Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow that has Not been my experience on 3 different A7.. cameras, and even on my VG 20, and VG 30. I think Sony has done a great job developing it. I know that a reasonable amount of people use it even on the FS5. We are talking FF sensors with the A7's they have a lot of pixels to deal with compared to say a m4/3. Heck 100% view in Photoshop, with my A7r, looks damn near as clean as the normal 17% you view.

Heck if you can use it taking Photos, Video well hell that is hardly any strain on it with 1080p.You only need 2mp. Even 4k is only 8.3. Yeah maybe on the A7s 4k might be a bit of a stretch, but 24, 36, 42mp versions, piece of cake.

FS5 have both center scan and clearzoom mode.  ETC on Panasonic works the same as center scan mode, just the center crop of the sensor, unlike clearzoom which have software interpolation when you zoom in, so for me center scan/ETC > clearzoom all the time, especially with moving target.

I got FS5 myself and I always use center scan for extra zoom reach. On a7s I use APS-C mode instead.

here is the video done by other FS5 user on this subject

 

 

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

Hi everyone, today i got luck and catched a helicopter take off. Tried to film it in Slowmotion, what do you think? It was really sunny outside so i turned the F-Stops way up to 16 but it ended up a bit to dark... 

https://youtu.be/fqNC9jKcgLU 

FHD 8 Bit VariableFameRate 180
ISO 200, F16, 180d Shutter, ManualFocus, HandHeld
PictureProfile is Like709 with Knee adjustment, Graded in AE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ntblowz said:

FS5 have both center scan and clearzoom mode.  ETC on Panasonic works the same as center scan mode, just the center crop of the sensor, unlike clearzoom which have software interpolation when you zoom in, so for me center scan/ETC > clearzoom all the time, especially with moving target.

I got FS5 myself and I always use center scan for extra zoom reach. On a7s I use APS-C mode instead.

here is the video done by other FS5 user on this subject

 

 

 Glad to see someones opinion as a end user. GAS on that part. I found it pretty hard to tell much difference myself on the video. But i am sure you are seeing it differently than are.

How well does center scan work at wide angles?? I would think it would not work as well as clearzoom mode? I was sort of waiting for the 70mm part to happen to be honest also. :grin:

 Yeah APS-C mode appears to  works better on the A7rII also. Not surprisingly across all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wonderboy said:

Hi everyone, today i got luck and catched a helicopter take off. Tried to film it in Slowmotion, what do you think? It was really sunny outside so i turned the F-Stops way up to 16 but it ended up a bit to dark... 

https://youtu.be/fqNC9jKcgLU 

FHD 8 Bit VariableFameRate 180
ISO 200, F16, 180d Shutter, ManualFocus, HandHeld
PictureProfile is Like709 with Knee adjustment, Graded in AE

My man! First video I've seen where somebody has actually adjusted the knee in the Like709 profile. Some people are very excited about this @Fritz Pierre as the colours seem to look very nice.

What can you tell us about the knee adjustments - does it give better dynamic range?

Also, that vid shows the incredible rolling shutter performance @ 180fps. On another camera the blades would be warped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

FS5 have both center scan and clearzoom mode.  ETC on Panasonic works the same as center scan mode, just the center crop of the sensor, unlike clearzoom which have software interpolation when you zoom in, so for me center scan/ETC > clearzoom all the time, especially with moving target.

I got FS5 myself and I always use center scan for extra zoom reach. On a7s I use APS-C mode instead.

here is the video done by other FS5 user on this subject

 

 

I don't see any real difference in your test but if that is what you get I am fine with that.

Having said that, BOTH ways are digital enlargement and can not be completely lossless though both ways are very close to it and especially at smaller magnifications.  

   I do prefer the clearzoom way rather than crop and enlarge (if that is what ETC is doing).

 

Sony is very coy about clearzoom though and never says much though it has improved in more recent cameras (it didn't work for video at all in earlier cameras).

 

 

Why I think there seems to be some doubt about clearzoom against ETC is that ETC has mostly been 2x with previous cameras and 2x (no matter if clearzoom or ETC) is more lossy than 1.4 so having a 1.4x "teleconverter" is a great option but then I find clearzoom at 1.4x to be equally a great option.   

I might use APSC mode much more often if Sony didn't have clearzoom as being variable.      With APSC though you are not getting the same size (5mp with the A7s while still getting 12mp with clearzoom and FF mode).      You can always use clearzoom in APSC mode too if you want.

I also think the lens used is MUCH more important too as in I would prefer a very good lens with clearzoom at 2x (and even more so at smaller magnifications) than a poorer optical lens.

