Panasonic 4k camera system info & updates

[filmguy123]

Also, it is my observation that the file seems to hold up a lot better to pushing the midtones. Is this because of the higher data rate? I can seem to push the boundaries on CC a lot without it falling apart. On the AF100 footage, cranking midtones much deteriorates fast... on this I could push them a lot further while still looking decent

 

[maarek]

Ok a few practical questions on editing 4K for 1080p delivery in Premiere Pro:
--> 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?

I'd say do everything in a 4k timeline. You can do the zoomings and stabilizing, all there.

If you must work in a 1080p timeline and need stabilizing, then you could try nesting those sequences into a 4k one. That's how I stabilize 720p stuff in a 1080p sequence.

 

[Samuel H]

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.

Well, yes. I understand tha other people have different needs from mine. When I say these things I always try to put them in a way that makes it obvious that it is a subjective thing (I didn't say "nobody needs 4K").
In my case, 90% of the time I just want a pleasing image. The other 10%, I want an image that will really impress viewers TODAY (stuff that is shot to convince people to give $$$ so more stuff can be shot; I don't need these things to bring me 2020 money, I hope to have something more impressive to show by then). So, for ME, future-proof is not really important.

Plus, this is definitely nothing like SD-to-HD: I can clearly see the difference from SD to HD, but I have already checked multiple times that I need to be really close to the screen to see the difference between 1080p and 4K (in my living room, eye-to-screen distance of 330cm, I would need a 100" screen just to take advantage of 1080p over 720p). In fact, I would need to be so close to a huge screen, that things would have to be shot in a different way just to be watchable (wider lenses, imax-style).

Bottom line: I want sharp 1080p with lots of DR and a strong codec; if it comes from a 4K source, so be it, but right now I would still take more DR over better resolution

 

[Pave1]

Bottom line: I want sharp 1080p with lots of DR and a strong codec; if it comes from a 4K source, so be it, but right now I would still take more DR over better resolution

I suspect that manufacturers never will make these nice cams in the low priced professional class of camcorders due to protect the higher models. PMW200 vs. PDW700 is nice example, C100 vs. C300 (FS700) are the other. Poor LCD, EVF, poor codec or ergonomic... When we get a little better cams in HD then there is 4K with the same problems.

Progress in the development of new technologies is more consumed in the new level of sharpness (4K) than in HD with global shutter and the robust DR and codec, these are not in this marketing plan. I will also wait but the others can be the first with this new level of 4K sharpness. (4K will bring changing of all HW, I understand that this fact is more nice for them, the better HD brings only less business with higher models.)

 

[Bassman2003]

It is going to be interesting to watch over the next year or so. In many ways, the manufacturers are already losing their higher priced product lines because people just do not want to invest the large sums of money anymore. Quite frankly budgets are down. At some point they need to make a decision to be in the game and sell lower priced high quality gear or only sell high priced gear to a much smaller and shrinking audience.

This GH4 model along with Sony's little 4k camera are pretty large shots across the bow imho. These two little consumer cameras make the AVCHD codec and of the C100 & FS700 "pro" camera look downright weak. There is no way another pro-centric camera can be released and taken seriously with AVCHD ever again. Which is a very good thing!

 

[DBP]

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?

Yeah, for now you have to nest any clips to their native frame size for warp stabilizer. It is definitely annoying. However, you can just make one 4K sequence with all of your 4K stabilized clips to keep them organized.

One thing I will say about 4K timeline vs 4K on a 1080p timeline...

If you want to render out a 720p file , the render will be MUCH faster from a 4K timeline. If you use the 4K--> 1080p timeline, Premiere basically has to do the scaling twice. First to 1080p, then to 720p. It slows the render down hugely. I learned this the hard way working with a Red project not too long ago. Can't remember if rendering 1080p outputs would cause the same sluggish rendering speed. This was also back on CS6, so Premiere CC might be different.

Anyway, definitely something to test out when the time comes.

 

[filmguy123]

Well, I would never do a 720p render out, only 1080p out. However, my main purpose in shooting 4K for 1080p delivery would be

1.) "Free" Stabilization
2.) "Free" re-frames
3.) Improved sharpness

Correct me if I am wrong: editing in a 4K timeline and doing a 110% or a 150% scale increase, or a warp stabilize, and THEN rendering out said 4K timeline to 1080p would result in lower quality since the original image size had been scaled. HOWEVER.... editing 4K down-scaled to ~50% in a 1080p timeline, and then rescaled/zoomed to 60% or so to reframe, and then rendered out @ 1080p would result in no quality loss, since the original file size was still down-scaled (just less).

I am just trying to clarifying that if I re-frame/re-crop 4K shots, stabilize 4K shots, etc. in a native 4K timeline (vs a 1080p timeline) I will lose more quality than if I do all of this in a 1080p timeline.

Is that correct?

