The video that shows Blackmagic Pocket 4K RAW image quality is same as GH5S 400Mbit

[Andrew Reid]

Well, since I am getting back into my GH5 / GH5S, I'll be doing my own tests but it's not looking good for the Blackmagic.

Is 10bit LOG at 400Mbit ALL-I all most of us ever need? What is the point of sacrificing so many features, battery life, and so much ergonomic niceness for a Pocket 4K?

[hyalinejim]

A few years back I came to the conclusion that GH5 10bit 422 VLog was pushable enough without losing quality for me to make the leap from ML RAW and not feel I was missing out. 

[Cinegain]

I had the BMPCC4K. Sold it. Just wasn't worth the hassle over what I could get done with a Panasonic tbh.

[kye]

I've posted this before, but here's a clip I tried to push to breaking point, but it seemed pretty much unbreakable.  This is the GH5 150Mbps 10-bit mode, so not even the 400Mbps All-I.

When I was playing with ML raw I compared the 10-bit to the 12 and 14 bit modes, and although I could see a slight difference between the 10 and 12 if you pushed it hard, I concluded that 10 bits was enough for me.

In terms of the GH5, the dual ISO is one feature that would be great to have, but the IBIS more than outweighs it, and in comparison to the S1H, the smaller size and cost more than outweigh it for me.  Literally, if I became a billionaire tomorrow, the GH5 would still be the best camera available for what I do.

[Andrew Reid]

The great thing is, Speed Booster GH5S outperforms the 6K EF Pocket in low light as well.

Unless you can get one of Luca's rather nice Magic Boosters.

Who's for a GH5/GH5S Shooter's Guide?

[rawshooter]

It should have the same image quality since both cameras have the same sensor, and Panasonic's codecs are decent enough.

The only difference will become visible if you really have to push the material - for example, into a different white balance (when having shot in mixed available light, such as in a club or at a concert).

In the end, it comes down to the difference between 10bit log recording (Panasonic) and 12bit log recording (Blackmagic's BRAW, which isn't really RAW in a technical sense).

[Cinegain]

@kye Reminds me of Hong Kong. Guess... because it's Hong Kong.

[kye]

1 minute ago, rawshooter said:

It should have the same image quality since both cameras have the same sensor, and Panasonic's codecs are decent enough.

The only difference will become visible if you really have to push the material - for example, into a different white balance, with cross-processing film simulation LUT, or when underexposing several stops and denoising with Neat Video Pro + cranking up gain in post.

In the end, it comes done to the difference between 10bit log recording (Panasonic) and 12bit log recording (Blackmagic's BRAW, which isn't really RAW in a technical sense).

See my above example...  the 10-bit is better than you think.

[IronFilm]

Quote

GH5S vs BMPCC4K

How do you reckon the Z Cam E2 and Kinefinity Terra 4K compares against them?

[Video Hummus]

The Terra 4K, I think, shares the same sensor with the GH5S and BMPCC4K but offers a ton of recording options. Phillip Bloom shot some excellent footage with it.

4K 100fps, CDNG RAW, and Apple ProRes HQ Internal.

The only place the GH5S falls down is with VFR past 60fps and at ISO greater than 400. Otherwise you get horrible horizontal noise in shadows.

Although if you use Near Video and create a custom profile for those noisy ISOs Neat video will effectively remove it.

120fps is Good. 180fps is OK. 240fps is very soft.

Only other wish is that the S did 4K60p in 10-bit. Oh well. Can’t wait for the GH6. Maybe we will get the our IBIS with dual iso performance and 4K60p and 6K 10-bit and ProRes Internal!

[KnightsFan]

3 hours ago, rawshooter said:

The only difference will become visible if you really have to push the material - for example, into a different white balance (when having shot in mixed available light, such as in a club or at a concert).

Do you have examples showing the difference?

[eleison]

33 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Do you have examples showing the difference?

 

When the lighting changes so much, you don't have time to white balance.  Also, correct me if I'm wrong, when using raw (or raw lite - braw);  exposure doesn't have to be 100% correct.  I think you get 2-3 stops leeway. 

RAW imho, makes a camera more forgiving.  You don't have to be 100% correct when shooting.  There's room to correct it later for mistakes.  Not to mention the ability to do a more extreme grade and match multiple cameras/cuts/scenes easier.  Also, if I am understanding things correctly, the ISO isn't baked in the RAW image so during post you can set your ISO and determine the acceptable amount of noise for you video.

In any case, these are the reasons I'm interested in RAW.  At the end of the day, it's REC709, right?  It's the flexibility that raw gives you to manipulate the video before you get to that point.

