Panasonic 4k camera system info & updates

[Mike Harvey]

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?

I think it will require a bit more rigging than the C100 because of the power supply for the brick. I personally would take an AF100 successor over this rig in a heartbeat. The ease of use for me personally is much greater with the AF100 than any HDSLR, including probably this. Obviously everyone is going to be different.

…..Does anyone here speak Japanese?

I've been to Japan enough that I can tell when one sentence ends and another begins when someone is speaking. Does that help?

 

[Pave1]

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.

For HD without debayering (444 chip) you need 3x1920x1080 (6,2mil pixels), with double green sample it is about 8mil pixels.
For HD with usual 422 chroma subsampling (two greens and one red and blue sample) you need 2x1920x1080 (about 4mil pixels).
For cheap HD cameras (1/3chip) with bigger interpolation (420 chroma subs.) you need from 1x1920x1080 (2mil pixels in XF100) to 3mil pixels (in G30).

For 4K with 444chip without interpolation you need 3x4096x2160 (8,8x3=26,5mil pixels), with double green samples it is about 35mil pixels.
For 4K with 422chip without interpolation you need 2x4096x2160 (8,8x2=17,6mil pixels), GH4 has 16.05mil pixels effective for video.
For QHD with 422chip without interpolation you need 2x3840x2160 (8,2x2=16,5mil pixels), GH4 has 16.05mil pixels effective for video.
For cheap 4K cameras (from 1/2" to 1") with bigger interpolation (420 chroma subs.) you need from 1x4096x2016 (8,8mil) to 13,5mil pixels.

Cheap 4K cameras have about 8,8-13,5mil pixels (like cheap HD cameras), 4K 422 cameras have about 16,5mil pixels. GH4 has about 16mil pixels, this mean that GH4 is using a small pixel interpolation for creating all required 4K pixels.

Here is some sony material about their new sensors pattern Q67 (8.8mil vs. 17.7mil vs. 26.5mil conception):

 

[alaskacameradude]

For HD without debayering (444 chip) you need 3x1920x1080 (6,2mil pixels), with double green sample it is about 8mil pixels.For HD with usual 422 chroma subsampling (two greens and one red and blue sample) you need 2x1920x1080 (about 4mil pixels).For cheap HD cameras (1/3chip) with bigger interpolation (420 chroma subs.) you need from 1x1920x1080 (2mil pixels in XF100) to 3mil pixels (in G30).For 4K with 444chip without interpolation you need 3x4096x2160 (8,8x3=26,5mil pixels), with double green samples it is about 35mil pixels.For 4K with 422chip without interpolation you need 2x4096x2160 (8,8x2=17,6mil pixels), GH4 has 16.05mil pixels effective for video.For QHD with 422chip without interpolation you need 2x3840x2160 (8,2x2=16,5mil pixels), GH4 has 16.05mil pixels effective for video.For cheap 4K cameras (from 1/2" to 1") with bigger interpolation (420 chroma subs.) you need from 1x4096x2016 (8,8mil) to 13,5mil pixels.Cheap 4K cameras have about 8,8-13,5mil pixels (like cheap HD cameras), 4K 422 cameras have about 16,5mil pixels. GH4 has about 16mil pixels, this mean that GH4 is using a small pixel interpolation for creating all required 4K pixels.Here is some sony material about their new sensors pattern Q67:

Hmm.....don't the Sony FS700 and F5 have a 11.6 megapixel chip? Can't they shoot RAW 4K? In the information you provide above,it would suggest that they should have many more megapixels.....

 

[Pave1]

Hmm.....don't the Sony FS700 and F5 have a 11.6 megapixel chip? Can't they shoot RAW 4K? In the information you provide above,it would suggest that they should have many more megapixels.....

In the history of the creating camera's chips is a lot of examples of compromise between price, DR and color resolution (444 vs. 422 vs. 420).
FS100 has in specification 3,5mil ef.pixels (but Alan Roberts said that these pixels are created from the 14mil chip). FS700 has 11.6mil pixels,
so it is really good 2K camera (422 colors), but in 4K mode has only 420 colors (but yes, this camera can interpolated colors from 420 to 422
and then record them as 4K raw). Sony F5 has gross 11,6mil pixel count and 8.9mil effective pixel, it is a clear information

For example Canon XF00 has 2mil pixels on the chip (420 colors) but can record 422 colors (created by an interpolation), because it is B-camera
for XF300 (XF100 has this type of the record for the same workflow as XF300). Panasonic is also well known with their chips with low pixel count
in cheap HD cameras (from HPX170 to HPX500).

Canon C100 is much sharper than FS100 (look for resolution chart on the camcorder test web), and so on.

Every manufacturer did the compromise between price, dynamic range, between the color resolution on the chip and quality of the record.
I think that GH4 is well balanced in these parameters, but it will be interesting to see how good will be HD mode. GH4 has also bigger chip than AX100, but has poor ergonomic with the bottom audio part (and the audio XLR part needs an external 12V battery).

