Panasonic 4K GH4 possibly coming next Spring...

Honestly I hope the rumor of 100mbps Intra is wrong. That is not high enough for 4:2:2 4k. Remember 72mbps wasn't enough for 1080p 30p at 4:2:0. 100mbps is not much higher but there is a heck of a lot more data there. I am hoping for 200mbps Intra or 100mbps IPB.
 
In April 2007, Panasonic announced its AVC Intra codec, which comes in two speeds, 50 megabits per second and 100 megabits. Both are intraframe-only, both 10 bit. But the 50 is 4:2:0 and the 100, 4:2:2. So, if the rumor is true and the speed is 100 mbps, it is possible that Panasonic has simply given the GH4 the ability to record AVC Intra 100. Of course it is also possible that Panasonic went through all the hoops to come up with another codec that is 100 mbps but only 8 bit, to keep AVC Intra 100, now 7 years old, to higher cameras.

As for whether P2 cards are required, 100 megabits per second is 12.5 megabytes per second, which, face-palmingly, is still out of the reach of many of today's SD cards, at least if you go by their lawyer-stamped minimum sustained write speeds. However:


- At CES Panasonic showed SDXC cards with minimum sustained write speeds of 30 megabytes per second (180 megabits per second).
- Today Kingston announced the same thing


AVC Intra is a codec for 1080p, not 4K, so I still don't know what they would do for 4K. However, the rumor says the GH4 will do 4K and 1080p, so it's possible that for the 1080p mode it could use AVC Intra 100.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
AVC Intra is a codec for 1080p, not 4K, so I still don't know what they would do for 4K. However, the rumor says the GH4 will do 4K and 1080p, so it's possible that for the 1080p mode it could use AVC Intra 100.
Click to expand...

It would make sense for them to use a codec they already have and is already supported in the industry.

I found this on that same wikipedia page

More over, the AVC-Intra Class 50/100 is now extended to Class 200 and Class 4:4:4. The Class 200 mode extends the bitrate to 226 Mbit / sec for 1080/23,97p, while the Class 4:4:4 extends the possible resolution from 720p to 4K with pixel depths at 10 and 12 bits.

The bitrate settings for Class 4:4:4 varies between 200 and 440 Mbit / sec depending on the resolution, frame rate and bit depth.
Click to expand...

While I highly doubt they would implement a 4:4:4 recording mode into the GH4K, perhaps 4K at 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 which might explain the earlier rumor of a 200Mbps rate.
 
Yeah, what combatentropy said. Don't forget that the new UHS Class 3 (U3) of the SD card standard has been recently introduced, with 30MB/sec (MegaBYTES/second) write speeds, which is specifically targeted to recording 4k video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Speeds

A few different manufacturers, including Pananonic, have announced or shown new SD cards using the new standard.
 
I REALLY REALLY hope the 120fps at 1080 is for real. That alone will make this camera a must for me, the 4K will just be an added bonus.
 
combatentropy said:
In April 2007, Panasonic announced its AVC Intra codec, which comes in two speeds, 50 megabits per second and 100 megabits. Both are intraframe-only, both 10 bit. But the 50 is 4:2:0 and the 100, 4:2:2. So, if the rumor is true and the speed is 100 mbps, it is possible that Panasonic has simply given the GH4 the ability to record AVC Intra 100. Of course it is also possible that Panasonic went through all the hoops to come up with another codec that is 100 mbps but only 8 bit, to keep AVC Intra 100, now 7 years old, to higher cameras.
Click to expand...

Panasonic has recently updated the AVC-Intra family of codecs to included the long-GOP AVC-LongG. It will do 1080p 4:2:2 10bit at 50-ish megabits/second. Here's their webpage with all the info.

panasonic.com/business-solutions/avc-ultra.asp

[EDIT] For whatever reason, I couldn't embed the link. Just copy and paste.
 
Last edited:
I also noticed that 4/3 Rumors wasn't calling it the "GH4K" or "GH 4K"... just "G4K".

In any event, Friday will be interesting. If half these rumors are sort of true, I hope they have a working model at NAB. Even if it isn't out of the "Pro" division, a ton of pros will want to look at it.
 
More details on the microP2 cards: 64GB MICROP2 CARD

- The microP2 card’s double-layered UHS-II interface facilitates transfer speeds of 2.0 Gpbs (1.7 times faster than standard P2 media, and 12x faster than ordinary SD media)

- Reliability is defined by Proof7 strength (resistance to water/dust, static electricity, bending and twisting, magnet, X-ray, wide temperature range, and safety built-in-fuse )

- A flash memory error correction system, equivalent to a RAID system, to greatly strengthen data retention reliability

- A Lifetime Counter that gives a notification when the card approaches the end of its life cycle, which is defined as reusable for up to five years when recorded on once daily, at full capacity

- A Content Protection System (CPS) that password-protects the card
 
roxics said:
While I highly doubt they would implement a 4:4:4 recording mode into the GH4K, perhaps 4K at 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 which might explain the earlier rumor of a 200Mbps rate.
Click to expand...
If memory serves, the 4K AVC-Ultra extension to AVC-Intra is for 12-bit 4:4:4 4K2K (i.e., 4,096 x 2,160) -- not UHD -- with a data rate of 400 Mbps. Panny's going to have to use another codec for UHD video on the GH4, and most likely it will be some 8-bit 4:2:0 crapola.
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time expecting anything other than 4:2:0 4K on a $2,000 USD camera. Frankly, 10bit 4:2:2 1080p on a $2k camera that doesn't require an significant investment in SSD's seems like expecting a lot. Besides, 4k 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 seems like it could hurt Varicam sales. My guess is if they do offer that rumored XLR/SDI box, that will be the only way to get 4K (via external recorder).
 
