GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

OldCorpse said:
And I in turn never claimed that shooting with no lights is the one and only spec needed in a camera. What I said is that a more sensitive camera gives me more options - I can use smaller lights to the same effect, which is not just or even primarily a budget issue (which is where the "low class production" silliness comes in) - smaller lights allow one to access spaces and environments which would otherwise be impossible or impractical, allow for more battery-powered mobility and less dependence on lighting infrastructure, such as generators and AC; you gain much greater capability to operate in more extreme circumstances and artistic choices (up to and including sometimes relying on no lights). It's the same evolution as ever in any technology including cameras - they've grown progressively more sensitive, so you need lesser and lesser light infrastructure - we've been doing that since the beginning of cinema cameras... at any stage we people could stop and say "that's it, lighting requirements are low enough, anything lower and you got low class production" - 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years, 10 years, today. But we keep evolving camera capabilities, including low-light capability. OK, if you don't need it, that's fine, but others may have different needs. There's one poster on here who just made a silent film feature - hey, if you're making silent films, you don't need to worry about the whole sound department! But others want sound capability - I sure hope he doesn't think that having sound capability makes your camera a low-class production. You don't need or care about low-light, I do - choices are good, and options are good. From my point of view, as I compare the GH4 and a7Sii, the feature mix on the Sony is better suited to my needs - clearly not yours, but I would not criticize your choice of camera or label your productions as low class because of it. I will look to see what GH5 delivers - if it were to deliver what I need, I'd be ecstatic, as I have a lot of m4/3 gear, but I highly doubt it, as neither low-light capability nor IBIS is likely to be what I need in the GH5.
Click to expand...

Did I ever say low class? I said low production value. There is a difference. How can you argue against production value? I even said production value isn't the same thing as creativity and talent. Its just a standard dude. I didn't make this stuff up. You seem to be taking the concept of low production value as some sort of insult when in fact it is not. I do low production value as well at times because the situation calls for it. Still a creative project I am proud of but I can say for a fact it isn't high production value. I'm sorry but no matter how its said using no lights on a production no matter how sensitive the camera is means its a lower production value. This is due to the depth and separation lights can add to the scene and make the focal points pop. Thats high production value. I'm not saying at all that you are bad or that you are creating crappy videos. I'm saying using a camera without using lighting is low production value. period. I'm not sure how that can be spun any other way.

Shoot the way you want to. I really don't care and have more important things in life to worry about. I'm just saying that lights add production value. If you are offended by that thats your issue. I stand by the opinion that having a camera that can perform better under low light is not an excuse to use it with no lights. If you really have no choice thats a different story but can you say 100% for certain you have no lighting options? The wedding people have a point and sometimes documentary people have a point. A scripted production however under no circumstance can ever make the claim there was no way lights could be used. If you mainly shoot events then I feel your pain and yes by all means use a larger sensor camera. If you create movies however once you add lights which every single Hollywood film in history has done the larger sensor no longer matters as much. I'm also not saying that you shouldn't use a larger sensor camera for movies. go ahead. My point is it doesn't matter as much anymore and the GH4 can hold its own so in a high production environment what camera is used or what sensor is used doesn't matter as much anymore.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Did I ever say low class? I said low production value. There is a difference. How can you argue against production value?
Click to expand...

Yes you did. See:

Thomas Smet said:
[...]Its only those that insist on shooting in the dark without any lights that consider the GH4 a lower class of camera but I would argue thats a lower class of production and not a lower class of camera.
Click to expand...

I quoted you accurately. And then you quoted me, but completely ignored the content of that quote. My point never was that the reason to have a more sensitive camera is so that you can just shoot with no lights - rather, as my quote says, it is to expand the lighting options. But even assuming you simply misspoke, and meant "low production value" rather than "low class production" - fine I accept that. But even then, you are simply WRONG. What makes low production value? It's not just about cost of equipment. Having a more sensitive camera allows me to use less powerful lights - which doesn't mean those lights are necessarily cheaper, as we've seen repeatedly as new tech can often be more expensive (to start with), as f.ex. when equivalent power LED lights are more expensive than traditional lights. So it's not about the budget. And even if the lights are cheaper, it simply means money saved on lights goes to other parts of the budget and overall the budget can still be bigger, you're just not wasting as much on lights. And yes, that more sensitive camera might be more expensive. So it's not about the money. If it is about the look of the production in "low production value", which is what is traditionally meant - then you are simply dead wrong. The whole point of a more sensitive camera is that it allows you to use less light and lighting infrastructure and more flexible placement options, to achieve the same effect that the less sensitive camera needs a LOT more light gear with all the attendant light infrastructure limitations. That's the point. The end result is you can light a scene with both cameras in exactly the same way - including HIGH PRODUCTION VALUE LOOK, the only difference being that the more sensitive camera used less powerful lights! Period. That's the difference in technological evolution - in ALL technology. You can accomplish MORE with more efficiency. Today computers are millions of times more powerful and take up a tiny space compared to the huge IBM room-size computers of olden days. Same here. I can accomplish MORE with my more sensitive camera with more lighting options than the less sensitive camera. The end result is what counts. And there is nothing "low production value" about it. It's how technological progress works. Sensitivity in cameras has kept getting better. For a reason. And that reason has never resulted in "low production value". Which really is the exact same point in that quote of mine you cited - and ignored... so here it is again!
 
