Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[deezid]

Just now, Emanuel said:

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

 

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

 

Well, Panasonic will say: At least it's free of noise, lol

[Hanriverprod]

23 minutes ago, Andy J said:

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.

I'm not trying to convince myself or anybody else of anything. And don't accuse people of being babies or making stuff up because you disagree with them. You misquoted me to trivialize my opinion and then made it seem like it's okay because you're poking fun. If that's how you discuss things with people you have passive aggressive issues. And honestly, I don't really care what your highly developed theory on what digital and filmic means because you probably developed it reading forums as I've seen everything you said in other posts. So me saying the GH5 looks a certain way is not a reason for you to lecture me about the importance of technique and story. We all know it's important. Yes we get it. Cameras don't matter as long as you have good lighting and technique. So please save yourself some time with the lectures.  Again, I'm  just sharing an opinion. At least it's my opinion and not regurgitating rote ideas. I think it looks videoy which is fine. You don't. But I'm not so presumptuous to think my opinion matters more than yours because I don't really know where you're coming from. To me, film looks like film which is fine. Some digital cameras look like video and some look like film which is fine. Some people have better technique than others when using images. What's your point? I started making shorts in the 80s using vhs cameras. Worked in the industry doing national commercials shot on film and transferred to beta, digi-beta and d1's in the 90s. On the weekends, I shot narratives on 8mm, super 16mm, super 35, betacams and sony vx1000s. I've done post work on flatbeds, macs, windows, unix machines. I worked at two post facilities as they moved from conforming offline with tapes to Avids and using After Effects. I've directed a feature film theatrically distributed. Some of my closest friends are feature film colorists who I hang out with as they grade projects from all different cameras. And that's why from my experience, I think this footage looks like nice video. I don't know how to use emoticons but I would place a smile at the end of this sentence to convey the idea that I wrote this in a light hearted manner.

[Andy J]

17 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

I'm not trying to convince myself or anybody else of anything. And don't accuse people of being babies or making stuff up because you disagree with them. You misquoted me to trivialize my opinion and then made it seem like it's okay because you're poking fun. If that's how you discuss things with people you have passive aggressive issues. And honestly, I don't really care what your highly developed theory on what digital and filmic means because you probably developed it reading forums as I've seen everything you said in other posts. So me saying the GH5 looks a certain way is not a reason for you to lecture me about the importance of technique and story. We all know it's important. Yes we get it. Cameras don't matter as long as you have good lighting and technique. So please save yourself some time with the lectures.  Again, I'm  just sharing an opinion. At least it's my opinion and not regurgitating rote ideas. I think it looks videoy which is fine. You don't. But I'm not so presumptuous to think my opinion matters more than yours because I don't really know where you're coming from. To me, film looks like film which is fine. Some digital cameras look like video and some look like film which is fine. Some people have better technique than others when using images. What's your point? I started making shorts in the 80s using vhs cameras. Worked in the industry doing national commercials shot on film and transferred to beta, digi-beta and d1's in the 90s. On the weekends, I shot narratives on 8mm, super 16mm, super 35, betacams and sony vx1000s. I've done post work on flatbeds, macs, windows, unix machines. I worked at two post facilities as they moved from conforming offline with tapes to Avids and using After Effects. I've directed a feature film theatrically distributed. Some of my closest friends are feature film colorists who I hang out with as they grade projects from all different cameras. And that's why from my experience, I think this footage looks like nice video. I don't know how to use emoticons but I would place a smile at the end of this sentence to convey the idea that I wrote this in a light hearted manner.

Hey man, I can tell I hit a nerve and I'm sorry. Seriously. That wasn't my intention nor was it my plan to attempt to sour someone's day. I guess one shouldn't have internet conversations the same way one would have conversations in a pub or elsewhere. The tone really doesn't come through. I do stand by the things that I said, though some of the things that you said that I said are things that I never actually said. 

[Hanriverprod]

4 minutes ago, Andy J said:

Hey man, I can tell I hit a nerve and I'm sorry. Seriously. That wasn't my intention nor was it my plan to attempt to sour someone's day. I guess one shouldn't have internet conversations the same way one would have conversations in a pub or elsewhere. The tone really doesn't come through. I do stand by the things that I said, though some of the things that you said that I said are things that I never actually said. 

Don't worry I'm having a great day. But look how you started this conversation with me. You turned me into a wailing baby because I have a different opinion. And now again you are the one who literally misquoted me at your first post but now accuse me of doing it. I don't get it. Also don't make it seem like I'm being sensitive and you are the bigger man for being rude to strangers. More passive aggressive issues. I'm at the park and my wife and I are having a good laugh about this.  Sorry it's at your expense.

