I'll borrow from my reply on another thread to the "internet conspiracy theory" that somehow manufacturers go out of their way to release products that are deliberately "inferior" as a part of a marketing scheme...

I know it's popular to say manufacturers "cripple" products to make extra $$, but think about it, there are ALWAYS new features, new improved technology, and other updates/upgrades! Plus added features (particularly hardware type features, vs. "software") cost more in production, and a manufacturer must meet expected price points for projected production quantities...

How many cell phone modules do you think Sony sells in relation to say FX1's (if you took a current model, the ratios would be even more skewed!), or maybe NX30's (which are a derivative of the CX/PJ760, so they could reduce costs by increasing production/quantities)?

Where do you think they put the R&D $$$, and where do you think the "latest" tech ends up? A camera with a 3-5 year or longer life cycle that costs thousands of dollars, so it won't sell large quantities, or be "replaced" quickly like disposable consumer electronics... or something "whiz bang" that will make the consumer itchy to upgrade?? I know that "seems" strange, but it's really not when you think about it. It's basic economics 101.


Do you really think "they" could release a "kitchen sink" model at a reasonable market price point "now", and 3-5 years down the road that same piece of technology would still be "state of the art"?!? Heck, just the introduction of backlit sensors made huge differences in performance, and that was released within a YEAR after being announced as a new patented tech... it appeared in the high end consumer Handycams with the next production cycle...

Technology moves FAST, so it's more likely that the manufacturers are scrambling to stay ahead of their own R&D departments before the engineers obsolete the stuff they are trying to get into production! In consumer lines, they are "lucky" if the product retains more than a passing resemblance to the same design/features after a year on the market! There is little time to scheme about "crippling" products in devious ways, IMO.



As far as why a consumer low res still camera looked "better" than an FX1... there are about 3 years difference between those two, and I'll bet on there being other issues - the FX1 was not THAT bad a camera once you learned how to use it, and like any camera with more "adjustments", more ways to goof it up! And there can be other factors that make an image "look better" on the surface, but when you get down to details, it's not really...


The RX100 as originally released was a great little camera, the M2 got a "R" backlit sensor, and a few other features, and it got "even better" - likely because the RX100 was a "hit", and so got more development attention - the RX10 is another home run... as the AX100 likely will be. And in 3-5 years, they will all likely be outclassed by new "whiz bang" cell phones in at least some respects... That won't make them any less "breakout" cameras that will record a lot of good CONTENT for users.

The GH series represents another "breakout" camera (I've looked at them, and what they can produce image wise, even been tempted a bit). With the GH4, they will break into the new ground of 4K with a camera that extends an existing successful line... IF I were invested in Panasonic accessories and lenses, I'd probably be looking at how to finance the upgrade!


There is no perfect camera, but tech wise, they get better every year, sometimes there's a big jump like the sensor and processor in the RX10, but most of the time it's little tweaks, minor improvements, and so on.

Then again... sometimes you get seismic changes like cell phones with more and more functions that end up replacing other devices! Or DSLR's that shoot pretty good video... or little tablets that do most of what many people "need" a computer for...

Dave ,
of course they do (limit models) . The canon D300 was blocked intentionally because had the same sensor of the 10D. The "case" came out when some hacker unveiled the firmware, finding all the intentional blocks. I saw it and it was "naïve", but they thought that nobody was able to see it. But somebody was and it came out. Im sure that now they pay more attention to the limitations they implement now. They keep things "secret" now. The sensor of the ea50 was kept so "secret" and why? It's not like is some "miracle" camera, it's average, many pocket models shoot better thean the ea50: so why "secret"? Take a wild guess.

The sensor of the ea50 is the same of the VG30 but the VG30 is slightly darker low light . odd, yes?. The sensor of the ea50 again in low light doesn't perform like the Fs series, and it looks (again) to be the same, same codes, only a dramatically different outcome: it's in the software (where else?)

all of that while the cell phones and pocket models put gasoline to their engines and they still keep playing tricks. It's old stuff. I'll say it again : look at the still cameras: they all perform as they should now, and at their best, the difference between models are the features, not some blocks in the software. Which is legit of course, but also disgusting. All this "blocking" activity cost money time and efforts beside finding engineers willing to do it (which is unethical, disgusting and brings no honor: to the engineers and to the corporation.

