dishe

Also, another thing I just noticed in a review of the GX7- the reviewer has the mobile app connected to the device during a video clip recording session and is able to focus pull using the touch screen of his Samsung device instead of the screen of the camera (to avoid unnecessary movement to the camera). That's got me thinking- do these support live feed over the mobile app during recording? Because that might be 100% more useful than just your average HDMI out.    If the G6 did that too, it would be amazing! But I'm under the impression that the G6 works like the GH3- the app works great in stills mode, but hit record and the feed blacks out. Would love to hear from someone who owns one and has tried it though!

  I am also interested in hearing your take on it.  It seems like Panasonic is trading off features, though- this body has HDMI out, but it lacks a mic jack! No audio except for the built-in mic!   This has all got me thinking... Remember before the GH3 was released, part of the spec sheet included focus peaking built in? But then it never materialized, the camera was released without it- only to come back and actually get released on the G6. But then crippling the HDMI. This GX7 has HDMI and focus peaking, but no audio at all.  Wow. Panasonic is clearly trying to make sure not any single camera body has ALL the features of a pro-level camera!   That being said, the GX7 has a really cool EVF that tilts up! That looks really useful! But at the cost of an articulated larger screen. Ugh. Can't have it all, I suppose. Report back on video quality when you get it!

  Andy- hate to be "that guy", but this clip doesn't prove a darned thing.   You posted it earlier as well, and as someone else already pointed out there is so much motion going on that you wouldn't be able to spot a clean key versus a messy one in the first place. Not to mention it has been down sized to 480p. I mean, any HD camera downsized to 480p will work according to my explanation above about resampling. I'd say you could have probably shot this on an iPhone4 and gotten roughly the same results.    Just saying.

  BMPCC is a little pricier, you can get cheaper cameras with 4:2:2 support. Heck, the D5200 supports clean 4:2:2 HDMI out. And to be honest, if you are doing ONLY green screen work, the whole large-chip shallow DOF thing that comes with interchangable lens cameras is sort of overkill too. Small chip = sharper consistent focus, 4:2:2 = cleaner borders around the key.  G6, meanwhile, is 4:2:0 and large chip. As you say, it will do the job adequately, but it isn't the best value for the money for this specific task.

Looks good to me- now you just have to make sure you have a way to properly connect it to the camera (spliced wires, etc).

  It would not be any less accurate than a camera recording that resolution in 4:4:4 color.    The accuracy of the color isn't in question- the resolution of it is. The accuracy of any given pixel is really a side effect of how much resolution each color channel gets. As I understand it, color sampling is reducing the resolution of certain color channels in order to save bandwidth on compressed video. The idea is that your eyes will see the difference in contrast more than the difference in color, therefore not every channel of color needs the full resolution. This is mostly true, as side-by-side the images look identical to the human eye, until you isolate colors. So when we say 4:2:2, you are saying that for every 4 pixels, cB gets 2 and cR gets 2. If you isolate the red channel in After Effects, and you'll see the resolution is lower than the full image, with the borders around objects much less precise and blocky looking/pixelated Here's an example of this: Top part shows the full color sample, bottom is the resolution of the actual color channels.  But like any enlarged picture that looks heavily pixelated, if you scale it down the discrepancy between the lost pixels is gone, resulting in a resampled fine pattern around the borders instead of the blocky pixels. In other words, there would be no difference from a picture taken at that correct resolution. As far as I can tell, this is why having higher color sampling makes a difference to chroma keying in particular, not because it is hard to see what is "green", but because the borders of color aren't as well defined, and it can wreck havoc on the edges of your key. Again, its not about color accuracy, but resolution of the color channel you are trying to key out.    If this is going over anyone's head, there's a great write up here on DVXUser about it: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/   Yes, shooting full res 4:2:0 and even 4:2:2 won't give as smooth of a key as 4:4:4, as the edges are inherently less defined by the very nature of color sampling. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, and that doesn't mean you can't pull of a great key regardless... especially if you are able to reduce the image being composited to clean it up.  But this isn't just "smoke and mirrors", Andy. Its science. None of these cameras operate on magic. Understanding how it works in order to make an educated decision vs. just recommending perhaps a great all-around-camera is important! He isn't asking what's the best all-around camera right now! There are cameras around the same price point as the G6 that are capable of recording more color information per frame. I understand what you are saying about RAW file management being a beast- I agree. But a 4:4:4 compressed image, or heck even a 4:2:2 will be far cleaner than a 4:2:0. And that's my own real-world experience backed up with science!

  I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  According to how color subsampling is supposed to work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling), 4:2:0 has 2, and 0 defined cbcr pixels for every 4 Y ones. If you are reducing all of them in post, you are ending up with the same color resolution as 4:4:4 unscaled. 

Whoops, the Vivitar lens I linked to above isn't made by Samyang anymore. Never mind!

  Flipping the camera 90 degrees is actually great advice! Obviously it will only work if you are filming one person who isn't moving side to side all that much, but if you are doing that you technically don't even need 4:4:4 anymore! I did this recently with a GH2 because the image is now 1920 pixels high (almost double the 1080 vertical pixels normally recorded). That means I can scale it down in post more than 50% - in fact, to fit this comp it only needed to be be 30% of the original size, once it was flipped and placed in the scene. By doing this you are not only effectively smoothing out edges of your key, but you are actually condensing the CbCr color spaces together and making your 4:2:0 image have the same effective color sampling resolution of a 4:4:4 image (scaling down the CbCr values will give the same amount of definition as one recorded with higher fidelity).  The nice thing about recording in 4:4:4 directly is that you don't need to scale anything if you don't want to, but as we mentioned- you CAN pull just as nice of a key out of a 4:2:0 camera, just with more work and more limitations to work around!

  Yes, it works fine. No one is saying its impossible, but the OP is asking for the best option. Working "fine" and being the "best suited" are not the same.   To be clear: I've also pulled some excellent keys with a 4:2:0 camera, but there are times that I had to work around limitations (subject's feet spill, for example), where I'm sure I would have had less hassle on a 4:4:4 image. I know on my older 4:2:2 camcorders there was slightly more leverage to fix things like that, and shooting a RAW image even more so.    The G6 looks like a great camera, don't get me wrong- I'm still considering what to get next and its atop my list at the moment... but you've got to be realistic about what it is and what it isn't. 

  Well, HDMI out doesn't mean anything for pulling a key- but 4:2:0 does. That being said, I've pulled some really sharp keys with compressed 4:2:0 - much better than I though I would be able to, but I needed to run the footage first through 5DtoRGB to do a better color space conversion first, otherwise you get some jagged lines around the edges.  A 4:2:2 or higher would be better, and a camera that shoots RAW like the 50D with a hack or Black Magic Pocket cam would be best!   Yes, the files are large and unweildly, but to get a good key with a Panasonic AVCHD 4:2:0 camera would also have a bit of a convoluted workflow- so it balances out somewhere.    Meanwhile, I'm noticing a common trend with Andy's posts. He really loves his G6.  ;)

By the way, you can sometimes find cheaper deals on Samyangs with their third party lenses- Vivitar, Rokinon, Bower, Falcon, etc.   The 85mm is on a pretty good sale over at Buy.com (rakuten): http://www.rakuten.com/prod/vivitar-lens-85mm-f1-8-lens-for-canon-v-85mm-c/251889489.html   $169!

  It's a little bit less friendly than a battery life meter built into the unit that can tell you how much of your battery has depleted already (instead of looking at a number and doing the math in your head). But sure, it's better than nothing!

