Julian

This guy shoots everything he does with a Rebel T2i and Sigma 30mm, all handheld:
 

 
I need to go make a film ...

At the end of the day both the 5D3 and the GH4 represent the best of what is an incredibly privileged time for tiny budget filmmakers. For money that almost any working person could save within a year or so, you can buy a camera that offers a genuinely superb cinematic image. It's insane. 
 
5D RAW is a pain in the neck to shoot with and the GH4 has some image limitations compared to larger sensor cameras - but which one is "best' is a completely moot point. It just comes down to your specific needs and tastes. Employed correctly, each will deliver images that 10 years ago you would have to have been either stupendously rich or a successful filmmaker to even get close to. Now almost anyone can create genuinely stunning cinematic images.
 
It seems almost ungracious to argue over the two cameras - like spoiled children wanting each others toys. We're all brothers here - "soldiers of cinema" as Werner Herzog puts it. It makes sense to take some time to decide which camera one likes best, but no one is going to be right or wrong. No need to argue. 
 
But the 5D is better in low light.  ;)

Don't think that has to do with the card. More likely the subjects you are filming. Try something with a lot of small details or high iso.

I have one of those new panasonic 16GB cards, when i get my GH4 ill compare it to some other older cards regarding bitrate.

I've always been of the opinion that hd, then 4k, then 8k etc have been quantifiable numbers which happen to be marketing friendly and that it didn't really matter.  I'm not getting a gh4 since I want full frame, but this test really does show how really great that extra resolution is.  If you want it lower res, mis focus slightly or whack a gaussian blur of 2pixels over the image and you have good old 1080p.  the issue is that a lot of users won't consider or implement all of the factors that make up a true cinema experience and the added resolution will only serve to multiply the obviousness of the failings and the pointlessness of the users decision to shoot 4k (who will likely be a consumer under the impression they are a professional, rather than a professional moving with the current trend).  It'll be when Andrew does a creative piece with the camera and his cookes or someone like Hugo Goudsward takes the camera and makes it work for him that we'll see the jump where the resolution really takes it up a notch.  
 
just to clarify I completely disregarded the term 4k within a consumer camera, and the term gh4 (due to my dislike of anything smaller than full frame:)- until this test.  8 months ago the 5d3 raw hack turned everything on its head and now there is the little gh4 which doesnt need 10gb/min worth of cards to shoot with it.  superb IMO

Dilemma of the century. Do you take the advantages of raw or 4K? Do you take the full frame sensor or the crop? Do you take the DSLR form factor or the advantages for video of mirrorless?

This is something I've been really trying to draw a conclusion on in recent weeks for my own sanity!

Read the full article here

Julian, your samples look great and will probably make me jump on the GH4 bandwagon.
 
I have a question though : what is the fastest shutter speed one can set in 4K video mode at 24 and 30 fps ? Seems a silly question, but I plan to extract stills from 4K footage for some project, and need shutter speed faster than 1/2000 s for that, even though the motion will not look smooth in the video.
 
I know that the gh4 has a 1/8000 s capable still shutter, but my question really is about the electronic, rolling, video shutter mode. It seems I cannot find the information on the web yet, hence my question to you happy GH4 tester ;o)
 
Thanks again for your very stimulating sample footage.

It's something that has been bothering me a lot with my nikons (on a steadycam it becomes very visible) and which doesn't seem to happen in raw cameras, I might be a little bit obsessive but it's something important to me.
I wish someone with tecnical knowledge could explain what exactly creates this, or if it's just in my imagination (or yours). I'll check some gh4 footage.

that speed booster is doing wonderful things.  Nice to see the gh4 being exposed and treated properly.  the dr looks great.    
 
 
I'd love to see a follow up test with a human subject in medium and close shots with the lenses at f2.8 - f5.6.  - the type of aperture at 50mm that works well for slight human movement in frame while maintaining complete facial focus but with good defocus on show.  These type of shots will highlight the differences (if there are any to be seen) between a bigger sensor or smaller one.   

I'm tired of hearing the videoish thing.  but hey, if it helps canon fanbois sleep at night it's ok with me. 

I've never understood this issue people have with a sharp, clinical image.
It only leaves more room in post.
 
Here's a little something I did with Nick's footage.
 

The film looks extremely 'videoish' to me, but that is because the framing is not filmic at all. Also, with some color grading it could be greatly improved.
 
