Mat Mayer

I think GH5 will have quite similar sharpness than Sony A6500. 4k 60P, less RS and 10bit will give even much more value.

I love my G7 and intended to buy a GH5, but looking at a comparisson of the G7 with the A6300 today, there was a major difference in sharpness. Might of been focusing but more likely the fact that the A6300 shoots 6K and downscales to 4K. So do you think a M43 sensor is big enough to provide that extra sharpness and be comparable with an APSC sensor? Has the system peaked or will the GH5 possibly make a big difference?
The NX1 is reasonably priced used on eBay. Wondering whether to pull the trigger and make the switch now. I don't need filmic and lots of lenses, I need sharp accurate 4K video. The Sony's over heating means they cannot be considered for me as it is to use outdoors, often in hottest sunlight. I really don't have the funds for the 4K Canon beasts otherwise I would go that route.
Has anyone used both the G7 and NX1 and noticed a big difference in sharpness? I recall reading lots of praise about how good and sharp the NX1 is on here. I am in no rush so could wait for the GH5, its just tempting to get started with a new system if going to do it anyway.
Thanks.

I asked this on Adobe forums and was pretty much told it was a stupid idea and just to stick with a properly calibrated monitor. I will probably still get one and hook it up to my computer just to check before exporting, as the TVs seem to all have different looks. So it may just stop me over grading, which I am certainly guilty of in the past.
I work online a lot and my main monitor is not calibrated properly to protect my eyes, I have it dimmed. It gives another perspective to my calibrated monitor, of what other people may be seeing. So my thinking is may as well add a popular TV into the mix too.

Well since the E-M1 II already oversamples from 5K and is very very close indeed to the A6300's 4K the answer is yes.
GH5 will have a flood of high detail.
I long since stopped caring about the sharpness of 4K though.
More sharpness is the last thing we need.
10bit, dynamic range, colour, less aliasing, less moire, less rolling shutter are all more important when it comes to 4K, which already has too much detail according to most of the cinema audience reaction to it being projected.

My VA-panel TV dims and fades contrast and colors when viewing at close distance. The uniformity of the panel is not good either (2 photos of AX800). It was Panasonic top 4k model 2014 and very expensive (about 5000$). Movies and videos looks still very good. My IPS monitor has perfect viewing angles and uniformity but lower contrast.
 

I do not see why a computer monitor for video editing should be IPS - you sacrifice dynamic range (deep blacks) and you are very close straight on to the screen - you are not looking at a sharp angle. You want good DR, not viewing angles.
The best 43" 4K HDR TV is the Sony XBR 43X800D. It is VA. For HDR you need the triluminous pixels (like the quantum dots of Samsung), the wide color gamut, 60p, 4:4:4 and 10 bit, and it has all that. It is $599. AFAIK no other 43" or below has the necessary HDR features of this one.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/40-42-43-inch/best

The specs I'm hearing are 15 stops DR, rec2020. For acquisition. Then 10 bit 4000 nit wide gamut for the panel itself. Obviously not many current systems meet these specs and there are many, many competing standards. After all, 1024X720 was once "HD."
The result is breathtaking, though. Especially on the 10,000+ nit display. Only one other tech demo impressed me as much this year and it felt less mature. What's cool is you'll be able to see colors you've never seen before.
 

I've seen demos of cutting edge HDR displays. Unfortunately, a small screen screen consumes nearly as much power as a small house (due to the need for a bank of air conditioners behind the unit) to cool it. But the image is unbelievable. Much bigger jump from HDTV to HDR than from 1080p to 4k. As big as SD to HD, easily.
The high end first-gen sets are likely very impressive so it's good to see YouTube pushing the technology. It does seem immature. The ecosystem is very immature. But HDR is mind-blowing. 

I produced an HDR video, edited in Resolve and followed Youtube's instructions to the letter. When i uploaded the 10bit, 4:4:4 REC 2020 DNxHR with metadata signaling HDR injected by Resolve video to Youtube, Youtube did not recognize it as HDR. So it did transcode it and it can be streamed, but it is all washed out in SDR and viewed on a tv in HDR mode it is colorful in an odd way compared to the original. Early days.

Used mine to record this video in Cuba. Never overheated ...
 
 

Bloom just posted saying all the same resolutions as version 4, except records for twice as long.

No, full HD slow mo is up to 120fps, higher framerates have lower sampled resolutions, of course they are wrapped in a 1080p container.

Fair enough. Good luck. 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/samyang-says-mft-x-autofocus-lenses-possible/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/samyang-says-will-make-zoom-lenses/
 
Awesome!! We're going to see affordable cine zooms soon from Samyang?? I'd love to have a Rokinon version of the Fujinon 19-90mm T2.9 but at a price I could actually afford!!
 
