skiphunt

My philosophy has basically been don't buy any more than you really need RIGHT NOW. And don't fall for any hype. You never know where the real motivation for hype is coming from anyway on any of the sites. Thus far, the GH4 looks like what I'm going to want, but the low light doesn't look as impressive as I'd hoped. And there are other's who've yet to show what they'll bring to the table. Just read there's a Nikon D9300 rumored. I know Andrew seems to really dislike anything Nikon at this point, but who knows? They may step up their video game to compete in the 4k video sector. Personally, I like that fact Panasonic has a good track record thus far for affordable, yet pro-level gear... so history of supporting those of us who can't afford $100k gear has to be considered.

Ya see... that's why I don't jump on the bandwagon, pre-order, and fall for all the pre-release HYPE. Wait until this stuff gets actually released, find out what the hidden bugs are, and see what game the competition brings first.

Well, the focus-peaking and zebras would be nice, but without seeing actual images/video in lowlight etc. I think as also an avid stills shooter, I'd still take the D5300. Also, the mic input on the D5300 is a big plus. I didn't think it'd be very useful since it's just a stereo mini imput and no way to monitor the signal... however, I had a spur of the moment shoot and because it was on the street and it wasn't going to be possible to manage a dual recording system... just ran a Sennheiser ME66 phantom powered shotgun via balance transformer to 1/8th directly into the D5300. I set the audio levels to auto, and figured it'd get all confused, clip, not readjust properly, etc. However, I was really surprised at how good it sounded, especially after just a little EQ in FCPX. The D5300's auto level did a surprisingly good job dealing with rapidly changing situations and never clipped at all. Tough call, if I was just doing video... might lean toward the Sony for a couple of the features... but for stills, and being able to run an external mic directly in, would likely stick with the D5300 for my needs. That being said, will likely be adding a GH4 and keep the D5300 for stills use after GH4 production models are out in the field and there aren't any surprise gotchas hiding in the wings.

So, does that mean that I should be converting my Nikon D5300 source to ProRes LT? Really great news. I've been planning on holding out for the GH4 for awhile, but when it was announced it was going to be 4k, I was groaning a bit that my current mobile system wouldn't handle it. Based on the little bit I did today, I think I'd get by just fine. Add a fast RAID array, and I don't think I'll need a new system right away. :)

Ok, so that's strange. I just downloaded all 5 of Andrew's sample 4k clips. Dropped them on a 4k-24p FCPX timeline complete with audio. Dropped in random transitions, applied some style effects to a couple, added an animated title, dropped an adjustment layer and applied a LUT to the whole thing, then output as 4k 24p. What's strange is, my basic system actually handled it snappier and more responsive than my D5300 1080P source. It even played back the output 4k clip smoother as well. How can that be? Looked great too! I'm only using a Macbook Pro 13in (non-retina) 16GB RAM and Andrew's media was read off a 7200rpm Thunderbolt mobile drive. Unless I'm missing something... or maybe the proresLT footage was the key and it'd take me loads of time to convert the source? If that's not the case, and this is pretty much how it'd work with minimal conversion time... then I'd say I'm sold.

Just dove into FCPX in December, so I'm still very much a newb and haven't even done anything with proxies yet. Good point though. Going to download and try. thanks!

Nice. Glad I got the D5300 to tide me over while waiting for this one. As soon as this ships and the early adopters shake out any bugs, be grabbing one for sure, but will hang onto the D5300 as a lightweight still camera. Plan falling into place. Just need to find out if I'm going to have to get a new super computer with ultra fast drives to even begin to edit GH4k stuff.

Hmmm... seems like this would be a legit question. Maybe too soon to tell since it's not actually out yet?

I'm definitely not going to pre-order this camera. But, after they get shipped and the first early adopter beta-testers shake all the bugs out ;) it's one of the cameras I was waiting for. At the moment, the Nikon D5300 suffices just fine. Like working with smaller files, low storage needs, no need for super computer etc. However, is this GH4 4k footage going to be manageable with a low-mid end system? If a raw workflow is so demanding, wouldn't a 4k workflow require an even more robust editing system? I get that even if you're only planning to work in 1080p, the 4k source will render a much nicer end result. But does that mean shooting 4k and then having to deal with gigantic files to scale down to 1080p? Or, will the GH4 take advantage of the 4k downsampling in-camera, and leave you with an awesome 1080 image that rivals anything shot 1080 natively, and a file size that doesn't require a super-computer?

I've got a hero3 blk edition and shot some 720p several months ago. Couldn't remember if it did for sure, but as I recall, it actually looks very good even at 720p from the little gopro. Was just curious since Andrew wrote it's the first mirrorless to do 720 at 120fps. I know what he meant, though. The gopro is sort of oddball, but I've seen some amazing image quality from it.

Doesn't the mirrorless GoPro Hero3 do 720p at 120fps?

I can't deny... that little guy is sorta cool.

