Panasonic 4k camera system info & updates

Wait... crop factor?

eoshd says the sensor is 2x crop factor, but 4K video is a crop from that, and ends up at 2.3x (here)

if that's so, then this is basically a BMC-m43 that requires an external recorder (if you want 10-bit 422) but offers 4K ProRes instead of 2.5K RAW --> I'd go with the BMC if the GH4 can't match it for DR, which it probably won't, even with cinelike profiles

with a speedbooster, the GH4 goes to 1.7x, just like the much cheaper BMPCC with its 0.58x speedbooster

Panasonic is determined to be the resolution king, but I'm not a resolution nut
 
You should also factor in the moire/aliasing of the BMC cameras samuel and the much more features rich camera functionality in the GH4 and it easier workflow. I think it will matter for many people.Some of the footage I saw did not impress me too much with the DR of the GH4. But I can't pass any judgement at all from these footage.
 
They do make such cameras, Tom. They're called video cameras.
And that's my point with this camera. I hope Panny puts the sensor and internals into a proper video camera body, ala AF100. I'm sure they will, eventually.
Not to take away from this design. For a mirrorless SLR, it's fantastic. Get this camera, or the Sony AX100? They should be similarly priced.
 
Samuel H said:
Wait... crop factor?

eoshd says the sensor is 2x crop factor, but 4K video is a crop from that, and ends up at 2.3x (here)

if that's so, then this is basically a BMC-m43 that requires an external recorder (if you want 10-bit 422) but offers 4K ProRes instead of 2.5K RAW --> I'd go with the BMC if the GH4 can't match it for DR, which it probably won't, even with cinelike profiles

with a speedbooster, the GH4 goes to 1.7x, just like the much cheaper BMPCC with its 0.58x speedbooster

Panasonic is determined to be the resolution king, but I'm not a resolution nut
Click to expand...


For pure image-quality the BMs will probably still be king, and thats fine because its great to have cameras like that for narrative when you have the time to rent. But don't forget the versatility in being able to use the 1080p in a really small form factor for run and gun, switching to some slow-mo shots when needed and then when you have a big landscape scene take a 4k reading in great detail. And for narrative rent or buy the external brick and get 10 bit 4:2:2 prores. If you get 11-12 stops of DR this will be a very versatile tool, with peaking and zebras. In short, it will let you capture in such a wide variety of ways, each with some distinct strengths and weaknesses.

I will probably not buy a 4k camera in a little while, but when they start hitting the street it will be hard to resist when staring at D800 24mps files.
 
Danielvilliers said:
You should also factor in the moire/aliasing of the BMC cameras samuel and the much more features rich camera functionality in the GH4 and it easier workflow. I think it will matter for many people.Some of the footage I saw did not impress me too much with the DR of the GH4. But I can't pass any judgement at all from these footage.
Click to expand...

Yes, those BM cameras are painful to shoot with, that's for sure. But external recording is not ideal either, and the GH4 only has 8-bit 420 internally.

96p, that's what I was forgetting :)
 
Pros
  • 4K from a nearly full pixel readout of the sensor, internal recording
  • Uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 1080p via HDMI
  • 96fps slow-motion
  • More than double the bitrate of the GH3 in 1080p with 200Mbit ALL-I and 100Mbit IPB
  • 1036k pixel OLED screen and 2360k dot EVF
  • Small form factor, lightweight
  • Small price for the spec and accessible to broad range of artists and filmmakers, from consumers up to pros
  • Choice of broadcast safe luma ranges or full range (0-255)
  • XLR and HD-SDI (via external add-on)
  • PL mount lens compatible (i.e. with Hot Rod Cameras adapter)
  • Uncompressed 10bit 4K and 2K via external add-on
  • Efficient H.264 compression of 4K compared to Canon 1D C MJPEG
  • Reduced rolling shutter (50ms sensor readout compared to 100ms on GH3)
  • Improved dynamic range
  • Improved low light performance
  • PAL / NTSC switchable (“world cam”)
  • Zebras and focus peaking
  • Time Code
  • Synchro Scan
  • Cinema-gamma mode
  • Articulated screen
  • Full manual audio control
  • Convenient Quicktime MOV file format
  • 1080/60p
  • Very fast AF for stills (0.07 sec)
  • Improved AF in low light
  • New mechanical shutter with longer lifespan and 1/8000
  • Very fast 40fps burst mode
  • Silent electronic shutter at full resolution and in raw
  • Timelapse and stop-motion animation modes
  • Gradation curve (for in-camera adjustment of shadow and highlights)
  • Responsive (quad core CPU based)
  • Very good quality stills for a cinema camera (HAHA)
  • Wireless control over WiFI
  • Near Field Comms
  • Weather sealed, even splash proof
  • Extensive lens range
  • Metabones Speed Booster compatible
Cons
  • 4K video mode crops field of view compared to full sensor and 1080p mode
  • Internal codec 8bit 4:2:0 from 4:2:2 source (why not 4:2:2 all the way?)
  • Ergonomic design of external add-on “DMW-YAGHE” could be better
  • External DMW-YAGHE has to attach to base of camera, cannot be more conveniently placed on your rig
  • External DMW-YAGHE has a silly name
  • No full sized HDMI connector on the camera itself
  • No 4:3 mode for anamorphic lenses (BOOOO!)
  • No internal ND filter solution (yet)
  • Pre-production model does not have LOG picture profile
  • Body design too similar to GH3 with existing ergonomic issues not addressed
Click to expand...
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11934/panasonic-gh4-preview
 