I actually don't like the battery mentioned in the OPs video and others like it, because you will have no idea what the discharge status of the battery is while using it. I bought one of these on ebay for about $60: http://www.amazon.com/Naztech-PB15000-Universal-Charger-Extended/dp/B007URKIGC/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1382108393&sr=1-3-catcorr&keywords=15000+mah Over a year ago, except mine was 18000 instead of 15000mah. And it was a silver version, but otherwise identical unit. I had to record a concert and couldn't swap batteries in the middle of the show, so I wanted to be safe. This thing comes with tons of plugs, and a 5V USB DC-out plug that works independently of the regular DC out. So what I generally do is run the main DC out to the camera at 9v, and the 5v USB goes into my Tascam audio recorder. It powered everything I needed to go on for well over 8 hours. It comes with all the plugs I needed, and it worked so well that I've used it for all-day shoots (8+ hours) and have never had the battery run down on me yet!   A couple of things you should know: The DC-coupler from Panasonic has a weird polarity- the positive and negative parts of the plug are the opposite of what is generally accepted in the electronics world. Some say this was done on purpose to keep parts being proprietary to Panasonic, but who knows. I bought a new standard sized plug from radio shack for less than $1, cut off the plug on the DC Coupler and attached my own with some solder and Sugru (I *love* sugru!). Plug works great, but for a less messy approach, I've seen some adapters for sale that might work too.   As far as how the voltage thing works... there's been a ton of research on the GH2 doing this on other forums, but I'll give you the gist of it.  These cameras have a range of voltage. The battery for the GH2/G6 is 7.2v fully charged, and as long as the camera recognizes it as a Panasonic battery (with the ID chip embedded inside), it will happily chug along until it reaches low enough that it is in danger of shutting off (I don't recall where that is, maybe 6.8v?), and will signal the camera to gracefully shut down so you don't lose your footage.    But here's the thing- without an ID chip telling the camera it is a Panasonic battery, the camera WILL NOT ACCEPT an 7.2v power source. It will complain and say you aren't using authentic equipment. But it will accept a 9v one.    Why? Because Panasonic's DC-coupler has no ID chip either. It's just a pass-through that feeds direct current to the battery cavity of the camera. It seems that Panasonic designed the camera to be able to tell if it is running off a battery vs AC adapter by looking at how much voltage is coming in. Is it more than 8.4v of direct current? Must be using that AC adapter, don't bother checking the battery ID. It is less than 8.4v? It must be a battery and we must require a chip ID!   Long story short... assuming the G6 uses the same batteries and adapters as the GH2, it is designed to operate at 9v constant power. The problem is, it assumes that the source is consistent and not coming from a battery. That means that unlike using batteries, where it will detect voltage dropping if the battery is dying and gracefully shut off, here if your external battery pack drops too low it will just suddenly shut off without warning. So you really need to watch the voltage on the external battery. This is why I don't recommend the battery in that video above. It will work fine, but it has no battery meter and neither will the camera when using it. The one I linked to has a life meter on the LCD display, which is really wonderful if you need to keep an eye on it.

I'm not looking for excuses, I want to like the camera. But I want to hear legitimate reasons to pick it over other options, and quite frankly you guys are getting awfully defensive when I ask innocent questions. The thread wasn't about the G6, its about where I should go based on what I'm doing and what I'm used to. It says G6 in the title because it is an example of something that I think may be a good fit. Notice I also mentioned a Nikon and BMC camera, but didn't mention the Canon 70D or AC90. I'm looking for something in this class of camera. Let's be perfectly clear: I AM NOT ON THE OFFENSIVE. I'm looking for the real deal from people who have used some of the modern bodies, but what I'm getting in response sounds like a pep rally instead!   Its sort of like when shopping on Amazon, a smart buyer will click on the negative reviews first. I want to hear what don't people like about it, what's the worst case scenario- then work backwards from there. If the bad isn't so bad, and I think it is still better than other options available, I'll go for it. If someone just has nothing but glowing reviews about a product, you'll have to excuse my cynicism- I don't believe any product is THAT perfect. There's always a con!   I'm not looking for you to tell me which camera to buy, but rather looking for an intellectual discussion about the pros and cons. I'm happy the G6 works for you guys, and maybe it will work for me too. All I'm saying is help me make an educated decision because we all have different needs and expectations. Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way, it wasn't my intention.

