Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Detailed Panasonic GH4 rumoured specs - 10bit 4:2:2 and 4K video

Recommended Posts

I understand that technology needs to constantly evolved and yes, 4K is a natural progression. I guess what I was trying to say was: do we really need a dodgy version of 4K on a camera like a GH4 or should camera makers first try to make a great 1080p camera first. There is a massive amount of improvement that could be made to the 1080p image before thinking about 4K. 1080p, moire free, 10bit 422, global shutter, high DR etc.

Let technology work its way down the chain where budgets can utilize it to the full rather than up the chain where trying to cram 4K plus all the other features into a $3000 camera is going to come with huge compromises.

I find it odd that productions shot for release in IMAX cinemas are happy shooting on 2K but all of a sudden pros shooting for the smaller screen, prosumers and parents filming kids soccer matches all need to shoot in 4K.

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

IMAX version was 2K? If so, yeah, looked fine.
 
Don't forget however that 4K makes for more dynamic range, as there's no (or little) pixel binning. It also makes for much cleaner 1080p when downsampled in post, with less aliasing.


All shots involving actors were filmed in 2K on Alexa. The rest is CGI obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets be honest 4k is overkill There is no real need for it and everyone here will deliver in HD at best.

What it does do is sell more hard drives and more programs and there upgrades as well as obviously shed loads of cameras So many people who want to say mines bigger than yours will positively need this. All I phones now need to have 4k on a 2" screen because their users have borg enhanced visual implants to check for faulty pixels on the atomic/quantum level.

This may be a good time to remind everyone... Content is king..... IE how many pixels you can get on an I PHONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about Global Shutter?

IMHO in order to compete against BMC 4K they would need to offer global shutter.

Simon.


With Global Shutter you will get less dynamic range, same like with BM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take built in NDs over 4K any day of the week.

My job consists of getting the shots of actual happenings with no chance of directing(news). You can't really stop a politician or rescue worker or whoever to screw on an ND. 

 

If this camera takes on the "AG" video name, asking for NDs is not that unreasonable.

 

I can see that 4K is much better than NDs for marketing, but in my world(and I bet in yours as well) NDs has much more value. Sure the ability to reframe in post is nice, but I don't know how many in the market for this camera will deliver 4K masters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I want is an m4/3 chip in a shoulder mount with a proper eyepiece, SDI/HDMI and XLR’s, with a broadcast quality codec (50-100mbit or more), and some form of highspeed slo-mo (120+fps). 4K sounds awesome, but 2.7K would be just as great (Alexa range).

 

No more rigs, no more contraptions, give us a proper film making tool. Sony is on the right path with the F5/55, Arri has the Alexa, get back in the game Panny, we miss you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why think so small about resolution, imagine inventive crops you can do like you do in photography, maybe you don't like the composition that you made in the field and you change it, maybe you want to do a creative zoom in your video, fast, slow, extract precious moments from video that you can print.

Some of you probably seen this but for everybody else http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRDIV0trv_Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember that long pans, zooms and tracks done in post can be given away by the lack of parallax.

 

If you have time to cut out all the distance layers and add it in After Effects you can make it 100% realistic (not worth it over doing it for real), but otherwise it can look very fake if you have different levels of distance in shot

 

That said, post zooms have been used since way before digital. You could spot them by the grain increasing in size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding movement to a shot with a gentle Ken Burns effect is a very common trick in post as an alternative to movement produced by using track & dolly (or slider on a smaller production). It works well with just enough movement to be interesting but not so much that the lack of parallax becomes apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why think so small about resolution, imagine inventive crops you can do like you do in photography, maybe you don't like the composition that you made in the field and you change it, maybe you want to do a creative zoom in your video, fast, slow, extract precious moments from video that you can print.

Some of you probably seen this but for everybody else http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRDIV0trv_Q

 

So the guy goes on an African Safari with one camera?!  I'm an amateur and I own multiple DSLRs, multiple medium format FILM SLRs, a 35 mm FILM slr, a 35mm FILM p&s, and of course the ubiquitious camera phone.  If I was sitting in a blind in the African wilderness I would have a minimum of three tripods set up and be going crazy.  I break out in cold sweats thinking about traveling.  How many cameras to take?! I regularly hike with four cameras on my person including camera phone.  Going on an African safari with one camera as a professional is malpractice... especially if you are doing video.

 

The African watering hole blind was a terrible example.  There is no way I would be caught out in that situation.  The other thing that bothers me about that scenario is don't wedding photographers routinely show up at jobs with at least two cameras?  You really should treat shooting an African safari for money with at least the same level of care and thought as shooting your cousin Bill's wedding for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the guy goes on an African Safari with one camera?!  I'm an amateur and I own multiple DSLRs, multiple medium format FILM SLRs, a 35 mm FILM slr, a 35mm FILM p&s, and of course the ubiquitious camera phone.  If I was sitting in a blind in the African wilderness I would have a minimum of three tripods set up and be going crazy.  I break out in cold sweats thinking about traveling.  How many cameras to take?! I regularly hike with four cameras on my person including camera phone.  Going on an African safari with one camera as a professional is malpractice... especially if you are doing video.

 

The African watering hole blind was a terrible example.  There is no way I would be caught out in that situation.  The other thing that bothers me about that scenario is don't wedding photographers routinely show up at jobs with at least two cameras?  You really should treat shooting an African safari for money with at least the same level of care and thought as shooting your cousin Bill's wedding for free.

 

I think you're missing the point The film was AN AD for the 1dc and how you can take stills from the 4k footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the Canon 1D C go for under £5000 on eBay at the moment.

 

An absolutely terrible depreciation on the used market from the launch price of double that.

 

It's for that reason I'm unlikely to ever invest more than £5000 in a camera... That and the fact they become obsolete after a year.

 

The Sony F3 for example - was £12,000... Now £4000 used! It's perfectly good... 10bit codec, lovely low light, FS100 Super35mm sensor, HD-SDI, XLR, ND, you name it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point The film was AN AD for the 1dc and how you can take stills from the 4k footage.

Like old movie posters or photo in film magazine, which were printed from 35mm films of the very moment of frames in that particular movie.

 

I have done with my gh3 video, which is just like the 1D C ad claimed, you will get more chance to get a decent shot of your objects with video than with photo only. A video portrait of human or animal for example are way easier than shooting only with photo function. Try to look at your video portrait of person (wedding are a good example, but my experience was with a violinist ), change in between frames on your computer you will find much more picture you liked for a photo purpose. Of course there are some will be blur because most of them are 1/50 shot. But overall it can be very good.

 

I printed some 1080P frames with canon Pixma pro 100 from MAC OS print screen function. They were great. So in this regard, GH4 4K video can serve for this purpose well since it will be 8M vs 2M pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point The film was AN AD for the 1dc and how you can take stills from the 4k footage.

 

No I get it.  I just though the African Safari example with a big blind where you can set up multiple tripods and cameras was a dumb example.  That's not to say there aren't situations where you would want to pull a frame.  But that is one where even a modicum of planning would yield much better results with negligible effort and two cameras.

 

If I was paid to shoot something like that in Africa I would take two cameras minimum.  One for stills and one for video.  Heck I would take two if all I was shooting was stills just in case of failure.  I mean a $350 T3i is going to be way better than a 4K video cell from any camera.  As they said in the ad you are basically working with a lower resolution JPEG.  And you are locked into one shutter speed and DOF.  When I shoot I use polarizer and no polarizer.  Shallow depth of field and deep depth of field.  I am constantly changing things and experimenting.  I would set up both cameras and wait.  When the moment looked like it was going to happen I would hit record on the video camera and then start snapping away with the camera set for photo.  Wouldn't touch the video camera till it was over.  If I was shootings sports then yes it would be impossible to do that.

 

Anyway just niggling about that one example.  The rest of the uses seem legit.  And while you are fiddling with your photo camera between shoots changing settings the elephant might do something interesting that the video camera captures.  Which is great.  You can use the shot.  But I wouldn't rely on 4K and fixed shutterspeed in a scenario like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the point of the 1dc is you just shoot 4k and take your stills from the footage. Therefore you don't need a stills camera.

 

Its better just to shoot with one camera so that way you can reframe. The point is some professional still photographers are using the 1dc this way. The film was presenting an argument for it in order to sell the idea,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the point of the 1dc is you just shoot 4k and take your stills from the footage.

 

 

I understand that.  What I was saying is that ONE of the examples given could have been easily accomplished with two cameras and minimal effort and it would have looked a lot better.

 

 Therefore you don't need a stills camera.

 

No pro photographer in their right mind would go all that way into such a remote place to do a paid job with one camera.  If a photographer shows up to do a job for you like that with one camera start worrying.

 

Its better just to shoot with one camera so that way you can reframe.

 

Again I understand that which is why I confined my criticisim to the tripod shot in the fixed blind at the fixed watering hole.  What I said is not applicable to shooting sports.  And yes even while shooting something like that on a tripod having the option of a bit of reframing is good but it doesn't outweigh the fact you are getting a lower resloution JPEG with less than ideal settings and no raw for your still image.  Both options have their pros and cons.  I just thought that ONE example was a bit weird.

 

I am saying this again I do not have a problem with the concept in general.  It works in a lot of scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the point is it doesn't matter what you or I think of the film its what potential 1DC customers think and that's who the film was for.

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...