Leaderboard

Pros are wondering what the benefit of 4K is to them in terms of overall image quality, when mastered and delivered for 2K / 1080p. A lot of work is still shot in 1080p and cameras like the Canon C300 are the workhorses of the moment. In the case of the GH4 it may appear from the specs that it's just an 8bit 4:2:0 camera internally. Actually the theory is 8bit 4:2:0 4K material from this camera can be taken through a workflow in post that converts it to 10bit 4:4:4 1080p - with all the smoother tonality, better colour and workflow advantages that format brings. This is a big leap for 1080p based on the much more expensive C300 which only does 8bit 4:2:2. I asked Go Pro's David Newman (Sr. Dir. Software) whether this theory was correct... Read the full article here

Hi, Andrew. I'd like to comment here as a Japanese fan of Olympus. ç§ã®ã‚«ãƒ¡ãƒ©ãƒ‡ãƒ“ューã¯ã‚ªãƒªãƒ³ãƒ‘スã®åæ©ŸE500ã§ã—ãŸã€‚大好ããªãƒ¡ãƒ¼ã‚«ãƒ¼ã§ã™ã€‚ ãã—ã¦ã€æ•°å°‘ãªã„？日本ã®ãƒ‡ã‚¸ä¸€ã®ãƒ“デオモードユーザーã®ä¸€äººã¨ã—ã¦ãŠé¡˜ã„ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ ãœã²24fpsã€PAL対応をãŠé¡˜ã„ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ã‚ã¨ã€ã§ãã‚‹ã ã‘高ã„ビットレートも。 マイクロフォーサーズユーザーã§ã™ãŒã€ç¾åœ¨ã¯æ˜ åƒç”¨é€”を考ãˆã‚‹ã¨ãƒ‘ナソニック一択状態ã«ãªã‚‰ã–ã‚‹ã‚’å¾—ãªã„。 ã§ã‚‚ã€ãƒ¯ãƒ³ãƒžãƒ³æ’®å½±ã€æ—…å…ˆã§ã¯ãƒœãƒ‡ã‚£å´æ‰‹æŒ¯ã‚Œè£œæ­£ãŒã®ã©ã‹ã‚‰æ‰‹ãŒå‡ºã‚‹ã»ã©ã»ã—ã„。 ãã‚Œãªã®ã«ã€ã‚ªãƒªã®ãƒœãƒ‡ã‚£ã«ã¯æ‰‹ãŒå‡ºã›ãªã„状æ³ã§ã™ã€‚ ãœã²ãœã²ã€ãŠé¡˜ã„ã—ã¾ã™ï¼

Well, it's not unusable. I actually really enjoy using it, particularly when I have plenty of time and my subject matter is not of the run & gun variety. My use of the word nightmare is partly an attempt to bridge the gap between the polarizing that, as you say, is going on here. I don't want to get in a Nikon vs Panasonic war. I'm really just trying to talk from an objective point of view. If the people here who have problems with the D5300 feel the need to use words like "nightmare" to describe the design of the Nikon, then I'm happy to go along with that in order to establish some middle ground. It is really annoying to shoot video with compared to a Panasonic. But it's a bloody DSLR, not a mirrorless! Andrew just hates mirrors, and he's picked on the D5300 to show that yet again. Personally I agree that the future of low budget filmmaking cameras is in mirrorless, but at the moment there is not a Panasonic camera that matches the D5300's image.* Yes they are sharper, but low-light, DR, colour, S35 sensor, organic image all add up to an image that for me is sometimes more appealing than for example my G6. But ultimately that's a personal thing. I just like the 5300's image a lot. But I do wish it had peaking, a histogram, zebras, aperture control in LV, autofocus that doesn't suck, buttons in the right place, an EVF. But at the end of the day it's what's on the screen that matters, and with practice and perhaps a few add-ons you can shoot whatever you want with the 5300. It's a bloody brilliant video camera. Without question the GH4 is going to force a change in the low budget ILC video market. I just hope that either Nikon decide to build on the lovely image the 5300 has and go for broke with video in some way or other, or the GH4 and its successors give us an image that is more than just super-sharp - I want the organic, low-light, great dynamic range quality of the D5300, just with a little more sharpness and ease of use. I worry though that MFT sensor will never look quite so filmic, even with a Speed Booster. We'll have to wait and see. If the GH4 is all of those things, I'll be over the moon. BTW, I will be looking seriously at buying a Ninja - but it seems daft to loose 60p wit the 5300 ATM. * I haven't seen enough of the GX7. I'd love to see some low light footage shot with a GX7 and Speed Booster. And some dynamic range examples with the same. That might give us a ballpark idea of what the GH4 image will look like. I believe FuzzyNormal has a GX7 (not sure if he has a SB though) - any chance of a few example shots Fuzzy?

