theSUBVERSIVE

I hope it's not bothersome as I already asked it before but here we go again, hopefully I'll get a reply this time. In theory, what should be the differences for the GH4 in terms of IQ between: 1) GH4's 1080p (@100mbps IPB or @200mbps All-I) 2) 1080p via external recorder ProRes 10-bit 4:2:2 3) 1080p resized from GH4's 4K footage (post) 4) 1080p crop from GH4's 4K footage (post) If there is, which should have the best sharpness, DR, less artifacts, less moiré, etc?

There will always be people with unreasonable complain that weren't going to buy it to begin with. Latest rumors goes for €1,499, if it's true, this camera is even more compelling like nothing ever before. 4K for this price? Plus 1080p VFR up to 96fps @200mbps ALL-I and @100mbps IPB, full readout, HDMI out 4:2:2. etc. Sure, there are things that could had been better resolved, like the 4K crop, lack of multi-aspect, the flexibility using the interface unit, etc. But even if it's really $1,999, there is nothing like this camera and let's not forget that even though this can be used for professional work with some standards to fill, this is ultimately a still camera form factor. In this level, I can hardly think of any must have feat that was left out so anyone would claim that they won't buy it because of that, anything that was left out can only be found on cameras much more expensive and clearly aimed at a different initial target.

Oh and it seems that E-M1's sensor is from Panasonic, I wonder if it's the same as the GX7/GM1 and if that's why the video looks better as well. Quite interesting, huh? Talking about sensors, it seems that Panasonic doesn't really have the money to run some stuff. They didn't have their own sensor when they made the GH3 so they had to go with the Sony sensor. This time I don't understand why didn't Panasonic have a proper sensor so they didn't have to crop it for 4K? Or why didn't they make a multi-aspect sensor like they did for the GH1 and GH2? Did they need the extra space for the heat issue and that's why it's not a multi-aspect one? The best solution would had been a multi-aspect sensor with 2:1 pixels for 4K and that would also allow you to shoot 4:3 aspect-ratio for anamorphic lenses.

Someone is yet to answer me what should be - in theory - the differeces for the GH4 in terms of IQ between: 1) GH4's 1080p (@100mbps IPB or @200mbps All-I) 2) 1080p via external recorder ProRes 10-bit 4:2:2 3) 1080p resized from GH4's 4K footage (post) 4) 1080p crop from GH4's 4K footage (post)

Latest rumors talk about €1499 for body only for the GH4, so this can be even greater than previous thought.

Well, it really depends on what you want from the camera. And knowing that these rumors that the GH4 would be announced by now have been floating on the net for a while and that the E-M1 is not aimed at videographers, I would assume that although you have some interest in it, your primary use is photography. And regardless of the GH4, the E-M1 is more than capable photography tool and as Andrew reported in his recent article, the E-M1 may not be made for videos, but within its limitations - like framerates, codecs, etc - it's a pretty good video camera, even more adding the 5-axis IBIS, something that nobody else has, including the GH4.

But if it's conformed, wouldn't that mean that the result was already recorded in some type of codec already? The HDMI out should show live stuff direct from the sensor and it can't possibly make a "live" conformation from 96fps to 24fps because that would not be live at all. And if it's playbacking, it can't show more information that the file has and as all internal recording is 8-bit 4:2:0, outputting 10-bit 4:2:2 would be impossible.

Did you really read the article? The answers are all there.

Looking at the formats for video, it doesn't look like it will have 2K and the difference between 2K and 1080p is very marginal.

If this camera had an Olympus' IBIS, it would be the ULTIMATE run and gun video camera - 4K, this new 1080p codec, VFR, etc! I have a question, one of the advantages of shooting in 4K is not only the better resolution but it solves the image better due to less pixel binning, which also increases DR, etc. So theoretically - and considering the new codecs - which one should have better IQ and will the difference be any significant? A straight out of the camera 1080p or a 1080p render from the 4K footage or a1080p 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes via HDMI out? And I also wanted to add a cropped 1080p from the 4K footage as well. Considering this new codec I wonder if the difference will be significant enough to choose the other alternatives. Also, the 4K gets a bit cropped but is that also true for the 1080p output? If not, the 4K image will look different from the 1080p straight out of the camera when compared side to side, right?

