...But you're comparing the bit-rate of an IPB CODEC to an ALL-I CODEC, so the difference may not be what you expect it to be. Raising the standard 4K IPB bit-rate from 150 Mbps to 200 Mbps could make a difference. ( remember how much better GH2 hacked footage became once the recording bit-rate was raised )
GH5 Available for Pre-Order at $2k, amazing features.
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
...But you're comparing the bit-rate of an IPB CODEC to an ALL-I CODEC, so the difference may not be what you expect it to be. Raising the standard 4K IPB bit-rate from 150 Mbps to 200 Mbps could make a difference. ( remember how much better GH2 hacked footage became once the recording bit-rate was raised )
From my understanding IPB or All-I differences are negligible except for file size.
Last edited:
Not three times the cost. There are discounts available if you look and I can get the EF Ursa mini pro, shoulder kit, changeable pl mount, and BM evf viewfinder, for $7,723.50. Gh5 with Inferno, $4000. The gh5 ceases to be a small inconspicuous cam and now is a wonky HDMI, watch out for your cable and lose a signal camera. An extra $3723.50 for the ursa mini seems worth it to me for what you get.
Last edited:
The file size difference is the result of capturing approximately the same image but at a lower bit-rate with the IPB CODEC. ( IPB is more of a compression CODEC, where ALL-I is not )
indiawilds
Veteran
Then release the camera in summer and not now. You will be judged by your present standard, not promise of future improvement.
Yes $7723.50 but that does not include a battery. 2 batteries and charger is another $1200. As I said close to $9K. Ursa Mini Pro base price without battery or viewfinder is close to $6000 at B&H while GH5 is $2000 including a battery and charger. The GH5 at $2000 is 1/3 the cost of the bare Ursa body with , no battery and no viewfinder. Neither of these comparisons include a lens and I think you will find that MFT lenses will be lower cost too. Also the Ursa Mini is not exactly inconspicuous either. Looks like a full film crew camera and will attract a lot of attention. Nice camera but still a lot more expensive I still maintain that GH5 with Atomos Inferno is less than half the price of the Ursa setup.
filmguy123
Veteran
Cost aside, URSA Mini Pro weighs a ton more. Even the body ONLY weighs more than a GH5 kitted out with lens, battery, cage, and an external recorder mounted up. That's a big deal for OMB run'n'gun operation.
The internal recorder on the GH5 is very good considering being powered by a handheld device and tiny $20 batteries that last for hours, recording to media the size of a quarter. And if better recording is needed, the full size HDMI port gives you a ton of options, all of which still keep the size/weight below the body alone of something like an URSA mini Pro. And I expect NAB 2017 will give us even more small, lightweight external recorder options.
URSA Mini Pro is similar in form factor to VaricamLT. I demoed that camera last year and while it was great, I wouldn't buy one fully kitted out for half the price... I can't work with the thing! I was exhausted after 20 minutes.
These are tools. We have great options. The GH5 does incredible things for it's size and weight, even excluding the crazy low price point!
So what exactly are we complaining about?
The internal recorder on the GH5 is very good considering being powered by a handheld device and tiny $20 batteries that last for hours, recording to media the size of a quarter. And if better recording is needed, the full size HDMI port gives you a ton of options, all of which still keep the size/weight below the body alone of something like an URSA mini Pro. And I expect NAB 2017 will give us even more small, lightweight external recorder options.
URSA Mini Pro is similar in form factor to VaricamLT. I demoed that camera last year and while it was great, I wouldn't buy one fully kitted out for half the price... I can't work with the thing! I was exhausted after 20 minutes.
These are tools. We have great options. The GH5 does incredible things for it's size and weight, even excluding the crazy low price point!
So what exactly are we complaining about?
I agree but 4 months in this market is a lifetime. They want their money before someone comes out with a better option.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
This is exactly why the C4D test was flawed because it focuses too much on is 10bit 422 internal perfect for V-log. The answer has always been no and yet the article focused on this as some kind of a flaw or defect in the camera.
The reality is the internal 10bit 422 gets you about 75% there over internal 8bit 420. It is vastly superior in almost every way and without a doubt a huge advantage of the GH5 over the GH4. It is still missing that extra 25% however and if one absolutely must have that little extra image quality with V-log then yes an external recorder is a better option. You don't have to use an external recorder however and the internal 10bit is still a very high quality method to record more color information internally on the GH5 vs what the GH4 could ever do. No internal format on any camera is perfect. Even Sony A7S users using Slog3 have the same kind of color issues.
V-log pushes values very hard like Slog3 does. Much harder than other log formats out there. 150mbps h264 is just not enough to get V-log at 100%. 75% will likely still be awesome for a majority of the users. Especially when you consider that in some situations V-log was fine on the GH4 with internal 8bit. Instead of the GH4 only working in 25% of the shots the GH5 should work in 75% of the shots with the other 25% not looking all that bad unless you go out of your way and zoom in by 400% to look for it.
The issue with the C4D article is that it hunted for this real world tiny flaw and put a massive flood light on it and focused on it like it was a major problem that will affect everybody. Its like an exterminator showing a picture of a tiny corner of a 3000 sq/ft house with some ants and saying the whole house is infected. Yes the house is infected with ants but only if you really go out of your way and look for them. If you freak out over those few ants then maybe you should get rid of them. Same with V-log on the GH5. If the tiny color artifacts still bother you there are options. At least Panasonic has the stones and foresight to be the "only" DSLR manufacturer to provide true uncompressed 10bit output on the GH4 and GH5 for those that do need a little extra. Nikon, Canon, Sony all cripple their cameras with 8bit output making them forever toys in the grading world.