The Panasonic 4K capable sensor... rumour has it that this is present in the GX7, GM1 and Olympus OM-D E-M1 not just the 4K GH4. But the key thing is giving it enough processing power, faster SD card slot, cooler readout circuitry and avoiding other heat issues, plus a few more things I don't know of because I'm not a camera engineer!   So firmware updates for 4K are probably out on the other cameras despite the powerful sensor. Well done Panasonic for making such a great follow up to their GH2 sensor and avoiding a Sony chip.

Just throwing out there that a sensor might be capable, but the rest of the internal components might not be able to handle it. I'm sure you could overclock a lot of cameras to get 4K recording, but the thing will burst into flames after a few moments. :P

Cinema quality is a very broad term, and since GH2 and 5D shot films have been shown in cinemas, let's not even go there ;)

It's funny. i was discussing this in a round about way with a colleague earlier on. The downscaled 1080p from this is going to be rather tasty indeed

Andrew I love this cutting edge stuff. Hope you can continue to supply us with genuinely interesting news rather than the advertorial content of some sites (you know who I mean). 10bit 4:2:2 is more useful to me than 4K at the moment so this news is……….very welcome. Keep up the good work. Rich

This is how to do it.... 1 In the NLE, place clip on timeline and overlay 3 copies. 2 Normalise the result to 10 bit to prevent over exposure 3 Shift copy1 vertical by 1 pixel 4 Shift copy2 vertical by 1 pixel and horizontal by 1 pixel 5 Shift copy3 horizontal by 1 pixel Output to 1080p 444 10 bit (even though it is 11 bit) ta da

I might condier one as well should there be more framerates and higher bitrates. Such features will cost Olympus allmost nothing. It's pretty straight foward really .. Improve couple of things and get 1-2 sold to me.. or do not improve and get nothing sold to me. ;)

The bottom line is that while Andrew's article (notice I didn't use the word review?) about the D5300 makes an important point about the future of low-budget filmmaking, he's chosen to crap all over what is actually THE BEST NON-HACKED VIDEO DSLR AVAILABLE at the moment to do so. Andrews claim the stock 5D3 is 'better' doesn't have any basis. If you really like full-frame, then yes obviously. But otherwise the D5300 has better DR, better low light, 60p, articulated screen - and it's 1/4 the price. In 6 months time this camera is going to drop in price considerably, and no doubt will start cropping up on ebay in a shorter time. The D3300 has the same image and is even cheaper. A lot of 'lowest-budget' filmmakers, students, enthusiasts and artists who don't necessarily need commercial level features (no-doubt a large chunk of the people who come to this website for advice due to its facade of catering for them) are going to be put off buying what really is a SUPERB FILMMAKING TOOL for a really great price by this article that isn't actually about the D5300. Suck up to Panasonic/MFT as much as you want Andrew but please take a bit of responsibility for the status that your site has as a go-to destination for people who don't want their creativity hampered by their means. Once again, from your 'About EOSHD' page: And from this thread: This is the closest you've come to actually acknowledging leaving some people behind. In the last few months you've told us how awesome the Alexa and Cooke lenses are, crapped all over the best genuinely-low-budget DSLR out there ATM and tried to write it off as irrelevant due to the approach of a camera that will cost over twice as much (the GH4 - which will also require the cost of a Speed Booster to get the same Super-35 look of the D5300). No doubt the GH4 is going to be awesome - I'm excited by the prospect of owning one in a year or two. But ATM the D5300 is an important camera for the smallest filmmakers among us. So I'm asking you to stop picking on the little guys and get comfortable with the idea you've outgrown a certain demographic. Otherwise you're just a bully.

Have you tried uploading 2592x1080? With anamorphic adapter you don't really gain any resolution. Something similar is squezing 1920x1080 ordinary footage to 960x1080 and back, you'll see what happens in terms of resolution. Otherwise 1920x804 is just a way of presenting your footage, I prefer 800 or 816 (dividable by 16)....

if Olympus enable 24/25p and 50/60p then I would seriously consider choosing the E-M1 over the soon to be released GH4. fingers crossed.... for my needs, I think I would prefer to have the 5 axis stabilisation than most of the GH4 features.

