GH5 Game Over, Panasonic

[joe12south]

And yet we have the GH5s being certified by the EBU for professional HD image acquisition using this TERRIBLE h.264 CODEC, and the EVA1 being certified by NetFlix for professional 4K image acquisition using this TERRIBLE h.264 CODEC. OMG, the sky is falling!!!

Acknowledging that one thing is better, of even just different, than another does not make one of them "TERRIBLE." Rational adults can, and should, be able to debate the relative merits of competing products.

h.264 was not designed for professional acquisition. That's not an emotional judgement call. It just is. Doesn't make it good, doesn't make it bad. Doesn't mean that it can't be manipulated for that unintended use. It just is. To be fair...neither was ProRes. (One was intended as a delivery medium, the other was intended as an intermediate format.)

All things being equal, RAW is the best format for retaining the most image data from a bayer pattern CMOS sensor. It just is. Something else might be "good enough" for your purposes, something else might be smaller, might be faster, might be whatever, but none of that changes the basic fact that the RAW data is the best representation of what the sensor captured.

 

[IronFilm]

For the umpteenth time, let me state - AGAIN - I don't consider the BMPCC 4K a good replacement for an all-around, general purpose camera. The GH5 is far better for that. What it is (or will be) is a less expensive, more professional, higher IQ alternative to a GH5S.

I needed to do a shoot that benefited from having two matching, handheld cameras. The logical choice was to add another GH5. That fact does nothing to weaken my arguments for the BMPCC 4K over the overpriced GH5S.

I wouldn't call the GH5S overpriced, as it isn't much more expensive than the GH5, which it is very similar to. And the downsides from the GH5 could be unimportant to some people (for instance I don't care about it being a lower resolution sensor for stills) and the gains of the GH5S over the GH5 could be very important for some people.

 

[Ron Evans]

I agree. I too do not feel the GH5S is over priced. I shoot indoors on tripods all the time and at UHD60P. So have no real requirement for image stabilization but lower light performance is really important. Since the GH5S has Vlog L included it is really $400 more than the GH5 for the low light performance and wider field of view etc. Well worth the difference. My price comparison is really the Sony FS7 which is much more expensive. I have had my GH5 since they came out and have not taken a single still picture and am not likely too. My use is solely as a video camera that can shoot UHD60P. Next comparison would be the new Sony PXW Z190 and Z280 both of which are more expensive than the GH5S even with a couple of lenses. They do however have some other advantages in servo zoom lenses that I would like.

I have a GH5 and a GH5S. Starting now I may have just got 2 GH5S models !!! I really do think the GH5S is better.

 

[TheDingo]

What it is (or will be) is a less expensive, more professional, higher IQ alternative to a GH5S.

Less expensive : check

More professional : ???

- No IBIS when compared to the GH5
- Poor battery life
- No EVF
- No weatherproofing
- No duplicate recording
- Mono audio
- Fixed LCD display

We shall have to see how it compares to the GH5s when it comes to low-light performance. I have big doubts here.

Higher IQ : Yes, when you need RAW recording, otherwise I'm expecting pretty much a tie for non-RAW recording. Again we will have to see how things compare when the camera become available.

 

[Denny16]

No one is saying the BM Pocket 4K is better than a GH5. The comparison is with the GH5S, which also lacks IBIS.
So yes, no weather proofing, no EVF, or dual in camera recording, and a fixed LCD, which is larger than thr GH5S. But it does have two channels of audio, but ony one channel,is supported with a direct XLR input, to get two channels, you would use an external mixer and the stereo line input.

 

[TheDingo]

Acknowledging that one thing is better, of even just different, than another does not make one of them "TERRIBLE."

You were trying to imply that the h.264 CODEC is not professional, yet it's used in many professional products, by many production companies around the world. Then we have these two Panasonic cameras ( GH5s and EVA1 ) that record using the h.264 CODEC that have been certified as meeting professional HD and 4K acquisition standards.

h.264 was not designed for professional acquisition

That was true when the first iterations of the h.264 CODEC appeared more than 10 years ago, but since then the h.264 CODEC has evolved to become a CODEC used for professional image acquisition around the world. It has become a professional CODEC used by professionals. If you can't acknowledge this, then I think you're being willfully blind to how this CODEC is being used.