Yeah, I didn't even go there because I haven't been counting on Canikon for a while. Video was never big for Nikon, they just tried a bit for the sake of not looking like they don't care at all - and then they come with a Pure Photography empty concept. And Canon... oh Canon... You had everything... Canon is too comfortable with people still thinking they are the best, so they made a push for EOS-C. I wished they wanted to innovate, really did, but no, the changes between the T3i and T5i are a joke and when everybody thought Canon would revolutionize again with the 5DMKIII, they barely improved, sure, the anti-aliasing and moiré were better and you could do some sharpening in the post but, it could had been so much more. And they did little to no improvement and entered the Cinema market as if one would really compete with each other, even more with that price difference. I can't see the reason to not keep improving. So you don't improve a $3,000 because it will cannibalize your $15,000+ camera line up?? It makes no sense. Luckily, BlackMagic did shake things up and made others step up. Quick question, let's say this GH4K, if I resize it adter editing in 4K, will it look better resolved than if it was the camera itself downsampling the whole sensor and outputting 1080p? Would the difference be significative? And if I just cropped into 1080p from the 4K footage?

I started with the NEX-5n because it was the first mirrorless to offer 1080p60 and the first using the AVCHD 2.0 and at the time although lens complains already existed, it looked like a growing system. At the time Sony NEX-6/7 looked like a nice balance between stills and video, despite NEX's horrible menu and control, it just needed lenses. Since then, it has been a lot of disappointments. Video has not evolved and not only that but every time Sony came up with a new camera, they always preached video. They did so with the A99, they said it was the ultimate hybrid and even in the RX1's ads, they wanted to highlight the video feats and all the accessories. With these new cameras they even added zebra, audio meters and other video feats but it seems that quality is just a gimmick for them. I can't even talk about the lens line up anymore. E-mount FF lens roadmap looks much better than the already 4 years old former NEX E-mount APS-C, Fuji's 2 years vold system has far better and better distributed lens and focal length - Sony has FIVE lenses between 16 and 35mm. So, a couple of weeks from now, the NEX-6/7 successor should be announced and hopefully a lens roadmap. There is a rumor about IBIS on this camera - and possibly a 5-axis IBIS! -, if so, this can be a game changer, even more for legacy lenses and although I really wanted to go M4/3 or Fuji, I may stay with Sony. If Panasonic can manage to allow IBIS in video via firmware I may still go GX7 successor - can Panasonic do that and even improve the IBIS? If Olympus could just add some extra framerates. I know that Fuji will never care so much about video like Panasonic or even Sony, but I'm willing to overlook that if they can give at least full manual control, since the photo part is really attractive for me - all those controls! This year will be quite decisive for me, I was reluctant to buy into any system so far and I've been using legacy lenses for most part, the reason is because here in Brazil it's quite hard to resell cameras that are not Canikon or Sony and that's also one of the reasons I started with the NEX-5n. I needed a camera while I was waiting for a better one and had I bought Fuji or a micro4/3 and I wanted out for any reason I would have a hard time selling it but this year I'll choose a system and go for it.

I share that same feeling. When I watched the fist beta test of the firmware that allowed the 5-Axis in video more, it blew my mind. I really wanted that, I've shot some video with legacy lenses in a normal mirrorless camera and you have a very limited focal length to not get a wobbly footage or become a slave of a tripod or something. Then there was Sony-Olympus partnership, talks about Sony getting the 5-Axis. Sony wouldn't be able to put the 5-Axis in the A7/R, for sure. That camera can barely have a normal shutter, it's too small to possibly get a IBIS. So, maybe the next A-mount FF, but I'm not interested in a big camera and actually, I don't care so much about FF, even more with speed booster. So, if Sony is really going to pull the 5-axis soon, it has to be with the NEX-7 successor. Olympus 5-axis made Panasonic step up and put IBIS for the first time, and due to history I have more faith in Panasonic getting better IBIS than Olympus finally making video right. But in some ways, they are both in the same place. According to Andrew, Olympus video actually got a lot better, but they lack better bitrate and framerate options, which is exactly what makes me lose faith on them. Panasonic got IBIS but they are yet to allow video with it so, even if they had a better IBIS, videographers wouldn't be able to benefit from it now. But if Olympus was able to change that via firmware, I don't see a reason why can't Panasonic do the same. Best case scenarios: NEX-7 successor has 5-Axis IBIS - and Sony announces a roadmap for E-mount APS-C, it has been how long since a roadmap for E-mount? Panasonic allows video with their GX7's IBIS and they improve it for its successor, but we can get a similar performance to a normal OIS or Olympus' 5-axis, that would be great.

