GH5 Game Over, Panasonic

Thomas Smet said:
That may work for you but not for everybody. There are plenty of people that are fine with 150mbps and 400mbps on the GH5. I would love to see how you think ProRes is so superior to the 150mbps and 400mbps on the GH5. Lots of people have compared them and have trouble seeing a difference. I'm not saying it isn't there but to think the GH5 formats are somehow vastly inferior is just silly.
Click to expand...
1. Most of the comparisons between the GH-series codecs and ProRes are done with Atomos recorders, and we know there is a strange issue there.
2. ProRes edits like butter, on any NLE, even on old systems. Not having to transcode on quick multi-cam jobs is very convenient. Being able to throw on 2x or even 4x the number of filters and still have realtime playback is very nice.
3. Some tools *still* can't properly deal with some of the GH5(s) recording modes. ProRes is accepted everywhere, and pretty much works with everything.
4. Remember, the GH5(s) codecs drop in quality even at 60P. Not so on the BMPCC 4K. No ugly 8-bit macro blocking.

Of course there are people that are fine with the GH5's codecs. There are people that are fine with YouTube compression. There are people who are fine with SD DV. I'm not going to ding a professional acquisition tool for having professional acquisition codecs.
 
Thomas Smet said:
It may not be practical for everybody. There are already a lot of people that feel 400mbps on the GH5 is too high for what they gain. Just because you don't mind larger media doesn't mean everybody shares your same view.
Click to expand...

But is it a useful comparison?

If someone wants a consumer grade, jack-of-all trades walk-around camera, the GH5 remains a better choice. I'll keep mine for just that. If you're on this forum, though, I assume you're doing professional work. Is the difference in media cost (especially given how quickly it is dropping) that meaningful if you're being paid to work? I really doubt it. The only *fast* drive you need is for your working media. You can near-line and off-line everything else onto cheaper, slower drives.

And if you're just putzing around with the camera for fun, then media size is *really* a non-issue.

Okay, I know there's someone on this forum that does what sounds like cheap, really long, live event recording. For that purpose, yeah, the smallest codec might be the most important factor. But that's an exception, not a norm.
 
joe12south said:
1. Most of the comparisons between the GH-series codecs and ProRes are done with Atomos recorders, and we know there is a strange issue there.
2. ProRes edits like butter, on any NLE, even on old systems. Not having to transcode on quick multi-cam jobs is very convenient. Being able to throw on 2x or even 4x the number of filters and still have realtime playback is very nice.
3. Some tools *still* can't properly deal with some of the GH5(s) recording modes. ProRes is accepted everywhere, and pretty much works with everything.
4. Remember, the GH5(s) codecs drop in quality even at 60P. Not so on the BMPCC 4K. No ugly 8-bit macro blocking.

Of course there are people that are fine with the GH5's codecs. There are people that are fine with YouTube compression. There are people who are fine with SD DV. I'm not going to ding a professional acquisition tool for having professional acquisition codecs.
Click to expand...

1. We do? What issue would that be? if you are referring to the 0-255 issue that is easily fixed. I created a FCPX effect and a lut to fix that issue and use it all the time with external ProRes. No other issues I have ever heard of.

2. Of course it edits well. I'm one of the biggest fans of ProRes and use it all the time. I personally don't have an issue using ProRes for everything. Not everybody may feel the same way however. I'm only playing devils advocate here when it comes to file sizes.

3. Agreed and thats one of the main reasons why I am considering the Pocket. I'm not entirely sure I want to keep using an external recorder. I was considering moving to the GH5 from the GH4 to bypass the external recorder but now I'm not sure which way I want to go. I would sometimes miss the highly efficient codecs on the GH5 (not the GH4, those codecs can burn).

4. Yes they do drop in quality but I rarely use 60p so it isn't a big concern for me. Not everybody is opposed to 8bit formats either. I personally am but a lot of professionals use 8bit all the time. If users use any of the baked in rec709 profiles the 8bit formats are pretty solid for a lot of professional purposes. I think it is a bit of a stretch to think they are garbage. Maybe not your cup of tea but you don't speak for everybody either.
 
joe12south said:
But is it a useful comparison?

If someone wants a consumer grade, jack-of-all trades walk-around camera, the GH5 remains a better choice. I'll keep mine for just that. If you're on this forum, though, I assume you're doing professional work. Is the difference in media cost (especially given how quickly it is dropping) that meaningful if you're being paid to work? I really doubt it. The only *fast* drive you need is for your working media. You can near-line and off-line everything else onto cheaper, slower drives.

And if you're just putzing around with the camera for fun, then media size is *really* a non-issue.

Okay, I know there's someone on this forum that does what sounds like cheap, really long, live event recording. For that purpose, yeah, the smallest codec might be the most important factor. But that's an exception, not a norm.
Click to expand...

How is it not a useful comparison? I wouldn't exactly call the GH5 consumer grade. Not by a long shot. There are many different types of professionals in this field and I think it is a mistake to assume they are all just like you.
 
