GH4 GH4 Out Resolves the 5K RED Epic MX!

B

Benjobe

Well-known member
This is just incredible.

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/4k-camera-test-panasonic-gh4-red-epic-mx/

Sure, the RED is shooting raw with more color depth for post production, so if you screw up the exposure or color balance then you're not up a creek. But if you get the shot right in-camera and you're not shooting for cinema distribution then why waste $20k on a RED when a $1700 GH4 looks better?

This makes me very happy with my purchase. Anyone else feel that way?
 
It's another tool and a good tool at that. The problem is that people want a camera as good as a cinema camera at the cheapest price because they have lofty ideas that they can be the next Scorcese. Looking better than the Red is arguable.p
 
goodgoings said:
It's another tool and a good tool at that. The problem is that people want a camera as good as a cinema camera at the cheapest price because they have lofty ideas that they can be the next Scorcese. Looking better than the Red is arguable.p
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's another tool. I'm itching to order the GH4 and see what it can do, and plan on putting it to a lot of use based on what I've seen so far. But it's not going to replace my AF100. The AF100 is far too good at what it does and where my needs intersect.

Replace the Red? Maybe on really low budget shoots where you can rig up a good 4k recorder to the SDI box. But they are different tools with different purposes.
 
Wow -- that's just outrageously deceptive.

The GH4 is way zoomed in, as compared to the Epic. Completely, totally unfair comparison.

I screenshotted the house, just in the little player, and in the GH4 pic the house roof is 178 pixels tall. On the Epic shot, the house roof is 142 pixels tall. On the 5D, it's 147 pixels. So the Epic to 5D they got "right", but on the GH4 it's zoomed in substantially.

Look at this picture that they list on their blog:
Epic-vs.-GH4.jpg


Does one look sharper than the other? Duh. That's what happens when you zoom in dramatically.

Why do people have to post such poor comparisons? Is it really *that* hard to just print out an ISO 12233 res chart, frame it up properly, and let the performance speak for itself? The chart has arrowheads right on it, so that you can ensure you're lining it up properly...

If you want to see how sharp the GH4 actually is, just download and print the 12233 chart (here's the link to it). Print it across 4 pages, so it's large enough that the fine detail won't be mushed by the printer. One shot of that will tell us all we need to know about resolved detail and propensity for aliasing.
 
You also have to factor in electronic sharpening in camera. A RAW camera gives you a RAW image from a single bayer sensor which in reality is kind of soft. Part of the processing cameras do is add in a level of sharpening to make the image punch. A lot of GH4 samples out there are shot at a sharpness of 0 which already has a lot of baked in sharpening compared to what really comes off the sensor. With Lumix and Olympus lenses the image is also enhanced a bit more so even a sharpness level of -5 may still have a small amount of sharpening added compared to the RAW sensor output.

To really compare you need to take the RED footage and add an equal amount of sharpening to match the amount from the GH4. GH4 the sharpening happens in camera. On the RED it happens in post. I can see ringing around the highlights on the GH4 shot above so it clearly was shot with sharpness set pretty high.
 
There are even more variables that just aren't taken into account which could affect the tests, like using the same nikon lens for all of them, which sounds like that would make them all even on the optics front, but the gh4 is seeing the sweet spot of the lens, and in several tests they are zooming into areas other than the center, giving the gh4 further advantage. They at least stopped the lens down, so i would expect such a variable to be somewhat minimal, it's just another reason why such informal tests while interesting to look at, shouldn't be construed as hard fact. even in the nofilmschool text he repeatedly uses words like "might" instead of "definitely", he at least seems to know that it's not formal enough for a conclusion
 
The Red doesn't apply ANY sharpening in camera.

At all.

Like everything else with RAW acquisition, any sharpening or other adjustments you want to bring to the image you provide in post.

As with everything else with "nofilmschool", they forget those little details.
 
Let the Lumix cameras win the sharpness crown fudged a little or a lot. Isn't there a smaller sensor Sony 4k camera sharper than the GH4? Sharpness does not make the "best" camera for films. Maybe for television, yes.
 
