GH4 Raw VIdeo

David Del Real

David Del Real

Well-known member
Any chance we'll be able to get Raw video off the GH4 via an external recorder anytime soon? I know, I'm reaching. I thought I read somewhere a while back though, that Panasonic was considering making this available. Have they forgotten us???
 
Last edited:
That's very unlikely. (or, as some might have put it, no way in heck and all that)

However, there are rumors that Sony might enable an internal compressed Raw on its FS5 and FS7 models (it promised some form of Raw on FS5 and FS7 already has it via the XDCA extension and an external recorder). If internal compressed Raw is the new orange is the new black, then it might be a possibility on GH5 or whatever camera will be fused off the recently released Leica model.

My take is that GH5 will be better served by the HEVC codec, since Panasonic is likely to stay with the SDXC cards on this tier of products. But (compressed) Raw is coming at some point too.
 
DLD said:
since Panasonic is likely to stay with the SDXC cards on this tier of products
Click to expand...

SanDisk make SDXC UHS-II memory cards with a maximum WRITE speed of 250 MB/sec. ( Panasonic Micro P2 cards are rated for 200 MB/sec WRITE speed )
 
TheDingo said:
SanDisk make SDXC UHS-II memory cards with a maximum WRITE speed of 250 MB/sec. ( Panasonic Micro P2 cards are rated for 200 MB/sec WRITE speed )
Click to expand...
Ya but the maximum speed doesn't really matter in the video recordings. The Max/burst rate is really more for the photography. Video needs the sustained rate. This is why GH4 and DVX 200 tops out at 100 Mbps (and that's a variable bit rate, with the constant around 80) and LS300 at 150. In order to make the jump in the recording bit rate, they will need to go to CFast 2.0, which is currently a tad pricey for this range of cameras. Of course, prices for the media always drop pretty quickly and Panasonic could include a card with the package as well.

BTW, Panasonic's does have it high end pro codec in AVC Ultra, that can go up to 640 Mbps Variable (320 in 4:2:2 10-bit). Would they be willing to include it on GH5? It would depend on their marketing strategy. If they are thinking of a $5,000-$7,000 pro range model down the road, then they will likely leave GH5 at ~ 100. In which case, HEVC would really help.

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/p2/AVC-ULTRAoverview.pdf
 
Another "anti-Raw" factor is that the camera will need an SDI connection and the external recorder market drifts toward the HDMI connected "uncompressed" 10-bit. Which should suit a lower end 4K model like GH5 just fine. DVX 200 is still 8-bit out.
 
Heck, I'd be happy with 1080p Raw.... (I know, just get a 5D III and put ML on it, but I already have a GH4) it doesn't have to be 4K - although that would be incredible. Actually considering a 5D III for some ML Raw goodness, I used to have a couple of 6D's with ML and Raw is incredible. I'd even go with a couple of 7D II's if I thought ML Raw would be developed for it. Resolution isn't everything.
 
I would think there's very little to gain from Raw compared to the high bit rate ProRes via the 10-bit HDMI and onto the external recorder. At some point, you're going to run into the limits inherent to the camera.
 
DLD said:
I would think there's very little to gain from Raw compared to the high bit rate ProRes via the 10-bit HDMI and onto the external recorder. At some point, you're going to run into the limits inherent to the camera.
Click to expand...

I know that 10 bit ProRes is better than the h.264 internal files but I've worked with 10 bit ProRes off a Blackmagic Design camera and it's good but nowhere near what I can work with in post using Raw. Although it may be a less expensive move to grab an external recorder and just go the 10 bit route but Raw is still like a cloud over my head. I really miss it. I won't sell my GH4, it's still a "good enough" camera for my needs. Just looking at other options to add to my arsenal.
 
I'd be willing to bet money that the GH4 will never be RAW capable for video. Where is the business sense in upgrading a camera that they've already taken your money for? We're not talking about a bug fix, or a compatibility update - this would be akin to developing a new product and giving it away for free.
 
DLD said:
I would think there's very little to gain from Raw compared to the high bit rate ProRes via the 10-bit HDMI and onto the external recorder. At some point, you're going to run into the limits inherent to the camera.
Click to expand...

Have you not worked with RAW video workflow before? The difference is night and day and really no comparison can be made even with a robust codec like prores.
 
PaPa said:
Have you not worked with RAW video workflow before? The difference is night and day and really no comparison can be made even with a robust codec like prores.
Click to expand...

But in truth comparisons can, and are made between them every day.

I'm sure if I asked forum members to choose the best car between a brand new Ferrari and a 10 year old mini-van, almost everybody would pick the new Ferrari. Because nobody mentioned the qualifier. "Picking up a family of 4 with luggage from the airport". Well then, the mini-van is the clear winner here as the right choice for the job at hand.

