GH5 Game Over, Panasonic

icarusfilm said:
So since the 5d2 we all wanted a small formfactor large Sensor camera we dreamt of a 1080p 8bit 422 with a robust Codec. Panasonic delivers a 10 bit 4K 422 with ibis Electronic view Finder with peaking waveform log and what have you- no overheating no 29.9 seconds record limit. And no one is happy.
Click to expand...
I can only speak for myself here, but my spec list for an ideal camera has changed very little over the last 15 years or so. It's only because improvements have been so incremental and have taken so long to trickle down to price points I can afford, that I continually feel the desire to upgrade. We've finally hit a stage, technically, where if a manufacturer wanted to make my "good enough" camera for $2K, they absolutely could. But no one has. Not even the P4K. The Z CAM E2 also comes very close. I feel like I'm only a generation or two at the most from getting the camera I've always wanted.

My wishlist:
- Complete frame capture (over the years this has changed from killing interlacing, to eliminating skew and interframe compression.)
- Minimum 14 usable stops of dynamic range. (16 if pushed hard.)
- Minimum 10-bit color depth (12-bit preferable.)
- Twice the display resolution. (So, if shooting for 1080P, then 4K. If shooting for 4K, then 8K.)
- Accurate, wide-gamut color reproduction (P3 or REC2020)
- Clean image from ISO 400-1600. (Usable ISO from 200-6400.)
- No visible digital artifacts (edge enhancement, macro-blocking, color-fringing, noise-reduction, etc.)
- Variable frame rate from 1 to 96 frames per second (without compromise)

At the point that there is a camera that can do the above in a usable form factor at a reasonable price, I would have little reason to upgrade. I would be "happy." Until then, I will continue to grumble. ;-)
 
The reason why this entire debate is ridiculous is because there are two different kinds of users of GH5 and Blackmagic.
One cares more about operability and who cares about IQ in the sense that it needs to meet some kind of minimum demand. Thats me in this case. I use the GH5 as a go anywhere shoot anything extension of my gear it isn't intended as a top tier camera.

Then there is the Frugal filmmaker who wants the maximum IQ technically possible for the lowest price possible who is willing to work around insufficiencies.

The expectations you have from cameras are not realistic. Why on earth should I build and sell you that camera you dreamt up (right now) for 2K? If I could easily build it I could sell it right now for 10-20K.

joe12south said:
I can only speak for myself here, but my spec list for an ideal camera has changed very little over the last 15 years or so. It's only because improvements have been so incremental and have taken so long to trickle down to price points I can afford, that I continually feel the desire to upgrade. We've finally hit a stage, technically, where if a manufacturer wanted to make my "good enough" camera for $2K, they absolutely could. But no one has. Not even the P4K. The Z CAM E2 also comes very close. I feel like I'm only a generation or two at the most from getting the camera I've always wanted.

My wishlist:
- Complete frame capture (over the years this has changed from killing interlacing, to eliminating skew and interframe compression.)
- Minimum 14 usable stops of dynamic range. (16 if pushed hard.)
- Minimum 10-bit color depth (12-bit preferable.)
- Twice the display resolution. (So, if shooting for 1080P, then 4K. If shooting for 4K, then 8K.)
- Accurate, wide-gamut color reproduction (P3 or REC2020)
- Clean image from ISO 400-1600. (Usable ISO from 200-6400.)
- No visible digital artifacts (edge enhancement, macro-blocking, color-fringing, noise-reduction, etc.)
- Variable frame rate from 1 to 96 frames per second (without compromise)

At the point that there is a camera that can do the above in a usable form factor at a reasonable price, I would have little reason to upgrade. I would be "happy." Until then, I will continue to grumble. ;-)
Click to expand...
 
The expectations you have from cameras are not realistic. Why on earth should I build and sell you that camera you dreamt up (right now) for 2K? If I could easily build it I could sell it right now for 10-20K.
Click to expand...
BMD sells the P4K for $1,300. Z CAM sell the E 2 for $2,000. Both cameras are dangerously close to my wishlist. If you mashed them together, you'd be almost there. My expectations are not unrealistic, my "good enough" camera is just over the horizon. Hell, I'd even stretch to $4,999 for it.
 
