Which is why I plan on purchasing a PX270 this summer, as I don't think the GH4 + PX270 hybrid is going to arrive for at least a year. ( I'll also upgrade my GH3 to a GH4 this summer too )
GH4 ALL-Intra -- What is its value?
- Thread starter Michael Erlewine
- Start date
Which is why I plan on purchasing a PX270 this summer, as I don't think the GH4 + PX270 hybrid is going to arrive for at least a year. ( I'll also upgrade my GH3 to a GH4 this summer too )
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Same here. My HMC150 is starting to get a bit long in the tooth, and the PX270 just looks like way too good a camera to pass up for event stuff where DoF is irrelevant.
These are the main PX270 features that sold me...
- Full raster 1080p
- 10 bit 4:2:2 Color ( even with low bit-rate Long GOP CODECs )
- Still able to record with SD cards
- 22x Zoom with good slow-creep and feathering
You might also consider the upcoming JVC GY-LSX2 - a new 4K camcorder with a Super35mm sensor and an active MFT mount:
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=24946
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=24946
combatentropy
Veteran
Today's codecs all look fine with most shots. But certain shots can make them break.
Intraframe. Intraframe compression seeks patterns within (intra-) the frame, to abbreviate it. You'd be surprised where it can find patterns. A compression ratio of 10 or less (about 100 Mbps or more, for HD) is usually indistinguishable at normal viewing distances.
Interframe. The thing about interframe is that it's also intraframe. So any susceptibility to noise with intraframe is also possible with interframe. But besides seeking patterns within the frame, interframe also looks for them across frames. In average shots, all things being equal, interframe can get the same quality as intraframe at half the bit rate or less. So 50 Mbps intraframe is just as good as 100 Mbps interframe. But interframe can break more easily than intra. For example, smoke billowing up the width of the frame in the foreground as cars race by in the background, or a seastorm, or hyperactive handheld, can show interframe compression's rough edges. Beyond a certain bitrate (50? 100?) it doesn't really matter. Interframe also takes more horsepower to edit than intraframe, but again, with today's computers it seems an adequate editor is not that hard to find.
Intraframe. Intraframe compression seeks patterns within (intra-) the frame, to abbreviate it. You'd be surprised where it can find patterns. A compression ratio of 10 or less (about 100 Mbps or more, for HD) is usually indistinguishable at normal viewing distances.
Interframe. The thing about interframe is that it's also intraframe. So any susceptibility to noise with intraframe is also possible with interframe. But besides seeking patterns within the frame, interframe also looks for them across frames. In average shots, all things being equal, interframe can get the same quality as intraframe at half the bit rate or less. So 50 Mbps intraframe is just as good as 100 Mbps interframe. But interframe can break more easily than intra. For example, smoke billowing up the width of the frame in the foreground as cars race by in the background, or a seastorm, or hyperactive handheld, can show interframe compression's rough edges. Beyond a certain bitrate (50? 100?) it doesn't really matter. Interframe also takes more horsepower to edit than intraframe, but again, with today's computers it seems an adequate editor is not that hard to find.