Sony FDR AX100 versus the Panasonic GH4: 4K Video Shoot-Out 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 05:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Ken Ross did this comparison when he had both, but it was evident that the lens attached to the GH4 (14-140mm) was not very good (yes, lenses still matter).

I have both cameras and a variety of good lenses for the GH4, and need to choose which camera to take on long trips.

Here is the first video comparison, in bright, contrasty light with both cameras on tripods side by side. The GH4 has the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens, which is one of Panasonic's best and I have found to be better than the 14-140mm and other big zoom lenses for the GH4:

.


The first clip in each scene is the GH4. I tried to carefully match the framing and exposure for each and each clip was taken within seconds of the other, subject to the fact that each camera was on the side of the other.
markr041 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 06:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
This will be a good and fun topic.

For the record, there are two Panasonic 14-140 lenses. The older one is f/4.0-5.8 and is currently priced at about $400. Version two is f/3.5-5.6 and priced at about $630. One has "Mega O.I.S" and the other has "Power OIS", whatever that means. The new one is lighter and has "HD Video Support", again, whatever that means.

I have the newer one on a GX7 and like it a lot.

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #3 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
There is a strand of spider web that shows up more clearly at 1:24 than 1:33. Other than that, I certainly can't say one is better than the other.
bsprague is offline  
post #4 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 06:34 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

One has "Mega O.I.S" and the other has "Power OIS", whatever that means.
The Power OIS lenses have better image stabilization than the Mega OIS lenses and are also alot more expensive.
SD90 is online now  
post #5 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 06:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
What I see:

1. There appear to be micro jitters for some of the GH4 shots even though the camera is on a tripod. OIS was left on, as it was for the Sony. I see none for that camera.

2. The green pine needles are on the yellow side for the GH4. This was the only case I saw any important difference in color or contrast.

3. In the last scene you can see the difference in dof - the GH4 being shallower so only one set of flowers is in focus.

4. The shots are remarkably alike in resolution, color, DR, and contrast for the most part when viewed on 1080 screens.
markr041 is online now  
post #6 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 07:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Well, some may think I'm not objective, but I really am and I had both cameras before deciding on which one to keep. So with that said, my observations are based on my own experience doing A/Bs, Mark's A/Bs and some of the better GH4 videos I've seen (including Mark's UK footage). My comments are based on viewing all videos in 4K. There's little point for me to comment on 2K when I've got a 4K monitor. I might as well see these cameras at their best:

* Both my GH4 and Mark's do seem to suffer from those micro jitters. What's interesting in looking at Mark's UK footage is that there are a number of instances where it almost gives the appearance of autofocus micro misses. Mark did indicate he shot in MF mode, so it may be somewhat of the same effect I saw with mine (that odd effect with the 14-140 2nd gen lens), but to a much lesser degree.

* Both my GH4 and Mark's seem to hype the color (again this is a 4K observation and color can and does look different in 2K). I consistently dialed down my color to -2 and still felt many scenes were too oversaturated. I showed Mark's video to my wife and she agreed there were too many orangey complexions. Most of these seemed to occur in bright light. The best skin tones were in the shade or overcast skies.

* I find the AX100 AWB to be incredibly accurate. As I looked at my most recent Baltimore video, I find skin tones as well as other colors to look much more believable with none of the hyped greens I saw in my GH4 shots or others, including Mark's. Some of the grassy fields in the UK video looked much too green to me...almost as if shot with my Samsung Galaxy S5. I'm really not trying to be critical here, but rather just expressing what I've seen as objectively as I can.

* I still find, for the most part, the AX100's detail is unsurpassed. Although I would not describe Mark's video as 'soft' by any means, I see more detail in the AX100 videos.

So regarding Mark's A/B above (nicely done Mark!), these are again what I see in 4K:

* First clip- I see more detail in both the pink blossoms as well the bushes in the distance. Once again, greens look more convincing to me on the AX100. The GH4 rendition is just 'too green'. This smacks me in the face it's so obvious.

* Second clip- Virtually identical comments to the first. I just don't see greens that look 'that green' in real life. I had the same issues with my GH4. Again, looking at detail, there's clearly more on the AX100, no question.

* Third & Fourth clip- A bit harder to judge here with these close ups of the flower, but in a shot like this, I'd expect the 2 cameras to be closer. Differences in detail will be much more readily seen in wide shots, but I still see a bit more detail in the AX100.

