kye

What a fascinating thing it would be to shoot with a curved sensor...  
I have distant memories of 360degree panorama pictures taken on film on a special setup that actually exposed a thin vertical strip and rotated the whole camera around on a tripod while moving the film behind it.  You end up with something crazy wide and no wide-angle distortion.  Great stuff.

I'll cross my fingers that it's genuine and fully functional.  If it is then that is an absolutely blindingly good price!

I agree with @mercer that it's true in my experience.  I've shot at length with the GH5, including doing many tests to try and understand the best settings and colour grading treatments, but when I bought a BMMCC, put a lens and monitor on it, and then waved it around at the beach, pulled it into post and did basic adjustments, all of a sudden I had some of the best images I'd ever shot.  My level of cunning was no different when shooting on the BMMCC than on the GH5, either before or since, so I think it's a valid test.
The images I got from my Panasonic GF3 and vintage lenses also had some magic to them that the GH5 does not willingly provide either.
As you know, I've tried and tried to find what explains these differences, designing and executing test after test with controlled and isolated variables, and come up empty on basically every occasion.
There are some interesting comments in there from Masanori Koyama, and although a lot of it is "PR level" communication, it is interesting the way he talks about the overall vision and hinting at how they are trading-off features against each other.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the 1080p Prores HQ and the RAW files that come out of the GH6 once the firmware update is released.

I thought they added HLG video in version 1.6 ?
Has to be in Manual exposure, 10bit MOV format and the lowest ISO is capped to 320 according to the manual.
Maybe they hide it as an option if you are not in Manual and 10bit MOV ?
It wouldn't be the first time Panasonic have hidden a picture profile.....

 

Backstory here for the lovely 10 year old Tokyo footage.
https://www.eoshd.com/news/tokyo-test-footage-attempting-a-ridley-scott-with-the-hacked-gh2-and-olympus-12mm-f2/
 

Had the opportunity to interview Masanori Koyama, product planner for the GH6 and S1H:
https://www.eoshd.com/news/interview-with-panasonics-masanori-koyama-product-planner-for-the-gh6/
Hope you enjoy.

Thanks for posting this. @Andrew Reid I really enjoy your older work. Before you sell off the site, it could be fun to see you revisit some of these classic cameras.
For a site based on gear and tech and how they merge to create a craftsman's tool, one intangible variable, often overlooked is mojo and it oozes from some of these older cameras. I don't know what has changed over the past 10 years, but these newer cameras seem to lack it.
On a side note, I came to your site for your reviews and stayed due to these videos that accompanied them.
Thanks and good luck with your future endeavors. 

Just got a GX880 (almost new) + Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II (like new) + 7artisans 25 f/1.8 (also like new) for 200 Euros. I missed some of my Panasonic gear. I'm back now.

As the owner of a Canon 700D, I'd suggest that it would barely be 720p!
But it certainly is a nice example of what can be done with enough skill....

Interesting video.  Seems lots more people are getting their hands on these in the wild now and really exploring what they have to offer.
This guy prefers it to the S5 in real-world use.
 