All things being equal, RAW is the best format for retaining the most image data from a bayer pattern CMOS sensor.

Yes, RAW is definitely the best format for maximum image quality. It will be very handy to have a BMPCC 4K camera body to shoot RAW footage when it's necessary. But for many of us h.264 ALL-I and IPB recording will be a faster and more convenient way to shoot and deliver our work. RAW recording will always be there when we need it, but otherwise I don't see it replacing the high quality h.264 formats that are now certified by both the EBU and NetFlix.

 

[Cary Knoop]

H.264 is a great codec, much more advanced than for instance ProRes, it does not only do everything ProRes does but in addition it can also do inter-frame compression and has compression levels all the way down to lossless! :grin:

 

[TheDingo]

No one is saying the BM Pocket 4K is better than a GH5. The comparison is with the GH5S, which also lacks IBIS.

But Panasonic provides us with an alternative camera that does have IBIS, so some of us will end up shooting with both the GH5 and GH5s cameras. There is no IBIS alternative for the BMPCC 4K camera.

But it does have two channels of audio, but ony one channel,is supported with a direct XLR input, to get two channels, you would use an external mixer and the stereo line input.

Sorry my mistake. I forgot about the stereo input.

With the GH5/GH5s cameras we have the option of a stereo XLR input adapter with two XLR inputs and phantom power for both channels.

 

[John Brawley]

H.264 is a great codec, much more advanced than for instance ProRes, it does not only do everything ProRes does but in addition it can also do inter-frame compression and has compression levels all the way down to lossless! :grin:

I think the issue is that in many "professional" work environments the workflow *IS* ProRes.

It's not that ProRes is better. It's just what's used.

There's no judgment about other formats, but for example, in my world of episodic TV drama everyone is geared around ProRes. There's many vendors involved, many facilities, VFX, editorial, final colour might be different companies, shooting in one state and editing in another, and final colour in a third. What unifies is ProRes because that's what most vendors optimise their systems for.

ProRes is often what is specified by the network / studio. I recently was only allowed to test a DXL camera (RED) for a network series pilot on the proviso that it was shot ProRes. They don't want RAW, even if it's compressed. Or Cineform for example, a viable alternative to RAW.

You can argue till you're blue in the face but they generally want what they're already used to dealing with and are setup to handle most efficiently. I wouldn't say it's a condition of hire, but it's a big battle to get them to think otherwise.

So a camera that natively shoots ProRes with high DR in a small package and without having to add on external recorders has great appeal in the "professional" environment I work in.

That's just whats the established workflow is. ProRes, for better or worse counts for a lot.

JB

 

[joe12south]

You were trying to imply that the h.264 CODEC is not professional, yet it's used in many professional products, by many production companies around the world. Then we have these two Panasonic cameras ( GH5s and EVA1 ) that record using the h.264 CODEC that have been certified as meeting professional HD and 4K acquisition standards.

That was true when the first iterations of the h.264 CODEC appeared more than 10 years ago, but since then the h.264 CODEC has evolved to become a CODEC used for professional image acquisition around the world. It has become a professional CODEC used by professionals. If you can't acknowledge this, then I think you're being willfully blind to how this CODEC is being used.

I'm not implying, I'm stating it outright. It was designed to be a consumer delivery format. People hack things for use outside of their intended use all the time, for better and for worse.

Yes, RAW is definitely the best format for maximum image quality. It will be very handy to have a BMPCC 4K camera body to shoot RAW footage when it's necessary. But for many of us h.264 ALL-I and IPB recording will be a faster and more convenient way to shoot and deliver our work. RAW recording will always be there when we need it, but otherwise I don't see it replacing the high quality h.264 formats that are now certified by both the EBU and NetFlix.

Except, no, it's not an option on the GH5S. That camera doesn't give the choice. The BMPCC 4K does.