* Fifth clip (shot of the needle plant...not sure what to call it)- I got a greater sense of depth from the AX100 shot as opposed to the GH4, perhaps because of the greater detail. Their rendition of green was different with the AX100 registering a green that looked closer to the color of those needles that I was accustomed to seeing around our old house. But again, it was the greater sense of depth on the AX100 that struck me.

* Sixth clip- Another shot of the needles- Again, a greater sense of depth to me with the AX100. The same difference in the color of green with the GH4 leaning more toward a yellower green.

* Seventh clip- Despite the shallower DOF in this shot of the purple flowers, I again felt a greater dimensionality to the AX100 clip, it was just sharper and more detailed. I thought color in this set was pretty close.

I know it's hard to convince some that I'm looking at these clips objectively, but I swear the AX100 always looks more detailed and I honestly feel the color is more accurate. These clips don't demonstrate skin tones where I think the disparity is even more obvious.

My feelings here just confirm why I decided to stick with the AX100. Don't get me wrong, if there were no AX100 I'd be delighted with the GH4, but I just feel the AX100 shoots a superior 4K image...with less hassle, no lens changing, no concerns over sensor dust, a better autofocus & WB. You do lose the ability to use specialized lenses, but for me this a very worthwhile tradeoff. My bottom line is always trying to get the best PQ regardless.

Again Mark, nice job on these A/Bs.

Edit: One other note, the zoom range. I find having that 10-15X zoom lens (depending on which IS you use, Active or Standard) on the AX100 to be another tremendous asset. I can't do that with the GH4 unless I carry a large lens for that specific purpose.

For me, when on a long trip, lighter is better and the AX100 offers a more complete package with no need for other lenses.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #7 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 08:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Mark, one thing I've noticed in the UK video and in the A/B video that surprises me, is chroma and luma noise. I haven't seen chroma noise in cameras in quite a while. If you look at the video you shot in that church, you'll see a fair amount of this noise directly in front of the camera in the rear of the church. It's also visible to the sides.

You'll also see it in the reds of the flowers in your first & second A/B clip, particularly in the flowers in the foreground to the right that are partly in the shade in both clips. Look at the reds there in the GH4 video and then look at those reds in the AX100 video. The GH4 has this chroma noise and it's totally absent in the AX100.

As I said, I haven't seen this for quite a while and remember it always being an issue with older, tape-based cams.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #8 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 10:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post


1. There appear to be micro jitters for some of the GH4 shots even though the camera is on a tripod. OIS was left on, as it was for the Sony. I see none for that camera.

On the GX7 the instructions and a third party book make it clear that the OIS needs to be off on a tripod. My first lens was a 100-300. At about 225 I have to have it on a tripod and it is painfully obvious that the OIS needs to be off. With the "Ex Tele Conv" on, it can go to near 1200 mm equivalent. It really needs the OIS off!

Perhaps the GH4 needs the OIS off too.
bsprague is offline  
post #9 of 88 Old 05-29-2014, 10:48 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 18
The footage of the AX100 looks paler and more synthetic to me in a way that makes me feel detached from the scene instead of being immersed in it and reliving it. So I prefer the GH4's footage. I also find shooting with the GH4 is more pleasant because it's viewfinder gives you a larger and clearer image; i.e. your not looking down into a tube with a small image at the end of it like you are with the AX100. Lastly, I find the GH4 is smaller and less cumbersome to haul around.
SD90 is online now  
post #10 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 02:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

The footage of the AX100 looks paler and more synthetic to me in a way that makes me feel detached from the scene instead of being immersed in it and reliving it. So I prefer the GH4's footage. I also find shooting with the GH4 is more pleasant because it's viewfinder gives you a larger and clearer image; i.e. your not looking down into a tube with a small image at the end of it like you are with the AX100. Lastly, I find the GH4 is smaller and less cumbersome to haul around.

Yes, but in your case your response was predictable even before you saw the footage.
Ken Ross likes this.
Tugela is online now  
post #11 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 07:38 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
When played back at standard HD resolutions, most people simply won't see any difference, they both look great.

I am quite sure that each camera is better suited to things that the other isn't, and this will be the deciding factor as to which one will be used for a given scenario, and not that one is better than the other as in better period.

Both cameras are brilliant examples that you don't have to over spend in order to get a great starting point into 4K, even if this is only for HD productions.