I was a bit surprised about Sony's video when the first hands-on started to surface. Actually it's not like I was surprised but more like I expected them to be better, even more when Sony added so many video feats - even Zebra! But I was not surprised in the sense that Sony does more marketing about their video rather than real improvements. I rememeber when the A99 was supposed to be the ultimate Hybrid and well, it wasn't. As I've said before, I congratulate Sony for taking this step and being the first FF mirrorless camera but at the same time, I already expected some compromises by Sony, because they are always there. For me, Sony is like a teenager full of energy, always trying something new, regardless if it really makes sense or not, sometimes they hit big and other times, they don't and fail miserably. But with that spirit it also comes lack of focus and commitment since, just like a teenager, Sony changes their mind too quickly for a long term type of product like a photographic system. One year the focus was on the A-mount, they basically release the whole line up, top to bottom in a single year, except for the FF. Next year they focus on high-end E-mount, they even released relevant lenses, but then, they completely ignore A-mount APS-C, they come with the A99, RX1, just so they change their focus again towards FF E-mount. The same year they released more high-end lenses for E-mount APS-C. E-mount APS-C is full of $300 and $1000, there is almost no in-between. WTF. I won't even comment about lenses for A-mount lately. Sony was bold, they put mirrorless on the map again and that brought lots of hype with it, some even compared that to major break through like the iPhone. It can't be the iPhone yet, photography is about the system and who knows if those 15 lenses are really going to be delivered, but more importantly, which lenses. Sometimes Sony opts for some odd focal lenses and too often they focus on a bunch of zoom lenses. And just like any other Zeiss made by Sony, you can expect overpriced lenses. So is this a message that FF E-mount is only for those that can afford expensive lenses? What's the point of having a camera to pair up with the D610/6D if there are only expensive lenses? So people will only use legacy lenses with adapter? I wanna wait and see the next generation of FF E-mount to understand better and get a grasp of what Sony wants with it. With such a small body, Sony made some compromises, which explains why the shutter is so loud and unlike all recent cameras from Sony, they can't perform 10 fps burst. And I find really odd the compromises that you have to make and choose between the A7 and A7r. One has more MP but it's slower, one has all-metal and the other has a few plastic parts, one is better for video and the other has better AF - and probably better AF in video mode as well. They are such weird choices to make. Usually one is better, period. That's why I want to see Sony's next step, which are the other lenses. There are rumors about a hybrid A and E-mount as well. It's not my intention to over criticize Sony so early, although with their history with commitment and direction, you are allowed to wonder about it but that's why I want to wait and see what they are up to. There has to be a FF E-mount without so many compromises, who is Sony's target? Are they aiming at getting mirrorless high-end/PRO - even more with the lens price - or are they also aiming at DSLR pros? Or will Sony use the FF A-mount for that? For how long the A-mount is going to use SLT technology instead of going mirrorless all the way, so AF tech can catch up with DSLRs? Is this about just stills or will Sony actually make video better rather than just gimmicks? Will there be a sensor like the one from RX10, a FF that can make full readout? Sony is still testing the market to see how they respond, who is buying the A7/R. More importantly, what is Sony going to do with the other line ups? I hope that with the NEX-7 successor on the horizon it also comes with a roadmap for APS-C E-mount. How much sense does the APS-C A-mount make? Who would buy a A-mount APS-C? Also, I want to know how other companies are going to respond to Sony. I don't have the money to afford FF E-mount lenses and even if I had, I couldn't invest so heavily in a system without knowing what the system is all about. The word "system" is really key, it's not just about the cameras, it's about the lenses as well. It's too early to coclude anything - including lots of hyperboles I've been reading. But as always, I'm looking forward for all of this, photo/video world has been pretty exciting lately.