As long as it makes financial sense. If you really *need* 10bit 4:2:2 or better... especially at 4k resolution... why are you looking at a $2,000 camera? Most people who are actually going to be able to take advantage of that are going to be willing to pay more for it. There really is no finacial incentive for any of the camera manufactures to offer 10bit 4:2:2 in a camera this cheap. Yes, BlackMagic does it, but the cost is a hard to use (according to everything I've read) camera that fills a small, niche market.

I'm getting now to the point where I could actually make use of 4:2:2 (even at 8bit) because I'm shooting more and more greenscreen for a particular producer on his portable greenscreen where lighting is often less than ideal and is hard to control (and many subjects have frizzy blond or grey hair). But that's it. Other than that, I'm less concerned about the 8bit 4:2:0 of my AF100 than I am of it's DR. While it would be really *nice* to have 10bit 4:2:2, I don't generally *need* it. If I did, I would be shooting on a more expensive camera and charging appropriately.

I remember when the HPX170 and HMC150 first came out, and folk were comparing footage from the two (and finding that there is generally not much practical difference). I would absolutely love for someone to do a similar thing with the AC130/160 and the HPX250.
 
Mike Harvey said:
As long as it makes financial sense. If you really *need* 10bit 4:2:2 or better... especially at 4k resolution... why are you looking at a $2,000 camera?
Click to expand...
And unfortunately, a lot of the cries for such as 10 bit and 4:2:2 are coming just because they are terms picked up as a "good thing" without knowing why. Maybe - and in high end cameras that may certainly be true. You certainly need 10 bit if you have a very noise free front end.

But unless the quality of the image from the chip is beyond a certain standard, whether recording is in 8 or 10 bit, or whatever the colour space, is totally irrelevant. There's no point in making parts of a chain very strong if you have one weak link. Same principle here. No point building in a superb codec, if the front end can't do it justice. It can actually have a negative effect - increase the datarate for no discernible benefit.

And manufacturers are only too aware of this. Not having certain features is not always a case of them "stunting" a product, it can often be a case of balancing design aspects - making all the chain links a similar strength if you like.
 
Mike Harvey said:
As long as it makes financial sense. If you really *need* 10bit 4:2:2 or better... especially at 4k resolution... why are you looking at a $2,000 camera? Most people who are actually going to be able to take advantage of that are going to be willing to pay more for it. There really is no finacial incentive for any of the camera manufactures to offer 10bit 4:2:2 in a camera this cheap. Yes, BlackMagic does it, but the cost is a hard to use (according to everything I've read) camera that fills a small, niche market.

I'm getting now to the point where I could actually make use of 4:2:2 (even at 8bit) because I'm shooting more and more greenscreen for a particular producer on his portable greenscreen where lighting is often less than ideal and is hard to control (and many subjects have frizzy blond or grey hair). But that's it. Other than that, I'm less concerned about the 8bit 4:2:0 of my AF100 than I am of it's DR. While it would be really *nice* to have 10bit 4:2:2, I don't generally *need* it. If I did, I would be shooting on a more expensive camera and charging appropriately.

I remember when the HPX170 and HMC150 first came out, and folk were comparing footage from the two (and finding that there is generally not much practical difference). I would absolutely love for someone to do a similar thing with the AC130/160 and the HPX250.
Click to expand...

The difference with the HMC150, AC130 and those cameras, is that they have great implementations of the AVCHD codec. Same with the Canon C100. Up until recently DSLRs and mirrorless cameras haven't had the best codecs to put it kindly.

I agree with you that this camera won't be 10 bit. I do believe though that the shooter will be able to record 8 bit 4:2:2 for HD and 8 bit 4:2:0 for 4K.
 
Last edited:
I brought up the HPX170/HMC150 and AC160/HPX250 because they provide a good practical comparison of AVCHD (8bit 4:2:0) and DVCProHD or AVC-Iintra (10bit 4:2:2). Generally the same camera... same chips, same lens, different codecs. I haven't heard anything regarding an AC160/HPX250 comparison, but I remember the footage from the HPX170 and HMC150 being rather close until you really started to push it in post.

Which is kind of my point... expecting something of value (10bit 4:2:2 4k) in something so cheap (~$2,000 USD camera) doesn't make a lot of financial sense. That it's 2014 is irrelevant... just because you can do something for free doesn't mean you should, especially when none of your competition is. I could actually see them implementing AVC-Intra for 1080p and below (since this is geared towards pro-users), but in some way hamstringing it to get us to buy either their new SDXC cards or microP2. But giving away 10bit 4:2:2 4k when the people who generally would actually *need* it are willing to pay for it shoots themselves in the foot (and could hurt Varicam sales).
 
Mike Harvey said:
If you really *need* 10bit 4:2:2 or better... especially at 4k resolution... why are you looking at a $2,000 camera? Most people who are actually going to be able to take advantage of that are going to be willing to pay more for it.
Click to expand...

By that logic they shouldn't include raw stills capability on a $600 DSLR.

Mike Harvey said:
But giving away 10bit 4:2:2 4k when the people who generally would actually *need* it are willing to pay for it shoots themselves in the foot (and could hurt Varicam sales).
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that someone who needs a Varicam would instead buy a GH4K simply because it's cheaper. There are a lot of ergonomic differences between these camera lines. The sooner all of these companies realize they should be selling cameras based on ergonomics and features rather than image quality, the better off they and we will be.

I'm also tired of this arguement (or perhaps philosophy) that only pros should have the good codecs. As if only paid productions / Hollywood productions need a good image. I would always argue that family events and memories which are once in a lifetime things that can be cherished by generations of that family to come, are ultimately more important than a bunch of actors playing out a fictional drama in front of a camera so some studio can make a buck off it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top