GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

So much data to parse through but no real way of testing it first hand or at least finding out if it affects my style of shooting.

For me, a little bit of a shame to see the 180 FPS footage is not true 1080p quality. You can tell from examples floating around but still disappointing to confirm. 10 bit doesn't much matter to me honestly but wouldn't have been a bad thing, and we aren't sure if it is flawed or not. On the topic of firmware, I do count what the camera has at launch as that is how I will certainly use it for a long period of time and there are no guarantees about anything else except for the stated updates. The dynamic range tests were concerning. I don't have the ability to light things and will have to use what is available, this could be an issue potentially.

All in all with this information and no real news from Metabones I might hold off on my pre-order. VFR and the eventual ability to output 4K files while using 4K in the meantime to re-frame were the big selling points. The high ISO performance and dynamic range could be the real nails, I stress my C100s ability often in both matters. Might not be an early adopter as much as I'd like to be.

Still quite torn.
 
It's because the 1080p codec bitrate does not change as frame rate goes up. It's 150 all the way through. At 24fps that's 6.25mbps per frame... at 180, that's .8333. Correct me if I am wrong here, and obviously this doesn't scale exactly as this is an IPB codec not intraframe, but point stands that you want to factor in bitrate here. Record that same footage externally and my understanding is that you won't see nearly the same quality drop. The GH4 had the same thing where 96fps really started to stretch the codec bitrate thin, which is why many found 72fps to be a better personal ceiling. I imagine 120fps will be a really good balance on the GH5 if shooting internal.

One thing that I have NOT seen from Panasonic but that I *REALLY* want to see is the 400mpbs codec option opended up for IPB use. It's great they are offering a 400mbps Intraframe codec, but intraframe NEEDS that bitrate to keep up with rendering every individual frame. Personally I would be much more excited about a 400mbps IPB option, which would really be phenomenal (and should be possible on the hardware). This would mean 180fps slow motion would sit at 2.2mbps on a 400mbps IPB codec, which would be much better.

Email Panasonic your request for a 400mbps IPB!
 
steve phillipps said:
I seem to remember there is an interview with a guy from Panasonic who said that DR and ISO performance were very similar to GH4.
Steve
Click to expand...

This is only partially correct. The Panasonic rep and others have stated that the DR on GH5 is very equivalent to GH4.

The ISO is greatly improved. On the very conservative end, ISO 1600 is the new ISO 800. Many reports (and footage samples) show good useable ISO to 3200 and even 6400 looks better than ISO 3200 on GH4.

Regarding the equivalent DR, the effective net result seems to be a slightly better DR if you consider the effect the more robust codec has for better grading of the image in post, as well as the lower noise floor. It seems reasonable from what has been said and what has been seen to say that the GH4 barely pulled off a questionable 12 stops in vlog; the GH5 should comfortably pull of a nice solid 12 stops.
 
filmguy123 said:
It's because the 1080p codec bitrate does not change as frame rate goes up. It's 150 all the way through. At 24fps that's 6.25mbps per frame... at 180, that's .8333. Correct me if I am wrong here, and obviously this doesn't scale exactly as this is an IPB codec not intraframe, but point stands that you want to factor in bitrate here. Record that same footage externally and my understanding is that you won't see nearly the same quality drop. The GH4 had the same thing where 96fps really started to stretch the codec bitrate thin,
Click to expand...

I thought with the GH4 above 60fps it changed the sensor readout and did some pixel binning or line skipping and that's why the quality was a fair bit worse than up to 60fps? I assumed that the GH5 would do some similar clever stuff above a certain speed with a similar resultant image quality drop. Just my guess though.
Steve
 
You're probably right Steve! I don't know about that. Sounds reasonable.

Here's the crazy thing though: I didn't know any of this when I first picked up the GH4 and I shot an entire project in 72fps and thought it looked phenomenal. The reality is once the images are in motion and being watched for their beauty, freeze frame cropped in pixel peeping doesn't matter. I'm all about that (it's why I'm here nerding out!) but I constantly find myself having to balance such lab findings with the reality that 180fps on the GH5 when actually used for a 3-4 second beauty cut in shot in a project is probably going to look stunning. 72fps & 96fps always looked good when used in proper application coming from GH4 for my needs, and I never had a single client comment on decreased quality (or noticed it much myself editing through).
 
filmguy123 said:
It's because the 1080p codec bitrate does not change as frame rate goes up. It's 150 all the way through. At 24fps that's 6.25mbps per frame... at 180, that's .8333. Correct me if I am wrong here, and obviously this doesn't scale exactly as this is an IPB codec not intraframe, but point stands that you want to factor in bitrate here.
Click to expand...
Yes you need to factor in bitrate. But, as you surmised, it's not really necessary to do a direct scale, because an IBP codec encodes only the changes between frames. At 60fps, the changes between frames are likely to be relatively minor, so each frame requires fewer bits to record, as compared to what would be needed for 24p where the changes between frames are likely to be more substantial, thus requiring more bits for each frame to adequately encode them.

150mbps for 10-bit 4:2:2 sounds pretty thin to me. The UX180 and DVX200 use 100mbps for UHD 24p 4:2:0 8-bit up to 30p, and 150 mbps for UHD 24p 4:2:0 8-bit at 50p/60p. If the GH5 is trying to cram 10 bits (a minimum 25% increase in data) and 4:2:2 (doubling the amount of data for color information) into the same 150mbps, well... I'd have to see it, but just generally I doubt that's sufficient for h.264. If it's using HEVC or h.265 etc., then maybe 150mbps is sufficient -- but under h.264, that just seems like too little. And yes you can likely bet your patoot that one place the codec is going to compromise is on the ultra-fine shading of 10-bit; that's likely one of the first things to go in a complex scene.