I think that with better resolution (4K vs. HD) are 422 colors less important (in the middle class price level camcorders), for grading is much more important the 10bit sampling quality and less compression in the black part of pictures. GH4 looks nice.

 

[Guest]

I think it will require a bit more rigging than the C100 because of the power supply for the brick. I personally would take an AF100 successor over this rig in a heartbeat. The ease of use for me personally is much greater with the AF100 than any HDSLR, including probably this. Obviously everyone is going to be different.

....But you can have one fully rigged gh4, and one stripped down as bcam, or backup.


I am a bit more to liking a dslr style, if the controls are properly laid out, and the grip is ever so slightly more angled back. (the c300 was interesting, but I still kind of prefer dslr. Am I crazy? I started with ENG, then went to the miniDV bodies, and I must say alexa, and dslr are my favourites.)

 

[Oller Visuals]

What excites me the most is the "cine" profile. 4K isn't a big deal, rather about time.

Anyway, youtube footage looks (as all other 4K youtube footage) horrible and it's pointless to judge bitrate/actual resolved resolution that way. BUT the shots with the pink birds (whatever they are called in english...) looked fracking amazing! All that detail and splashes in the water, didn't look muddy to me, seemed to hold up. The highlighs overall looked very nice too.

It's listed at a very good price in Sweden, let's hope its the final one.

 

[Bassman2003]

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?

How many s35 4k cameras are coming out at NAB? Any in the $4,500 price range? If Panasonic can make a still camera with the video features for $2,000, they can make a video camera for $4,500 with the same chipset. Should they do it? Well, I guess I was under the impression that Panasonic made video cameras over all these years. If they do not want to make an AF-200 they have clearly given up their business to focus on other things. I don't think it has a great chance above $4,500 given the still version is so affordable and as you point out, is not not s35 but m4/3. The AF-100 was a first step with a weak chipset that they have never followed through on. It is almost like Panasonic (broadcast) was offended that they gave the people what they wanted and they did not buy it. A strong codec and chipset will sell but camera makers are really protecting a lot these days so maybe they will just let it float downstream... I hope they make the AF-200 because we all like to root for Panasonic. A one-two punch of an AF-200 and a (hopefully) improved PX270 would be a great owner/operator combination.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I think the AF100 successor is coming at NAB. I believe Panasonic went to the woodshed and figured out what people are looking for in this market....say what you will about the box for the GH4, but people had been asking for that sort of thing on a DSLR style camera for years...and Panny brought it. They also brought focus peaking, zebras, cine profiles, etc etc. Point is they've clearly been listening.

The other thing people have been asking for is an AF100 body with an improved sensor, better codecs to perhaps P2 media. They have the AF100 body already...they now have the superb processor/sensor/internals of the GH4. Throw them together and they have a winner.
People would spend extra for the AF model to get the video cam ergonomics, the high bit rate recording directly to cards (rather than external), the extra Cine profiles, etc. List this camera at $4,999 and Panny has a C100 killer on their hands.

 

[Bassman2003]

Seems logical an and easy but I give it a 50% chance of happening this year at NAB. I hope I am wrong and Panasonic is all in but they have been quite for a while.

 

[cowpunk52]

For HD without debayering (444 chip) you need 3x1920x1080 (6,2mil pixels), with double green sample it is about 8mil pixels.
For HD with usual 422 chroma subsampling (two greens and one red and blue sample) you need 2x1920x1080 (about 4mil pixels).
For cheap HD cameras (1/3chip) with bigger interpolation (420 chroma subs.) you need from 1x1920x1080 (2mil pixels in XF100) to 3mil pixels (in G30).

For 4K with 444chip without interpolation you need 3x4096x2160 (8,8x3=26,5mil pixels), with double green samples it is about 35mil pixels.
For 4K with 422chip without interpolation you need 2x4096x2160 (8,8x2=17,6mil pixels), GH4 has 16.05mil pixels effective for video.
For QHD with 422chip without interpolation you need 2x3840x2160 (8,2x2=16,5mil pixels), GH4 has 16.05mil pixels effective for video.
For cheap 4K cameras (from 1/2" to 1") with bigger interpolation (420 chroma subs.) you need from 1x4096x2016 (8,8mil) to 13,5mil pixels.

Cheap 4K cameras have about 8,8-13,5mil pixels (like cheap HD cameras), 4K 422 cameras have about 16,5mil pixels. GH4 has about 16mil pixels, this mean that GH4 is using a small pixel interpolation for creating all required 4K pixels.

