Leaderboard

Since we have quite some people who love the thick 1080p image that the GH3 has created (I think it was @mercer and maybe @kidzrevil ?), I was digging around a bit in the camera settings and we also have a 1080p 24fps All-I 200mbit mode that also features HLG. Anybody ever tried that mode? If i wouldnt care about 4k, wouldnt this have an even more (relative) higher bitrate than the 400mbit 4k ALL-I? yes, this one has 400mbit vs 200mbit but 4k is also 4x 1080p in terms of pixels... Maybe I will give that mode a shot.

I have to disagree. 1. There would be a shiny new Canon C200 sitting on my shelf... right now, if not for the absence of a middle codec. It’s the added workflow that I don’t dig. I like a fast turn around time. You just don’t get that when you have to sit around transcoding. 2. I can push my 10 bit footage considerably further in post than I can my 8 bit footage. I think Raw 12 bit is great. Lovely to have it. But for most here the 12 bit would be for special situations, whereas the 10 bit would be for general use. I would have preferred they left out 8 bit, as with the move to HDR, it seems it’s usefulness is in sight. Now I know some of you will banter on about how, “ only .00001% of the population has 4K HDR TVs”... well that’s all fine and dandy, but I have four of them, and I’m not even counting my numerous smartphone that all support HDR content. So for me, it’s important. I don’t even have a problem with the crazy expensive media. I have many of these 256GB, $700 a pop CFast cards laying around that I use in the 1DXMk2. But it would have been great to have a clean 12 bit raw output that I could send to an external recorder. That would have silenced many of the naysayers. We are not annoyed because we hate Canon. I would bet that most of those who are bothered by the implementation of the C200 are that way because they had planned on buying one... at least that’s how I feel. If any of you have a C200 and 1DXMk2 I would love to see a shootout comparing overal image quality. I see nothing like this online. The two cameras a priced close enough so that many might consider one vs the other. Granted they have different focuses... but still...

...and if you really want/need 10 bit prores then an external recorder is the answer (at least in 1080).

I was skeptic about HD as well. Saw it first in autumn 2004 on a trade show with the then-new Sony FX-1. Worries were unsubstantiated since the images were seen on SD TVs then. I wasn't impressed. The first time I saw UHD was on a trade show again. Some JVC camcorder, stitching four HD videos together. Horrible colors, terrible edge-sharpening. The best part was where they showed a fish tank that was supposed to look real. The audience was impressed. I said, no, the fish look dead. I have a more convincing screensaver ... Groundhog day.

Demo-reels, "test shots" featuring once new technology is always cringeworthy in retrospect. On your comparison of B&W with Technicolor: in one of his docs on cinema history Martin Scorsese shows that color was used creatively early on. They learned to hold back very quickly. 2D projection had to be 50 nits peak (15 foot lambert). With brighter projection, you'd lose contrast again. The blacks never had been very convincing in cinema either. It's true that particularly analog film (but digital cinema packages also) can hold more stops of light. More than could be shown. This whole HDR affair is about new display technology more than about camera technology. Cameras that can record 10-15 stops in 10-bit or higher are with us a few years now. Only that until recently most of it was "lost in translation" for distribution. The downside will probably be that HDR will be less 'forgiving'. Many affordable cameras were just a tad better than what the 8-bit rec_709 Youtube clip they were bought for demanded. I was among the 4k skeptics. Resolution is not about image quality. The trek moved in the wrong direction. If 4k was sharper than HD, it was because it hadn't been true HD before. And for the sake of more pixels everybody was happy to allow heavier compression. Although storage costs have become so low (I have to think about John Olivers How Is This Still A Thing?) and in spite of the warnings that compression artifacts degrade perceived image quality the most (see Yedlin again). But I wasn't "opposed" to 4k. To those who feared problems with make up and the like, I said, why would it make a difference? Would I light and frame differently? No. Why? I had been shooting DV. Did I avoid long shots with lot of background detail? No. Why? The same with HFR. We've been discussing this ad nauseam. I had reservations. But I could name the reason. The comparative lack of motion blur takes away momentum. If you know about that, you can shoot accordingly. As I see it, you can still shoot 24p in UHD. The resolution goes down as the camera moves? So be it. If you are fixated on resolution, you will eventually stop motion altogether. No more fights, car chases. Pristine calendar stills of the graveyard, soon with a 1000 nits sun playing behind the headstones ...