As far as the GH5, I will probably rent it next week and do some tests. Rough scene coverage to see how it handles skin in mixed interior lights. Hopefully it looks like nice "digital" images. Did I do it right this time for your safe space?

[EduPortas]

12 hours ago, jonpais said:

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?

Of course there are times when you would use AF: when using a dedicated videocamera, not a MILC or a DSLR!

That's the way I roll, my friend. Not condescending at all, just stating that pros don't let their gear get in their way.

And by that I mean not trusting AF systems on MILCs or DSLRs. Have we become that lazy?

[zetty]

10 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Don't worry I'm having a great day. But look how you started this conversation with me. You turned me into a wailing baby because I have a different opinion. And now again you are the one who literally misquoted me at your first post but now accuse me of doing it. I don't get it.

Well, your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc", so I think that was a fair target and frankly, I agree with a lot of what Andy says. However, I think you also have a point: even if you cannot express exactly what's wrong with the image, you don't have to, it's your perception why shouldn't you trust it. I respect that.

Myself, I am long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive.

BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.

[Chrad]

1 minute ago, zetty said:

I am myself long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive.

BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.

Yes, yes, yes. 

It seems like embracing the flexibility of DSLRs to define a new aesthetic has been replaced by trying to transform our little consumer cameras into Alexas.

[Hanriverprod]

2 minutes ago, zetty said:

Well, your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc", so I think that was a fair target and frankly, I agree with a lot of what Andy says. However, I think you also have a point: even if you cannot express exactly what's wrong with the image, you don't have to, it's your perception why shouldn't you trust it. I respect that.

Myself, I am long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive.

BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.

I said it looks nice and it does look nice. And you like Andy like to misquote people. You actually put something I didn't say into quotes like I said it which is what he did. Is this something new being taught at film schools these days? How to deal with strangers you disagree with on camera forums by misquoting them?

[zetty]

On 07/04/2017 at 11:16 AM, Hanriverprod said:

But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing.

Here is what you said and the "but" clearly implies it looks good because of everything but the camera. If several people have seen it that way, maybe it's worth considering it's not a misquote but rather a misexpression from your side.

[Hanriverprod]

Just now, zetty said:

Here is what you said and the "but" clearly implies it looks good because of everything but the camera. If several people have seen it that way, maybe it's worth considering it's not a misquote but rather a misexpression from your side.

Zetty, that's not how you use quotes. It's not cool to misquote people like that in a public forum. That's my point. I said "I wouldn't call that filmic. It looks nice, but filmic? No. Nice video, to my eyes which is great." You got me quoting myself. So if I think shooting actors on a prosumer Canon camera makes it easier for the audience to be empathetic because of the warm colors than a Sony camera, am I wrong or is it just my opinion? Can we discuss that without the insults like Andy did in good humor or the condescension?

As far as the other stuff you're talking about. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You find the strength to live your life the way you want. Don't blame others for pressuring you to be inauthentic. That's the easy way out. You find the strength of your own convictions. Also, you can't separate what you think is form or content. It's all a series of decisions you need to make that will impact how your creation exists. Some of those decisions will be tied to precedents because that's the nature of our psyche, it exists as the cusp of a genealogy so there's nothing wrong with building on tradition. And I find it funny you talking about the ethics of being creative these days while misquoting people.

 

[zetty]

Hanriverprod, I disagree about misquoting you, can you quote me doing that?

All I was talking about is what your post seemed to imply, on both occasions, second time quoting word by word. That is my interpretation of your words, not a misquote.

As about the rest, in broad strokes I do live the life I want but I am constantly fighting against being pushed into compromises I find distasteful. I accept that's how it is but why shouldn't I express my discontent? I don't expect it to change significantly, nor I'm saying my hands are tied to do things differently, just speaking out about something I feel strongly about.

You are right about the blurred line between form and content, perhaps I did put it the wrong way. I also agree about building on tradition but come on, the "tradition" we are building on here has such a narrow scope, it's suffocating. There are the basics and there are gimmicks -- and right now I feel like we're riding on gimmicks. In other words, there is a very strong trend to focus on a certain set of values, which appear formulaic and superficial to me -- and in order to achieve these, filmmakers are happy to sacrifice everything else that would make a unique, rich story. In short, it's that the predefined form (aesthetic) largely dictates the content. And in many ways supply is also affecting the demand, making it more difficult to break the mould with something more unusual.

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, EduPortas said:

And by that I mean not trusting AF systems on MILCs or DSLRs. Have we become that lazy?