Well instead of the raw I would like to have IBIS a view finder and a TC sync. ill take 10bit for a sturdier built and dual ISO Im fine with 100FPS in 10bit 1080p
for two thousand.
 
joe12south said:
I should have phrased my original response better:
1. h.264 (and any similar codec) aggressively compresses shadows. It is supposed to by design. This is true on any camera that uses it, it's not a particular weakness of the GH5.
2. The GH5S uses more noise reduction than the GH5. An amount that, frankly, shocked me at higher ISO's. I think its noticeable even without a severe grade, and even after YouTube compression. YMMV.
Click to expand...


This is wrong. H.264 is the standard that defines how a video stream is to be decoded so that all supporting players can display it. How it gets compressed, the shadows, the highlights etc. is completely up to the manufacture who can choose any transfer, do any gamma, as well control of bit rate, bit depth, GOP and DCT encoding. It can be put into a container with metadata and even attach luts.

The GH5s is cleaner than GH5 at higher ISO's because of dual ISO feature.

I'm shocked that you're shocked :) but the fact is you don't have any facts on this, just opinion.
 
John Brawley said:
The point was speaking to bit depth and compression.


We all agree that 8 bit is crap.

10 bit is better.

12 bit is more better again...

Why's that hard to understand ?

JB
Click to expand...

I agree it should be easy to understand so I'm not sure why you're having the difficulty. :) It's diminishing returns with each successive increment. This 100+ page thread has been going in circles arguing that for 6 months, and the only thing certain is that it will change again. Make the choice and stop worrying. This isn't a rules committee. 8 bit remains a viable option for some.
 
This is wrong. H.264 is the standard that defines how a video stream is to be decoded so that all supporting players can display it. How it gets compressed, the shadows, the highlights etc. is completely up to the manufacture who can choose any transfer, do any gamma, as well control of bit rate, bit depth, GOP and DCT encoding. It can be put into a container with metadata and even attach luts.
Click to expand...
Not in practical terms. I do not know of any shipping CED encoder that does not more heavily compresses shadows than midtones. (Please reference one if you know of one.) This is easily demonstrable on the GH5.

The GH5s is cleaner than GH5 at higher ISO's because of dual ISO feature.
Click to expand...
Nope. Or at least not entirely. The key advantage of dual-ISO sensors is that they allow dynamic range to be more evenly retained across a wider ISO range...but noise levels still rise. This is clearly evident on the Varicam, on the EVA1 and on the P4K. In every case, users have been surprised at the amount of noise, expecting the noise of the two "native" ISOs to match. They don't. The GH5S applies more and more NR as the ISO increases. The GH5S has better color and dynamic range at higher ISO's, but the image looks more "plastic" than the GH5. Easily demonstrable.

I'm shocked that you're shocked :) but the fact is you don't have any facts on this, just opinion.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Tom, but no, the above is objectively true. Not only have I observed it, not only have others confirmed, but you can test it yourself.
 
GH5s is definitely natively cleaner than GH5 - it has bigger photosites, and dual ISO circuitry, all of these help. But also what Joe said - I've noticed some algorithm changes. There is more noise reduction applied at the higher ISOs to help the GH5s achieve its impressive feats. This one is a both and.

TBH a little bit of plasticky noise reduciton in extreme lowlight is preferrably to a noisy shot. Here's the thing: no one's REALLY using ISO 6400 on a GH5s to shoot hollywood films where such noise reduciton is unforgiveable. This is for documentary where it's impressive just to get the shot, and it's for stuff like consumer weddings and what people will notice there is that you GOT the shot and its "not all grainy". That's what counts. So I think the GH5s made a good choice here. The reality is the audience for both of these will watch the content on a TV that is calibrated wrong and set to "VIVID" with motion blur removal at 100 destroying my noice 180 degree shutter speed and perfect grade anyway ;)

And you know I'm a stickler for quality, I'm not talking about cutting corners and I have high expectations and deliver the best results I can anyway - I am just pointing out that for the scenarios in which the GH5s high ISO is designed it works just great. If you're trying to use it to shoot narrative or a corporate talking head a dimlit room that is not what it's intended for - also, if you are doing such things, why are you doing that, and how in gods name did you end up booking that job in the first place?! ;)
 
joe12south said:
Sorry, Tom, but no, the above is objectively true. Not only have I observed it, not only have others confirmed, but you can test it yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't need convincing, but you do need facts and you do not have any. Powers of observation are not facts. You do not know the workings of the inner details.
 
