Panasonic seems to be announcing something "BIG" on December 15

[deezid]

1 hour ago, mat33 said:

so can camera manufacturers please just let us turn off in camera NR and sharpening completely so we can just do it in post if we need/want it.

Never!  
Because this is one of biggest differences between Prosumer and Professional cameras.

Professional cameras usually don't show any evidence of this kind of mess a GH5 e.g. produces. The 6K anamorphic mode is the closest to something like RED footage we can get.

But I still would love to see an option to disable all of it, so I have less work in Post to do.
And I don't need a better low light performance as much as I do need some better DR in uncontrolled lighting situations right now.
ATM I have to use noise reduction a lot since DR is simply not enough in many situations - while I never use any NR in low light situations, lol

Had to denoise all the clips in the chapel in the following film, while I didn't in the outdoor night scenes. (Shot on GH5/GX85/P4P)

 

[kidzrevil]

2 hours ago, mat33 said:

Yeah, I also think the endless drive for 'see in the dark' low light performance hasn't helped with reviewers saying 'this is not a low light camera' over and over.  With all the excess NR being done we end up with 'plastic' looking images and people adding film grain overlays left and right to make it look more 'filmic'.  I personally like some luma noise when shooting higher iso (not so keen on ugly chroma noise), so can camera manufacturers please just let us turn off in camera NR and sharpening completely so we can just do it in post if we need/want it.

Agreed. We should be given the option to totally disable these features by now. Disabling these would bring us closer to a pure image

[PannySVHS]

@deezid didn´t watch the whole thing yet. but at 5.45 min is my favorite part "that supernatural favour" What´s P4P?

 

Edit: watched almost to the end. Very nice to watch apart from the professional camera work it has a nice structure to it to center everyting around the ceremony rahter than having the usual kindo of wedding collage. I would have liked to see it start earlier with the foley real time sound, f.i. the violine player and the choir. Anyhow, great video.

[IronFilm]

On 12/19/2017 at 6:40 PM, Mattias Burling said:

Link to proof please.

I've seen it mentioned too, ages ago, in the ML forums by one of the developers as the reason why.

On 12/19/2017 at 9:46 PM, austinchimp said:

Having used the C200 for several long run and gun days, I would not call it lightweight! The form factor is nice, but if you're used to DSLR cameras it's significantly heavier, with all the advantages and disadvantages that brings. For me personally, though I love the quality and look of a larger heavier camera, smaller lighter cameras have proven better with my way of working. For that reason I stopped using a Ursa 4.6k and moved to the GH5 as my main camera.

 

It is all relative, if you're used to an Arri Alexa or RED ONE or such, then a C200 is very lightweight indeed! Heck, even compared to say the "lightweight" Sony F5/F55 then a C200 will feel just fine. 

As it is pretty small, basically the same weight as a C300. (which I do have experience with)

And yeah, if you're coming from DSLRs then you'll find a C300 (or C200) possibly "too big" and would prefer something just a little bit smaller (such as say a C100, I really think the difference in size between a C300 and C100 can make a big difference in shooting with it stripped down for long periods run and gun. But pity about the C100's poor specs! However you'd likely find the Panasonic EVA1 just perfect! Very small size + great specs). 

On 12/20/2017 at 4:01 AM, Mattias Burling said:

Unless it's an official statement from Canon its not worth anything.  

 

Do you really think Canon are likely to OFFICIALLY say this? 

Nah, that strikes me as very unlikely, as the backlash would be immense! And they'd gain nothing at all from that (vs achieving the same ends by communicating it discretely via back channels)

[Mattias Burling]

I know plenty of people would love it to be true. But there is no way getting around it. The reason the 1DC or C100 isn't hacked is because no one knows how. Otherwise it would be done. 

And all the "some guy told a friend's cousin" isnt gonna change that.

[Fritz Pierre]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:44 PM, Garrett S said:

Hopefully.  Honestly, I'd be beyond happy and would pay several thousand dollars if a company just took the guts of the BM Micro Cinema Camera and put them into a more useable form, like a GHX or XC10 or even a C100 body.  I don't need or want 4K, but I do want ProRes (for client projects) and raw (for learning and passion projects) and thirteen stops of latitude.  I also want a flip out screen and decent battery life.  I think even in the age of 4K, an ergonomic and efficient 1080 60p raw shooting camera with built in ND filters and usable audio would sell like crazy.

I think the push by consumers and manufacturers to move to 4K before really pushing the limits of dynamic range and color science was a mistake.  Of course, if you have enough money for storage, media, and processing power, you can have 4K, great color, and raw/ProRes, but for most it's not yet realistic.