I'd find the nearest military training camp and see if you cant find some enthusiastic administrators that would be game.   I have friends that shot footage over at West Point Military base in upstate NY because they were friends with some of the cadets there. Granted it wasn't anything crazy like a helicopter scene, mostly just stuff happening on location, but it never hurts to ask.

We'd need an Olympus body with a decent video mode first. Oh how I dream of that!

Wondering what Andrew thinks about all this, honestly. He seems to really love the BM Pocket, even for non-RAW workflows since you can record to prores. But I'm thinking it may not be worth the smaller sensor and weird ergonomics, not to mention larger file size for those long sessions.    ::frustrated::

Interesting. Links to footage shot w/ that pentax?   All of the c-mount glass I've tried in the past were crap (even without the vignette), but I'm keeping an open mind here!

Just watched and read some more reviews on the G6- It definitely looks like colors are improved somewhat, and the detail is still there.   But some things I didn't know about that were just brought to my attention: - No HDMI live. FOR REAL!?! The port is dead during recording?! So, not only are you unable to record clean HDMI to an atmos or other recorder (the D5200 sends clean 4:2:2 video out the hdmi port), you are limited to the tiny display on camera forever?  After the GH2 offered a scrambled 4:2:0 output, I figured they'd fix that on future models (GH3, etc). But I did not expect them to remove the ability to even monitor! That's bull!! I hate trusting color accuracy on the built in LCD!   -SD slot under battery door Another "what were they thinking" moment! I often keep my camera on a rig (or inside a cage)- lately, my solution for long shoots has been to run the DC-coupler out the GH2 to an external battery so that I can power the rig for 8+ hours and never need to take it off. I just swap SD cards out the side as necessary. But to take the camera off the rig every time I fill up a card?! Good grief that sounds like a workflow nightmare, especially now that I've learned that the HDMI output is useless for recording as well!   -Real 2x mFT crop Although it is supposedly using the GH2's sensor, the new image processor isn't making use of the oversized area that the GH2 did. That means we're getting same 2X crop FOV that the GH3 and other mFT cameras have. They may as well have switched to a new sensor then, since it no longer offers the biggest advantage that sensor had IMO.   That's pretty much it. Aside from those things, I think I'm starting to like the G6. But the first 2 are a pretty big deal to me, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned that. Meanwhile, if I go with the GH3, I lose the peaking (which is nice for those times I'm traveling super light), compatibility with GH2 accessories (power supplies, cages, etc), and a bit more moire is possible (although that honestly might not be an issue).  *sigh* When I mentioned above that I wanted the lesser of all evils, I wasn't expecting to really look at it like that!

Maxotics, thanks for your input! I'm very much aware that a "perfect end-all" camera does not exist. Thankfully, I'm not looking for one, but rather the best balance (or worst of all evils, depending on your perspective).  The GH2s work fine enough for me that I intend to continue using it for personal projects, at least until something significantly better comes out. But as I mentioned above, if a company were to hire me and wanted to buy all new equipment for me to use as well (ie. I'm starting over), where would I start? By telling them to buy a used GH2 which has since been discontinued? Surely not! Also, again, if I'm not footing the bill for this, why not start with something newer?     You make some interesting points. But let me just throw this out there: I'm very much aware of what RAW is, and very much aware that it is a perfectly ROTTEN choice for news/media gigs like this. Being able to push colors in post and grab highlights and tones that were lost in camera is very cool, but not at all necessary when the job would rather require manageable data storage and fast turn-around times.    I don't mind compressed data, actually, since at the end of the day the data is going to be compressed for distribution over the company's networks and websites. By the way, I've studied codecs a bit, and I'm not sure that your explanation is completely accurate. In fact, certain parts of it I'm fairly certain are wrong; for example, most of these cameras (including Canons), don't record RGB at all, but rather yCbCr, and the amount of color per pixel is not directly related to the compression bitrate, but rather the color depth (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, etc) of the picture. And all of these cameras, even hacked and even the less consumer ones like the AF100, are recording 8-bit.  Unless you are talking about RAW, which again is so far from being necessary that I'd prefer not to even bring it up again. Where the bitrate compression DOES make a difference, however, is in how the pixels are bundled together. For example, a series of pixels of a similar color might be "blocked" together as one defined color to save space. The end result is that if you try to push some colors in post to grade, you will end up with a lot of noise and unexpected artifacts as it changes other pixels that were blended together which may or may not have belonged to the intended shape.    On the GH2, a high bitrate was important to me because I didn't always like the colors in the camera, and I liked that I could have a little room to fix it in post if I didn't like it. Back when I shot with Canons (not RAW, it wasn't around yet back then), the picture was good enough with accurate enough colors in camera that I didn't need to push it too much in post to look good. So something with better natural colors in camera wouldn't require as high of a bit rate for tasks like this. This is why the G6 worries me- its the Panasonic color without the hacked bitrate that made me comfortable with the GH2.       