I personally prefer the AX100 as it does suit the scenarios better for my personal uses. Although the GH4 would be too slow and cumbersome for my particular use, it would be something that I would definitely choose over the AX100 given the right shooting scenario. I am quite sure that for straight picture characteristics, and nothing to do with ergonomics or suitability to shooting scenarios. Both cameras' pictures can be made to look very similar, either optically and in the camera or in post.

At least the desicion as to which camera is best for a certain person, is based on each camera's ability and not because of picture, as they both produce great pictures.

And neither suffer from the show stopping lack of functionality that their nearest BM competition does. Which in my book makes both of them excellent buys.
David Harry is offline  
post #12 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
"...and need to choose which camera to take on long trips."

The actual question is not being answered. Answers are going toward one having better picture quality than the other. There was a formula one race recently where, after a long day, a car one by a small fraction of a second. One care was better, but by what margin? Ken says it well: "Don't get me wrong, if there were no AX100 I'd be delighted with the GH4....". David summarizes my reaction: "When played back at standard HD resolutions, most people simply won't see any difference, they both look great."

Going on a long trip on business or as tourist is different than being contracted to shoot a production. There are people to see, meetings to attend and events scheduled. In between a traveler gets moments of opportunity to capture images. Even as a tourist, you don't get to stop the travel flow, set up for a shot, measure the light, try changes in composition or control the depth of field. Do that more than once or twice and your relations with your companions will suffer.

If you are a videographer that needs to incorporate shooting with other adventures, the camcorder form factor wins.

If you are schizophrenic and want to take photos that may potentially hang in your DW's living room as "art", you need two tools. Or, a GH4. Focus pulls, bokeh control, wide angle street shooting, panoramas all work better with a GH4. If you enjoy Lightroom style photo processing, or especially HDR photography, you have to choose the GH4. It really does take pictures too.

So for Mark the traveling videographer, he should choose the AX100 because, except for frame grabs, I've never noticed he takes photos. On the other hand, if Mark is also a photographer, or wants to take it up, he should choose the GH4.
bsprague is offline  
post #13 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 08:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

"...and need to choose which camera to take on long trips."

The actual question is not being answered. Answers are going toward one having better picture quality than the other.

I'd disagree with that Bill. When Mark took the care to provide carefully controlled A/Bs, he was inviting responses on PQ.

If all he was really after was which one is better to take on a trip, there would have been no need to post a series of A/Bs.

I tried to do a careful analysis of each scene in 4K, because THAT'S where the differences really manifest themselves. In HD they do look much closer, but heh, these are 4K cameras and the footage was shot in 4K.

At the same time I also tried to answer the question regarding which is a better travel cam. That, IMO, can be more subjective, but part of the equation must be tied to PQ. Things such as video noise, focus issues etc. are less subjective. How color strikes you can be more subjective, just ask SD90. wink.gif

BTW, I'm sure Mark will agree, the AX100 actually takes very nice photos and coupled with the telephoto lens, you can get nice and close to a distant subject.

Although the GH4 can produce a shallower DOF, I think Mark and I have demonstrated you can get a quite nice DOF with the AX100 too.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #14 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 08:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Once one knows about picture quality, a key difference between the GH4 and the AX100 is interchangeable lenses. There are other considerations for shooting video while traveling than wanting to take stills:

1. There are some very dark places one may want to shoot in - cathedrals, some museums. The aperture of the AX100 lens is not ideal for such places. Having the option of using a really fast lens is useful. The GH4 has lens options the AX100 does not. I can change lenses very fast, and carrying an extra lens (one extra for carrying around is my max) adds not much more to the travel package, but does add some.

2. When shooting in the above settings and outdoors, where there are people, whipping out an obvious video camera (camcorder) can be a real action-stopper. It is conspicuous that one is shooting video. Moreover, in some of the above settings, no camcorders are allowed (no video). Using a GH4 no one knows you are shooting video and no one really takes notice. This is not just to get around rules, but makes one much more inconspicuous so that you get to shoot real life action and even some performances.

3. Having a relatively long zoom in one package is obviously an advantage for travel, but there is the problem outlined in 1. above for some low-light places.

Bill and Ken are both correct: We want to know if there are any significant picture differences in making a choice, as the A/B video indicates. It seems the video comparison basically shows that there is no major picture difference between the two cameras, so the choice of which one for travel rests on considerations such as the above. I do not find much difference in the ergonomics; each has its quirks.
markr041 is online now  
post #15 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 09:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Where I would disagree with you Mark, is the difference in 4K picture quality. I suspect I may be more anal about these things, but between my own personal experience with both cams and looking at many videos shot with both cams by others, I think there is more than a minor difference between the two.

