Panasonic GH3 Debut Viideo

squig said:
The rumoured specs say it does 75Mbit/s ALL-I. The MKIII does 91Mbit/s ALL-I and it's not great, Canon in their wisdom made it a variable bit-rate. If Panasonic have gone with a constant bit-rate it should be a lot better but with GH2 hacks running at 150Mbit/s why did Panasonic again go with substandard bit-rates?
Click to expand...

ProRes is variable bit rate. Is ProRes not great? If you shoot something with very low information, there is a good chance you can have less than 75mbps in ProRes LT but still have it look really good.

Bitrate is important, but not everything. Hasn't Barry Green shown that 21mbps AVCHD (h264) can handle motion better than 35mbps XDCam EX (Mpeg2)?

50mbps is broadcast quality 4:2:2 using a Mpeg2 codec, but I think this is mostly because it was implemented very well. Canon's has DSLRs that shoot at 50mbps h264, so they should be great, right? Except it isn't.

It'll all come down to how well it is implemented.

squig said:
They're clearly trying to cash in on the indie filmmaking market so why not give the filmmakers what they want? They don't have any excuse this time around, they know exactly what we want.
Click to expand...

I think only indie filmmakers should be using a still camera to make a movie. If you're a real filmmaker with a real budget get a real camera. There are many options today that are dirt cheap when you compare them to 35mm film that are arguable on par with the quality of film.

Asking a sub $1,000 still camera to shoot movies that look as good as $50mil Hollywood film is asking too much IMHO.
 
joe 1008 said:
Specs leak on 43rumors: http://www.43rumors.com/ says NOT weather proof...
Click to expand...

It appears it is Sammys web store that have specified it as not weather proof. This comment on 43rumors points this out:

Samy’s sets the bar high for weatherproofing. Magnesium alloy Canon 5D MkIII, Nikon D800 and Sony A99 are also listed as “Weatherproof: no” by Samy’s. Only the completely weatherproof Pentax K30 is listed as “Weatherproof: yes”. A “Dust and Splash proof” Magnesium alloy body may not cut it for Samy’s – but it’s good enough for me to take the GH3 out in drizzle – which used to petrify me with the GH2
icon_smile.gif
 
Thank you, Mattoid. That explains a lot. It will be interesting how close this camera comes to a FS100 or C100 and if it's worth paying 3 to 5 times more.
 
squig said:
The rumoured specs say it does 75Mbit/s ALL-I. The MKIII does 91Mbit/s ALL-I and it's not great, Canon in their wisdom made it a variable bit-rate. If Panasonic have gone with a constant bit-rate it should be a lot better but with GH2 hacks running at 150Mbit/s why did Panasonic again go with substandard bit-rates? They're clearly trying to cash in on the indie filmmaking market so why not give the filmmakers what they want? They don't have any excuse this time around, they know exactly what we want. Perhaps they've crippled it a bit so they can gouge us with a $7000 pro camera. The BMCC is the only sub $15000 camera with a professional codec but almost every camera is technically capable of recording with less compression.
Click to expand...

Take a look at AVC-Intra if you don't think low bitrate Intraframe can work. There is a 50mbit version and a 100mbit version. Both are very high quality formats. The 100mbit version is of course better but you have to remember we use SD cards which have limited stable bandwidth. Unless Panasonic wants to list a minimum of the most extreme level class 10 cards they have to find a balance. I think we will find the 72mbits to be a nice in between value. Of course hacking it higher may help but out of the box 72mbits is not bad at all. Any higher and you need very fast cards and run the risk of crashing. Something an out of the box firmware will never settle for. Panasonic cannot release a camera that crashes because some people want to push the limits of the encoder. If the hack does it thats fine because people know the risk and know it isn't supported by Panasonic. Panasonic needs to put their name behind the 72mbit in the GH3 and make sure it is flawless. There is a logical reason why the sub 100mbit hacks on the GH2 tend to be more stable and have no problem spanning.
 
I have used Sedna at both 24H and 24L and I'd be hard pressed to notice a difference (with 24L seeming to be around that 75mbps mark). Spans just fine on my Class 10s.
 
squig said:
Agreed.




Francis Ford Coppola thought the GH2 looked pretty good. $1000 is a bit much to ask but $3000 isn't anymore.
Click to expand...