vanvideo said:
They do make such cameras, Tom. They're called video cameras.
Click to expand...
No really? Well that's different then, I'll go out and buy a large sensor video camera from Panny then. What do you mean they haven't done one since the AF101? I already sold mine. Oh, the Varicam you mean? Is that less than $20k then? Great! Wait, it isnt? Oh.
If you want to patronise me then I'll do it right back, I've been doing this a long time. If you read the post, you'll see that what I'm complaining about is the fact they release a video-mount-unit-thingy that's designed to turn a DSLR into a video camera, which in itself is a great idea, and one lots of us have been asking for - but then they screw it up by making it unwieldy and requiring V-locks to power, so we may as well stick with big rigs and offboard recorders. Pointless. If they've made a dock that LITERALLY turned your DSLR into a video camera, with handles, mounting points and proper controls then lots of pros, including me, would buy it. But they haven't.
 
Agreed.

Plus once you attach that monster box to the bottom you have no convenient way to attach either iris rods for either a ff or a matte box.
 
TomLenham said:
AAARGH! WHY oh WHY don't camera manufacturers understand the importance of ergonomics? Adding a pro audio and output module to a DSLR? Great idea, we've all been shouting for something like this for a long time. So why forget to add internal power to it? This is so infuriating, I just don't understand why they don't talk to the people who actually use these cameras for video. Look Panny, it's really simple: Adding a pro video module is great, adding one that is neither practical for use without rigging v-lock batteries nor small enough for run and gun is totally pointless.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait... stop. Where are you getting the idea that the add on brick isn't internally powered or not powered by the camera? Yes, it has the 4-pin 12v DC in for external power to power the entire camera system, but nowhere does it say that's the only way to power it, or even imply it. Look at the pictures, there are two separate connection points where the brick plugs into the camera, one of which looks to be around 30 pins, the other five. One of those is most likely going to supply power from the camera to it.

[EDIT] Canon has been selling XLR mounts powered by the hotshoes of their cameras since the GL1. I have a hard time believing adding 4 SDI ports is so much power intensive that it can't be done without an external 12v Anton Buer type battery.
 
Last edited:
roxics said:
From what I understand, when it comes to compression just because you have four times as many pixels doesn't mean you need four times the bitrate.
Click to expand...
Correct. If you want the simple explanation, then if you increase the resolution, you can tolerate increased compression artefacts because as a proportion of the frame they will be smaller and hence less visible.

But...... (as I've said many times before) bitrate alone nowhere nearly tells you the whole story. Coders differ widely in ability, and hence what bitrate they need with a given codec to yield a certain quality. But 100Mbs, with long-GOP H264 based system should be enough. I'd expect even less if the coder was sufficiently advanced.

Also bear in mind that true pro 4K systems (Panasonic AVC-Ultra and Sony XAVC) seem to be settling on about 240Mbs for I-frame only coded 4K. At least for 24fps - because it's I-frame only, the bitrate scales with framerate, so expect around 600Mbs for 60fps, etc.

And whilst "is it 4:2:2?" is being discussed at length, then remember also that for the same reasons as the compression argument above, the whole issue becomes less important as you increase fundamental resolution - colour space is only a ratio. 4K at 4:2:0 has the same amount of chroma resolution as 1080 4:4:4 - never forget that.

What hasn't been much mentioned is the discussion so far is how it's deriving the output in terms of sensor read. It SEEMS that at least for 4K, it's deriving it from a 4096x2160 or 3840x2160 window of the centre. In terms of quality, I think this must be excellent news - even if it comes at the price of reduction of wide angle abilities. Using the full sensor (to maintain lens angle) has meant problems in previous DSLRs etc.

The big question is how much of the sensor gets used for 1080 HD? You'll get optimum quality (with the extra crop factor) by still using a 3840x2160 window, from which HD can be easily derived. Easily checked - take a still photo, then record some 1080 video with the same lens settings and see what happens to angle of view.
 
Regarding 4K and sensor crop - which in this case is a proper term, as not a whole sensor is used- I am wondering if S16 lenses will cover the area of image circle in 4K mode (about 13.7mm)? Hopefully we will know the answer sooner then later. If the answer is yes, it would make this camera so much more attractive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top