GH3 Panasonic Announcement Friday Feb 7th (GH4/4K)

A 4K option will be nice but I'm really interested in the (rumored) add on unit that has SDI and XLR connectors - means I can use it in a proper production environment.
 
7DDude said:
Ok enlighten me, What is a global shutter, and why is it needed?
Click to expand...
When a camera captures an image from the sensor, it scans the image one line at a time (or something to this effect). This means that the image isn't recorded in the same timeframe, the last line is captured later then the first line. This is what causes the Rolling Shutter. A global shutter will scan all the lines at the same time, i.e., record all the pixels at once. This will eliminate the Rolling Shutter, but is very difficult and expensive to implement -- so far.
 
Global shutter means no more jello effect, global shutter means you can pan at normal speeds without worrying about jittery playback. That's all you need to know :)
 
Oh, I don't know about the panning. At 24/25fps you're going to get some stutter if you pan too fast no matter what.
 
Seems the current global shutter sensors suffer reduced dynamic range & ISO when compared to similar rolling shutter options. Pick your poison.
 
"H264 codec all intra that give 422"

Really, another H.264 model? I want my H.265 already! The spec's been complete for over a year now.
 
Jim Simon said:
"H264 codec all intra that give 422"

Really, another H.264 model? I want my H.265 already! The spec's been complete for over a year now.
Click to expand...
Yes, but so far (AFAIK) all the most impressive results have been done with none real time encoding. Typically, using a powerful computer to crunch the numbers and taking many times longer than a clip lasts.

That's obviously not a lot of use in a camcorder, which has to record in near real time, with power and cost restrictions on processing power. So don't expect to see H265 in consumer camcorders any time soon!

Even H264 still has a way to go yet, plenty of room for improvement. For a given quality, the encoders used in current cameras require a far higher bitrate than encoding to reference level with a powerful computer would.
 
vtwiz said:
And this article shows you that Hollywood does not need 4K.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11914/red-cameras-absent-oscar-cinematography-best-picture-nominees

So, why do you need 4K? Surely if anyone should be shooting 4K it should be the top Hollywood productions.
Click to expand...

Not everyone wants to mimic Hollywood.

Phil Seastrand said:
When a camera captures an image from the sensor, it scans the image one line at a time (or something to this effect). This means that the image isn't recorded in the same timeframe, the last line is captured later then the first line. This is what causes the Rolling Shutter. A global shutter will scan all the lines at the same time, i.e., record all the pixels at once. This will eliminate the Rolling Shutter, but is very difficult and expensive to implement -- so far.
Click to expand...

Capturing a line at a time is rolling shutter, that is what it is called. As opposed to global shutter, which captures the entire sensor at a time. What is eliminated is the jello effect. Global shutter isn't difficult or expensive to implement, a lot of sensors have the capability. The issue is that up until lately, there has been a loss of dynamic range, at least 2 stops, so whilst in rolling shutter mode it might get 11 stops, when put into global shutter mode, you will only be getting 9.
 
Looks like I may be very pleased I skipped the last DSLR/y generation. It's certainly checking a lot of boxes so far.
 
I'm rolling the dice and sold my GH3 a few weeks ago and picked up a Canon 70D to play with. This is fun! I have a nice MFT lens kit waiting to play with a new MFT camera. Lets hope they knock this baby out of the park!
 
Phil Seastrand said:
When a camera captures an image from the sensor, it scans the image one line at a time (or something to this effect).
Click to expand...
Almost. The rolling shutter effect is caused by readout, and that happening directly from the silicon where light is converted to charge. It's worth saying that the effect differs considerably from sensor to sensor. On more expensive ones the readout is quite fast (much less than a frame), so the rolling shutter is far less objectionable. Hence why the effect is so much more objectionable on such as mobile phone video than Red - they've both got rolling shutters, but one reads a lot faster than the other.
A global shutter will scan all the lines at the same time, i.e., record all the pixels at once. This will eliminate the Rolling Shutter, but is very difficult and expensive to implement -- so far.
Click to expand...
What the global shutter does is pair extra transistors with each photosite on a 1:1 basis. Hence all the sites will accumulate charge, then once per frame will all transfer the charge to their associated store at the same time - from where it can be read line by line, whilst the main site accumulates for the next frame.

The issue is that the extra transistors not only increase complexity - and hence cost - but also take up space on each photosite. Hence less space that can be used for gathering photons, hence lower sensitivity and dynamic range.
 
Erik Naso said:
I'm rolling the dice and sold my GH3 a few weeks ago and picked up a Canon 70D to play with. This is fun! I have a nice MFT lens kit waiting to play with a new MFT camera. Lets hope they knock this baby out of the park!
Click to expand...

