Panasonic 4k camera system info & updates

None of us are delivering in 4k, right? I mean other than the rare case. So I agree with the above re downscaling from 4k. We did this all the time with our RED and it's still the sharpest 1080 I've ever had, even moreso than our C100. We also usually used the RED at quadHD, as that we the sharpest, cleanest image we could wrangle from it. I for one am stocked by the specs from the GH4... one of the nice things about being a little older, you remember where this tech was 10 years ago!!
 
Now I have two questions:

1. 96fps is not actually 96fps right? As in, you aren't actually recording 96fps 1080p, it's a slow motion mode that gets printed to a 24fps or 30fps timeline right? So in other words you can't shoot 96fps and then take out every other frame to end up with a 48fps (HFR) video like The Hobbit. Am I correct in this?

2. What is the HDMI port on this, 1.4 or 2.0?
 
roxics said:
96fps is not actually 96fps right? As in, you aren't actually recording 96fps 1080p, it's a slow motion mode that gets printed to a 24fps or 30fps timeline right? So in other words you can't shoot 96fps and then take out every other frame to end up with a 48fps (HFR) video like The Hobbit. Am I correct in this?
Click to expand...

I'm taking it to mean that it is actually 96 fps. I'm taking the 24 or 30 fps to mean the file's "project frame rate," which is nothing more than metadata, instructions to the "projectionist" (your computer) which say, "Play this back at 24 fps (or 30)."
 
roxics said:
1. 96fps is not actually 96fps right? As in, you aren't actually recording 96fps 1080p, it's a slow motion mode that gets printed to a 24fps or 30fps timeline right? So in other words you can't shoot 96fps and then take out every other frame to end up with a 48fps (HFR) video like The Hobbit. Am I correct in this?
Click to expand...

Yes - it's 96fps in a 24,25, or 30P wrapper. You can do true 50 and 60FPS, with individual frames, but not 96FPS.

I'm hoping it will be possible to get those 96FPS in 10bit via HDMI though. Most external recorders can only do up to 30FPS in 10bit, with the Odyssey 7 being capable of 60FPS in 10bit. However, since the file is saved in a 24, 25, or 30P wrapper, I am hoping it might be possible to save it to an external recorder at 10bit. Otherwise, we'll have to settle for 60FPS @ 10bit - which is still damn good in my opinion - will need an Odyssey 7 and Convergent Design 256GB SSD though ($1600). Still, damn good value when you consider the quality of the monitor you're getting with the Odyssey 7.
 
joesiv said:
The big question to me, which relates to your question, is how are they doing the downscale to 1080p? If it's full sensor, they'd either need to line skip (horrible), or software scale (good but processor/bus expensive). If it's 2x2 bin from 3840x2160, then the quality will be good, but more cropped.

I don't think software scaled is a possiblity as it would require the full sensor read out, and since 1080p can go up to 96fps, doesn't seem possible.

Which would you prefer then, line skipped no crop, or 2x2 bin cropped?
Click to expand...

I'd prefer 2x2 binned, that is what the Canon C100/300 do.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because the 200mbps mode is All-Intra, and the 100mbps mode is long-GoP. It sounds like if they tried to do all-Intra for 4K, it'd take up 800mbps, and that's just unreasonable to record. Apparently they feel they can get the quality high enough using the long-GoP system at 100mbps.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. And after seeing the 4K YouTube video, I think all my worries have gone out the window. I'm getting this camera ASAP.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Looking at the EOSHD hands on, it doesn't seem like they had much hands on. It was a presentation from Panasonic they attended. When I see something from someone using it in the field, I'll believe it... but neither press release nor the B&H page mention it. They only say that it's available to power the camera.
Click to expand...

External power required for expansion unit also confirmed in this video at 00:20:30
http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/02/...breakdown-with-hotrod-cameras-illya-friedman/
 
harddrive said:
2x2 bin cropped. (By which I take it you mean use a 3840x2160 crop of the sensor, then form a 1080 output pixel directly from the R,G,B values within each 2x2 Bayer block?) It will mean lenses will become a little tighter in angle of view, but the quality will be dramatically better than anything involving line skipping.

If the full sensor area was needed, then yes, the best approach would be to read it all, then deBayer and downscale, but yes, I'm inclined to think that's unlikely. First step is to see what practically happens with 1080 video - how does angle of view change relative to stills mode.
Click to expand...

atarijedi said:
I'd prefer 2x2 binned, that is what the Canon C100/300 do.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I bet if it is binned, and angle of view is reduced, a whole bunch of people are going to complain unfortunately. But yes, let's see if there is a change.
 
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...

Mike Harvey said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I completely stand corrected...

