Leaderboard

Thanks for the kind words guys. This was a fun and sort of insane shoot. I've written up a few words on lens selection, lighting, and post workflow with some BTS stills here: http://phfx.com/articles/forgedIn8K/ To answer a few questions. @Dan Wake - Editing native REDCODE RAW is something I've been doing for a while. This shoot was done this way using Adobe Premiere Pro CC which has GPU acceleration and adaptive resolution settings while editing. I even ran some of these files through my laptop and was able to "work" effectively. While this is not the only way of working, especially on longer projections with more content and assets, it's certainly something that doable not on a NASA supercomputer @araucaria - 8K is interesting. For display purposes I would prefer 8K to hit theatrical and exhibition use before it hits home. At the moment and for a long time, like a decade plus, UHD 4K is going to be the focused format for home use. Especially since every major studio has now come to an agreement on a UHD Premium Standard via the UHD Alliance. The resolution itself can be down sampled of course and that provides certain advantages as you mentioned to the debayering process. However, 8K will indeed land on screens and screens smaller than you think. I wrote up a paper titled "The Window Effect" that explains much about resolution and optimum viewing distances not too long ago. Here's a link to it: http://www.phfx.com/articles/theWindowEffect/ @Jimmy - Thank you Jimmy. IMAX theatrical presentation is one area I'd like to see this camera used the most. @DPStewart - Thanks Stewart. Resolution is all about "what type" of resolution it is. I have a great deal of experience in the world of motion picture film scanning and film's resolving power purely comes down to what format you are shooting, what stock you are using, and the glass you are shooting with. Super 35mm for instance resolves about 4K-5K worth of detail. Typically we scan it in at 6K and over sample to down sample to yield better quality results. At 6K resolution Super 35mm film's grain is globular and larger than a pixel. It isn't exactly sharp, but it's rather smooth. Most higher end digital cinema cameras that are using Bayer Pattern sensor tech are somewhat emulating that effect to a degree. When we get to larger film formats like VistaVision 8-perf, 65mm 5-perf, and 70mm IMAX 15-perf the resolution increases based on the negative size. If you've seen a full optical release of a properly shot IMAX film, it's still a tremendous visual treat. @Mattias Burling - Much of what I'm after with my images is due to my film background. I'd say not until fairly recently, like around 2013 did we actually get into the true potential of digital film alternatives when it comes to motion picture production. Film still has that magical quality to it that's something hard to truly define, but at this point there's certainly quality alternatives for those who choose the crazy world of digital capture. And it's a very controlled yet flexible format at that. Much of my earlier work before RED hit the scene and even before the PV Genesis was making digital cameras look more like film. Adding grain was one aspect of that, but I'll tell you 10+ years ago it was much harder to do than with today's cameras. Especially if you are using high resolution scans of actual film grain. @Goose - Thank you. Seems like 20000 people like it and about 3 don't so far But boy do those negative comments sting. @AaronChicago - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 has already begun filming on the first batch of 8K Weapons and it's going to be interesting to see how that translates to VFX and post workflow for sure. I think they are aiming for a 4K finish if I'm not mistaken. The standard in 2020 will still be mostly 4K, but 8K broadcast trials start this year and in 2020 NHK is hoping to broadcast the Olympics in 8K "somewhere". As for the next 10-15 years, yep, a lot of UHD 4K with a growing trend of 8K for productions that are looking to explore that world. HDR is going to be the next big thing that comes home it seems. @richg101 - You hit the nail on the head when it comes to glass Richard. That's the main reason I went with the Otus primes. However! I did also use a few several decades old Olympus OM lenses in there as well as a Leica-R and Canon 200mm (so I didn't set myself on fire). I have a feeling the Otus trio will be something I'll be shooting a lot of content with on the 8K. And much of this was f/2, with a few f/1.4-f/2.8 shots in there. There's something truly seductive about this format size and focusing on nuanced detail in my opinion. @Dan Wake - That flicker doesn't show in my ProRes masters here. It appears it's a YouTube encoding artifact. Had to watch both a few times to make sure I wasn't crazy. Seems to be minimized when watching full screen on a 4K display, but it's certainly weird.

