interceptor121

I have updated my 2018 article that still gets a lot of traffic including from this forum to reflect the new codecs. Note I only look at recording on card not on external devices nor RAW
https://interceptor121.com/2022/01/24/panasonic-gh5m2-and-s-series-demystifying-movie-recording-settings-2022-update/
I hope you find it useful if you have an S series or GH5M2

I have updated my 2018 article that still gets a lot of traffic including from this forum to reflect the new codecs. Note I only look at recording on card not on external devices nor RAW
https://interceptor121.com/2022/01/24/panasonic-gh5m2-and-s-series-demystifying-movie-recording-settings-2022-update/
I hope you find it useful if you have an S series or GH5M2

I have updated my 2018 article that still gets a lot of traffic including from this forum to reflect the new codecs. Note I only look at recording on card not on external devices nor RAW
https://interceptor121.com/2022/01/24/panasonic-gh5m2-and-s-series-demystifying-movie-recording-settings-2022-update/
I hope you find it useful if you have an S series or GH5M2

As I started this mess I wanted to give an update some time later
 
AVC-I at 400 Mbps beats the xxxx out of ProRes 422 and I could not see any difference to ProRes 422 HQ at naked eye and pixel peep
Looking for explanations I believe is due to two things
1. intraframe predictive coding on 16x16 blocks that achieves high level of compression than standard discrete cosine transform in ProRes
2. CABAC entropy encoding squeezing additional bits without loss in the clips
It is difficult to average what the benefits are compared to ProRes but is not difficult to see that they are at least 30% based on perceived quality
As there are no fast enough SD cards this is limited to 30p on the GH5 but in terms of non RAW capture this appears to be very good
 
And with this I think I have closed the case I opened myself

As I started this mess I wanted to give an update some time later
 
AVC-I at 400 Mbps beats the xxxx out of ProRes 422 and I could not see any difference to ProRes 422 HQ at naked eye and pixel peep
Looking for explanations I believe is due to two things
1. intraframe predictive coding on 16x16 blocks that achieves high level of compression than standard discrete cosine transform in ProRes
2. CABAC entropy encoding squeezing additional bits without loss in the clips
It is difficult to average what the benefits are compared to ProRes but is not difficult to see that they are at least 30% based on perceived quality
As there are no fast enough SD cards this is limited to 30p on the GH5 but in terms of non RAW capture this appears to be very good
 
And with this I think I have closed the case I opened myself

As I started this mess I wanted to give an update some time later
 
AVC-I at 400 Mbps beats the xxxx out of ProRes 422 and I could not see any difference to ProRes 422 HQ at naked eye and pixel peep
Looking for explanations I believe is due to two things
1. intraframe predictive coding on 16x16 blocks that achieves high level of compression than standard discrete cosine transform in ProRes
2. CABAC entropy encoding squeezing additional bits without loss in the clips
It is difficult to average what the benefits are compared to ProRes but is not difficult to see that they are at least 30% based on perceived quality
As there are no fast enough SD cards this is limited to 30p on the GH5 but in terms of non RAW capture this appears to be very good
 
And with this I think I have closed the case I opened myself

As I started this mess I wanted to give an update some time later
 
AVC-I at 400 Mbps beats the xxxx out of ProRes 422 and I could not see any difference to ProRes 422 HQ at naked eye and pixel peep
Looking for explanations I believe is due to two things
1. intraframe predictive coding on 16x16 blocks that achieves high level of compression than standard discrete cosine transform in ProRes
2. CABAC entropy encoding squeezing additional bits without loss in the clips
It is difficult to average what the benefits are compared to ProRes but is not difficult to see that they are at least 30% based on perceived quality
As there are no fast enough SD cards this is limited to 30p on the GH5 but in terms of non RAW capture this appears to be very good
 
And with this I think I have closed the case I opened myself

As I started this mess I wanted to give an update some time later
 
AVC-I at 400 Mbps beats the xxxx out of ProRes 422 and I could not see any difference to ProRes 422 HQ at naked eye and pixel peep
Looking for explanations I believe is due to two things
1. intraframe predictive coding on 16x16 blocks that achieves high level of compression than standard discrete cosine transform in ProRes
2. CABAC entropy encoding squeezing additional bits without loss in the clips
It is difficult to average what the benefits are compared to ProRes but is not difficult to see that they are at least 30% based on perceived quality
As there are no fast enough SD cards this is limited to 30p on the GH5 but in terms of non RAW capture this appears to be very good
 