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, I would never do a 720p render out, only 1080p out. However, my main purpose in shooting 4K for 1080p delivery would be

1.) "Free" Stabilization
2.) "Free" re-frames
3.) Improved sharpness

Correct me if I am wrong: editing in a 4K timeline and doing a 110% or a 150% scale increase, or a warp stabilize, and THEN rendering out said 4K timeline to 1080p would result in lower quality since the original image size had been scaled. HOWEVER.... editing 4K down-scaled to ~50% in a 1080p timeline, and then rescaled/zoomed to 60% or so to reframe, and then rendered out @ 1080p would result in no quality loss, since the original file size was still down-scaled (just less).

I am just trying to clarifying that if I re-frame/re-crop 4K shots, stabilize 4K shots, etc. in a native 4K timeline (vs a 1080p timeline) I will lose more quality than if I do all of this in a 1080p timeline.

Is that correct?

In theory, using 4K footage in a 1080p timeline allows you room to reframe, zoom, stabilize, etc. In theory, as long as you don't zoom in beyond a one-for-one pixel equivalency to 1080, you shouldn't see quality loss.

However, in practice, to the extent that's true, it's true only in comparison to 1080 footage, not the rest of the 4K footage. The 4K footage you don't zoom in on will most likely still look better, when rendered out to 1080, than the 4K footage you zoomed in on (depending on how far in you go, of course).

YMMV. Working with actual footage will help you to see what's what as far as all that goes.

 

[joe 1008]

Bottom line: I want sharp 1080p with lots of DR and a strong codec; if it comes from a 4K source, so be it, but right now I would still take more DR over better resolution

I think you're right here, especially having in mind the price of the GH4. This camera is also capable to deliver true 2K resolution (by downscaling true 4K), which by itself is an actual screening standard and a resolution improvement (if only marginally) over HD.

I always called 2K 10bit 4:2:2 footage the actual sweetspot for lowcost productions. It finally might be accomplished with the GH4 (IF downscaling from 4K 8bit to 2K REALLY gives 10 bit - no doubt about the 4:4:4 claims here).

 

[Thomas Smet]

Well, I would never do a 720p render out, only 1080p out. However, my main purpose in shooting 4K for 1080p delivery would be

1.) "Free" Stabilization
2.) "Free" re-frames
3.) Improved sharpness

Correct me if I am wrong: editing in a 4K timeline and doing a 110% or a 150% scale increase, or a warp stabilize, and THEN rendering out said 4K timeline to 1080p would result in lower quality since the original image size had been scaled. HOWEVER.... editing 4K down-scaled to ~50% in a 1080p timeline, and then rescaled/zoomed to 60% or so to reframe, and then rendered out @ 1080p would result in no quality loss, since the original file size was still down-scaled (just less).

I am just trying to clarifying that if I re-frame/re-crop 4K shots, stabilize 4K shots, etc. in a native 4K timeline (vs a 1080p timeline) I will lose more quality than if I do all of this in a 1080p timeline.

Is that correct?

There is this assumption that reframing will not introduce quality loss but that is just not true. Sure you may end up with 1920x1080 unique pixels but when you crop into 4k footage to make 1080p you effectively lose the advantage of super sampled pixels. Part of what makes 4k shooting look so amazing when down converted to HD is the extra amount of pixels that scale together to give richer details then what a native 1080p sensor can typically do.

For example think of the normal 1080p mode on the GH2/GH3 compared to the ETC mode shooting a cropped 1080p area of the sensor. By cropping a 4k video from the GH4 you are effectively doing the same thing in post as the ETC mode built into the GH2/GH3. This means you have less detail and more noise compared to shots that are down scaled or binned in camera to 1080p.

So yes you can crop into a 4k video but it will be no where near as good of quality as a 4k video down scaled to 1080p. There will still be a loss of detail and you will notice a lot more noise at higher ISO levels and will likely not be able to go above ISO400.

 

[filmguy123]

Right, Right - and I'm not talking about insane zooms. I'm talking to the tune of 5-10%. A 50% zoom would be an extreme case in which case a live event shot is rendered useable. Most of the time I'd try and just leave it at 100% for "extra good" quality... though not taking a big hit when re-frames/crops/stabilizes are needed to improve a shot it's nice to have the option!

But my main question is still this: doing this in a 1080p timeline (where I downscale LESS) VS doing this in a 4K timeline (where I *zoom* and then render out to 1080p)... there is a difference in quality between those two... right?

 

[DBP]

Right, Right - and I'm not talking about insane zooms. I'm talking to the tune of 5-10%. A 50% zoom would be an extreme case in which case a live event shot is rendered useable. Most of the time I'd try and just leave it at 100% for "extra good" quality... though not taking a big hit when re-frames/crops/stabilizes are needed to improve a shot it's nice to have the option!

But my main question is still this: doing this in a 1080p timeline (where I downscale LESS) VS doing this in a 4K timeline (where I *zoom* and then render out to 1080p)... there is a difference in quality between those two... right?

That's a good question. I would've initially thought for sure that your option A would yield far better results than option B.