No one cares, but here's a new teaser: I wrapped the film yesterday. I got some good stuff. The rough cut is all done. I'm waiting to hear back from the composer of the first film.

tl;dr: 2.5k mode may be lurking just under the surface. Not sure, but it looks promising. Did some more digging today and I'm pretty sure the valid resolutions one the NX1 and NX500 are defined at least in part by the file /usr/etc/mmfw_camcorder_dev_video_pri.ini. It can be found in both the rootfs filesystem and the opt filesystem images (under etc in opt). I found that a while back but I was sure it couldn't be the right file since the defined name and comments for the file say it is for a Fujitsu cellphone camera. Furthermore the stills resolutions listed are completely wrong for the NX1/500. However I spent a while reading the source code for libmm-camcorder.so, and it reads the config values from those files. I'm still not sure how it determines the correct sensor and image processor parameters for a given mode, however, since there are several combinations that would produce each resolution, and the details aren't in the configuration files I have seen. However the interesting part is that the one difference between mmfw_camcorder_dev_video_pri.ini on the NX1 and that same file on the NX500 is that the NX500 includes an additional "2560,1440" mode. That's good news since it seems to indicate that they didn't bother to remove the 2.5k mode from the underlying libraries and instead just got rid of it in the camera app. For what it's worth the "QHD" icon is still present in the resources folder for the camera app, so it looks like they weren't very thorough in getting rid of it.

They don't actually I hate canon still raw files, they are thinner than air and when you pixel peep you feel like taking a trip 8 years back in the digital world.

Here is a still from a 4K shot on the NX1 with the Leica 100mm F2.8 macro Elmarit-R: Original 4k: 80% Crop:

Light gathering, not bokeh.

Man... I'm not sure why, but this stuff looks better than the 4.6k footage I've seen so far. Something seems "off" the Blackmagic-Mojo with that sensor... it looks like high-quality GH4/GH3 footage... not as organic as this stuff. Maybe it's too clean?

you're making an assumption about me... i'm not an advocate for or against piracy. i've only relayed my personal experiences with it. the day i discovered the torrents of my movie I had two thoughts. First was, "this is amazing!!!" and the second was, "shit! what if my distributor finds out?" I see the good, i see the bad. I've declined an invitation from the MPAA to speak on indies' behalf because, like most things, i know the truth of this matter lies somewhere in the middle. you don't need to convince *me* of anything. i asked for citation so you would back up your posts. without it, it comes across as asserting "opinion as fact".

I shot this on the t3i back in the day. To this day its still my mostly viewed video. But to be fare it had 110 000 views in one day and 250 000 views in one weekend, so its not really comparable to the 200k ish videos I have today. Any who, looking at it I would say its good enough of a camera for the beginner. (and also, IKEA now makes them )

Yup, I still recomend it all the time. That or the G6. Great and cheap learning cameras.

And honestly, I really like the GH4 image better than the NX1. I think it is undeniably more cinematic than the NX1. Don't get me wrong, I love what that camera can do, but for that "movie" look, the GH4 is better... Hands down.

As usual, the Sony has some flashy specs, but the Panasonic will be more usable.

Here is from last summer a little test between FM Lens and Rectilux adapters. Kowa 8z inside on both.

I'm finally working on a short. It's a sequel to my 2012 short "The Ballad of Crazy Pete": Shot on the bmpcc.

Seems Sigma has done it again: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-first-picture-of-the-crazy-sigma-50-100mm-f1-8-lens/ Yet another uniquely fast zoom (for crop). You guys excited? I know I am :-) Now let's wait for RRP

That "Building of Moire" is awesome. Impressive the way you've planted so many cameras in front of it to test. Good stuff.

Yikes...what a train wreck. Back to the subject at hand, what makes this lens more exciting than a speed boosted 70-200 is that it basically comes "pre-boosted," so it can be boosted again for m4/3 and BM cameras. 75-150 f/1 on the speed booster XL, and even faster on the BMPCC booster (too lazy to do that math right now). Of course, the practicality of using a lens this huge, expensive, and heavy on a GH4 or BMPCC leaves something to be desired...

You both have mega cool portraits! That's my only excuse and I'm sticking to it!

So... you spliced me and Zak together like Brundle Fly. Well, I suppose I've had people do worse to me than that. LOLZ!

Lol, what speedbooster on canon cameras, what are you talking about. The 70-200 2.8 is a fullframe lens, you can only use it with speedboosters on aps-c sensors. Do you understand what a speedbooster/focal reducer is/does?