Jeez guys. Get a divorce lawyer. One wants lights, the other a sensitive camera. We get it. To each his own. One of you light your productions, the other film in the dark. Beating a dead horse here, to add to the metaphors…...:Drogar-Kriz(DBG):
 
Certainly, a more light sensitive sensor provides more flexibilty. A filmmaker can choose to shoot at a lower ISO and light more traditionally, or use smaller lights at higher ISO settings. BUT there is a practical limit to shooting at high ISOs. And that limit has to do with ambient light. At high ISOs, stray light leaking in from windows, doorways, practicals, etc. all become sources that have to be dealt with. You can either use them, or you have to spend time turning them off, blocking them, flagging them, etc. In many ways, this can be more of a time-waster than just shooting old-school with larger lights. Lighting at lower ISOs allows you to more easily control unwanted light. There's also the case of practicals in the shot, or windows. At 400 ISO, a lamp or a window with sunlight streaming in might be fine. But at 3200 or 6400 ISO, that lamp is an enormous hotspot that has to be dimmed or turned off, and that window is nuclear and needs ND gel put on it.
Neither approach is wrong, you just trade one problem for another. Shooting at high ISOs can force you into spending energy on subtractive lighting and negative fill. Bring along the floppies, flags and black velvet!
 
And now there are new SD cards out that will record - as per association - at two more class rates @ 60 and 90 MB continuous minimum. The old best in show UHS-3 was at 30. So, it seems, there's no special need for CFast or internal SSD's on the high consumer/low pro cameras.
 
Indeed. It's called SD 5.0. Specifically aimed at video recording, it brings a Video Speed Class rating: V6, V10, V30, V60 and V90; for 6 MB/s, 10 MB/s, 30 MB/s, 60 MB/s, and 90 MB/s.

Note that these are minimum write speeds, and they're in megabytes per second (MB/s), not megabits per second (Mbps). So V90 would be 720 Mbps minimum write.
 
Using BMD URSA specs below as a reference, it's still a bit too low for anything higher quality than a ~ 5/1 compressed Raw but something comparable with the new Sony XAVC 480 (60 MB/s) would be a major step up.

------------------------------------

4000 x 2160:
CinemaDNG Raw - 265 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 125 MB/s

3840 x 2160:
Apple ProRes 444 XQ - 312.5 MB/s
Apple ProRes 444 - 165 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 HQ - 110 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 - 73.6 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 LT - 51 MB/s
Apple ProRes Proxy - 22.4 MB/s
 
DLD said:
Using BMD URSA specs below as a reference, it's still a bit too low for anything higher quality than a ~ 5/1 compressed Raw but something comparable with the new Sony XAVC 480 (60 MB/s) would be a major step up.

------------------------------------

4000 x 2160:
CinemaDNG Raw - 265 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 125 MB/s

3840 x 2160:
Apple ProRes 444 XQ - 312.5 MB/s
Apple ProRes 444 - 165 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 HQ - 110 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 - 73.6 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 LT - 51 MB/s
Apple ProRes Proxy - 22.4 MB/s
Click to expand...

I'd be perfectly happy with a GH5 shooting 4K ProRes 422 at 73.6 MB/s (doesn't even have to be the HQ variety). Heck, even if that's the ONLY improvement over the GH4 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
 
Jaime Valles said:
I'd be perfectly happy with a GH5 shooting 4K ProRes 422 at 73.6 MB/s (doesn't even have to be the HQ variety). Heck, even if that's the ONLY improvement over the GH4 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
IMO, a low tier pro unit ought to have HEVC for the convenience sake, if for no others. Off old NX1 posts, HEVC is about six times more efficient than ProRes, making a full day shoot for the event/wedding videographers almost as convenient as an 8-hr VHS tape. And, for something longer lasting than a wedding - kidding - just up the bit rate to 150-200 Mbps (~ 25-40 MB/s) and get somethign close to 444. For a sub-$2,000 10-bit model, they'd hardly need anything more.
 
DLD said:
3840 x 2160:
Apple ProRes 444 XQ - 312.5 MB/s
Apple ProRes 444 - 165 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 HQ - 110 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 - 73.6 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 LT - 51 MB/s
Apple ProRes Proxy - 22.4 MB/s
Click to expand...

These new speed classifications for SD5.0 and what you post here, has really highlighted to me just how slow the minimum write speeds for SD cards are!

I've been pretty blind to the fact, due to using my Ninja2 and SSDs but wow.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Shoot the way you want to. I really don't care and have more important things in life to worry about. I'm just saying that lights add production value. If you are offended by that thats your issue. I stand by the opinion that having a camera that can perform better under low light is not an excuse to use it with no lights. If you really have no choice thats a different story but can you say 100% for certain you have no lighting options? The wedding people have a point and sometimes documentary people have a point.
Click to expand...

I am so tired of lighting scolds. Yes, many of us do shoot documentary-style. I haven't shot to a script in decades. And what is wrong with those of us who shoot like this wanting a camera that meets our needs? I couldn't care less about RAW shooting, but I don't go around telling people they are stupid for wanting to have RAW. I can actually see the value in it for other people because I can look outside my own needs. To light or not to light is often an aesthetic decision. It's one reason I hate much of the stock footage. It doesn't look real BECAUSE it is lit. It is too perfect, and not at all convincingly real. It may surprise you that there are those of us that shoot without lights that actually know what we are doing. And perhaps we know more about documentary production than you do. And yes I own plenty of lights and use them when appropriate.
 
brettsherman said:
I am so tired of lighting scolds. Yes, many of us do shoot documentary-style. I haven't shot to a script in decades. And what is wrong with those of us who shoot like this wanting a camera that meets our needs? I couldn't care less about RAW shooting, but I don't go around telling people they are stupid for wanting to have RAW. I can actually see the value in it for other people because I can look outside my own needs. To light or not to light is often an aesthetic decision. It's one reason I hate much of the stock footage. It doesn't look real BECAUSE it is lit. It is too perfect, and not at all convincingly real. It may surprise you that there are those of us that shoot without lights that actually know what we are doing. And perhaps we know more about documentary production than you do. And yes I own plenty of lights and use them when appropriate.
Click to expand...

Don't take it so personal. I never said anybody was stupid or that there was something wrong with how anybody shoots. I said high production value. That is not an insult but a standard and method of production. I even said I have had to shoot projects like that as well that I'm still proud of but I can admit they are not high production value.

Do a lot of documentaries look like an episode of Daredevil or Dr. Who? No they don't. A documentary is still a solid piece with its own look and craft but its production standards are just not the same as a carefully lit set. That is not an insult but one of the core components to the "film" look. There is a pretty good reason why documentaries don't have their own cinematography category for the Oscars. There are awards for documentaries because they are a fine art but they are a different kind of production art.

I'm not sure how many other ways I can say that I respect how other people shoot but there is a difference between not using lighting and using lighting when talking about production values. That is not a rip or an insult and people need to stop taking things so personal.

My defense of the GH4 is as a film making tool it can hold its own. Yes for documentaries and weddings it can suffer. My main argument is strictly for those film makers who are in fact shooting scripted productions and choose not to use lights. I'm not in any way shape or form ripping on anybody's production style, documentary film makers, wedding producers, or anybody else in between. All I'm saying is under productions that do use lights or should use lights the Gh4 is still a solid and valid camera and in fact offers many things that other cameras do not yet offer.

Ironically the higher the budget for the project the better the GH4 will fair and its the lower budget or run&gun (this does not mean I think low budget is anything bad so please don't be insulted) stuff that does suffer. If one shoots run&gun, Documentaries, live events and every thing else in between (Which I have a lot of respect for) then yes use the camera that fits your workflow.
 
There are two major trade shows in Europe back to back in September - IBC in Amsterdam (8-13) and PhotoKina in Köln (20-26). I assume a lot of new models will make their premieres over that time frame. 5D MKIV, GH5, A9, etc.
 
That's why the interviewer brought up the idea of using JVC's LS300 system, which would allow the best of both worlds.
 
NorBro said:
That's why the interviewer brought up the idea of using JVC's LS300 system, which would allow the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...
And Frasier sort of weaseled out of it.

In any case, GH5, if that's what it's called, is obviously going to be an MFT model. The problem witha hypothetical Panasonic s35 camera is that it doesn't exist in a category lower than Varicam LT. At some point, it will, but right now, that territory is exclusively Sony's, which has a huge hit on its hands with FS7. And I'd like for an interviewer to ask a Panasonic, a Canon and a Nikon rep why they don't hone in on what looks like an extremely lucrative niche. I suspect the degree of weaseling would be logarithmically higher than what you saw in that clip.

PS. If they don't do high speed internal 10-bit, there'll be little reason for consumers to replace their GH4's with GH5, especially considering a potential Sony roster of products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top