GrahamH
Well-known member
Nicely said.
Panasonic 4K GH4 possibly coming next Spring...
- Thread starter Nicholas Natteau
- Start date
Nicely said.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
But the person buying a $600 DSLR is also probably the person sinking a ton of money into lenses, and is either a serious hobbyist or a professional (if only a semi-pro). Plus, raw stills isn't a apple to apple comparison to AVC-Intra 4K. Far more people would get practical use out of being able to shoot raw stills than using a 10bit 4:2:2 codec. I know far more people who make photography a serious hobby than video. Serious hobbyists can still buy a 5D Mk.III a lot easier than they can buy a C300.
If the image quality and codec are good enough, some people might simply not care about the ergonomics or other features. The Varicam isn't going to be a relatively expensive camera. It's going to be in the same ballpark as the Sony F5 and Scarlett. $2k plus whatever the cost the rumored XLR/SDI box... let's just call it a total of $3,500. If $3,500 get's you 80% of the image quality as a $20,000 camera, and it uses the exact same codecs, is the other 20% really worth that $16,500? For a lot of folks, that answer will be no. Look at what the GH2 did to AF100 sales. Heck, look at the last 15 years of our industry, starting with what miniDV did to Betacam SP? At the very least, I could easily see it negatively impacting rentals.
So how does your home video of your kid's 2nd grade Christmas play benefit from 10bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra at 4K over AVCHD? We live in a world where everyone's home videos are now being shot on iPhones, and the average consumer is perfectly happy with it. How much does it benefit to suddenly give them a professional codec that they have no practical idea of how to take advantage of? And how would your average camera phone even be able to produce an image worthy of a 10bit 4:2:2 4K codec?
I met with a guy this morning to give him advice on shooting some videos for his massage therapy practice. He plans on shooting it partly with a t2i because it looks good enough. I started getting into some technical stuff and his eyes started to glaze over. How does he benefit a high end pro codec? He just wants something that looks "good enough".
It's not that only pros "should" have high-end codecs, but that they're useless to 99% of non-pros.
Simon Shasha
Well-known member
I wouldn't necessarily say it's "for free". And Blackmagic is doing 10bit 4:2:2 220Mbit; albeit at $4000 (4K), $1995 (1080P), and $999 (1080P) respectively.
GrahamH
Well-known member
Useless to Iphone-wranglers and (perhaps) your dazed T3i dude. But your 99% is waaaay off the mark when applied to the folk willing to spend $2K on a GHK4, and probably at least the same again on lenses and other rig.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
That sounds REALLY nice. Should DR nuts get excited too, or just resolution nuts?
The blackmagics have already been months at the top of the best-selling pro-video-camera list over at BH. I want a niche like that one!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Pro-Camcorders-Cameras/ci/16763/N/4256818817
joe 1008
Veteran
I think that is the essence of how things are going to evolve midterm. High compression codecs were developed due to limited storage and it is quite amazing how good those extremely high comressing codecs work, despite all the drawbacks they have. If you watch the market you can see that the codecs of the middle camera segment actually are evolving fast. The "problem" is that the well informed DVXuser is always a couple of years ahead and that he always wants his knowledge to become a real product NOW.
Take as reference the aguably best 8 bit camera, the C300. Now there's the RX10 that matches it with internal 4k downsampling and clean 422 8bit out at 1/10th of the price. Of course the RX10 is an amateur hybrid device with a lot of flaws - but is the C300 10 times better? 4K will inevitably give us ultra sharp, artefact free 2K 444 footage. Why should things stop @ 8 bit? Again, it's mostly impatience in front of a gigantic tecnological evolution happening virtally in front of our own eyes. Which doesn't mean such discussions are useless. In fact they help a lot to make up one's mind.
joe1946
Veteran
http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-picture...e-new-g4k-and-new-info-about-the-video-specs/The image on top shows Kurt Russel with the new Panasonic G4K camera! I guess that’s a set of a commercial for the new camera
I also got some more info about the video specs of the camera:
1) It will have a quad core processor.
2) Sensor reading is 50% faster then GH3 so much less rolling shutter.
3) maximum bitrate of 200Mbps ALI and 100Mbps IPB
4) 4K, you will have MOV + MP4 only.
5) In 1080p you will also have AVCHD.
6) The camera will have focus peaking and the user will be able to change the color. Focus Peaking will also work from smartphone through wifi.
7) Focusing will be faster and have more AF points.
An anonymous and nicesource sent me the following info too: I am not 100% sure about this, but I was told the G4K will have an optional attachment and as I was told it will have XLR as well as dual 3G SDI output. Panasonic wants to position this to serious film makers.