Agreed, too many precedents have been made to say that a near cinema grade camera can't be done at $2000 (strictly speaking "image", not talking about all the I/Os and externals ofcourse). But regardless, there is enough out there already for me to use whatever. T2i's are just laying around everywhere like garbage, and yet I feel comfortable using them for most any web/DVD based project. Camera lust is something of a relative term. I am just sad that we are being forced to use so much compression. 'Compression' has been my main concern (since 4:1:1 miniDV for me), and yet, it is one of the cheaper and easier upgrades. I think a pro would still spend 15K for a nice all in one like the C300, even if a T4i had a better codec, but joe shmo wouldn't have to go into debt to play around with better birthday footage. Haha.

PS - not knocking birthday videos. Family memories are incredibly invaluable, so shooting a video with an APS-C sensor, a good lens, and a codec that doesn't have blocks or shadows void of detail, would be noticed by users. There is too much emphasis in the video world about differentiating between consumer and pro video image quality. Back in the film days, everyone had access to much of the same film, that met a certain standard of quality. The difference was in things like precision, weather sealing, expandability, specialty I/O, durability... and let's not forget precision. Basically a bunch of things that only pros needed.

Now, good image quality was paid for by the foot, meaning every shot spent learning the craft meant more money for the film company, so it was in effect similar to having a 'price of admission' for being a pro. But just because a D5100 shoots stills that rival all other DSLR's doesn't mean pros are running out and buying them instead of D800's and 7D's. So, it is vexing to me to see the video world so tiered in codec quality, particularly since the advent of HD. Thank goodness for the BMC, and I hope there is a hack for the GH3 soon.

The weak dollar is in part to blame for a certain amount of the price increase on technology, though, it is not an all inclusive excuse. Anyway, I had forgotten why I hated camera announcements until getting back into them this time around. (thank you D600 for sucking me back in) So much wasted time researching which new camera does what, when it is all basically the same story as the previous cycle. This model has half of what we want, and this other model has the other half of what we want, but this other model which has both of what we want costs 4 times as much as both of those other cameras combined. - They all create an image. There have been some wonderful advancements in digital imaging in the last 10years. The image techs have been working hard. Much applause to them. Hopefully our constant uprgrading has been the financial fuel they have needed to keep making breakthroughs. But without any major upgrades within the same price brackets as 2-3years ago, I find myself less worried about what to buy next, and just using what I already own, what others are paying for, or what others are throwing away.

When an image is already 8bit, it seems a bit excessive to 24-35mbs 4:2:0 limit it, though having that option is good too. Cinema cameras are already doing 14bit 4:4:4 Raw, and Broadcast cameras need certain non-pedestrian features, so thinking that cameras should have the option for higher bit rates in a sub $3k, or even $2k, camera hardly seems like whining or complaining. And my comment about family memories being important enough to not have macro blocking, was actually genuine. Those moments are more important than any movie i'll see, and I don't like them being so heavily compressed. Those are important moments in our lives, and they should be vivid as possible! (I love it that Macgregor is using a Sony F35 for personal birthdays and travel)

Well, that is the end of my involvement with 2012 camera announcements. Not that I won't be making a purchase, but I don't think when that purchase time comes, that it will be difficult to pick an adequate camera for the job at hand. No need for me to continue clogging up these forums with ideas that go against current business and marketing trends. And yes, consumer adherence to simple buzz words is a major part in the demise of marketing and product development. So, the companies are not completely at fault.

I sincerely hope this cycle of camera tech is the end of 8bit video in the prosumer-broadcast level. And that 'consumer' no longer means 'compression artifacts' or blurry 640 lines "HD". At least I can pick up an old red or Sony cine camera if not.
 
Last edited:
Eventually, we'll get there where a C500 quality cam will be available for under $1000 (body only). When that will happen, I have no idea, but I do know that the speed at which things can move is astonishing. Think back a mere 5 years and what the landscape looked like, and what is available today for what money. It's amazing. So today it's the GH3 for $1300 MSRP (probably less street) and it's more camera than you got for $5K five years ago. We can only imagine what the landscape will look like five years from now. Except time stands for no one. Nobody ever gets any younger. Waiting is for fools. We're all going to the same destination: the grave. So seize the day, shoot on whatever you can get your hands on. I bet the GH3 will be good enough to do almost anything in the narrative space. I'm way over specs at this point. In fact, I think we're set with the GH2... so whatever GH3 brings will be icing on the cake.
 
