Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[ozmorphasis]

On 4/6/2017 at 1:36 PM, dbp said:

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed. 

Watching full screen right now.  It is definitely still there, although much worse when HD is selected rather than 4k.  I'm not talking about the obnoxious over the top aliasing that we see when watching a small embed window.  I mean something more subtle than that but still problematic for a client delivery.  I'll have to do my own side by side tests now that my GH5 arrived.  

[PannySVHS]

14 hours ago, jonpais said:

We've already seen this video, several times in different threads, OK? Hanriverprod is entitled to his opinion.

 

 Bushman Films has been contributing enthusiasm and knowledge and kindness in his posts.

I always enjoyed them and his opinions and so I did with his post of the footage above.

Thats what this beautiful forum is about, enjoyment and exchange. By the way, love your Fuji videos, jonpais.

Please keep sharing your videos with us. Also, I hope Bushman Films keeps doing so as well.

14 hours ago, midloch said:

You should change your glasses! Lets see:

Arrgh, I just did:)

 

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

 

 Bushman Films has been contributing enthusiasm and knowledge and kindness in his posts.

I always enjoyed them and his opinions and so I did with his post of the footage above.

Thats what this beautiful forum is about, enjoyment and exchange. By the way, love your Fuji videos, jonpais.

Please keep sharing your videos with us. Also, I hope Bushman Films keeps doing so as well.

I'd like to see more as well.

[deezid]

The more footage I see from this camera the more I'm worried about. I've seen zero evidence yet, that this camera can look cinematic at all.

Everythings looks processed as hell, makes me want to sell all my Panasonic stuff and switch over to URSA Mini Pro instead...
It would have been so easy, but Panasonic simply isn't interested to provide a processing free mode (DJI does it with the same sensor, results are amazing!).

[tugela]

1 minute ago, deezid said:

The more footage I see from this camera the more I'm worried about. I've seen zero evidence yet, that this camera can look cinematic at all.

Everythings looks processed as hell, makes me want to sell all my Panasonic stuff and switch over to URSA Mini Pro instead...
It would have been so easy, but Panasonic simply isn't interested to provide a processing free mode (DJI does it with the same sensor, results are amazing!).

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

56 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

I said it looks nice but still videoy. To me something being filmic is not just technique but the quality of image itself - it emulates film. Digital systems like arri and red get close. Also you don't know what experience I have that led me to my opinions. Cameras like gh5 look nice but videoy. It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move. Don't know why panny prosumer images feel this way to me but they do. But again that's just my opinion. Don't know why you think I'm being childish about it. I guess I hurt your feelings. If I did I apologize.

Crazy people are so sensitive about a thing like a camera. I guess these days people being a special snowflake isn't enough, there chosen brands need to be special too. To me it's there to tell my story and I always wish it worked better no matter the brand. Maybe these brands keep innovating because some of us are never satisfied. If it was all technique why are these product cycles getting shorter? 

Replacing the nameplate with "Canon" will probably help you get past those reservations.

[Emanuel]

4 minutes ago, deezid said:

The more footage I see from this camera the more I'm worried about. I've seen zero evidence yet, that this camera can look cinematic at all.

But, you've made it with your GH4... BTW, you should be hired for Lumix Luminary instead.

[deezid]

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

But, you've made it with your GH4... BTW, you should be hired for Lumix Luminary instead.

I just think the GH4 looks way more cinematic, seems way less processed to me. But Panasonic seems to be to proud about their new processing algorithms to allow for a mode without any processing like DJI, Blackmagic, RED, ARRI, Sony etc do...

[Orangenz]

8 minutes ago, ozmorphasis said:

Watching full screen right now.  It is definitely still there, although much worse when HD is selected rather than 4k.  I'm not talking about the obnoxious over the top aliasing that we see when watching a small embed window.  I mean something more subtle than that but still problematic for a client delivery.  I'll have to do my own side by side tests now that my GH5 arrived.  

The outside car to roof video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsPFxB6kHU There is no moire/aa on 4k monitor in 4k. The roofline is not smooth - it has tiles that go slightly up and down. It's meant to look like that. Perhaps there's something wrong in your graphics card settings? Take a snapshot (or even a screeny) and compare  

 

[Emanuel]

2 minutes ago, deezid said:

I just think the GH4 looks way more cinematic, seems way less processed to me. But Panasonic seems to be to proud about their new processing algorithms to allow for a mode without any processing like DJI, Blackmagic, RED, ARRI, Sony etc do...

Interesting opinion. I had found it more or less the same IQ, except the lack of optical low-pass filter, yes, which can introduce some artifacts, hope not though.

4:2:2 10-bit for tight bit rate doesn't help either. As same as 4K/60p for more or less the same data used with 24p. But, we have the external recording option, isn't it?

[deezid]

Just now, Emanuel said:

Interesting opinion. I had found it more or less the same IQ, except the lack of optical low-pass filter, yes, which can introduce some artifacts, hope not though.

4:2:2 10-bit for tight bit rate doesn't help either. As same as 4K/60p for more or less the same data used with 24p. But, we have the external recording option, isn't it?

The problem isn't the codec or IQ, it's the heavy internal processing like sharpening (it's an unsharp mask with 1.5 radius actually even at -5 sharpening) and noisereduction which cannot be bypassed. 

