Panasonic 4K Consumer Camera

For now 4K is great for reframing and maybe image stabilization but if consumers have 4K monitors in their homes and corporations have them in the board room then we need to shoot 4K and deliver it in 4K. I think it will take a couple years for this to happen but it will eventually. New media types will have to be developed for delivery and new codecs need to get the compression down so the 4K footage can stream or at least fit on the media. H.265 is being developed now to do just that. I was reading an article on Blu-Ray and how they are working on a 4K solution with optical disks. Interesting stuff.

I don't see local broadcasters moving to 4K over cable anytime soon. Local news will be in HD for a long time. To replace HD cameras and routers etc. would be a huge financial commitment that probably wouldn't pay off.
 
If you use your waveform monitor on your AF-100 your footage will be awesome.

If you don't blowout over 100 IRE your footage will be awesome.

If you want to control your camera. Learn how to break it and your footage will be awesome.

If your ever in San Diego and you buy me a drink you will be awesome!
 
At the rate at which things are advancing, streaming 4K will be here sooner than you think. The only limitation is bandwidth and new codecs are being developed including REDs own .RED format which will be 2.5mb/second. I've been shooting 4K for a year now on mostly corporate stuff. Of course I've been delivering 1080, but it's been so refreshing to know I have some wiggle room to smooth out those steadicam shots and reframe an interview to get closeups and mediums at one go. David Fincher shoots a 5K with 4K framing for the same reasons. I agree that it's a luxury at the moment for most, but exciting to be on the cusp too.
 
Last edited:
4K is great for image stabilization. I shoot run and gun on a DVtec MultiRig pro for live event/documentary. The footage is mostly stable... ish. But I smoothcam or warp stabilize everything. 4K would be awesome for that to maximize quality. It would make for sharper, higher res final delivery for sure. And shooting in this style is very fast and allows a lot of creative freedom, while giving super smooth/steady results.
 
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...

anyone?
 
The running gag when I was at UCLA was - Hollywood cinema verite, put the Mitchell on a dolly and shake the room...

Two of my favorite documentaries are DON'T LOOK BACK and UNZIPPED - They're grubby, choppy - and exciting. Imagine if they had been shot in 4K and had the life massaged out of them by an overzealous editor...

I'm not suggesting that 4k, or S35 sensors, are bad, they're just not needed everywhere in every camera. There's a place for a simple, light-weight swift camera like the AF100. It just needs to be updated, and renamed if necessary - but don't throw the baby out...
 
Last edited:
Mac said:
To be honest, much of the negativily that surrounds the AF100 is entirely our fault.
Click to expand...
I disagree -- I think Panasonic is entirely to blame. Look at how they have performed in the large sensor video camera market versus their competitors since the AF100 was released in 2010. In the past two years Canon has released three dedicated large sensor movie cameras (C300, C100, C500), each with outstanding image quality and significantly higher resolution than the AF100. Over the same time period Sony released even more large sensor video cameras, including the F100, FS700, F3, F5, F55 plus the VG20, VG30, and VG900. At this point every major manufacturer of large sensor video cameras has released (or at least announced) a camera that can shoot 4k, a camera that can shoot RAW, and a camera that can deliver the full 1920x1080 resoluion. EXCEPT PANASONIC. Even the independents have announced multiple inexpensive large sensor cameras that can shoot RAW, including the BMCC, Digital Bolex, Kineraw, Kineraw mini. Forget whether they're shipping or not or whether they're any good - Panasonic hasn't even ANNOUNCED a large sensor camera that can shoot 4k or RAW or can provide the full 1920x1080 measured resolution. In this time of incredible change, all Panasonic could do was (1) announce a tiny tweak to a three year old camera that can only deliver 700x680 4:2:0 and (2) put an unlabeled mockup of a 4k camera in a glass booth at a trade show. Panasonic is making themselves look bad.
 
Last edited:
first, we get full HD consumer camera able to compress 1920x1080 in a 15mb/s stram, so even if 4K is 4 time the bandwidth, it still only 60Mb/s.
That is pretty easy to store.
and, if you played with some r3d 4k footage found on the web, you would immediately see the advantage to be able to zoom in picture and still keep a workable resolution. I think 4K for display is useless, at 5 feet, you would unable to make the difference with a good full hd picture.
but 4k is great because you can make easy 3D with 2full hd picture side to side, or get incredible stabilizer (cropping picture) , or get plenoptic cameras or.....
sky is the limit....
 
nosys70 said:
and, if you played with some r3d 4k footage found on the web, you would immediately see the advantage to be able to zoom in picture and still keep a workable resolution.
Click to expand...


So you mean 4K's advantage is to be able to save directors and DPs from their own incompetence from getting the shot right where it should have been gotten right, the set?
 
yep, if some people can save the day just by using 4k instead 2k, it is ok for me.
i just mean that 4k as display format is useless unless you look at your screen with a magnifier.
but the technolgy behind 4k is very uselfull because it will allow better equipement (more bandwith everywhere even if not used).
It is not a secret that people shooting big movies are already shooting large and cutting in the final frame in post, why should it be a shame.
It is a good way to track microphones, special effect tracking marks, limit of sets if you can actually see them instead guessing if they will sudenly pop in you fov.
 
Adamsenoj said:
So you mean 4K's advantage is to be able to save directors and DPs from their own incompetence from getting the shot right where it should have been gotten right, the set?
Click to expand...

People can change their mind on what "right" is. Maybe in the editing room, they decide that they prefer the shot to be tighter and retrospect, wish they shot it that way. Even if on set they were sure they wanted what they got. It happens, and it's nice to have the freedom to change things around.
 
Adamsenoj said:
So you mean 4K's advantage is to be able to save directors and DPs from their own incompetence from getting the shot right where it should have been gotten right, the set?
Click to expand...

This is a pretty arrogant response, if not downright insulting towards those of us who have worked on, or been involved in producing feature films. This is especially true on low budget indie films which is at the heart of what DVXuser is for and the purpose it serves. On the flip side even on high budget productions it is often planned for and is not only used to correct mistakes on set.

I don't wish to get into the 4k vs 2k debate for cinematic film production purposes, but it's pretty obvious anynone who agrees to that statement has never worked on a feature film or edited one.
 
starcentral said:
This is a pretty arrogant response, if not downright insulting towards those of us who have worked on, or been involved in producing feature films. This is especially true on low budget indie films which is at the heart of what DVXuser is for and the purpose it serves. On the flip side even on high budget productions it is often planned for and is not only used to correct mistakes on set.

I don't wish to get into the 4k vs 2k debate for cinematic film production purposes, but it's pretty obvious anynone who agrees to that statement has never worked on a feature film or edited one.
Click to expand...

I work extensively in narrative. I just hate the whole fix it in post attitude that most people seem to adopt these days. It's much easier than actually having a vision and planning for it and any hack can carry it that way. If you want to call it arrogance then be it. It's your right. But don't come telling me I can only say that if I have never shot or edited a feature film before, because this is what I do.
 
You can hate anything you like and that is not a problem with any of us, but so far you've implied that anyone using 4k as a post-production enhancement tool has adapted a "fix it in post" attitude, hasn't had vision or planned for it, and is incompetent. :crybaby:

I agree with you about the "fixing it in post" attitude, but sometimes it is just far more practical, cheaper, time-efficient, etc.. to do so then worry about it on-set.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Sometimes as in once in a very long while for some very unforeseen situation or as in always counting on it?
Click to expand...

If it is planned for (as I alluded to in prior posts) and it comes down to being more "practical, cheaper, time efficient" then does it really matter if it is "sometimes" or "always counted on"?

For those really doubting the use of 4k/5k and framing in the post-production process I can only suggest you look into the works of David Fincher who worked on The Amazing Spiderman (3D), The Social Network, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to name just a few. Perhaps he too is incompetent as you say.
 
4K without at least 10bit 422 or 444 codec is simply pointless. If you increase the detal to that degree, you'll have to have signal to actually back it up. RED doesn't look this good, just because it's just 4K. Consumer JVC 4K camera actually looks far worse then say F3. Resolution isn't everything- BMDCC footage can back up this statement. Particularly if you take into a consideration that 99.9% will never make to to a big screen with 4K projector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top