Is Panasonic GH4 going to change the industry?

[liork]

As the Panasonic GH4 is going to introduce 4K Filming, 10 bit 4:2:2 and all other features as focus peaking etc, Do you think its is going to change the standard of videoing? the level of tech quality for amatures?

[Chrad]

It could change the standard of video quality in the price range from the major manufacturers.

 

You also can't underestimate the value of usability and a good feature set - while the IQ most likely won't be as good as the Blackmagics, this one will have the basic features those cameras miss, like ability to see how much is left on the card at all times. For this alone I could see it being picked up by shooters who refuse to use Blackmagic.

[AaronChicago]

Definitely swapping my BMPCC for this. Only thing I'll most likely miss is the Film Log.

[tehgeek]

We haven't seen footage or even got the real specs yet. Let's just wait and see, for all we know it might be a huge disappointment.

[fuzzynormal]

As the Panasonic GH4 is going to introduce 4K Filming, 10 bit 4:2:2 and all other features as focus peaking etc, Do you think its is going to change the standard of videoing? the level of tech quality for amatures?

 

Yes, but only insomuch as at a certain point (I happen to think we're effectively there already) image quality will be so good and so cheap that there's no real barriers to acquiring tools that are close to on par with what professionals use.  Make no mistake, pros will always have the better stuff, but that margin will be indistinguishable to all but the most discriminating.

 

But sure, in the consumer market it looks like Panasonic is just out front a bit right now.

 

But you know how it goes, there's always something that's coming out that's juuust a little better.  And a lot of people will covet whatever it is, just because it is.  There's still a legacy of the old attitude:  I now have Widget "A," so I'm an notable maker of "A's."  I liken it to a dude I know that buys Leica's and considers himself an accomplished photographer, even though his photos are just glorified snapshots.  He has at least 20K invested in his kit --yet anyone with a good eye and a disposable camera could easily outshoot him.

 

Anyway, the whole change is cool though.  A generation ago, you could be a "filmmaker" just because you happened to acquire a film camera.  That was enough to legitimize you in some way, regardless of actual film making skill.

 

Now, my nephew can easily buy a camera/lens from WalMart that makes better images than what Hitchcock used.

 

So then, what makes a filmmaker these days?

[KarimNassar]

We haven't seen footage or even got the real specs yet. Let's just wait and see, for all we know it might be a huge disappointment.

 

so much this.

[liork]

We haven't seen any footage, you're right, but the specs are for sure.

I am just wondering, putting this kind of specs into amatures hands (and pro's as well), is it going to raise up the bar in fields like indie films, video clips and even youtube short films.

[Nick Hughes]

We haven't seen any footage, you're right, but the specs are for sure.

I am just wondering, putting this kind of specs into amatures hands (and pro's as well), is it going to raise up the bar in fields like indie films, video clips and even youtube short films.

There's going to be the same quality of films being made, they're all just going to look a little bit better.

That's not to say that I'm not extremely excited.

[fuzzynormal]

so much this.

 

Yes and no.  There's no denying that the industry is making better and better imaging tech.  It's not a question of if consumers will have ridiculous imaging power, but when.

 

Within a decade or so low-end consumers are going to have access to awesome resolution and dynamic range at their disposal.  And "disposal" is a good word to apply here.  When something becomes ubiquitous and a commodity, that perceived value diminishes.

 

So, when digital imaging reaches the resolutions and dynamic range that exceed human sight...and everyone can get it cheaply, then what?

[fuzzynormal]

is it going to raise up the bar in fields like indie films, video clips and even youtube short films.

 

I don't think so.  The resolutions will look impressive, but that's about it.  We've all seen terrible indie/studio/youtube films.  They're not going to suddenly be magically more interesting just because there's more pixels and dynamic range to look at while the bad acting and direction is happening.

[Andrew Reid]

Check EOSHD 5am GMT Friday 7th

[liork]

Also some Footage or only text? :-)

[bzpop]

I am just wondering, putting this kind of specs into amatures hands (and pro's as well), is it going to raise up the bar in fields like indie films, video clips and even youtube short films.

No, putting different specs into the same hands will not change anything, and you hardly will notice any difference in IQ, especially on the web,

if only buying Christopher Doyle camera would make me Christopher Doyle,

that would be nice.