 In any event, I have satisfied myself that.

A) ETC with the GX7 is not as good as clearzoom with the A7s though both are pretty good (and both cameras are around the same age).

B) The lens can matter more than anything. (Start with a good lens and it works with little loss for either ETC or Clearzoom).

C) I would MUCH prefer it was variable (please Panasonic make it so).

D) I like using a fast prime as a zoom in some instances (which isn't really possible with optical or ETC currently). 

E) Sometimes if used with a zoom lens, variable clearzoom may well be better than zooming optically because the lens may be better optically at some focal lengths (and sometimes the other way around) and also due to vignetting if adapting lenses for different sensors.

F) Choice is STILL good.

If I have the time later, I might see about putting a really good lens with clearzoom up against a poor one of the same focal length and ask people to pick which is which.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wonderboy said:

Hi everyone, today i got luck and catched a helicopter take off. Tried to film it in Slowmotion, what do you think? It was really sunny outside so i turned the F-Stops way up to 16 but it ended up a bit to dark... 

https://youtu.be/fqNC9jKcgLU 

FHD 8 Bit VariableFameRate 180
ISO 200, F16, 180d Shutter, ManualFocus, HandHeld
PictureProfile is Like709 with Knee adjustment, Graded in AE

This newbie has been around the block before!  :glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, noone said:

I don't see any real difference in your test but if that is what you get I am fine with that.

Having said that, BOTH ways are digital enlargement and can not be completely lossless though both ways are very close to it and especially at smaller magnifications.  

   I do prefer the clearzoom way rather than crop and enlarge (if that is what ETC is doing).

 

Sony is very coy about clearzoom though and never says much though it has improved in more recent cameras (it didn't work for video at all in earlier cameras).

 

 

Why I think there seems to be some doubt about clearzoom against ETC is that ETC has mostly been 2x with previous cameras and 2x (no matter if clearzoom or ETC is more lossy than 1.4 so having a 1.4x "teleconverter" is a great option but then I find clearzoom at 1.4x to be equally a great option.   

I might use APSC mode much more often if Sony didn't have clearzoom as being variable.      With APSC though you are not getting the same size (5mp with the A7s while still getting 12mp with clearzoom and FF mode).      You can always use clearzoom in APSC mode too if you want.

I also think the lens used is MUCH more important too as in I would prefer a very good lens with clearzoom at 2x (and even more so at smaller magnifications) than a poorer optical lens.

 In any event, I have satisfied myself that.

A) ETC with the GX7 is not as good as clearzoom with the A7s though both are pretty good (and both cameras are around the same age).

B) The lens can matter more than anything. (Start with a good lens and it works with little loss for either ETC or Clearzoom).

C) I would MUCH prefer it was variable (please Panasonic make it so).

D) I like using a fast prime as a zoom in some instances (which isn't really possible with optical or ETC currently). 

E) Sometimes if used with a zoom lens, variable clearzoom may well be better than zooming optically because the lens may be better optically at some focal lengths (and sometimes the other way around) and also due to vignetting if adapting lenses for different sensors.

F) Choice is STILL good.

If I have the time later, I might see about putting a really good lens with clearzoom up against a poor one of the same focal length and ask people to pick which is which.

 

So many options now with 4 K - zooms, simulated slider shots, and in post, the Ken Burns effect and even dolly zooms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a few videos with ect. telecrop and took jpegs out of them. They are traight ooc, copied to an iphone via wifi and now send here. In brackets the FF numbers. 
Quite asonishing. 

12 mm (24) with the 12-60er
100 mm (200) with the 100-400er 
400 mm (800)
560 mm (1120) also 400 with 1.4 Ext. Telecrop 
1120 mm (2240) 400 with 1.4 Ext. Telecrop + 2x Digitalzoom
2240 mm (4480) 400 with 1.4 Ext. Telecrop + 4x Digitalzoom

IMG_5583.JPG

IMG_5584.JPG

IMG_5585.JPG

IMG_5586.JPG

IMG_5587.JPG

IMG_5588.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many people use Auto focus on cameras for shooting anything. We shot a short film on a Canon 80D. The focus is pretty good. But in low light, close distance focus and when no individual is in the frame (or someone walks into an empty frame), the focus jump and the ability to figure out who to focus on is a joke.

The problem is not so much of whether is can focus accurately or whether there is any focus jump. The problem is there are many conditions under which a camera with auto focus is just a joke, and can never replace a human being. And the fact that a lot of it is absolutely unpredictable.

IMHO while dual pixel and all that marketing jargon sounds great, the fact that algorithm are far from great right now, means, that the hit and miss rate is huge.