After the D90 in some desperate move they tried to limit the time for video: for tax purposes but mainly to keep the sales of the camcorders with those miniscule sensors that gave them so much money. Then the GH1/2/3 came out with no time limit. Another laughable move. And I still remember all the end users sprinting in defense of the corporations (absurd, a buyer siding with the sellers for a limited product they got, but it happened) users telling other users that there was no need for more than 3 min. , that the reason was to protect the sensor and other BS like that. A buyer defending the sellers in these cases is like the husband asking to the wife's lover if he enjoyed his wife.

Same thing now: but the message is out, loud and clear.

P.S. about the FX1 you do understand that it couldn't compare to the G9 , same year, not 3 years, same year. If we go back and check the video of the pocket cameras of that time I'm sure that we'd be surprised. Canon G9 when Canon was "proposing" the XL1 to us. I mean.. come on... and it's not like it was something "difficult" for the g9: it was 1024x768 , 30fps I believe. and beautiful footage, like the pocket cameras now, like the GH1 when it started, like the D90 when it was added the live view (meant for stills, studio and macro for product, not for video. That explains, uh? they did it by mistake at Nikon's. once out it was too late. sooooo easy... so why the XL1? You tell me...

Sure there is marketing involved but there are also some real costs that warrant a price change. The obvious are built in XLR, manual buttons etc. If a manufacturer makes 1000s times more of the one without these features then it will be a lot less expensive than the pro model with the extra mechanical functions. The sensor can be the same but the electronics different. AVCHD spec is for playback how the manufacturer encodes is up to them so the different models can have different encode functions which will result in different performance. If I am to believe the numbers my FDR-AX1 has the same sensor as my Cybershot HX30V but I can assure you the performance is very different. Some functions will be "hidden" in firmware but others will be totally different by model. Sony have always done the firmware for marketing just like other manufacturers so for instance there is very little difference between my FDR-AX1 and the PXW-Z100 other than the firmware and the fact that the PXW-Z100 has some more physical interfaces. Clearly Sony chose to differentiate for initiall firmware but I expect this summer with the firmware update the PXW-Z100 will totally embrace the features of the FDR-Ax1 just like the past differences in Sony models. Of note is that these newer lower cost 4K models are all restricted to 30P. Why ? Because for 60P one needs higher data rate and more heat removal involving different memory and a likely bigger body to house a fan or heat sinks. This all costs money for a low run product. This summer the PXW-Z100 will be a much better camera for the extra $1000. Should I have waited ? One could say that but I am 72 so that extra year of playing starts to become significant for my life !!!

As always one has a choice .

Ron Evans

Anyone who's been in product R&D knows that a product feature set is defined and refined using input from engineering, finance and marketing. Product lines are intentionally defined and evolved with parameters set by the same folks. It shows up in a number of ways.

Look at the large sensor market in terms of CODEC. If you want something better than AVCHD under $4k, you have to suffer using a DSLR. Look at Sony's line it terms of builtin ND filters.

Manufacturers control their product lines and nowadays have to trade off the impacts of features across DSLR, 3-chip and large sensor product lines. Feature sets are also tweaked under development where possible as competitors announce products. Ultimately, there is a spreadsheet with voodoo numbers that predict sales based on features, market availability and time in market.

I doubt Canon put a junky VF that doesn't articulate in the C100 because the technology wasn't there. Ditto the LCD everyone complains about. Those smack of cost decisions. It will be interesting to see who is the first to cross the $4K barrier with a large sensor camcorder that has a better CODEC than AVCHD. If ever. That would encroach on the 3-chip product sales which are impacted by power zoom lenses for large sensor products. It get complicated fast and I think each company has their own guidelines they are using to define feature sets.

If my brief research was correct, the Sony FX1 released in 2004, the Canon G9 was 2007 - let's say that's two model years - LOTS of opportunity for improvements in electronics in that time...

It's easy enough to tweak what a camera records to "look better", usually Sonys overexpose, it's easy to adjust to make the image look better... many consumer cams tend to put a bit more contrast and saturation into the "mix" because it "looks better"... and it's quite entirely possible on a camera with more adjustments to end up with an adverse result (plus toss in any goof ups in post processing...). I'm not saying you didn't see what you saw, I'm saying there may have been other things at work...