Silent mode let you take pics with Electronic shutter instead of the mechanical one, so it's simply silent. As Panasonic chose to make such a small camera with the GM1, they had to change the shutter mechanism, which is limited to up to 1/500s, when you usually get at least 1/4000s in a normal ILC. Panasonic has been using this since years ago, those 40 or 20 fps that the GH/G cameras can take are done with electronic shutter. Just like mirrorless means getting rid of that mirror chunk and using EVF, electronic shutter is another step towards no mechanical limitation. But for that to be actually effective, it would have to be a CMOS sensor with global shutter. Without that, scenes with movement can present rolling shutter, just like in video. Actually a global shutter sensor would eliminate them both but the tech is still not there. There are very few CMOS with global shutter - like the F55 CineAlta camera from Sony. They are way more expensive and although Sony delivers it with that camera, it's very hard to keep all the progress made in the high ISO and DR. BlackMagic Production Camera will also feat a global shutter, but the camera will have 1 stop less of DR when compared with their other cameras.

I've been expecting a review for the GX7 from the video stand point for a while but since the insides are basically the same - except for some different tuning in the JPEG engines - can we expect the GX7 video to be at least as good - but with more options? It's weird. When Panasonic came out with the GH3 I was disappointed at the fact that it didn't have inside a new multi-aspect Panasonic sensor. As the one inside was the Sony one and it didn't even had multi-aspect, I concluded that for some reason, Panasonic couldn't get their sensor ready in time and neither they had time to ask a custom one from Sony. And this is probably the chip that should had been inside the GH3. When Blunty did a GH3 and GX7 side by side test, the rolling shutter on the GX7 looked better and so did the high ISO, which made me start to pay more attention to the GX7. And it's funny but a girl from my College also noticed the same thing, as we sat to chat the other day, we were both putting the GX7 as a possible future camera. The GX7 is a good all-arounder in several aspects, it's smaller than the GH3 but still seems to have a decent grip, take nice pics and make nice videos, I like the noise better than the one from Sony, in B&W the noise's "grain" looks even better. My biggest wish is to be able to use the IBIS in video, or better, if its successor actually feats a better IS. There are some tests that states that the GX7's IBIS is better than the 5-axis in some situations but I would really like to see what happens in video. If I shoot video, I won't have the whole rig and having any longer focal length to do handheld, the video won't look good, it will be very wobbly. This would make me use only Panasonic's optics in handheld situations, no legacy lenses with adapter and no Oly's lenses as well. I really liked the fact that Panasonic didn't hold back so much as they would usually do, I know it's not a cheap camera but Panasonic would normally use the G6 sensor or something like that instead of their brand new one.

