Appleidiot

I don't know how it was done. I first saw this off twitter, and decided to post it here in hopes Andrew would have a look and see what he thinks. He might be using some sort of denoising app, maybe tweaking the master pedestal. He hasn't responded to questions asked on Vimeo, so we may never know.

Don't know how this guy achieved this low light look on the GH4, but it's the best I've seen from this camera.

You don't have to go in the menus to change the WB temp. You just push the WB button and rotate the front dial to adjust the temperature. The LCD always shows the effect.

Excellent! I do appreciate the information.

Can anyone that owns this camera confirm that when you are setting a manual kelvin temp, that you cannot see your scene simultaneously? In other words, you're popping back and forth, in and out of a menu to see the effect of your kelvin temp change? The Canon's allow you to see your scene and adjust the kelvin temp on the fly, so I'm just curious about the Nikon. Thank you!

I don't know, for myself, after seeing a fair amount of video shot with this camera on Vimeo, I'm really liking the image I see from it. I really can't imagine this not being a good enough camera for anyone's use, I mean how good is good enough, what are you shooting that needs something better? Most people that read this forum post their work on the internet, and this camera far exceeds that platform. Personally, I learned a long time ago to never wait till tomorrow, because tomorrow may never come. Don't waste your time waiting upon perfection.

The optical viewfinder, the only viewfinder of the last 100 year and more, a hole to another world, the photography, something so mysterious, so charming, it "doesn't give you an accurate representation of the image"?????
 
 
How could you kill a myth?? For an EVF and articulated LCD!!!!!!
 
Noooooo!!!!!
 
:o

Are you being facetious, or in agreement, the Nikon D800's viewfinder isn't accurate? Personally, I don't use a viewfinder to shoot video, so what about the LCD screen, is that a true representation?

The 'N' word? As in the racial slur? I've never seen it, is why I ask.

You're right, Andrew, you need this site to be exclusive to a membership, as I see you've been infiltrated with people from No Film School, where alls they like to do is argue over absolutely nothing.

You have no ideal what you are talking about,  the size of the sensor ddoe not equate cinema cinema quality image, that has more to do with dynamic range and uncompressed color gamut . Also the sharpness is not a downside, alot of the footage you see depends on types of lens used.
 
You brag about owning Zeiss when any true film make knows that Cooke or old nikon lens would suit an image better than a zeiss lens when it comes to contrast, do your research before making comments that you know nothing about.

I know enough. We can agree to disagree, no big deal. The size of the sensor does indeed have a major factor in cinema quality. A Vista vision sized sensor definitely has a cinematic quality.

Who's bagging? I merely stated I was jazzed about having the opportunity to work with the Zeiss Otus. Read the post, Jack. A major clue that I don't own this lens, would be the line "no matter how much I like, there's no buying a $4000 dollar lens" Does that read like I own it?

The only correct thing you've stated is, yes, you're correct, the Cooke lenses are a fantastic lens, and I don't own that either.

Again, this is absurd araucaria, Nikon d800 giving bad colors ? the hell are you talking about ? cameras these days give colors as much as possible closer to what you are seeing, WITH YOUR EYES to be more exact, you can go further doing a custom white balance and there is not much more to do, what colors do you want ? what are you a newbie wanting color effects in-camera ?
Appleidiot, I can't deny FX has a good look, better than a crop sensor, but if you try harder when you compose and get some fast lenses, you might pull it off at 4k, luckily for Panasonic they will survive even if you don't buy a gh4, while you are gonna shoot on a dated soft FX DSLR, the rest of the world will shoot 4k on gh4's and other gadgets capable of 4k, you will be forced to switch if you are running a video production business.

It really all boils down to what you're after, image wise. I highly doubt you'll get a truly cinematic look from a M43 4K image. I like the Panasonic GH4, the image is stunning, but I'm not in the market for an image that's so sharp, it'll make your eyes bleed.

I'll be on a shoot next couple of weeks with a Canon 6D paired with the Zeiss Otus 55mm. I'm excited to be able to work with this new Zeiss lens, the down side is, no matter how much I like it, there's no buying a $4000 dollar lens.

