Tim Naylor

I've shot virtually all of your Level cameras except the F5 and C500. I still think Epic color science was much to be desired. Range is great but skin tones are not there. If it was pure IQ/grade ability I'd put the F65 on top. 16 bit color / 8 k down sample is hard to beat. Just rarely used it because it's ergonomics stink and initially its work flow was cumbersome. I also think the F55 deserves a higher slot. If you shoot in 4k raw it delivers an incredibly gradeable image with global shutter and 16 bit color. 16 bit epecially with 4k cameras is a big deal as Epic tends to spread its butter thin so speak. The time I've wasted trying to get skin to look just right. I had a GH3 and ditched it for a 5d3 because I found its DR too limited as well as its noise threshold. Sure it's sharper but the image, fleshtones, general color are no match for 5d3 IMO. Eitherway, it's a cool list and definitely puts things in perspective when you see DSLR's knocking at the door of Level 1.

Have you done this or anyone else for that matter? Sounds great, someone please explain what software they used to get 422 or better results. Yes, several cameras do this in camera and down sample so it should be possible in software.

I think the idea of the 3 axis gimbals are brilliant. Here's the issue I have with all of them. They seemed to be designed as if most people shoot from the hip or thereabouts. Great for walk and talks for children or dwarves but not for most stand up tracking shots. Most shots are done eye level and the current gimbal designs make shooting higher than your chest a complete and impractical workout. Sure we could always purchase an easy rig for another 3 grand, but this takes away much of a gimbals portable charm and manueverability. So as a longtime DP and operator, I beg the developers to consider rigs that I can throw on my shoulder and instantly take off an hold in low mode. Here's one developer who has the right idea but it's only vaporware for now. http://www.shadowcam.tv/pdf/ShadowCam%20S-5.pdf

This sounds great in theory. I'm just somewhat confused as to how the downscale renders the same proportions of Luma / Chroma of 444 if coming from 420. I know the information is there in the 4k. How does it throw out excess Luma samples? I understand certain cameras (C 300, Alexa, F65, etc) oversample in 4k or 8k to achieve high color sampling in 1080/2k. What software can do this with similar results? Barry Green does a good job explaining it in this thread: http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?120-ProRes-4-4-4-possible/page2 In theory, the GH4 should be able to yield a higher color sampling in 1080p than the BMCPC. If anyone has more experience with this downconversion/up sampling color space in post, I'd love to hear about recommended workflow. I've dealt with transcoding R3D files, so this extra step isn't a deal breaker. As I never have to deliver 4k files and have no desire to use an external recorder, this makes the GH4 look like a winner. Anymore insights to this? Thanks.

As a union member, I have no idea what you're getting at. I see both REDs and Alexas on union and non-union shows all the time. When it's not 3D or require a small body or producers are confident they can frame it right the first time, we tend to shoot on Alexa's, union or not.

Andrew, thanks for the response. With all due respect, you say that I'm coming from the wrong perspective. When you started talking about PL mounts, I thought a professional perspective was not out of line. Eitherway, you do have a good point about the limited PL options with EF. But you can get decent cine style glass with EF mount these days. And I agree, all BMC cameras dropped the ball with audio. Regarding 4:2:2, you're right, most prosumers won't care. I was hoping for pro specs in prosumer clothes. A few on this forum say broadcasters don't care. Perhaps in their experience. I've shot mostly doc, commercial and episodic, no "live at five" news, and at least half the channels (in the US) are quite specific about color sampling standards (with deliverables), some seem not to care at all (VH1, A&E). But if they didn't, I do for the sake of IQ and grading. All that said, I'm hoping the IQ of GH4 is so overwhelmingly good, that it'll get a hall pass. I'm truly on the fence for buying one and if so most likely with a Speedbooster. If you have any inside info about the ISO, what is its threshold before the noise is noticeable? This is one of the specs that prompted me to ditch my Gh3.

A dedicated video cam or DSLR with video as priority with these specs wouldn't move enough units to keep the price as low as a DSLR with still cam as its base.

I don't think it's a budgetary thing as the camera bodies (Epic vs Alexa) list for approximately the same in most major markets, the Epic sometimes a few hundred cheaper. This difference is nothing in the scheme of budgets and is offset by the additional workflow hassle you have with having to transcode R3D and Red cameras tending to crash more. Add in the additional 1.5 of highlight range and higher ASA of Alexa, it saves you considerable time on lighting. Switching from studio to handheld on Alexa is also quicker and easier. I work jobs where where we do this several times a day. That time savings really adds up over the course of a show. Last because of Red more limited DR and color gamut, it takes more time in color correction. So add all of the above up, and Epic becomes a more expensive proposition with no clear advantage in IQ. Now consider, few movie theaters resolve at 4k (let alone 2k) and few people feel the need to buy a 4k TV set, Epic's resolution advantage amounts to very little, even less when shooting Arriraw or Anamorphic. Someone like Fincher who mostly does aggressive color grades, Epic works fine. But for a more natural skin tone, Alexa's color space has a clear advantage. I used to own a full blown Epic and got rid of it as I found myself trying to hard to pimp it when it wasn't always the best rig for the gig. Since selling it, I've found myself like the industry shooting on Alexa's about 80 percent of the time.

Jeroen, You're very right. I changed up the tone. I admit, I got carried away as I so wanted Panasonic to make a camera I can use for work and they literally came a codec short. I'm sure the camera will be a hit in certain segments but virtually all my clients (mostly TV work) require 4:2:2 and that the one feature I look forward to, a pro camera I could pull out of my bag and look as innocuous as a tourist, must now have an external recorder attached to the cage, attached to the shoulder mount,..... They came so close. Back to the BMCPC. My apologies.

"The reason 4:2:2 is left out of the compressed internal recording on the GH4, is to maintain manageable file sizes in 4K and 1080p." Is that the reason? Canon figured out how to do this at 50mb and the GH4 is touted to record 200mb, they could've have offered 1080p / 200mb at 4:2:2. Since few clients if any ask for a 4k deliverable these days this would have made this camera a must have in any DP's pocket. I'm thinking they don't want to cannibalize the sales of their 4:2:2 video cameras. Canon knows this strategy well. Hopefully the Russians will hack into it and release 4:2:2 beast.

Interesting review. But I feel the analysis leaves out some important points. You talk about the size advantages of the GH4 but fail to mention that if you want to shoot 4:2:2 which for many of us is required by clients, the GH4 becomes a different beast. Either you use an Atomos Samurai for 1200.00 or a Convergent Design Odyssey for 2200.00. Ninja wouldn't be a good idea for focus at 4k. With the BMC add a small HD for 600.00. If the GH4 could record 4:2:2 internally, it would be a huge hit. That omission really is a deal breaker for pro users because HDMI connections are dicey. Adding the unwieldy break out box along with 12 volt power now has me looking at renting a C300. This break out dock will require some seriously redesigned cages because of its non standard height and the jutting forward past the lens mount will make rigging follow focus and other rod accessories a pain. Also, did Panasonic change the horrible placement of the HDMI out? This makes using the LCD in flipped out to the side most difficult as any owners of Gh3 know by now. From the pics it still looks the same. Could you please give more information on your DR specs? I've seen no tests or official literature that verifies 12 stops on the GH4. This is important to me as the DR on the Gh2 and 3 was much less than that (9-10 at most). You also mention using PL mount on the GH4. Did the reinforce it? The MFT mount on the GH2 and 3 was not designed for that kind of weight. I've bent a few. Saying a smaller sensor size is better for 4k because of added DOF needs some clarification? This doesn't quite make sense. What would be the point of Dragon chip, IMAX or shooting Full Frame? Would 4k be ideal on 1/3" chip and put it on autofocus? Anyone who's been shooting Red for the past five years or film for God knows how long, isn't bothered by this and surely wouldn't trade in a super 35 size chip for MFT size. Which brings me to glass. MFT lens choices still have much to be desired. EF mount offers loads more choices both cine and stills. Regarding ergonomics your criticism doesn't consider that anyone owner of BMC knows it'll be with a cage in which you have numerous choices out there. From there, you tailor your ergonomics. I'd love to see an analysis between the two if recording 4:2:2 is imperative and rigged out how people would actually use them in a professional setting.