ImageMaker

Just a quick questions about the available frame rates on the GH4 vs the GH3...

 

I bought the GH3 in Europe (PAL) so it gives me the option to record in 24p, 25p or 50p. Since I shoot a lot of slow motion, I set up the project as a 25p project and record in 50p so that I can easily achieve a 2x Slow motion. 

 

The GH4 is able to record up to 96 frames per second. Will this be different in PAL regions? 96fps would be a 4x slow motion if it's a 24p project but a 3.86x slow motion if the project is set up in 25p. This won't work. So far all I've read is the GH4 is capable of recording up to 96fps but not 100fps in PAL regions. 

 

Let's say I want to record slow motion stuff with the GH4 as my A-cam and the GH3 as my B-Cam. I set the GH4 to 96fps - this transforms well to a 4x Slow Mo in a 24p project but doesn't work with a 25p project. At the same time I set up the GH3 to 50fps - this transforms well to a 2x Slow Mo in a 25p project but doesn't work with a 24p project. Is there any workaround for this issue? 

 

Cheers in advance!

-Moritz

It would conform fine to a 25p timeline

I would love to get a C100 but I don't want to invest in a camera that's still overpriced and is three years old. While it has two more systems that has came after it and that are overpriced too. 5k for a system that doesn't even shoot 60fps. No Thanks. 

I completely agree with your thoughts except for the overpriced part:)

I don't own a c100 nor do I intend too, all I was trying to say was that what the camera does, it does VERY well. That "crappy" codec is 10x better and more manageable then any camera under 12k.  A BMC for example. The initial investment is nowhere near 2k or even 3k. Some blog did a minimum cost assessment and it landed you somewhere in the 5-6k range to begin shooting. Keeping in mind, even with that amount, you still wouldn't have all the necessities OR efficiency that a camera like the c100 would provide.

My underlying message was, your paying for features. Each of them comes at a cost. As filmmakers we should analyze which features we NEED, and determine what we are able to afford(ND filters, XLR, global shutter, 4k, battery life, low light performance, overcranking, codec options, ergonomics, build quality).

Given the type of work I do, I could never invest in a camera that doesn't have the ability to shoot more than 24fps, but that doesn't mean I neglect the value it has for a potentially huge market. A lot of folks overlook the smaller subtleties that some of these cameras provide. If you have MFT lenses the gh4 really is a no brain'er. 

It's not really comparable to the C100, it's much better than that.

Not to hijack the thread, but that is an erroneous statement. A better way of putting it would be, the gh4 does a lot of things better then the c100, however it also DOESN'T do a lot of things better than the c100. For instance, Light an interview properly, setup both cameras and the end result will give the nod to the c100. Better yet, set the gh4 to 4k mode for that interview and transcode the full image to 1080(because that is what you will need to match the detail level of the non de-bayered canon) and after changing the memory card about 10 times and going through the headaches of backing up, transferring, transcoding that kind of data, I would still say the C100 would result in a more pleasing final image. Just so folks know, I'm not talking about data rates, dynamic range or actual resolution when I refer to image detail. Unlike what most other cameras are doing, Canon's cinema line does not de-bayer the raw image stream the same way most dslr, gh3, gh4, 5d, fs700, bmcc, bmpc does.

The c100 also gets a nod when examining the efficiency overall (built in xlr, neutral density, battery life, s35 sensor) and let's not forget some pretty spiffy low light performance :)

For a portable 4k aquisition tool, and cost, huge thumbs up for the GH4! For interviews, documentary work, events, weddings, large volume broll shooting. Big thumbs down. Not that it couldn't work for those demographics, but I see the c100 as an efficient tool that really does make life a lot easier for a lot of filmmakers.  2 different tools meant for different things I guess 

yes, its like the GH3 at 1080p. when you switch to 4K however the crop is even higher. i dont have the exact numbers, 2.25 crop i believe?

 

are thre aready comparions between GH3 and GH4 @ 1080p? maybe even stills in comparison to GH3 or EM1?

 

i think that the GH4 is a great camera, with the official price tag it sounds even better, but the handheld shooting style is still very popular and i need my next camera to have IBIS. switching from my 25mm 1.4 to the 14-140mm just for OIS, just isnt acceptable anymore.

 

i would have rather seen a GH4 with sharper 1080p compared to GH3, IBIS and no 4K option, than what the GH4 offers right now. sure 4k is nice to have and Andrew always says that you can always downsample it to 1080p obviously, but that happens at the price of a smaller sensor. sure its only a very small difference to m43, but we have to draw the line somewhere. going from fullframe to apsc to M43 multiaspect to M43 to cropped M43 doesnt cut it anymore for me.

 

when i buy a new generation of a camera i need it to be better or at least the same in ALL aspects. cropping m43 even more is definately a step back that im not willing to take.

 

however i can understand anybody who ll buy this camera in a heartbeat :)

You hit the nail on the head.. Everyone is clamoring about the ability to shoot 4k but no one is paying attention to the underlying issue that the GH4 still shoots a poor de-bayered image that(much like pretty much anything else currently available under 12k) lacks detail. Shooting RAW OR 4k is not a feasible solution for MANY projects. I recently shot almost a Terabyte of 1080 footage for over the span of 3 days for a documentary(think about how that would limit or impact what you shoot, how you shoot, how often you would need to backup, etc). I see many positives to what the GH4 can provide(cropping 4k is super useful, pulling stills, etc), but I also see many negatives(including the headaches and limitations of the dslr footprint).

I too would rather have seen a dslr format that could shoot a better QUALITY(non-debayered image a'la F3, c300, 1dc) 1080 image with increased bit depth, dynamic range, and the ability to over crank rather then get 4k and an externally powered box that enables sound and hd-sdi.  

Aside from it appearing to be an awesome camera with some great features, Right now I can't help but see the 4k feature in particular as being more of a "gimmick" for aspiring filmmakers to waste money on rather then becoming a serious tool for the arsenal.