Uh-huh.. yeah, thanks for the extra exclamation points. Zoinks! You funny papa-san LOL

@Andrew. Wow. That's a lot of exclamation points in one post. Settle down champ, no one is pissing on your precious GH4. I'm even considering one myself to follow up my D5300 after the dust settles and a few are out in the wild. I just posted a simple question regarding the footage that's out so far. From what I've seen regarding image detail, the Sony looks to have finer detail... significantly finer detail. Yes, a lot goes into making a final image, but the YouTube argument doesn't really hold up. If both are compressed by YouTube and one still looks significantly better than the other, the YouTube compression factor is a wash. Don't get me wrong, I KNOW the GH4 will offer more options in looks via interchangeable lenses, and the skill level of the shooter. But the original question was why does one budget level 4k camera, even after both are subjected to YouTube compression and displayed as 4k, look significantly sharper than the other? Both the GH4 and AX100 footage were official manufacturer footage, so I'm assuming they put their best foot forward with regard to selection of shooter and lens choices. Yet, from a resolution standpoint, the Sony stuff appears to render considerably more detail.

lame

That's what I was thinking. Just copied a bunch of FCPX libraries and such over to the one that tests better. Figured I'd see if in practice, it at least feels a bit snappier.

Nice post title, you headline whore! lol :P Looks good. See ya on the other side.

I don't know what the cache size is of either drive, but if that were the case, wouldn't the Buffalo have also shown an advantage using the AJA and Black Magic HDD speed tests? There's only $30 between them so cost isn't so much of a factor. I just don't want to keep both of them. Would you keep the one that tests significantly better across the board with two different software speed tests and claims to have a 7200rpm drive? Or, do you keep the one that copies a large file slightly faster with the 5400rpm drive?

Hi, I know SSD drives are recommended, faster, etc. but I didn't want to spend the extra $ right now. Got a Buffalo mini thunderbolt 1TB (5400RPM) that I've been using for almost a couple weeks. During that time I noticed that G-Technology had a mobile 1TB thunderbolt drive with a 7200RPM. Because I can return the Buffalo for a full refund, I went ahead and spent the extra $30 to get the G-technology 7200 thunderbolt (want to keep them mobile without external power sources needed) Well, the G-Technology drive arrived today so I figured I'd test it before taking the Buffalo back. I figured the 7200 would be faster, but not night/day difference. When I run the Black Magic hard drive speed tests, and the AJA speed tests, they both show consistently on all tests that the G-Technology is faster like 132MB/s vs 100MB/s with the Buffalo. Here's the strange part, when I copy a large folder or large file to the Buffalo and time it, the speed is about the same and sometimes faster than the 7200 G-Tech drive. Consistently. How can it be that even though the 7200rpm G-Tech tests faster in every way via speed tests, the Buffalo 5400rpm actually writes large files at the same speed if not slightly faster?!

Uh, well yeah. That's why I posted this. I learned the hard way. Figured I'd share. Save someone else the headache and lost time.

Hi, Just wanted to share info from a very frustrating and unpleasant 7hrs trying to find out why my FCPX install went corrupt, etc. FCPX has been fairly stable and intuitive for me to use since I bought it in December. Yesterday, everything went haywire. It wouldn't save out or give me any options to save, none of the effects would show up and mostly the menus got swapped. The layout was all screwed up and noting would auto-save either. I spent several hours trying to figure out what was going on. Scouring different Apple and FCP forums for clues. I'd removed everything that had to do with FCPX, re-downloaded and re-installed. Still no dice. Thought it was my library was corrupt, but I completely unmounted the drive with my libraries and started fresh. Still problems. Found some cache files I'd not deleted, so I started all over again, i.e.. redownload, reinstall, etc. What I finally discovered was a couple of audio AU effects plugins and instruments I'd installed in the general audio/plugins/components for use in various audio apps... were causing the problem. The worked fine in 2 different audio programs and I'm reasonably sure they were 64bit. But, for some reason FCPX didn't like them at all. As soon as I got rid of them, all problems solved. Just figured I'd share the experience and discovery so someone else doesn't have to go through all the hassle.

I think for my use, the GH4's versatility would definitively be preferred. I just figured the sample videos via YouTube would look more similar with regard to sharpness and resolution. The GH4 stuff looks great, but doesn't have quite the fine detail and sharpness the Sony samples have. Mostly curious. Will not be pre-ordering either of them. I'll leave that to the early adopter, gear-porn addicts. They can pay the premium to be the first kids not he block with the new toy and figure out what the bugs are. ;) That's one of the reasons I got an affordable Nikon D5300... it makes a nice image and will hold me over until the 4k dust settles a few months or a year from now. And, I don't subscribe to the idea that "serious photographers" only shoot full-frame. I've seen plenty of top-notch photographers run circles around heavy, full-frame-toting so-called "serious photographers" with nothing more than an average compact. ;)

From the camera samples I've seen so far, the new Sony 4k for $2k camera (can't recall model number) is more impressive than the official GH4k footage I've seen. Has anyone else noticed that? If so, why? And, should the stills performance from the GH4 be night/day better than the GH3?

If it was me, I'd wait.

I believe there are 7 different versions of Bladerunner and I'm not sure which two I've seen. I do recall thinking I preferred the addition of Harrison Ford's VO in the first US theatrical release, but preferred the vague, non-happy ending of the Director's cut (I think) and the extra violence that was cut back in. @BR thanks for the Maniac tip. Looks like it's streaming on Netflix. 2012 with Elijah Wood correct?