My GH5 runs great with the Panasonic DMW-XLR1 XLR unit powered from the camera through the shoe providing phantom power to two mics, I use 48khz 24bit but the unit can record 96khz at 24bit too, full stereo. Runs on the standard battery in this mode for over an hour. I shoot in the theatre so do use an Atomos Power Station to power both the GH5 and the BlackMagic VA 5". It only needs one of the big batteries to power both for over 2 hours and still some left on the first battery.
GH5 Now with the BM Pocket 4K the GH5s seem expensive and obsolete
- Thread starter AndreyBlanco
- Start date
filmguy123
Veteran
Battery life doesn't appear to take a hit when using 400mbps ALL-I on the GHx lineup.
Also, the SmallHD focus with a single Sony battery and dumby battery powers the Focus (5" monitor) + GH5 for quite some time, all while shooting 400mbps ALL-I at a codec that takes more CPU to process, per my understanding(??), than either RAW or ProRes.
Again, not being combative, just pointing out differences. BMD seems power hungry, even with all of it's features. Not sure the cause of this. Lack of CPU throttling or optimization? BMD OS (which is a GREAT UI by the way) may also be responsible for some of this, as I doubt it's as trim as the interfaces on cameras like the EVA1/GHx.
John Brawley
Well-known member
Couple of reasons they are power hungry.
First BMD cameras use active solid state cooling. The power usage is variable, but as it gets hotter it takes more power to keep it cool.
It’s also the difference between ASIC and FPGA.
JB
First BMD cameras use active solid state cooling. The power usage is variable, but as it gets hotter it takes more power to keep it cool.
It’s also the difference between ASIC and FPGA.
JB
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
The GH5s is a really nice mini-van, with a fantastic engine that irritatingly has a throttle limiter. It's reliable, however, and will get you across the country from coast to cost with great gas mileage, great comfort and little to no drama. You can pack a lot of stuff in the back!
Now, if someone took that same engine, stripped off all the emissions controls, pulled the air and stereo unit and slapped it into a funny car body, fueled by nitro and tweaked to the limit, heck, I might want that for weekends with the boys.
The GH5s exists now, has a great image and makes me money. That can't be overstated enough. I pre-ordered the BM camera early last week for the sheer fun of it. Good, bad, I guess we'll find out in the fall! It's so inexpensive it doesn't matter much either way.
Now, if someone took that same engine, stripped off all the emissions controls, pulled the air and stereo unit and slapped it into a funny car body, fueled by nitro and tweaked to the limit, heck, I might want that for weekends with the boys.
The GH5s exists now, has a great image and makes me money. That can't be overstated enough. I pre-ordered the BM camera early last week for the sheer fun of it. Good, bad, I guess we'll find out in the fall! It's so inexpensive it doesn't matter much either way.
They different cameras with different features, that you will probably use for different reasons.
I don't see either camera replacing the other, and given their low cost they are amazingly affordable compared to their competition.
I see both cameras as being a big boost the Micro 4/3 lens market, and hopefully we will someday see more cine zoom lenses made for this format. ( other than the two modified Fuji lenses )
It's a win/win all around.
combatentropy
Veteran
Blackmagic's cameras consume more power because they use FPGAs instead of ASICs, as John Brawley pointed out.
CPU: mass-produced sculpture
FPGA: lego set
ASIC: custom sculpture
Data passing along a bus does not eat batteries. What eats batteries are processors and screens.
The Ikonoskop team told me they did not compress because RAW let them have a camera without fans.
I wish this lie would die. Lighter compression, or no compression at all, is easier on the processor (and battery) not harder.
CPU: mass-produced sculpture
FPGA: lego set
ASIC: custom sculpture
Data passing along a bus does not eat batteries. What eats batteries are processors and screens.
The Ikonoskop team told me they did not compress because RAW let them have a camera without fans.
I wish this lie would die. Lighter compression, or no compression at all, is easier on the processor (and battery) not harder.
Not sure about that- I think it's sensors that consume the bulk of the power. REDs have ASIC and consume 60W+,with or without the screen.
combatentropy
Veteran
Yeah, I don't know what RED is doing with all that electricity. (Before they used ASICs, I suggested on reduser.net that they use them, and shortly thereafter Jannard announced they were switching to ASICs.)
I'm not an engineer either, unless you count software engineers. However, I'm not sure that the evidence fully carries the theory that the number-one battery burner is the sensor. I mean, arrange all cameras in row from smallest sensor to largest, the battery life should go down, but it doesn't, it's all over the map.
A camera can use up a battery many ways: IBIS, a complex menu system, not-ASIC, a big screen, etc. I just don't think RAW does. Of course, that's also if RAW were the only option, and your camera was very simple on the inside, a la Ikonoskop. If your camera can do RAW and ProRes and MPEG-4, I'm not sure recording in RAW will cool it off much. Who knows. Just stop saying it's RAW.
I'm not an engineer either, unless you count software engineers. However, I'm not sure that the evidence fully carries the theory that the number-one battery burner is the sensor. I mean, arrange all cameras in row from smallest sensor to largest, the battery life should go down, but it doesn't, it's all over the map.