Im not really on board this lust for a middle codec. And I never really got it either. On a bmpcc I shoot raw or proxy. Lightest or the best. No in between or half ass. Imagine talking to a client. "So Mr Penisburg, do you want the best of the best? Or do you want to prioritize time and money? Or do you want something kinda expensive and I guess decent quality that won't take that long but not exactly fast either?" The C100 is still good enough for anything I ever get involved with (TV, webb, jumbotrons). So I could definitely live without some "mellanmjölk" codec Remember how we used to joke about Canon actually making a great camera and forums still finding flaws. You know how many cameras today have everything we asked for two years ago and we promised that would be "it". All happy. But we then turn every single rock in search of something to be unhappy about. I of course expected it to happen when I posted the first thread about the c200. But I didn't in my wildest dreams expect it to be such weird and odd request as a "middle" codec. I was literally speechless

I don't get this - I can see am immense difference between HDR and SDR on my Samsung Galaxy phone for almost every HDR video on YouTube. It is not subtle. They key difference is the brightness/dynamic range, not as much the color gamut. I can show (have shown) the HDR videos to anyone with my phone and they all are amazed by the difference (I show them the SDR version too). The Samsung phone does at least 90% of the P3 color gamut btw. I think some people here are in denial. I also don't get the concept of "good HDR shot content" - all content that purports to depict reality rather than fantasy (documentaries, travel, etc.) benefits from being able to display improved colors and greater dynamic range, especially if the scene has spectacular (not just specular) highlights. If you shoot log gammas and HLG properly, you can get good HDR. HLG is the easiest since you shoot in REC2020 color and thus need no translation from some other color gamut for HDR.

@Mattias Burling I was kiddin'. Newer generations can't stand anything without IBIS and millions of ISO capabilities!

Well, cost is a great reason to buy any comparable over any other more expensive thing. C200 wins on internal ND and autofocus. But here are the other reasons to get the Terra 4k over the C200 (besides the already stated ones of SSD, lens mounts, speedbooster, etc.): 75 vs 60 max fps at full sensor readout extra stop of dynamic range 14 vs 13 (manufacturer claims, both) internal ProRes smaller lighter but, yeah, no reason at all to consider it.

BMPCC + Carl Zeiss 25mm lens. Stylised color grade based on my BozBMDFilm to Rec709 LUT. Download Page: https://goo.gl/B9Ns51

There’s nothing to defend or ridicule. Canon released a camera that does A or B... if A or B doesn’t fit your needs, then buy a different camera. It’s really quite simple.

@Antonis Lol. Who are the others? Only the GH5 does that internally.

This I don't and won't believe no matter who said it

I have to agree on this one... Put it another way... By adding a speedbooster it’s not increasing the diameter of the barrel of the lens... so whatever light the barrel of the lens is letting through is what’s coming to the sensor or speedbooster (and the speed booster doesn't add more light unless there is some sort of light built into it)

C’mon, if the media is too expensive, then this camera is definitely not right for your production. But if you’re making a serious short film, with a budget, then another grand for Cfast 2 cards shouldn’t be a concern... I mean seriously... who is going to spend $7500 for a camera that shoots 4K Raw up to 60p and then complain about the cost of the media and want to shoot 8bit?!?! But the real hilarious part of this argument is that the people complaining about the cost of media to shoot Raw 4K on the C200 are fine shelling out comparable costs for the V90 cards to shoot h.264 on the GH5. If you want a serious camera, you have to pay serious money and if you don’t, then there are plenty of amazing options in the sub $3000 consumer category.

This is from Newshooter. Review of the C200. "The Cinema RAW Light files can only be recorded in 4KDCI and not in UHD, 2KDCI or HD resolutions. A 128GB CFast2.0 card which costs around $350 US will only allow you to record 15 minutes of material. If you want to do extended takes or record all of your material in RAW then you are going to need a lot of CFast2.0 cards– that’s going to cost you a significant amount of money. You also need to take into account the data storage you will need and how long it will take to process and deal with the RAW files." Two problems I see. First: There is Only one CFast slot. That means every 15 minutes, or if you can afford a 256gb one, every half hour you HAVE to stop and change a card. They needed 2 CFast slots on it. Second: The BBC has their minimum requirement of 50Mbps for content with them. The lower Codec is 35 Mbps (1920 x 1080). On paper you can't even shoot a Documentary with this camera and satisfy the BBC. So if you are a run and gun guy, Doc shooter, a Interview person you are either stopping every damn 15 minutes, or shooting in a Codec that you can't use at a broadcast standard. That is the Damn problem with no Middle Codec.

