Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

The Panasonic GH3 calls to explorers

Recommended Posts

[b]markm[/b]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"[b][i]Sorry Andrew will disagree with you on this one. Now people dont forget this is just my opinion so need to insult me with personal attacks or fanboy defences.[/i][/b][/font][/color]

[b][i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The original camera run ONLY at 24fps What use is that apart from internet films and vimeo test fan films. Can't record sound seperately and synch it without steps. Only useful for making films to transfer to celluloid if you could afford it and were dumb enough to do it as AVCHD at 8 bit 4,2 0 and 23mbps put paid to any of that.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]So zero use as a film camera and zero use as a normal one.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]They did upgrade it to 25fps MUCH later on AFTER Vitaliys hack and AFTER everyone had been crying out for 25p.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The camera was intentionally crippled surely we can all see that. How could Vitaliy, Driftwood, manage to get so much more out of it if this were not the case. Working on the assumption it was deliberatley crippled you have to ask what has changed and then have a close look at why the GH3 does what it does.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Effectively it trumps the GH2 hacks and may actually stop hacking[/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Next it allows the four thirds lenses to carry on in case people might think panny have deserted it. I'm sure they will desert four thirds next time round though. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The GH3 is it an answer to the BMC or to the slew of new cameras coming out now or are they all trying to squeeze Black magic out and recapture what they are losing along with all their mates. Because what they stand to lose is the ability to drip feed cameras with slight improvements. Segment the pro from the consumer and maximise money by small upgrades year on year. Simply because its got so bad (The crippling) That Black Magic can take off the shelf parts and make a camera that has pro res in built and RAW Throw in software worth about a £1000 and sell the whole lot for £2100. NOW forgive me for being cynical on the way we have been treated and are being goat herded into our pens again. I would think different if the new cams just simply had 4.2.2 10 bit out and decent sensors NOT crippled with bad processing. Come on this has gone on long enough and beyond a joke.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I am annoyed with camera manufacturers and the way they have done business I applaud Black Magic and want to support their ethos I dont want to see certain maunfacturers herd us all back into our compounds with glossy sales campaigns and guru speel in order to do it.[/font][/color][/i][/b]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b][i]There is no reason why camera manufacturers cant output 10 bit in fact they have to take steps to prevent it from doing so. [/i][/b]"[/font][/color]

Though I think, the hacks were nice, they weren't anywhere 'extraordinary'. The codec was still 4-2-0. The only, possible effect, of the code, was in grading, where the much higher bit rate, helped the video (possibly), from falling apart.

Also, the latest 4-4-4 Patch on the GH2 is exaggerated, again. It is Nowhere near 12 bit 4-4-4. As a matter of fact, the FlowMotion V2.02 Hack seemed better (IMO), that the Apocalypse 4-4-4.

Also, the BMCC and the GH3 are 2 completely different cameras, meant, for 2 completely different users. Till the exact quality of the video, coming out of the GH3 is not tested, in actual tests (as opposed to videos put out by professional DoPs and guys like those who apparently made the Nikon D600 video), it would be pre-mature, to compare it, to anything else around.

The only difference, I noticed, on the GH3, as compared to the GH2, is that, perhaps, those banding issues have been greatly improved (especially w.r.d. to the Sky).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347653149' post='18044']
BTW: Funny, how such first impressions are shot in similar places:
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/%3F%3F%3F.jpg[/img]From the D600 video.
Better. Not?
[/quote]

I'm really liking that D600 image. Here's to hoping it doesn't suffer from aliasing like the D800, because resolution and specially dynamic range look really nice! Of course, I'll be getting the GH3 first and foremost :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dat dere camra is a bit ugly but like most beasts it has great strength.

love ly panasonic doze boys dont mess about : )


day just blow der compition out of der water.

they laugh at nikon video and say goodbye canon
we say hello gh3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1347640079' post='18003']
If it is a Sony sensor, then we can kiss the good detail of the gh2 goodbye. I don't think Sony would let the Pany outdo their a99.
[/quote]

It doesn't mean anything. The sensor is just 25-30% of the deciding factor. for the image and video output of a camera. The Nikon D600 and the Sony A99 have the same (Sony) sensor, and, I am guessing, the Nikon produces better image quality, among the two.

