GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

brudney said:
The guy who spoke to a Panny rep at NAB was told the jump between GH4 and GH5 would be similar to that between GH2 and GH4.... so who knows :)
Click to expand...
I know. I watched that Matt Frazier clip. He also said that he wasn't sure about the internal 10-bit. Which makes it less ... eh. monumental.

In any case, GH2 to GH4 was a jump from 2K to 4K and I don't see GH5 being 8K. But a 6K (24 MPX sensor) with no horrible rolling shutter would do. There, GH5 can beat A6300.

The rest has been covered here previously - higher bit rate, BSI, 10-bit, some form of stabilization, etc.
 
gh5 can beat a6300 by not having a meltdown every 5 minutes, not having a jello image, the screen and viewfinder not go dark when in 4k, and having sharp 1080 as well as 4k, 6k whatever. Easy
 
How much more processing power does 10bit recording take vs 8bit internal? Is it really a large technical hurdle or more of a marketing hurdle? Because Panasonic, if you don't know, we have enough resolution. Dynamic range and color are more important.

But seriously, how much harder is it to record 10bit internally?

Thanks for your tech input!
 
Bassman2003 said:
How much more processing power does 10bit recording take vs 8bit internal? Is it really a large technical hurdle or more of a marketing hurdle? Because Panasonic, if you don't know, we have enough resolution. Dynamic range and color are more important.

But seriously, how much harder is it to record 10bit internally?

Thanks for your tech input!
Click to expand...

Likely not much harder since the DSP is already capable of 10bit processing for the HDMI output. I don't think it's a processing issue but more finding/building an encoder in a camera to handle that level and profile of H264 recording. 8bit 4:2:0 H264 encoding is about as common as junk food in the US and much easier to license/build in a small form factor camera.

To be honest I'm not 100% sure having 10bit internal is an end all solution vs external recording. 10bit internal would still be H264 based and while yes it would have more range than 8bit it would still be subject to macro blocking together similar colors. H264 is great for general viewing and light grading but once you get to the level of desired color precision to really need 10bit then H264 doesn't really cut it anymore.

To me all the asking for internal 10bit is done without even knowing what that will actually mean for the quality. How many here have seen H264 10bit? We cannot for a second assume it's as good as ProRes 10bit anymore than normal H264 is as good as Prores 8bit. It would still be a highly compressed format and pushing a highly compressed format by heavy amounts in post will show off artifacts no matter if it's 8bit or 10bit.
 
In the GH5 I think you will diffinetly see 4k 60fps ans 4:2:2. 10-bit is a big maybe. These features will suit me just fine. Physically it will look the same as the GH4 except for the GH5 sticker.
 
Last edited:
The bigger issue is the processing to handle the increased I/O. And the h.264 or h.265 discussion is something that we also would want to improve, maybe a 10 bit DNxHR or maybe Prores (but I have mixed feelings on this one due to Apple killing QT). Going with a 4K Cinema DNG might be a decent option, or some other barely compressed format.
 
Thomas Smet said:
To me all the asking for internal 10bit is done without even knowing what that will actually mean for the quality. How many here have seen H264 10bit? We cannot for a second assume it's as good as ProRes 10bit anymore than normal H264 is as good as Prores 8bit. It would still be a highly compressed format and pushing a highly compressed format by heavy amounts in post will show off artifacts no matter if it's 8bit or 10bit.
Click to expand...

AVC-Intra is H264 compliant. That is, practically speaking, what everyone wants when they clamor for 10bit 4:2:2 in a Panasonic camera, like the GHx or DVX200 or new UX series. And I have serious doubts that Panasonic is going to make the effort to put AVC-Intra in their consumer/prosumer mirrorless still camera hybrid.
 
To put the whole processing power thing in perspective... the PX270 and DVX200 use the exact same battery. In the PX270 (AVC-Intra 10bit 4:2:2), it's rated at about 90 minutes. In my DVX200, dual recording to both SDXC slots in 4k 60p, but at 8bit 4:2:0, it lasts well over three hours.
 
Mike Harvey said:
AVC-Intra is H264 compliant. That is, practically speaking, what everyone wants when they clamor for 10bit 4:2:2 in a Panasonic camera, like the GHx or DVX200 or new UX series. And I have serious doubts that Panasonic is going to make the effort to put AVC-Intra in their consumer/prosumer mirrorless still camera hybrid.
Click to expand...

If the DVX200 which is a more professional aligned product for Panasonic didn't get AVC-Intra why on earth would a consumer stills DSLR get it?
 
Thomas Smet said:
If the DVX200 which is a more professional aligned product for Panasonic didn't get AVC-Intra why on earth would a consumer stills DSLR get it?
Click to expand...
One could make several arguments that DVX200 and GH5 can be used for different purposes - one primarily run&gun; the other quite useful for narratives - and that DVX200 was a camera released in 2015 and GH5 in 2017 and that the processing power and the quality of the latest generations of the SD cards makes the jump feasible.

Besides, the codec of a $30,000 camera from yesterday or a codec for a point-and-shoot today.

Mike Harvey said:
To put the whole processing power thing in perspective... the PX270 and DVX200 use the exact same battery. In the PX270 (AVC-Intra 10bit 4:2:2), it's rated at about 90 minutes. In my DVX200, dual recording to both SDXC slots in 4k 60p, but at 8bit 4:2:0, it lasts well over three hours.
Click to expand...

AVC Ultra (also H264 compatible) is 640 Mbps in 4K 444 12-bit and 320 Mbps in 422 10-bit.

