4K Panasonic GH4 May Arrive This Spring to Compete Against Canon Cinema Cameras - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
1 2  3  ... Last
Camcorders > 4K Panasonic GH4 May Arrive This Spring to Compete Against Canon Cinema Cameras
jogiba's Avatar jogiba 12:42 PM 10-23-2013
Looks like 2014 will bring many 4K cameras.
Quote:
16mp
1/8000 shutter
1mil dot OLED screen
21mm OLED viewfinder, 3,000+ dot.
Time code
200mbps mp4 All-i/100mbps IPB
4k/30p
4:2:2 10/8bit output
3G-SDI and XLR adaptor (An adaptor that the camera sits on with XLR x2, HD-SDI x4)
Price: €2799
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/10/panasonic-gh4-4k-30fps-price-cost-rumor-canon-cinema/

hatchback's Avatar hatchback 01:08 PM 10-23-2013
Finally something new from Panasonic that I might want to buy!
brunerww's Avatar brunerww 01:39 PM 10-23-2013
I would probably sell my GH1, GH2 and GH3 to buy one of these at the $3K price point, but it's a bit of a disappointment that the list doesn't include RAW frown.gif

That said, Canon should be worried. Between this and the Blackmagic cameras, there won't be any reason to shell out $17,000 for a C300.
slimoli's Avatar slimoli 01:47 PM 10-23-2013
Not sure if we can trust this..Panasonic has never used the number "4" on their products, to start with. It brings bad luck in Japanese culture. The price difference between current and new model is also too high, most likely we will see a GH5 a little more expensive than the GH3 with possible 4K capability.
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar Paulo Teixeira 03:10 PM 10-23-2013
A lot of people said the same about Sony not naming the new Playstation with 4 at the end. I believe we will still see a successor to the GH3 with a price tag not too different.

10 bit and 3G HDI output would have to be for a higher class camera. I would hope it includes ND filters built in. 2160 60p is another thing I'd like to see. I also hope this thing gets hackable or at least provide even higher bit rate although if the codec is H.265, that would be fine as is. If it does get 2160 60p then it better have HDMI 2.0. 6G-SDI would be good as well.

Anyway, Panasonic did have a patent in the past for a handheld M43 camera sort of like the Sony VG30 but smaller.
bsprague's Avatar bsprague 09:40 AM 10-25-2013
I'm going to find it very hard to invest in anything "4K"! I read a review of a Samsung 4K TV on CNET this morning:

"Anyone buying a 4K/Ultra High-Definition TV of 65 inches or smaller and expecting to see an improvement in detail -- or any other aspect of picture quality -- with normal HD sources will be disappointed. We tested the Samsung UNF9000 and Panasonic TC-P65WT600 extensively to look for any such improvement compared with a same-size 1080p TV, and it simply wasn't there.

Meanwhile actual 4K content is as rare as hen's teeth today, and not going mainstream, especially as broadcast TV, for years. Even when a 4K TV plays 4K content, the improvement over a 1080p TV is likely to range from subtle to nonexistent, depending on how close you sit. As difficult as it is to believe when you hear about all those extra pixels mentioned in marketing materials, 4K offers at best marginal real-world improvements on 1080p."

I don't live where I can use more than about 55 inche TVs.
bsprague's Avatar bsprague 09:43 AM 10-25-2013
" there won't be any reason to shell out $17,000 for a C300."

That's a camera with some "curb appeal". It just looks right.
brunerww's Avatar brunerww 04:08 PM 10-25-2013
I'll just buy a GH4 and use the other $14K to buy something with real curb appeal: http://uncrate.com/stuff/ducati-monster-diesel-motorcycle/ smile.gif
SD90's Avatar SD90 10:07 PM 10-25-2013
I can't get too excited about a GH4 when the GH3 doesn't even produce video that is as bright, detailed and colorful as a low bitrate (20 mbps) Olympus E-P5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIAAIClmA6s
slimoli's Avatar slimoli 11:36 PM 10-25-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

I can't get too excited about a GH4 when the GH3 doesn't even produce video that is as bright, detailed and colorful as a low bitrate (20 mbps) Olympus E-P5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIAAIClmA6s

I disagree. The GH3 produces a better quality video, IMHO.
flintyplus's Avatar flintyplus 12:43 AM 10-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

I can't get too excited about a GH4 when the GH3 doesn't even produce video that is as bright, detailed and colorful as a low bitrate (20 mbps) Olympus E-P5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIAAIClmA6s
True for me the Olympus looked best in most well lit scenes,not in low light though.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 03:51 AM 10-26-2013
Here's the summation of the video quality from the Olympus according to dpreview:

''Disappointingly, the E-P5's video is no better than the E-M5's: although nominally 1920 x 1080 resolution, it looks a lot lower, possibly as a result of clumsy sharpening. Shooting a video resolution chart, we can't get it to produce the roughly 1000 lines per picture height that it should be able to produce. The result on real-world footage is that everything looks rather mushy and indistinct.''

