Michael1

IMHO, Any of them are fine and you'll be able to do what you want to do.  Those that worry endlessly about the tech are missing their chance to just get out the damn door and go shoot something creative and compelling; making work that demands to be reckoned with.
 
Now, it's understood that lots of people just love having new gear and seeing how perfect they can make their footage.  That's why I've looked at seemingly endless shots of London, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, and L.A. over the past few years.
 
And even though I love playing with new toys, I'm of the mind that trying to perfect one's storytelling rather than the image is far and away a much more important endeavor.  Nothing trumps skill and ability.  I like to craft the narrative more than the image...even though I like to get the best image possible as well.
 
Nowadays, I just pick the gear that fits the project.  RAW in a film shoot production is slow but viable and sometimes worth the hassle.  For docs, I'd shoot compressed and utilize the easy storage.  
 
But it's all just options, y'know?
 
Doing a doc in low-light?  Consider the Sony.  Making a real estate video?  How about the GH4?  Shooting a short film on a shoe string?  That BMPC sure would help...  Gotta fly a cam or stick it on a kayak?  Go-Pro.  Can only do handheld and you need steady shots?  How about that Oly OM-D? etc.
 
Ultimately, if you got talent you can make a great film with an iPhone.

I don't think I understand why you think they made mistakes for the a7S, or somehow the tests are wrong only for the a7S.  If you don't do the same tests for all cameras, then you don't have anything.
 
Michael

That might be logical if you are going to display the image at the same final per pixel magnification and view it from the same distance.  In other words, if you were going to display it at twice the width and height of the 1080p image.  But we know that's not how videos/movies are typically viewed.  So no, it really isn't logical. The practical reality is that an image with higher pixel count can tolerate more compression because each pixel and the resulting artifacts from noise and compression is visually smaller.
 
If we want to get into pixel peeping, we need to consider question of the information density coming from the sensor.  When shooting 4K on the GH4, we are getting one image pixel for each sensor pixel.  But the GH4, of course, uses a CFA sensor.  And in the real world of CFA image processing, such images are not 1:1 pixel sharp.  This is due to the nature of the Color Filter Array as well as the use of the low pass filter in front of the sensor that reduces color moire.  A good rule of thumb is that the luminance resolution is generally about 80% of what the pixel count implies.  The color resolution is even less.
 
Years ago I demonstrated online via a blind test that an 8MP image from a 4/3s camera (E-500 I think) only has about 5Mp of luminance info.  Dpreview forum participants could not reliably distinguish between the out of camera 8Mp image and the image that I downsampled to 5Mp and the upsampled back to 8Mp. They got it right about 50% of the time.
 
So what's the point?  The point is that before you can even (mis)apply your logic about scaling bandwidth with image resolution, you must first be sure that the two images are similarly information dense. What is the real information density of the A7S image before it is encoded to 1080p video?  I think of CFA images as being like cotton candy - not information dense at all.  About 35% of the storage space used is not necessary from an information storage standpoint. (Though it may be useful from a simplicity of engineering and marketing standpoint.)
 
And even with this, there's surely plenty I'm not considering.  For instance, if the A7S uses line skipping  (I have no idea what it really uses) that will introduce aliasing artifacts.  How do the aliasing artifacts affect the CODEC's ability to compress efficiently.  The bottom line is that all too often camera users apply simplistic math to photographic questions that are actually more complex.  There are often subtle issues that they fail to consider (like viewing distance, viewing angles, how a moving image is perceived differently than a still images and more.)
 
Personally, as a guy who sometimes leans toward the school of thought that "if a little bit of something is good, then too much is probably just right.",  I kinda wish that the GH4 did offer 4K recording at 200mbs.  Why not given that the camera can record at 200mbs?  But the reality is that I can't really see much in the way of CODEC artifacts in the 4K footage I've shot with the GH4 so far.  So 100Mbs is probably just fine.  50Mbs on the A7s is probably pretty good as well.

Great work by Kendy!
 
I see that many of his shots have bokeh, so the equipment does matter to some extent.  It would be interesting to see what he could do creatively with a small sensor camcorder.
 
