Panasonic GH4 Video: Cambridge, UK in 4K on Vimeo

Lenses: Lumix 12-35mm f2.8, Lumix 45-175mm zoom. ND filters.

Edited to 4K in Sony Vegas Pro 13. 4K video available for download.

Looks very good Mark and a very sharp 1080p output, I do however notice something that has been discussed before which is these small micro jitters in the image when shooting handheld with stabilized panasonic lenses, is it something that is worse when you shoot in 4K?
Do you have a gh3 to compare? I actually have not noticed this on my gh3 but I only have a 12-35mm to compare, it looks like the same issue I have with my sony rx10.

I think 4K does make jitters worse. The jitters, however, look worse if you look at the streamed version compared with the original 4K version (which can be downloaded). I am not sure why that is.

1080p only though, a major limitation of Vimeo,


Ron

1080p only though, a major limitation of Vimeo,


Ron

If you are really going to assess video quality, you do not want to stream even at 4K (given the high compression used for streaming). An advantage of Vimeo is that you can *for free* download the original 4K file and see it in all its glory (or not). I pay for this feature. Playing a 4K file is a lot easier than streaming one, given available bandwidth.

And viewing 4K video at 1080 clearly shows its advantage over native 1080 video (in resolution and color), because downrezzed 4K has higher resolution (it's actually 1080) than native 1080 video from almost all cameras (that are not really 1080).

1080p only though, a major limitation of Vimeo

Almost no-one has a 4k tv or pc screen today, not counting a few enthusiasts, furthermore looking at 4K on the internet is a low bitrate file anyway. I don't see it as a major limitation at this moment, Vimeo will probably implement 4k streaming this or next year, if I want to view 4K I want to see the native file at it's highest bitrate on a 4K tv, not a low bitrate one on the internet and on my 1080p screen. And even if I try to view 4K on youtube my internetconnection chokes on it and I have a "normal speed" internetconnection like most have in my country, I think it will take quite some time before all providers are up to speed, even today I still need to pay extra just for a few HD channels and just a few are included in my tv package, since HD is still not a common way of delivering content I don't see 4K making it into households much faster.

I already find downsized 4k to 1080p from vimeo more then sharp enough on my pc screen.

This iMac 27inch plays "2.5K" which quite a bit different to 1080p even if not full 4K.


Ron

Nice footage, Mark. My Panasonic 45-175 seems particularly prone to the jitters. If you hold the lens really still, it seems that the OIS actually stops working for a few seconds.

How do you like the GH4 compared with the AX100?

That "jittering" worries me a bit, might be a bug that can be sorted out with a firmware update but it doesn't seem normal to me that the image shakes in this way, just check out following link: (vimeo.com/96854363) where you see the same issue even on a tripod, to me it looks like there is a problem with stabilised panasonic lenses and how the body communicates with it.

Nice footage, Mark. My Panasonic 45-175 seems particularly prone to the jitters. If you hold the lens really still, it seems that the OIS actually stops working for a few seconds.

How do you like the GH4 compared with the AX100?

Yes, the 45-175 does not do well at telephoto lengths in terms of stability. I am still deciding on the relative merits of the two, shooting this as an aid (with the better 12-35mm f2.8):

Panasonic GH4 and Sony FDR AX100 Comparison in 4K: Bright, Contrasty Light, Locked Down on Vimeo

GH4 clips first in each scene. There is still some GH4 jitter, but the OIS was on and the tripod was very light and easily picking up vibrations.

Yes, the 45-175 does not do well at telephoto lengths in terms of stability. I am still deciding on the relative merits of the two, shooting this as an aid (with the better 12-35mm f2.8):

Panasonic GH4 and Sony FDR AX100 Comparison in 4K: Bright, Contrasty Light, Locked Down on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/96854363)

GH4 clips first in each scene. There is still some GH4 jitter, but the OIS was on and the tripod was very light and easily picking up vibrations.

Many thanks for the comparison Mark. I'm trying to like the GH4 image, but it is too soft for my taste. IMO: the AX100 has the better image, but am disappointed it doesn't have the RX series, or any, Creative Style adjustments.