Though you feel you don't need or want 4K, perhaps the article I copied from Reduser will explain why 4K to you....it has as much to to as anything that (although not to you) to most people the holy grail in digital cameras is to get to the look of S35....this is in both the image, and the projectibilty....where no digital camera can BE the same image as S35 film, camera makers and users can aspire to get as close to that image as possible....so perhaps to those who don't want or NEED 4K, this article somewhat clarifies why to others 4K matters...in simple terms, they are perhaps hoping to get closer to that holy grail!

 

 

No matter how it is cut – film material always 
possesses the same performance data:  
the smallest reproducible detail (20 % modu* 
lation) on a camera film negative (up to 
200 ASA) is about 0.006 mm. We can 
think of this as the size of film’s “pixels”, a 
concept that is well known from electronic 
image processing. And it does not matter if 
it is 16 mm, 35 mm, or 65 mm film: the crys* 
talline structure of the emulsion is indepen* 
dent of the film format. Also, the transmission 
capability of the imaging lens is generally 
high enough to transfer this spatial frequency 
(0.006 mm = 80 lp/mm) almost equally well 
for all film formats. 
The film format becomes relevant, however, 
when it comes to how many such very small 
details are to be stored on its surface – that 
is the question of the total available storage 
capacity. In the table below the number of 
“pixels” are indicated for the image’s width 
and height. 
Based on the smallest reproducible detail 
of 0.006 mm the table gives an overview of 
the storage capacity of different film formats. 

S16 2058 × 1237 pixels
S35 4153 × 3112 pixels
65 8746 × 3835 pixels

this is taken from a very detailed article about sharpness and resolution from Arri.
 

15 hours ago, mat33 said:

Yeah, I also think the endless drive for 'see in the dark' low light performance hasn't helped with reviewers saying 'this is not a low light camera' over and over.  With all the excess NR being done we end up with 'plastic' looking images and people adding film grain overlays left and right to make it look more 'filmic'.  I personally like some luma noise when shooting higher iso (not so keen on ugly chroma noise), so can camera manufacturers please just let us turn off in camera NR and sharpening completely so we can just do it in post if we need/want it.

+100!....I have never sat in a single production meeting where a DP has said, I can't get this shot  because it's too dark or I can't get that steadycam shot because AF is not good enough...lol...the director wants answers in that meeting then and there...if the DP did not know, they would leave the meeting rather rapidly to be replaced by someone who did and  could...there are no shortcuts to excellence...someone  who rolls 200 takes on a digital camera just because the media is so cheap, is not accomplished....they are hoping for a fluke...and if they did get the shot, it would not be repeatable for them, because they'd have no idea what they did...again, there are no shortcuts to being good at something....and the camera can't do that for you either....it's easy to luck onto a shot that lasts 20 seconds and to post it on a forum and to receive lots of ooohs and aaahs...the expert can do that throughout a 21/2 feature and in that lies the major difference!

[Garrett S]

2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Though you feel you don't need or want 4K, perhaps the article I copied from Reduser will explain why 4K to you....it has as much to to as anything that (although not to you) to most people the holy grail in digital cameras is to get to the look of S35....this is in both the image, and the projectibilty....where no digital camera can BE the same image as S35 film, camera makers and users can aspire to get as close to that image as possible....so perhaps to those who don't want or NEED 4K, this article somewhat clarifies why to others 4K matters...in simple terms, they are perhaps hoping to get closer to that holy grail!

 

 

No matter how it is cut – film material always 
possesses the same performance data:  
the smallest reproducible detail (20 % modu* 
lation) on a camera film negative (up to 
200 ASA) is about 0.006 mm. We can 
think of this as the size of film’s “pixels”, a 
concept that is well known from electronic 
image processing. And it does not matter if 
it is 16 mm, 35 mm, or 65 mm film: the crys* 
talline structure of the emulsion is indepen* 
dent of the film format. Also, the transmission 
capability of the imaging lens is generally 
high enough to transfer this spatial frequency 
(0.006 mm = 80 lp/mm) almost equally well 
for all film formats. 
The film format becomes relevant, however, 
when it comes to how many such very small 
details are to be stored on its surface – that 
is the question of the total available storage 
capacity. In the table below the number of 
“pixels” are indicated for the image’s width 
and height. 
Based on the smallest reproducible detail 
of 0.006 mm the table gives an overview of 
the storage capacity of different film formats. 

S16 2058 × 1237 pixels
S35 4153 × 3112 pixels
65 8746 × 3835 pixels

this is taken from a very detailed article about sharpness and resolution from Arri.
 