[KnightsFan]

7 minutes ago, eleison said:

When the lighting changes so much, you don't have time to white balance.  Also, correct me if I'm wrong, when using raw (or raw lite - braw);  exposure doesn't have to be 100% correct.  I think you get 2-3 stops leeway. 

RAW imho, makes a camera more forgiving.  You don't have to be 100% correct when shooting.  There's room to correct it later for mistakes.  Not to mention the ability to do a more extreme grade and match multiple cameras easier.

I meant an example showing how the P4K is better than the GH5s in the same conditions. As long as you white balance in linear gamma, I've found no benefit to shooting raw in terms of ability to white balance in post. I have edited quite a bit of material shot in 400 mbps on a GH5s and never really ran into any compression issues even on extreme grades, so I'm curious to see any examples where the P4K does better.

Same with exposure. You can correct exposure with any camera with the same results as raw if there aren't compression artifacts, and you can do it in linear. Since they share the same sensor, I would be very surprised if noise levels were different, and in my experience I haven't run into compression issues with GH5s footage.

[eleison]

23 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I meant an example showing how the P4K is better than the GH5s in the same conditions. As long as you white balance in linear gamma, I've found no benefit to shooting raw in terms of ability to white balance in post. I have edited quite a bit of material shot in 400 mbps on a GH5s and never really ran into any compression issues even on extreme grades, so I'm curious to see any examples where the P4K does better.

Same with exposure. You can correct exposure with any camera with the same results as raw if there aren't compression artifacts, and you can do it in linear. Since they share the same sensor, I would be very surprised if noise levels were different, and in my experience I haven't run into compression issues with GH5s footage.

 

You seem to make good points and are probably right (I'm not that technical enough).  However,  RAW from what I've been told, gives the videographer the ultimately flexibility.  The original videos only show that the colors/highlights/images were as good as each other which isn't the whole point of RAW (from what I've been told).  If flexibility is not the point of RAW, what is?  Just another marketing label slapped onto camera boxes if 10/12 bit non raw videos are good enough?

I'm familiar with raw in photography.  When shooting still images, almost all photographers use RAW so they can easily manipulate the image even though 12 bit jpegs exist.  I would assume video would be similar.  RAW for still images means ultimate flexibility.

[leslie]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

It should have the same image quality since both cameras have the same sensor, and Panasonic's codecs are decent enough.

The only difference will become visible if you really have to push the material - for example, into a different white balance (when having shot in mixed available light, such as in a club or at a concert).

In the end, it comes down to the difference between 10bit log recording (Panasonic) and 12bit log recording (Blackmagic's BRAW, which isn't really RAW in a technical sense).

coming from a laymans understanding of things, whether its raw or not, its just had enough done to it to get around the patent issue they were having at the time i think. I doubt they have deliberately set out to deceive people, marketing departments always seem optimistic about definitions and some of the terms they use no matter who you buy from ?

i remember gopro were flogging protunes as raw or raw like with the gopro4. Anyone that knew anything could work out pretty quickly while protunes with some settings could look better, than the typical vivid/saturated settings, raw it wasn't.  It was the 5 that actually came out with raw images, so bmd aren't the first company  to claim raw when its not, probably not the last either.

lemac the camera shop i bought my p4k from list the p4k for $1,990.00 or a  $100 more now than when i bought it  and the  GH5S for $3,340.00.  Same sensor apparently but priced quite differently. Is the gh5s a $1300 better camera ?  don't know, don't care either. Once you own something, i find these comparisons become alot like white noise.

 

[tupp]

Isn't the IR cut filter on the GH5 stronger than the one on the P4K?

[IronFilm]

28 minutes ago, leslie said:

lemac the camera shop i bought my p4k from list the p4k for $1,990.00 or a  $100 more now than when i bought it  and the  GH5S for $3,340.00.  Same sensor apparently but priced quite differently. Is the gh5s a $1300 better camera ?  don't know, don't care either. Once you own something, i find these comparisons become alot like white noise.

These days a GH5S and a BMPCC4K go for a very similar price on eBay 

 

[leslie]

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

These days a GH5S and a BMPCC4K go for a very similar price on eBay 

 

 maybe they do and that could be a good option for some, I do buy alot of stuff of ebay. For the p4k i pre ordered  and i wanted the warranty, just in case ?

i am quite happy to buy of ebay i know they have a returns policy if its isnt as expected. At the time p4k's on ebay were quite pricey it was cheaper to buy from from a bmd reseller anyway, lol   Plus i think ebay returns is ninety days ? ( not sure about that) verses 12 months for reseller warranty.

