Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

No, absolutely, not, they weren't 'very different' from Max's test for the portion that I did. I did 2 tests that mirrored 2 of his tests (the outdoor test and the 'lens in front of the camera' test. Both of my tests were 100% successful and 100% repeatable and both of his were utter failures. How can you possibly ignore this even if I didn't conduct every single test he did? 

I literally said your test were a 'little different', since you used a different lens, then you quote me as saying 'very different'. You then ask how I can possibly ignore your test result, after I said your autofocus test were helpful. Do you always try so hard to create conflict or just having a bad day? Nobody is ignoring you. You are important too.

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
57 minutes ago, Nodnarb said:

I literally said your test were a 'little different', since you used a different lens, then you quote me as saying 'very different'. You then ask how I can possibly ignore your test result, after I said your autofocus test were helpful. Do you always try so hard to create conflict or just having a bad day? Nobody is ignoring you. You are important too.

I re-read your post and I apologize, you are correct. Part of this was the frustration I was feeling in that it was only Max's tests that people were paying attention to and judging the camera on. It wasn't just the ignoring of my videos showing things to the contrary, but all the other GH5 videos that also showed the AF not to be nearly as bad as it appeared in Max's tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Footage is nice, probably best I've seen so far. But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing. Still, I agree this looks good.

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." :grin:

Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.

You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.

FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

This is not good for any serious shooter and picture lover. Not because of AF but because of people focused to have decent IQ from affordable professional standards in the hands of many more talented artists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBZugOhi8o

 

Great example of post I don't understand. You might even be trying to add an extra layer to the translation by using sarcasm? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just have no idea what you're saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 @Emanuel you seem like a smart fellow, but 50% of the time I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, although you do seem to be talking about something. And I'm a smart fellow as well.

Of course, if I were to try posting in Portuguese you'd have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about... 100% of the time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Andy J said:

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." :grin:

Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.

You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.

FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

I said it looks nice but still videoy. To me something being filmic is not just technique but the quality of image itself - it emulates film. Digital systems like arri and red get close. Also you don't know what experience I have that led me to my opinions. Cameras like gh5 look nice but videoy. It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move. Don't know why panny prosumer images feel this way to me but they do. But again that's just my opinion. Don't know why you think I'm being childish about it. I guess I hurt your feelings. If I did I apologize.

Crazy people are so sensitive about a thing like a camera. I guess these days people being a special snowflake isn't enough, there chosen brands need to be special too. To me it's there to tell my story and I always wish it worked better no matter the brand. Maybe these brands keep innovating because some of us are never satisfied. If it was all technique why are these product cycles getting shorter? 

Share this post


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

Great example of post I don't understand. You might even be trying to add an extra layer to the translation by using sarcasm? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just have no idea what you're saying here.

 

1 hour ago, hyalinejim said:

+1 @Emanuel you seem like a smart fellow, but 50% of the time I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, although you do seem to be talking about something. And I'm a smart fellow as well.

Of course, if I were to try posting in Portuguese you'd have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about... 100% of the time!

 

I'm sorry guys for my non-native English! : D Trust me, even in Portuguese, my writing (just trying to go after my thoughts) is not so straightforward, as I'd like and it should be variably assigned. In English, much more labyrinthic, I believe. At times, it is per style such as subliminal speech to be read between-the-lines indeed. This happens especially with people like you I am used to read in a frequent basis.

My bad I fail to leave it with you when happens. You are not the first ones nor the last ones to notice, I guess. I love complex stuff, true. I bet that's the reason why GH5 AF system attracts me enough to advocate myself in Panasonic's behalf... LOL

Take a look in the messages I left there. Maybe they can help to follow my thinking on topic, I think so :-)

BTW, thanks for your care and earlier compliments too!

E :-)

 

AF_IV.thumb.png.0df92dd8be0235f67836c43bf1ad7390.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2017 at 1:36 PM, dbp said:

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed. 

Watching full screen right now.  It is definitely still there, although much worse when HD is selected rather than 4k.  I'm not talking about the obnoxious over the top aliasing that we see when watching a small embed window.  I mean something more subtle than that but still problematic for a client delivery.  I'll have to do my own side by side tests now that my GH5 arrived.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jonpais said:

We've already seen this video, several times in different threads, OK? Hanriverprod is entitled to his opinion.

 

:) Bushman Films has been contributing enthusiasm and knowledge and kindness in his posts.

I always enjoyed them and his opinions and so I did with his post of the footage above.

Thats what this beautiful forum is about, enjoyment and exchange. By the way, love your Fuji videos, jonpais.

Please keep sharing your videos with us. Also, I hope Bushman Films keeps doing so as well.

14 hours ago, midloch said:

You should change your glasses! Lets see:

Arrgh, I just did:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

 

:) Bushman Films has been contributing enthusiasm and knowledge and kindness in his posts.

I always enjoyed them and his opinions and so I did with his post of the footage above.

Thats what this beautiful forum is about, enjoyment and exchange. By the way, love your Fuji videos, jonpais.

Please keep sharing your videos with us. Also, I hope Bushman Films keeps doing so as well.

I'd like to see more as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more footage I see from this camera the more I'm worried about. I've seen zero evidence yet, that this camera can look cinematic at all.

Everythings looks processed as hell, makes me want to sell all my Panasonic stuff and switch over to URSA Mini Pro instead...
It would have been so easy, but Panasonic simply isn't interested to provide a processing free mode (DJI does it with the same sensor, results are amazing!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, deezid said:

The more footage I see from this camera the more I'm worried about. I've seen zero evidence yet, that this camera can look cinematic at all.

Everythings looks processed as hell, makes me want to sell all my Panasonic stuff and switch over to URSA Mini Pro instead...
It would have been so easy, but Panasonic simply isn't interested to provide a processing free mode (DJI does it with the same sensor, results are amazing!).

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

56 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

I said it looks nice but still videoy. To me something being filmic is not just technique but the quality of image itself - it emulates film. Digital systems like arri and red get close. Also you don't know what experience I have that led me to my opinions. Cameras like gh5 look nice but videoy. It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move. Don't know why panny prosumer images feel this way to me but they do. But again that's just my opinion. Don't know why you think I'm being childish about it. I guess I hurt your feelings. If I did I apologize.

Crazy people are so sensitive about a thing like a camera. I guess these days people being a special snowflake isn't enough, there chosen brands need to be special too. To me it's there to tell my story and I always wish it worked better no matter the brand. Maybe these brands keep innovating because some of us are never satisfied. If it was all technique why are these product cycles getting shorter? 

Replacing the nameplate with "Canon" will probably help you get past those reservations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, deezid said:

The more footage I see from this camera the more I'm worried about. I've seen zero evidence yet, that this camera can look cinematic at all.

But, you've made it with your GH4... BTW, you should be hired for Lumix Luminary instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

But, you've made it with your GH4... BTW, you should be hired for Lumix Luminary instead.

I just think the GH4 looks way more cinematic, seems way less processed to me. But Panasonic seems to be to proud about their new processing algorithms to allow for a mode without any processing like DJI, Blackmagic, RED, ARRI, Sony etc do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ozmorphasis said:

Watching full screen right now.  It is definitely still there, although much worse when HD is selected rather than 4k.  I'm not talking about the obnoxious over the top aliasing that we see when watching a small embed window.  I mean something more subtle than that but still problematic for a client delivery.  I'll have to do my own side by side tests now that my GH5 arrived.  

The outside car to roof video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsPFxB6kHU There is no moire/aa on 4k monitor in 4k. The roofline is not smooth - it has tiles that go slightly up and down. It's meant to look like that. Perhaps there's something wrong in your graphics card settings? Take a snapshot (or even a screeny) and compare :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, deezid said:

I just think the GH4 looks way more cinematic, seems way less processed to me. But Panasonic seems to be to proud about their new processing algorithms to allow for a mode without any processing like DJI, Blackmagic, RED, ARRI, Sony etc do...

Interesting opinion. I had found it more or less the same IQ, except the lack of optical low-pass filter, yes, which can introduce some artifacts, hope not though.

4:2:2 10-bit for tight bit rate doesn't help either. As same as 4K/60p for more or less the same data used with 24p. But, we have the external recording option, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emanuel said:

Interesting opinion. I had found it more or less the same IQ, except the lack of optical low-pass filter, yes, which can introduce some artifacts, hope not though.

4:2:2 10-bit for tight bit rate doesn't help either. As same as 4K/60p for more or less the same data used with 24p. But, we have the external recording option, isn't it?

The problem isn't the codec or IQ, it's the heavy internal processing like sharpening (it's an unsharp mask with 1.5 radius actually even at -5 sharpening) and noisereduction which cannot be bypassed. 

DJI uses the same sensor with really cinematic results, by using no processing instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, deezid said:

The problem isn't the codec or IQ, it's the heavy internal processing like sharpening (it's an unsharp mask with 1.5 radius actually even at -5 sharpening) and noisereduction which cannot be bypassed. 

DJI uses the same sensor with really cinematic results, by using no processing instead. 

Well, maybe we need to save the grace going on with some filter in the front of the camera in order to put it soft, I guess. Apart, work @post.

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...