GH5 Announced

With the GH4, vlog was added when the users already had the cameras. GH5 should have it from the beginning. Even if it costs more, I'd hope you'd be able to buy the camera with vlog already installed.

And BTW, I'd be perfectly alright with paying $100 to have log, or $200 for log and a nice waveform, and maybe another $500 for internal 422 10-bit ProRes 4k. Hell, I donated several times to Magic Lantern and I could use it for free!
 
I often wonder about the lack of prores. Is it too expensive to licence or simply noone wants it in the consumer market? Or soccermoms would sue them for not being able to playback the footage in their LCD's?

Edit: Or b/c it would be like 150-200 GB/hour...
 
Last edited:
Many off-the-shelf processors offer H.264 encoding, but no ProRes. These manufacturers don't use off-the-shelf processors, but you can also buy off-the-shelf modules that you bring into your personalized processor, and many may be doing that.

It's not a super-strong restriction, though, because external recorders get ProRes at reasonable prices, so, lack of interest must play a part too.

Edit: from this slide, I think it does 6K 30 fps (5760x3240 is 18.66 Mpix)
https://twitter.com/dpreview/status/777823087697989632
 
Last edited:
Piszkos Fred said:
I often wonder about the lack of prores. Is it too expensive to licence or simply noone wants it in the consumer market? Or soccermoms would sue them for not being able to playback the footage in their LCD's?

Edit: Or b/c it would be like 150-200 GB/hour...
Click to expand...
There are several reasons -

1) File sizes, as you mention, are huge (4K 422HQ is around 320 GB/hr)

2) The media were too slow (SD) or too expensive (CFast/2.0/XQD/SxS, etc.)

3) The CFast/XQD interface was pricey.

4) There's nothing wrong with H264.

5) Companies like to push their own proprietary codecs.

6) Apple controls the ProRes standards and has the right of approval, which often means delays in production if something is not done according to their requirements.

Et cetera, et cetera.

PS. New Olympus will have a 237 Mbps recording in Interframe Predictional and Bidirectional (aka IPB) H264, which should amount to about 80 GB/hr. Their president says the OMD1 MKII quality now exceeds an average APS-C DSLR's.
 
dcloud said:
i think the new sdxc uhs-II can handle it
Click to expand...
V90 can handle 4:2:2 Standard but may have dropped frames in 4:2:2 HQ (770 Mbps 4:2:2 HQ vs. 90 MB/s/720 Mbps for SDXC cards). Of course, V90's are just coming out.
 
GH4 was rated at 12.7 in Raw photo mode. If it get up to 14, it'll be pretty fantastic for a ~ $1,500 camera. And, if it could get 13 out of a V-log ....
 
dxomark rated the a6300 at 13.7 stops and the D7200 at 14.6 stops (link), so, yes, it could be done. Now, what we need is for all of that DR to survive in V-log video files. If the processor captures lots of info and then it gets crushed before storing the video files, well, what's the point. And all cameras do that to some degree (Canon and Panasonic seem to be the worst offenders; no idea if V-log changed this on the GH4).
 
I am curious, does anyone truly like how the images from the GH4, especially skin tones, look? Does anyone think Panasonic will improve the color science on the GH5 so it more closely resembles the pro camera line? My time with the GH4 was only six months but in that time, we tried every setting we could get our hands on, everything from stock out of the box to some settings provided by the Panasonic rep, settings from here, other GH4 forums and none of our clients at the studios or networks really accepted how the camera made people look, very unflattering, even under good lighting. I got rid of it before V Log, does anyone have any talking heads, nicely lit interviews they have shot with V Log that they think look great or their clients think looked great? Anything for broadcast? I met a DP at the Varicam rollout in Hollywood who was using the GH4 a bunch on a cable show, but mainly for outdoor, plant camera and b-roll type of stuff. A cameras on that show were REDs and the DP told me that while he didn't like how the camera looked, it was good enough to use for cutaways, plant cameras, etc. kind of like how many of us use Go Pros.
 
puredrifting said:
I am curious, does anyone truly like how the images from the GH4, especially skin tones, look? Does anyone think Panasonic will improve the color science on the GH5 so it more closely resembles the pro camera line? My time with the GH4 was only six months but in that time, we tried every setting we could get our hands on, everything from stock out of the box to some settings provided by the Panasonic rep, settings from here, other GH4 forums and none of our clients at the studios or networks really accepted how the camera made people look, very unflattering, even under good lighting. I got rid of it before V Log, does anyone have any talking heads, nicely lit interviews they have shot with V Log that they think look great or their clients think looked great? Anything for broadcast? I met a DP at the Varicam rollout in Hollywood who was using the GH4 a bunch on a cable show, but mainly for outdoor, plant camera and b-roll type of stuff. A cameras on that show were REDs and the DP told me that while he didn't like how the camera looked, it was good enough to use for cutaways, plant cameras, etc. kind of like how many of us use Go Pros.
Click to expand...

In my experiences it is hard to get good skin tones on the GH4 outside of V Log. It's like an entirely different color science. The only problem with V Log is that it falls apart extremely easy with a grade. 10 bit helps a lot but it's still not as strong as Pro Res files from say Blackmagic. I think if Panasonic can get the V Log color science mixed with a nice sturdy 10 bit file it'll be a homerun.
 
puredrifting said:
A cameras on that show were REDs and the DP told me that while he didn't like how the camera looked, it was good enough to use for cutaways, plant cameras, etc. kind of like how many of us use Go Pros.
Click to expand...
I follow your point but that just puzzles me... How you guys don't like GH4 but praise or consider that bunch of junk for professional/broadcast use (I understand now why I don't like much to watch TV nowadays!).

GoPro cameras provide the ugliest outcome for ANY screen since Lumière or Edison, well, I'd even say it is unfair to write their names in the same line ;-)
 
puredrifting said:
I am curious, does anyone truly like how the images from the GH4, especially skin tones, look? Does anyone think Panasonic will improve the color science on the GH5 so it more closely resembles the pro camera line? My time with the GH4 was only six months but in that time, we tried every setting we could get our hands on, everything from stock out of the box to some settings provided by the Panasonic rep, settings from here, other GH4 forums and none of our clients at the studios or networks really accepted how the camera made people look, very unflattering, even under good lighting. I got rid of it before V Log, does anyone have any talking heads, nicely lit interviews they have shot with V Log that they think look great or their clients think looked great? Anything for broadcast? I met a DP at the Varicam rollout in Hollywood who was using the GH4 a bunch on a cable show, but mainly for outdoor, plant camera and b-roll type of stuff. A cameras on that show were REDs and the DP told me that while he didn't like how the camera looked, it was good enough to use for cutaways, plant cameras, etc. kind of like how many of us use Go Pros.
Click to expand...

i remember the zacuto camera challenge. You could look at footage of the same scene **** by different cameras and decide what you liked before you knew what camera it was shot on. While some like the gh4 footage I've never cared for it and rated it on the low end in that zacuto example.

its very subjective of course not a scientific study about specs.

http://www.zacuto.com/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-2012
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top