Canon FL 100mm 3.5 - 1960's era. LONG focus throw. This example looks like it had some fungus cleaned from an internal element, it's a little "scarred" looking when you shine a penlight down the barrel. Little metal tank, 48mm filter thread. $15. Love the colors, detail, and softness-where-you-want it. All from 4K grabs, shot wide open. Minor grade in Photoshop (just upped the blacks a bit) and a touch of sharpening, about what I'd normally do for non-people shots. In particular, there's some really lovely stuff going on with greens and blues. I've played with the FL 35mm 2.5 ($20), 50mm 1.8 ($20) and 19mm 3.5 R ($200, a real legend of a lens, almost zero distortion and hard to find) and they all render similarly. Looking for an 85 next, but that's a highly regarded lens to find this cheap. I could really see doing something narrative-short, fashion-beauty or music video with these. You could build a full set of primes, including the $15 adapters, for a couple hundred bucks (minus the 19mm which usually goes for $350 and up). Lens range also includes a 28mm, 58mm, some of the normal glass in 1.4 and 1/2 variants I believe, a 135mm 2.5(?) and a 200mm f3.5 or f4.

It scares me how much that video influenced people.

Regardless of the moire rating, it´s impressive how the overall IQ of the Red One MX stands out! It´s like in a totally different league and I´m really interested what it is... what it makes so cinematic... All of your images with the Red1mx impressed me this way. Seems to be a secret weapon:). Congratulations that you have it!

I am so happy for you

I love that lens. I've seriously regretted selling my copy when I went to Nikon Full Frame, will get another one day.

And don't forget that while it has the DOF of a 1.8, in light terms, it is illuminating like a 2.8 on a crop frame sensor - making the speed boosted 70-200 faster

I think the most forgettable upgrades have been to the Rebel series actually... they make the 80D look like a quantum leap! 600D through 650D, 700D, was embarrassing. It looked like the only feature they added was lower manufacturing cost and at one point a grip material that turned white. Yet the sheep kept buying I assume.

Someone please tell my why a power zoom would adjust focus It doesn't have a focus rocker on it, only a power zoom rocker... Something that should be on the lens for free anyway, like with all the other power zoom lenses from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc. Canon saw yet another money spinning opportunity to charge us for a zoom rocker. Pathetic.

Casey Neistat, I presume.

RX10? Built in everything, headphone and mic jacks, nice 1080p, 24-200mm equiv f/2.8 constant lens, image stabilization, about $500 used.

still dirt cheap, manageable files on any computer, large sensor, sort of organic look, easy colors. ignorantly buying it, learning a little, and upgrading immediately is totally fine. if they're insanely new to video, I'm still not sure I can think of a better first camera

I have never owned a native lens, so I only think in terms of FF. Of course, I have a nice little set of ai lenses and with prices of the D5500 body dropping on eBay, I am tempted to have one camera that I don't need an adapter to use lenses. Not to mention, every where I turn, I read another good thing about that Nikon Flat profile. CinelikeV? Really? I thought CinelikeD is supposed to be the better profile for grading? And I actually like the noise on the gh4, add a little fine gorilla grain and it blends nicely.

Good job. If you guys can unlock the 1440p... I'll just go ahead and use it.

It's the lens - not the camera. Each different lens design has its own auto-focus abilities and accuracies. There is also the ever-present possibility that your particular copy of that lens is not performing as well as it should be. Some lenses have the ability to have their auto-focus mechanism updated or adjusted - either by downloading firmware into the lens itself, or by making adjustments to the lens' back focus. Check into what other folks' experiences have been with the exact lens model you're having trouble with. And NO, not "any DSLR would focus instantly". Not by a long shot. I have a Canon T2i and a Canon 6D and 'some' lenses focus nearly instantly while other lenses, even Canon's own cheaper ones, take so long to focus I could call Stevie Wonder to come manually focus the lens and he'd be faster. Also, my GH2's, which are technically not DSLRs just like the NX1, focuses so fast with the 14-140mm kit zoom that I'm not even aware it's doing it sometimes, while some of their other auto-focus lenses are FAR slower. It's the LENS.

No, it won't change your depth of field at any chosen f-stop. That's a built-in property of the lens itself. It will just increase the amount of light that hits your sensor, thus giving you an obviously cleaner or brighter image. And obviously it will give you a wider field of view.