Samsung Smartphones (and much smaller sensor cameras), have far better focus locking on subjects, and yet those too have their limitations.

I posted it here because I am genuinely curious to see whether someone actually shot an entire short film, documentary,  wedding or music video, or corporate work etc on Auto focus on a camera with dual pixel (canon) or something like an A6300 or even A6500. I think users' exaggerated claims have kind of pushed the facts into the realm of dreams. People say things more for effect than for their actual worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sanveer said:

I don't know how many people use Auto focus on cameras for shooting anything. We shot a short film on a Canon 80D. The focus is pretty good. But in low light, close distance focus and when no individual is in the frame (or someone walks into an empty frame), the focus jump and the ability to figure out who to focus on is a joke.

The problem is not so much of whether is can focus accurately or whether there is any focus jump. The problem is there are many conditions under which a camera with auto focus is just a joke, and can never replace a human being. And the fact that a lot of it is absolutely unpredictable.

IMHO while dual pixel and all that marketing jargon sounds great, the fact that algorithm are far from great right now, means, that the hit and miss rate is huge.

Samsung Smartphones (and much smaller sensor cameras), have far better focus locking on subjects, and yet those too have their limitations.

I posted it here because I am genuinely curious to see whether someone anyone shot an entire short, documentary,  wedding or music video, or corporate work etc on Auto focus on a camera with dual pixel (canon) or something like an A6300 or even A6500. I think users exaggerated claims have kind of pushed the facts into the realm of dreams. People say things more for effect than for their actual worth.

Oh I can damn near see a Wedding being shot all using AF. Not as the only one there. With the main person shooting stills, I could see it happening.

But you are correct. Most of newer cameras are really set up to focus on people. People's faces. Like you said what happens when there are no people to shoot? I know for damn sure in low light, sucky contrast situations, well hold your ass if it will focus. But the touch focus does mostly work in that situation.

But at my age I Need a larger screen to do manual focus. Like a 7" one! But so many of these newer lenses have no aperture rings, and what rings they do have a all fly by wire. It  just is expensive as hell to have all the gear you need to do video lets face it. The camera on average is the cheap part compared to the rest of the stuff!! It seems to never end the money you need to spend.  :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh I can damn near see a Wedding being shot all using AF. Not as the only one there. With the main person shooting stills, I could see it happening.

But you are correct. Most of newer cameras are really set up to focus on people. People's faces. Like you said what happens when there are no people to shoot? I know for damn sure in low light, sucky contrast situations, well hold your ass if it will focus. But the touch focus does mostly work in that situation.

But at my age I Need a larger screen to do manual focus. Like a 7" one! But so many of these newer lenses have no aperture rings, and what rings they do have a all fly by wire. It  just is expensive as hell to have all the gear you need to do video lets face it. The camera on average is the cheap part compared to the rest of the stuff!! It seems to never end the money you need to spend.  :cry:

Though I would never shoot a wedding, I can't imagine taking the risk of using autofocus on something that's so important to the client!...It's their one day and the wedding photographer/video gets only one chance to get it all right...as previously stated I've of course never done a wedding...but for anyone directing/producing a project of any kind, the assessment of risk/possibility/outcome lies squarely on their shoulders...for me personally that risk would be unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Though I would never shoot a wedding, I can't imagine taking the risk of using autofocus on something that's so important to the client!...It's their one day and the wedding photographer/video gets only one chance to get it all right...as previously stated I've of course never done a wedding...but for anyone directing/producing a project of any kind, the assessment of risk/possibility/outcome lies squarely on their shoulders...for me personally that risk would be unacceptable.

I shoot weddings and I never use autofocus and probably never will.

Besides not wanting to be dependent on AF like you already mention, there is also focus as a creative tool. There is so much going on sometimes on a wedding day, that I need to seemlessly change the frame and focus to someone speaking or someone else who's listening. Granted, there are shots were it's easy to just tap and shoot but not in shots were multiple people are in the frame and the focus and frame needs to be changed a lot during the recording.  Also, I only have two hands and I couldn't tap the focus while holding the camera with my camframe. A manual focus pull with a follow focus however, is doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Though I would never shoot a wedding, I can't imagine taking the risk of using autofocus on something that's so important to the client!...It's their one day and the wedding photographer/video gets only one chance to get it all right...as previously stated I've of course never done a wedding...but for anyone directing/producing a project of any kind, the assessment of risk/possibility/outcome lies squarely on their shoulders...for me personally that risk would be unacceptable.