Also, Sony produces sensors at all prices, so, lets not jump the gun, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1347654168' post='18050']
It doesn't mean anything. The sensor is just 25-30% of the deciding factor. for the image and video output of a camera.
[/quote]

When you sign a contract with Sony to use their sensor, you bet your ass it does (mean something). The contract will stipulate exactly how that sensor can be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am also glad, that they shot a portion of their promo, in India (around Old Delhi side, I am guessing, since I haven't been to the downmarket areas, myself, but, which facinate all foreigners ... ;-) :P ). Not many people had heard of the GH2, in India, and considering, that, India makes more films than any other country (in terms of numbers), it would be a great idea, to try and capture, the Indie Filmmaking market, in countries like India, Korea, Japan, Russia etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1347654387' post='18051']
When you sign a contract with Sony to use their sensor, you bet your ass it does (mean something). The contract will stipulate exactly how that sensor can be used.
[/quote]

Dude, your assumption has no edifice. Solid or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Zach' timestamp='1347654995' post='18052']
At 1:20 in the video, there is a switch on the lens that says "Focus pull." Anyone know what this is??
[/quote]

That's Focus Full or Focus Limit switch. On certain auto focus lenses you can set a focus limit range so auto focus isn't hunting in areas you don't want it to.

Looks like this lens in the video;

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_45_2p8_o20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='alanpoiuyt' timestamp='1347655987' post='18057']
That's Focus Full or Focus Limit switch. On certain auto focus lenses you can set a focus limit range so auto focus isn't hunting in areas you don't want it to.
[/quote]

Oh, that makes much more sense :) Thought it might be some kind of kind of electronic focus control mechanism! Silly me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Dr. John R. Brinkley' timestamp='1347655626' post='18056']
I don't want to judge too much from that vimeo video...but the video they showed, in my opinion, lacked warmth and resolution. Still, I'm very curious to see a real review by Andrew.
[/quote]

It's a leaked video that's heavily compressed and then reuploaded and recompressed. It's also not 1080p at all. In fact, I didn't download it and inspect it but I bet it's 30p, because the "cinema" examples from Philip & Friends' shoot has some ghosting artifacts. Reminds me of some of the first telecine movies I watched in VCD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ipcmlr' timestamp='1347655424' post='18055']
But is it 4:2:2?
[/quote]

I am not so sure what you expect of 4:2:2. You won't [u]see[/u] any difference compared to 4:2:0. It is color resolution actually. 4:2:0 is a compression factor that uses the [u]inability[/u] of the human eye to distinguish colors with the same accuracy as subtle brightness changes. It can't be downsampled well for different TV resolutions (SD, HDready, FullHD, interlace, progressive), that's why the broadcasters officially don't support it. There was a myth that you couldn't color-key with it. Now look at all the greenscreen videos shot with DSLRs.

10-bit is different. It is more related to the dynamic range. 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256 describe the stops an 8-bit video can store. Every time the luminance doubles is one stop, makes 9 stops ideally. Due to the limitations of electronic signals, the range is mostly between 16 and 235, between 4 and 5 stops. HDR 8-bit means scaling the values through a curve, remapping them. But then, of course, the whole image is just flatted down, gradients that should have at least 30 steps to appear smooth get only 10, and banding occurs.

Let's assume the GH2 could hold 8 stops by various tricks. If the GH3 has considerably better dynamic range, say 10 stops, how can they be stored in 8-bit, when 10-bit can only store 11? It's easy to see a difference between 8-bit and 10-bit - on a 10-bit monitor. Alas, Panasonic may rightly suppose that most GH3 buyers don't own a 10-bit monitor. So perhaps the banding issue may not be solved.

[quote name='Dr. John R. Brinkley' timestamp='1347655626' post='18056']
I don't want to judge too much from that vimeo video...but the video they showed, in my opinion, lacked warmth and resolution. Still, I'm very curious to see a real review by Andrew.
[/quote]

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1347655403' post='18054']
Dude, your assumption has no edifice. Solid or otherwise.
[/quote]

It's not a strech to assume that a licensing agreement includes limitations on what a product can and can't be used for. In fact, it's common sense.


[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347658179' post='18064']
I am not so sure what you expect of 4:2:2. You won't [u]see[/u] any difference compared to 4:2:0. It is color resolution actually. 4:2:0 is a compression factor that uses the [u]inability[/u] of the human eye to distinguish colors with the same accuracy as subtle brightness changes.
[/quote]

I'm not sure this is documented fact. The bottom line is that 4:2:0 throws away color information, so it will certainly affect grading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1347658605' post='18066']The bottom line is that 4:2:0 throws away color information, so it will certainly affect grading.
[/quote]

Yes. So what? 4:2:0 equals roughly the spreading ratio of cone cells on the retina, which are sensitive only for a color each ('RGB'). The brain combines their signals to form the [i]sharp[/i] image in the center of our field of vision (the borders are blurred like a shallow DoF vignette, and are much less saturated, since outside the fovea the B&W rod cells predominate), interpolating much more color information than any video compression. If our own vision is hardly more than a roughly colored B&W image, how can 4:2:0 make such a big difference? In secondary color corrections, you often feather the masks quite liberally without any problems. We simply have no senses for color resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347650428' post='18040']
In the promotion video there are two things that make me worry though: Is 'HDR' for stills only? And: They show a camera mounted on a car rig. The shots (probably from the GH3?) showing the driver are very short, as if they were cut in a way as not to betray any RS issues. They could have made them longer to show that the sensor now handles these things better.
[/quote]

I don't think they were hiding anything since you can see clearly see the rolling shutter beast showing its ugly head in that train shot.
I actually quite admire Panasonic for including that shot in the demo, if they did it on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347660691' post='18067']
Yes. So what? 4:2:0 equals roughly the spreading ratio of cone cells on the retina, which are sensitive only for a color each ('RGB'). The brain combines their signals to form the [i]sharp[/i] image in the center of our field of vision (the borders are blurred like a shallow DoF vignette, and are much less saturated, since outside the fovea the B&W rod cells predominate), interpolating much more color information than any video compression. If our own vision is hardly more than a roughly colored B&W image, how can 4:2:0 make such a big difference? In secondary color corrections, you often feather the masks quite liberally without any problems. We simply have no senses for color resolution.
[/quote]
We've officially hit rock bottom in pixel peeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347660691' post='18067']
Yes. So what? 4:2:0 equals roughly the spreading ratio of cone cells on the retina, which are sensitive only for a color each ('RGB'). The brain combines their signals to form the [i]sharp[/i] image in the center of our field of vision (the borders are blurred like a shallow DoF vignette, and are much less saturated, since outside the fovea the B&W rod cells predominate), interpolating much more color information than any video compression. If our own vision is hardly more than a roughly colored B&W image, how can 4:2:0 make such a big difference? In secondary color corrections, you often feather the masks quite liberally without any problems. We simply have no senses for color resolution.
[/quote]

But your still throwing away luminance information, right?. So even in terms of B&W we'd have less information. In other words 4-2-0 requires more interpolation. I might be on crack, but I'm really curious about this. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1347657739' post='18061']
It's a leaked video that's heavily compressed and then reuploaded and recompressed. It's also not 1080p at all. In fact, I didn't download it and inspect it but I bet it's 30p, because the "cinema" examples from Philip & Friends' shoot has some ghosting artifacts. Reminds me of some of the first telecine movies I watched in VCD.
[/quote]

I completely agree, the ghosting was very obvious along with compressing it again. Will wait for actual tests from Andrew or Philip Bloom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...