DJI uses the same sensor with really cinematic results, by using no processing instead. 

[Emanuel]

43 minutes ago, deezid said:

The problem isn't the codec or IQ, it's the heavy internal processing like sharpening (it's an unsharp mask with 1.5 radius actually even at -5 sharpening) and noisereduction which cannot be bypassed. 

DJI uses the same sensor with really cinematic results, by using no processing instead. 

Well, maybe we need to save the grace going on with some filter in the front of the camera in order to put it soft, I guess. Apart, work @post.

[Hanriverprod]

mano y mano

 

[EduPortas]

So much controversy around a MILC that never promised earth-shattering video AF performance.

We've become lazy. Either move your wrist around the barrel of the lens and make the enormous effort of +focusing+

like pros have done for DECADES or buy a good videocamera and see your AF problems melt away thanks to its inherent design nature.

This coming from an owner of a 7Dm2 which has, arguably, one of the better video AF systems in the industry (DPAF).

Even them, I rarely trust the camera to do the focusing for me. I can't afford even a single AF hunting second.

So I go full manual. You know, like a paid professional!

 

[Emanuel]

12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

WTF?

LOL Another Portuguese speaker, Jon! : ) BTW, Pais is another Portuguese surname too! (E :-)

[jonpais]

16 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

So much controversy around a MILC that never promised earth-shattering video AF performance.

We've become lazy. Either move your wrist around the barrel of the lens and make the enormous effort of +focusing+

like pros have done for DECADES or buy a good videocamera and see your AF problems melt away thanks to its inherent design nature.

This coming from an owner of a 7Dm2 which has, arguably, one of the better video AF systems in the industry (DPAF).

Even them, I rarely trust the camera to do the focusing for me. I can't afford even a single AF hunting second.

So I go full manual. You know, like a paid professional!

 

If you are a working professional, you would know that there are times when good AF is indispensable. And no need to be so condescending. Also, is the bold key stuck on your keyboard?

[mechanicalEYE]

I'm all for the test, the observation, and the progression through understanding, but it always goes way past that because people are just way too sensitive, and emotional about cameras. Grown adults spending thousands of dollars for gear, over, and over again to argue over brand bias  

This camera VS ( your camera choice here ) The camera fraternity wars are at full steam, LOL! Someone might get shot!!! ( it'll be OK if it's cinematic )

You're either with us, or against us. Canon runs this side of the tracks, We don't like your tiny sensors, and we don't like your camera's AF system, you're not welcome here.   Street gangs fight over silly things like street signs and clothing colors, Camera gangs fight over camera brand support... It's comical that so many adults have no issue wasting time arguing over camera's they never planned to buy. On both sides, people are way too emotional, It's like they need others to cosign the camera  THEY CHOSE so THEY can feel justified with the decision to purchase their choice of camera. 

AF use or Strictly Manual... isnt that personal preference.

Creating art... choice of tools really doesn't matter because it's always going to be subjective. As always carry on!

 

[Ken Ross]

2 hours ago, Orangenz said:

The outside car to roof video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsPFxB6kHU There is no moire/aa on 4k monitor in 4k. The roofline is not smooth - it has tiles that go slightly up and down. It's meant to look like that. Perhaps there's something wrong in your graphics card settings? Take a snapshot (or even a screeny) and compare  

 

Absolutely true. I've watched this on my 5K iMac, 65" UHD OLED and 75" UHD LCD, and there is not a trace of moire. Further, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about moire with the GH5. As you've correctly said, sometimes the computer and/or monitor that's being used can easily cause these artifacts. That roof is squeaky clean.

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Well, maybe we need to save the grace going on with some filter in the front of the camera in order to put it soft, I guess. Apart, work @post.

How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That  should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

[deezid]

4 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

Absolutely true. I've watched this on my 5K iMac, 65" UHD OLED and 75" UHD LCD, and there is not a trace of moire. Further, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about moire with the GH5. As you've correctly said, sometimes the computer and/or monitor that's being used can easily cause these artifacts. That roof is squeaky clean.

How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That  should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

Again, IQ is flawless on this camera, really high resolution 4k without any moire or aliasing. But the further processing really sucks for filmmakers. No professional camera does this.

[Andy J]

2 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

I said it looks nice but still videoy. To me something being filmic is not just technique but the quality of image itself - it emulates film. Digital systems like arri and red get close. Also you don't know what experience I have that led me to my opinions. Cameras like gh5 look nice but videoy. It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move. Don't know why panny prosumer images feel this way to me but they do. But again that's just my opinion. Don't know why you think I'm being childish about it. I guess I hurt your feelings. If I did I apologize.

Crazy people are so sensitive about a thing like a camera. I guess these days people being a special snowflake isn't enough, there chosen brands need to be special too. To me it's there to tell my story and I always wish it worked better no matter the brand. Maybe these brands keep innovating because some of us are never satisfied. If it was all technique why are these product cycles getting shorter? 

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.

Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.

I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."

You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."

Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.

I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.

You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.

If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.

Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

[Emanuel]

23 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That  should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

One of the most interesting low light GH5 samples seen these days was shot through a 20 bucks 'plastic lens':

 

23 minutes ago, deezid said:

Again, IQ is flawless on this camera, really high resolution 4k without any moire or aliasing. But the further processing really sucks for filmmakers. No professional camera does this.

Reason why I had the need to open this protest here: