RAW video vs Panasonic GH4??

T

Toni Montana

New member
Hi people!
I have big question which one is better for videos and video editing...i own gh4 and i notice that in low light camera is not good and i see a lot noise in camera, when i want edit color grading in video i cant do too much like in raw video...i want spent less than 2000 doll for camera body for my new camera but i dont know witch one...i saw canon 5d mark II have good raw video and camera is not that expencive...HELP!
 
There's a few affordable raw solutions out there -

Black Magic Cinema camera - about the same sensor size as the GH4 I believe; shoots raw to SSDs. About $2k or less. Highest frame rate is 30p.

Black Magic Pocket Cinema camera - super-16mm sized sensor (very small). $1k or so, shoots compressed raw to SD cards. Tiny camera, likely needs a loupe or monitor for most conditions. Usually requires a speedbooster for going wide, also can take some old 16mm film lenses. Highest frame rate is 30p.

Black Magic 4k camera, $3k? $3500? 4K or 1080 Raw to SSDs. Global shutter is nice.

All three also shoot 10 bit Pro Res HQ which can give you more grading flexibility without using raw. All three include DaVinci Resolve software for grading and converting raw footage. They can do beautiful images but more of a film-making sort of mindset. All three really require an external audio recorder (but honestly, so does the GH4).

I'm no expert on the BMC cameras but there's plenty of stuff on the web.

There's the digital bolex, you'd need to research that. And the 5D with raw.
 
tnx! when i saw videos in vimeo and youtube i think nobody can compare with canon 5d mark iii magic lantern its that correct?
 
Black Magic Design cameras ain't too good in low-light either. For that, you need a larger sensor like in Sony A7s or Canon C100, if we're talking ~ $2,500-$4,000 price range.
 
Yeah, if you want to shoot RAW, and you want good low-light performance....it's 5D Mk III. Killer image. Canon lenses.
 
Do you really really need raw for a very specific requirment? Because I can tell you this, going from the GH4 to a 5D mark TWO, will not be a step up in image quality in almost all respects. The GH4 has significantly more detail, that alone is worth going for it in my opinion, while the mk II is very soft, more like standard definition than HD actually is h.264, and mildly improved in raw (and it doesn't record 1080p raw reliably). While the GH4 will give you a sharp image. So that's a big factor to consider going from a gh4 to a 5D II, it's a BIG hit in resolution.

Also the lowlight performance of the GH4 is slightly better than the mk II, because of the ugly noise pattern even at 160 ISO, in short I wpuldn't push either cameras to over 1600, if you need more go for a mk III, or an a7s.

Dynamic range is slightly better on the GH4 too, not a big differenece, but the shadow detail and noise structure is SO much nicer than the Canon, raw imprpves this but not by much.

This is where the GH4 shines. Where the 5D mk II will shine, is getting shallow depth of field and that lovely full frame aesthetic, and it will have richer colour gradients for heavy grading, but again the 4K files of the GH4 compared to 720p raw from the mk II grade about similarly, just a bit better on the mk II in terms of how real the colours look to true life and how it doesn't band in smooth gradients. The GH4 image is robust.

So no I wouldn't recommend getting a mk and selling a gh4, save for a mk III or whatever comes next from Canon, unles you really really need that sshallower DOF and slightly stronger colour gradients when grading.

Save up for a mk III, or even better, when you have the money the mk 4 will probably be out and be even more lovely. Shoot with the GH4 unless you really have a specific reason to hate the image and can't work with it, there's no other cameras in this bracket that gives you a signficant (if npticeable) improvment in IQ, and I've tried probably all. This is pretty much as good as it gets in that range, for 100% of your viewers that is.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Do you really really need raw for a very specific requirment? Because I can tell you this, going from the GH4 to a 5D mark TWO, will not be a step up in image quality in almost all respects. The GH4 has significantly more detail, that alone is worth going for it in my opinion, while the mk II is very soft, more like standard definition than HD actually is h.264, and mildly improved in raw (and it doesn't record 1080p raw reliably). While the GH4 will give you a sharp image. So that's a big factor to consider going from a gh4 to a 5D II, it's a BIG hit in resolution.
Click to expand...

This all really depends... need low light capability and raw, it's the Canon. But the biggest mistake the OP is making is assuming he needs raw all the time, based on his experience with super-compressed H264.

Raw file sizes and workflow (for anything other than a very short project) is a big change in working style, and takes more investment in time and storage. Look how many people purchased BMC cameras to shoot raw and found 90% of the time, Prores did the trick. Got a super-high contrast scene and you need to hold detail in the sky? Shoot it raw. Just want grading power? Shoot in a log-style prores (or light the damn scene close to your final edit).

The shoots that pay my bills tend to require pretty fast editing turnaround - I wouldn't want to be shooting 100% raw at this time.

The thing really lacking in DSLRs isn't necessarily raw footage - just giving us prores HQ would be a big step up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top