I kind of agree with most of the things but I not with the overall wrap up, it feels unbalanced for me, it feels like something out of frustration than a more reasonable thing. I also made a post about the Nikon Df - on my brand new blog that was made for anti-procrastination purposes. I do think that this is a stepback but I also understand that it seems to exist a demand for this type of camera, there are a lot of people screaming with joy for this purist thing. My personal take is that this is so stupid and empty, if you don't want to shoot video, just don't do it, what's the point of not having that at all? You are simply pissing on the face of those that would make a use of the video? Why? At the same time, I don't think that this is something against the videographers, for me, it feels more like something to please the purists crowd than making a statement against video - although for most people it will just sound like that. Nikon wanted to please the "pure photographers", they saw a business opportunity and they took it, the part that they slash the videographers is like a side effect that they decided to deal with it - maybe because they felt that not so many video guys think too high of Nikon anyway. It didn't feel like it was their way of saying "we don't care about video, f*** you!", they may even launch a camera with more video feats, who knows? So, in the end, I don't agree with Nikon but I kind of get it. But yeah, if I was Nikon, I would have taken the opportunity of this new market and launch a new FF Mirrorless system but Nikon lacks balls. About Fuji and Olympus. From my perspective it feels like Olympus is the one doing just for the marketing but since they implemented 5-axis IBIS for video in the E-M5 via firmware, they are getting some serious demand for video and they are a bit lost about it, maybe they didn't expected it. Since everybody looks at Oly for photo and Panny for video - why can't we have both?? But Panasonic is catching up in the photo department faster than Olympus in the video. I don't think it's completely fair to say that Fuji is doing this just as a badge on the box. It should be taken into account that the Fuji X system doesn't even have 2 years old and Fuji is still trying to stablish themselves and putting their effort in proving more cameras to their Fuji x line up. Video was never a priority but nonetheless it wasn't completely forgotten. With the X100s they added 1080p60 and now a bit more control in video mode, the ability to use filters, etc. I know, it's not much and they could have done a better but it's not a complete lack of interest in it, if feels more like a matter of priority. For now they are stablishing themselves, developing more cameras and their focus is on photography, but having now cameras with dedicated record button and some new feats, it's their way of saying "it's not our focus and these are baby steps but bear with us, we are not ignoring it". Further more, video it's not Fuji's expertise, for them to develop the know-how and the better quality, it will take longer, the X-E2 is just the first camera from the 2nd generation of Fuji X cameras. These are baby steps but they've done more in 1 year than Olympus have done, Olympus already have a stablished system and even so they couldn't even put more framerate options on their long waited flagship camera. I feel more disappointed at Canon than the other brands that never had video as a priority. Sure, we know that video can be a lot better - A LOT BETTER - if they put a bit of effort. But that's when there is an opportunity for a company lilke Black Magic to come out of nothing with a mind blowing product and price tag - even though the execution had its hiccups. The stagnancy of the camera brands made this possible, to have RAW for under $1000 - when the upgrade for the Pocket Camera arrives - to have up to 13 stops of DR in video and so on. One could argue that all of that should be there in the first place but things don't work like that, as much as I'd like to, no one has obligation to make video a priority. Which is different when you allure consumers for your video and then you show then the middle finger and say "go get more money and buy our PRO stuff". My overall vision is that I have more hope of Panasonic implementing a 5-axis-like tech than Olympus really doing it right with the framerates, codecs, etc. - Panasonic should give the people what they want, to make the GX7 IBIS work in video! And the rumor about a true micro4/3 for video is very interesting and only Panasonic is able to pull that off - this is Black Magic putting preassure on Panasonic, for sure. Sony always talk about a true hybrid, they even have all the accessories for that but nonetheless they fail to step up and deliver a better video quality. Fuji will keep their baby step and I have hopes for Kaizen but I'm disappointed that although they gave us more control over video, it's still not full control! WTH. Can Fuji keep evolving? I think so because I didn't expect 1080p60 with the X100s, it's not good video, I know, I hope they finally put full manual control and more framerates. Canon will continue to do Canon things I guess, they don't care, they are not bothered, most people still think Canon has the best video. I feel like Nikon's video is going to get better but it's never gonna be as important of a feat as it's for Panasonic or even Canon. I hope that Black Magic give a bit more attention to polishing their cameras, it was great to see them correcting the black hole spot, but they still didn't get some little things right. And their delivering isn't still smooth as they said it would be. I'd like to see a real micro4/3 Black Magic camera, one that has a micro4/3-sized sensor to be able to make fully use of the micro4/3 system. I like how bold Black Magic is and that's why, although it may not sound like this kind of product is on the way, I get that feeling that it might happen, who knows? It's refreshing.