If I need to grade so much that Canon 8-bit clog doesn't hold up, then I need raw. 10bit mid codec wouldn't save me. In my experience 8-bit from Canon can be pushed alot and looks gorgeous. I totally respect that people want a mid codec. Im not judging. Im just saying that for me personally it would never ever be needed and Im glad Canon did what they did. Hopefully they will do the same in more cameras so if I end up buying it one day, I won't have to pay extra for some prores license.

So this video represent an exploration into these cameras. I have never really taken the time to do a real side by side, other than when I first got the GH5 and wanted to see the FOV difference compared to the Canon. I have to say, on a 4K monitor, I can clearly see noise at all ISO on both cameras. The GH5 was color graded as it was shot using V-Log. Whilst I choose (as I almost always do) to use a baked-in color profile with the Canon. I had to work prettty hard to get the GH5’s colors close to the Canon... and even then, I can tell you I was not 100% happy. But that said, in the first few shots from the GH5, the color grade is truer to what my eyes could see in that room vs what the 1DXMk2 reproduced. About that room: This was not a low-light test... It was really more of a “I’m in a normal room, with a bunch of people, and I want to try to get some footage without anything but practical lighting... because I did not bring a lighting kit to lunch”. Why? Because often times I take my camera along when we go out. So capturing footage inpromptu is a frequent situation that I find myself in. Realization: I always thought the GH5 was clean at < ISO 1600, but after watching this video on a 4K monitor, in my office, I can tell you that is simply not the case. Under these “normal” lighting condition both cameras showed shadow noise at even ISO 500. I don’t know why I have never noticed this before, but I think that the better TVs and monitors become, the more apparent the shortcomings of our cameras will be. Where am I now? The noise from the Canon and the GH5 was comparable at similar ISOs with the MBSB attached. Granted, the GH5 could gather a lot more light than the Canon with the focal reducer. But if set to similar ISOs the noise was close enough as made no difference. So what does this mean for the GH5S? Looking at these noise levels I am surprised that I somehow missed it prior to this. Perhaps it’s because I was only critical of my images when they were planned and lighted scenes? The room was not really that dark. The shots in the video are pretty representative of what my eyeballs could see. I’m a bit surprised that I could not get perfectly clean footage under fairly normal conditions. Did I do anything other than CG? Well, I should point out that the second to last scene (2.26) was using a film look, but honestly the noise is exactly the same. It looked bad, so I took it into Magic Bullet and threw a look on it. It was shot at ISO 2500 on the GH5 using a native Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 version 2 lens @12mm. Another shot at (1.55) was more about delving into what a I could do creatively with it. That’s the scene shot at 70mm, where Hildy (the Doogans) looks at the camera. I add a film stock and denoiser at 15%. The rest of the footage is untouched, other than basic CG to match the 1DXMk2. I think that native glass... unlite is not a great idea. And most of the “fast” glass with a few exceptions does not stay sharp unless stopped down a bit. Anything to add? I’ll check if I still have prolost on the camera. But I can tell you, I have tried more flat profile on the Canon than you can shake a stick at. The best they get you is a fairly light grade. If you want to bend and twist your footage, you need at least 10 bit. It is much much more robust. But for ultimate flexibility you need 12 bit raw. From my experience with 8 bit from Canon and Sony, they are more fragile when grading.

You are absolutely right that one is seeing only a subset of the benefits of HDR on the HDR-certified Samsung phones, or on most HDR TV's for that matter. But, you missed the point, again being bogged down in technical details - the HDR versions of the videos look amazing, even the "crippled" renditions on the phone. And you do not need to compare to see the visible benefits. And here we go again - I have bolded your cliché and epithet. Yes, content matters, duh, and using the word gimmicky. There is nothing gimmicky about increasing the realism of videos we shoot. HD gimmicky? 4K gimmicky? color gimmicky? widescreen gimmicky? progressive versus interlaced gimmicky? Higher frame rates gimmicky? Give us a break. You sound like you are threatened by HDR. But anyone who shoots in log gammas with extended color space (Vlog, Slog, V-gamut, S-gamut, or RAW) can produce HDR video (yes, not *all* of the specs). It does not require new cameras for most people and the *free* Resolve creates HDR video without much additional hassle. And YouTube, the most popular multi-platform *free* video-sharing app, provides an easy way to share HDR videos. Again YouTube even makes an SDR version for those without HDR screens. What could be easier? It's not like 3D or VR. I am not predicting anything about what will become popular (VR? 180 video?), just pointing out that unlike watching 10bit or 422 video versus 8bit 420 video in SDR, which is invisible in almost all cases, or even 4K versus true FullHD, which can be subtle, HDR is quite visibly different in the right way - reproducing what we see in real life.

If the bottom codec is an 8-bit codec that admittedly looks great, but by it's very nature is going to struggle under heavy creative grading, and the top codec is a RAW workflow that is gorgeous, but slow and cumbersome, then yes, you need a middle codec for robust 10-bit goodness, when speed and creative flexibility are both of the essence. I happen to take mellanmjölk with my cereal too.

The need for a middle 10 bit codec is true. There are clients that ask for a relatively fast turn around and 10 bit files. Canon Raw is good for video clips or specific small-ish projects, and the lighter codec good for most, but there is a valid need in the market for 10 bit files - latest TV shows I worked for were shot in GH5 for that specific reason. That is why Panasonic has sold a lot of cameras in the industry. Cheapest 10 bit camera around. I am not sure if GH5 created that need, or the need for more robust workflows created the GH5, but the lack of that middle codec is making me NOT to buy a C200. I would rather prefere that "middle" codec than RAW, to be honest, or a much cheaper C100mkIII with the touch screen and touch AF and the basic codecs, and some kind of slow mo, that would be my workhorse for the next decade. Canon C100mkII is one of my favorite cameras ever made, I did so many things with it, but it is getting old.

Yea I saw that awhile ago. Great comparison. Damn it if Canon would just get off their ass and put a 10 bit middle Codec in the C200 I think it is the no brainer camera to have.

Yeah, but if someone is on a budget they can hack a gx85 to get cinelikeD 4k which is already at 100mbps plus stabalization that the gh4 didn't have. That's why the gx85 was so impressive (and the g85 is also a low price point with longer battery life than the gx85, fully articulating screen and a mic input. BUT why not just get an external recorder if you need a front facing screen and mic input. That way you get 422)

This looks great! Thanks for sharing!

I second the Artlist recommendation. I've been using it for the past year or so, and for $199 a year, unlimited tracks, unlimited use, it's a no brainer. We've since started using it at work as well, and they actually have very usable, nice-sounding tracks. By far the best bang for buck, especially when you're churning out a lot of projects.

I used the PZ version 16-50 with the Pilotfly H1 (8bits) works pretty well.

I agree... can’t see myself forgoing Canon for this. But at the same time Canon really messed up by not including a middle codec on the C200. If not for that omission I would have purchased it. An I know I’m not alone in that sentiment.

The 50mm Summicron-R does magical things wide open... And some pretty cool things stopped down, too.

I've noticed this a few times from people, that although DPAF is great it can sometimes be noisy. Which would annoy the hell out of me as a sound recordist if I came across this. haha, yeah "noiseless" is totally different for photographers than video folk!! A small bit of noise is ok for a stills guy shooting in a church for a wedding, but would drive me nuts.

You want predictions, or wishlists? Its a bit early to make predictions I think, assuming it's still two years off. Who knows what could happen with the competition in that time. And hasn't Panasonic stated they'll be 8K-compliant by 2020? That could screw the whole thing up. Nobody wants a 32MP m4/3 camera. Wishlists are fun though! -4K60 at 4:2:2 10-bit, with an intraframe option (400-500mbps) -ability to record four audio tracks, two from the XLR box and two from the 3.5mm jack. -move both the 3.5mm jacks upward so they don't block the screen. -a physical lock for the IBIS- a little lever or switch is fine, doesn't have to be servo-operated. -internal NDs -tilting EVF with an optional big eyecup -focus punch-in while recording -1080p output to the app And of course improvements to ISO performance, VFR, AF, etc.

S35mm sensor.

It kind of sucks that good AF and HDR was not included in the GH5S. The chip was designed to do this, but was disabled by Panasonic. Also the need for usable AF was clearly known. So...

I also love the focal length, perfect for me as well. My favorite lens was the Voigtlander 40mm f2 Ultron before this. I made the mistake of renting the 1.2, now I have to figure out what to sell to keep it The subject separation is insane.

Just got a Voigtlander 40mm 1.2. Haven't had a chance to test in video yet. But DAMN

Go native pros : lighter , autofocus ,ibis 5 axis