Dafilman21 said:
An interview with hot rod cameras http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/02/...breakdown-with-hotrod-cameras-illya-friedman/
Click to expand...

At around 20:00, it's stated that the pack does in fact need external power. When asked to clarify if it needs it even simply for the XLR, the answer is yes. I could get needing the power for all the SDI's and sync and XLR at once... but to just use XLR and one SDI for a monitor, needing to rig up a secondary power source is going to be unacceptable for a bunch of folks (like me). Spending upwards of $1,000 or more to rig up a big battery to power my $1,500 XLR adapter and SDI out seems a bit ridiculous, and borders on being a deal breaker for me, for all the reasons Tom stated.

[EDIT] At the very least, they could have included a battery mount on it (even if it meant making it slightly larger).
 
Last edited:
roxics said:
why would they do that? Do they sit around watching our reactions to rumored prices before deciding to set the final price? If that's the case $2000 is way too much money, i would never pay that. Maybe $500. Lol :)
Click to expand...
+1 :D
 
joesiv said:
Agreed, but I bet if it is binned, and angle of view is reduced, a whole bunch of people are going to complain unfortunately. But yes, let's see if there is a change.
Click to expand...
As I've said for a long time now, this is an intractable problem if you want high quality video and high quality stills from the same sensor.

If you want high quality video, then currently the best answer is a 3840x2160 sensor (about 8 megapixel) - but that's not enough for stills.

Use something like the GH_ cameras do, and it's fine for stills, but for video there are only three basic options:

1] Use a simplified readout mechanism - line skipping of some form. Easily implemented, maintains full sensor area, but almost certain to mean compromise of quality.
2] Crop the "golden dimensions" (3840x2160) from the centre of the sensor. Easily implemented, very high quality, but means lenses become more telephoto.
3] Fully read the entire sensor at frame rate, deBayer fully, then electronically low pass filter and downconvert. Capable of high quality, maintains full sensor area - but far more difficult to practically implement, certainly in a relatively cheap camera - but technology is improving all the time.

Up to now, then in a camera at this sort of price, all that's been realistically possible has been 1]. IMO, moving on to 2] is a big step forward (if that's what is happening). Yes, 3] would be better, but that may have to wait for the next round of technology improvements!

One way to implement high quality video AND stills would be to increase sensor dimensions still more - instead of 2x(1920x1080) make it 4x (7680x4320) or about 33 megapixels. Hence easy derivation of 1080 by 4x4 binning, same for 4K by 2x2 binning - and obviously high quality stills.

Overall, I'm keeping an open mind in general. So far, I've seen a lot to like in many ways, but I'm far less sure about the add-on unit. It seems overkill for many uses, but not enough for others. It may have been more satisfactory to give two options - a simple one giving little more than XLRs, and maybe audio level controls, and a more complex one to give more options.

And if it's true that you need external power via an XLR4 just to give XLR audio inputs, that's just plain dumb.
 
Why wasn't all this put into an AF100 body? That would make more sense. The optional 'goiter' that goes on bottom, in order to make it into a usable video camera, is ridiculous. By the time you add that and a cage/rig, the cost and size will probably be close to the AF100 anyway. Not sure what Panasonic was thinking. This shoulda been the 100's successor.
 
TFilipiak said:
Why wasn't all this put into an AF100 body? That would make more sense. The optional 'goiter' that goes on bottom, in order to make it into a usable video camera, is ridiculous. By the time you add that and a cage/rig, the cost and size will probably be close to the AF100 anyway. Not sure what Panasonic was thinking. This shoulda been the 100's successor.
Click to expand...

So it's basically the size of a C100, with the brick, and requires the same amount of additional rigging. On the other hand you can also use it as a very good hand held stills camera that shoots 4k internally. Basically it's only missing the ND filters, but it has its own advantages and fills some unique niches. I'm sure they might come out with a AF100 successor, but the question is: why bother? Would it be unique enough to compete with the other 4K S35 cameras presumably coming at NAB?
 
TFilipiak said:
Why wasn't all this put into an AF100 body? That would make more sense. The optional 'goiter' that goes on bottom, in order to make it into a usable video camera, is ridiculous. By the time you add that and a cage/rig, the cost and size will probably be close to the AF100 anyway. Not sure what Panasonic was thinking. This shoulda been the 100's successor.
Click to expand...

I rented the Af100 for several shoots and used my GH2 as Bcam. I thought the picture from the GH2 was much better so i never did buy the AF100.
I thought they should have put the GH2 sensor in the AF100. The problem is these are two different divisions and it is very clear that they don't talk to each other.
But yes - a Panasonic 4K video camera with the specs of the Gh4 is what we all want…..Does anyone here speak Japanese?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top