Panasonic 4k camera system info & updates

^ indeed

except: if you're only going to use the body, then you're recording 8-bit 420 --> If I bought one, I'd use a shuttle or a ninja, through HDMI, without the add-on that looks like an 80s cellphone


about the FoV and DoF calculations: more info and examples here
 
Samuel H said:
^ indeed

except: if you're only going to use the body, then you're recording 8-bit 420 --> If I bought one, I'd use a shuttle or a ninja, through HDMI, without the add-on that looks like an 80s cellphone


about the FoV and DoF calculations: more info and examples here
Click to expand...

Greetings

According to the FAQ on the EOSHD site the HDMI port only outputs 1080P.
"Does the GH4 output 4K over the micro-HDMI port?
When the camera is set to record in 4K internally the onboard HDMI output is down-converted automatically to 1080p. In playback mode the HDMI output is 4K capable (relaying the 8bit 4:2:0 footage from SD card). Only the DMW-YAGH add-on base can output 4K (uncompressed, 10bit 4:2:2) from the GH4. However the micro-HDMI port is 8bit / 10bit switchable and can deliver impressive 1080p in 10bit 4:2:2 format, uncompressed to an external recorder.

Do we know the specifics of how the camera does the 1080P output? i.e. interpolation or line skip?

BTW, I'm totally in your camp re 4K. I have no use for 4K other than perhaps to downscale to 1080P. I'm hoping the internal downscaling is done optimally.

thanks
JohnG
 
I have absolutely no need for 4K, nor do I want a tighter crop factor: 1080p 10-bit 422 is what I would use if I had a GH4
(I'm guessing that 1080p will be quite sharp; if it's not, then the GH4 is definitely not for me; already in doubt because of the crop factor...)
 
Samuel H said:
I have absolutely no need for 4K, nor do I want a tighter crop factor: 1080p 10-bit 422 is what I would use if I had a GH4
(I'm guessing that 1080p will be quite sharp; if it's not, then the GH4 is definitely not for me; already in doubt because of the crop factor...)
Click to expand...

Why would the crop factor make you doubt the potential sharpness of the GH4?
 
Samuel is making some pretty valid points, also about the natural detail and or sharpness of the 1080... something I hadn't even thought about:

The 4K's a 1:1 from the sensor, hence the crop, and should exhibit very very little moire-aliasing, and would likely also scale to 1080/2K bringing all of that detail with it.

Question is, does the 1080 benefit in the same way without moire aliasing, and is it actually "sharper" than the 1:1 4K crop when scaled?

Didn't even cross my mind that the two formats were actually two different frames... or is the 1080 also a crop? I don't think it is, right?
 
We will have all the answers to the endless questions when is out in the wild. By that time we will use our freedom of choice to buy it or not.
 
Last edited:
RatLabProductions said:
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.
Click to expand...
A 50mm f2.8 lens on a full frame sensor will be optically equivalent to a 25mm f1.4 lens on a m43 sensor. The images will have the same field of view and same depth of field and will use the same amount of light. Yes the f1.4 lens will accept twice as much light per linear dimension but its mounted to a sensor that is half as big per linear dimension. So it all evens out and the two configurations accept exactly the same amount of light.
 
Kholi said:
The 4K's a 1:1 from the sensor, hence the crop, and should exhibit very very little moire-aliasing, and would likely also scale to 1080/2K bringing all of that detail with it.
Click to expand...
Looking at the specs for the GH4, when shooting still images in 16:9 ratio, the camera can output JPEGs with the following dimensions at the chosen quality level: 4608x2592(L) / 3840x2160(M) / 1920x1080(S). Thus suggests that the GH4 has dedicated hardware/firmware to interpolate from the sensor pixels to 3840x2160 and 1920x1080 frames. If so, then both UHD and FHD should have the standard 2.0 m43rds crop factor and also have excellent image quality (no artifacts, high resolution, as good as the stills). You'll only get the additional crop factor if you shoot in Cinema 4k 4096x2160.

http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consume...pact-system-cameras-dslm/dmc-gh4eb.specs.html
 
Last edited:
If the GH4 can generate UHD frames as good as its stills for less than $2k, then it will be one of the greatest price/performance deals of our lifetimes!
 