Personally, I can't compare any 4K image that i've seen to a full frame sensor DSLR camera. There's really nothing to a 4K image, in my opinion, that is cinematic. 4K is all about resolution, and a full frame sensor just has a look all of its own. I almost ordered the Panasonic GH4, but after listening to some NAB interviews, I completely changed my mind. I'm definitely in the market for a full frame sensor.

@Maxotics,

As far as I'm concerned it's not your imagination, in fact,I think the D5300 looks better than the D800, but that's just to my eye. Although, I will say i've looked at the D800 for a long time as one of the best full frame cameras out there, but the price of it has always turned me away. Also, I've heard, and Andrew would definitely know more about this than I, but the word is with the 36MP sensor, you really need a good piece of glass to reap the resolution benefits from this camera.

@Aldolega, my bad on that, sorry!

The Sony A7s is definitely an impressive camera, but to actually record 4K is going to cost you plenty, considering, if the rumors are close, the Atomos Shogun @$2000, the CFast card it takes @$650 for 64GB, of course you'll need two of those. You're right at five grand for all that, and we haven't got a lens on this baby yet. EXPENSIVE.

The only other issue with the Panasonic brick is the battery situation, which makes the portability of that unit, cumbersome. However, hopefully NAB will offer a light weight solution to this issue.

The other thing I wonder about is if Panasonic is ready for the massive ordering circus come this May. I know with the GH3, they weren't, as it took months to get it. Perhaps it's a supply and demand game, but for once it would be nice to see the demand met without a drawn out back order.

I really like the Cineform codec, however, it can only be exported via compressor for those using FCPX. Well, I should say I'm assuming that as I'm not running 10.1.1, but I highly doubt that changed.

The down side to all this information is, once this camera becomes available, you just pushed it back another 2 months before the average consumer will be able to touch it!

So basically, as stated, not being an expert, I'm right, in that outputting 4K to ProRes basically gives you 422 10bit.

I'm certainly no expert, but maybe, when you export out of say FCPX to ProRes, ProRes is 422 10 bit. But, that would not be a true 422 10bit file. There's no way of manufacturing a higher color space, you could down sample a recorded 422 10bit file, which I wouldn't imagine anyone doing, but the opposite, I don't see how.

I own a D5200, and I'm looking to upgrade, which is why I'm interested in the D7100. It is a tough decision, the images of the D5300 do look fantastic. There are a lot of features the D7100 has that I really like, another I never mentioned is the ability to set a manual Kelvin White balance.
There's just many little features of that camera, that to me, are significant. However, as one person posted, it's just a matter of time before the D7100 is replaced with an expeed 4 processor. I think I'll trade up for the D5300, and wait and see where Nikon goes with the D7100.

Thanks again for all your input!

Interesting, I'll have to have a look at the D5300, although, the deal breaker will be that LCD screen, it had better be night and day better than the D5200's. Dual card slots can be handy in many video situations, sure, not a critical addition, be none-the-less handy. One other issue, well maybe not an issue, is getting an EVF for the D5200 or D5300, I've not found anyone making a HDMI lock port, and as you well know, that's a costly repair if you bend those pins. I guess in time that may all come to market. I will say, you've got me interested in checking out this camera!

@Matt James Smith, depends upon what you define as superior. Image quality, I don't think so, at least I can't see it, and I've seen many images from both cameras. I could mix footage from the D5200, D5300, and the D7100, and you'd be guessing which is which.

The D7100 has many feature the D5200 and D5300 do not have. Dual card slots, yeah, nice to have. The fact it meters a non-CPU lens, yeah, kinda nice to have, I could go on, but what's the point. They're all nice cameras, I'm just of the opinion the D7100 has some pretty fair advantages over the other two.

The biggest problem with the D5200, in my opinion, is the absolute junk LCD resolution. It's the worst LCD screen I've ever encountered, making setting critical focus difficult. I wonder if the new D5300 LCD is any better, doubtful. I love the video the D5200 produces, and as a previous post stated, although the ability to change aperture in live view isn't possible, and the fact this model will not meter a fully manual lens, it is relatively easy to expose by eye. If you look at enough histograms, this becomes second nature, and add to the fact, a lot of times the camera meter isn't even close to displaying a proper exposure level. With all that said, in my opinion, the best bang for your buck when it comes to shooting video with a Nikon is the D7100. It is a big leap forward from the D5200, and one you might consider.