Panasonic 4K Consumer Camera

Of the nine films nominated for Best Picture Oscars this year, six shot (primarily) on film and three on digital. Of the five Best Cinematography nominations this year, three were shot on film and two on digital. (I say "primarily" because Argo used both film and digital to differentiate the scenes set in Istanbul (digital) from from those set in in Iran, Washington DC, and Hollywood (various film stocks).

What is noteworthy for this discussion is that, with one minor exception, all the above mentioned digitally-acquired films were shot on Arri Alexa cameras. The one exception is that "Skyfall" (shot primarily on several different versions of Arri Alexas), also used a Red Epic for some additional 2nd unit action shots. They probably wanted the higher res for compositing reasons.

If these Academy Award nominated block-busters (a billion dollar+ box office in the case of "Skyfall") can shoot on less than 4K, I think that maybe super-hi-res is being over-proselytized here.
 
Dynamic Range, Resolution, color, etc... Improvements are always welcome. Shoot with the best you can get your hands on. Sure, there are some jobs I couldn't care less about but there are plenty I worked on back on SD that make me cringe having to put those on my reel. Shooting and editing in 4K these days is no big deal. Let look at the bigger picture. :laugh:
 
Fix it in post in great, if you are the DP and the editor (and not dumping the work on someone else). Frankly I don't care if someone thinks they are "better" because they did it "right" in camera. The only "right" way is what looks awesome at the end of the day, and works, in the easiest/cheapest/fastest way possible.

Maybe it's cause I'm young, but I shoot stuff "wrong" all the time knowing I can fix it in post in less time then it would take me to do it "right" on set. Mix color temperatures on an interview shot? Sure, I can just mask and re-white balance the part that's wrong in 60 seconds. Over expose the sky on a tripod shot, then shoot a sky "plate" and composite it in with a feathered mask to double my dynamic range? Yup, sure beats bringing out a ton of lights to brighten my subject and expose "correctly"

Shoot handheld in a run'n gun documentary setting, stabilize the shot in post? Zoom/get the framing just right if there's resolution to spare? Of course. Especially for live events or weddings where you can't set things up just perfect. Or even in narrative, you plan something out and then when cutting you realize the cut would look better framed different or what not?

Sorry, if someone has a problem with that they're self righteous. I'm in it for the creative process, and for me that happens from start to end. That includes post. And I'm into practicality. If I can achieve the same result cheaper and easier by fixing in post that I am going to fix in post.

I think someone is just sore that their skill on set is no longer as irreplaceable as it once was thanks to computers. Which I get, sure. But don't tell us we're incompetent because we want 4k cameras to have even more flexibility in post. Adapt. It's about the creative process and the end result, not relying on computers minimally. That is a personal preference, not a "higher" way.
 
filmguy123 said:
Can you/could you retain a M43 lens mount design with an s35 sensor? Or would it require a change in mounts to utilize s35 sensor?

Because if you had an S35 sensor with M43 mount, it would crop a little bit of the S35 sensor... yes? But wouldn't it still give the benefits of the larger sensor (better low light) and even with the crop, reduce the crop factor greatly from the AF100? If this was the case, would 4K still be possible or would it be closer to 3K? Not that it matters much to me, I don't need 4K resolution...

Perhaps the AF100 could be an S35 internal sensor but with a slight bit of a crop factor, retain M43 mount?
Click to expand...

by the way, can someone answer this?
 
Technically 4K is just a resolution and is not attached to any sensor size. So in theory a M43 size sensor can indeed be 4K.
 
filmguy123 said:
Fix it in post in great, if you are the DP and the editor (and not dumping the work on someone else). Frankly I don't care if someone thinks they are "better" because they did it "right" in camera. The only "right" way is what looks awesome at the end of the day, and works, in the easiest/cheapest/fastest way possible.