I just feel the AX100 gives a better depiction of the scenes as I shot them. Color almost always looks spot on and that's not how I felt with the GH4.

You also mentioned low light, but I'm surprised you didn't see the noise in the GH4 in the church shot (which didn't appear to be that low in light) and, in terms of color, the noise in the red flowers. It seems to me the AX100 is cleaner and has less noise. As I admit, I'm very anal about different aspects of PQ.

I've also become paranoid about sensor dust. One lens change with my GH4 and I had that ugly dust spot in the upper left. If I had been traveling with the camera, I know I would have been miserable.

I've also had no issues shooting candids. I think society has become so blase about video, it's just shrugged off.

With all that said, I'm sure you'll be happy with the GH4. There is no 'bad' choice here. We just may see things a bit differently. It's great we have choices. smile.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #16 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 09:45 AM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 27
The AX100's image simply is more detailed and this is true at two different levels of resolution. The downloaded 4K file played back on my 1080p monitors and the downloaded 1080p file played back without scaling on the same 1080p monitors! This suggests Vimeo downconversion/re-compression algorithm is topnotch as the pixel resolution is reduced to 1/4th and the file size to 1/14th the original yet the key differences (details and the red chroma noise) still come through. What Ken says he notices on his 4K monitor is all true on my 1080p monitors. I didn't have to really look for them. They were easy to see.

On the color difference between the two cameras I guess it comes down to one's preference.

I don't know if the kind of jitters we see in the GH4's clips are the exception limited to Mark's particular units of camera and lens combo or are the norm for any GH4 with a Panasonic stabilized lens. It's just unacceptable.
P&Struefan is offline  
post #17 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 09:51 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
The big plus point with the AX is that everything has been perfectly matched, from the lens to the sensor to the calibration etc. I dare say that this would, in more cases than not, result in what look like better colour renditions compared to cameras with added lenses.

But I am quite sure that the 4 with any number of lenses, can do many things the AX can't. I could only imagine what the sensitivity and ambient light shooting would be like on the 4 with a real fast Voigtlander, or colour rendition with other specialised primes. These are things that the AX simply can't compete against.

The problem with pixel peeping, is the fact that you are doing it. As in, you are looking for differences, so will find them. I looked at that clip on a 50 inch plasma from about 15 feet away, it all looked great when viewed in a proper sensible environment, even beating some HD transmissions for PQ. With your nose right up to any monitor and expecting to see differences, you will see them, but is this how you would watch a movie or a doc?

The only real defining difference between these two cameras, is what someone is going to use them for. And I am quite sure that will be the only real difference between the two.

Me personally, and bearing in mind that these are both fantastic high resolution cameras that are going to give you at the very least, great footage. I would be more worried about what I am shooting, is it a great story? Am I getting the point across? Is it easy to understand narrative?

Knowing the tech, does not make you a great film maker. And your average Joe doesn't give a hoot as to how anything is filmed, they are only concerned with being entertained.
David Harry is offline  
post #18 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 09:52 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
On the jitters in the video: the GH4 was on a very light and flimsy tripod, and may have been picking up vibrations from traffic. The Sony was on a big, heavy tripod. So, I do not think we need get alarmed about this (yet). Doing scientific tests is hard!

Does anyone see more shadow detail in the first two clips from the GH4 (continuing the peeping)? Does that indicate a dynamic range advantage?
markr041 is online now  
post #19 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I'd disagree with that Bill. When Mark took the care to provide carefully controlled A/Bs, he was inviting responses on PQ.

If all he was really after was which one is better to take on a trip, there would have been no need to post a series of A/Bs.

I tried to do a careful analysis of each scene in 4K, because THAT'S where the differences really manifest themselves. In HD they do look much closer, but heh, these are 4K cameras and the footage was shot in 4K.

At the same time I also tried to answer the question regarding which is a better travel cam. That, IMO, can be more subjective, but part of the equation must be tied to PQ. Things such as video noise, focus issues etc. are less subjective. How color strikes you can be more subjective, just ask SD90. wink.gif

BTW, I'm sure Mark will agree, the AX100 actually takes very nice photos and coupled with the telephoto lens, you can get nice and close to a distant subject.

