Leaderboard

The Panasonic GH4 is $1699 and available here at B&H Photo Video Today only - tune into the B&H Studio GH4 live broadcast here (starting 1PM EDT) The Panasonic GH4, is it a cinematic monster or a wimpy video camera? It's a monster. Even compared to the full frame 14bit raw from the 5D Mark III the GH4 holds its own. It represents a big return to form for Panasonic, a consumer camera that pushes way beyond the image provided by the GH3 and AF100. As a 4K camera never has the format been so practical to shoot as it is with the GH4. With file sizes 8x less than on the nearest competitor and a price 5x less expensive than the Canon 1D C, the GH4 is the most exciting camera I have ever shot with at EOSHD. Read the full article here

I know Andrew. But that is not an excuse for copyright infringement. Make another edit with another score for your promo work, if you must... If a person is unable to do their business without copyright infringement, there is something terribly wrong with that business imo. Btw, you mentioned I should research fair use, maybe, I'm not an expert. But I think you should do the same.. the Wiki you link to is exactly where I got that quote from, I'm pretty sure the way you use (copyrighted) music on your video's would not classify as fair use. Also see Pablo's reply. And: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Anyway, I don't like copyright laws either, but I respect them when creating my own stuff and uploading it to the public. And even though I agree with a lot of the arguments, I don't think justifies to just do as you like.

Buy an SLR Magic Anamorphot :)

Just $19.99 - Buy It Now http://www.eoshd.com/eoshd-panasonic-gh4-shooters-guide Written by Andrew Reid The new EOSHD Panasonic GH4 Shooter's Guide is for filmmakers, photographers and all users interested in mastering video on the GH4! The guide covers the features of the camera concisely telling you only what you need to know and nothing that you don't. There's a chapter on tuning colour and image response in-camera, for an appealing image straight out the camera which doesn't need to be graded and one that responds better to grading. Three profiles are offered in the book - Cinema, Graded and Flat. By applying the settings in the book, you can be sure the camera is correctly set for filmmaking. This book has been written from scratch and is not simply an updated GH3 guide. Key Features How to shoot optimal 4K video, 128 pages of information Image settings for filmic quality carefully formulated by filmmaker Andrew Reid Concise explanations of all major camera features Tips and unknown features revealed Recommended lenses and adapters Practical cinematography advice Recommended settings Beginners guide to using the camera and more... Read the full article here

Just ordered a 8-16mm Sigma to work with my metabones adapter. Will review.

Génial! It's so obvious but I had no idea light could roll off that gradually. Merci beaucoup.

Not signed an NDA but the company are friends and I'm going to shut up until they're ready.   I have been testing the X today and all I can say is.... WOW!!

The GH4 goes into the books as the first camera that is actually better and more useful than the sales reps say themselves :) Great write up review Andrew. You cross all the points why I went with this camera: price, size, ease of use, stealth, no rigging necessary, incredible battery, and it has some pretty decent image quality as a bonus ;) Btw... That June 3rd thing you put in there... Exciting! Kinda sounds like a speed booster that makes EF glass work fullframe on the GH4... Fingers crossed! What time does your NDA end? I'm gonna set my alarm :p

  That's a little dramatic!   The BMCC and BMPCC sensor is rated for 13 stops according to Blackmagic.   However usable dynamic range is what we should really measure.   The lows on the Blackmagic cameras are noisy and the lows on the GH4 are compressed (by the encoder allocating more of the available datarate to the mids).   So to get optimal range we shoot exposed to the right on the Blackmagic and on the GH4 we use the in-camera settings to move the black level up so that the encoder deals better with the lows.   Even now we should not measure dynamic range yet (like in SOOOO many test videos I've seen in LOG or with a flat profile!!) because the curve of the image has reduced colour saturation and contrast, it's too flat.   What is magic about film and a very high end camera like the Alexa is that they have a high dynamic range even when graded and not just with the LOG curve.   In our grade we're dealing with usable dynamic range. For example we crush the shadows until the noise goes away and we apply an S-curve to get our lovely colour and contrast back.   At this point in my tests I concluded the GH4 and BMPCC dynamic range was roughly about the same... Around 10 stops. Still less than the 14 stops of film but still up there with DSLR-stills photos.   Furthermore when we oversample 1080p from 4K in post, we get 10bit luma and 444 colour sampling so the GH4 is not deficient there either, with very smooth transitions between shades and no pixilation around high contrast red edges for example.   On DXOMark the 5D Mark III's sensor is rated for about 11.5 stops and the GH4's sensor is rated for approximately 11.5 stops also (similar sensor as GX7 and GM1). If you look at the raw stills from both cameras you get a nice 11.5 stops, or roughly close to that figure anyway.   The way to think about the GH4's 4K video dynamic range is to compare it to a JPEG still shot on the camera in stills mode or on the 5D Mark III, but bare in mind that the video is more compressed in the shadows, so you do lose some USABLE dynamic range compared to a still.   Same situation though with the BMCC due to noise in the lows.   So there you go.   And as for low light performance again they are evenly matched, especially with Speed Booster but I do find the noise grain and tonality in the blacks slightly better on the BMPCC.... Not by much but there is a small difference.