And with this I think I have closed the case I opened myself

Hi Everyone
I finally managed to get my first short underwater clips with the GH5
 
And
I am using Cine Like D and the results are pretty good. However those videos are with rich ambient light in other situation I need to go in deeper water and there will be less light
I am wondering if VLOG is a better option. Dynamic range is not the issue there isn't a lot at depth but low noise is. I will be shooting with predominant artificial LED light
Would love some theoritical pro and cons of Vlog vs Cine like D in this circumstances (optimise noise not range(
 
Thank you

Hi Everyone
I finally managed to get my first short underwater clips with the GH5
 
And
I am using Cine Like D and the results are pretty good. However those videos are with rich ambient light in other situation I need to go in deeper water and there will be less light
I am wondering if VLOG is a better option. Dynamic range is not the issue there isn't a lot at depth but low noise is. I will be shooting with predominant artificial LED light
Would love some theoritical pro and cons of Vlog vs Cine like D in this circumstances (optimise noise not range(
 
Thank you

Hi Everyone
I finally managed to get my first short underwater clips with the GH5
 
And
I am using Cine Like D and the results are pretty good. However those videos are with rich ambient light in other situation I need to go in deeper water and there will be less light
I am wondering if VLOG is a better option. Dynamic range is not the issue there isn't a lot at depth but low noise is. I will be shooting with predominant artificial LED light
Would love some theoritical pro and cons of Vlog vs Cine like D in this circumstances (optimise noise not range(
 
Thank you

Hi Everyone
I finally managed to get my first short underwater clips with the GH5
 
And
I am using Cine Like D and the results are pretty good. However those videos are with rich ambient light in other situation I need to go in deeper water and there will be less light
I am wondering if VLOG is a better option. Dynamic range is not the issue there isn't a lot at depth but low noise is. I will be shooting with predominant artificial LED light
Would love some theoritical pro and cons of Vlog vs Cine like D in this circumstances (optimise noise not range(
 
Thank you

The internal codecs are pretty good at FHD they are excellent and at 4K only the 422 is poor 
This is mathematical demonstration am not suggesting what you should use or not or if you want to buy a recorder or not that is your choice but I would not trust youtube as a tool for comparison amongs recorder and internal
there many other benefits in using a recorder other than bitrates a larger screen helps to expose and focus and HDR
Read the post carefully the comparison is between the codecs of the GH5 themselves and therefore relative and factual it has nothing to do with perceived image quality
take a jpeg of an 8 mp shot compress it to thise sizes and see by yourself if you notice a difference 
Assuming no artefacts from motion interpolation the size of the I frames determines the quality my calculations just extract the information 
it makes me smile that some can post comparison between codecs not even understanding how they work and get away with it so I wanted to provide some back up info
download ffprobe shou few clips of your choice at different settings and the averages won’t change
relative image quality will change but if you can see it or not depends on many factors that are also subjective 
It does not matter what you shoot the codec processes everything exactly the same the GOP structure is fixed and the ratio between the various frame pretty much too with minimal variations so you dont actually need to see what you shoot to test if it is correct or not it is a fact you see from the data

Link to the technical specifications 
 
https://www.philips.co.uk/c-p/436M6VBPAB_00/momentum-4k-hdr-display-with-ambiglow/specifications
this is not a grading monitor per se and sells at less than £1,000
The primary issue is the lacknof an SDI input and the fact that the displayport is only 1.2 therefore HDR comes from HDMI 2.0 or USB-C DP alt mode. The latter may be interesting if it gives displayport 1.4 but am not sure
If you have a windows computer running HDMI out of graphic card this may be very interesting
for mac users need to understand if a thunderbolt 3 to HDMI cable can carry HDR and what is supported 
 

@jonpais Samuel at mystery box has confirmed the Sumo 19M works great through SDI with the black magic ultra studio mini monitor
So this is the way forward for me

Thanks Jon
All in all am happy then as I can re-use my 2011 iMac with FCPX
It won’t run DaVinci 15 but it will run DaVinci 14 as I have only 1GB vram
Do you know if Da Vinci 14 is capable of the same or am I limited to FCPX?
 

OK I finally got what jonpais meant
Basically there is no way to output a proper HDR signal without a device from a Mac as the graphic adapter is not capable of HDR output
At that point you are in the territory of thunderbolt 3 connections (as the others don't have enough bandwidth to support the signal) here you can either spend top dollar and then use HDMI or try to output to SDI using a device that has the port like the Shogun Inferno as a monitor. This looks like the most affordable option especially if you bought the inferno as recorder