GH13 GH5 Rumors

malibudutchie said:
As I said a brick with batteries, plus I've got my own gear which I charge for. The BMCC is a box, not a camera, it's got many inherent problems least of which being really poor ergonomics. You need an accessory for every facet of operation. The trade-off is RAW. The mic is basic, poor battery, the super 16 sensor makes lens selection difficult, etc etc. Then you need an amped up edit system and huge storage for the 6-7gb per minute of footage. Why shoot all this when TV is for the most part still broadcast in SD. Versatile it is not. But as a run and gun expert you'd know all that.
Click to expand...

More condescending and arrogant words from you. I shouldn't be surprised.

If you strip most cameras of lenses, mic and EVF you will find most are just a box! I never use any cameras internal mic so thats not an issue. I don't have a big need for RAW either and not all that interested in the workflow but the BMCC can also record in ProRes. I've already said the battery is not an issue and can actually be turned into a positive. Lens wise, have you seen how much great S16 cine glass there is out there. It's relatively fast and affordable too. I wont bore you with the list of top grossing films shot on S16 or ridiculous number of documentaries but its not hard to work with at all.

You have a strange work ethic if you would refuse a job because the production wanted to shoot it on the BMCC. Yes, it has a few quirks but if you cant make a camera of that quality work for you there must be something very wrong.......and its not with the camera.
 
Last edited:
Rolf Silber said:
In general EBU (European Broadcasting Union) requests 4:2:2 50 Mbit for inter, 100 Mbit for intra but allows also AVCHD 4:2:0 above 35 Mbit.

but

it allows lower standards for doc, news, specialised cameras, situations when material can not be gathered otherwise and if material from such cameras is not more than 33% of a programme usually. AVCHD 4:2:0 8 bit at 24 Mbit can be okay. But while restricting this "in general" broadcaster may also make other decisions. Which leaves a lot of wriggle room.

In the real world also in Germany the big networks will not reject such material if it's good and the technical reasons for a probable rejection are overridden by creative reasons. We even used some material from my GH13 alongside a RED MX and later from GH2 & AG-AF alongside an Alexa. Yet it would be appropriate to check beforehand if you work on the continent.

http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf
Click to expand...
Excellent. Thanks
Please recall that my biggest concern with 4:2:0 wasn't just deliverability to Broadcast channels at 'face value' , but rather that if shot under less than ideal lighting conditions ( ENG or Doc for example ) the wiggle room in Post Color Grading is less. Exponentially less as the color space is more compressed and resultant banding (in Skies/large expanses of surface for example) will prohibit anything more than modest adjustments in a 4:2:0 file. That's why for me, a more robust color space trumps the highest resolution possible. Resolution differences are easier to conceal in post than Color Space or DR ones.

Obviously we are not talking about 'grab shots' in breaking news situations but rather pre-planned productions.
So circling around to the question of which camera allows the greater latitude in post ....

BMCC / BMPCC / GH3 / GH5 etc.

?

Which is it?
 
BMCC looks good - that's all - a pain to use. As I say, it's about content. I've never watched a good movie, ad or TV program and thought "wow, the resolution was so good, wonder what codec that was shot with". Hopefully, the GH5 will be a much better camera than the GH3 or BMCC.
 
malibudutchie said:
As I say, it's about content. I've never watched a good movie, ad or TV program and thought "wow, the resolution was so good, wonder what codec that was shot with".
Click to expand...

I have to an extent. But cameras and Codecs are not just about resolution.

While it is content that is most important, that phrase "it's all about content" is extremely overused and is a bit of a cop out. If that theory rang true why don't we all shoot on VHS? It surprises me that productions spend so much on Film Stock, Grading etc if it made no difference.
I have never looked at a painting in a gallery and thought, wow I wonder what type of paint or what type of canvas was used? A lot of the time, you strive for the best because the best will go un-noticed.

It's also not all about what the end viewer sees but what allowed you to create in the first place. Ideally, I want a camera that I don't have to think too much about. I don't want it to dictate how I shoot, I don't want it to inhibit the shots I can and cannot get. Do you look at an amazing piece of architecture and think 'Wow, I wonder what hammer, saw and drill the builder used'? Probably not but does that mean a builder goes and buys the cheapest available tools? Generally not. They want something thats easy to work with while being strong and reliable. Kind of like a camera I suppose or even a codec.

malibudutchie said:
Hopefully, the GH5 will be a much better camera than the GH3 or BMCC
Click to expand...

If it's all about content and nobody will notice, why do you want the GH5 to be any better than the GH3 or BMCC?

Again, at the price range we are talking about here (GH3 to BMCC) there will always be a trade off somewhere. While you may want a better internal Mic and camera that doesn't look like a box, I want Peaking and more robust codec would be nice. Whatever floats your boat.
 
Last edited:
I have never looked at a painting in a gallery and thought, wow I wonder what type of paint or what type of canvas was used?
Click to expand...

You're obviously not a painter ! That's what all painters do .
 
vtwiz said:
Nope, I'm not a painter. My point exactly.
Click to expand...
Well, you just contradicted yourself in the first line "I have to an extent...." . Remember VT you can't grade a turd, that's what content is all about. You can make it look better that's all. Even if it's shot in 10 bit on a camera with a big red record button on the LCD to help you focus. You see, everyone wants the next big thing to help them do what they can't do. You want focus peaking, and a robust codec, well good on you, that's what keeps the big boys busy. The GH3 was a big mover over the GH2, can't wait to see what the GH5 has got.
 
How did I contradict myself?

just to set things straight. I said that I would like the GH5 to have a 10bit codec if its going to be competitive with other cameras by the time it is released over a year from now. I want Peaking and the record issue/ on screen info issue on the GH3 fixed now.

So you think that a camera that has peaking, goes into record the first time I press a button and uses a better codec is the reserve of the 'big boys'? That's not the case.

Again, Im happy with the GH3's current codec and frame rate options. This thread originally was about the future un-rumoured GH5 which is why I mentioned 10bit.

You still have nothing of value to add but quick to condescend. Obviously that's how you get your kicks.

BTW, you can grade a turd! Plenty of great looking Hollywood movies that are down right rubbish. That's not the point though.
 
Last edited:
vtwiz said:
Nope, I'm not a painter. My point exactly.
Click to expand...

didn't finish through the thread, but my degree was in fine arts, spent much time as a painter, longer even drawing (20+ years) and I never ask about the paper or the pen used at all. It really has come to mean nothing. I hope imaging tech ages like markmaking does.

Seriously I never think about that.
 
i wish they would just stop making so many damn cameras! Now i'm gonna have drop a few grand on the new Mac computer and a dslr with 4k... its hard to make money in a business when i spend all my profits on new gear
 
greymog said:
didn't finish through the thread, but my degree was in fine arts, spent much time as a painter, longer even drawing (20+ years) and I never ask about the paper or the pen used at all. It really has come to mean nothing. I hope imaging tech ages like markmaking does.

Seriously I never think about that.
Click to expand...

well me too ...for 40 years ...represented by worldclass galleries...etc....and vtwiz's statement (I have never looked at a painting in a gallery and thought, wow I wonder what type of paint or what type of canvas was used? ) is simply wrong as well as contradicting his attempted metaphor of aligning painting with cinematography . It's perhaps correct that a painter doesn't care to discern what type of canvas ..or foundation the painting is on, because it could be on wood or metal or any of hundreds of materials which would be apparently obvious....but all painters , except for perhaps yourself, will , after appreciating or not, an image , will attempt to analyze the medium.

The first thing they look at is whether it's oil, acrylic, tempera, gouache, etc etc . And since I know hundreds if not thousands of other artists, I know this to be true. And while it's not important , if the medium fits the work, it's still important to the growth of an artist to be able to dissect the methodology of other artists. And also among painters , there's the same type of condescending attitude about mediums. That's why acrylics are known as the fast food medium.

And I venture it's exactly the same with cinematographers . In fact, I know it's the same with cinematographers ! First they discern if it's digital or film. If film, then what format. If digital , they want to know if it was a Red or an Arri, and if not what other underling produced such an acceptable image. Or the reverse could be true, for example , as was discussed among cinematographers over Searching for Sugarman, in the what appeared to be s8 footage that was actually shot on an iphone, and many other examples of degraded imagery as artform.

And if we're talking about pure imagery, I dare you to watch the work of Bill Viola and not want to dissect his methodology. Or go even further back to the work of Peter Campus. Every artist should have a full palette at their disposal...aka even a pxl2000.

Now this isn't belittling the alternative philosophy, as demonstrated in public television, that content is king , however content and subject matter is one thing...and imagery is another animal all together.
 
Sigh.
I have a BFA degree in fine arts> Photo major. I had to do a lot of Art & Photo History courses to graduate.
To address the questions/statements about tools materials and techniques. These matters were HUGE in the history of Art and Photography, I shant go into the details but suffice it to say that each breakthrough technology, tool or technique, expanded the possibilities, ease of use and mitigated hazards in the production of art.
Now. You will not find REAMS of documentation or correspondence regarding the relative merits of graphite pencil vs legacy silverpoint, but the graphite 'lead' pencil which has edured a century was a major breakthrough in Modern day Drawing. Much on the caliber of DV vs Analog video or HDV vs DV in the Video paradigm

I ***** a lot about how electronic imaging in the past 20 years has been a HUGE beta because indeed, the developments have outpaced our ability to capitalize on them and then to realize MAXIMUM ROI.

Indeed, not much would have happened in the Rennaisance if the major Botegas had to constantly teach and execute works with the newest paints or brushes or sketching tools. But that's exactly what I see in many modern forums- most of the discussion centers around the tools.