Sony often uses sensors across models and lines. BUT I've seen the same sensor tweaked differently, with surprisingly different results. Yep, it's the firmware each group adds to the sensor and hardware they are working with. Like sailing teams with identical boats, one wins, others lose... I am aware of one instance where the "new improved" sensor actually resulted in poorer image quality year over year. Sometimes the "magic" doesn't work quite right!

I don't think there's any "mystery", sometimes Sony releases SIMILAR sensors, but with updates or minor changes, likely in the fabs... and they can have variations.

It's been long known that when fabricating electronics, you don't get 100% high spec parts, but you may get some that can perform at lower specs - I'd expect this in sensor production, so perhaps rather than tossing the perfectly functional (at lower spec) "rejects", using them in other products would be good use of resources - not saying this is the reason, but it makes sound business sense.

I've said the RX10 should have had 4K... and I believe it might have been "possible" given the hardware (and the AX100), but because of issues with memory availability and quite possibly stealing the thunder from other cameras being released that COULDN'T do 4K, it was left out - I fully expect it will be a feature in the "RX10M2 or RX20" or whatever.

As Ron notes, there are practical considerations like heat, processing power, etc., as well as feature sets that are designed to meet certain market criteria. Then there's that incredibly stupid 30 minute "EU Tax" thing, and so on... there are a LOT of factors that go into camera design, and production - I'm not buying into the "manufacturers deliberately release substandard products" concept - they are competing with each other, and have to stay relevant in the market, no one does that by selling deliberately inferior product, at least not for very long.


I'll again mention selling an RX100 to a self described Sony "camera expert"... he said the camera was broken... after experimentation I found that if you put a really slow card in it while set to burst and RAW 9(how the "expert" had it set), it appeared to freeze up (AKA "broken") while the camera desperately choked trying to push the bits onto the memory card. NOTHING wrong with the camera, just plain flat out user error!! TOO MANY SETTINGS for a novice (expert?!?) to screw up, or maybe something he read on the internet!

I can't count how may times I've read a "review" and thought to myself "gee, if they knew how to USE THE CAMERA PROPERLY, they'd get better results" (and the "criticisms" would be invalid!). Even in the video I posted, I was thinking, 24-200mm optical seems short against a video camera, but Clear Image zoom gives you 400, and is usable by most accounts, digital (yep heresy!) gives 800 equiv, and so 600 is probably usable in a pinch! And you're still at f /2.8, where that video cam would be ramped up more than a bit.

With tech, it's pretty safe to say that a few years on, we'll look back and say "why didn't they do this THEN?"... and probably be saying "why can't they do THIS... NOW?" Or we can use what's available and enjoy it as it is...

Anyone who's been in product R&D knows that a product feature set is defined and refined using input from engineering, finance and marketing. Product lines are intentionally defined and evolved with parameters set by the same folks. It shows up in a number of ways.

Look at the large sensor market in terms of CODEC. If you want something better than AVCHD under $4k, you have to suffer using a DSLR. Look at Sony's line it terms of builtin ND filters.

Manufacturers control their product lines and nowadays have to trade off the impacts of features across DSLR, 3-chip and large sensor product lines. Feature sets are also tweaked under development where possible as competitors announce products. Ultimately, there is a spreadsheet with voodoo numbers that predict sales based on features, market availability and time in market.

I doubt Canon put a junky VF that doesn't articulate in the C100 because the technology wasn't there. Ditto the LCD everyone complains about. Those smack of cost decisions. It will be interesting to see who is the first to cross the $4K barrier with a large sensor camcorder that has a better CODEC than AVCHD. If ever. That would encroach on the 3-chip product sales which are impacted by power zoom lenses for large sensor products. It get complicated fast and I think each company has their own guidelines they are using to define feature sets.

your examples are all correct, but I said something else. let's see if I can make it easier (English is my third language, I'll do the best I can ... please be patient). Example: take that articulating viewfinder. Ok it doesn't articulate and that would be fine. but if the same viewfinder was born articulating and then made fixed with 3 screws then the story would be different. Features cost money and it's fine if the cost increases. But limiting a product intentionally is disgusting.
why they don't do that with stills anymore? Because the laughs of the users forced them to stop several years ago. But they do it big time with the prosumer video people who apparently are happy with it. judging by the response I see in here LOL

talking 'bout the 5-7K segment of video cameras : let's say that they (all) got caught with the pants down by the mistake the guys with Nikon's made with the D90. And what do they do to fix it? they make the NX3
really?

