 bit output. But there are tons of other useability/price questions you need to factor in -- only you can decide what makes sense for you.

I've famously gripped (pre speed booster days ) that there isn't enough bokeh in m43 sensors making foreground / background separation challenging. The sweet spot is DX/APSC NOT ff, but the engineers at Panasonic have an obsession it seems. Now. Reading the spec more closely, looks like there's even more crop factor with this 4k sensor, which is a real deal killer for me. Then again, I have zero invested in M43 lenses.

4:3 is awesome for me because I don't want bokeh -- I'm shooting landscapes and want everything in focus.

Also: interesting write up that seems to say we shouldn't expect that resolution to necessary bitrate is a linear relationship. http://alexzambelli.com/blog/2013/01/28/h-265hevc-ratification-and-4k-video-streaming/

As in: 4k at 100mbps isn't necessarily quality equivalent to 1080 at 25mbps. (it's better, from a bitrate perspective)

Indeed, and nail the focus as well. Quite important for 4K. Time to stop down a bit!

Although it again becomes less critical if you're shooting 4k to only to downres the final product.

For me, the count down is on. If this lands at < 2000 it's absolutely the tool I want to use to document my storm chasing this spring. I just hope it shows up before May otherwise I'll probably pass until next year.

Great article, Andrew, as usual. Thanks very much.

 

I know it's an exciting new prospect, with lots of features to look forward to, but I'm really surprised it's not possible to record 4:2:2 internally. Especially since the new cards are so damn expensive.

 

I mean, the BMPCC can record 10bit 4:2:2 internally on sub $100 64GB SD cards, why not this camera?

 

And a remote 12V brick to power the brick?

 

You've said it in the past, and it's equally true here - no one has combined the features most of us crave (Olympus-style internal stabilisation, pro-audio in, focus peaking, zebras, broadcast-quality internal recording capability, nd filters, ergonomic design, high frame rates) at the moderate end of the market.

 

We know they can do it.

 

To take advantage of all the features this camera has to offer it's gonna mean a shoulder rig, an external 12v power supply, external evf, external recorder, and all the cables and clutter that we already deal with.

 

It just ain't elegant.

I'm sure if it was easily done somebody would be doing it and making a killing. We just took a big step forward with this offering and we'll continue to take steps forward.

That's not going to happen.

"- it will be switch-able from 4K and 1080P with various frame rates (can shoot 120fps at 1080P for example)"

Lets hope 4K and 120fps are 4:2:2 10bit but I doubt it, maybe with external recorder.

 

Oh btw, it might be sub 2000$ but look at the cards:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/963983-REG/panasonic_aj_p2m064ag_64gb_microp2_fast_memory.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964013-REG/panasonic_aj_p2m032ag_32gb_microp2_memory_card.html

Wasn't expecting 120fps at 4k, just 1080p, which would still be great.

Had seen earlier that it would offer 8 and 10 bit output... only assumed 4:2:2 would be for 10bit

4:2:2 10bit + 4k + 120fps 1080p + other features mentioned + < 2,000 = huge hit if true.