A camera can use up a battery many ways: IBIS, a complex menu system, not-ASIC, a big screen, etc. I just don't think RAW does. Of course, that's also if RAW were the only option, and your camera was very simple on the inside, a la Ikonoskop. If your camera can do RAW and ProRes and MPEG-4, I'm not sure recording in RAW will cool it off much. Who knows. Just stop saying it's RAW.
Last edited:
John Brawley
Well-known member
Yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense with RED, but I think most consumer cameras like the GHx tend to run at least partly using ASIC so perhaps that's why they're so much more energy efficient.
When RED outed themselves as doing their own ASICs I wondered when we'd see a difference in energy consumption but it seems however RED are using them, we don't see that supposed benefit to ASIC use.
BMD tend to use FPGAs I believe (so do Arri) because they are much faster to develop for and can be more flexible to re-program. As I understand the ASICs tend to be more custom and purpose built and take a lot longer to tool up for, but have lower unit costs once you're making them.
I've always been perplexed at why RED cameras take so long to turn on. And for that matter even Alexa is pretty slow. Yet most Sony's or Panasonic cameras big and small are on and recording in seconds. Same with BMD.
I was of the understanding that anything that's computationally intensive (like image compression and decompression) is what takes a lot of power.
JB
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Just remember all cameras process raw. Thats how it comes off the sensor. The compressed cameras have to take that raw data and demosaic it, apply image processing and profiles, scale and finally encode to a h.264 file. Thats a massive amount of extra processing power vs taking the raw data and just passing it through to a recording media. Either way every single chip camera out there including a mobile phone handles raw data.
This is partially why BMD cameras can be more affordable. They are missing the massive processing needed to apply all the pretty stuff and encode to h.264 at 60 frames per second which even a fast computer can even struggle with. What a camera like the GH5 does to encode the quality they do without exploding into a fiery ball of death is mighty impressive.
ProRes is also pretty easy to handle processor wise. Just look at how easy it is to render to ProRes on a computer vs a h.264 file. That amount of effort also translates to a camera. BMDs decision to use raw and ProRes is a two fold advantage. The first advantage of course is the quality but the second advantage is they can skimp on the processing power to keep the cost of the camera down. Kind of a win win for them.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Isn't RED basically a little tiny computer like a Linux box? I thought it was more computer like than your typical camera. I remember that was the case with HD-DVD players as well . They were basically linux computers which is why they took so darn long to boot up.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I believe part of it is licensing cost but another big factor is quality/record time/media balance. Not every user or use case is ok tethering a SSD drive to a camera so the cameras still need to be able to support compressed formats. Ys it would be great if cameras would support ProRes but they still need to be able to support the smaller formats as well. BMD can get away with it because they target a very niche market and the users of the BMD cameras are typically ok using alternatives for power and media as long as the end result justifies the added effort. Even 150mbps is getting large for some users which is why there is more of a push for HEVC for 4k.
In a perfect world I absolutely agree compression sucks but not everybody can handle that yet. We are finally getting SD cards capable of ProRes recording although the cost is higher and still a bit out of reach of a lot of users. Maybe eventually we will get to the point where a $30.00 SD card can handle ProRes but that point is not today.
joe12south
Veteran
Sorry, but that's bunk. You have to kit a BMPCC 4K *less* than a GH5s. Add an external monitor and the audio unit to the GH5s and then compare it to the PMPCC 4K.
joe12south
Veteran
Some of the features are simply different, not better, but specs is specs, and some specs be better. 4K DCI RAW @ 60fps is *better*. Someone might have a reason for preferring an inferior spec, but it's still, objectively inferior.
joe12south
Veteran
Indeed. I was mostly being factitious, but, hey, I wouldn't discourage Atomos from trying. ;-)
joe12south
Veteran
I would agree that the GH5 is squarely aimed at a different market, but not the GH5s. From the moment Panasonic revealed it, they trumpeted it as a filmmaker's tool. And they decided to charge a premium for that distinction. The GH5 is the better all around camera if you need stills, etc. The GH5s is an attempt to weigh-in at a higher weight class, and well, the BMPCC 4K (on paper) does so better, for less.
Couldn't agree more that the MFT mount makes it practical, affordable and to have a GH5 and a BMPCC 4K. But it also is what makes it practical to *not* have a GH5s.
SuperbeastPanda
Member
How likely is it Panasonic will make the GH5s compatible with the ProRes RAW of the Ninja V? Seems unlikely Atomos would release this if there wasn't some guarantee someone would support it and right now the GH5s needs something like this to compete.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
The current HDMI spec does not support RAW.
Period.
Period.
TheTrickster
Well-known member
Atomos have a habit of talking up 'future' features on their products, only never deliver, and go silent if asked...
HDMI 2.1 has only just been announced, I don't think there is even any hardware that supports it yet, its just the 'next' standard. So for RAW to be supported it would be in the next iteration of the HDMI spec (2.2 or whatever) - 2019-2020 perhaps, even if it ratified..?
I would love to see my GH5s get it, oh yeah. But can't see it happening.
Well I bought my GH5S NOT for film making. I shoot long shows multicam. The choice was another GH5 or the GH5S with Vlog installed etc and better low light for just less than $500 more. Seemed like a good deal to me at the time and I still feel that way.