... take that articulating viewfinder. Ok it doesn't articulate and that would be fine. but if the same viewfinder was born articulating and then made fixed with 3 screws then the story would be different. Features cost money and it's fine if the cost increases. But limiting a product intentionally is disgusting....But they do it big time with the prosumer video people who apparently are happy with it. judging by the response I see in here LOL

Is this the case with the C100 or just a theoretical? I think what consumers call crippling is what those more aware understand is product development and positioning within a product line, company and market segment.

talking 'bout the 5-7K segment of video cameras : let's say that they (all) got caught with the pants down by the mistake the guys with Nikon's made with the D90. And what do they do to fix it? they make the NX3
really?

Can you explain this?

My take on the NX3 compared to the NX5U which is now 4 years old I think. I got mine 4 years this November I think.
Things that are new and were not available 4 years ago.
AVCHD 2.0
New sensors 1920x1080
NFC wireless control and Android App

Things missing from NX3 that are on the NX5U
HD/SDI
Timecode interface
Smooth gain switching
Smooth power zoom ramping
FMU128

It is $1000 less with things missing and 4 years more development.

Clearly positioning relative to the PMW 160 that likely has exactly the same sensors !!! Priced less than the FDR-AX1 or PXW-Z100 which have 4K and this summer will also have AVCHD 2.0 PXW-Z100 also has the wireless APP.

Ron Evans

Is this the case with the C100 or just a theoretical? I think what consumers call crippling is what those more aware understand is product development and positioning within a product line, company and market segment.



Can you explain this?

nah. limiting intentionally a sensor already good is disgusting, unethical, makes me sick in the stomach. Now you were saying about positioning and marketing? what was that? Still disgusting and unethical. You can call it how you like but it's still disgusting.

about the NX3 and a cell phone? do I need to explain? Don't think so.

our friends pro still photographers enjoy the same cameras that amateurs and prosumers use. Same cameras, and within the models the difference is in features, no intentional limitations like I see with the video. With video every inch better get stratospheric prices, and they play with the end images (and use and destination) : low light (crucial and they know it) and definition. But this goldmine is about to end. Either they do what the stills departments do or they are out: people will start using cell phones, pocket and DSLRs or mirrorless like the GH2/3/4 that produce 1,000 times better than the NX3 (the last idiotic mini-sensors of a decade ago).

My take on the NX3 compared to the NX5U which is now 4 years old I think. I got mine 4 years this November I think.
Things that are new and were not available 4 years ago.
AVCHD 2.0
New sensors 1920x1080
NFC wireless control and Android App

Things missing from NX3 that are on the NX5U
HD/SDI
Timecode interface
Smooth gain switching
Smooth power zoom ramping
FMU128

It is $1000 less with things missing and 4 years more development.

Clearly positioning relative to the PMW 160 that likely has exactly the same sensors !!! Priced less than the FDR-AX1 or PXW-Z100 which have 4K and this summer will also have AVCHD 2.0 PXW-Z100 also has the wireless APP.

Ron Evans

the NX3 got the leds. about the pictures? same thing. it takes 2-3 years to finalize a product in Japan. They have stocks to sell. And they are a little behind or don't see what's going on and never left the room for 2 years, or they have stocks to sell (most likely) : bottom line it's the last expensive limited product obsolete and absurd given the standards that every kid post on youtube now. Not even close to that quality. How much that ancient technology goes for?

Quick questions for those more knowledgable than me:

1) What is the max ISO in VIDEO mode on the GH4? I know the GH3 was 6400 but I don't see anything about limits on this one.