Here is some sony material about their new sensors pattern Q67 (8.8mil vs. 17.7mil vs. 26.5mil conception):

I think I understand what you're saying here, but the GH4 is not using 16MP for video. For 4K, it's actually using a 4096x2160 pixel crop of the 16MP sensor center. Further, it's 16MP sensor has a 4:3 aspect ratio, and the 16:9 window the camera uses for HD video is approximately 12MP.

And isn't Q67 pattern exclusive to Sony?

 

[Mike Harvey]

...I am a bit more to liking a dslr style, if the controls are properly laid out, and the grip is ever so slightly more angled back. (the c300 was interesting, but I still kind of prefer dslr. Am I crazy? I started with ENG, then went to the miniDV bodies, and I must say alexa, and dslr are my favourites.)

Well, there's no accounting for taste... (I'm kidding).

Shooting on DSLRs drives me nuts because I learned on ENG and that's how I prefer to do things, but I totaly get why someone would prefer it or like HDSLRs. I mean, they wouldn't be releasing these features in a DSLR if people didn't like it. I just wish they would release an AF100 follow up for those of us who don't.

 

[joe 1008]

The german site digitalkamera.de states that in HD the whole sensor width is used: "2x2 Pixel werden zusammen gefasst und etwas herunter skaliert" = 2x2 pixel are combined and slightly downscaled.
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Meldung...4_mit_4K-Videofunktion_angekuendigt/8736.aspx

 

[Mike Harvey]

The other thing people have been asking for is an AF100 body with an improved sensor, better codecs to perhaps P2 media. They have the AF100 body already...they now have the superb processor/sensor/internals of the GH4. Throw them together and they have a winner.

Slap the GH4 chip and m4/3 lens mount in a PX270 body and charge $5,500. Then people who don't want p2/microP2 don't have to have it while still getting a good codec (AVC-LongG25), and people who are willing to fork out for P2 get access to better codecs can. Only larger sensor camera with internal 10bit 4:2:2 or better options below $10k (excluding BMC). Cripple whatever is necessary so as not to take away from Varicam sales (even if that means 4k only available in the GH4 flavors).

Everyone's a winner, especially Panasonic's bottom line.

 

[monks19]

Everyone's a winner, especially Panasonic's bottom line.

Yeah... But, that's if the Pany shareholders & investors see all this as profitable enough.

 

[Pave1]

I think I understand what you're saying here, but the GH4 is not using 16MP for video. For 4K, it's actually using a 4096x2160 pixel crop of the 16MP sensor center. Further, it's 16MP sensor has a 4:3 aspect ratio, and the 16:9 window the camera uses for HD video is approximately 12MP.

And isn't Q67 pattern exclusive to Sony?

I read the GH4 specification and there is about 16,05mil eff. pixels (but it is not specified if they are for stills or video).
I can be wrong (at this early stage there can be a lot of mistakes in info), but I understand that the foto and still part of specification spoke about the output format, not about pixel count in image sensor.
http://thenewcamera.com/panasonic-gh4-price-press-release-full-specification-and-sample-videos/

I hope that you are wrong .-) .

(Sony technologies are some inspiration for others, I hope, but 17,7mil pixels for 4K 422 video is not Sony patent, it can be also in the bayer pattern on the image sensor. As I said, in 4K are 422 colors less important then in HD (in the middle class price level of camcorders), more important is the 10bit sampling quality and less compression in black).

 

[pulpfiction007]

Yeah... But, that's if the Pany shareholders & investors see all this as profitable enough.

When you can share tech between the GH4 and a potential AF100 sucessor, it's like a 2 for 1 really. The AF100 body is already designed, people already like it, the sensor is already there from the GH4, the recording options are there from the GH4, etc

That cuts way down on R and D. No reason it couldn't be profitable enough.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Yeah... But, that's if the Pany shareholders & investors see all this as profitable enough.

Yes, but shareholders and investors don't usually have that level of micromanagement. Panasonic is a giant company, and this mythical camera would one small part of one division. As long as the division heads thinks there is enough demand (and judging from some of the comments people had at last NAB where the floor people were almost complaining about the incessant questions about a AF100 follow up, they must think there might be) and it fits their overall vision for the division, the investors wouldn't care as long as the division is making money.

 

[John Caballero]

When you can share tech between the GH4 and a potential AF100 sucessor, it's like a 2 for 1 really. The AF100 body is already designed, people already like it, the sensor is already there from the GH4, the recording options are there from the GH4, etc

That cuts way down on R and D. No reason it couldn't be profitable enough.

Exactly. And the AF200 would be a real killer of a camera. I am sure is on its way though.

 

[John Foundas]

So should I spend $1500 on travel/lodging at NAB plus gambling $ or just buy this thing?
Hahahahahahahaha

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

So should I spend $1500 on travel/lodging at NAB plus gambling $ or just buy this thing?
Hahahahahahahaha

Unless you trying to sell something at NAB….save your money.
You can get more info from the net….
Of course when I went to NAB we didn't even have internet…and we liked it!