Thomas Smet said:
How is it not a useful comparison? I wouldn't exactly call the GH5 consumer grade. Not by a long shot. There are many different types of professionals in this field and I think it is a mistake to assume they are all just like you.
Click to expand...

Look at the masthead: "The Online Community for Filmmakers"

Yes, I am biased. I primarily care about getting the highest quality image that I can squeeze into my budget. Everything else is secondary. Having had to settle for barely good enough for years – from cameras that have artificially crippled their video image in one way or another – to finally be able to purchase a camera I can afford that will allow me to get the full quality the sensor captures is very exciting. I would never go back to shooting JPEG stills (even though they are certainly smaller than RAW stills) and doubt I'll ever want to go back to shooting smooshed video.
 
NorBro said:
I'm not sure what you're saying but for real...no one in this thread ever said the GH5 or GH5S is a bad camera...they are amazing cameras and anyone who says they aren't is an imbecile.

But it's also very important to understand how powerful the BMPCC 4K camera is, and the accurate concepts and optimal procedures pertaining to this particular camera system.
Click to expand...
I'm responding to the title in the thread....and a major comparison is the cost of the pocket versus the GH...in truth, I've never used a BMD camera though I find the image lovely! I looked seriously at the UMP after the EVA released with an EF mount, but now that Prores RAW is released I'm back to considering the EVA and some Leitax mount adapters for my Nikon glass....and if the Pocket image pans out I will buy one to...I already own all the infrastructure for either camera...perhaps the OP simply meant the thread title to be provocative....perhaps I'm just tired of GH cameras getting what seems to be more criticism than almost any other camera ( not directing this at you and perhaps only my perception because I own GH cameras) and it may well be that I should stay away from some forums...but I find the thread title laughable, hence my posts...and in my previous post I guess I was trying to say that for a young person starting out, the $1295 price tag would be the least of their cost...for me, if the image holds up, it will be an absolute bargain.
 
Last edited:
I think everyone also has their own view of Filmaking too. I remember back in the 60's belonging to a filmmaking club. What this meant was recording something on film. To record an event required a lot of coordination between many people to account for the fact that film stock only lasted a few minutes and the cameras had to be wound up again ( no electric motors, clockwork !! ) I recall recording a musical with 18 people. The content is what matters above all else. Rubbish recorded with an 8K RED is still rubbish. Great content on a cell phone is a winner. Striving for better and better camera specs does not unfortunately improve the content.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Everybody else will change the same for 4k
Click to expand...

I haven't researched my particular market, but...I know at least one company that is currently charging a premium for weddings filmed and delivered at 4K. There's not a huge demand for it yet where I work. The P4K will get me ready at a better price point than the 5S, though.
 
joe12south said:
Look at the masthead: "The Online Community for Filmmakers"

Yes, I am biased. I primarily care about getting the highest quality image that I can squeeze into my budget. Everything else is secondary. Having had to settle for barely good enough for years – from cameras that have artificially crippled their video image in one way or another – to finally be able to purchase a camera I can afford that will allow me to get the full quality the sensor captures is very exciting. I would never go back to shooting JPEG stills (even though they are certainly smaller than RAW stills) and doubt I'll ever want to go back to shooting smooshed video.
Click to expand...

Filmmaking has many different meanings. but you do have a point which is why the 10bit 4:2:2 on the GH5 is so important. I would love for you to show me clear examples of how ProRes is so superior to 150mbps and 400mbps on the GH5. I will wait while you attempt to dig up that proof. You are being a bit snobbish now. I have a VFX background and nobody wants 4:4:4 more than I do and yet I understand just how good these compressed formats have come. Stephen Fleet is the VFX Supervisor on Marvels Iron Fist and other VFX related TV shows and he uses the GH5 to shoot background plates. He of course prefers a 4:4:4 source for the main content but even he is greatly impressed with the 150mbps on the GH5. I can share with you a couple of videos he created where he puts the GH5 codecs through some rigorous tests. I would love for you to do your own tests to show me just how crappy the GH5 codecs really are. Saying it is one thing but actually proving it is another.

I didn't realize pointing out a fact about files being 5x larger and more expensive would hurt your feelings so much. Don't take it personal. If you want to buy a Pocket and believe that will magically make a huge difference in your bottom line then please go ahead and do that. I think the Pocket is a great camera and I'm excited to see it become a reality. That doesn't mean using it doesn't have certain drawbacks for some people. You may be incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of others and thats ok. It is really about your own needs and you made it loud and clear how emotionally attached you are to getting rid of the the horrible formats you have been plagued with all these years. Maybe I'm more of a glass half full guy vs "where the hell is my damn water" kind of guy but at my age I learned to stop worrying about the small details and focus on the bigger picture. Having started out years ago with VHS, Hi-8, S-VHS, Betacam and then DV maybe I can appreciate a little bit more just how much we have today. I recently dug up some footage from my old Canon XL1 and I honestly almost vomited a little in my mouth.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't care about quality. If that is your thing then go get it. As someone with a VFX background I also want 4:4:4 if I can get it which is why I am really considering the Pocket myself. I also don't do as much VFX and 3D animation work as I use to so I need to weigh the cons with the pros. I can also understand at the same time that not everybody has those same needs. The masthead may say one thing but if you read some of the diversity on this forum you will realize filmmakers only make up a portion of the users here. The GH5 is also not bought by just filmmakers and really they likely make up a very small fraction of the actual GH5 sales. You are clearly a filmmaker and you should use the tool that you feel works best for you but don't pretend you represent every GH5 user because you don't. I don't either but I can take a step back and look at all the pros and cons and not get all giddy over a new tool.