2) What is the easiest way to get a slow, steady zoom on a camera like this? Are there certain zoom lenses that are easier than others to do this? Obviously I'm sure practice helps but it's really hard to go from full wide to full telephoto on my 12-35 f/2.8 without it jerking a little bit at some point.

3) With the interface unit, I know you can't output 10 bit 4:2:2 and record in camera at the same time. So using the SDI output (not the HDMI which I know does output 8bit 4:2:2), can you drop it down to say 10 bit 4:2:0 or 8 bit 4:2:2 somehow and then still record internally?

Thanks!

James I'm going to try to address the point #2
there is no lanc with (any) Panasonic. So there is no control of the zoom speed from the remote even if there is the remote option. with a lanc camera you can select the zoom speed from the remote, up to 16 steps plus variable. About the GH series there are only 2 zooms with a motor (14-45 PZ and 45-175). Tried both and the zoom is slow enough in the slowest position. On the 14-140 you can apply the rubber band tricks (somebody on personal view posted it) : you put the rubber band between the zoon ring and the tube of the lens, to add friction): I did try it and it works pretty well with a zoom lever. It's a manual zoom, and that would be the best solution achievable.

I am on the run right now but I'll try to locate the posts and more info later if you are interested.

nah. limiting intentionally a sensor already good is disgusting, unethical, makes me sick in the stomach. Now you were saying about positioning and marketing? what was that? Still disgusting and unethical. You can call it how you like but it's still disgusting.
Wow! You obviously have a very weak stomach &/or don't understand how capitalism works. Canon doesn't owe you anything as they are in business to make money. Using child labour or acting illegally to force competitors out of business is unethical. Putting particular features into a particular model so as to segment the market & maximise profits is just normal business. It's neither unethical nor disgusting.

BTW AFAIK Canon have not limited the sensor in the C100 in any way whether intentionally or not. I would love it if Canon put that sensor in a camera that cost $100 or even $1000 but they didn't so I don't let it worry me as I don't feel Canon have any obligation to fit in with my budget.

Nigel,
you don't understand what I said.what you're saying about capitalism is valid but that's not what I said (not even close). you are talking about adding features which is fine for a price increase, but I am talking about the opposite which is limiting a product blocking features that are already there: and that's completely different. Anyway sit back now, read my post again and then let me know when and if you finally get it. It's all in there. You didn't read it. Don't sprint to reply just for the fun of it, read what I wrote before, no?

^ Speaking of rereading what you wrote, may I suggest YOU reread what you wrote? You have a rather demeaning style of getting your point across.

I first saw your posts over in the AX100 thread and they don't seem much different here. Over in the AX100 thread, you implied prospective purchasers of the AX100 were 'stupid' for buying the camera. Your 'evidence' was very weak and not particularly well thought out.

You seem to be on a generic finger pointing campaign levied against these manufacturers. Look, nobody is forcing you to buy either the GH4 or the AX100. If you feel compelled to make your point to the manufacturers by not buying their equipment, that's fine. But coming to these threads to talk people out of purchasing these fine cameras based on your 'logic' is, frankly, just a bit silly IMO.

In the meantime, may I suggest a roll of Tums to help you with that 'sick to your stomach' feeling? :)

sometimes there is no logic...

Ain't that the truth Mr. Blackhurst. :)

U.S. GH4 price for body only announced as $1699 by texas media systems.

Volcanic eruption in 4K shot with the GH4 !

[NEW] Panasonic LUMIX GH4 "The Land of South Kyushu" in 4K by Takehito Miyatake - YouTube

Here is the link to the release date for the GH4 Body and 4K Video Interface, along with the prices of each and a kit being released later:
Panasonic GH4 Pricing and ETA Update | TMSAV Blog (http://texasmediasystems.com/panasonic-gh4-pricing-and-eta-update/)

limiting intentionally a sensor already good is disgusting, unethical, makes me sick in the stomach.

Actually, this "unethical, disgusting and stomach sickening" practice has been going on for quite some time, and not only in the film industry. I used to work for a film/music company in the '90s, and back then one of our sound-for-picture editors ranged between $5,000 and $50,000 -- for the very same product! This, of course, because we intentionally limited its features. The same goes for the German sports car I own -- it too was limited intentionally so I could get it for less dough. Yeah, how dare those Germans be so disgusting and unethical that they will make such a snazzy car available for us with limited funds?! Makes me sick in the stomach.