Anamorphic isn't just about the aspect ratio, do some more research and look at more samples, the whole image, composition, rendering of the lens, flare, depth compression and look of out of focus areas is different.

Do you really want me to post links to all the interviews to convince you it's not just "anecdotal"? Why would you need a trained crew for that? If you have a budget to hire a gaffer and sparks why wouldn't you have money to hire proper lighting - still not my point; A cinematographer working on a budget should be able to operate, light and act as a grip on a budget film and use (and know what) equipment fits the budget and purpose. I respect your opinion that you don't see any reason for using the D800, all I'm saying is, that if DOPs use it, and use it instead of BMC, Canon and Panasonic, surely there must be a reason for it? Another thing that I haven't mentioned is why DOPs use the D800. Have seen a few videos with the D800 and the D4 and the highlight rolloff is (what I would call) incredibly close to that of an Alexa. It's looks very realistic and it holds so much detail in the shadows, which is another reason why it's becoming wildly used in productions.

Im not saying Nikon is not behind, Im saying they are going forward. The canon crop-sensors have been the same for 5 years. Nikon is improving with every iteration. They are really slow on giving features that seem easy to implement though. So yes, what I think is that Nikon who is not focusing on video will be behind in terms of functionality and may not be the best choice for pure filmmakers, but I think they will stay moderatly relevant to the hybrid shooter. I don't want to give Nikon anything. Im just making a prediction of what I think is going to happen. A more precise guess would be this: Nikon announce a 4k Nikon 1 in 2014. In 2015 they announce D900 (or something like that) with 4K (probably UHD) to FF sensor. In terms of functionality its harder to say, if they decide to keep video as a bonus they might just go with the same style as of now for quite a long time. As long as they offer large sensor and good image people will probably still use it if they own it for photo. Personally, I like DR, low-light and large sensor better than sharpness in m43-size. Thats why I like the Nikons better than the GH3 right now. If the GH4 will improve on DR and low-light it might be a really great camera and will also be great for dragging along the competition, but its not out yet and we should not embrace it before we know. What I can say right now: The Nikon D5300 gives the best image I have seen in such a cheap camera, and is clearly not the camera that proclaims the death of DSLR, that one would be 550D number 25.

More 'evidence' to consider. I do not particularly like the motifs of Tom ("ETTR") Majerski from blackmagicdesign.com (my test shots aren't better though), but I came to a similar conclusion: As this test with the BMCC (more or less same sensor) implies ... raw has a little more DR compared to ProRes, but the result is misleading. This is only valid for extreme ETTR, when the noise floor is avoided. So definitely not in low light, where raw looks very noisy. How about being able to set white balance in post? No issue at all, if you roughly stay in the right ballpark with ProRes. Only with very difficult light conditions such as mixed color temperatures do you gain anything with raw, imho. Then why the heck are there so many ugly, washed-out ProRes-clips on the net? Because people don't know how to grade. The shots may be somewhat oversaturated, I was searching for an extreme example of exorcising the flat look. And in this example, pre-grading in Resolve makes no sense at all. Keep in mind, the guy had to render everything to get the stuff back to FCP X, he renders twice. FCP X doesn't appear to be exact enough for it's 0-100% levels in CC, but it actually computes in 32-bit floating point accuracy. Also you can't grade in one step, you have to add and stack corrections - like, er, nodes. Experts say, it's unusable, because other than for vignettes, corrections can't be keyframed. You pan from the window into the room, everything changes in one shot, needs to be keyframed. Though I admit, no keyframes for color are a no-go and this definitely should be changed in future updates, I find myself dividing the clip in two with the blade and adjusting the start and end of a cross dissolve instead. Does it take more time? On the contrary. Is it less accurate? Let me think about it. Hmm, why should it? These are just thoughts on postponing the need to spent a fortune for a new machine, not a rant against Resolve or raw.

I was going to just confirm this, but looking into it, Its actually better than that: Its actually 4:4:4 With 1080p 4:2:2 you have 1 chroma sample for every 2 output pixels for a total of 1,036,800 chroma samples. with 4:2:0 you have 1 chroma sample for every 4 output pixels for half that amount (518,400) . But since the number of output pixels in quadHD 4K is four times as much as 1080, even with 4:2:0 you still have 2,073,600 chroma samples. That's a chroma sample for every output pixel when you downscale to 1080. Very interesting.. :)