 

[joe12south]

I wouldn't call the GH5S overpriced, as it isn't much more expensive than the GH5, which it is very similar to. And the downsides from the GH5 could be unimportant to some people (for instance I don't care about it being a lower resolution sensor for stills) and the gains of the GH5S over the GH5 could be very important for some people.

It's over priced for 2 reasons:
1. Panasonic increased the price over the GH5, simply because they positioned it for "filmmakers."
2. BMPCC 4K is half the price.

 

[joe12south]

H.264 is a great codec, much more advanced than for instance ProRes, it does not only do everything ProRes does but in addition it can also do inter-frame compression and has compression levels all the way down to lossless! :grin:

It's a great codec if you're desire is small file sizes at the expense of quality, processing demands and compatibility. What cameras record such a flavor of h.264, and what NLE's support it? Now ask that same question for ProRes HQ or ProRes 444.

 

[TubEfingers]

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnnn............

 

[Thomas Smet]

It's over priced for 2 reasons:
1. Panasonic increased the price over the GH5, simply because they positioned it for "filmmakers."
2. BMPCC 4K is half the price.

No they increased the cost because it has a new sensor and the low light gathering is an impressive thing to do on a m43 sensor. Why do you insist on saying the camera was targeted at filmmakers? Their own marketing material never once mentions film making but it mentions videography multiple times. The GH5S is absolutely not directed at just film makers. How many professional narrative shoots don't use lights? How many need synced timecode live during a shoot? Log is not something exclusive to film makers. Just because the camera has cinema features doesn't mean its only targeted at film makers. Most of the features that make the GH5S seem cinema like are features also shared on the GH5.

The new features added aren't even really exclusive film making features. They are tools to make a broader use for videography purposes. It is the wedding people, corporate producers, live event producers, documentary producers, random skate boarding video people and vloggers that need low light. It is the multi-cam live events that make better use of the timecode features. Even the lack of IBIS doesn't make it more of a film making camera. Most of the video production I have done for twenty years has taken place on a tripod or similar stabilization device. ENG cameras don't have IBIS either because for a certain type of videography going handheld just isn't really a thing all that frequently.

No other DSLR even comes as close to replacing a high end videography camera as the GH5S. About the only thing missing now are decent fast power zoom lenses. $2,500 for a camera with this many features is an insanely low price for a camera that can pretty much do any kind of a shoot. The Pocket cannot be used for everything and therefore the lower cost reflects this. I'm not about to shoot a 3 hour corporate presentation of a set of Pocket cameras. The GH5S will handle that and any other form of production with ease so yeah it costs more because it can do more. It also has an OLPF designed specifically for that sensor so no optical quality compromises or hoping some 3rd party makes one that doesn't ruin what the sensor was designed to do.

So what if the BMD is half the cost. That has been true of every piece of gear since the dawn of BMD. I never ever base my professional reputation on a camera that was half the cost. Like some of us have been trying to point out when it comes to fast paced and high volume videography work having a camera that works better for long form productions is worth that extra cost.

In your mind the GH5S is a film making only camera but that opinion lives in your mind alone. It is a videography camera with cinema features. Some will use it as a film making camera with amazing results. Most of the people I know buying it have no interest in film making at all. If I ever did weddings again I would buy a GH5S over a GH5 or Pocket in a heartbeat. IBIS is cool but I prefer rigs, sliders, tripods and monopods to get my shots. I have friends wanting to buy the GH5S for the timecode feature alone because they shoot sports videos with multiple cameras. Lighting isn't really an issue but they really want to have matching timecode.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on the cost of the camera anyway. You earn money from what you do so why is the cost even a concern for you. That camera cost difference is eaten up with one gig. I see the Pocket as more of the no budget kind of camera for people that only do film making trying to chase a dream of being a famous film maker and never make a single penny off their hobby/dream. For those users perhaps the GH5S is game over but would they have purchased a GH5 or GH5S anyway? Those are more likely going to be the $500 Nikon and Canon DSLR market or those that would buy the Panasonic G7 price range of cameras. The majority of people that will buy the Pocket were likely never in the market for the GH5 or GH5S anyway.