[anonim]

IMO GH5s unfortunately had many strategic mistakes - I wrote it already at the time, and sorry for repeating it, just regarding prospect of GH6.

First, it was too highly priced camera regarding (most of) targeted users market. If you dropped the most usable and comparatively advanced (for most of the users of that base) quality - IBIS - you can't simply charge 500-1000e more than similar camera that already had it. Dubious Idea of two complementary cameras has it final judge in the pocket of buyers.

Second, Panasonic didn't correct GH5s  price during long announcing period of Pocket 4k. So they've lost great amount of aspiring indie movie making creators as potential buyers. Because whatever we speculate looking at HD monitors, appeal of 12 bit raw (intensified with Resolve's native capability of manipulating it) isn't founded on gimmick.

Third, GH5s was, of course, part of  whole division strategy - it was developed simultaneously and priced inside of bigger calculation together with expectation of coming Panasonic FF cameras as also regarding EVA and upper line of products. It seems to me that all that strategy has to be reconsidered - because of BM and Chinese newcomers. With better sensors and cleaner image at ISO3200, m43 format seems to strongly approved its vitality and comparative advantages in comparison and in spite of aggressive campaign for the sake of FF dlsr-form like cameras - touching 3-4000 or more euros price, they are not at all too or primarily appealing for anybody.

Fourth, GH5s, stepping more seriously in field  of movie making, IMO missed opportunity to finished with concept of baked noise reduction and sharpening algorithm. Also, some sort of raw recording (and forgiving manipulation) it seems today a must condition for staying competitive in targeted field.

As probably all of admirers of m43 values and Panasonic particularly (as far the best reliable camera manufacturer) I hope that everything - including market reevaluation and experience - is at dispose that GH6 becomes really best value and for a long time only camera that most of several user base groups really need.

[kye]

5 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I meant an example showing how the P4K is better than the GH5s in the same conditions. As long as you white balance in linear gamma, I've found no benefit to shooting raw in terms of ability to white balance in post. I have edited quite a bit of material shot in 400 mbps on a GH5s and never really ran into any compression issues even on extreme grades, so I'm curious to see any examples where the P4K does better.

Same with exposure. You can correct exposure with any camera with the same results as raw if there aren't compression artifacts, and you can do it in linear. Since they share the same sensor, I would be very surprised if noise levels were different, and in my experience I haven't run into compression issues with GH5s footage.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, eleison said:

You seem to make good points and are probably right (I'm not that technical enough).  However,  RAW from what I've been told, gives the videographer the ultimately flexibility.  The original videos only show that the colors/highlights/images were as good as each other which isn't the whole point of RAW (from what I've been told).  If flexibility is not the point of RAW, what is?  Just another marketing label slapped onto camera boxes if 10/12 bit non raw videos are good enough?

I'm familiar with raw in photography.  When shooting still images, almost all photographers use RAW so they can easily manipulate the image even though 12 bit jpegs exist.  I would assume video would be similar.  RAW for still images means ultimate flexibility.

There is a huge debate about log in 8-bit vs 10-bit, and there are instances where people do grades and show minor issues, and there are tests where people deliberately film difficult situations and then try to break the 8-bit footage and can't do it.  There are many more complexities involved, as @KnightsFan mentioned, and compression is the biggest one.

Trying to have a serious debate about 10-bit vs 12-bit is fine, but just don't try and push the angle that 10-bit is anything less than 99% as usable in 99% of the situations.  If you're after ultimate quality then sure, shoot RAW that's totally fine, and yes it does give ultimate freedom, but that's like comparing a Ferrari and a Lamborghini - you can compare and one might be faster than the other but you can seriously claim that the slower one isn't fast enough to be used for everything except the smallest of situations.

See my above shot of the HK harbour and tell me how 10-bit would somehow have been better when there aren't really serious artefacts in a grade that no-one would ever do in any situation in the real world.

In terms of WB, yes, the colour science makes it trickier, but if you know what you're doing and have a half-decent software tool at your disposal then the only thing stopping you from getting an excellent balance is skill.  and I would know - I shoot available light and often mixed lighting all the time and the thing that limits me is my ability to adjust WB in post.  

Check out these images....    An ungraded frame from a shoot I did, note the horrendous green/magenta lighting:

and the two grades I got back from (the very gracious and much more experienced) members over at LiftGammaGain.com..

The first from Szilard Totszegi:

and second from Cary Knoop:

and the thread is here: https://liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/advice-for-grading-mixed-green-magenta-light-sources.12727/

This was after I'd battled with the video for hours, and gotten no-where near what they managed to do.  Even after seeing what was possible and outright trying to copy their efforts to learn from their examples, I still didn't get it as good.