OldCorpse said:
Eventually, we'll get there where a C500 quality cam will be available for under $1000 (body only). When that will happen, I have no idea, but I do know that the speed at which things can move is astonishing. Think back a mere 5 years and what the landscape looked like, and what is available today for what money. It's amazing. So today it's the GH3 for $1300 MSRP (probably less street) and it's more camera than you got for $5K five years ago. We can only imagine what the landscape will look like five years from now. Except time stands for no one. Nobody ever gets any younger. Waiting is for fools. We're all going to the same destination: the grave. So seize the day, shoot on whatever you can get your hands on. I bet the GH3 will be good enough to do almost anything in the narrative space. I'm way over specs at this point. In fact, I think we're set with the GH2... so whatever GH3 brings will be icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Although, it is sad to think of all the great things we may miss shooting in higher fidelity today. But yes, 5years from today, we can have this compression conversation again in 4k. Despite that technology seems to be moving faster than consumer awareness and business models regardless. But, yes in 5 years, there should be some good cheap 1080p options. Even if it is feasible today.
 
zijital said:
50mbps is broadcast quality 4:2:2 using a Mpeg2 codec, but I think this is mostly because it was implemented very well. Canon's has DSLRs that shoot at 50mbps h264, so they should be great, right? Except it isn't.
Click to expand...

That's not because of the codec. If you take the 50mbps h264 and stuff it into a regular AVCHD cam like the FS100, it will look great.

The codec is not why the image is soft or aliased. Why are people constantly bashing the codec for the inability to shoot well?
 
maarek said:
That's not because of the codec. If you take the 50mbps h264 and stuff it into a regular AVCHD cam like the FS100, it will look great.

The codec is not why the image is soft or aliased. Why are people constantly bashing the codec for the inability to shoot well?
Click to expand...
(I noticed you didn't quote me, so pardon me if your comment isn't in some way directed towards me. Also, I feel zijital's comment is not entirely in contrast to your own.)

The complaints about codec aren't always about resolution, aliasing, and definitely not moire' or low-light performance. Look at it this way, a 2k alexa is preferred by many productions over the 4k Red One. Why? It's not about pixel sharpness, it is about details and nuance. A cheap Nikon D5100 is running 14bit images off its sensor. That is some amazing nuance off a 13 stop sensor. But when some awful compression and algorithms are applied to the video process, there is macro blocking and definitive loss of information. The line skipping is to blame for the aliasing and moire', but the codec is much to blame for the loss of nuance. Codecs are important. Look at what happens to a gh2 with a hack. It is a bit of magic, despite the more limited DR and less aesthetic coloring. A 7D, despite its inherent issues, would be quite more competitive with a good codec. Not to say it's image would stand against the best, but that is the point. These dslr's are not in the same caliber of cinema cameras costing USD$50+ grand. So, adding a good codec should not threaten the higher tier products. The problem is, people like Steve at Zacuto promoting the idea that a GH2 is in any way equals to an Alexa or Red in terms of final product and production cost (minus those that do passion projects and do awesome work for free their whole lives... aka don't exist).

Anyways, Maarek, I think we are all more in agreement. The codec, is not entirely to blame one way or the other. The C300 does well even without being 14bit RAW, it still delivers nice images. The FS100 has some bang for buck. And the GH2 delivers some good resolution for a "DSLR" type video camera. But the macro blocking of a 7d is so obnoxious, that it IS a major stumbling block for any 7D user. The codec can be an impediment to a camera's final image quality.

However, due to cinema cameras all moving to 14bit 4k+ resolutions and RAW formats, these lowly 8bit hybrids should not be any threat, so certain limitations on bitrates seems all too "market hype" driven. If only marketers and producers truly knew the difference between a true cinema camera and a hacked GH2. Maybe then they would not fear putting better codecs in entry level APS-C cameras.
 
To move a bit away from the codec discussion... I just noticed the GH3 sensor is 17.3 mm wide, whereas the BMC sensor is 15.8 mm wide (difference: 1.5mm, 1.095x). To me, that falls in the same ballpark as the difference between the Canon and Nikon versions of APS-C (22.3 mm and 23.4 mm; difference: 1.1mm, 1.049x).
 
squig said:
The good-clean HDMI out
Click to expand...

That's not really a "good", considering it doesn't mean that the HDMI out is adequate for recording. It could still be unsuitable for recording, just that you can toggle the overlays on or off.

50Mbit/s IPB and 72Mbit/s ALL-I
Click to expand...