-- peer (who wrote this on an intentionally limited laptop, that will cost less and have more features next year)

A hopefully simple question. I have no 4K hardware. If I have a GH4 will I be able to record 4K, use this to produce 1080p footage for my current "hardware", archiving the 4K footage for when I can acquire 4K hardware (TV and projector)?

Perhaps reasonable to assume that 4K TVs and projectors will drop on price as they become more popular. (I remember paying over £2k for a just released Pioneer 1080i telly, similar thing now would cost what, £700?)

I edit in FCPX on a 2014 iMac by the way.


Ron

Hi

Yes you could resize in post.

However given 4K is just 24/25fps, and much more compressed comparatively to HD capture with the same camera, we may be better of in these cases to just capture HD, which should be pretty much visually lossless at 100Mbits/sec long GOP.

Regards

Phil

This is interesting. I have read a little bit about the G4's sensor cropped read out and I'm hoping to get some clarification. Can anybody add what they know to this....

The G4 takes a 1:1, 16x9, 4k crop from the center of it's 16 Mp sensor?

The G4 does not read the "entire" width of the sensor in a 16x9 crop and scale those pixels to 4K. (the way Sony supposedly does with the AX100/RX10)

The G4 does not over sample on read out? It's a 1:1 RGGB Bayer readout? (No over sampling would mean that it scans roughly 2 million red, 2 million blue and 4 million green pixels)

Wouldn't the best procedure be to start with a 20% "over" sample to account for the de Bayer loss and scale that down to 4k? If you start with 4k and de Bayer the RGGB, that would put you 20% "under" 4K resolution with finished.

Just some thoughts but it "seems" that Sony as already accounted for this with their full (over sampled) 16x9 crop / readout and Bionz X processor. I was just wondering how the GH4 does it.

CT

Here's one I hadn't seen:

Panasonic GH4 4K 4096x2160 24p Test. - YouTube

Not sure if this has been mentioned here already but on vimeo, see video below (check out the 4k downloadable file) the creator of the video confirms that the screen info doesn't disappear anymore like on the gh3,

GH4 first 4K shots in Paris (Pre Serial Camera with Beta Firmware) on Vimeo

That is good to hear Noah. Where is the notion coming from in the Panasonic forum in the current thread, where it's being stated as fact that the GH4 has the same disappearing info problem? Did someone with a beta unit report that it had not been fixed?

If you go directly to the vimeo page of above video you can see where I asked the question in the comment section, there you can see the owner comment about the display.

Newsshooter interview: GH4 feature breakdown with Hotrod Camera's Illya Friedman:

Newsshooter interview: GH4 feature breakdown with Hotrod Camera's Illya Friedman on Vimeo

What's interesting is that the shooter is the same guy that did the cat video with the AX100. I wonder how he gets these cameras so early from different manufacturers. I wonder if he has some kind of relationship with them.

Let me ask the group a question regarding this video. I've looked at many 4K videos from different cameras downscaled to 1080p (my monitor resolution) and quality varies of course from camera to camera. What's impressed me about the AX100 is how sharp many of the videos are even when viewed on a 1920x1080 monitor. They're like nothing I've ever been able to get out of an HD camera in terms of sharpness & resolution.

However with the few GH4 videos I've seen, I honestly don't know that I could tell them apart from 1920X1080 videos in terms of sharpness & detail. Now granted, that may change radically when viewed on a 4K monitor, but in terms of the viewing experience when watching on an HD monitor, I'm not seeing what I've seen from a few other cameras when the 4K is downscaled to 1920X1080.

So is it just me?

No it's not just you. But then in my opinion it's not just the GH4 either. I don't know what it is with a lot of HD clips on Youtube or Vimeo but yeah they don't look sharp at all. But I know my GH3 looks very sharp unconverted with its 1080 on my 27" Apple monitor to 2560x1440. So I make the assumption it is something else in each "soft" looking clip's display on Vimeo or wherever else that is the problem and not the cameras.