Tom Roper said:
I agree it should be easy to understand so I'm not sure why you're having the difficulty. :) It's diminishing returns with each successive increment. This 100+ page thread has been going in circles arguing that for 6 months, and the only thing certain is that it will change again. Make the choice and stop worrying. This isn't a rules committee. 8 bit remains a viable option for some.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but having a valid rationale for accepting an inferior solution as "good enough" isn't the same as it being "as good." We all make compromises every day because we must to get by and do our jobs. I think often people get so used to those compromises, that they close their minds to a better way.

There are a multitude of reasons why one tool might be better for a particular use case than another. And while some people responding here have clearly thought this through and have perfectly valid reasons for prioritizing features other than PQ, there are other people simply trying to rationalize away the PQ benefits of a product other than their current weapon of choice. And I suspect some of these people haven't spent meaningful time working with a higher quality file, so they don't even know what they are missing.

If you need IBIS, if you need ultra-small file sizes, if you need weather sealing, awesome. Carry on!
If compressed h.264 is good enough for you, and you don't mind digital sharpening, wonderful. Keep on trucking!
But don't pretend that there aren't real benefits to working with a higher quality file. And if you've never tried it, you owe it to yourself to do so at least once. Maybe you'll come to the same conclusion, but maybe you'll decide that the better IQ is worth it.

PS. I'm not attempting to characterize any one individual. I'm sure you are an expert, have a very good reason for whatever you've decided, and are not represented by the above description. ;-)
 
filmguy123 said:
GH5s is definitely natively cleaner than GH5 - it has bigger photosites, and dual ISO circuitry, all of these help. But also what Joe said - I've noticed some algorithm changes. There is more noise reduction applied at the higher ISOs to help the GH5s achieve its impressive feats. This one is a both and.

TBH a little bit of plasticky noise reduciton in extreme lowlight is preferrably to a noisy shot. Here's the thing: no one's REALLY using ISO 6400 on a GH5s to shoot hollywood films where such noise reduciton is unforgiveable. This is for documentary where it's impressive just to get the shot, and it's for stuff like consumer weddings and what people will notice there is that you GOT the shot and its "not all grainy". That's what counts. So I think the GH5s made a good choice here. The reality is the audience for both of these will watch the content on a TV that is calibrated wrong and set to "VIVID" with motion blur removal at 100 destroying my noice 180 degree shutter speed and perfect grade anyway ;)

And you know I'm a stickler for quality, I'm not talking about cutting corners and I have high expectations and deliver the best results I can anyway - I am just pointing out that for the scenarios in which the GH5s high ISO is designed it works just great. If you're trying to use it to shoot narrative or a corporate talking head a dimlit room that is not what it's intended for - also, if you are doing such things, why are you doing that, and how in gods name did you end up booking that job in the first place?! ;)
Click to expand...

But what is the harm in letting the user choose whether or not to apply that NR? I agree, for some use cases the the built-in NR is useful, but for others it's not. The Varicam, the EVA1 and even the lowly little P4K don't molest high ISO signals the way the GH5S does. Panasonic chose to take away the choice. That, right there, is the thing I fundamentally don't like about the GH-series - how Papa Panny forces certain choices seemingly in an attempt to protect users from themselves. They used that argument for not having log, and then they used it to justify paying extra for it. It feels very arbitrary which "pro" features are exposed and which are locked away.

PS. If I could go to every bar in America and turn off motion smoothing I would. I swear to God I'm going to start carrying a universal remote :-)
 
LOL molest high ISO signals!! Yeah man I agree - but if you've read my incessant rants for the last year, you know that :) #1 request for GHx lines is a pro mode to fully disable all the NR, sharpening, lens corrections, etc.

I'm just pointing out the pragmatic reality that if you shot ISO 6400/8000 on the GH5s you would consider it unusable with all their internal processing turned off, and/or then add NR in post that effectively gives the same look. The only thing it's good for is what I mentioned (and it is great for that) so it doesn't matter THAT much - I get why Panny did what they did, but I'm not saying I don't want full control. Actually, where I really want that is in lower ISO settings where I actually shoot, and specifically with their %&#ing digital sharpening.

