GH5 Available for Pre-Order at $2k, amazing features.

steve phillipps said:
Well that one is certainly pretty clear, 10 bit looks miles better. Obviously need to know full methodology and / or see original footage to accept it as fact, but no reason to doubt them. I assume it was recorded internally, didn't noice it being explicity stated though, or did I miss it?
Steve
Click to expand...

There was always a big advantage to 10bit V-log internal on the GH5. Cinema5D caused a lot of unnecessary concern over a non issue. The issue with the Cinema5D article isn't that the tests were flawed but that they focused too much on problem areas that exponentially magnified how we see those problems. Internal 10bit will never be 100% the same as external 10bit but it gets you 90% there. There will of course be some artifacts but how could anybody not expect some artifacts on 150mbps h264 material?

Internal 10bit on the GH5 is not meant to replace a cinema camera shooting raw. It is meant to deliver better quality than internal 8bit recording and get most users to a much higher level of quality without needing extra gear. I think Panasonic hit a home run when it comes to that. If you absolutely need to squeeze as much quality out of the GH5 that you possible can then you use an external recorder. If you want 90% of the quality without the hassle then you use internal 10bit and ignore some of the artifacts.
 
Thomas Smet said:
There was always a big advantage to 10bit V-log internal on the GH5. Cinema5D caused a lot of unnecessary concern over a non issue. The issue with the Cinema5D article isn't that the tests were flawed but that they focused too much on problem areas that exponentially magnified how we see those problems. Internal 10bit will never be 100% the same as external 10bit but it gets you 90% there. There will of course be some artifacts but how could anybody not expect some artifacts on 150mbps h264 material?

Internal 10bit on the GH5 is not meant to replace a cinema camera shooting raw. It is meant to deliver better quality than internal 8bit recording and get most users to a much higher level of quality without needing extra gear. I think Panasonic hit a home run when it comes to that. If you absolutely need to squeeze as much quality out of the GH5 that you possible can then you use an external recorder. If you want 90% of the quality without the hassle then you use internal 10bit and ignore some of the artifacts.
Click to expand...


Since panasonic corporate bastards probably shares your take on this (no worries I don't count you as one of them; but I do feel you've been indoctrinated ;)....
I feel obliged to reply:

Your statment is exactly where you both got it WRONG!!!

GH5 was not expected to be a small increament in tech progress and little dent in filmmaking production.

It was supposed to be a tool of a NEW ERA of FILMMAKING that sould be completely different from this petty and shameful pathetic state in which se are now...
It was supposed to become a top professional tool and option for:

-top stories that are worth to be told
-stories that demand top quality tools (like ARRI)
-top stories that don't allow logistics of top quality cameras (from ARRI to F7 and anything in between)
-top stories for who's realisation budget doesn't allow use of high end cameras but for which its not possible to use BMPC


GH5 as is now is a complete failure!


Why?
Because it continued to mock the users and ridicule their inteligence!
Because it left untouched tha old manner of film production: "the story will be told only if WEALTHY ELITE IN POWER are interested to SEE it , have BENEFIT from its existance and therefore are willing to INVEST in it."


What a shame when one realises that it was supposed to enable the filmmaking revolution....
:(



(Just because Tchaikovsky's symphonies are BEAUTIFUL when performed on stradivarius and steinways by full ensemble of Metropolitan Opera, doesn't mean that Leonard Cohen's songs should not exIst or be performed only on third rate s*%tty guitars and faulthy mics)
 
Maest said:
GH5 as is now is a complete failure!


Why?
Because it continued to mock the users and ridicule their inteligence!
Because it left untouched tha old manner of film production: "the story will be told only if WEALTHY ELITE IN POWER are interested to SEE it , have BENEFIT from its existance and therefore are willing to INVEST in it."


What a shame when one realises that it was supposed to enable the filmmaking revolution....
:(
Click to expand...

What a load of piffle.......
 
GH5 as is now is a complete failure!
Why?
Because it continued to mock the users and ridicule their inteligence!
Because it left untouched tha old manner of film production: "the story will be told only if WEALTHY ELITE IN POWER are interested to SEE it , have BENEFIT from its existance and therefore are willing to INVEST in it."
What a shame when one realises that it was supposed to enable the filmmaking revolution....

His dispensary must have been closed today.
SJW poop
 
GH5 as is now is a complete success!

Why?
Because it continues to break new ground for others!
Because it creates new and better tools for film production: "the story will be told only if EVERYONE HAS THE POWER and all can SEE it , have BENEFIT from its existance and therefore are willing to ENJOY it."
What a shame when one realizes that creativity and not tools make the filmmaking revolution....
 
reem12 said:
This camera's dynamic range seems to have gotten so much worse by it's look. It has such a sterile look. very disappointing
Click to expand...

When did you test the camera? If you didn't, how can you tell ? Anything you see on the internet has been set by the user when shooting and then edited, colour graded whatever. You have no idea what the camera is really capable of until you shoot with it at your settings and your editing. If the videos on the internet look great you know that it is possible to get really good looking shots. There are some really good looking videos from GH5 on the internet. If it does not look good I would write it off to user error !!!
 
Just a matter of my opinion Ron and what my eyes are telling me. Just looks bad IMO. May work for you but not for me and its ok to differ on this matter.

However I wish this cam had the look and texture of the hacked gh2s. It seems like the more we beg for 4k the more theses manufactures sacrifice other things.
 
The point I am trying to make is that there are so many controls on the camera that until YOU test it yourself all you are seeing is the look that other people have taken, modified by either Youtube or Vimeo etc. Not a very good test in my opinion. I very much doubt that a new camera will perform worse than one three generations ago. Much more likely it is in the way it is used. The more complicated a camera becomes the more likely it will produce poor images from people who think they know what they are doing based on their past knowledge. It may well be that full auto will perform better as at least that will be set up by the engineers who designed it. The GH5 autofocus settings are a good example. Please look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PyqWrztPkc as they are not what some may think as settings to use. I am coming from video cameras and my sole reason is UHD 60P in an interchangeable lens camera. Will see how it performs when I get it hopefully later this month !!!
 
reem12 said:
This camera's dynamic range seems to have gotten so much worse by it's look. It has such a sterile look. very disappointing
Click to expand...

It seems to me you want to see what you want to see.

But as Barry pointed out in another thread, judging any camera by pre-production test videos is futile. Half the time you don't know what glass was used (huge bearing), and what other tweaks might be available to make the camera perform to one's taste. And talking of tweaks, the hacked GH2 was a big one, and many people might have been turned off by the stock GH2 image (with kit lens most probably). Granted, the hack was a deep rearrangement of the GH2 system, but given what I've read about the GH5, and even with my experience with the GH4, customization is a big factor in how an image is presenrted. It could also be possible that you just dislike 4K.
 
The DR seems slightly better than the GH4 from the well shot clips I have seen. Though if someone grades and pushes the contrast, or exposes wrong, you of course won't see that.

DR is not the selling point of this camera, but it is certainly not worse. Actually, the biggest improvement to me is how clean and detailed (not "sharp") the image looks VS the GH4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top