I appreciate the advice, thanks guys. Here's the thing - I've never really liked the color out of my gh2s. I've stuck with them because of the detail, unlimited recording time (great for lectures, etc), and the high bit rate gave me enough room in post to push colors. But I miss the picture I could effortlessly get out of my Canons (moire and aliasing aside, which was admittedly my biggest inspiration to switch originally). The G6 intrigues me, and if I were buying my own gear it would be top of my list since it seems to be an evolution of what I'm currently used to. But I keep thinking the gh3 with the Sony chip might be easier to work with; more pleasing color out of the box, built in audio, and a codec robust enough that I wouldn't worry about hacking. The g6, for some reason, doesn't infuse me with the same confidence that it is significantly better than the gh2 for this job. I can't put my finger on it, maybe the tests I've seen so far didn't impress me, maybe Andy sounds too much like a fan boy, but something here hasn't sold me yet. Just to put things into perspective, I feel like if I tell them I need a 5dm3, they'd buy one... But I honestly don't think the raw workflow is worth it for a news / media gig. Also the ability to record hour long events occasionally is important as well.

Actually, I know the GH3 sensor isn't made by Panasonic- its a Sony, and I think the same one used in the OM-D. But contrary to what you are describing, I've heard it's fabulous! The color rendition and DR of that sensor made the OM-D the first mirrorless camera to grab of the attention of high-end DSLR snobs. This is a pro, not a con.   Yes, I know it introduced some moire- that's part of what made me decide to keep my GH2s in the beginning when the reviews started pouring in. But as I understand it, the moire is still much more under control than the Canon equivalents, and I think I read somewhere (maybe dvxuser? can't find the thread now) that the G6 has a bit more moire than the GH2 (which isn't 100% immune to it either, btw), but still less than the GH3.    So yes, if moire was the most important thing to worry about, the G6 wins over the GH3 and D5200 from what I've seen. But does that make it the clear winner? I dunno- I'd like to hear some other opinions as well. You seem to really like your G6, and that's awesome, but that doesn't necessarily mean what works best for you is what works best for this job. For running and gunning, I think I might appreciate the built in audio and more DR rather than the slightly-more moire-free sensor. But if the G6 has the wider FOV, that's something to consider as well. Then again, if FOV is the most important thing, the D5200 is APS-C and has drool-worthy DR and skin tones compared to Panasonic's sensors. At least, from what I've seen in tests so far.    G6 has monitoring on the body too -   Wait, audio monitoring (I didn't know about that)? Or are you talking about that focus peaking feature? Because if it has audio monitoring, that's a huge pro to me.

That's strange, because the GH3 has a better codec out of the box, and Vitaily is still expecting to hack it. So, looks like the G6 might be a nice step up from the GH2, but what if I had the budget for a GH3 (or something else entirely)?  Is it still "no contest"?  What's the audio system on the G6 like? I kind of like that the GH3 can run and gun without an external recorder because it has monitoring right on the body.

News and promotional content for the organization, mostly.    I'm not sure about the budget yet. I was told they'd be willing to buy new equipment so that I wouldn't have to bring my own, but I'm not sure how much they are willing to spend... this is all theoretical at this point, so I need to keep it reasonable (no MOVI gyro-stabilizers, sadly).