But let's be real: the GH6 is almost certainly going to come to the show with some sort of raw mode and log improvements. There's just no way it won't. Not with the Pocket 4k. Not with the competiton from full frame cameras like A7SIII and their own S1. With a m43 sensor, they have to push the envelope in other areas to stay relevant (and in fact they have historically done this, such as announcing 10-bit 4K in late 2016/early 2017 for GH5), so to me it's all but a given that the GH6 will come with 2 models, both with IBIS, both with improved Vlog, both with a form of compressed RAW such as ProRes RAW or PanaRAW or something to that effect, and all but certainly improvements to their processing (they may not let us turn off their lens corrections entirely because it would reveal flaws they don't want revealed, BUT, I think we may actually see a truer more organic signal).

The 2019 10-25 f/1.7 lens shows Panasonic is serious about keeping the GHx line viable and I have no doubts I'll blindly pre-order the 6.
 
filmguy123 said:
LOL molest high ISO signals!! Yeah man I agree - but if you've read my incessant rants for the last year, you know that :) #1 request for GHx lines is a pro mode to fully disable all the NR, sharpening, lens corrections, etc.

I'm just pointing out the pragmatic reality that if you shot ISO 6400/8000 on the GH5s you would consider it unusable with all their internal processing turned off, and/or then add NR in post that effectively gives the same look. The only thing it's good for is what I mentioned (and it is great for that) so it doesn't matter THAT much - I get why Panny did what they did, but I'm not saying I don't want full control. Actually, where I really want that is in lower ISO settings where I actually shoot, and specifically with their %&#ing digital sharpening.

But let's be real: the GH6 is almost certainly going to come to the show with some sort of raw mode and log improvements. There's just no way it won't. Not with the Pocket 4k. Not with the competiton from full frame cameras like A7SIII and their own S1. With a m43 sensor, they have to push the envelope in other areas to stay relevant (and in fact they have historically done this, such as announcing 10-bit 4K in late 2016/early 2017 for GH5), so to me it's all but a given that the GH6 will come with 2 models, both with IBIS, both with improved Vlog, both with a form of compressed RAW such as ProRes RAW or PanaRAW or something to that effect, and all but certainly improvements to their processing (they may not let us turn off their lens corrections entirely because it would reveal flaws they don't want revealed, BUT, I think we may actually see a truer more organic signal).

The 2019 10-25 f/1.7 lens shows Panasonic is serious about keeping the GHx line viable and I have no doubts I'll blindly pre-order the 6.
Click to expand...

That is the fundamental reason why the GH5S does what it does. It wasn’t a design flaw or a mistake but it does exactly what it was designed to do. Give an easy to use pleasing image out of the box that people can work with right away.

Yes there are luts to help grade raw material but they don’t tackle the noise reduction or sharpening. There is a lot of stuff shot on raw that really should have had some of that processing done in post and people either ignore it for time or just don’t realize it should have happened. Raw is cool but it’s also a very heavy responsibility. Considering how many film makers abuse ISO and don’t want o use lights or proper audio equipment do we really want to set them out in the wild making up image processing with little to no understanding or care for what these concepts are. Heck people to this day honestly don’t know what the heck 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 actually are. They just don’t care.

Those are the people Panasonic targets. The ones that want a nice pleasing clean image out of the box and they want to manipulate the image to their liking but also don’t want to have an engineering degree just to tell a story. Those of you that understand image processing and color theory that is amazing but 99% of film makers do not and frankly they don’t want to. They are not colorists and they shouldn’t pretend to be colorists in much the same way I can’t pretend to be an electrician because my wife finally forced me to change a lightbulb.

While these are skills film makers can learn the question becomes should they and do they really need those skills to tell a story? Do a lot of directors or cinematographers in Hollywood understand image processing to that level?

For those that really do want it I am glad the p4k provides that ability. I almost want to buy one for that reason as well. But to assume that works for everybody is just not true at all. Plenty of professional film makers come at this stuff from the perspective they just want to record a moving image that looks sexy and they can craft a story with it. The GH5S does that with flying colors and still provides a clear advantage over the p4k and the gh5. For example I know a ton of video producers that have never needed IBIS a day in their life even though they currently use multiple gh5 cameras. Some of us just don’t make it a habit to shoot handheld very often. It’s a cool feature but we can live without it but we love everything else about the Panasonic cameras but sometimes need a little bit better sensitivity when we are stuck using superzoom lenses.
 
Last edited:
I am a GH5 and GH5S owner and have just bought an Atomos Ninja V. Not to get necessarily ProRes recording rather than h264 but so that I can record 10bit 4:2:2 HLG UHD 60P from my cameras. I am likely to disappoint some of you film makers but I like the smooth look, shoot and finish in 60P for that reason. All my stuff is long about 2 hours mainly so shooting in h264 is fine and I expect if Panasonic like Sony had available HLG UHD 60 in 8 bit I would use it. I will now be able to use the GH5 feeding the Atomos and the GH5S shooting V log. That way I can get an archive from the GH5 of the event and use both to edit to any other output. I have no control over lighting for anything I shoot so low light capability of the GH5S is good.
 
Thomas Smet said:
That is the fundamental reason why the GH5S does what it does. It wasn’t a design flaw or a mistake but it does exactly what it was designed to do. Give an easy to use pleasing image out of the box that people can work with right away.

Yes there are luts to help grade raw material but they don’t tackle the noise reduction or sharpening. There is a lot of stuff shot on raw that really should have had some of that processing done in post and people either ignore it for time or just don’t realize it should have happened. Raw is cool but it’s also a very heavy responsibility. Considering how many film makers abuse ISO and don’t want o use lights or proper audio equipment do we really want to set them out in the wild making up image processing with little to no understanding or care for what these concepts are. Heck people to this day honestly don’t know what the heck 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 actually are. They just don’t care.

Those are the people Panasonic targets. The ones that want a nice pleasing clean image out of the box and they want to manipulate the image to their liking but also don’t want to have an engineering degree just to tell a story. Those of you that understand image processing and color theory that is amazing but 99% of film makers do not and frankly they don’t want to. They are not colorists and they shouldn’t pretend to be colorists in much the same way I can’t pretend to be an electrician because my wife finally forced me to change a lightbulb.

While these are skills film makers can learn the question becomes should they and do they really need those skills to tell a story? Do a lot of directors or cinematographers in Hollywood understand image processing to that level?

For those that really do want it I am glad the p4k provides that ability. I almost want to buy one for that reason as well. But to assume that works for everybody is just not true at all. Plenty of professional film makers come at this stuff from the perspective they just want to record a moving image that looks sexy and they can craft a story with it. The GH5S does that with flying colors and still provides a clear advantage over the p4k and the gh5. For example I know a ton of video producers that have never needed IBIS a day in their life even though they currently use multiple gh5 cameras. Some of us just don’t make it a habit to shoot handheld very often. It’s a cool feature but we can live without it but we love everything else about the Panasonic cameras but sometimes need a little bit better sensitivity when we are stuck using superzoom lenses.
Click to expand...
But Panasonic and its users could have their cake and eat it, too.

I don't begrudge anyone who wants an easy out of the camera look (I often need this. I shoot boring corporate interviews and turn-over footage, too.) - but it wouldn't impact those people one iota to have a master setting that disabled all of extra processing for those who want it straight.
 
joe12south said:
But Panasonic and its users could have their cake and eat it, too.

I don't begrudge anyone who wants an easy out of the camera look (I often need this. I shoot boring corporate interviews and turn-over footage, too.) - but it wouldn't impact those people one iota to have a master setting that disabled all of extra processing for those who want it straight.
Click to expand...

Yes and we totally agree on this. What we disagree on is that people still value the GH5S for various different reasons and some may actually prefer it to the p4k or the gh5. Not everybody would want that option to turn it off.
 
Ron Evans said:
I am a GH5 and GH5S owner and have just bought an Atomos Ninja V. Not to get necessarily ProRes recording rather than h264 but so that I can record 10bit 4:2:2 HLG UHD 60P from my cameras. I am likely to disappoint some of you film makers but I like the smooth look, shoot and finish in 60P for that reason. All my stuff is long about 2 hours mainly so shooting in h264 is fine and I expect if Panasonic like Sony had available HLG UHD 60 in 8 bit I would use it. I will now be able to use the GH5 feeding the Atomos and the GH5S shooting V log. That way I can get an archive from the GH5 of the event and use both to edit to any other output. I have no control over lighting for anything I shoot so low light capability of the GH5S is good.
Click to expand...

60P delivery? You're dead to me. :-P

PS. 8-bit HLG would not be HLG. 10-bit is part of the specification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top