I have no idea what pablogrollan is trying to say...anyway... Great review! As Panasonic have got better with their cameras, so have your reviews. I've not pulled the trigger yet as a GH3 owner but will soon. Seen some ace stuff by shooters on the web. I noticed you mentioned the RED Epic in your post. I've been doing a few shoots on a rental unit recently and the power from that thing is immense. Editing REDCODE is a breeze, but you know what? All my friends prefer the videos I've shot on my GH3 - they say my style goes missing on the Epic (I jump straight into the action with the GH3) and that while the Epic looks better, the small from factor of the GH3 opens the world up and I end up getting better shots, more creative, dynamic and exciting. I agree - it's sheer proof a higher specced camera does NOT make you a better shooter....in the Epic's case, it made me a little bit worse! The GH4 is exciting because it's a smooth upgrade path - your style isn't limited by higher specced clunky (but awesome) monsters, and the image quality jumps, better tools to do a better job of what you are used to. I'm a bit like you Andrew in that I like to be as light as possible, sure I've got a lot of clunky gear like lights, sliders, jibs etc and I enjoy to be on a big crew when I need to be, but its quite amazing what is available now to free up your hands (and shoulders, and back) and get shooting! I'm planning to use the GH4 with a Silencer Pro (triggered follow focus, Kickstarter funded), with side handles and an Atomos Shogun mounted on the top. :)

may we use this thread for live discussion of what they are saying on BHP Live? EDIT: wow, i like this panasonic dude. honest guy. EDIT2: Answer to why the GH4 doesnt have IBIS: it was built for professional video production. having the sensor move around inside the body without a heat sink, wouldnt be a reliable choice for filming longer periods. EDIT3: Answer to the audio problem with external microphones: Panasonic engineers are looking into it. it might come because of the 3,5mm audio pin. the issue doesnt appear with the shotgun mic made by panasonic. others have to be tested. EDIT4: Best detail and dynamic range at ISO200 EDIT5: Higher DR in 4k compared to 1080p with at least 11 stops

Don't drive yourself mad with codecs, tech and lenses. The RX100 or RX10 are great cos they're all in one and very light. give one a blast. screw a little handle to the bottom and let the stabiliser turn your arm into a steadicam! I used an RX100 and added a screw on filter for a little fader ND and it was awesome. I sold it as i didn't use it enough, but it was great when i had it. Sure, you can't grade it as much as some other cameras and it's not the best in low light (the RX10 is better for that) but it is really fun and easy to shoot with. Focus on constructing completed pieces more so than technical tests etc. Use you cat/kitchen table tests to learn but be sure to actually make a satisfying and complete piece at some point. Better off, start cold by making a whole piece on pure instinct, look at what goes wrong or could be improved, and use that to decide your next learning stage. Contextualising knowledge is very important, abstract figures or ideas are just that: abstract. By putting them into practice we learn very fast indeed.

They make different lenses for different size cctv sensors , you want the 1" sensor models not the ones made for smaller 2/3 " and 1/3 " sensors as they vignette too much. - They are not knock off lenses they are different models that is why they have different model numbers. there is an older pentax cosmicar 25mm f1.9 with zebra markings and the newer pentax cosmicar 25mm f1.4 - smaller a better lens there are 3 versions of this - original made in Japan , then a made in china version and the latest is made in Vietnam optically they are all the same - I have all 3 there is no differeance all Fujinon lenses I own are made in Japan - I dont have any not made in Japan do not confuse Fujian brand with Fujinon Fujian is a Chinese CCTV lens maker - their lenses are no way as good as Fujinon of Japan.

I agree that GX7 may be better only for video (and the menus of course), but the fact that a6000 is cheaper, and is greater for stills, made me go for Sony. The majority of the amateurs looking at the hybrid, do continue to care about the raw stills. There, the sensor size gives advantage to the a6000. Personally I am 40-60 between video and stills. So, for me the a6000 with its AF is a winner. And although you may find it unacceptable, I also use AF for video with great results. no focus hunting! (unless you half-press the shutter button). It's great for documentary/run&shoot purposes! I just hope that Sony will support us enough with firmware updates to not let this camera devaluate fast.