Now if it is ok with you I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of the camera vs the mud slinging so I can make my own informed decision without people treating me like I'm nuts for not needing raw. My wife may agree that I'm nuts but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
 
The primary benefits to RAW are avoiding the irreversible effects of burning in-camera white balance, debayering, and sharpening into the footage. The downside of RAW is its wasteful allocation of most of its bandwidth to perceptibly indistinguishable details. What's needed to make RAW more practical and efficient are industry standards for LOG-scaled RAW recording using floating-point encoding to eliminate the dynamic range limits of fixed-point formats. ProRes RAW makes no attempt to tackle this challenge, it encodes the camera's RAW data in linear, fixed-point format and uses conventional data compression techniques to reduce overall bitrate. In my view, it is a transitional stepping stone rather than a long-term solution.

The choice between long-GOP vs All-I H.264 recording is likewise hamstrung by archaic industry encoding practices. All-I is obviously wasteful for locked-down static shots, but even 400Mbps is not enough bitrate to avoid artifacts in highly-detailed motion at 10-bit 4K. Long-GOP at 150Mbps eliminates data redundancy, but propagates cummulative artifacts across reconstructed, daisy-chained P-frames. Both rely on artificial deblocking filters to conceal macroblock edges that would otherwise look atrocious. While there's no magic bullet with this kind of content-sensitive data compression, use of adaptive short-GOP encoding would greatly ameliorate the inflexible drawbacks of current long-GOP and All-I formats. This is the main reason I still use my hacked GH2 for 1080p fast-action shots - Flow Motion's 100Mbps 3-frame IB GOP's capture the details virtually free of macroblock artifacts.
 
Lpowell said:
The primary benefits to RAW are avoiding the irreversible effects of burning in-camera white balance, debayering, and sharpening into the footage. The downside of RAW is its wasteful allocation of most of its bandwidth to perceptibly indistinguishable details. What's needed to make RAW more practical and efficient are industry standards for LOG-scaled RAW recording using floating-point encoding to eliminate the dynamic range limits of fixed-point formats. ProRes RAW makes no attempt to tackle this challenge, it encodes the camera's RAW data in linear, fixed-point format and uses conventional data compression techniques to reduce overall bitrate. In my view, it is a transitional stepping stone rather than a long-term solution.

The choice between long-GOP vs All-I H.264 recording is likewise hamstrung by archaic industry encoding practices. All-I is obviously wasteful for locked-down static shots, but even 400Mbps is not enough bitrate to avoid artifacts in highly-detailed motion at 10-bit 4K. Long-GOP at 150Mbps eliminates data redundancy, but propagates cummulative artifacts across reconstructed, daisy-chained P-frames. Both rely on artificial deblocking filters to conceal macroblock edges that would otherwise look atrocious. While there's no magic bullet with this kind of content-sensitive data compression, use of adaptive short-GOP encoding would greatly ameliorate the inflexible drawbacks of current long-GOP and All-I formats. This is the main reason I still use my hacked GH2 for 1080p fast-action shots - Flow Motion's 100Mbps 3-frame IB GOP's capture the details virtually free of macroblock artifacts.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

RAW is what I prefer in all instances where final Image Quality is paramount, or if I will be finishing it and not handing off the footage to someone else to finish.

Background VFX plates can always be shot in any clean 4K camera because they are not the main focus of the scene (generally) and because they will usually be heavily affected to meet the final lighting and perspective requirements of a scene. I have even used stills I shot AS STILLS on my GH2 for background plates that didn't require motion matching - like backgrounds or building on shots that were either static, or tracked in or out.

When I am shooting with either of my Panasonic GH cameras, the 2 or the 4, I almost always have a 5-inch or 7-inch external monitor connected, and the return of the 5-inch touch screen on the new 4K Pocket Camera is fantastic. That will actually allow me to forgo an external monitor in a great many shooting conditions, thus making a typical rig SMALLER when using this camera.

It's going to hurt the GH5 sales. I am proof of that. I got a GH5s ten days ago but just returned it yesterday after seeing the specs on the new Blackmagic 4K pocket.
For less Image Critical shoots I'll just stick with my GH4 until the new Pockets ship.
Plus I'll be getting TWO of them for the price I just paid for that GH5s.
Ouch.
 
DPStewart said:
I got a GH5s ten days ago but just returned it yesterday after seeing the specs on the new Blackmagic 4K pocket.
Click to expand...
Well, a living dog is better than a dead lion.

The new pocket camera is about half a year away, if BM delivers on time.
But half a year from now there may be some other new product on the horizon that beats that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top