I did the same Eric, but I picked up a BMPCC and RX10 as interum small cameras.
 
Same deal here bought 70d, sold GH2 & held on to the 20 1.7 just in case. Waiting to see Friday's announcement sans vapor.
 
For me it was a no brainer to buy a 70D. I have a C100 and C300 with a lot of nice Canon lenses so why not. I like the GH3 a lot and I think the Lumix cameras are making big headway in image quality with each new release. Double down boys! I almost bought the pocket too but I wanted a stills camera for time lapse. The pocket cam is pretty cool but I needed a better stills cam. The 70D is a very good stills camera.

I have the Lumix 7-14, 12-35, 35-100. Nice kit. Wouldn't sell them knowing I would find a camera in 2014 to attach them to and if a new AF-WHATEVER decided to come out even better. One thing at a time......

Bummer for me is I'm having shoulder surgery on Friday, so I will miss the news if the release happens this week. Me on pain meds scrolling the web as a one armed lefty bandit will be fun.
 
Last edited:
harddrive said:
Almost. The rolling shutter effect is caused by readout, and that happening directly from the silicon where light is converted to charge. It's worth saying that the effect differs considerably from sensor to sensor. On more expensive ones the readout is quite fast (much less than a frame), so the rolling shutter is far less objectionable. Hence why the effect is so much more objectionable on such as mobile phone video than Red - they've both got rolling shutters, but one reads a lot faster than the other.

What the global shutter does is pair extra transistors with each photosite on a 1:1 basis. Hence all the sites will accumulate charge, then once per frame will all transfer the charge to their associated store at the same time - from where it can be read line by line, whilst the main site accumulates for the next frame.

The issue is that the extra transistors not only increase complexity - and hence cost - but also take up space on each photosite. Hence less space that can be used for gathering photons, hence lower sensitivity and dynamic range.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the more detailed response. I knew someone more knowledgeable would chime in with something like this.
 
4K isn't only hype. It can be a very useful tool to have in the toolkit, as are relatively high DR, high color depth, global shutter, and so forth.

There's no 1 perfect camera ideally suited to every shooter's preferences, production design, budget, or schedule. There's also no free lunch. Even if you have an unlimited budget, you pick and choose the tool(s) that make sense for the project at hand.

It's incorrect to say that because "Hollywood primarily uses 2K cameras", therefore shooters with lower budgets have no reason to use 4K cams. Hollywood productions have skills, budgets, and schedules that enable them to all but guarantee results on-set, in part by typically using the best and/or most appropriate gear available. Lower-budget productions can sometimes achieve similar results, but by definition can't use all the same techniques, crews or tools. Instead, they mix and match resources and tools, and improvise and compromise as needed, to match their budget. Both kinds of productions (high and low budget) sometimes use 4K cameras for specific reasons.

Sure, TV manufacturers want to sell TVs, including 4K TVs. I don't have a problem with this. I don't plan on buying a large screen 4K TV anytime soon, but I might have a use for a relatively small (<30") low-cost 4K TV or monitor in the not too distant future. Will be useful for a variety of tasks (e.g.: as a occasional PC monitor, and for critical focus when using a 4K camera).

I suspect it might be less-expensive to make a camera with medium-quality 4K recording capability, compared to a cam with relatively high-quality 1080p recording (assuming sensors of identical size, etc.).

There are times when it's cost-effective to shoot 4K because can enable a high-quality 1080p finish in post (plus allow for cropping & scaling in post) -- even though media & storage costs are higher. Other times you need high-quality 1080p "in the can", for example, ready to hand-off to a client.

It all gets down to how the cameras are designed, how much they cost, and how the cams and their footage will be used. It's not a matter of right or wrong.

Personally I'm hoping I'll be able to see enough variety of well-shot GH4K sample footage before the Blackmagic 4K camera actually starts shipping, so I can make an informed decision about which one to buy. Same goes for the rumored new firmware for the original BMCC: If BMD improves on the BMCC's already very good ProRes HQ recording capability, my choice may be among 3 cams, not 2. A 1st-world problem for sure! :-)
 
Last edited:
As a proud owner of 3 GH3s, and previously several HMC-150s and GH2s, I can't wait to pickup two G4Ks if the specs are true. 4k will be very useful, but the high frame rate and other feature sets are more critical to me. Less rolling shutter and focus peaking will also be beautiful. XLR and SDI would be great too!

Looking forward to hearing the real spec sheet and final price on Friday. It sounds like they really did listen to us this time around...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top