 

[joe12south]

No they increased the cost because it has a new sensor and the low light gathering is an impressive thing to do on a m43 sensor. Why do you insist on saying the camera was targeted at filmmakers? Their own marketing material never once mentions film making but it mentions videography multiple times. The GH5S is absolutely not directed at just film makers. How many professional narrative shoots don't use lights? How many need synced timecode live during a shoot? Log is not something exclusive to film makers. Just because the camera has cinema features doesn't mean its only targeted at film makers. Most of the features that make the GH5S seem cinema like are features also shared on the GH5.

Watch the NAB videos. They (Panasonic reps) say it over and over. They specifically say it is why they removed IBIS.

The new features added aren't even really exclusive film making features. They are tools to make a broader use for videography purposes. It is the wedding people, corporate producers, live event producers, documentary producers, random skate boarding video people and vloggers that need low light. It is the multi-cam live events that make better use of the timecode features. Even the lack of IBIS doesn't make it more of a film making camera. Most of the video production I have done for twenty years has taken place on a tripod or similar stabilization device. ENG cameras don't have IBIS either because for a certain type of videography going handheld just isn't really a thing all that frequently.

No other DSLR even comes as close to replacing a high end videography camera as the GH5S. About the only thing missing now are decent fast power zoom lenses. $2,500 for a camera with this many features is an insanely low price for a camera that can pretty much do any kind of a shoot. The Pocket cannot be used for everything and therefore the lower cost reflects this. I'm not about to shoot a 3 hour corporate presentation of a set of Pocket cameras. The GH5S will handle that and any other form of production with ease so yeah it costs more because it can do more. It also has an OLPF designed specifically for that sensor so no optical quality compromises or hoping some 3rd party makes one that doesn't ruin what the sensor was designed to do.

So what if the BMD is half the cost. That has been true of every piece of gear since the dawn of BMD. I never ever base my professional reputation on a camera that was half the cost. Like some of us have been trying to point out when it comes to fast paced and high volume videography work having a camera that works better for long form productions is worth that extra cost.

In your mind the GH5S is a film making only camera but that opinion lives in your mind alone. It is a videography camera with cinema features. Some will use it as a film making camera with amazing results. Most of the people I know buying it have no interest in film making at all. If I ever did weddings again I would buy a GH5S over a GH5 or Pocket in a heartbeat. IBIS is cool but I prefer rigs, sliders, tripods and monopods to get my shots. I have friends wanting to buy the GH5S for the timecode feature alone because they shoot sports videos with multiple cameras. Lighting isn't really an issue but they really want to have matching timecode.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on the cost of the camera anyway. You earn money from what you do so why is the cost even a concern for you. That camera cost difference is eaten up with one gig. I see the Pocket as more of the no budget kind of camera for people that only do film making trying to chase a dream of being a famous film maker and never make a single penny off their hobby/dream. For those users perhaps the GH5S is game over but would they have purchased a GH5 or GH5S anyway? Those are more likely going to be the $500 Nikon and Canon DSLR market or those that would buy the Panasonic G7 price range of cameras. The majority of people that will buy the Pocket were likely never in the market for the GH5 or GH5S anyway.

The cost mattered at the point another manufacturer changed the game.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I'm not implying, I'm stating it outright. It was designed to be a consumer delivery format. People hack things for use outside of their intended use all the time, for better and for worse.




Except, no, it's not an option on the GH5S. That camera doesn't give the choice. The BMPCC 4K does.

Joe how do you explain Netflix approving the 400mbps on the EVA1? Or the video some of us posted of how robust the formats are? Do you really have a better understanding of all of this then the engineers at Netflix? Are you more informed than the EBU that approved the internal codec on the GH5S for tier 1 HD? Do you have any proof to counter what Cinegal and Stephen Fleet have shared with the world? You keep talking about inferior quality but have nothing to back it up. If you want to make your case ditch the talking points and show us some cold hard evidence. I'm personally a fan of ProRes but I am very impressed with the 10bit formats on the GH5. They look much better than they should. They may not be s robust but the insane level of grading required to break the codecs makes me question who would shoot that badly to need to push a grade that hard in the first place. In over twenty years I have never had to grade something that much unless I royally screwed up the shot like shooting with a ENG camera with a daylight filter outdoors by accident because I forgot to switch the filter as I was chasing somebody.