Although the GH4 can produce a shallower DOF, I think Mark and I have demonstrated you can get a quite nice DOF with the AX100 too.
Polite disagreement is so much fun!!!

If Mark was not asking it, he should be asking "How do I get the best images on my next trip with the (wonderful) gear that I have that makes Bill green with jealousy. PQ is one element. As my DW's favorite touring companion, I get to shoot in a lot of places. Somehow, I've adopted the habit of leaving the camcorder behind and taking one that does both video clips and RAW still images.

I enjoy and appreciate your careful analysis of PQ. Your experience brings things forward that I don't see or know what they are. You've analyzed a lot of screens and have names for defected I never knew existed. It reminds me of my experience on the Kentucky Bourbon Trail three weeks ago. I struggled with finding ***significant*** differences between Maker's Mark and Jim Beam. Different yes. Better or worse on my tongue, no.

Yes, you can get photos out of a video clip. One of my personal favorites is a drop dead gorgeous, charming, polite and athletic granddaughter when she is knocking the crap out of a softball. It is a permanent "wall hanger" in my office/graphics studio/ toy room.

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #20 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
I see a bit more shadow detail in the first two clips, but that, IMO, is greatly outweighed by the noise. I've seen the noise in a number of clips and it does bother me. As I've said, I haven't seen that kind of noise for years.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #21 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

....

1. There are some very dark places one may want to shoot in - cathedrals, some museums. The aperture of the AX100 lens is not ideal for such places. Having the option of using a really fast lens is useful. The GH4 has lens options the AX100 does not. I can change lenses very fast, and carrying an extra lens (one extra for carrying around is my max) adds not much more to the travel package, but does add some.

You have to try this. It is way to much fun. Set the GH4 to autobracket 3 to 5 exposures with a 1 stop difference and constant aperture. Shoot RAW. Run them through one of the HDR programs that will extract killer detail from the shadows behind the pews and the stained glass windows. Put them in the timeline with a gentle Ken Burns pan and zoom. Since the cathedral is not moving, it looks just like a little video clip. But the dynamic range is out of the park. The newest versions of the HDR programs are very good at aligning hand held exposures. You don't need a tripod. Even a little high ISO noise does not kill the shot.

(If the process, tools or software are unfamiliar, I can help!)
bsprague is offline  
post #22 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:10 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

On the jitters in the video: the GH4 was on a very light and flimsy tripod, and may have been picking up vibrations from traffic. The Sony was on a big, heavy tripod. So, I do not think we need get alarmed about this (yet). Doing scientific tests is hard!

Does anyone see more shadow detail in the first two clips from the GH4 (continuing the peeping)? Does that indicate a dynamic range advantage?

I have a light weight Manfrotto stills tripod for my small kit, and the AX on full zoom can look terrible. So I doubt very much that the 4 has any inherent problems, it really does just sound like the tripod.

As for dynamic range. I doubt there will be much in it for these two cameras. Even though the sensors are something to argue over, their recording formats aren't. Plus, I bet if you put some very fast glass on the 4, its dynamic range would appear to be better.

Here is something you may want to try, and it really is an eye opener. You would usually use some form of raw footage and its associated decoding software to see the differences in dynamic range. The problem with shooting traditional YUV type footage, is that you are not usually going to stress it the way you would with raw. Try using CineForm with the AX and 4 footage. I have done this with the AX footage and was quite shocked as to how far I was pushing the dynamic range in the post process, certainly enough to give it a very processed look.

Just download one of the top two demos of cineform, not the simple free studio version that comes with GoPro. Turn the mp4 to CF AVI, I think Film 1. Then feed this back into the CF/FirstLight grading software, and see how far you can push your look, and luck:)
David Harry is offline  
post #23 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

...
1. There are some very dark places one may want to shoot in - cathedrals, some museums. The aperture of the AX100 lens is not ideal for such places. Having the option of using a really fast lens is useful. The GH4 has lens options the AX100 does not. I can change lenses very fast, and carrying an extra lens (one extra for carrying around is my max) adds not much more to the travel package, but does add some.
.....
People hate to be videoed. I have clips with demands to shut it off. I pull out the HX9V, they think I'm doing a snap shot, I press the video button and all is well. Sometimes it is official! I don't go to many football games but was invited to watch the University of Washington Huskies with my son. I took my camcorder and the HX9V. A guard demanded I stop "video taping". I just changed cameras and got some fun clips.

