Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Panasonic S1H review / hands-on - a true 6K full frame cinema camera

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Netflix has this camera list, but really...what's the list specifically for?  The programs they directly produce-for-hire?

Yes - For anything they're actually involved in the production (even if it's just money) the camera list is in effect, but they will purchase anything after the fact if they judge it good content that people will watch, regardless of the camera.

It's pretty smart, really - they're pushing forward 4K HDR to future-proof their own content while also being flexible enough to pick up any kind of good content. 

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
6 hours ago, sanveer said:

I hope Panasonic releases the next GH camera, worthy of this Netflix list. 

Well it better have 14-stops at least of DR. Achilles heal of the GH line is dynamic range. I’m really surprised the GH5S didn’t improve this more. It’s better, but maybe by only half a stop.

The S1H has a solid 14 stops and it shows.

Maybe we will see a GH camera with their fabled organic sensor they say is coming to LUMIX with 16 stops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

 

Maybe we will see a GH camera with their fabled organic sensor they say is coming to LUMIX with 16 stops. 

they have a long way to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Well it better have 14-stops at least of DR. Achilles heal of the GH line is dynamic range. I’m really surprised the GH5S didn’t improve this more. It’s better, but maybe by only half a stop.

The S1H has a solid 14 stops and it shows.

Maybe we will see a GH camera with their fabled organic sensor they say is coming to LUMIX with 16 stops. 

I could be wrong, but the dynamic range difference between the GH5 and S1 doesn't seem that much actually. The S1 and S1H have great highlight rolloff though. I wish someone would do a credible dynamic range test of the 2. 

I agree. The GH6 should have atleast 1-1.5 more stops of dynamic range. That will make it a seriously formidable cinema camera. And they could add a Compressed RAW for another $299. It will have way lesser rolling shutter and overheating issues than a full frame camera. 

Share this post


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

I could be wrong, but the dynamic range difference between the GH5 and S1 doesn't seem that much actually. The S1 and S1H have great highlight rolloff though. I wish someone would do a credible dynamic range test of the 2. 

I agree. The GH6 should have atleast 1-1.5 more stops of dynamic range. That will make it a seriously formidable cinema camera. And they could add a Compressed RAW for another $299. It will have way lesser rolling shutter and overheating issues than a full frame camera. 

Regarding Dynamic Range - proper exposure for this particular camera might be the issue here:
https://filmvideoandvirtualreality.com/varicam-shooter-nick-dabas-captures-extreme-action-with-the-lumix-s1h/
"At 800 ISO, the VariCam is seven stops over and seven stops under. The S1H is six stops over and eight under, so you actually retain great shadow detail. On set, I made sure that my highlights were holding since I could always fill the shadows in with light. Once you learn and become comfortable with the S1H, you can easily match it to the VariCam. The color that is reproduces is beautiful and is very similar to the VariCam."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/26/2019 at 9:49 PM, Lux Shots said:

The URSA didn't get on the list with BRAW, they did it with ProRes.

The Ursa Mini 4.6k, Ursa Mini Pro and Ursa Mini Pro G2 are all on the list. 

With the Pro G2, Netflix will accept Braw Q5 or above for compressed and 5:1 for uncompressed - I assume this also applies to Pro G1, but it doesn't look like the camera guideline has been updated and so still refers to DNG.

UM 4.6k : https://drive.google.com/file/d/13kLJo96znF6cHVATAqNS17C-Uq37dNSz/view

UMP 4.6k G1 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1by7WMRjNB17SG3A8RSgRibfUz0oEMzgx/view

UMP 4.6k G2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/104u9JPYICXrJcaHaQBZ0FnKk4CqWGdVp/view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Netflix approves the S1H to shoot content for the platform...

... yet 100 out of 100 DP's would choose an ALEXA Mini rather than the S1H

In fact, pretty much EVERY DP would choose an ARRI over everything else, not to mention a stupid DSLR/mirrorless (to shoot professionally, not that DLSRs are stupid). On a professional shoot, the cost of the cameral body rental is essentially NEGLIGIBLE. An ALEXA Mini is €500/day or €1.5k/week. A basic commercial costs typically €250k to make.

Why are people still thinking pros/producers/directors/DPs would choose anything else than the tried and tested (ARRI), specially when their reputation is on the line, when it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the budget!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jindrich said:

Netflix approves the S1H to shoot content for the platform...

... yet 100 out of 100 DP's would choose an ALEXA Mini rather than the S1H

In fact, pretty much EVERY DP would choose an ARRI over everything else, not to mention a stupid DSLR/mirrorless (to shoot professionally, not that DLSRs are stupid). On a professional shoot, the cost of the cameral body rental is essentially NEGLIGIBLE. An ALEXA Mini is €500/day or €1.5k/week. A basic commercial costs typically €250k to make.

Why are people still thinking pros/producers/directors/DPs would choose anything else than the tried and tested (ARRI), specially when their reputation is on the line, when it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the budget!!!

You are missing the point.

S1H form factor is unique amongst the other approved Netflix cinema cameras.

If an Arri is your A-cam, It could be used as a B-cam.

And not rating an S1H's image highly or using an S1H yourself just because an Alexa Mini exists, is the most stupid reason ever to dismiss a tool.

For a start, it is $54,000 cheaper.

Do you personally have a Netflix size budget for your work?

If so, your opinion is first hand. If not, you're a speculative sofa surfer, basically trolling. Throwing rocks at something which plays in the same league as an Alexa Mini for $4000, which doesn't seem very clever to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 1:04 PM, currensheldon said:

The C200 raw is one of the best Images under $20k, but does not have timecode I/O and therefore doesn’t make the list. Netflix officials have even stated that is why it isn’t on the list. Same with Pocket 4k/6k.

Pocket 4/6k has timecode in..though it rarely gets attention in reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) nobody knows what Netflix's actual "quality" threshold is, after the camera meets the more or less arbitrary technical requirements.  

B) unless everyone here is under contract with Netflix, the announcement doesn't mean a whole lot.  Why is the S1H on the list, and the BMPCC 4k/6K aren't?  Anything to do with actual image quality or for reasons of no consequence to anyone likely to buy any of the 3?  Nobody knows.

C) And please, no "future proof" nonsense, in any but a marketing sense, which Netflix is itself promoting.  My 4K is bigger and better than your HD!  Actual audiences don't know or care, until they're told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, helium said:

A) nobody knows what Netflix's actual "quality" threshold is, after the camera meets the more or less arbitrary technical requirements.  

B) unless everyone here is under contract with Netflix, the announcement doesn't mean a whole lot.  Why is the S1H on the list, and the BMPCC 4k/6K aren't?  Anything to do with actual image quality or for reasons of no consequence to anyone likely to buy any of the 3?  Nobody knows.

C) And please, no "future proof" nonsense, in any but a marketing sense, which Netflix is itself promoting.  My 4K is bigger and better than your HD!  Actual audiences don't know or care, until they're told.

B) dynamic range is slightly better on the S1H but color science is another league. Especially the Pocket 4K has the tonal range of a potato in comparison and the ACES IDT is horrendously bad.

C) actual audiences pay for 4K.

Share this post


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

B) dynamic range is slightly better on the S1H but color science is another league. Especially the Pocket 4K has the tonal range of a potato in comparison and the ACES IDT is horrendously bad.

C) actual audiences pay for 4K.

Per B), I'm sorry, but that's just plain ludicrous.  "Color science in another league", "tonal range of potatoes, etc" -- if you have objective measurements or comparative studies let's see them.  Otherwise, it's just more internet noise.   Besides, nobody is taking footage straight out of the camera and exhibiting it.  If it's your view that BMPCC 4K footage is so poor it's beyond color correction, kindly link to baseline shots from both cameras, identical subject, and your sample grade of the S1H footage, which the BMPCC 4K can't match.

Actual audiences may pay for 4K but, again, this is marketing. And it's of no consequence to anyone likely to buy the camera as an A-cam -- people making low budget movies which will never get into theaters or be even remotely decisive of whether they can sell it to a streaming service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Netflix is in the business of streaming 4K

They attract customers based on high streaming quality, not just the content itself.

Why the hell would they settle their business model around 1080p, such an old standard?

4K is more future proof and will last longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand why anyone would build a business model around resolution, when the eye can't readily discriminate one from the other.  HD really isn't good enough?