There are cameras just becoming available that have sufficient DR to expose the sunset properly as well as get the shadow-side of a face well enough exposed to be able to see who it is and what they're doing, which is ultimately the goal.  The GH5 doesn't have enough DR for that, however, and I don't think the P4K does either.  That's really more the territory of things like the A7S3 or S1H.
I definitely understand the priority of getting the shot over the image quality of it.  I shot videos with the OG BMPCC and BMMCC and they were just too slow to work with, and didn't offer enough stabilisation to get the shot.  The shots they got were lovely, but the GH5 can get a significant amount more shots just because it's faster to use and so you're rolling with less delay, or the shots are steady enough from the GH5 but not from the others, etc.
I've lost count of the various things I've tried, but I wasn't able to isolate any perceptible differences.  
The conclusions are that:
either it comes from a variable I haven't tested yet, or it comes from many variables that when isolated don't provide an appreciable enough bump to be discerned if I can't understand what the variable(s) are, then I can't optimise them, and so if I want it then I have to just buy it Sadly, the cameras that have it are normally impractical (ie, they don't get enough shots in the situations I shoot in) and potentially they're also far too expensive.
One challenge that any discussion on camera tech faces is that there are so many variables being discussed.
Just off the top of my head, these are (some of) the things that are at play when comparing two cameras:
IR/UV filter on sensor OLPF Bayer filter (or X-trans, etc) sensor itself (and the modes it is configured to use) analog processing circuitry ADCs digital processing algorithms
(and, if it's not an uncompressed Linear RAW codec) image scaling / down-up sampling NR sharpening colour space / gamma transforms compression (both the bitrate/bitdepth as well as the quality of the algorithm and processor) Needless to say, just because two sensors share the sensor and the "colour science" doesn't mean that those are the only variables at play.  Far from it.
When you compare two cameras, you're comparing all the factors above and more.
Not sure which part you think was out of my ass.  I'm speaking from personal experience here.
One of the primary things I have done over the years, in videography as well as in other pursuits, is to validate the things that "everyone knows" personally, to ensure that they are true.  As I'm sure you're aware, at least a third of the stuff that "everyone knows" is actually total BS, and can be proven so quite easily, should someone have the capability to perform even basic tests and, more importantly, to have a desire for the truth.
I could match them sufficiently to intercut them, but I was talking in the context of the mojo of the image from the BM cameras.  The match was just fine, but the magic wasn't there.
I shoot in very different situations and with very different goals to probably every other person here.
I shoot super-super fast.  I walk, carrying my camera in one hand by my side, wearing a wrist strap, and with my finger on the power switch.  When I see something about to happen (I've done lots of street photography so am anticipating things all the time) I start to raise the camera up to my face, and while on the way up I turn the camera on, and about the time I get the viewfinder to my eye I hit record.  The camera is set to auto-expose using SS, so while it is adjusting that I am then finding the composition and manually focusing the lens (I shoot with fast aperture primes for low light and a modest amount of background separation).  This takes perhaps 2s.
The result of this is that I often miss the moment, because I was too slow.  If I don't miss it entirely I am often using a clip starting with the first viable frame in the edit, and sometimes the shot only lasts a second or so.  I have in the past gotten only two usable frames and ended up doing a very slow slow-motion transition between them for a time-stands-still kind of moment.
To this end, the idea of me modifying literally anything about the shot is beyond ridiculous.  This isn't every shot I take, but it's quite a lot of them.  I shoot what happens, I don't direct, I don't control, I get what I get and I use what I can.
I end up with footage that suffers poor DR, exposure problems, mixed lighting temperatures, stabilisation issues, etc.  
When I'm shooting, every second counts, so when I say I would like a nicer codec and someone suggests a camera that would cause me to miss entirely many more shots, it's a silly suggestion.  The reality is that the GH5, while not the best in any single area, is actually the camera with the most overlap between a range of critical factors that allow usable images to be collected in difficult situations.
Any increase in image quality normally comes at the expensive of some practicality that is simply not a factor for most shooters.  I know I'm by far in the minority in this sense, but in a way I'm the perfect GH5 user.  Anyone that can take a huge sacrifice in something that the GH5 was really good at wasn't really at the centre of the aim for this camera.
To that end, the GH6 is really the only replacement for the GH5.  The P4K is deficient in so many areas that it makes about as good a replacement to the GH5 as a Mack truck makes as a replacement to a rally car.
Yes, but not me.  The lust for shallow DoF is really what has ruined camcorders in the marketplace I think.
Critics of the GH line who suddenly now NEED great AF (as it it has always existed, which is hilarious) will tell you that you can't possibly film an interview with fixed focus because if the talent flexes a muscle wrong then they'll be out of focus.  I mean, if your DoF is only a few CM deep, and you're filming a sit-down interview for heavens-sake, you don't need that DoF at all, just move the talent closer, film them in front of a screen-screen, or *shudder* stop down the lens a little!

