GH4 Sigh. Disappearing screen info is here to stay.

[vtwiz]

Then why isn't the GH4, or more other cameras encoding 4K at 400mps? or 800mps? or 8K at 800mps? Why is there any limit at all, if there's no difference in the amount of work the processor has to do?

Did I ever say that there should be no limit on encoding?

You can put words in my mouth all you like but you look like a fool with your idiotic statements.

The camera is able to throughput 200Mbps we know. The hardware, the SD interface, managing heat build up..... this is no the case for 8K or 800Mbps. Whoever mentioned 8K or 800Mbps? Having 'no limit at all' like you stupidly suggested is not feasable as you are limited to the throughput of the hardware and SD cards plus overheating. But, we already know that everything in the camera can handle 200Mbps.

It also has nothing to do with price and price is not part of the argument. Again, the hardware is there, it can do it easily at 1080p. If anything, its 'generally' easier for an encoder to encode at a higher data rate is there is less compression being performed.

As for the Bozo engineers, dont you think that they choose what date rate they want to give us? It's not a technical limitation that only the engineers know the answer to. As Snowblind smartly said, look at the GH1 and 2 and what was achieved with those. Not technical limitations at all.

I dont have an issue with the 4K data rate. It just perplexes me that they saw fit to give 1080P 200Mbps (even though it is all I) but 4k that has 4 times the info is limited to 100Mbps. I think it shows, getting back to the OP, that crippling cameras still happens. Don't all be so naive.

I don't expect it all for nothing and I understand that there needs to be limits but decisions that don't make sense are annoying.

Using a screen that is susseptable to burn in on your falgship hybrid camera, limiting the data rate on a 4K image disproportionately to a lower res 1080p image and data rate etc..... just doesnt make sense.

 

[bruceallen]

Using a screen that is susseptable to burn in on your falgship hybrid camera, limiting the data rate on a 4K image disproportionately to a lower res 1080p image and data rate etc..... just doesnt make sense.

If you replace "your flagship hybrid camera" with "your cheap $1700 hybrid camera"... it is excusable, no?

I'd rather have a $1700 camera with the above limitations (AND with 10bit 4:2:2 4K HDMI out so that you can get around all of them) than a $3400 camera with everything above fixed. But maybe that's just me!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[vtwiz]

Sorry, but I've said it before..... My wife's $300 Sony point and shoot has a great screen (looks as good as the GH3) but the info is able to stay on indefinitely. Price is not an excuse here. And it's not as if it costs Panasonic to fix these issues, they are deciding not to give them to you. $1700 or $3500 makes no difference here.

Yeah, 10bit 422 is nice but that doesn't replace what on screen info gives you. Lack of on screen info on a camera like this is inexcusable no matter what super duper video format it spits out.

 

[bruceallen]

Sorry, but I've said it before..... My wife's $300 Sony point and shoot has a great screen (looks as good as the GH3) but the info is able to stay on indefinitely. Price is not an excuse here. And it's not as if it costs Panasonic to fix these issues, they are deciding not to give them to you. $1700 or $3500 makes no difference here.

Panasonic has 4 options:

1. Use your wife's EVF (presumably inferior since the GH4 EVF is better than the GH3 EVF supposedly) instead of their OLED EVF that has burn in.

2. Use the "better" (but burn-in prone) OLED EVF and turn off info to avoid burn in.

3. Use the "better" (but burn-in prone) OLED EVF and allow experts to leave info on. They expose themselves to a higher chance of returns but of course at the same time might get more camera sales. You and I would prefer this but it is a financial risk, you don't agree? You could see how this could affect price, no? They'd have to budget a little for returns and potential class-action lawsuits. Or of course, we could sign a disclaimer upon receipt of the camera (I'd be fine with this of course, haha).

4. Use a more expensive EVF that isn't burn-in prone.

You can see that price factors into all of these choices, right? I am not delighted that Panasonic made choice #2... but if choice #2 was needed to hit $1700... it's personally acceptable to me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[vtwiz]

Panasonic has 4 options:

1. Use your wife's EVF (presumably inferior since the GH4 EVF is better than the GH3 EVF supposedly) instead of their OLED EVF that has burn in.