+100!....I have never sat in a single production meeting where a DP has said, I can't get this shot  because it's too dark or I can't get that steadycam shot because AF is not good enough...lol...the director wants answers in that meeting then and there...if the DP did not know, they would leave the meeting rather rapidly to be replaced by someone who did and  could...there are no shortcuts to excellence...someone  who rolls 200 takes on a digital camera just because the media is so cheap, is not accomplished....they are hoping for a fluke...and if they did get the shot, it would not be repeatable for them, because they'd have no idea what they did...again, there are no shortcuts to being good at something....and the camera can't do that for you either....it's easy to luck onto a shot that lasts 20 seconds and to post it on a forum and to receive lots of ooohs and aaahs...the expert can do that throughout a 21/2 feature and in that lies the major difference!

That's really interesting, thanks for sharing.  

[IronFilm]

On 12/21/2017 at 4:44 AM, webrunner5 said:

But as we see now already even lower end compnay's like Panasonic, Olympus, heck even Blackmagic are pushing up the price for cameras we would like to have in this last cycle.

It is because BMD is trying now to compete directly head on with the almost "high end" (or at least he solid mid range). 

Which isn't something BMD was exactly doing with the BMCC / BMPCC / BMPC4K beforehand, when it was much more targeted at the low end. 

But with the URSA Mini Pro we're seeing people choose that over a FS7 / F5 / C300mk2 / RED / etc... which is quite impressive. 

On 12/21/2017 at 8:37 AM, sam rides a mtb said:

Very happy about this   Funny I saw on another forum (don't think it was here), someone who was claiming that no one uses timecode anymore and that this was pointless to feature this.  I couldn't disagree more.  TOD TC has been a lifesaver in countless situations, and when doing work for broadcast, the editors (more so the assistant editors who have to do the initial camera grouping) I work with always stress having TOD timecode that is synced among all the cameras.  I can see if you're a OMB with one or two cams and only so much footage, that TC would be less of a concern.  But for episodic multi-cam shows and documentaries, having TC that can be jam-synced is a huge timesaver and helps keep things ordered.  Even when I'm just shooting a 2-cam interview for a freelance gig, I always try to have the two cams running the same TC, and have been applauded by the clients for doing so, even when they don't think to ask for it.

The only people who don't like TC are those who have never used it (or at least never used it done right).

I have progressively converting more and more people to the benefits of using TC on shoots as I work with them, when before they'd never experienced it before working with me.

[IronFilm]

On 12/22/2017 at 1:17 PM, RWR said:

"I can see if you're a OMB with one or two cams and only so much footage, that TC would be less of a concern. "

Though I would be surprised with TC I/O on GH5s, a primary use is for double system sound...beginning with one camera..

However. that feature alone would be significant in this market segment.

TC is super super super useful for muticamera shoots. We did a feature film this year when were shooting with up to FIVE cameras at once! (plus of course my sound files from my Zoom F4)

[buggz]

I just wish TC was selectable On/Off *during* recording.

[IronFilm]

Why?

[RWR]

I wasn't attempting to disagree re tc and multicam. But I would submit single cam with tc sync dual system sound is a more common professional scenario.

[buggz]

 

Me?  Shrug, seems like a useful tool, but only works when setup BEFORE recording.

I'm a one man band, trying to find a decent way to perform, or even emulate multicam views.

19 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Why?

>>  I just wish TC was selectable On/Off *during* recording.

 

 

[IronFilm]

Just seems a very bizarre request to want to be able to turn off TC during a shooting. (or even ever, you still want "something", even a non-accurate one)

[Mark Romero 2]

On 12/24/2017 at 2:34 AM, PannySVHS said:

@deezid didn´t watch the whole thing yet. but at 5.45 min is my favorite part "that supernatural favour" What´s P4P?

I am guessing "P4P" stands for Phantom 4 Professional drone by DJI.

Shoots 4K on a one inch sensor and 20mp stills (if memory serves... might only be 16mp), and is one of the few consumer drones that has a variable aperture.

[Lenscamera]

I have a feeling Andrew is probably one of those testing this camera 

[Philip Lipetz]

He could have a GH5s for testing. He has long had a back channel into Pannie.  Good for him.

[Rinad Amir]

Andrew deserves to be GH5s Tester

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, Lenscamera said:

I have a feeling Andrew is probably one of those testing this camera 

He has been suspiciously quiet in this thread?!

[no_connection]

We know at least someone have it on the forum so we should get the right kind of information when it's announced.