You said "some would argue that is a bit of progress" and I pointed out that the DR hasn't increased and the battery life also hasn't really increased.
That was 5 years after the OG BMPCC.
Personally, I think that given the huge increase in size and the time elapsed they could have made more substantial improvements to it.
If you can't see it then that's fine - more power to you, but just because you can't see it doesn't make it fake.
Otherwise, most of the stuff on earth is fake because I haven't seen it.
Actually, I think that a staggeringly huge number of people have 4K TVs now.
That's the whole point of the manufacturers flogging 4K and then 6K and now 8K and 12K.  They aren't doing that to sell more cameras, they're doing that to sell more TVs.  Go to your nearest big box store and see if they even sell a 1080p TV above a certain size....    I just went to target.com and looked at TVs from 30" up (they sell tiny portable ones too) and the cheapest one a 50" 4K for $319.

Battery life is similar if you use current battery tech - I have personally recorded 49 minutes of uncompressed RAW from a single battery on the OG BMPCC.  Depending on which SNR figure you look at, the P4K has either 0.4 or 0.2 extra stops of DR.
Plus the P4K is almost 3x the size of the OG.
Definitely sounds like a decade well spent......  *cough*  *cough*  *cough*

Yeah, I keep saying this but no-one wants to hear it.
We had the OG BMPCC that shot RAW internal, had 13-stops of DR, and was under $1000, a decade ago.  What we have now - lots of cameras that barely improve upon this spec, except in resolution.
At the time there was the OG BMPCC (the camera we had and could afford) and the Alexa (the image we all wanted).  The Alexa had barely more pixels but staggeringly better quality pixels.  
What did the manufacturers do?  Basically zero improvement in pixel quality, but now we have 16 times as many of them.
*eyeroll*
BUT....  say that around here and the "progress is progress" people just shout you down.
Andrew was right about us getting what we deserve....  and what we got was manufacturers that just bamboozled people with BS and then everyone swallowed it.  Even with Yedlin proving that no-one could even see more than 1080p in most situations.

Like they say...  gotta be in it to win it!
I'm just guessing here, but you prefer 4K images don't you?
I shoot travel, often on the more adventure side of travel too.  
I love it when people tell me to control the scene.  Please tell me how I can better control:
a landscape being shot out the window of a moving helicopter a sunset the buildings and people in a large city a cave while taking the tour a museum or world heritage site (eg, Pompeii) an amusement park with rides a market in an emerging economic country etc Next you'll be telling me I don't need a weather-sealed camera because I should just control the weather!
To directly answer your question, yes, I need more DR.  and more robust images where I don't have to choose between photographing the sunset or the scene in front of it.
I bought the OG BMPCC and BMMCC specifically to study their images, both for the colour science and for their mojo.  I have studied them at length - you can find a small proportion of the tests I have done littered all through these forums over a period of years.  I am yet to locate almost anything that accounts for these factors that you claim do not exist.
No, but I have shot both the OG BMPCC and BMMCC alongside the GH5 and tried to match the GH5 to the BM camera on many occasions (just search). 
P4K footage looks like GH5 footage, but better.  Neither looks much like the OG.
You don't like videographers do you?
I see this kind of dismissive prejudice all the time from snooty "film-makers".  The general tone is that "real film-makers" shoot in controlled conditions and should be free to create images that have nice colour and background separation and images that are expressive, and the people that don't shoot in controlled conditions should be happy with footage that looks like it was shot with a smartphone from 6 years ago.
It's kind of like when people say "go back to wherever you came from - you're not welcome here" only instead of 'here' being a place, it's a level of image quality.