(scroll down to page 11 for the Ultra 4K specs)

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/p2/AVC-ULTRAoverview.pdf
 
I work with the PX270 AVC-Ultra codecs all of the time. They are 10bit 4:2:2 with a bit rate of 25-50Mbps. They offer a decent amount of latitude, great color and detail in a small package. While I would never expect AVC-Ultra to show up in the GH5, I am pointing out that 10bit does not have to be over the top with bit rate to be effective. These numbers are for HD but I would expect a 100Mbps implementation for 4k would be plenty.

Yes, the PX270 pulls 19.5 watts which is a lot for a 1/3" camera. Is that for the extensive image processing or the encoding? Like many, I just want latitude especially in the highlights and 10bit (with LOG shooting) seems to be important to keep the information to push and pull in post. Latitude and 8bit just do not go together in my mind.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I work with the PX270 AVC-Ultra codecs all of the time. They are 10bit 4:2:2 with a bit rate of 25-50Mbps. They offer a decent amount of latitude, great color and detail in a small package. While I would never expect AVC-Ultra to show up in the GH5, I am pointing out that 10bit does not have to be over the top with bit rate to be effective...
Click to expand...
422 @ 320 Mbps shouldn't be prohibitive. ProRes 422 HQ is 880 and this should be its equal but with much less allotted space and compatible with the V60 SD cards to boot.
 
Greg_E said:
... (but I have mixed feelings on this one due to Apple killing QT).
Click to expand...

Just to be clear Apple has not killed QuickTime. It is alive and well on the Mac. For windows users, the issue is Apple's decision to stop any further support and upgrades for the format. And while the vulnarability of the Windows version is there, I suspect there is more going on concerning the issue than is apparent on the surface.
 
DLD said:
422 @ 320 Mbps shouldn't be prohibitive. ProRes 422 HQ is 880 and this should be its equal but with much less allotted space and compatible with the V60 SD cards to boot.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind ProRes LT 4k is around the same data rate as AVC-Intra 4k and still looks extremely good and is 10bit and 4:2:2 so if file size is a concern that is always an option with external recorders.

I'm still kind of baffled by the reluctance by so many people to use an external recorder. I understand it's an extra cost and an extra piece of gear to lug around on the camera but we tend to have no problem using external audio recorders so why not external video recorders? One could argue that the gains from an external video recorder way out weight the gains from an external audio recorder. Especially considering the GH4 already records uncompressed 16bit audio. Many of the external 4k recorders also add professional scopes, false color, 3D Luts and a higher quality display than what comes with the GH4. These are all tools that make exposing LOG material a heck of a lot easier and in a professional environment should probably be used over just winging it on the 3.5" display with just a postage stamp sized histogram.

Panasonic had enough sense to make the sky the limit in terms of what quality you can get out of the GH4. Uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 LOG 4k is about as good as it gets outside of raw. If one can handle uncompressed they can get it. If one can handle ProRes422 HQ they can get it. If one wants to keep the file size down and have 100mbps H264 they can get it. I'm sorry but I just don't see a limitation to the video recording of the GH4. The options are all there for us. Panasonic even had enough sense to down convert 4k to HD to use external HD recorders. I really don't see any limitations to using the GH4 in terms of getting the best 4k recording humanly possible out of the camera. Saying it isn't internal is just an excuse. If one considers that a limitation that is their own problem and not Panasonic's problem.

High end formats should be optional on consumer focused camera. Besides I'm not all that convinced that AVC-Intra is really the best choice. There are still too many prediction methods taking place to attempt to make the size smaller. Any time an encode assumes things it tosses something out. It may hold up better than normal H264 but I think a good solid frame by frame format like uncompressed, DNxHD or ProRes are still better options even if they are not as efficient.
 
"I'm still kind of baffled by the reluctance by so many people to use an external recorder."
I think it entirely natural to want to keep acquisition as simple and streamlined as possible.
Not long ago, the idea of all this 3rd party crap strapped on would have been "baffling".
How about licensing of codecs within a capable camera brain?
 
Last edited:
If the GH5 does actually end up shooting in 6K resolution (like some rumors have been suggesting recently) you woudn't be able to record in 6K externally, right? You'd have to use internal recording to get the full resolution image, because all these recorders from Atomos & VideoDevices record in 4K.

My bet is the GH5 will have H265 to record in 6K onto regular SD cards. And at that point I wouldn't want an external recorder.
 
Thomas Smet said:
10bit internal would still be H264 based and . . . would still be subject to macro blocking . . .
Click to expand...

Macro blocking is an artifact of the discrete cosine transfer. The following codecs all use the discrete cosine transfer: JPEG, MPEG 1, MPEG 2, MPEG 4, DV, DNxHD, and ProRes. Macro blocking happens when you starve the discrete cosine transfer and give it too few bits to do an image justice. Why doesn't ProRes suffer macro blocking? Because it's fed enough bits.

MPEG-4 came out after ProRes and has been a formidable codec to beat. Does anyone ever wonder what happened to JPEG2000, with its cool, wavelet-based compression? Tests found that MPEG-4 still beat it.

How many here have seen H264 10bit? We cannot for a second assume it's as good as ProRes 10bit.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can. AVC-Intra is 100 or 200 Mbps, intraframe-only, and at 200 Mbps is visually lossless.


. . . I'm not all that convinced that AVC-Intra is really the best choice. . . . It may hold up better than normal H264 but I think a good solid frame by frame format like uncompressed, DNxHD or ProRes are still better options
Click to expand...

AVC-Intra is a frame-by-frame format.


I'm not saying cameras should necessarily go to AVC-Intra --- although that would be sweet. My current favorite is Cineform RAW: 3.5:1 compression, visually lossless, and an open standard (SMPTE VC-5).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top