4K is a 1:1 2.3x crop, but 1080p is 2x crop (uses the full sensor)
That means that the debayer for 4K is relatively easy, and allows you end up with very sharp images, but the debayer for 1080p is a hellish debayer+resample combination that usually ends up with a soft image (my old T2i also was able to shoot 1080p jpeg stills, but quality in photos and video was nothing alike: the video debayer+resample operation cuts a lot of corners). It depends on the implementation, though, so, we'll see.
(we already know that the 1:1 crop for 4K is very sharp, but we don't have 1080p footage AFAIK)
 
Was the Yucatan 4k video shot in 4160x2160 or 3840x2160? (It looks like Youtube is exporting it at 3840x2160.)
 
Samuel H said:
I have absolutely no need for 4K (...)
Click to expand...
Samuel, with the due respect even because you are one of the top contributors over these pages, but this is like to say we will shoot in SD when HD became the standard. A producer shoots with the highest technology his/her money can afford. And 4K is definitely much more future proof than 1080p from now on, if never before.

E. :-)
 
Emanuel said:
Samuel, with the due respect even because you are one of the top contributors over these pages, but this is like to say we will shoot in SD when HD became the standard. A producer shoots with the highest technology his/her money can afford. And 4K is definitely much more future proof than 1080p from now on, if never before.

E. :-)
Click to expand...

I guess some peoples work needs to be more "future proof" than others.

I guess all that standard def stuff I produced, shot & edited from 1980 until about 2006
was not meant to be "future proof". I think higher budget entertainment shows
and perhaps some documentary historical shows could be in the "future proof" category…..
But most training, marketing and corporate type shows are here today and gone tomorrow
down the digital rabbit hole. I wish I had kept some stuff…..I did a training film back in 1988
with Jonathan Goldsmith "The most interesting man in the world"
 
I think some of you are way off if you don't think it's a great advantage to record in the best quality you can for future posterity. I come from an audio background and always tried to record at the highest levels possible within practical boundaries. 24bit/96k isn't necessary for delivery but it's a great thing to have masters in a higher quality format. I don't have a single client that needs 4K delivery but I do hope to deliver the best possible 1080p which I think can be achieved coming from 4K. We'll see how it all shakes out, but to have this level of quality from such an affordable camera is very similar to what happened in the audio world when we got higher bit depth and higher frequencies than 16bit/44.1K.

Let's face it guys this is exciting. We have all of the image controls from the AF100 plus some. 4K and a boatload of options to record with. I can't think of a really bad aspect even the sensor size issue is IMO overblown. Lens companies are developing more and more products for this platform and with what I think will be a huge success for the GH4 we'll see even more lenses made for the m4/3 format. We're seeing faster, sharper and wider glass being made every day. Good Stuff!!!
 
Michael Schrengohst said:
I guess some peoples work needs to be more "future proof" than others.

I guess all that standard def stuff I produced, shot & edited from 1980 until about 2006
was not meant to be "future proof". I think higher budget entertainment shows
and perhaps some documentary historical shows could be in the "future proof" category…..
But most training, marketing and corporate type shows are here today and gone tomorrow
down the digital rabbit hole. I wish I had kept some stuff…..I did a training film back in 1988
with Jonathan Goldsmith "The most interesting man in the world" (...)
Click to expand...
Very true, but when price makes the whole difference... As of now, there are no more excuses. And remember, in a couple of years or so, most part of smartphones for only a few 3-digit bucks will be able to offer 4K recording, TV sets for sale in the same range. If not before... The replacement of 1080p is announced and it is out there, now. The fact is: there's already a few 4K consumer offer in the 3-digit figure ballpark the masses can buy since the late last year.
 
Ok a few practical questions on editing 4K for 1080p delivery in Premiere Pro:

1.) Do I edit in a 4K Timeline and then export to a 1080p final master for my downsampling?
2.) Can I edit in a 1080p timeline with the 4K footage scaled to 50%? Will this give me the same quality?

--> Ideally, it would seem to make sense to edit 4K in a 1080p timeline so that I can re-frame and re-crop any shots to my liking, if necessary
--> One of the nice things to ME about 4K is "free stabilizing" - IE use warp stabilizer on a clip without losing resolution when the necessary crop + zoom is done. However, Premiere CS6 unfortunately states "warp stabilizer must be used on a clip matching sequence settings" or something to that nature, making use of warp stabilizer on 4K footage in a 1080p timeline not possible (or a pain in the butt). Is this updated in CC? Any work-arounds? Any alternative plugins that do a better job than warp stabilizer anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top