Re: Streaming on your own website - if it can be displayed on a screen, it can be ripped, by using a software that masquerades as a screen, then records what it is "displaying". You will still have your movie pirated. Sorry. It may be a nightmare, but just keep on top of the distribution, shut it down, dedicate a quarter of an hour as regularly as you can to searching and composing your boiler plate "remove this content from your service please" email and you will limit it as much as you ever can. Don't risk your sanity over it, you've got bigger problems, including: Piracy is an easy scapegoat as to why your movie wasn't profitable. No-one has yet been able to prove a shred of economic damage as a result of piracy, and these consultation firms have been investigating the issue for decades. There IS solid data which supports the theory that people who view your content for free today pay more for the content you produce tomorrow. There is also solid evidence that the vast majority - over 99% of "download incidences" are non conversions i.e. this download is not a lost sale. They are other pirate bay type operations who want it on their service, they are the bots which trawl the internet logging god knows what, they are people who cannot afford your movie anyway and they are people who download it and never open the file. I think people who are blaming piracy for their lack of profitability are, on the whole, looking to blame anything that was "done to them" to explain their lack of profitability, it's a lot more seductive than having to change how one approaches the commercial side of the business. People seem to have this over-romanticised idea of "the movie business" that never existed. It has always been cold and difficult for new talent, low budget productions and independants. People have always taken advantage of your hard work, taken it for free and put their name on it. Nothing has changed, except that it's gotten easier and cheaper to make content, distribute it and earn from it. Sure, it's not all roses, but it's a hell of a lot easier than it was 30 years ago. So are they all paranoid conspiracy theories, no, there is always that guy, sat at his computer smug that he watched a movie for free, they exist. But honestly, was he ever going to pay for your film? There are always those in different economic circumstances who cannot afford the lowest price you could distribute your film to them for. Will half the world ever start paying the "low" $3, when they earn $2 a day, and need to pay rent, feed themselves, keep themselves healthy and bring up their kids first - will they ever pay you? But some people who download your movie do find themselves in better economic circumstances. And the evidence shows that they do then start paying for their entertainment that they used to get for free. So the theories are correct, but the economic damage is pie in the sky - numbers they pulled out of their backsides, they don't know that if piracy didn't exist, they would have taken an extra $250k. They just ran some stupid algorithm that they think sounds reasonable - 10% of all downloads would have paid me because, despite non of the evidence pointing to that, I believe it is so. And quite frankly, the people who have made themselves mentally ill, and driven themselves to the point of suicide have much bigger problems than bankrupsy - which people, especially self employed people in the lowest end of their industry go through every day and continue to lead rich and fulfilling lives. They deserve our sympathy, our help and support and all the good will of the community. I travelled to Japan to meet with a guy I only knew through the internet because when youtube deleted his account after three bogus copyright strikes, he said some really worrying things. He lost his livelyhood overnight, because someone content claimed Kevin McClouds music, and Google don't care. Guess what, he was really really sick - this was just the trigger. He got the help he needed and is doing OK now, people don't commit suicide, attempt it or even contemplate it unless they are seriously ill anyway and needed the help regardless, or are making a cry for help and attention. And they absolutely deserve our help, our attention and our good will. False platitudes don't help - playing along with their narrative that "the pirates did it to me" is just as damaging as playing along with a person with dementia's false beliefs, or agreeing that you can see something that a person with schizophrenia thinks is real. It may be the easy way to "help" them in the short term, but long term, their condition gets worse below the platitude. And finally, if you punish your paying customers by dracconian measures to "lock it down", your paying customers get fed up with seeing the people who download it for free get a better product than they do. Reread every comment in this thread with this in mind: Piracy is a service issue. Look at Cinegain "People seem to prefer the convienience of pai services" - service issue, Silvertones "I subscribe to XBox music because" - service issue, sanveer - "people want quality" - service issue, the whole pornography debate, what drives the porn industry - free easily accessible porn. I don't have the answers, but I don't want to see only the profitable movies be made. That's why I support content creators I admire through patreon, kickstarter et al. Not practical for indie movies, but it's evidence that other forms of entertianment have adapted and survived. Of the industries I am interested in, Boardgames - the biggest game in the world right now was a print and play (read as download for free) game. People pay to get nice cards. Computer games - the biggest games in the world right now are free to play. Youtube content - advert supported content, free to the user. What do you notice - the industries have pushed their content to the user and made it as accessible as possible. Take a look at the recent sim city vs a direct rival Cities Skylines. Simcity had dracconian anti piracy measures. Cities Skylines did not. Simcity was a disaster, directly as a result of it's DRM and a commercial flop for EA. Cities Skylines is one of the industries top sellers right now, continuing to take more money on a recent expansion. They are almost exactly the same game. As I said, I don't have the answers, but I sure know that "locking it down" is guarenteed to cost you income.

If you are trying to get the better optics by speedboosting, the gh4 and the xl are one of the most interesting combos. Not sure it'd be better than just a larger sensor under there. Would be better high isos than like an nx1, though.

I have to agree with Aldolega. I predict the Sony will have a thin, brittle image. I loved my a5100, but that color was just not right. The GH4, which I have told you a bunch of times, is the sweet spot, in my opinion, of your portfolio. I can only imagine that it with a speedbooster would be a perfect match. If you're looking to test it out on the cheap, pick up the G7 and the XL... Andy Lee is getting some great results and swears by it. Do they really make the image/lens infinitely better?

The GH4 is an infinitely more usable video camera than the Sony a6300, but the NX1 is superior to the GH4 in almost every way. As for the speedboosters - F*CK YEAH they make that big of a difference. If you have a camera with an MFT mount they should be attached to your camera by default.

I'm in love with the look of the Kowa 35 1.75x Inflight shot in 4k 3840x2160 in 16:9 mode on GH4. Here is my first test with a pretty lady I know walking around three different taking lens. 1. Olympus Zuiko 38mm f1.8 2. Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8 and the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95. I love this lens. I love the single coating and the way it flares and how it transforms the character of the taking lens so well. I hope you enjoy this vintage anamorphic lens porn my friends. Watch in 4k. cheers! Ian

I wonder if Samsung has a firmware version of the NX500 preproduction 2.5k lying around? If enough people request that they offer that version to their current and future Samsung brand customers, they may just release it. And who knows what else they had in the firmware pipeline, for the NX series, before they decided to call it quits. I haven't been paying attention to this thread too much, so excuse me if this has been discussed, but does anyone here have any Samsung contacts? It hasn't happened for the same reason Samsung is getting out of the camera business... The demand is not there.

Are you still planning to review and show some non-graded/graded footage of the D5500 and its Flat Profile?

I'm going to go ahead and say it. This $1,000 camera looks slightly better to me than the URSA Mini 4.6 footage I've been seeing -- in terms of color rendition and motion cadence. That's a matter of taste to be sure but damn it if it doesn't make sacrificing resolution a no-brainer for such a beautiful cinematic image. I have one pre-ordered. Maybe i should sell my Pocket and get two of these.

Unfortunately not quite D5300 / GH3 good. Canon's new APS-C sensor doesn't have the moire & aliasing control of the former or the resolution / sharpness of the latter. D5500 even better as it has the lovely flat profile and newer sensor, very very clean in the shadows. Canon continue to disappoint - the 80D is basically a non-event, when it could have been a game changer.

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer. I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released. So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem. Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can. Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay. So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended. I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content. Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

https://convergent-design.com/company/blog-news/entry/odyssey7q-now-includes-256gb-ssd-prices-slashed-and-five-samsung-ssds-qualified.html

Speaking from my 1D C experience... MJPEG is 500Mbit/s so the data rate for the CPU to handle is insane. Editing off an SSD or RAID 0 like I do the drives aren't a bottle neck, it's the CPU. What compounds the problem is that MJPEG doesn't seem to be well supported with hardware acceleration. The Mercury Engine in Premiere for instance seems to revert to software rather than hardware accelerated by Open CL or CUDA when it comes to MJPEG. H.264 and H.265 may be more complex with the clever compression but it is hardware accelerated. You will effectivly be editing MJPEG 4K 60fps at 800Mbit/s in software mode, on the CPU only. The effects will take ages to render too. 1D C 4K 24p is 500Mbit/s (same on 1D X Mark II)... this is tough enough, you really need to transcode to ProRes. Again speaking from direct experience with the files, the H.264 4K from the GH4 and A7S II can be edited natively on my machine in Premiere with smooth playback especially at 1/2 res in the timeline monitor. MJPEG doesn't even play back smoothly when I reduce the playback res, which again points to the lack of proper support of such an old dated codec in a modern NLE. Canon have made a mistake.