I think anyone that's played or owned a GH3 would not describe their footage in that manner. That's why the GH3 has the reputation it does. However I find it really odd that so many of the GH3 shots in that comparison looked so soft. I only recently tested a GH3 and I can't recall any clip that I ever shot that looked as soft as most of the GH3 clips looked in that shootout. Pretty bizarre, especially when you look at how many clips are on YouTube that are razor sharp

I'm surprised that Blunty used vivid mode in that comparison and I think that's why the A/B has such limited value IMO. Every manufacturer's vivid mode is going to be quite different. Some are downright ugly. Standard mode at default settings should have been used.

Here's dpreview's comments on the Olympus autofocus:

''The camera can continuously autofocus during movie shooting (from movie mode) but, being based on contrast-detection AF, the result is footage that shimmers and 'breathes' as the camera constantly overshoots and undershoots to confirm that it's still in focus.''
SD90's Avatar SD90 09:19 AM 10-26-2013
The Olympus bodies even produce landscape video that looks clearer on Youtube than the full frame, 36 megapixel $3,000 Nikon D800E: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krq5r2Zhlzc
thedest's Avatar thedest 06:25 PM 10-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

True for me the Olympus looked best in most well lit scenes,not in low light though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

I can't get too excited about a GH4 when the GH3 doesn't even produce video that is as bright, detailed and colorful as a low bitrate (20 mbps) Olympus E-P5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIAAIClmA6s

Im sorry, but where is it superior to the GH3?

That comparison shows that the GH3 has a little better dynamic range and has a better resolution. There is more detail in the video of the GH3.

Where is the Olympus better? Cant see that.
SD90's Avatar SD90 11:27 PM 10-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

the GH3 has a little better dynamic range and has a better resolution. There is more detail in the video of the GH3.
Where is the Olympus better? Cant see that.

Screen shots of the 1080 footage of both cameras:
http://imageshack.com/a/img801/5968/sh3i.png
http://imageshack.com/a/img38/291/a8b4.png
http://imageshack.com/a/img59/3130/sxnv.png
http://imageshack.com/a/img707/590/0fti.png
jogiba's Avatar jogiba 05:36 AM 10-27-2013
View the Original .MP4 file (1920x1080 / 686MB) that is available on Vimeo.






thedest's Avatar thedest 06:16 AM 10-27-2013
SD90, your examples only show that the GH3 is softer, and that means nothing.

I always say that. Too much contrast, too much saturation and oversharpening are great ways to fool the consumer.

Check that out:


.
Check out how the 2 cameras render that rock. The transition between the highlight area and the midtone area is pretty bad in the olympus. You can also see oversharpening. Look how fine the detail of the GH3 is. It has much more detail - thats the result of a better resolution. If you like sharp images, you can increase the sharpening in the GH3. That way you will have more detail, resolution and sharpness than the Olympus.
.

.
Again, look at the textures. The GH3 renders really fine details, while the Olympus looks too much digital.
.

.
Thats one of the best examples. Look how both cameras render the grass. The GH3 looks FAR superior. Its pretty clear.
.

.
Again, look at the fine textures. The GH3 has a much better resolution. The Olympus is so oversharpened that you can even see the halos around the details.
.

.
Look how much more shadow detail you have on the GH3. And you have less blown out highlights
.

.
Again, fine details on the GH3. Oversharpening and lower resolution on the Olympus.
.
.
.
.
.
Important thing: if you are watching this video in youtube without going full screen, you wont see the oversharpening and the lower resolution. Doing that you can be fooled by the oversharpening thinking that the Olympus is better. Once you go fullscreen, its pretty easy to see the differences. If you watch that video in a big screen TV its even better. Without youtube compression the difference is probably bigger.

The GH3 is, without a doubt, superior.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 04:20 PM 10-27-2013
Simply watching video, shot on a GH3 at default settings, on a high quality plasma, will remove all doubts about sharpness, detail and dynamic range.