Street shooting as a tourist is significantly better with what looks like a point and shoot.
bsprague is offline  
post #24 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

........ I suspect I may be more anal about these things....

I, for one, enjoy and learn from your "focus" (pun intended)!
bsprague is offline  
post #25 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
I should have noted, regarding DR, the overall exposure on the AX100 was set slightly lower. Simply raising the exposure a bit would probably have brought out the shadow details. But either way, there is significantly more noise in shadows in the A/Bs and the indoor shots in the church with the GH4. That would bother me.

In the discussion of jitters, in the UK video I was more referencing what looked like micro focus misses despite you using MF. Not sure what causes that, but I had the same issue with my GH4.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #26 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Harry View Post

.....

The only real defining difference between these two cameras, is what someone is going to use them for. And I am quite sure that will be the only real difference between the two.

Me personally, and bearing in mind that these are both fantastic high resolution cameras that are going to give you at the very least, great footage. I would be more worried about what I am shooting, is it a great story? Am I getting the point across? Is it easy to understand narrative?

Knowing the tech, does not make you a great film maker. And your average Joe doesn't give a hoot as to how anything is filmed, they are only concerned with being entertained.

My most difficult personal goal is getting beyond my lifelong addiction to tools, gadgets and gear. Right now I have a couple pieces on Vimeo that get some play and a few photo wall hangers. I have a very long list of great pieces of equipment going back to film. That needs to be reversed. With luck, I have a couple of decades left. Legacies for normal folks don't last long, but will it be "He had some cool gear!" or "He made some fine videos and photos."?

One of these days I'm going to go to rehab for gear forum junkies!
bsprague is offline  
post #27 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,016
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

On the jitters in the video: the GH4 was on a very light and flimsy tripod, and may have been picking up vibrations from traffic. The Sony was on a big, heavy tripod. So, I do not think we need get alarmed about this (yet). Doing scientific tests is hard!

Does anyone see more shadow detail in the first two clips from the GH4 (continuing the peeping)? Does that indicate a dynamic range advantage?

Be sure and check the GH4 book. It is hidden in the GH7 book, but clear when you find it. The lenses are the same and the lens is where the OIS is. The GX7 book says to turn it off when on a tripod. Apparently it works by looking for motion that is not there when on a tripod and makes it's own motion.
bsprague is offline  
post #28 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 10:51 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

My most difficult personal goal is getting beyond my lifelong addiction to tools, gadgets and gear. Right now I have a couple pieces on Vimeo that get some play and a few photo wall hangers. I have a very long list of great pieces of equipment going back to film. That needs to be reversed. With luck, I have a couple of decades left. Legacies for normal folks don't last long, but will it be "He had some cool gear!" or "He made some fine videos and photos."?

One of these days I'm going to go to rehab for gear forum junkies!

Don't get me wrong, I am a total geek smile.gif and although my job is very technical. As I've got older, I have tried to let what is in the frame do the talking, and not what is behind it.

And screw rehab for kit junkies. As long as the prognosis isn't "great kit, crap output" then the balance of the Universe is about right smile.gif
David Harry is offline  
post #29 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Harry View Post

The problem with pixel peeping, is the fact that you are doing it. As in, you are looking for differences, so will find them. I looked at that clip on a 50 inch plasma from about 15 feet away, it all looked great when viewed in a proper sensible environment, even beating some HD transmissions for PQ. With your nose right up to any monitor and expecting to see differences, you will see them, but is this how you would watch a movie or a doc?

Yes, that is a problem with pixel peeping and we've had people like that who have driven me nuts. However my observations were not based on pixel peeping, but things that were very obvious to me without even trying hard or putting my nose anywhere near the screen.

I have always been very aware of quality issues in video and having had so many cameras, an issue that manifests itself does not require me to do any pixel peeping, if it's significant enough. Seeing luminance noise in shadows or dimly lit areas or chroma noise in expanses of red, require no pixel peeping. Most people with experience in these issues can see them pretty quickly. As P&Struefan said, some issues are pretty obvious.

As with so many issues in video or audio, if you don't see or hear them, you're lucky. If you do, you're cursed and do whatever is in your power to rectify the issues. smile.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #30 of 88 Old 05-30-2014, 11:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,560
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

I, for one, enjoy and learn from your "focus" (pun intended)!

Your 'focus' is quite 'sharp' Bill. biggrin.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
Reply Camcorders

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off