Maybe it's cause I'm young, but I shoot stuff "wrong" all the time knowing I can fix it in post in less time then it would take me to do it "right" on set. Mix color temperatures on an interview shot? Sure, I can just mask and re-white balance the part that's wrong in 60 seconds. Over expose the sky on a tripod shot, then shoot a sky "plate" and composite it in with a feathered mask to double my dynamic range? Yup, sure beats bringing out a ton of lights to brighten my subject and expose "correctly"

Shoot handheld in a run'n gun documentary setting, stabilize the shot in post? Zoom/get the framing just right if there's resolution to spare? Of course. Especially for live events or weddings where you can't set things up just perfect. Or even in narrative, you plan something out and then when cutting you realize the cut would look better framed different or what not?

Sorry, if someone has a problem with that they're self righteous. I'm in it for the creative process, and for me that happens from start to end. That includes post. And I'm into practicality. If I can achieve the same result cheaper and easier by fixing in post that I am going to fix in post.

I think someone is just sore that their skill on set is no longer as irreplaceable as it once was thanks to computers. Which I get, sure. But don't tell us we're incompetent because we want 4k cameras to have even more flexibility in post. Adapt. It's about the creative process and the end result, not relying on computers minimally. That is a personal preference, not a "higher" way.
Click to expand...

+1
 
well I wasn't so much asking if you needed an s35 sensor to do 4K.

I was more curious if you could do an s35 sensor with a m43 mount. I know you wouldn't be able to see the full s35 sensor due to smaller glass/mount size... BUT... was wondering if regardless, you could still get most of the benefits of s35 (yeah you'd still have crop factor using m43, but perhaps LESS of a crop factor than currently? And you'd get the improved lowlight/shallower DoF... yes?)

Basically wondering the practicality/possibility of an AF100 m43 mount successor having a larger (aprox s35 size) sensor for the improved imaging, along with the expected improved DR/resolution/highlight handling/etc.
 
I'm not saying it can't be done, but looking at my AF100 next to me, I have a hard time seeing them squeeze an S35 size chip in there and still retaining the electronic connection points. m4/3 looks pretty squeezed in there as it is.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I'm not saying it can't be done, but looking at my AF100 next to me, I have a hard time seeing them squeeze an S35 size chip in there and still retaining the electronic connection points. m4/3 looks pretty squeezed in there as it is.
Click to expand...

Would it be possible with a slightly bigger or redesigned body, though? I guess it's a technical question that maybe Barry could shed light on... an oversized sensor for an MFT mount, cropped down. Retaining apron same FoV but the purpose being solely to improve lowlight and allow shallower DoF?
 
That's just not gonna work. Making a bigger sensor just means that the lens wouldn't be showing image onto that larger portion of the sensor. There would be no low light gains or FOV gains.

If you are using an S35 sensor, you'd have to use lenses that cover S35; most if not all m43 lenses don't. And if the lenses won't cover, what's the point of having a mount to supply those lenses?
 
Is there another mount that is as compatible with a large number of lenses as the MFT mount? Say an S35 sensor with a mount that will take a large range of lenses like the MFT does?

And is it possible to improve the lowlight and create shallower DoF without increasing sensor size, in other ways and tricks of engineering? Like the metabones speed booster, but something built into camera or actually sensor engineering?
 
When using a SpeedBooster, you'll be able to attach a wide variety of lenses to the existing m43 mount, plus gain the FOV and low light benefits of a larger sensor, so that seems like the most direct route to immediately get what you want without having to wait for the camera manufacturers to come up with something new.

In 35mm or S35 size, the Sony E-mount or Canon EF-M should both prove to be about as adaptable as m43 is, but are designed to accomodate larger sensors; EF-M can handle a 35mm-sized APS-C, and E-mount can handle the S35 sensor of the FS100, for example.

As for engineering, the backlit CMOS technology can work wonders, but so far it's only available on smaller sensors. Undoubtedly engineering can make a big difference, the BMC has a smaller-than-m43 sensor yet delivers 13 stops of dynamic range. It's really surprising how much better the images from an AC130 look as compared to an HPX170, both from 1/3" chips, so ... never count out what the technowizards can do!
 