I understand some people don't want to haul extra gear around with them and use an external recorder. Thats where the GH5 is such a great camera. You can have internal 10bit. It isn't perfect but no internal format on the planet is perfect minus cinema cameras that record raw or ProRes internally. Internal 10bit on the GH5 would have likely been better with 200mbps or even higher. Panasonic has always been about finding a balance between quality and a realistic record time and stability. There may be a logical reason to limit the bitrate to 150mbps that we will never really know. If the 150mbps doesn't cut it for a particular individual then there are other options.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Lets not forget the massively over priced C-fast 2 cards and the amount of space needed to archive said material. Panasonic stuck with 150mbps for a good reason and they likely felt it was the most balanced choice between quality and storage size without requiring ultra fast media. The GH5 is all about making 10bit accessible to as many people as possible. This means no extra gear needed and the file sizes are only slightly larger than those from the GH4. It makes shooting things like concerts or weddings much more realistic vs shooting 4-8 hours of footage from a wedding on a Ursa which would get very expensive very quickly.
The other thing to factor in is multiple cameras. Maybe one GH5 vs Ursa decked out is "only" $5,000 cheaper but what if you need to use two or three cameras on a production? Now you are up to $15,000 for a level of quality that frankly 99% of clients just cannot see. The media costs and storage to shoot a 3 camera event with the Ursa would be brutal.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
For me, it was a very interesting article, that highlighted one very important flaw. If you're going to record externally, maybe it's not an issue. But one of the main selling points for the GH5 is that you can do 10-bit V-log internally, and, well, it turns out it's pointless because it looks a lot worse than what you can get with other people's internal 8-bit codecs.
If you planned to record externally anyway, it may not apply to you; but I hate external recorders (only worked with one once, and it wasn't a good experience).
If you planned to stay away from V-log anyway, it may not apply to you; but I already have issues with V-log holding a couple less stops of DR than the competition, I wouldn't even consider any other profile.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Depends on the amount used for all-I. Formats like ProRes or DnxHD that are all-I use around 800mbps and even then can still have artifacts. 400mbps All-I on the GH5 may not be enough to eliminate artifacts. We have a prime example of this on the GH4. The GH4 has a HD recording mode that records 200mbps. Considering ProRes HQ 24p uses only 176mbps this should mean the 200mbps on the GH4 is stunning and yet it is not. On paper 400mbps All-I sounds like it would be great but in reality so far every time we have had an all-I format on the GH3 and GH4 they have been a massive disappointment and almost across the board professional GH3 and GH4 users use the IPB modes. I would love to be wrong and Panasonic finally get it right but I'm basing this on previous camera implementations of all-I. AVC-Ultra is all-I and only uses 400mbps but it has a lot of fancy things going on under the hood to make it work that way and even then it can display more artifacts than ProRes HQ will. It might be more compatible to ProRes LT. If that is fine with you then maybe the 400 mbps All-I will be fine but ProRes HQ is still better and without a doubt c5d will still point out the artifacts because they will be there.
I have compared AVC-Intra (HD format) to ProRes 422 HQ and there is a clear advantage of ProRes in only the areas of flat color and subtle gradients like sky or shaded skin. In areas of fine detail they are very similar. h264 and AVC-Intra/Ultra use too much block prediction in areas of very similar colors to save bits vs ProRes which is dumb and doesn't care. AVC-Intra/Ultra is great for regular profile material because these tricks help 400mbps look as good as 800mbps but with log material you really need to maintain those extremely subtle color differences as much as humanly possible. h264 is not a bad format, just not designed to work with log very well. The nature of h264 means it will deliver stunning regular profile results but at the expense that it can be too aggressive with log material. Log needs a dummy format with zero processing like raw, uncompressed or ProRes so it doesn't try to make as many assumptions of what colors can be grouped together.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Didn't you see the SSD recorder option? The Samsung EVO 850 500 GBs would buy you enough to shoot a concert at $177.00 ea.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
There was an interview with the manager of development who said the dynamic range is similar to the GH4, and I think the charts confirm this.
Still there are individuals who push the idea that the dynamic range is greater, for what purpose I don't know, one would hope it is not for financial reasons.
It is definitely disappointing but it still won't keep me from buying one although I am waiting for the pre-order craze to dry up first and get a package deal.
Now if Sony announces an A7s that has 10bit and IBIS I will probably change my mind in buying a GH5 but I suspect the chances that will happen are slim.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
"looking much worse" is where I think it is a bit deceiving. It only looks much worse because of the giant spot light focused on 400% zoomed in material. Maybe this matters to you but the reality of C5d is they cater to film makers and the vast majority of GH5 users will likely not be film makers. This is where there is a flaw in the article. Not that they pointed out what should have been a well known quality limitation of 150mbps h264 but that they made it seem like the sky was falling because of it.
I have seen plenty of GH5 internal 10bit V-log material to know it is a vast improvement over the GH4 internal. It will of course not be perfect but then again we are talking 150mbps on a $2,000 camera. If anybody expects that to be perfect they are fooling themselves.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
You needed that article to know that? In what universe did anybody ever expect a m43 camera to have the same DR as a FF camera?
Cary Knoop
Veteran
It has nothing to do with full frame, the Blackmagic 4.6k is not full frame either and its dynamic range is fabulous!
I and I am sure many other expected an improvement over the GH4 perhaps not one to get it at par with the Sony A7s but at least one stop improvement, and that improvement is definitely not there.
As was explained by the development manager of Panasonic in a YouTube video the electronics to measure the bucket voltages was improved but since the pixel density improved as well it more or less evened out.
I would have preferred 16 megapixels with a better dynamic range over 20 mega pixels.