I've been giving this some thought myself and here's what I've come up with. It's largely about focusing the viewer's attention. Lets use the film Alien as an example. Alien was shot anamorphically as was Blade Runner as Ridley Scott used to shoot his films in this format. Anamorphic lenses give shallower depth of field for a comparable field of view in spherical thus allowing you to ( or forcing you to) separate the subject matter from the background more effectively. In still photography terms refer to old hollywood portraits by the likes of George Hurrell who are in my opinion unmatched in elegance by any form of celebrity portraiture since. He was shooting with an 8x10 camera with hot lights and usually had razor thin depth of field. This made for intensely beautiful images when used properly. I feel the same is true of anamorphic in Alien, Blade Runner, etc. In alien the shallow focus really helps to create mood and probably made the sets look even better by blurring them out more. On the director's commentary track Mr. Scott even notes the difficulty of the shallow depth of field and points out a shot in which the focus was lost for a moment. I used to instinctively assume that it was better to have all the characters in frame in focus but have since learned that that's not necessary and can often clutter up the shot. I'm constantly surprised now as I watch favorite films shot anamorphically at characters that are out of focus that I never noticed the first few viewings. The smeary effect in the out of focus areas when using anamorphic is also a strong part of the look that I feel most movie lovers probably unconsciously associate with CINEMA. I certainly do...although it's more of a conscious association now. The flares can also be a nice touch but I feel they are best suited to science fiction. Shooting with anamorphic lenses slows you down but the results can be worth it...if you have the time and budget. I also think that the added difficulty of shooting anamorphically forces the D.P. to work in a way that insures better results. It's easier to cut corners with spherical. Ridley Scott shoots spherical now and I personally don't appreciate the look of his films as much as I used to. He can still make an incredibly effective film like American Gangster with spherical but it didn't have quite the magical visual element(s) that anamorphic adds. Anamorphic isn't necessary for me to enjoy a film but I do appreciate when a production uses it. This is of course just my opinion and I'd love to hear what others here think. I'm guessing most of you on this forum will agree but perhaps you have a different take on it.

WOW jcs! Thank you for such a detailed and helpful reply! I truly appreciate your generosity. Pleased to hear that the 5D3 is capable of getting great quality 4K as I don't mind the extra time and work involved. I will post some footage in here as soon as I get it. Thanks again, Ofer ;) http://www.wildlife-photography-school.com

I watched 5D3 RAW upscaled to 4K vs. ARRI Alexa, Red Dragon 6K, GH4 4K, and Canon 1DC 4K, on a ~20' screen with a Christie 4K projector (Hot Rod Cameras GH4 event at Blacklist Studios in Hollywood): 5D3 RAW looked excellent. The other cameras were sharper, however the 5D3 RAW could easily be cut between them. I recently picked up the GH4 and it compares very well to 5D3 RAW and provides even better resolution than the Sony FS700 (haven't compared slomo resolution yet), which provides higher resolution than 5D3 RAW. The GH4 is more detailed, however the 5D3 14-bit RAW color is comparatively amazing, especially if processed in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). If you're shooting for the big screen, the extra work for 5D3 RAW will be worth it. It is the best value for getting Alexa-like imagery for low cost. You already have a 5D3, it's just the time to download and install ML to test for yourself. The GH4 will require really fast lenses to get the same FOV and DOF vs. the 5D3 (I picked up the Voigtlander 25mm F.95 to get the 50mm F1.9 5D3 equivalent. They also make a 35 and 85mm F1.9 full frame equivalent (17.5 and 42.5mm F.95): each are >$1k and full manual (not a big deal for video). Upscaled 5D3 2K to 4K won't look any different than 2K 5D3 RAW projected/shown at 2K. Thus GH4 4K will always be sharper and more detailed. However, the color processing capabilities of 5D3 14-bit RAW are far beyond what is possible with the GH4 4K. The GH4 4K can produce amazing footage straight from camera with little or no post-processing, which saves (a lot of) time and disk space vs. RAW. If you want to get the most color and detail from 5D3 RAW, use Adobe ACR. Resolve is a close second and if using sharp lenses and shooting outdoors, the results are very impressive:

Yes its an M42 lens. Get the black one (not the silver) & pay around £150. Also, with M42 lenses sometimes the adaptors allow the lens to go past infinity, so normally you need to turn it back a bit in order to get infinity - this maybe what you're experiencing.

  You can't just strip a sound track off an edit and replace it with a completely different one... Well you can, so long as you're not basing the entire concept of the video around that crucial song, the timing of the edit, the mood, the meaning, the lyrics, the soundscape and the pacing!   :)

GH4 looks sharper, however C100 still leads in DR (look at how easily the highlights blow out in the clouds of the GH4 shots). Then again, I'm not quite sure this is a very fair test (although that would be quite a challenge considering the different log formats, crop factor, etc.)

Don't upload to Vimeo. Just hand over the video in an SD card or USB stick and let the couple worry about the copyrights.

in the full body shots the background is so even because it has been extended in post see form this raw grab: All other shots the backgrounds are real, a big soft light from above lit it evenly. If you want an even lit background you can start by placing your light as further away from it as possible. The closer you get the more you will see the gradation in the light fall off and you will create a visible gradient. Found this image that demonstrates it clearly: as you can see the light intensity changes rapidly between the 22 and 5.6 mark, so you will see a gradient. If you place it further away, starting at the 5.6 mark and around the 4 mark you will have less of a gradient (although you will have a 1 stop difference as demonstrated in the pic)