 

Well, you know your own needs and if you're experienced with PP just stay with that. The problem is H.265/HEVC is extremely compute-intensive. A new 4k TV can handle this since they can add hardware support for H.265 decoding. Digital TV broadcasts currently use H.264, as does Blu-Ray but to squeeze 4k into over-the-air channel bandwidth will require H.265. Testing is ongoing and years in the future the upgraded ATSC 3.0 TV standard will support that. This will also probably be used for satellite and cable providers but that is years away. UHD Blu-Ray will apparently use H.265/HEVC but the decoding for that is currently only available in stand-alone hardware players. I don't think any PC or Mac can play a 4k UHD Blu-Ray disc.
The Quick Sync in Intel's Skylake (used in the 2015 iMac 27) supports H.265 hardware acceleration for 8-bits per color channel, so if playback and editing software supports that it will be vastly faster. The upcoming Kaby Lake on-chip will support H.265 at 10-bits per color channel, but that will not be used for broadcast FCPX has used Quick Sync for years but unfortunately Adobe has not put this in PP for the Mac yet. They made some ambiguous statements at the last PP update which might imply they began using Quick Sync on PP in Windows.
nVidia has hardware support for H.264 and H.265 in certain graphics cards, via the NVENC API. Likewise AMD has this in certain cards, accessed via the VCE API. However software developers must write to those APIs, and there are various versions and many different cards out there. Note this fixed-function logic for video acceleration is separate from the GPU, although it is bundled on the GPU card in a different chip. The software API fragmentation between NVENC and VCE plus the multiple versions of those discourages developers from using them. By contrast most computers with an Intel CPU Sandy Bridge and later has Quick Sync (excepting Xeon) so it's a broader platform to target.
The problem with Macs is you can't change the GPU card to obtain better performance or to harness new software which has recently added support for NVENC or VCE. So (hypothetically speaking) if Adobe chose to support nVidia's NVENC over Quick Sync, there would be nothing the typical Mac owner could do, since recent Macs use AMD GPUs.

Directly editing h.264 just stinks.  Even on a zippy machine.  It'll work --and I do it all the time for short TRT projects, but I still like to edit with transcoded files.  Or, better yet, edit with proxies.  Once you start doing that, a modern machine will slice and scroll through stuff without much effort.  It's pretty cool.
Lagging video when trying to set heads/tails or just previewing a clip is the worst.
Premiere CC 2015.3 has been very effective for me with proxies.  My assistant editor even does work on our 7 year old Mac with LUMIX UHD footage.  Works great.  With proxies you can use cheap slow drives for editing, so it's a great way to stretch a budget and still be productive.
FCPX is also well regarded in this area too.
Resolve also does "proxies" by creating "Optimized" media, but I had a hell of a time making that work.  Too buggy.  Moved onto Premiere.  Not my fav editing platform, but it's robust enough to handle my documentary workload.  Decent media management tools too, I think.

The problem is H264 4k is four times the data of 1080p. It is an incredible load on any editing machine. Even FCPX can struggle with this on a top-spec 2015 iMac 27, and it uses hardware accelerated Quick Sync on Sandy Bridge and later Intel CPUs (excluding Xeon). 
GPUs by themselves cannot meaningfully accelerate H264 encode/decode, so import, export and scrubbing the timeline is mostly a CPU-oriented task if no effects are used. Effects can often (but not always) be GPU-accelerated, but this does not remove the CPU load from H264 encode/decode -- it just adds another burden.
The bottom line is if you want fluid, responsive H264 4k editing you generally need to use proxy files -- whether on Premiere CC or FCPX. A higher-end Mac Pro or powerful Windows workstation might be able to avoid that but not an iMac. I edit lots of 4k every day on my 2015 top-spec iMac 27 using both FCPX and Premiere CC. It does fine on 1080p, but for my taste it's just not fast enough on 4k without using proxy files, except in limited situations for small single-camera clips. Other people might tolerate some sluggishness but it gets irritating pretty quickly.
Since the iMac is about to be refreshed I'd recommend waiting to see what that includes. For the first time in several years, new 14/16nm GPU technology is available which may provide a significant increase on the GPU side. Although the GPU is mostly only usable for effects, this is still an issue so the more GPU horsepower the better.
E.g, if just editing seems slow on 4k, try applying a computationally-intensive effect like Neat Video noise reduction. This and similar effects are incredibly slow to run on 4k, whether using GPU or CPU rendering. For effects using GPU rendering, at least there is an option of using a faster GPU on machines where this is available.

Editing FullHD 1080p H264 AVCHD with a Color Correction LUT and a Grading LUT (on premiere CC) on my i7 4790k with 16Gigs of ram is not pleasant.
So I'm pretty sure it'll lag quite a bit more if you don't transcode it :s

Final cut would handle it lag free on an old mba without a dedicated gpu. Thats one of the reasons I switched from Premire to a FCPX/Resolve combo at home after 6 years of Premiere.

On the G7, I use -2 contrast, -2 sat, -5 NR, and -5 sharpening.

Great little cam, you should be happy with it. I have been using Natural - Contrast -5, sharp -5, nr -5, sat -2 or -3. But I have seen really nice work with everything dialed all the way down. The camera is crazy sharp, so I would keep the sharpness all the way down. 

G7 / G70 (Germany) and the GX85 / GX80 (outside US) / GX7 Mark II (Japan) are the best bang for the buck out there, nowadays and ever, so far...
Albert, BTW, left his NX1 for a G7 ;-)

Never heard of a Canon that didn't deliver in practice what they promised on paper.
But the exact opposite can be said about pretty much every single Sony (outside cine alta).
In fact, Sony is the only brand I can think of that never lives up to its hype. Pretty unique. Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, etc. Their stuff works as planned or have bugs that gets sorted out. Sony sell flat out broken cameras as if they where ok.
My prediction is the same as I had about the rx100iv and a6300. Great specs, crap camera.
But thats just me.
I wont judge it until Ive tested it my self. But statistically it will suck ass

I highly recommend this tutorial for Resolve, it is excellent (and free). It doesn't export in all UHD formats so I am currently with Premiere Pro: