GH5 Game Over, Panasonic

My hunch is that it's the rigid adherence to the 180-degree shutter angle "rule" that makes 60p look too clinical for cinema. Most digital cameras can readily shoot 60p with a 360-degree shutter angle, producing 1/60th-second motion blur. That's a lot closer to 24p's 1/48th-second motion blur than 1/120th-second, and I think it produces much more pleasing results, while eliminating all traces of frame rate stutter.

I shoot all the time at 60P but my shutter speed is always 1/60. So I have the motion blur of 30P at the classic 180 shutter and can extract that frame rate anytime from the timeline if I choose. ( I don't because I like the 60P motion) Your argument is exactly why I shoot this way. I have never followed "the rule " When I shot 60i it was also at 1/60. Please don't say that is correct for 29.97i as there are 59.94 fields a sec to expose for individually and the same temporal motion as 60P they are just fields not full frames so the exposure parameters are the same.

My understanding of "the rule " was to avoid shutter speeds that were too fast which would accentuate the artifacts of a slow frame rate such as making judder more pronounced etc Likewise the shallow depth of field was also to hide the background judder etc. Lots of rules need to be followed to make a good viewable 24P film. These approaches are also good practice on frame rates without the issues too. I shoot with 3 cameras at 60P and rarely pan or zoom them for inclusion in finished piece. Now with UHD going to a HD final the crop/pan and zoom can be done in editing without those artifacts and much smoother and timed to the event much better than I could ever do manually.
 
Traditionally, 24p films were projected at 48 fps in order to minimize frame rate flicker.

Well this is also a myth.

Projectors have three blades (sometimes 4) So the FRAME RATE was 24FPS but the REFRESH RATE is actually 72FPS (72 Hz)
https://hackaday.com/2015/07/26/shedding-light-on-the-mechanics-of-film-projection/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrSzRAch930

Digital cinema projectors are typically even higher than this, but are still refreshing from a origination frame rate of 24 FPS.

My hunch is that it's the rigid adherence to the 180-degree shutter angle "rule" that makes 60p look too clinical for cinema. Most digital cameras can readily shoot 60p with a 360-degree shutter angle, producing 1/60th-second motion blur. That's a lot closer to 24p's 1/48th-second motion blur than 1/120th-second, and I think it produces much more pleasing results, while eliminating all traces of frame rate stutter.

Like black and white, we don't really want what's "real" when we are being told stories or being entertained. All attempts to move to higher frame rates in origination have largely BOMBED big time.

Like 3D.

3D is more real. We don't actually want real. We want a different version to what's real. We generally watch films and TV to escape.

When you read a book, the words are very far from real. But you are transported when t's done well, you're less aware of your surroundings, your personal environment. You focus in.

Those that advocate for higher frame rates haven't made a case that anyone actually prefers to watch it. And not sure if anyone noticed, but you can't actually buy a 3D TV anymore. It's dead...again....

https://www.lifewire.com/why-3d-tv-died-4126776

It's the same with higher frame rates. People don't want their entertainment and stories told HFR. It's been proven many times by the market.


JB
 
I think a strong case can be made that it's the 1/48th-second motion blur of 24p cinema that contributes the most to "the film look". The 24 fps cadence argument seems much weaker for two reasons. Traditionally, 24p films were projected at 48 fps in order to minimize frame rate flicker. That still wasn't enough, however, to eliminate perceptible frame rate stutter when the camera panned across wide-angle shots. Frame rate flicker and stutter are things we've learned to accept about 24p, but they aren't what makes it esthetically pleasing. To my eyes, it's the motion blur that gives 24p its dream-like quality.

My hunch is that it's the rigid adherence to the 180-degree shutter angle "rule" that makes 60p look too clinical for cinema. Most digital cameras can readily shoot 60p with a 360-degree shutter angle, producing 1/60th-second motion blur. That's a lot closer to 24p's 1/48th-second motion blur than 1/120th-second, and I think it produces much more pleasing results, while eliminating all traces of frame rate stutter.


Totally agree all points, 100%.
 
You're ignoring everyone who is funding their own kit or their own entire production. I start shooting a micro-budget feature November 10th. I could spend the rest of the day listing things that would return more value (i.e. show on screen) for $2,000 than a different camera. Hell, I'd rather spend it on better craft services than a camera with equal or worse PQ.

Have you received your camera yet?

If you haven't, I'd much rather shoot a self funded micro budget feature film with 2x Panasonic G85 than with one camera that for most people is not even shipping yet.
 
Well this is also a myth. [snap]3D is more real.
since we are mythbusting...
3D is all but real as soon as it attempts to be real we enter the uncanny valley.
So it's best left to movies like The Incredibles and Horton Hears a Who and then ofcourse sfx.

...and that is where I think 60 frames comes into play. It's way easier to track a person in front of a greenscreen in 60P than in 24P as a result the prop will fit better the render times although trippled will look better and the computer generated motion blur will look more convincing. Same thing for the amount of K's it's not there for the sharper picture it's there to incorporate 3D props (3D not stereoscopic) in the hope that we will no longer be able to notice the 3D elements as 3D elements the actors are surrounded by.

So it's not just sports and games it's fxs as well for all those action movies imo.
After that you can always deliver them in a 24fps 2K format.
 
I've been bouncing this one back and forth for a while, and if you've read previous posts, you know I'm a fan of the image quality of this camera and have seriously looked at adding it to my budget and kitting out properly.