Low light performance will get better over time regardless of sensor size. More DOF has it's own problems and I personally feel the M43 sized sensor is just right. Work with what you got and don't sweat S35 stuff.
 
filmguy123 said:
Is there another mount that is as compatible with a large number of lenses as the MFT mount? Say an S35 sensor with a mount that will take a large range of lenses like the MFT does?

And is it possible to improve the lowlight and create shallower DoF without increasing sensor size, in other ways and tricks of engineering? Like the metabones speed booster, but something built into camera or actually sensor engineering?
Click to expand...

Why are you so worried about getting a S35 sensor and even willing to go through some ridiculous lengths to have it? Try to sort through the hype and quit drinking the cool-aid! ;)
From all the problems the AF100 has, sensor size is like at the very, very bottom of my list, right bellow the color of the inside battery label.

All jokes apart, the M4/3 sensor is more than plenty. It's basically 35mm academy and the DOF difference between 35mm movie FOV and M4/3 can be easily compensated with a fast lens.
The size of the M4/3 sensor is not the reason the AF100 is not so good in low light. The reason is because it doesn't have a dedicated video sensor (it's most likely a re-appropriated stills sensor) and uses a sensor with 12 megapixel to get a 1080p image. If it had the same pixel count for example as a F3, which is about 3.5MP and for that reason has much larger photo sites, it would be very good in low light. The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the way the AF100 performs.
 
with the speed booster, thats the only way you could get s35 FOV (or close to it) with the m43 mount.
only thing panasonic could do to help there is make an oversized 4/3 sensor like the gh2.

now what panasonic really needs to do on image quality is to up the ante.
fs700 features + high DR + c300 resolution + better color on overexposure. a LOG mode would be sweet.

a BMC with an AF100 body features would be epic.
 
groveChuck said:
My big 4K question (as opposed to my million dollar question) is: to what purpose?

For cropping/reframing in post?

As acquisition, not delivery?

If delivery, of what product (other than movies, though aren't they typically 2K?), and how?

Certainly not for broadcast for the foreseeable future, and I'm not sure corporate would move on it this early, other than large displays, perhaps?

Just curious...
Click to expand...

Sensor size and lines-of-resolution are somewhat independent. Panasonic could come out with an MFT sized sensor
with 4k resolution.

To me, I wonder who that product would be aimed at. If they choose to stay in the AF100 space, a 2K or 3K sensor with
increased latitude and a 4:2:2 pixel group encoding would be a big step up from the AF100.

But, it really depends on what market Panasonic wishes to address.

Personally, I would like to see them move into the 4K / S35 sized sensor space. From CES, I think
4K is gonna take. May take a year or two .. but the acquisition pipeline needs to get primed first.

The choice of S35 format is more driven from "mass-of-glass" .. there is way more choice for this format
including cinematic lenses. MFT lenses still are limited.

And yes, there are adapters .. but they all have their issues.

jeff
 
Barry_Green said:
That's just not gonna work. Making a bigger sensor just means that the lens wouldn't be showing image onto that larger portion of the sensor. There would be no low light gains or FOV gains.

If you are using an S35 sensor, you'd have to use lenses that cover S35; most if not all m43 lenses don't. And if the lenses won't cover, what's the point of having a mount to supply those lenses?
Click to expand...

Hence the calls for the BMD Micro-Four-Thirds mount ...
 
jmarkham said:
Sensor size and lines-of-resolution are somewhat independent. Panasonic could come out with an MFT sized sensor
with 4k resolution.

To me, I wonder who that product would be aimed at. If they choose to stay in the AF100 space, a 2K or 3K sensor with
increased latitude and a 4:2:2 pixel group encoding would be a big step up from the AF100.

But, it really depends on what market Panasonic wishes to address.

Personally, I would like to see them move into the 4K / S35 sized sensor space. From CES, I think
4K is gonna take. May take a year or two .. but the acquisition pipeline needs to get primed first.

The choice of S35 format is more driven from "mass-of-glass" .. there is way more choice for this format
including cinematic lenses. MFT lenses still are limited.

And yes, there are adapters .. but they all have their issues.

jeff
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a troll but the sensor is 4890x3270 so we need an OLP and a codec to support 4k, thats all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top