2. Use the "better" (but burn-in prone) OLED EVF and turn off info to avoid burn in.

3. Use the "better" (but burn-in prone) OLED EVF and allow experts to leave info on. They expose themselves to a higher chance of returns but of course at the same time might get more camera sales. You and I would prefer this but it is a financial risk, you don't agree? You could see how this could affect price, no? They'd have to budget a little for returns and potential class-action lawsuits. Or of course, we could sign a disclaimer upon receipt of the camera (I'd be fine with this of course, haha).

4. Use a more expensive EVF that isn't burn-in prone.

You can see that price factors into all of these choices, right? I am not delighted that Panasonic made choice #2... but if choice #2 was needed to hit $1700... it's personally acceptable to me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

1) I'm sure the screen on my wifes camera is cheaper than the GH3 and GH4 screens. Price no factor.

2) this is the current situation.

3) I don't think Panasonic would ever do this. one option I would like to see if Panasonic decide to carry on using these terrible OLEDS is the option to output the info constantly when using an external EVF. Price no factor.

4) Plenty of cheaper screens do not suffer burn in. Price no factor and Panasonic could save some money here.

No, I cant see price factoring into any of your given scenarios other than No3 and thats not going to happen when there are easier fixes.

Honestly, I don't like the GH3 screen and if the GH4 screen is the same technology then I prob wont like it either. It has massive colour shifts depending on the angle of viewing (my wifes $300 Sony actually has much less colour shift) so I don;t see why Panasonic are persisting with the OLED. It's nothing special and if the burn in reason is true, then there are only negatives to using OLED.

Again, plenty of other companies use OLED screen and they have info staying on all the time.

Makes. No. Sense.

 

[Bern Caughey]

Does your wife's Sony OLED get left on for hours on end as filmmakers do with their GHs?

 

[stoneinapond]

GH2 rings the bell? The same story keeps repeating itself. That was the case with GH2 and 5D. Apparently it was also impossible to implement zebras and have proper sound bar, and apparently it was impossible to get a clean HDMI out on 5D. Interestingly enough a couple of guys in a garage managed to hack both pieces of hardware and significantly improve the performance.

Yes but the guys in garage had to answer only to themselves, not a large customer user base that would absolutely not be down with months of beta testing to get stable footage.

And I don't remember anyone hacking zebras on the GH2 or GH3.

 

[Dafilman21]

SO does the GH3 not output info to external monitors?

 

[vtwiz]

@ Bern, I'm using my wife's camera as an example because people say you can't have it all for the price, making it sound like you have to spend big bucks to get these basic features. Weather it's my wife's camera or ANY other camera from any other manufacturer from $300 to $50,000, the GH3 is the only camera I have ever used that has disappearing info during record.

 

[vtwiz]

SO does the GH3 not output info to external monitors?

Yes, it does bit after ten seconds or so of recording the info will disappear.

 

[Kevin Lee]

I HATED the idea of the info disappearing before I got my GH3. Because I relied on second guessing my original settings a dozen times on a shoot by having that info consistently on screen. So I did not want to get a GH3 for that one reason. But alas I ordered one and have been shooting with it for over a year now. Now I concentrate more on framing, lighting, symmetry, shot composition, etc… while I'm recording. I see things on the screen that I may have missed because I'm looking at my settings. I can see that its still recording at a glance at the screen, and if I need to recheck my settings… I touch the screen. I wear headphones for audio through every shoot (as I hope every professional here does) and don't rely on the tiny meter from a flip out screen.

I have grown accustom to not having lines and numbers covering what my viewers see. I find myself annoyed at my GH2 because the info distracts my eye from seeing the full picture. I would shut it off on my gh2, but then when I desire to see it at a glance I cannot simply touch the screen to see it. It seems here as well what is one man's junk is another man's treasure. To me comparing your wife's camera to this is like saying how come my cadillac doesn't have the 15" alloy rims that my old Honda fit had? I really really need those because I have always relied on them.

 

[malibudutchie]

Although Panasonic should've given us an option on the GH4 to switch the display on and off - I'm still puzzled why its such a big deal. I'm with Kevin here - I like the fact that the display switches off giving you a reasonably clear screen to compose, focus, etc. I don't need to know all the other junk when I'm recording. I need a red rec light and a timer to reinforce I'm rolling - the rest is set before I shoot. You want to see it - wave your hand over the sensor. Think about it - junk onscreen constantly or a clear view - easy really.