But there is nothing here to win. You cannot compare one camera with added sharpness and not sharpen the RAW camera in post to match. You are comparing chicken and apples.

Now if one wanted to say "One can be lazy, unbox the GH4 and start shooting cool detailed footage in 15 seconds and upload to YouTube with no processing." Well then yes the GH4 wins here. I bet any seasoned pro who knows what they are doing can add just as much detail to the RED footage in post. You can really push RAW and sharpen it by just as much. That is the beauty of RAW. Just shoot it and flavor it later. It isn't just about the color depth but having a true unaltered image you can do with whatever you want.
 
maranfilms said:
So with that said, wouldn't the gh4 look less sharp due to being zoomed in?
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite. The closer you are, the more detail you can see...

Obviously in-camera processing is also playing a big role. I'm just pointing out that if you're going to show two seriously differently-framed shots, then there's not even a prayer of a hope of a proper comparison between them.
 
Thomas Smet said:
But there is nothing here to win. You cannot compare one camera with added sharpness and not sharpen the RAW camera in post to match. You are comparing chicken and apples.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Now if one wanted to say "One can be lazy, unbox the GH4 and start shooting cool detailed footage in 15 seconds and upload to YouTube with no processing." Well then yes the GH4 wins here.
Click to expand...
Yep. And there are many, many segments of the video industry where that approach is more suitable than the raw workflow.

I bet any seasoned pro who knows what they are doing can add just as much detail to the RED footage in post. You can really push RAW and sharpen it by just as much. That is the beauty of RAW. Just shoot it and flavor it later. It isn't just about the color depth but having a true unaltered image you can do with whatever you want.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
It also looks like they front focused on the tree and not the house for the RED footage, so they are comparing something that is not entirely in focus.
 
I'm surprised nobody has shot a resolution chart like Barry says using the GH4 and other 4K+ cameras to be able to compare objectively. Anyone?
 
mcgeedigital said:
The Red doesn't apply ANY sharpening in camera.

At all.

Like everything else with RAW acquisition, any sharpening or other adjustments you want to bring to the image you provide in post.

As with everything else with "nofilmschool", they forget those little details.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of nofilmschool, but I'm pretty sure they mentioned that.
 
These comparisons mean very little these days. I saw one where the GH4 looked better than the Alexa. Who ever set up the Alexa must have been loaded up with Nyquil.
I also don't buy the 4K hype. The GH4 actual resolved detail is comparable to a C100. I mean, that's cool that one can get really high quality 1080P from 4K...but wouldn't it be better to just have a really great 1080P signal?

Oh yeah...marketing 4K is better than marketing a proper 1080P signal.
 
All I can say is its been two weeks this camera has been out and Im already tired of reading all this GH4 vs this or that camera stuff. If it fits what you do then get it. Its simple. We have and have also shot with RED, to us this is about how we see it as well. The GH4 is sharp, its crazy how much detail the camera is getting, does that mean the Epic is not. By god no, the epic can do so much more stuff in post its crazy, but on a final output I do think with the right people these two cameras will inter-cut just find and look nice.

The one thing that I find funny is that every one is talking about how it beats or looks like a RED, do you think RED cares I bet they are laughing so hard right now. They are saying, well its about time this happened. They now have the dragon to sell. The EPIC has been around for many years and most owners are moving up to dragon.
 
All I can say is I am super glad Barry Green is heavily into the GH4 discussion now! Him and Philip Bloom are the only two people I really listen to when new cameras are in. Hopefully Barry will shine a lot of light on what the GH4 is all about and how to best get good looking images out of it.
 
One half praises the new toy, the other one underestimates the tool: does it give more comfort to think $1700 of 201_4(K) gear hasn't beaten dozens of thousands 1080p-5K till now?! ;-)
 
You can all take comfort in the likely fact that despite how good the GH4 may be, statistically speaking the vast majority of people using the camera will still have little to no knowledge of how to use it to its best, let alone any of the other aspects outside the camera to make a good video of any kind.

the camera isn't and hasn't been for several years now the deciding factor in the success/quality of a produced video. I'll still peep, just won't hang on every blip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top