Sadly. We simply haven't arrived at what I call a 'Stable' mix in the video imaging paradigm, although we almost have in desktop editing ;)
 
malibudutchie said:
BMCC looks good - that's all - a pain to use. As I say, it's about content. I've never watched a good movie, ad or TV program and thought "wow, the resolution was so good, wonder what codec that was shot with". Hopefully, the GH5 will be a much better camera than the GH3 or BMCC.
Click to expand...

I just did a quick grade of some sample clips from the BMPCC. look good but I need some blue sky clips for the 'acid test'.
 
PegLeg Media said:
i wish they would just stop making so many damn cameras! Now i'm gonna have drop a few grand on the new Mac computer and a dslr with 4k... its hard to make money in a business when i spend all my profits on new gear
Click to expand...
then you really need to evaluate your work model. It's one thing to buy a piece of gear that you need to make money. But I can say with the upmost confidence that a 4k cam will not bring you any more work than a 2k or 1080 camera. There's no reason to have it unless your shooting for the big screen, a client requests it, or you need it to reframe your shots. It's easy to get caught up in the equipment buying game. Just goes to show how great the marketing/advertising dept.for these companies work, it's a science. Believe me when I say, I have had the bug over the years as well, it's always tempting to purchase the latest and greatest camera, One has to remember in six months time, the latest and greatest will be replaced with the latest and greatest:)
 
kurth said:
vtwiz's statement (I have never looked at a painting in a gallery and thought, wow I wonder what type of paint or what type of canvas was used? ) is simply wrong as well as contradicting
Click to expand...

How can my statement be wrong? I (note the 'I' at the beginning of my sentence!) again, I have never looked at a painting........... notice the reference to MYSELF? If your saying that I have looked at a painting and wondered about the canvas and paintings then maybe we have a special telepathic connection.

Anyway, my statement still rings true and is not a contradiction at all. I have a good friend that is a painter and he chooses his paints and canvas very carefully. I might not notice the canvas or paints used in a painting, it doesn't mean that others don't and does not make the materials used irrelevant. However, if an artist painted a picture on a scrunched up piece of butchers paper then even though I am not an artist, i probably would notice. He also mentions how he finds certain paints and canvases easier to work with. Like my codec and camera analogy, certain codecs and cameras are easier to work with. It's not just about the final image, but how you get there and how your tools allow you to get there.
 
Last edited:
What's neat about 4K is that it leaves a lot of room for cropping in post. So I can see that it's double the framing flexibility of 2K. Not a bad advantage in many cases.In an ideal world we shoot with two focal lengths a Slightly wide and a Tele ( mostly for foreshortning effects ) then crop as we please for all the intermediate framings.
 
I think there will be a followup to the GH3, but that's not 100% certain. Simply put, the format is lagging. The demand is very, very weak. Taking not just m4/3, but ALL mirrorless cameras of ALL makers in ALL mounts/formats, do you know how few of these were even shipped to the U.S. in the month of June this year? It's all of 10,235. That's shipped into the retail channel - and fewer still actually sold, perhaps many, many fewer. Now, break it down to actually m4/3 and Panasonic, and GH3, and you end up with what, 1-2 thousand, at best, because probably the Nikons were selling more? And if most cameras are sold for still photography, then how many of those 1-2 thousand GH3 were sold as primarily video cams... 500? 300? So we can sit here all day long and demand that Panasonic implement this or that video feature in the next GHx, but frankly, there may simply not be a market big enough to justify any investment at all. So, they get a few dozen demands for peaking... so what?

There will be a GH5 - hopefully. But what will be the feature set? How much money should they pour into developing features only a handful of people care about, in a tiny mirrorless market to begin with? To me, this thread about what should/should not be in the GH5 is like arguing over chair arrangements on the deck of the Titanic. Count your lucky stars if a GH5 even comes out.
 
The numbers for the GH3 may be very low but I know quite a few people who own them and they all bought them for the video features. I am yet to see a GH3 out in the wild other than being used for video. I'm not saying that there aren't any but just my observation.

The GH2 became so popular due to it's video features. While I don't have any actual figures (and yours are speculation) I think that of your GH3 figure of 1-2 thousand in the US, more than 300 would have been bought for video.

On this forum alone the thread viewing numbers for the GH series always has the most viewing. Looking now, the GH Topic has 153 viewing, the next most popular being Canon APS-C cameras at 94. Not sure how accurate that is and understand that not all those viewing actually own a GH camera but it shows that people are looking and considering these cameras.
 
I like the comparison of video with painting. Maybe VT would argue here that the best brand of paint will give you the best painting. The most expensive brush will make a better painting than a cheap brush. Pixel peepers are like art critics - wannabees that coulda been and shoulda been but didn't, so they blame the medium, blame the tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top