In the same regard a raw workflow doesn't trump all.

There are a number of qualifiers which could skew the choice away from shooting either uncompressed raw or compressed raw, including but not limited to time/budget.

Al the best!

Dave
 
Last edited:
PaPa said:
Have you not worked with RAW video workflow before? The difference is night and day and really no comparison can be made even with a robust codec like prores.
Click to expand...
ProRes 444 XQ and 3:1 compressed Raw are basically the same file size and arguably of the same quality. And most TV shows are shot in 4:2:2 HQ on Alexa. And most end-users can't view anything above 2.5K and ~ 8 stops anyway.

Vardalos said:
I think the real question is “What’s Good Enough” Raw, 10bit, 12bit, Pro Res or is it something entirely new. Personally, I think the future lies with recorders, I also think if you want to get the most out of your existing camera equipment, buy a separate recorder...
Click to expand...
The future is with the internal SSD's, recording the compressed and perhaps lossless Raw and it's no more than two years away.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
ProRes 444 XQ and 3:1 compressed Raw are basically the same file size and arguably of the same quality. And most TV shows are shot in 4:2:2 HQ on Alexa. And most end-users can't view anything above 2.5K and ~ 8 stops anyway.

The future is with the internal SSD's, recording the compressed and perhaps lossless Raw and it's no more than two years away.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we have very different perceptions of RAW and what it's capabilities. However, I haven't experienced proress 444 XQ so I will say that if you can blow out a cloudy sky about 2 stops over and can bring it back in prores, then you have a point. Otherwise you can't compare them.
 
PaPa said:
if you can blow out a cloudy sky about 2 stops over and can bring it back in prores
Click to expand...
Highlight range has everything to do with the camera and its opto-electronic transfer function, nothing to do with the video compression. S-Log 2 or S-Log 3 in ProRes, absolutely you can recover 2 stops of overexposure.
 
balazer said:
Highlight range has everything to do with the camera and its opto-electronic transfer function, nothing to do with the video compression. S-Log 2 or S-Log 3 in ProRes, absolutely you can recover 2 stops of overexposure.
Click to expand...

True. I notice that you didn't mention Vlog-L though...
 
DLD said:
ProRes 444 XQ and 3:1 compressed Raw are basically the same file size and arguably of the same quality. And most TV shows are shot in 4:2:2 HQ on Alexa. And most end-users can't view anything above 2.5K and ~ 8 stops anyway.

The future is with the internal SSD's, recording the compressed and perhaps lossless Raw and it's no more than two years away.
Click to expand...

This is so wrong. RAW is not just some form of image compression but an entirely different way of working with the footage. It bypasses all in camera processing and gives you a "raw" output of the sensor. Its about flexibility and range to work with material in post and in no way directly comparable to ProRes4444 XQ. Maybe in terms of the compression level of each pixel but again this is an apple and orange comparison of the material.

Take RAW stills for example, something we can all try out on any DSLR. RAW isn't just about less compression than jpeg but being able to adjust the processing of that image in post. This is the ultimate power of RAW.

RAW isn't easy to work with however and thats why ProRes is a good option for many people who want something better than H264 but don't want to have to pull their hair out doing the job of a camera DSP and manually processing every shot. Some TV shows just don't have that kind of budget. Plus if a show was shot well to begin with it likely doesn't need the range in post to push the color very hard. RAW isn't for everybody and its hard to really say if its better or worse. What it does is it puts the control in the hands of the artists instead of the DSP in the camera. Its like painting with a blank canvas vs with a paint by numbers thing from the craft store. They are both paintings and can look very nice but one is more of a template or a canned look vs the other having complete artistic freedom.

While ProRes4444 XQ is 4:4:4 and 12bit thats pretty much where the similarities end compared to RAW. Its still a baked in look and nowhere near the same kind of workflow.
 
It doesn't have to be "baked in". One still has logs and and grading. And, as explained to me on a different thread, anything compressed in excess of 2/2.5 will still be lossy.

In any case, the lossless compression will be the domain of the big budget features. TV needs to be more practical due to the sheer volume of footage and a one-man band can do whatever s/he feels like. GH4 and the (presumably) incoming GH5 are the lowest tier of what might be considered pro quality units and one can get Raw by making a fairly small step up to FS700 + Q7/+ or wait for the imminent BMD URSA Mini arrival.

PS. It's funny how some people argued that a casual viewer can't spot the difference between 1080p and 4K but now the argument is that the same casual viewer can, as an example, spot the difference a 707 Mbps recording bit rate and 1.2 Gbps. I'd wager that, in this instance, he can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top