Chart lists 80Mbps ALL-I...in Quicktime .MOV (which explains how they got around the AVCHD spec). Kind of a bummer for us Premiere editors as Quicktime files are processed with a 32-bit engine instead of the 64-bit one.

And a headphone jack!
Click to expand...

Nice, but you forgot to mention the 3.5mm mic jack! Do you know how many times I've cursed having to use an silly adapter for this?

The bad-No peaking No zebras
Click to expand...

The review doesn't say there is no peaking or zebras, it just doesn't mention them. I'd say to wait until the official Panasonic release comes out.

And apparently the GH3 does have a multiple aspect ratio sensor.
 
Gary Huff said:
That's not really a "good", considering it doesn't mean that the HDMI out is adequate for recording. It could still be unsuitable for recording, just that you can toggle the overlays on or off.



Chart lists 80Mbps ALL-I...in Quicktime .MOV (which explains how they got around the AVCHD spec). Kind of a bummer for us Premiere editors as Quicktime files are processed with a 32-bit engine instead of the 64-bit one.



Nice, but you forgot to mention the 3.5mm mic jack! Do you know how many times I've cursed having to use an silly adapter for this?



The review doesn't say there is no peaking or zebras, it just doesn't mention them. I'd say to wait until the official Panasonic release comes out.

And apparently the GH3 does have a multiple aspect ratio sensor.
Click to expand...

What are you my sub-editor?

clean HDMI out is good it just may not be great (uncompressed 1080p)
some specs say 72Mbit/s others say 80
Another review says no peaking or zebras

If you want to be my sub-editor do some research before you incorrectly correct me.
 
James0b57 said:
When an image is already 8bit, it seems a bit excessive to 24-35mbs 4:2:0 limit it, though having that option is good too. Cinema cameras are already doing 14bit 4:4:4 Raw, and Broadcast cameras need certain non-pedestrian features, so thinking that cameras should have the option for higher bit rates in a sub $3k, or even $2k, camera hardly seems like whining or complaining. And my comment about family memories being important enough to not have macro blocking, was actually genuine. Those moments are more important than any movie i'll see, and I don't like them being so heavily compressed. Those are important moments in our lives, and they should be vivid as possible! (I love it that Macgregor is using a Sony F35 for personal birthdays and travel)
.
Click to expand...

Wish I could Like and Recommend this post for camera companies to see. I agree 1000% with all of it, not just the part I quoted above.

I was born in 1979 and the youngest of four kids by 11 years. So my older brother and sisters where born in the mid '60's. My parents shot home movies of them on Super8 film. In fact I just finished a transfer of that super8 to HD last week. However for me growing up it was betamax and VHS and eventually video8 by the time I was 9 years old. None of which held a candle to the Super8 quality. In fact I'd say that only since the dawn of consumeer HD have we have gotten where super8 was decades ago. So like you I get frustrated with companies artificially limiting their cameras with condecs that are not designed for shooting but displaying. Higher bitrates at 10bit 4:2:2 color (or better) should be run of the mill these days. Usinger buffering, SD cards can handle it. Because like you said, memories are more important than Hollywood movies. We won't get them back once they are gone. Being able to record them in the highest quality possible is extremely important and should be the #1 goal for all these camera manufacturers.

That said, things are definitely improving and companies like Panasonic and Black Magic are telling us they are listening.
 
squig said:
$1000 is a bit much to ask but $3000 isn't anymore.
Click to expand...

Maybe it isn't asking for, we should ask for the moon, but shouldn't expect it. I think expecting a perfect camera for $3,000 is still expecting too much. The BMDC is great for us $3k, but if you're pissed about the battery or lack of XLR connectors, you really shouldn't be, because it is still a $3k camera body. And it is crazy that we have a camera today with those specs for $3k.

squig said:
Francis Ford Coppola thought the GH2 looked pretty good.
Click to expand...

The 2012 Zacuto shoot out was a lot more about what people can do with cameras than what these cameras look like when compared next to each other, all settings equal. I think Coppola liked the what the DPs Jonny Zeller & Colt Seman did more than he liked the GH2. I would wager real money, that if you gave Jonny Zeller & Colt Seman a Red or Arri Alexia or whatever, that Coppola would probably chose that camera.

It is more about the talent than the tools. That being said, you can't paint the Sistine chapel with crayons. So you should be impressed with the GH2, but more impressed with the DP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top