I read that he does not use lighting, only ambient.  If the scene is dark, he says it adds to the mood, and that lighting would only make it look "fake".
 
He uses no tripod or Steadycam.
 
He doesn't use external audio gear, just "in camera" with a Rode mic.
 
He uses After Effects to edit and grade, and he does it himself.
 
He created his own camera picture style, which he sells on his website for 9 Euros.
 
He has no crew.
 
He has no budget.
 
He is self taught, and only starting filming a few years ago.
 
If this doesn't prove that you can create great things with minimal gear, and no budget, I don't know what will.  It's very inspirational.
 
Michael

GH4 CODEC INFORMATION:
(GH3 1080P has profile 4.2 cbr about 50Mbs)
GH4 1080P has profile 5.0 vbr about 80Mbs max 106Mbs
GH4 4k has profile 5.1 vbr about 80Mbs max 106Mbs
Bitrate bits/pixel/frame: GH3 50P-0.457 GH4 60P-0.652 GH4 4k 30P-0.313
GH4 4k has relatively slow bitrate per pixel but I think that better profile compensates that partly.
GH4 files are more difficult to decompress because of more complex profile.
 
I found also an interesting thing:
When shooting 1080P video in creative video mode it uses video profile 5.0
When shooting in photo mode using red video button is uses video profile 4.2

In simple terms, it's possible to get decent reconstruction using statistical analysis (vs. simpler methods such as bilinear interpolation (which is easy to code and is very fast)). If one starts with super high resolution, such as with RED (say 5K) and are targeting 2K, the quality of the debayer step is less important than say 5D3 RAW 2K debayered to 2K (ACR and Resolve do a much better job than the on-camera hardware+firmware: much sharper and more detailed images when debayered in post). Interestingly , RED Epic at 5K debayered (and without any sharpening) looks softer and less detailed than GH4 4K H.264 compressed (100Mbps): 

Maxotics-
 
Haven't seen ascii art in a while. I understand what you are saying. I think that this applies to more of a bi-linear method though? If you were using a rules based algorithm, like in an adaptive laplacian method, this might help prevent the horizontal (or perfectly vertical) problem?
 
I'm interested in learning more about FPGA programming, and experimenting with de-bayering, but this all makes me think that 3 chip cameras are not dead yet... unless someone invents a chip that has substrates like color film. 

I find it best to put your imagination in the form of a sensor.  Each pixel of your eye sees either red, green or blue.
 
Keep this grid in mind for a 20x5 sensor R=Red, G=Green, B=Blue
 
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
 
   
 If you're out in a field and shoot a landscape with a power-line glinting in the sun, how does the sensor "see" it?  If the line is perfectly horizontal to the sensor and is two pixels high, then each sensel is debayering using the same light.  The 4 sensels get full values for Red, Green and Blue.  They de-bayer them and each comes up with white light.  The power line will look perfect.  These are the pixels that "see" the line
 
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
  Now let's imagine that the line is only one pixel high.  That means you might have full red, green, red, green, and NO light from the line on green, blue, green blue, etc.  So what happens when you de-bayer each block of 4 pixels?  Naturally, you get a redish tint because the power line didn't register on the blue pixels.
 
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
 
 If the line is on the green. blue line of the sensor, you get bluish (because it's missing red).  Keep in mind, the field is green, so the sensor isn't going to figure out the missing red or blue if it doesn't register it.  
 
These are the sensels the register
 
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
 
Usually, "lines" fall above and blow sensor pixels.  If you look at any video with these cameras and look as thin lines you will usually see some form of chromatic distortion because, as jcs says, the camera isn't resolving enough detail (color samples).
 
In general, there are issues with missing color at all stated resolutions for bayer sensors.  It blends in when we don't have sharp edges that fall between a minimum of 3 pixels we need to properly ascertain the color

Interesting points in the article about the D600.  Can't beat a D600 for dynamic range at that price point (up there with the best at any price point).  Now if Nikon would only modernize the video on the D600 series...
 
