Thomas Smet
Veteran
So what exactly does a 1036k dot OLED mean in terms of resolution? I understand it is more but how does that translate to pixel resolution?
Panasonic 4k camera system info & updates
- Thread starter PappasArts
- Start date
maranfilms
Veteran
insane, great presentation!!
combatentropy
Veteran
It is an incredibly stupid tradition that camera makers have clung too, where they are counting every red, green, and blue pixel, instead of telling the resolution, like 640x480, when you count each group of one red, green, and blue "dot" as one pixel, like they do when talking about any other screen, like your television or phone. A 640x480 screen is a 921,000-dot screen (640 x 480 x 3). I don't know what works out to 1,036,000 dots. I don't feel like wasting my brain on their stupid math. But as you can see it's a little more than 640x480.
It's a way of hiding how incredibly coarse the screens are on multi-thousand-dollar cameras, while the screens on multi-hundred-dollar phones are two or three times as sharp.
Yup. And if they include a fourth pixel (white) they can just multiply by 4! Instant success.
http://developer.sonymobile.com/2012/02/27/introducing-whitemagic-the-technology-in-xperia-p/
lars steenhoff
Active member
yes it is not known if the pixels are square
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
It's not just the amount of DOF it's also the angle of view and lack of general pop from any m4/3 camera I've seen. I had a GH3 but sold it quickly due to the unexciting image I got from that camera. I had a Sony EX3 with even smaller sensor but the image could pop way more than the GH3. There's just something odd with m4/3. With that said I still like them when taking stills causally.
Osslund, you're going to have to define what you mean by "pop", as I have no idea what you are talking about, so it comes across like a meaningless buzz-word when it's left vague and undefined.
As a long-time commercial photographer ( 4x5 and 8x10 large format illustration work starting in the early 80's ), I know that the image from just about any camera can become outstanding given the right production/post-production treatment. Even Apple's recent "shot only with the iPhone" ad, goes to show what can be done with a large production budget to support a minimal image.
True North
Well-known member
One mans POP is another man's FIZZ
For every guy who isn't inspired by the image of a camera many thousands are.
Pick your tools and create.
Osslund has an opinion, doesen't make it right or wrong for you, it's just his opinion.
I, like many on this board, have seen some amazing work using relatively inexpensive tools. Conversely, I have watched absolute piles of crap that used very expensive tools.
If a GH2/3/4 image inspires you who honestly cares what another shooter thinks, your work will speak for itself, the rest is just a bunch of BS.
For every guy who isn't inspired by the image of a camera many thousands are.
Pick your tools and create.
Osslund has an opinion, doesen't make it right or wrong for you, it's just his opinion.
I, like many on this board, have seen some amazing work using relatively inexpensive tools. Conversely, I have watched absolute piles of crap that used very expensive tools.
If a GH2/3/4 image inspires you who honestly cares what another shooter thinks, your work will speak for itself, the rest is just a bunch of BS.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Having and EX1R & a GH3 in front of me I can't see how you could say that the EX has more 'pop'. Please define 'pop' as its not a known measurable quality.
It's not about the size of the sensor.
Have you seen footage from the Blackmagic pocket camera? The sensor has 3x crop factor but it can blow away footage from native 5Dmk3 or D800.
Sensor size is just one criteria. You have to include there codec, sensor DR, lenses, stabilization etc.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Yup +1 It is deceptive just like the omission of the standardized f-whatever @ 2000 Lux numbers in camera specs over the last 5 years. It is a minefield in some parts of the marketplace. Same situation with the pro field monitors. Way out of step with tablet pricing and quality.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Yep, I said so a couple of pages a go: nothing wrong with smaller sensors in terms of subjective image qualities; just with some cameras that happened to have m43 sensors (most notoriously: hacked GH2).
Thomas Smet
Veteran
That alone should tell you the sensor has nothing to do with it. M4/3 isn't the problem but how certain cameras bake in certain looks. Keep in mind the EX3 is a three chip camera. Now most of the young people today may not realize how much of an advantage three chips can make but there was a time when we wouldn't be caught dead with a single sensor camera. A good 3 chip 1080p camera can actually resolve as much detail as a single sensor 4k image. Just the nature of how every pixel is a real pixel with a three chip design.
The sensor size honestly has very little to do with the detail level or the color reproduction. This is why a 1/2" sensor can seem to have more more pop as you put it.
Like others have said however pop to one person is not the same as it is to others. I personally feel as though the GH2 and GH3 crush Canon DSLR footage when it comes to natural detail in video. Canon just totally misses the mark in my opinion and always looks muddy or processed. Color is easy to change. These cameras come with all sorts of color controls. The GH4 will have even more controls for color. You really have to tweak the look you want because manufacturers can't bake in a look just for you.
Remember color can be altered. Detail cannot. If you shoot soft muddy details they will always be soft muddy details.
joe1946
Veteran
Technically speaking, you can. Let's say you have a 60mm lens at f5.6 aperture on a full frame camera. Then you put a 60mm/3 = 20mm lens at f5.6/3 = f1.87 aperture on a sensor with a crop factor of 3, and the images you get from both cameras will be optically equivalent (same depth of field, same field of view). That's in theory. In practice it can be difficult because you can easily buy f1.4 lenses for full frame sensors, but it is not so easy to buy f1.4/3 = f0.47 lenses for your 3x crop sensor.
True North
Well-known member
Sorry to derail things a little but just to clarfy, this camera will a 2x crop factor , correct?
A speed booster adapter will take you to a crop factor of 1.42 on the GH4 or GH3 when shooting 1080p
When you use a native M43 lens, there is no crop factor to speak of. i.e. If I use a native M43 25mm lens on a GH4, there is no crop factor multiplier on the focal length. My 25mm M43 lens will still look like and have the same FOV as a 25mm lens... is this correct?
I also realize that all of the above calculations don't apply when shooting 4K.
A speed booster adapter will take you to a crop factor of 1.42 on the GH4 or GH3 when shooting 1080p
When you use a native M43 lens, there is no crop factor to speak of. i.e. If I use a native M43 25mm lens on a GH4, there is no crop factor multiplier on the focal length. My 25mm M43 lens will still look like and have the same FOV as a 25mm lens... is this correct?
I also realize that all of the above calculations don't apply when shooting 4K.
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I'm sorry but to me it is the sensors in m4/3 cameras that I can't see giving me any pop. It's not about the exact size since I find the EX3 to give a very nice image with pop thanks to other things, one being it's a three chip design and another that the gamma curves are very nice. There's something very odd to the whole implementation of m4/3. When you think you get it good looking and put it beside many other cameras it just looks so unexciting. This is my personal feeling so don't blame me for having this stand point. It's just how I perceive it.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
The 25mm on M43 will have the FOV of a 50mm full frame and you lose about 2 stops in DOF compared to full frame. 25mm 1.4 M43 should be similar in apperance to a 50mm 2.8 on full frame in regards to DOF but will be brighter because 1.4 is 1.4 for light transmission regardless of sensor size.
Of course coatings and lens elements also effect 'The look' of a lens.
This is my understanding.
It's still early to judge GH4 simpley because it has a m43 sensor. The new camera will have much more resolution, better handling of shadows (if they follow what they achieved with the GM1). What's left to see is the dynamic range, what the new cine styles have in their guts, and the new 100mbps codec, in the hands of a good cinematographer. Everything else is just rumors.
I for one am interested in the 96fps @ 1080p. Also interested in a camera where you have everything in one body, instead of buying dozens of accessories, like what you have to do for Blackmagic cameras or DSLRs.