I was just watching Californication the other day and while some shots look filmic, other's look like video to me. Same camera, same crew, same setting ... It's just about the framing. 
This movie would'nt have looked more filmic with an Alexa.

Just watched a few seconds of the clip linked in the topic start: both exposure (over exposed highlights) and grading look terrible. No shit it looks like crap. I can make ML raw look crap like that too.

No attention to lighting.  No color grading.  No effort done to get the most dynamic range by using different color profiles in harsh lighting.  Too much camera shake.  Maybe some attempt to show you improvements with moire.  
 
I don't think these guys don't know how to make their *movie* look less like something shot with a p&s.  I think they were trying to give everyone some real-life expectations out of the box, but instead, they made themselves look like amateurs.
 
It's made by Driftwood...the guy who creates hacks for the GH2.  I'm sure he knows his stuff.

This was shot on film...
 

 
Therefore I have decided film is incapable of producing a filmic image!
 
The first comment on nofilmschool kind of sums it up
 
If I was the CEO of Panasonic, I would buy this film and immediately take it down. Then tell these “filmmakers” to stop using the GH4.
 
Give a hack a camera, and a hack of a film comes out...

Julians shots already were enough to convince me that you can get great cinematic look out of GH4.
 
There was a time when nofilmschool had some useful comment threads as well, but that time is long gone. Ignore and move along :)
 
To me that video speaks of itself. They clearly mention that it was all done in 2 days. Which probably means they were too ambitious about their idea and the filming - which made them end up rushing the post work to be able to finish. Been there, done that - and learnt that you need to plan which shortcuts to take if you want to produce something good in a short amount of time.
Had I had two days to pull something off with any camera, I'd try a much simpler story with fewer shots so I could focus on getting the shots right and having a much simpler process for editing and coloring.

Not this again :rolleyes:
 
 
If sharp images = videoish, then does that make the things shot with the soft old SD cameras filmic?

how radio active are they? ;)  how much

Speak for yourself.  Now I'm really worried.

I haven't followed the topic, but I was curious if I could simulate the theory.
On Fred Miranda I found this topic that explains how Photoshop saves jpgs in 4:2:0 or 4:4:4
I used a full resolution JPG from the GH2 and took the following steps:
 
Cropped the image to 3840x2160 and saved as JPG quality 6. The result is a 4K 4:2:0 still.

 
Then I resized this image to 1920x1080 and saved it as quality 10 to make a 4:4:4 image.

 
I also resized the 4K 4:2:0 still to 1920x1080 and saved it at quality 6 to make a 1080p 4:2:0 image.

 
200% crops of the above images in same order:
 
4K 4:2:0

 
1080p 4:4:4

 
1080p 4:2:0

 
Not sure if this test is correct, but to me it looks like you can gain color resolution from downsampling the 4K 4:2:0 file to 1080p. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Had to return my test sample today... :(
Already missing it. Going to get one ASAP :)
 
I'm curious how long it will take before there is a real competitor (same price range, internal 4K recording, hybrid stills/video). I can't even see the A7S as a direct competitor because it will be at least twice the price with the required external recorder, that only will ship by the end of the year.
 
Looks like Panasonic has a great year ahead.

On another note: curious about the 4K 4:2:2 10 bit files?
On Vimeo you can download this clip in original size, 12GB...
 

I'm getting one delivered this morning in the US from ephotocraft. Pairing it with the Transcend 64GB card.

I'm guessing it is a setting relating to monitor display over HDMI to avoid playback jitter on screens that support 24Hz.
 
 
Edit: It also seems that according to current standards 4K can only be transmitted over HDMI at 24Hz, whereas UHD can/will go higher in the HDMI 2.0 spec.
 
Edit2: Having looked at the GH4 instructions, 24Hz (Cinema), 50Hz (PAL) and 59.94Hz (NTSC) are just system frequency settings to keep recording framerates divided into their specific regions.  4K records at exactly 24fps (only available in 24Hz mode) whereas UHD can record at 23.98fps, 24fps, 25fps or 29.97fps depending on what the system frequency is set to.

http://stores.ebay.com/RJ-camera-accessory-store
 
He's pretty friendly so do ask all the questions you need answering!

This looked pretty good, but the guy said it was an RJ but then claimed it came from Roxsen, so had the blue spot problem (the new RJ doesn't & he'll take an offer of $90-98):