You said "some would argue that is a bit of progress" and I pointed out that the DR hasn't increased and the battery life also hasn't really increased.
That was 5 years after the OG BMPCC.
Personally, I think that given the huge increase in size and the time elapsed they could have made more substantial improvements to it.
If you can't see it then that's fine - more power to you, but just because you can't see it doesn't make it fake.
Otherwise, most of the stuff on earth is fake because I haven't seen it.
Actually, I think that a staggeringly huge number of people have 4K TVs now.
That's the whole point of the manufacturers flogging 4K and then 6K and now 8K and 12K.  They aren't doing that to sell more cameras, they're doing that to sell more TVs.  Go to your nearest big box store and see if they even sell a 1080p TV above a certain size....    I just went to target.com and looked at TVs from 30" up (they sell tiny portable ones too) and the cheapest one a 50" 4K for $319.

The usefulness of resolution depends how close you will sit to any given screen.

A BMPCC with a better body definitely would have been nice to have.

You said "some would argue that is a bit of progress" and I pointed out that the DR hasn't increased and the battery life also hasn't really increased.
That was 5 years after the OG BMPCC.
Personally, I think that given the huge increase in size and the time elapsed they could have made more substantial improvements to it.
If you can't see it then that's fine - more power to you, but just because you can't see it doesn't make it fake.
Otherwise, most of the stuff on earth is fake because I haven't seen it.
Actually, I think that a staggeringly huge number of people have 4K TVs now.
That's the whole point of the manufacturers flogging 4K and then 6K and now 8K and 12K.  They aren't doing that to sell more cameras, they're doing that to sell more TVs.  Go to your nearest big box store and see if they even sell a 1080p TV above a certain size....    I just went to target.com and looked at TVs from 30" up (they sell tiny portable ones too) and the cheapest one a 50" 4K for $319.

Plus you get a Resolve Studio dongle, well a credit card thingy lol,  which you can use or sell. A bargain really.

Plus it lost the filmic Mojo look of the OG. It looks better than a lot of cameras but it is not better.

Remembering we're talking about editing here, and not colour grading, the Speed Editor is quite modestly priced, and the jog wheel (which is the thing you're interacting with most of the time) is super high quality.

Having something where you can add one-press functions is really useful too.  Lots of tasks can be hugely streamlined with this kind of tweaking.  Something that saves even a fraction of a second can save hours or even days of work per project - the average feature film contains about 2000 shots per hour of edited footage and when you think about how many times an edit is adjusted and tweaked during the process....  With numbers like that it adds up really quickly.

Battery life is similar if you use current battery tech - I have personally recorded 49 minutes of uncompressed RAW from a single battery on the OG BMPCC.  Depending on which SNR figure you look at, the P4K has either 0.4 or 0.2 extra stops of DR.
Plus the P4K is almost 3x the size of the OG.
Definitely sounds like a decade well spent......  *cough*  *cough*  *cough*

I don't think I saw this mentioned in the thread, so far:
The panel type is *critical*. Most LCD/LED monitors are TN or VA which have very high (good) contrast ratios. However, they have very narrow viewing angles which is very, very bad when you're evaluating colors. The ideal panel for editing photos and video are IPS (inline plane switching) which trade high color accuracy for lower contrast ratios. Almost all professional monitors are IPS.

LED backlights are (theoretically) superior overall to the older CFL backlight method for LCDs. They *should* last longer, use less energy, and retain consistency of backlight color/accuracy longer. CFL backlights change with age and use. Which leads me to say that the age of a monitor only really matters if you're trying to match a pair -in which case you want to get the same exact monitor with as-closely-matching serial numbers as possible.

home and away might have been a poor choice, as you say. I would expect  a level of difference between youtube and produced stuff. However if  youtube stuff was up there with the travel guides then they'd probably get snapped up for a job  pretty quickly i'd imagine.
I might be showing my age abit here, but not sure everything that has a beat can be qualified as music.   although i do think yt offers people more options off getting noticed, rather going begging at the doors of record companies.

Very true but it is a shame that it is still the smallest company out there with the best product DR wise that is affordable yet. What is wrong with that picture. Seems like the big boys are playing games as usual.