Consider also the implications:  the S1H is an approved camera, but any number of Alexas aren't.  What about S16mm as shooting format -- not good enough?  Does this really make any sense?

And how will the content "last longer" in 4K, when folks can't readily tell the difference, least of all when streaming on Netflix?  Anyone who still manages to see projected 35mm film is likely getting 700 lines, on a good day.  Does that mean 100 years of cinema won't last, qualitatively, unless it's scanned to 4k, when most people actually interested in cinema would rather see a film print?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I urge everyone that say that there is "no real difference" in HD vs 4K to have a closer look at a 4K TV, close distance. I've seen Jedlins 4K vs HD video and although it is convincing, after owning a 4K TV for quite a while I can definitely tell, and ENJOY 4K material. Netflix premium streaming with 4K and Dolby Vision really is a treat for the eye. Especially of course on long depth of focus shots. I think viewing distance is key to fully appreciate it. 

I totally understand that Netflix want 4K material since its much more future proof than HD. 

Quote

the eye can't readily discriminate one from the other

Sorry pal, this is just plain wrong. Go see for yourself, your eyes are probably better than you think! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although 4K is not the be-all and end-all of image quality.... There's no argument when it comes to Netflix, as why would Netflix NOT have a 4K minimum standard for resolution when they are in the business of streaming 4K to fancy OLED TVs!?

They other point is...

You can shoot over 90% of an entire Netflix show on an S1H.

They think it is good enough as an A-cam.

Whether anybody does or not is besides the point. Netflix judge it to be of A-cam picture quality and not any of the Sony mirrorless cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jonathan Bergqvist said:

Sorry pal, this is just plain wrong. Go see for yourself, your eyes are probably better than you think! :)

"Pal", the fact that at "close distance", you can see the difference saying nothing about a comfortable and customary viewing experience.  Cropped without resizing, I can easily see the difference between hd and 4k on a cheap HD display.  But have you really missed all those studies which set thresholds for being able to distinguish between HD and 4K, and how few viewers will be within them, either at home or in theaters, even forgetting the legions who watch on their phones?

I guess Steve Yedlin was wasting his breath?

And we haven't even begun to question whether more resolution is actually "better", and for what kind of material.

This fetish may be essential to marketing to new equipment and services, but does it really have anything to do with cinema, or storytelling as usually understood? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, were not even talking about that.

Netflix chooses cameras which match with their workflow and allow for a 4K output with HDR.
The BMD Pocket 4K isn't usable in their preferred ACES (to Rec709 and Rec2020 ODT) workflow because color science is weak and the IDT only exaggerates the issues this camera has - it's a brownish nightmare with a clipping red channel on top and missing any fine nuances in hue which I tried to stretch but sometimes ended up in artifacts despite having a 12 bit codec to begin with.

The Pocket 6K is way better in that regard but still cannot compete with even the UMP and G2. The codec is isn't the issue here either as shown on the G2.

Also 35mm resolves way more than just 700 lines lol
Still - wouldn't fit into Netflix's workflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the ones that see cinema as something ever evolving, instead of something that "is" cinema (and forever will be). Steve Yedlin seems to be very much in love with the way cinema looked back in the days before digital, and has reproduced the filmic look on digital cameras so that it looks the same as way back when. Nothing wrong with that, I just think that his love for the old film stock look maybe has blurred his vision ( ha ha ) regarding the new technology and benefits of 4K.

I enjoy big screens. Last weekend I saw Joker at the cinema and sadly, our seats were so far back from the screen it felt like our TV back home would be a more immerse experience. When I'm home and want the "full" experience of a 4K-movie, I sit roughly 1,5 meter from our 55 inch 4K oled. For me, that is comfortable, and at that viewing distance, I really can see the benefit of the extra resolution.

That being said, I guess most of us have experience from watching a CAM/TS-version of a movie back in the days of peer-to-peer downloading. Sure, after a while you forget about the bad quality picture, the story is everything etc. But when building up a giant library of movies that should hold their quality many years from now, of course they should be recorded in 4K! 

On another note, I hooked up my GH5 and watched some 4K material and wow, is that camera capable of delivering a nice 4K image! 

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...