From minute 13:23 on:

I guess, once more, this also answers for both sides (I've always loved to stay midway : D) -- the title couldn't be better! For those wondering about gimbal work, as already posted before here, take a look on the comments (mobile app suggestion) before to praise the need for automatic-autofocus.

Yet on a pre-production unit (low light! -- from minute 0:37):

 

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

From minute 13:23 on:

I guess, once more, this also answers for both sides (I've always loved to stay midway : D) -- the title couldn't be better! For those wondering about gimbal work, as already posted before here, take a look on the comments (mobile app suggestion) before to praise the need for automatic-autofocus.

 

 

I'm glad he's waded into this with his no nonsense Yorkshire man approach. I remember his earlier one with the immortal line about Panasonic claiming he had to send his original defective GH5 to a service centre to be repaired instead of them replacing it - "So I told the Panasonic rep you can fuck off". Such a refreshing change to see someone who's just putting the camera on and giving his thoughts instead of trying to go for the big production look bigging himself up.

Maybe one day we can look forward to him teaming up with three other Yorkshire camera users in a few years to reminisce about how they had to make films without functioning face detection, or auto focus, or lenses or cameras.

 

[Emanuel]

Well, this is internet, a discussion forum... ; ) Your point has its merit, though. I've already left the plea to MY and some other guy who's testing the bitch. Let's see if they'll add anything on topic. To be sincere, I am more focused on accuracy about tap to focus than actually full autofocus. If you're looking for sports, as for instance, your scope and needs can go further beyond, of course. I hope the settings may concur anyway. In any case, I'd suggest the mobile app route which can really help gimbal work if not for much fast stuff.

[Emanuel]

Now changing subject, here's some marvelous imagerie from this piece of work:

Shot on 12-60mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 -- only two zoom lenses and here we all can go very light ;-)

 

[jonpais]

On 4/8/2017 at 8:04 AM, 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!

 

Aside from your arrogant tone, there is a gaping flaw in your logic. 

Buy a good video camera and see your AF problems melt away?

Mirrorless cameras with good AF already exist.

BTW, I said AF is sometimes indispensable, I never claimed it should supplant MF.  If you don't have someone pulling focus, for example. In the following clip, from 1:08 -  1:11, where the camera moves quickly from the barber to the customer, is a case in point. 

Wait, I forgot to add boldface type, exclamation marks and references to how pros have been doing things for decades, as if the industry is standing still.

 

[dbp]

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Now changing subject, here's some marvelous imagerie from this piece of work:

Shot on 12-60mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 -- only two zoom lenses and here we all can go very light ;-)

 

Cool stuff! Nature footage is something the GH5 excels at I think. IBIS, compact, easy to get a long zoom range with m43, 4K 60p. 

[EduPortas]

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

Aside from your arrogant tone, there is a gaping flaw in your logic. 

Buy a good video camera and see your AF problems melt away?

Mirrorless cameras with good AF already exist.

BTW, I said AF is sometimes indispensable, I never claimed it should supplant MF.  If you don't have someone pulling focus, for example. In the following clip, from 1:08 -  1:11, where the camera moves quickly from the barber to the customer, is a case in point. 

Wait, I forgot to add boldface type, exclamation marks and references to how pros have been doing things for decades, as if the industry is standing still.

 

Go ahead, enjoy your MILC/DSLR. I can't see how's that arrogant, I'm just a pragmatist.

As I said before, my own personal experience

with one of the best and most advanced cameras in the business in terms of video AF (Canon's 7Dm2 with DPAF)

showed me that even though DLSRs have made huge steps in focusing performance,

we are still far away from the average AF performance of a dedicated video camera.

You know the answer already: the industrial design of a video camera is very different from a DSLR.

Use the best tool for the job. If you live inside a studio, take your time to focus with your cool MILC/DLSR.

I can't afford that. I can't have any AF mishaps. Not in the middle of covering a protest and your ass (or your life) is on the line, for example.

For journo work, at least for the moment, I'm sticking with video cams.  

[Emanuel]

Jingles is back...

AF Sensitivity reduced to -3 in order to prevent hunting over the background. Speed is up trying to not become slow... With those so many Christmas lights in that tree will be hard to match those settings. That is, if you'll have the patience I don't have to follow 45 minutes of this soup of this and that to arrive to the same conclusion on tap to focus. Either way, still without clue if slower or the slowest settings will avoid hunting on that semi-auto focus mode as he names it, actually part of AF system with a range of settings which will vary the performance, I bet.

[Emanuel]

On 07/04/2017 at 5:53 AM, jonpais said:

Maybe Panasonic's  algorithms don't recognize Max's brother. 

You've guessed it first!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX6wQTf1oQA&lc=z12wfhqx3qvbutgmw23xcdhyepztjprsi