I'll have to have a look at the Nikon 14mm F2.8 lens.  I don't see it on their website, though.
 
Michael

Some ungraded tests for you to examine. UHD/HDMI 10 bit > Ninja Blade ProRes HQ. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mt8hkrfk6hepj0/GH4%20UHD-Ninja%20Blade%2010bit%20test%20footage.mov

I just looked at that video, and I have no idea what you are talking about.  The reviewer said, "If I really had to compare it (the D4S) to the GH4, I would have to say they are so close, as to be basically equal." 
 
Michael

Great work by Kendy!
 
I see that many of his shots have bokeh, so the equipment does matter to some extent.  It would be interesting to see what he could do creatively with a small sensor camcorder.
 
I read that he does not use lighting, only ambient.  If the scene is dark, he says it adds to the mood, and that lighting would only make it look "fake".
 
He uses no tripod or Steadycam.
 
He doesn't use external audio gear, just "in camera" with a Rode mic.
 
He uses After Effects to edit and grade, and he does it himself.
 
He created his own camera picture style, which he sells on his website for 9 Euros.
 
He has no crew.
 
He has no budget.
 
He is self taught, and only starting filming a few years ago.
 
If this doesn't prove that you can create great things with minimal gear, and no budget, I don't know what will.  It's very inspirational.
 
Michael

Great work by Kendy!
 
I see that many of his shots have bokeh, so the equipment does matter to some extent.  It would be interesting to see what he could do creatively with a small sensor camcorder.
 
I read that he does not use lighting, only ambient.  If the scene is dark, he says it adds to the mood, and that lighting would only make it look "fake".
 
He uses no tripod or Steadycam.
 
He doesn't use external audio gear, just "in camera" with a Rode mic.
 
He uses After Effects to edit and grade, and he does it himself.
 
He created his own camera picture style, which he sells on his website for 9 Euros.
 
He has no crew.
 
He has no budget.
 
He is self taught, and only starting filming a few years ago.
 
If this doesn't prove that you can create great things with minimal gear, and no budget, I don't know what will.  It's very inspirational.
 
Michael

I'm no colorist, but that frame grab looks really nice as is.  I am also impressed with the amount of detail.  You can see the strands of her hair, and if you zoom in, the pattern in her vest.  There is a little bit of noise, but no much.
 
Your music video looks great,  It's nice to see what can be done with a GH4 in the right hands.
 
Michael

I think the concern is you are buying something advertised as a 4K camera that can't actually record 4K unless you buy something as expensive as the camera itself, and carry around something as bulky as the camera itself (probably more so).  The A7S might be better termed "4K Ready".
 
Michael

I agree with Maxonics.  I will also add, that if you look at camera tests, every 1080 camera I have seen actually outputs a "measured" resolution somewhat below the 1080 supported by the file type, usually 750 to 850 lines.  If you shoot in 4K, you should easily be able to get the full 1080 after downsampling.
 
Michael

You won't get full resolution without good lighting as Maxonics pointed out.  In low light, the camera goes into noise reduction mode, and there goes your resolution.
 
For stills, a full frame would work the best, both from a low light performance perspective, and from the standpoint of getting wide shots with less degradation in the image, including less of a fish eye look.  There are some good quality, modestly priced, fast full frame lenses, but you would have to watch your depth of field.  In movie mode, the full frames still do fairly well in low light, although the difference isn't as great compared to crop lenses, since they throw away some of the light with sensor line skipping.
 
If you want the ultimate in sharpness, I would be looking at the new Panasonic GH4 when it comes out next month, with its 4K resolution.  You would get full 1080 if downres'd in post, too, something I have yet to see with any 1080 camera output (yes, the file is 1080, but the image is not).
 
Michael

You won't get full resolution without good lighting as Maxonics pointed out.  In low light, the camera goes into noise reduction mode, and there goes your resolution.
 
For stills, a full frame would work the best, both from a low light performance perspective, and from the standpoint of getting wide shots with less degradation in the image, including less of a fish eye look.  There are some good quality, modestly priced, fast full frame lenses, but you would have to watch your depth of field.  In movie mode, the full frames still do fairly well in low light, although the difference isn't as great compared to crop lenses, since they throw away some of the light with sensor line skipping.
 
If you want the ultimate in sharpness, I would be looking at the new Panasonic GH4 when it comes out next month, with its 4K resolution.  You would get full 1080 if downres'd in post, too, something I have yet to see with any 1080 camera output (yes, the file is 1080, but the image is not).
 
Michael

Lot of good information here.  I like that the Panasonic rep gave honest answers, for example on the increase in f stops, rather than just giving a marketing speech. 
 
10 bit 4:2:2 at 4K on the HDMI port right on the camera body!!  Whoohoo!!!
 
Interesting that they put in adjustments for "shutter angle" in addition to the original fractions of a second for shutter speed.  They also put in dB in addition to ISO.  Panasonic's background in video really shows.  Panasonic has an edge over the pure still camera manufacturers, or those manufacturers with stills camera divisions that don't seem to talk to their video divisions.
 
The GH4 really has set a new benchmark for a hybrid camera, and shows Panasonic has obviously seen the trend where people want high quality video out of their stills camera.  They are way ahead of the market with the GH4.  I'm looking forward to seeing it at NAB.  I have a feeling this will be the perfect camera for a lot of people, like me, who go back and forth between shooting stills and shooting video on the same shoot, literally minute by minute, and don't want compromises in either. 
 
Michael

When you can buy a 4K cell phone, but not a 4K DSLR, something is seriously wrong.  The camera market tanked in 2013.  It's really simple.  The camera companies are not innovating.  You can't keep selling the same old thing year after year, and expect people to buy it. 
 
Michael

When you can buy a 4K cell phone, but not a 4K DSLR, something is seriously wrong.  The camera market tanked in 2013.  It's really simple.  The camera companies are not innovating.  You can't keep selling the same old thing year after year, and expect people to buy it. 
 
Michael

When you can buy a 4K cell phone, but not a 4K DSLR, something is seriously wrong.  The camera market tanked in 2013.  It's really simple.  The camera companies are not innovating.  You can't keep selling the same old thing year after year, and expect people to buy it. 
 
Michael

This is the review I have been waiting anxiously for, checking back every day!  It did not disappoint.  It's a great balanced review, covering the pros and cons, as well as, the best applications for this camera.  Thanks, Andrew!
 
It appears Blackmagic again came up with a camera that is unmatched for a filmic look in this price range, and quite a bit above its price.  I really love the look of the footage.  As Andrew points out, though, there is a heavy price to pay for using this camera beyond the purchase price, that will have to be weighed by the potential purchaser.
 
Michael

Actually, I would just leave it as is.  I'm getting to like it now.  Sometimes things have to grow on you.  I can really relate the sunglasses portion of the monologue, since the micro screw came out of my darn Hobie sunglasses a few days ago.  I've got the screwdriver, but no screw.  :)
 
I hope everything brightens up for you soon, Skip. (thumbs up)
 
Michael

*  Non-blown out highlights
*  Good shadow detail
*  Low frame rates
*  Scenes with low depth of field
*  Colors not oversaturated, and corrected to colors reproducible with film
*  Smooth gamma
*  Smooth camera motion
*  Good focus without mid-shot focus adjustments
*  Less obvious - picture grain
*  Images without over-sharpening
*  Wide shots without excessive lens distortion
*  Low on the "spoilers" such as moirés and aliasing
 
There is certainly subtlety to all this, though, and it has been an interest of mine why some digital cameras subjectively do better at the film look than others out of the box.
 
Having said this, I think 4K video may change the public's perception of what looks good.  They may see very sharp 4K footage as preferable over the somewhat softer "filmic look" shown today.  They may also like somewhat more saturated colors over time.
 
I was in a TV store recently with two identical model TVs, one over the other on the wall, and a woman pointed to one of the TVs, and said, "What's wrong with that one?".  The salesman replied, "It was calibrated."
 
Michael