[Nikkor]

It's going to be great but it's still a micro 4/3 chip with shitty Dynamic Range so it's not a cinema camera, but for anything indie, or anything that needs to deliver steady quality content this is sort of a game changer (if black magic cameras wouldn't exist the impact for indie would be much greater)

 

Downsampled 4K simply looks amazing, just look at the nikon v1 videos.

[Brellivids]

If the Gh4 turns out to be good. I'll likely buy it used at 1000 euros. ;)

 

The next standard is 120 fps 4k wanyways. HDMI 2.0 connectors etc. This GH4 is 4K beta stuff. :lol:

[liork]

No, putting different specs into the same hands will not change anything, and you hardly will notice any difference in IQ, especially on the web,

if only buying Christopher Doyle camera would make me Christopher Doyle,

that would be nice.

Yes and no, From technical point of view, for example, if I know that the camera is able to produce 10 bit color and 4:2:2, then I will sit down and learn about it, see the possibilities that it gives me, and eventually get a better results.

Or, If I know that I have a good tool for focusing, like focus peaking, then it will push me to buy more manual good lenses.

[Andrew Reid]

No, putting different specs into the same hands will not change anything, and you hardly will notice any difference in IQ, especially on the web,

if only buying Christopher Doyle camera would make me Christopher Doyle,

that would be nice.

 

Bullshit. I have seen for my own eyes putting more powerful equipment in the hands of aspiring filmmakers does inspire them, does improve their cinematography and does allow them to get noticed. This community wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the gear.

 

You won't know any of my work if it wasn't for this platform, which is based on the gear.

 

Let's knock this content is king nonsense ON THE HEAD permanently from now on. OK?

[KarimNassar]

Check EOSHD 5am GMT Friday 7th

 

yay can't wait! better not disappoint like the gh3

[Nick Hughes]

Bullshit. I have seen for my own eyes putting more powerful equipment in the hands of aspiring filmmakers does inspire them, does improve their cinematography and does allow them to get noticed. This community wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the gear.

 

You won't know any of my work if it wasn't for this platform, which is based on the gear.

 

Let's knock this content is king nonsense ON THE HEAD permanently from now on. OK?

 

This whole discussion reminds me of when I got my first DSLR- an Olympus Evolt (remember that shit?). This was before DSLRs were ubiquitous so my photos looked simply because I was able to achieve a quality that others didn't necesasrily have access to (and none of my friends shot film). Over the next couple years as DSLRs became cheaper and more people started using them, my photos started looking more and more mediocre because everyone had access to great quality. It pushed me to have to work harder and harder to make my images stand out.

 

This is becoming even more true today- as beginner and amatuer filmmakers (including myself) are getting easier access to great quality, I think that we are all being pushed to create higher-quality work (whether it be through better narrative, more stunning visuals, more thoughtful composition, or whatever you think makes a great film). I don't look at the growing masses of people picking up great cameras for cheap with contempt- I look at them as inspiration to create art that will set me apart.

 

I couldn't be more excited for the innovations that are coming to affordable cameras today.

[fuzzynormal]

You won't know any of my work if it wasn't for this platform, which is based on the gear.

 

Let's knock this content is king nonsense ON THE HEAD permanently from now on. OK?

 

Funny.  That argument is the exact reasoning why I tend to believe content is indeed king.  When everyone finally has it within their means to hold the ultimate paint brush in their hands, what are they going to paint with it?

 

Sure they'll be inspired.  I am.  I was.  Like you, I've gone out and made personal films that would never have of existed before without the ease of digital imaging.  That's simply because the industry finally made tools that are cheap enough and high quality enough to be within my reach; wouldn't have done it otherwise.  Would I have shot my last music video if I had to spend $3K just to purchase film stock, get it processed, and then edit it on a Moviola?  Of course not.

 

The floodgates of content are opening because these great cameras and editing gear are getting into the hands of people like you, Andrew Reid.

 

The imaging industry is becoming democratized.  I think it's great.  I also think that since it's becoming so easy to acquire gear that allows one to capture wonderful high-definition motion pictures, what you create with those wonderful high-definition pictures is the only thing that's going to matter.  Is that not a fair analysis?  Am I misinterpreting your sentiment?