You guys are not thinking the big picture here. Since when technology is moved based on just needs? It's moved by several reasons. It's not a matter of needing it, did we really need 3D? NO! It's a matter of pushing tech forward and creating new things to sell, some you will need, some will work and some will not. Just for a second, if they don't push 4K for consumers how in the f**** world will they even sell their TVs, how will they push the movie industry, sell these new stuff or have 4K content? You have to create an ecosystem and fill every possible gap and at some point 4K will matter, people will be able to extract something out of it. You can crop while keeping 1080p~2.5k, as someone said, if it's not sharp at 4K, maybe you can get it at a lower res and in the future there will be more ways to use it. Questioning if you need or not at this point doesn't make much sense, no matter what, they will push 4K forward.

  Yeah but I'm pretty sure that one will cost much more than $3K. Will that really be a direct competition for the GH4? If feels like Sony is aiming higher with that cam.

  There are other cameras that have it, some of Canon's G series. I don't think it's just a matter of that cost less so GH4 should have it. I think there are much more into the implementation of the ND filter, what about the technical parts, how much space would that take, what are the options, how much bigger would the camera be, etc.   A fixed lens with a smaller sensor and a almost as big form factor is not really a direct comparison. It's hard to just speculate and say, they should do this or that without the expertise to say so. Is electronic ND filter something to be considered? Is there someone here that have enough knowledge on this matter to clear things up?

  But that's missing a bit the point of what I was saying, I was saying that even having competitors you won't be getting some feats people are saying that without it they won't buy - like built-in ND, slow-motion, etc.   And Digital Bolex is not a 4K camera to start with, it's 2K and it has 1" CCD, 60p only in 720p, etc. It's more like BMCC 2.5K or Pocket Camera 1080p competitor than this GH4 or BM Production Camera.   My point is that people are complaining too much for something that they have no equal for theses feats and at this price point. You can say that you wish it had this or that but to say you wouldn't buy, this just shows that you would never buy to start with.

But sure there are people that complains too much. I mean, there is no product like this for $3K. I've seen people complaining about not having 4K60p, others that won't buy without built-in ND, Global Shutter, etc. Ok, everybody has their right to not buy if they don't want. But is that really reasonable? I keep wondering if you say "ND or no buy", "60p or no buy", you don't really need this camera and you are just complaining for the sake of complaining because any other camera with those feats are much more expensive.   It's 4K and it will probably have a nice codec, maybe something similar with what Panasonic offered fo the GH3, but this time 4K and 4:2:2 - possibly 10-bit? Well, Panasonic usually has a good codec.   Plus, if you use the Speed Booster, you get a Super35 look - and 1-stop more of light - and unless you really need RAW, this is a pretty interesting camera to buy instead of the BM Production Camera and for $1000 less.   What are the competitors in the same price range that offers similar feats? You don't really have one. BM Production Camera will be a competitor but it will be a matter of choice, not exactly feats likes 60p or ND. Both with 4K up to 30fps, one has Panasonic's codec and the other can shoot RAW and global shutter - but it also require the whole set of accessories to really work well. The "GH4" won't be aimed at production consumers the same way the BM one. You have pros and cons so you'll choose between them based on your priorities or go buy something way more expensive that has all you need for I don't know how many thousands more.

Global Shutter: I'm nor sure if it's a tech that is consumer ready in terms of costs and IQ.   BM Production Camera has a Super35 sensor but has 1-stop less DR range than the smaller Super16 BM Pocket Camera because of the Global Shutter.   Between Global Shutter and DR, considering it's a Micro4/3 sensor, I'd rather have more DR to work with. Could Panasonic really have a cost effective tech to pull that out? To deliver Global Shutter for consumers when Panasonic doesn't even have a full 4K Production camera with Global Shutter?   I'm just saying that it seems unlikely.   But does anybody know the pros and cons, costs, etc. for electronic ND?   Wouldn't physical ND be too bulky? Or maybe you wouldn't get a lot of options.   I wonder if Panasonic can step up in the IBIS department as well.

What are the requirements for electronic ND?   Few cameras have it but it makes a world of difference so I'm just trying to figure why there are not more cameras with that, even more the ones made for video, when you wouldn't want to increase the shutter for most situations.

43 Rumors says "4:2:2 10/8bit output". What does this actually mean? He is not sure if it's 10-bit or 8-bit?