Panasonic GH4 Hands-On Field Test :

Panasonic GH4 Hands-On Field Test - YouTube

wow cool review, I'm glad I held out for this over the GH3, can't believe though about the need for external power on the 'brick', and also they didn't incorporate the internal image stabilization which they have on the GX7.
I guess there's only so much you can fit into a small body, so something has to go! All the 1080p options are of the most interest, 4k is nice but neither here nor there if you have to drape around with external SDI recorders, conversely I guess if you have a good shoulder mount rig then all these things are the norm anyway.

Here is an Interview with Zacuto and Panasonic's Matt Frazer
First Look at the Panasonic Lumix GH4 with Zacuto on Vimeo

Not sure if this has been mentioned here already but on vimeo, see video below (check out the 4k downloadable file) the creator of the video confirms that the screen info doesn't disappear anymore like on the gh3,

GH4 first 4K shots in Paris (Pre Serial Camera with Beta Firmware) on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/89232617)

Downloaded the source file, but it was choppy playback on my edit system (Intel i5, Vegas pro)
I have tried other 4K source files and they played smooth , is it different codecs or what ?
Footage looked soft...

also they didn't incorporate the internal image stabilization which they have on the GX7.
The gx7 has only inbuilt stabilization in stills mode, not video, so that's useless for us videoshooters, the GH4 is definitely a step up from the gh3 but I"m actually not that overly excited, not for a camera that's almost twice the price of a gh3. It is still very cheap for a 4k capable camera but to me the main revolutionary feature is 4k, if you need it. All the rest is just a evolution of what was already good and made better. There are 2 things that would have made this a killer camera which are both missing 1. a build in nd filter and 2. inbuild camera stabilization, like the Olympus OMD series has, but I guess there is some kind of understanding between Panasonic and Olympus not to step on eachother turf that will make this addition impossible.

The brick will be only useful in studio environments and a 4:2:2 capable external recorder and battery solution will add a lot more in cost then what the body only will set you back + that won't be a portable solution anymore, the guys from Zacuto will probably have a blast modding this camera so at the end you"ll end up with a 10k camera all included, if you love zacuto anyway :)

What I"m most interested in is how clean it shoots at very high iso's compared to the gh3 because that has not been shown yet, if it could do a very clean 6400 iso that would be a big plus if you'd go for the body only, the copping ability when editing 4k in a 1080p project is this as well but looking at the camerastore review where they show this I get the impression you loose out on sharpness, same for the 96fps sample they showed, something did not look right there, might be the youtube compression so not sure about that.

Also the dynamic range in that first shot where he is standing in the water with the snow on the left shows a lot of blown highlights, this is ofcourse a high contrast scene most camera's will struggle with but it looks to me this has not improved over the gh3, but nevertheless is still good.

It also looks like the inbuild audio is still of the same crap level as the gh3 as there is no mention of improvement on this meaning you still need to add on an external mike.

Maybe I did not understand this right but what does he mean with "the interface disappears immediately"? : (can be found back at 12:22 on the camerastore video)

I have tried other 4K source files and they played smooth , is it different codecs or what ?

On my edius 7 it looked like it was playing in realtime but I could hear the audio stuttering so it wasn't.

Noa, I noticed the same thing when I dropped the Paris video in to Edius 7. But when I looked closer, the audio stuttering was also accompanied by a more subtle stuttering in the video. It does seem to be taxing the computer.

Downloaded the source file, but it was choppy playback on my edit system (Intel i5, Vegas pro)
I have tried other 4K source files and they played smooth , is it different codecs or what ?
Footage looked soft...

After some reading i suspect different compression is the cause , All-I vs IPB.
All-I is less compressed and needs less processor power for smooth playback i have read.
Can anyone confirm this ?

What's interesting about the Zacuto video is that between roughly 9:50 and 10:00 he claims the camera can output 4K though the mini-hdmi port on the camera. I hadn't hear this before now.

Now they still to develop a recorder that can deal with that, but yeah, if that will be the case you could bypass that brick and go straight to a external recorder.

i'm actually more excited about this zacuto zoom control handle mentioned in the video than anything else..

I would expect a price on that that would surpass the gh4 body price.

wow, really? i was hoping for something in the neighborhood of 300 USD..