In a time when a large group of semi to pro have gotten used to rigs and accessories to get decent ergomics, and have alot of that stuff already, the company who can offer the best image quality and price will eat up that market IMO. And that user group is important because in 5 years many of them will be buying more expensive stuff. Blackmagic have shown that you can encode prores in a pocket camera to an SD-card without a huge pricetag. If panasonic can offer more than "just" 4K, it will be an really exciting camera for the semi-pro crowd, which would indeed benefit from 4:2:2, 10bit and higher frame-rates. A large user-group also tend to develop great resources to make such camera even more useful. And with the color-flexibility it will be used as B- and crashcams on larger sets, especially with high framerates. Probably this is also the market where the biggest money is except for phone-cameras and such. And there is plenty of room for improvements in the higher-end cameras, such as great ergonimics, great EVFs, built in ND, amazing DR, over 200fps, and the fact that you have the most expensive camera in the room.
Also, in this price-range I think people don't buy "the right tool for the job" so much as they buy "the best tool for many jobs", affording only one camera at a time, buying only once every 2 years maybe. At the same time these cameras are cheap enough to be bought as an "extra cam" for many others, generating $$$
Also, in this price-range I think people don't buy "the right tool for the job" so much as they buy "the best tool for many jobs", affording only one camera at a time, buying only once every 2 years maybe. At the same time these cameras are cheap enough to be bought as an "extra cam" for many others, generating $$$
Mike Harvey
Veteran
But how many non-pros, non-semi-pros, non-really serious hobbyists are going to drop $2k, plus however much on lenses, plus however much on the rumored mythical add on XLR box if it exists, plus however much on a rig, on a video camera just so they can get their kids opening presents on Christmas morning in 10bit 4:2:2 4k? The initial comment was why should only the "pros" get the good codecs? Why doesn't home movies deserve the same quality? And my question is what practical benefit does a non-pro (or non-semi-pro, or non-really serious hobbyist) get from them? Good AVCHD looks fantastic when shot right. But if someone can't shoot right, what does 10bit 4:2:2 benefit them? And is that person really going to drop upwards $4k-$5k on a camera set up when their iPhone is "good enough"?
GrahamH
Well-known member
@Mike Harvey: OK, I will admit I'm shifting the argument a bit. I'm saying that many folk buying a video-capable camera costing more than, say, $1000, will be interested in having a better codec than 8-bit AVCHD.
I don't actually know who buys cameras in the $1000-$2500 range, and I don't know what they film with them .... but my guess is that many are non-pros, and that some (many?) shoot significant amounts of video on those cameras for their personal use.
I don't actually know who buys cameras in the $1000-$2500 range, and I don't know what they film with them .... but my guess is that many are non-pros, and that some (many?) shoot significant amounts of video on those cameras for their personal use.
These are the folks that are going to buy Canon 6Ds and Nikon 610s because of the status of the brand-name, and won't know d*ck about 10-bit 4:2:2.
Yes, and let's not forget that pretty well all the video that gets delivered to the home at the moment is likely to be 8 bit, 4:2:0, delivered via either Blu-Ray or broadcast TV. OK, sometimes too much compression leads to problems with the latter, but if we stick to Blu-ray then can anybody seriously say they've been watching a film and been aware of problems due to bitdepth or colour space? Seriously?
I'm not denying that such as 10 bit may be desirable in professional production - assuming the camera front end is worth it - to give flexibility in grading, keying etc, but as Mike says "if someone can't shoot right, what does 10bit 4:2:2 benefit them?"
The C300 is "only" 8 bit, but is routinely now being used for all sorts of serious work with little complaint, including some which requires grading. That it holds up is largely due to a good basic image off the sensor. Given a choice between that with an 8 bit codec, and a compromised initial image with the best codec possible, I know which I'd choose.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
8-bit 420 is perfectly fine for final images. I only need 422 if a shot will have VFX or chroma work, and that need is much lower with 4K images (4K 420 has the same color resolution as 1080p 444). And I only need 10-bit if the image has more than 9 stops of usable DR (current Canons DSLRs have 5, up to 9 in RAW video, the C100 is slightly above that and works great with its strong 8-bit codec; keyword here is *strong*).
Mike Harvey
Veteran
And I'll happily concede that anyone (and I've met a few) who's a non-pro wanting to drop that much money will probably have some idea of what they're doing... but they're the folks going out and making short films purely out of the love of it knowing they probably won't ever make a dime doing this
. That's the 1% who will benefit.Dafilman21
Carbonite Member
So by the latest post on 43rumors the new cam is not going to shoot AVC-Intra. At this point Friday just needs to get here so then we can argue about image quality.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I'm hoping at least some flavor AVC-LongG... but yeah, I'm more concerned about the other features and the capabilities of the sensor. If the sensor produces a good image, I can stomach buying an external recorder for the greenscreen stuff to get 4:2:2, and "settle" for AVCHD for the rest.
Dafilman21
Carbonite Member
Exactly I also shoot with the blackmagics so I really want higher framerates wrapped in a decent codec
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Anybody want to buy a GH3...
Seriously 100mbps IPB sounds much better. Hopefully the 200mbps Intra mode isn't as badly implemented as the 72mbps mode on the GH3. Even excluding the bitrate part of the equation there is something just not right about the 72mbps mode.
50% faster sensor so less rolling shutter and dual 3G SDI output?
yes. the gh4 is looking more and more promising.
yes. the gh4 is looking more and more promising.
i've never used a gh system before. what exactly is avc-intra?