Well I would almost bet you could do it on a Canon C100 mkII. You have to do test footage with a video camera to see it's good and bad points. Shooting a wedding right out of the box, well NO!  I would never trust doing it on MF either. You Need to have a nearly continuous video going all the time, You can't have a bunch of cuts going on all the time to MF on stuff. And you can't have a bunch of back and forth, trying to get in in focus crap in it either. No way you are going to record 3, 4 hours of Wedding, Reception in MF without it looking like you were drunk LoL.

I have shot 100's of weddings in the day, but that was before anyone used video in it, unless you were a Kennedy or something shooting it with 35mm film! I don't know yet how good the AF is on the GH5, I doubt like hell it is as good as DPAF Canon has. But we are not too many years away from having great AF in Video Cameras I bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, zmarty said:

The 4K 10 bit files that GH5 records internally cannot be read by some software such as Resolve. Also, the files are in an inter-frame codec so editing crawls to a halt in some software.

The solution is to transcode from H.264 10 bit to an intraframe codec like Prores. Here is an ffmpeg command line that does that:

ffmpeg -i "input.mp4" -c:v prores_ks -profile:v 2 -qscale:v 11 -vendor ap10 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le "output.mov"

But you have to be very careful to use an ffmpeg version that was compiled for 10 bit support.

Hi ZMarty, I don't have yet a GH5 to test the above, but using an RX100 V uhd file it works great, as a test, thanks.  

The only issue is that the audio file gets converted to a much smaller one (aac 128kb) than what was in the source file.  Adding something like this does help  -b:a 384k ... any suggestions? can a "copy" of the origional audio file be incorporated into the ffmpeg command maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SuperSet said:

Autofocus can be extremely helpful when you're running on a gimbal or filming solo for Vlogging.

Yeah Casey Neistat has done pretty well using AF!  Maybe we can get Tim Sewell with his Canon C100 mkII to shoot a wedding in AF with it. :grin:

He might be able to answer how good the AF Realy is?? I don't think he has had it too long now though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jn- said:

Hi ZMarty, I don't have yet a GH5 to test the above, but using an RX100 V uhd file it works great, as a test, thanks.  

The only issue is that the audio file gets converted to a much smaller one (aac 128kb) than what was in the source file.  Adding something like this does help  -b:a 384k ... any suggestions? can a "copy" of the origional audio file be incorporated into the ffmpeg command maybe?

Yeah we can change the command line parameters to get better audio. I can take a look later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2017 at 2:52 PM, noone said:

At 1.4x I think that clearzoom is at least as close to lossless as the Pansonic at 1.4x.

It is still very close to lossless at 2x and of course you can go to 1.1x or 1.2x or 1.3x or whatever you want to 2x as well.

You can change the setting from clear image zoom to digital zoom to 4x in which case above 2x you start seeing it though still could have uses in a pinch.

I have it set to clearzoom and the down button set to use to bring it up and then I can use the left and right buttons and use it on the fly. (I sometimes use other things with the down button but mostly it is set to clear zoom).

Those four images I posted above are 2 from the A7s and 2 from the GX7.         Regards the A7s shots, I actually prefer the clearzoom at 25mm with 2x applied over the 50mm image.      those were taken with the cheap little Canon 18-55 IS ii kit lens and I think it might be because being a APSC lens used FF, while it covers the sensor from around 24mm up, there is still vignetting (just not a black edge as there is below about 24mm).     Using the clearzoom has removed the vignetting.     It may also be that the lens is optically better at 25mm than at 50mm.

With the Panasonic shots, the optical image is clearly better than the ETC shot though I would use the ETC one if I had to.       Again, the (same) lens is for a different format, in this case for a larger 1.6x APSC sensor so I don't have the vignetting issue and it may well be now that the lens is also better at 36mm of the optical zoom than it is at 18mm for the ETC shot so this time other factors favour the optical VS other factors favouring the clearzoom for the Sony.

Again, though this was never meant to be a Sony VS Panasonic thing but to suggest that if 1.4x is great with ETC, why on Mars wouldn't you want it variable?

Proving that there are 1/2 glass full people and 1/2 glass empty folks. It is what it and it is lossless. The Sony is not. But you do seem to be doing a good job in actually making this a Sony vs Panasonic thing. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Ross said:

Proving that there are 1/2 glass full people and 1/2 glass empty folks. It is what it and it is lossless. The Sony is not. But you do seem to be doing a good job in actually making this a Sony vs Panasonic thing. ;) 

I really wasn't trying to make it anything of the sort.

Assuming ETC really is lossless (I dont), who wouldn't want it to be variable?

We can agree to disagree on anything/everything else though.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...