To my eyes the image is so much better on a good quality, large screen display, as opposed to a relatively small computer monitor.
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar Paulo Teixeira 05:51 PM 10-27-2013
So far Olympus cameras has way too many restrictions when it comes to shooting video. No 24p, no 60p and a recording time limit such as 22 minutes for the EP5 and 29 minutes for the EM1. Plus a lot can be debated when it comes to color reproduction and sometimes dynamic range but when it comes to pure resolution, theirs really not much to debate. If the top Olympus cameras was really more detailed than the top Panasonic cameras, that would be talked about in many camera forums but it's not.
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar Paulo Teixeira 10:08 PM 11-08-2013
jogiba's Avatar jogiba 05:29 AM 11-12-2013
thedest's Avatar thedest 05:36 AM 11-12-2013
They just need a better wrap. Im afraid that companies will start offering 4k as the next big step and will keep giving us the same codecs, bits and color depths..
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 06:07 AM 11-12-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

GH4 sensor for 4K @ 30fps ? :
http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf

That's too bad. I think I'd personally wait for 4K @60p. The GH5 or a hack of the GH4?
thedest's Avatar thedest 06:20 AM 11-12-2013
The GH4 will be more of a cinema camera, it wont be the "new GH3". Panasonic skips the "4" on its consumer produts. 4 means bad luck. The successor of the GH3 will probably be the GH5. They will be 2 different cameras. The GH5 will probably be a little bit worse @ video recording.
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar Paulo Teixeira 03:03 PM 11-12-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

They just need a better wrap. Im afraid that companies will start offering 4k as the next big step and will keep giving us the same codecs, bits and color depths..
Rumors pointed to the internal 4K codec being 10 bit 422. For people who wants an ever higher quality videos than the internal codec, just pair this camera up with the Odyssey 7Q (Or hope this camera gets hacked).

I'd definitely love 4K 60p as well but that probably would have increased the cost a bit. Still, Panasonic could be saving that for the 4K version of the AC90 that Panasonic showed off in the past. That camera will compete with the Sony AX1 and Z100.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 05:46 PM 11-12-2013
I'd take the Sony @60p every day of the week, but I'm sure I'd prefer the size of the Panasonic.
thedest's Avatar thedest 02:08 PM 11-13-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira View Post

Rumors pointed to the internal 4K codec being 10 bit 422.

I heard those rumours, but I dont know.

In the specs of the camera it says that the output will be 200Mb/s.

The Blackmagic shoots 1080p 10-bit 422 at 220Mb/s. 4k has so much more data. If they are going to 4k 10-bit 422, I wonder how they will compress that keeping the image quality. Maybe a new codec?
markr041's Avatar markr041 02:28 PM 11-13-2013
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar Paulo Teixeira 05:09 PM 11-13-2013
ProRes for example is Intra Frame based and codec such as H.264 for example, can be eighter Intra or Inter based. Using an Inter based codec, you can get visually equal image quality at lower bit rates. That's what used when they want to keep the file sizes low. Also, with Inter based H.264 codecs, their can be all sorts of variations. Their is a GH2 hack called Sanity in which the lower Sanity settings is not too much higher than the stock GH2 codec unlike some other hacks but the quality is still much greater than stock.

It's true that right now, this is all a rumor and some of the specs might not entirely be accurate but it's true that even just the Inter based 100Mbps codec, if that was based on H.265 and Panasonic spent a lot of time adjusting it, that can still look decent. It's only the supposedly Intra based version which is 200Mbps, that may or many not be high enough even if the use of H.265 made it seam like 400Mbps of H.264. It might actually still be decent now that I think more about it. Also, having strong encoders can also effect the picture quality. With all that said, I'm sure Panasonic will be doing extensive testings on the motion quality of the codec. I'd still want to see it hacked though. Memory cards have gotten much faster.


http://www.sony.co.uk/res/attachment/file/20/1237491584820.pdf
Here's the specs of the Sony Z100. 30p is 300Mbps and 24p is 240Mbps. All Intra Frame based.

Panasonic is releasing an S35 sized camera so I really hope that's an indication that they wont gimp the M43 sized camera too much.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 07:18 PM 11-13-2013
The Sony is really a pretty big monster. I was playing with it at a Sony store a few days ago. I was actually surprised by how big it was.

I would have loved to have seen its output on the Sony 4K UHD TV that was sitting about 10' away.
1 2  3  ... Last

Up