Well, i m Just guessing, bit if you know zacuto you know it won't be cheap

Hi

After some reading i suspect different compression is the cause , All-I vs IPB.
All-I is less compressed and needs less processor power for smooth playback i have read.
Can anyone confirm this ?

Yes All Intra is essentially a series of stand alone jpeg images, and each frame is independent and so much easier for editing.

The problem is All Intra is much less efficient when compressing. For example if the GH4 was all Intra frames at 100Mbits/sec at 24fps in 4K, that means each frame has to be compressed to around 500KBytes. Take a photograph that is around 4K resolution and compress it down to a Jpeg at 500KBytes, it is going to lose a lot of detail! So you need much higher data-rates for all Intra frames. The GH4 will compress at 200Mbits/sec for 60fps HD in all Intra, so each frame has to be compressed to around 410KBytes, but of course for an image of 1920x1080 pixels, that isn't too bad. Each frame is also very consistent in quality with all Intra.

What these cameras are recording though is long GOP in 4K to achieve better compression, so essentially you start with one Intra frame with a much healthier file size and image quality, and each frame after is described based on the differences from that first frame, in other words, a description of what has changed only, this tends to work well as each frame is often not that different from the one before. It can be like Chinese whispers though, so by the time 24 frames have gone past, frame 24 may not look that good and quality can be inconsistent between frames. Fast action is very challenging and quality can quickly take a dive.

For even better compression efficiency, the encoder can not only describe the differences from the past frame, but from a future frame as well. This makes editing quite a challenge for an editor as when we select a frame, it will need to read back and forward in time to collect up all the data to recreate the single frame we've selected.

The other issue is hardware acceleration, this may be available from the graphics card/driver for HD resolutions, but not supported for 4K resolutions.

Regards

Phil

Hi

Downloaded the source file, but it was choppy playback on my edit system (Intel i5, Vegas pro)
I have tried other 4K source files and they played smooth , is it different codecs or what ?
Footage looked soft...

I think it is how it has been encoded, also it is 25fps so depending on your project settings Vegas may be frame doubling to 50fps which will be stressing it some more. It plays well though in VLC.

Unfortunately I find the clip lacks detail, looks good downscaled to 1080P (as all 4K does) but at 4K it lacks any real detail, however this isn't a file directly from the camera, and is only encoded at 47Mbits/sec average bit rate, so here is hoping the original footage has a lot more detail befitting of its 4K status.

Regards

Phil

Hi



Yes All Intra is essentially a series of stand alone jpeg images, and each frame is independent and so much easier for editing.

The problem is All Intra is much less efficient when compressing. For example if the GH4 was all Intra frames at 100Mbits/sec at 24fps in 4K, that means each frame has to be compressed to around 500KBytes. Take a photograph that is around 4K resolution and compress it down to a Jpeg at 500KBytes, it is going to lose a lot of detail! So you need much higher data-rates for all Intra frames. The GH4 will compress at 200Mbits/sec for 60fps HD in all Intra, so each frame has to be compressed to around 410KBytes, but of course for an image of 1920x1080 pixels, that isn't too bad. Each frame is also very consistent in quality with all Intra.

What these cameras are recording though is long GOP in 4K to achieve better compression, so essentially you start with one Intra frame with a much healthier file size and image quality, and each frame after is described based on the differences from that first frame, in other words, a description of what has changed only, this tends to work well as each frame is often not that different from the one before. It can be like Chinese whispers though, so by the time 24 frames have gone past, frame 24 may not look that good and quality can be inconsistent between frames. Fast action is very challenging and quality can quickly take a dive.

For even better compression efficiency, the encoder can not only describe the differences from the past frame, but from a future frame as well. This makes editing quite a challenge for an editor as when we select a frame, it will need to read back and forward in time to collect up all the data to recreate the single frame we've selected.

The other issue is hardware acceleration, this may be available from the graphics card/driver for HD resolutions, but not supported for 4K resolutions.

Regards

Phil

Thank's for clarifying !

Yes, that isn't a native file and I heard he shot it at f/16! You're not going to get the best 4K quality possible with that setting. Perhaps he should have increased the shutter a little bit more and it would have looked better. One thing for sure is that he didn't use an ND filter which would have allowed you to use the best Shutter and Aperture setting.