There have been a lot of professional voices in support of the GH codecs including Barry Green and people who likely a heck of a lot more than you or I do as film makers. I'm talking about Stephen Fleet the VFX supervisor in Iron Fist a Netflix and Marvel production. No offense Joe but I'm going to take the word from a guy that lives, eats, sleeps and $%^&$ in the film making trenches every day of his life as a VFX supervisor vs your random words. Stephen shared two very detailed videos showing how robust the GH5 is for pulling mattes. If you have evidence otherwise please share. It is more and more looking like your opinion is in the minority. Unless you have some visual proof to make your case it is getting harder to take what you say seriously.

 

[npm]

For the documentary and outdoor sports work I do, the GH5/GH5S will never be replaced by a camera like the BMPCC4K. It's a cool camera, but made for studio work. Assuming everyone does this type of work is silly. Like Thomas said, the price different disappears after a gig or two. Lastly, you can get the GH5S for ~2200 on Greentoe brand new from an authorized retailer, so the price becomes even less of an issue.

 

[joe12south]

Several of us have entrenched positions, and neither side cares what the other thinks.

The long and short of my perspective as it relates to Panasonic GH cameras is that they should have a video profile that records as much of the unadulterated signal as possible. No artificial sharpening, minimal noise reduction, no artificially limited range. There is no technical reason Panasonic can't do as much, but they choose not to. Soon their will be a less expensive 4K camera that does all that. Some percentage of their market will choose it, or switch. It's silly to argue who and how many, but if it is a significant enough percentage, maybe Panasonic will listen.

 

[joe12south]

Joe how do you explain Netflix approving the 400mbps on the EVA1? Or the video some of us posted of how robust the formats are? Do you really have a better understanding of all of this then the engineers at Netflix? Are you more informed than the EBU that approved the internal codec on the GH5S for tier 1 HD? Do you have any proof to counter what Cinegal and Stephen Fleet have shared with the world? You keep talking about inferior quality but have nothing to back it up. If you want to make your case ditch the talking points and show us some cold hard evidence. I'm personally a fan of ProRes but I am very impressed with the 10bit formats on the GH5. They look much better than they should. They may not be s robust but the insane level of grading required to break the codecs makes me question who would shoot that badly to need to push a grade that hard in the first place. In over twenty years I have never had to grade something that much unless I royally screwed up the shot like shooting with a ENG camera with a daylight filter outdoors by accident because I forgot to switch the filter as I was chasing somebody.

There have been a lot of professional voices in support of the GH codecs including Barry Green and people who likely a heck of a lot more than you or I do as film makers. I'm talking about Stephen Fleet the VFX supervisor in Iron Fist a Netflix and Marvel production. No offense Joe but I'm going to take the word from a guy that lives, eats, sleeps and $%^&$ in the film making trenches every day of his life as a VFX supervisor vs your random words. Stephen shared two very detailed videos showing how robust the GH5 is for pulling mattes. If you have evidence otherwise please share. It is more and more looking like your opinion is in the minority. Unless you have some visual proof to make your case it is getting harder to take what you say seriously.

Respectfully, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. We're arguing two different points. You're saying it's "good enough" and I'm saying there is something better. Both points can be true. I'm not saying you can't use h.264 for professional acquisition...obviously, we all do...I'm saying it wasn't designed for it. Period. Certain design decisions were made certain ways, because everything is a trade off, and those decisions were made to favor low bandwidth *delivery*. (Like compressing the hell out of the shadows or low contrast, high frequency areas.) It's also far more resource hungry in the edit, because, again, it was not designed for such.

PS. The GH5 and the EVA-1 files are noticeably different. More headroom, less visible processing.
PPS. Using the GH5 as source for VFX background plates and bits and bobs isn't the same as using it as an A-CAM.

 

[sgttom]

I really hope the Black Magic pocket 4k cuts into GH5 sales. It will motivate Panasonic to do more with the GH6S.

The GH5s is awesome but more competition means a better product.