 

[vtwiz]

Although Panasonic should've given us an option on the GH4 to switch the display on and off - I'm still puzzled why its such a big deal. I'm with Kevin here - I like the fact that the display switches off giving you a reasonably clear screen to compose, focus, etc. I don't need to know all the other junk when I'm recording. I need a red rec light and a timer to reinforce I'm rolling - the rest is set before I shoot. You want to see it - wave your hand over the sensor. Think about it - junk onscreen constantly or a clear view - easy really.

Different people shoot in different ways. You may have a working method that suits you, that's great. Sometimes, in a run n gun situation on a shoulder rig, there is no way of letting go of the handles and waving your hand around. Sometimes I need to rack the exposure during a shot, it would be nice to have the histogram in and see my settings. Is it a deal breaker, prob not but the fact remains that the info should be there. If you like not having the info, there are options to turn it off but there should also be the option to leave it on perminantky like every other video camera out there.

 

[thedarkhorse]

I'f someone doesn't already make one this will be a good time to make a hot/cold shoe phone holder so you can view the settings info on the phone screen through the panasonic app, now I wonder if the app shows audio meters.

 

[vtwiz]

I'f someone doesn't already make one this will be a good time to make a hot/cold shoe phone holder so you can view the settings info on the phone screen through the panasonic app, now I wonder if the app shows audio meters.

Relying on a mobile phone on a professional (or any) shoot is not acceptable really. Batteries dont last long with Wifi constantly streaming and you can't just pop in a new battery. Should mickey mouse solutions really be required to provide what basic function should already be included with the camera?

Sony, Canon, Arri, Red etc..... all think that the operator needs the info on all the time. Why doesn't Panasonic?

 

[malibudutchie]

Sony, Canon, Arri, Red etc..... all think that the operator needs the info on all the time. Why doesn't Panasonic?

Red and Arri must have come down in price if that's what you're comparing. Also, if you have a look you'll see Panasonic has variable displays on most of their cameras too.

 

[vtwiz]

Red and Arri must have come down in price if that's what you're comparing. Also, if you have a look you'll see Panasonic has variable displays on most of their cameras too.

Are you serious? You think price has anything to do with it? This is not a high end feature I am asking for here. Get it?

My point is that even if you have been able to make it work by waving your hand around or tapping a button to get the info back, EVERY other manufacturer thinks you should be able to see the info all the time.

Yes, Panasonic has this isiotic feature. No other manufacturers.

I also, mentioned Canon and Sony, they have plenty of cheaper cameras but again, this is not a price dependant feature!

Stop being a fool.

 

[malibudutchie]

Are you serious? You think price has anything to do with it? This is not a high end feature I am asking for here. Get it?

My point is that even if you have been able to make it work by waving your hand around or tapping a button to get the info back, EVERY other manufacturer thinks you should be able to see the info all the time.

Yes, Panasonic has this isiotic feature. No other manufacturers.

I also, mentioned Canon and Sony, they have plenty of cheaper cameras but again, this is not a price dependant feature!

Stop being a fool.

You need to settle down when others don't agree, we're talking about a display - don't blow a blood vessel with idiotic rants and conspiracies - you're a tough guy when anonymous - say this in a real name forum

 

[vtwiz]

You need to settle down when others don't agree, we're talking about a display - don't blow a blood vessel with idiotic rants and conspiracies - you're a tough guy when anonymous - say this in a real name forum

Id say that to your face, that's the kinda person I am.

In terms of me settling down, don't worry I'm fine and completely calm. It's stupid sarcastic remarks that you feel the need to make that is annoying. But that doesn't get me wound up. Me calling you a fool is just an observation I'm making. You're reading it wrong.

So Malibu, at what price point do you think a camera should feature info that always stays on? Obviously you think that $1699 is too low to have the info on all the time.

Whats your figure?

 

[thorn]

Did I ever say that there should be no limit on encoding?

No, but you don't seem to be acknowledging that encoding/processing/saving does have to take data size into account.

You can put words in my mouth all you like but you look like a fool with your idiotic statements.

Ow. Quit it. Ow.

The camera is able to throughput 200Mbps we know.

We know it can do 1080 @ 200. We do not know it can do 4K @ 200. You're saying that it inherently can (if not crippled), but based on nothing more than... a wish and a guess.

But, we already know that everything in the camera can handle 200Mbps.

Perhaps the 3rd time will be the charm? Do you -NOT- understand than the highest transfer rate you can get (on any computer system, ever) is directly related to the amount of data you're attempting to transfer? What part of that (basic math) equation is NOT making sense to you?