Record that same footage externally and my understanding is that you won't see nearly the same quality drop.
Click to expand...
To a ProRes recorder? There will be no drop due to frame rate changes; whether you're recording 24 or 60 the data per frame is identical, so the only thing that changes is the recorded file size (being, of course, 2.5x bigger for 60p than it would be for 24p).

The GH4 had the same thing where 96fps really started to stretch the codec bitrate thin, which is why many found 72fps to be a better personal ceiling.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but it could be due to sensor scanning too. The DVX200 had three quality levels for its slow-mo, 100% quality up to 62, then lower quality up to 96, then lowest quality for 100+ fps. So the GH4 may have had the same kind of thing going, maybe its limit for best quality was 72 and it compromised at 96?
 
steve phillipps said:
I thought with the GH4 above 60fps it changed the sensor readout and did some pixel binning or line skipping and that's why the quality was a fair bit worse than up to 60fps? I assumed that the GH5 would do some similar clever stuff above a certain speed with a similar resultant image quality drop. Just my guess though.
Click to expand...
That's how the DVX200 works. I don't know about the GH4 but would guess that it was similar.
 
filmguy123 said:
with the reality that 180fps on the GH5 when actually used for a 3-4 second beauty cut in shot in a project is probably going to look stunning
Click to expand...

That is what I count on and what I'd use it for. I don't think that is a real factor, I wondered about the dynamic range as I haven't used the GH4. Between that and like I said, high ISO, I was a little hesitant. Also, Metabones. Wish they'd give information.
 
Metabones is working physically from what I understand, and sounds like some firmware updates are due for the electronics. I think it will be OK, but you'd be wise to wait & see in case they have to release an updated piece of hardware. I would say its extremely safe to say it will work, the questions are: when, and how much (free firmware VS new hardware). I imagine answers will be available by early March as you are not alone in this being a very key and central question/concern.
 
Barry, what are your thoughts on a 400mbps IPB codec for the GH5 and why this hasn't been announced (only 400mbps Intraframe)? Any chance you might personally petition them for this?

It seems like a no-brainer and an odd omission to enable 400mbps, but then not give us a choice of IPB vs Intraframe when using the higher bitrate.
 
If one wants more detailed slow motion use 4k 60p and use an advanced slow motion tool in post. FCPX already does a phenomenal job at slow motion with 24p. Giving it 60p with less chance for odd sudden changes between frames should easily yield 4k 180p. Thats only a 3x slow motion applied so not too extreme. The amount of artifacts should be minimal.
 
I agree Thomas, I have had great success with Twixtor. It really can do miracles, depending on the shot. It's a good solution in a world of compromises where you can't have it all.

For many shots, especially more detailed motion ones, there's no replacement for true overcranking without weird artifacts, etc. A higher bitrate 400mbps IPB codec in 1080p would be amazing for that as a starting point, especially since the hardware is capable and Panny has already opted to unlock 400mbps bitrate.
 
ParagonFilmworks said:
For me, a little bit of a shame to see the 180 FPS footage is not true 1080p quality. You can tell from examples floating around but still disappointing to confirm.
Click to expand...
Neither is the Canon 5D at ANY frame rate, and it makes wonderful images. 180 FPS on the GH5 has more detail than 96 FPS on the GH4.
 
filmguy123 said:
Barry, what are your thoughts on a 400mbps IPB codec for the GH5 and why this hasn't been announced (only 400mbps Intraframe)? Any chance you might personally petition them for this?

It seems like a no-brainer and an odd omission to enable 400mbps, but then not give us a choice of IPB vs Intraframe when using the higher bitrate.
Click to expand...
It is neither a no-brainer nor an odd omission. Look at the DVX200 and UX180 -- they have 50mbps HD in IBP, and 200mbps ALL-I. What I've heard about the GH5 makes it sound like it's right in line with the established practice.

I don't know whether it's possible to make the 400mbps IBP or not. You're talking about a tremendous increase in processing that needs to be done in an IBP codec, vs. an all-Intra codec. I mean, an astonishing increase in the level of complexity in the codec. I would not be surprised at all if they said that the chipset only handles up to 150 mbps in IBP.

Personally, I think 200mbps IBP is about the minimum necessary to get sufficient quality 10-bit 4:2:2. 400mbps IBP probably going to deliver something pretty good. 400mbps ALL-I doesn't sound all that great to me, as it's double the bitrate of the current DVX200, UX180, and GH4 200mbps ALL-I... and those are for 1080p 4:2:0 8-bit! Now you're saying 400 mbps ALL-I but it's being tasked with encoding 4x as much information, and 4:2:2, and 10-bit, so -- my guess (wild speculation) is that the 400mbps ALL-I ain't gonna be great. Might be good enough, I don't know, but I suspect that it isn't going to be truly great, as it's having to encode about 6x as much data (way rough approximation) into only twice as much bandwidth. I'd love to be surprised on that, though, and see it look lovely. We'll see.

400mbps IBP would be probably pretty darn good. But is it possible? Does the hardware handle it? I don't know. But it would certainly be something to aspire to, and something to ask for whenever you're talking to a representative. My suspicion is that the hardware won't have the juice to do IBP at 400mbps, but that is again just wild speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top