But as the excitement fades, I'm leaning no. Granted, I don't need a camera for $1300 - I weight this and the Panasonic S1 for projected $3500-$4000 as same, I am more looking at this "tool first, price second". I like the image aesthetic on this so much that I'd consider it more as an EVA1 replacement than a GH5 replacement, with only a single stop loss of Dynamic Range... and in that light, by the time you kit this thing out to the moon it still comes under the body only price of the EVA1.

Yet I'm currently thinking I'll likely pass, only because of pragmatics... I'd rather put the $2200 I'd spend setting it up at a basic level as money towards a Leica R prime set which will basically soften down the EVA1/GH5 and probably work great on the Panasonic S1 to boot... and then it's all a super reliable, interconnected ecosystem.

If I had an Ursa Mini this would be a no brainer.

However, maybe I am over estimating the "stickiness" of 1 camera ecosystem with Panasonic and the value of color matching and pragmatism. Maybe if I really invested right, I'd be happier with the BMD ecosystem. But it seems more practical to have an EVA1, GH5, GH5s, and S1 than it does to throw a Pocket 4K with its own totally different quirks into the mix.

Thoughts?

There are two conflicting aspects pulling on each other:

1) a wider variety of cameras allows a greater diversity in tools to choose from to match the particular specific needs of a shoot
2) but similar cameras can better match each other for multi camera shoots

Balancing these two aspects, I feel Panasonic does this best.
For example:
GH5 = general purpose low camera
GH5S = low light camera
EVA1 = mid end camera
Varicam LT = high end camera
DVX200 = ENG camera
G80/G85/G7 = ulta low budget camera to be your "D Cam" / Crash Cam etc

Then again, BMD could do this too with their mix of cameras:
UMP / BMPCC4K / BMPCC / etc
But they don't have quite the same wide coverage of needs that Panasonic could do.
 
Have you received your camera yet?

If you haven't, I'd much rather shoot a self funded micro budget feature film with 2x Panasonic G85 than with one camera that for most people is not even shipping yet.

Yup, received it a week ago today. I've only had the time to do about a half day of what I would call real "testing", but so far only one minor bug that BMD is already working on. I've posted some of my initial impressions here. Happy to answer any other questions.
 
Does same speed booster ultra that works on GH5 models work on Pocket 4K?

Its true that Blackmagic cameras have no anti-aliasing filter. But they do have an IR blocking filter and a coverglass. The total thickness of those two pieces of glass is 2.4mm, which is 1.6mm less than the 4mm of glass found in standard m4/3 cameras. That 1.6mm difference is a problem, and causes high speed m4/3 lenses to perform less well on BM cameras than they do on regular m4/3 cameras.

-Brian Caldwell (aka ‘Brian1959’)

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ummary&p=1986466404&viewfull=1#post1986466404


”Standard Micro Four Thirds cameras have a total of approximately 4mm thickness of filter glass near the sensor, and the Speed Booster ULTRA m43 is designed to work optimally with this thickness of glass. The Blackmagic Cinema Camera and Pocket Cinema Camera have substantially thinner total filter glass thickness, which may cause noticeable aberrations when the Speed Booster ULTRA m43 is used on Blackmagic cameras at large apertures. For best results on Blackmagic cameras it is recommended that the appropriate Blackmagic-specific Speed Boosters be used.”

http://www.metabones.com/article/of/Speed_Booster_ULTRA_0.71x

On the BMCuser forum John Brawley speculated that BlackMagic could have modified the Focal Flange Distance of the P4K to account for the difference in Sensor Stack thickness, which would be a clever solution, but there are threads on that forum where some owners are experiencing issues that suggest BlackMagic may not have.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Bern - it was that sensor stack width I was wondering / worried about.

So joe you’ve personally tested this yourself and looked closely - there’s no issue or parts touching that shouldn’t be?
 
All attempts to move to higher frame rates in origination have largely BOMBED big time.

Like 3D.

3D is more real.


I don't think it's "more real" that stands in the way of 3D. I think it's higher ticket prices and phony conversions that hinder the format most.

If ALL (live action) 3D was actually filmed with two cameras and the prices were the same, both in the theater and on home video, more people would enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's "more real" that stands in the way of 3D. I think it's higher ticket prices and phony conversions that hinder the format most.

If ALL (live action) 3D was actually filmed with two cameras and the prices were the same, both in the theater and on home video, more people would enjoy it.

That and eliminating the glasses. People don’t want to wear glasses to watch a movie. It’s a user experience fail. When somebody can create a 3D experience that does not require glasses and people can just show up and watch it then 3D may actually have a chance.
 
On the BMCuser forum John Brawley speculated that BlackMagic could have modified the Focal Flange Distance of the P4K to account for the difference in Sensor Stack thickness, which would be a clever solution, but there are threads on that forum where some owners are experiencing issues that suggest BlackMagic may not have.

If this had been the case, the infinity witness marks on the lenses should line up, which apparently they do not.
 
That 1.6mm difference is a problem, and causes high speed m4/3 lenses to perform less well on BM cameras than they do on regular m4/3 cameras.
Joe, Any thoughts on this?
While maybe there is some possible theoretical issue, I have not seen one in practice. The fastest MFT lens I own is the Lumix 25mm f/1.7. Here it is mounted on the P4k, wide open:

p4k_mft_1.7.jpg


Anyone who owns this lens knows that the CA you see is inherent in the lens, regardless of the camera.
 
Back
Top