With the project I was referencing in my previous post, I ended up testing your option B. Zooming in on the 4K timeline and then downconverting the final export. While the 4K source had a big difference in quality between the non-zoomed and zoomed clips... once they were converted to 720p, the difference was much more negligible. To the point that I'm not sure if it would look any worse than 4k with varying degrees of zooming on a 1080p timeline.

Maybe someone has done tests, but that's something I'd like to see done conclusively. I might see if I can dig up those old source files and test it out myself.

 

[noirist]

Right, Right - and I'm not talking about insane zooms. I'm talking to the tune of 5-10%. A 50% zoom would be an extreme case in which case a live event shot is rendered useable. Most of the time I'd try and just leave it at 100% for "extra good" quality... though not taking a big hit when re-frames/crops/stabilizes are needed to improve a shot it's nice to have the option!

But my main question is still this: doing this in a 1080p timeline (where I downscale LESS) VS doing this in a 4K timeline (where I *zoom* and then render out to 1080p)... there is a difference in quality between those two... right?

Mathematically, they should result in identical footage. But it all depends on how your editor treats the timeline. If it first renders your 4k footage to 1080p for the 1080p timeline, and then renders the edited 1080p timeline to 1080p output, quality will suffer vs the 4k timeline. The only way to be sure is to compare both approaches in your editor.

 

[David Jimerson]

But my main question is still this: doing this in a 1080p timeline (where I downscale LESS) VS doing this in a 4K timeline (where I *zoom* and then render out to 1080p)... there is a difference in quality between those two... right?

It works out to the same thing.

 

[Samuel H]

Mathematically, they should result in identical footage. But it all depends on how your editor treats the timeline. If it first renders your 4k footage to 1080p for the 1080p timeline, and then renders the edited 1080p timeline to 1080p output, quality will suffer vs the 4k timeline. The only way to be sure is to compare both approaches in your editor.

this


I must admit that reframing flexibility is the one advantage of 4K I could certainly use today
but it does require that you shoot differently, anticipating the crop: with a somewhat wider lens, and wider aperture too if you want to keep your DoF on the cropped image

 

[Thomas Smet]

Right, Right - and I'm not talking about insane zooms. I'm talking to the tune of 5-10%. A 50% zoom would be an extreme case in which case a live event shot is rendered useable. Most of the time I'd try and just leave it at 100% for "extra good" quality... though not taking a big hit when re-frames/crops/stabilizes are needed to improve a shot it's nice to have the option!

But my main question is still this: doing this in a 1080p timeline (where I downscale LESS) VS doing this in a 4K timeline (where I *zoom* and then render out to 1080p)... there is a difference in quality between those two... right?

Quality should be the same regardless. If you downscale before rather than later but do so in the same NLE then there is no quality difference. Where you may notice a difference however is with playback performance in the NLE. A NLE optimized for a 4k timeline may handle editing in 4k better than doing an on the fly down conversion during playback. The act of down scaling typically takes a good chunk of the system resources. Now it may not seem like a lot but it could make a difference depending on what NLE you use and how beefy your computer is.

 

[David Jimerson]

But it all depends on how your editor treats the timeline. If it first renders your 4k footage to 1080p for the 1080p timeline, and then renders the edited 1080p timeline to 1080p output, quality will suffer vs the 4k timeline.

You should disable prerendering (or choose not to do it) while working with the footage.

 

[harddrive]

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)

Really, whether it uses a crop mode of the whole sensor, or what Samuel describes as "a hellish debayer+resample combination" is key to the whole thing.

I am astonished if the only option for 1080 mode is full sensor. Even if Panasonic see full sensor usage as good from a marketing perspective, (no narrowing of lens angles) then it should be offered *AS WELL* as a 1080 crop mode as well. The latter may compromise the wide angle abilities compared to using full sensor - but is almost certain to be much higher quality with simple 2x2 binning of the 3840x2160 area.

If you're getting the GH4 as a 4K camera (even if final output will be downscaled to 1080), then fine. Expect that to give a far better final result than the native 1080 mode of the camera.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Really, whether it uses a crop mode of the whole sensor, or what Samuel describes as "a hellish debayer+resample combination" is key to the whole thing.

I am astonished if the only option for 1080 mode is full sensor. Even if Panasonic see full sensor usage as good from a marketing perspective, (no narrowing of lens angles) then it should be offered *AS WELL* as a 1080 crop mode as well. The latter may compromise the wide angle abilities compared to using full sensor - but is almost certain to be much higher quality with simple 2x2 binning of the 3840x2160 area.

If you're getting the GH4 as a 4K camera (even if final output will be downscaled to 1080), then fine. Expect that to give a far better final result than the native 1080 mode of the camera.

You already have that. It is called ETC. For the GH4 it works because you are taking a 1:1 pixel readout. ETC does exactly the same thing. In fact the 4k shooting on the GH4 is basically only doing ETC without the option of using the full sensor. HD still needs to be binned regardless if it is 2x2 or the full sensor so it is debatable if there would really be a difference in quality. Binning is binning and basically a lower quality way of down converting the sensor. The artifacts binning introduces would still be there anyway so whats the point.

 

[John Caballero]

zzzzzzzz.......