Wow. How do you come up with "soft" in describing the 1080P footage in the 10 minutes of that Cambridge clip? To each his own, but my impression is the exact opposite and it is being up converted to the 2560 x 1440 of my 27" Apple monitor I'm sitting 18" from. A whole lot sharper than most demo clips you see, again….just IMO.


Edit. Although, :) I did just go to the Vimeo site to watch in the same up converted manner on the Apple display, the Boston Harbor footage from Ken Ross shot with the AX100 in that thread in the Digital Video Industry News Forum here. And it looks really good as well, just taking their stream…..not having downloaded either one of them.

I agree with Dan, image is soft in Cambridge video. I'm curious as to why that is.

Interesting - I found the GH4 footage fantastic and sharp in the Cambridge video, but oddly not as sharp in the comparison video.

Was the GH4 footage shot with CineD and graded, or shot in CineV? In general, I find the Sony footage stunning and in-your-face, the GH4 more subtle and cinematic. And the bokeh is more attractive on the GH4.

From what I've read, both are pretty good but not fantastic in low light. Autofocus is a definite need for me, but the "Camera Store" footage has me concerned about that on the GH4. On the other hand, the 96 fps @ 1080 is a strong draw for me with the GH4.

Do both cameras do 720p120fps???

Oh, and was the sound in the Cambridge video the basic built-in GH4 sound or something like a Rode videomic on-camera? I hope it was the internal, because that was definitely decent enough for casual/family things.

Thanks for any info...

I too wonder how the internal mike has improved on quality on the gh4, the internal mike on the gh3 is crap, you need to use a ext mike for decent sound.

Interesting - I found the GH4 footage fantastic and sharp in the Cambridge video, but oddly not as sharp in the comparison video.

Was the GH4 footage shot with CineD and graded, or shot in CineV? In general, I find the Sony footage stunning and in-your-face, the GH4 more subtle and cinematic. And the bokeh is more attractive on the GH4.

From what I've read, both are pretty good but not fantastic in low light. Autofocus is a definite need for me, but the "Camera Store" footage has me concerned about that on the GH4. On the other hand, the 96 fps @ 1080 is a strong draw for me with the GH4.

Do both cameras do 720p120fps???

Oh, and was the sound in the Cambridge video the basic built-in GH4 sound or something like a Rode videomic on-camera? I hope it was the internal, because that was definitely decent enough for casual/family things.

Thanks for any info...

Both GH4 videos were shot in Standard mode with no post-processing of color etc. Both videos were made using Sony Vegas Pro 13, XAVC S at 120 Mbps. There should be no difference in sharpness across the videos.

And, viewed on either a 1080 monitor or a 4K monitor the GH4 is not soft (this is a response to another post). If one is going to comment on resolution, it would be helpful to indicate how one viewed the video: streamed at 1080? original 4K downloaded? what software player? what resolution screen? This is not to argue about whether the AX100 or GH4 is "sharper", but seeing the the 4K GH4 video as "soft" is very curious, and my bet is viewing issues are involved. It is a question of detail anyway, not sharpness. If you put your eyes right up to the screen you see the detail from the GH4 4K-origin video you do not with 1080-origin video from any camera even if viewed at 1080.

Audio is from the built-in mics. Not too bad.

Thanks for chiming in Mark with all that information. I love the scenes and footage you shot in the Cambridge clip.

Do you agree with most reviews that final, best looking 1080P will be had from shooting first internally at 100mbs (at least) 4K and down converting…… vs ……shooting in 100mbs 1080P for the acquisition footage? 24 or 30 fps would be the same result, correct?

seeing the the 4K GH4 video as "soft" is very curious, and my bet is viewing issues are involved. It is a question of detail anyway, not sharpness. If you put your eyes right up to the screen you see the detail from the GH4 4K-origin video you do not with 1080-origin video from any camera even if viewed at 1080.

Not sure this is an explanation clients would buy. Maybe after the GH4 honeymoon period is over we'll get to the real issue.

Not sure this is an explanation clients would buy

Which clients? multi-million dollar corporates that want you to shoot their next nike commercial or a wedding client, I don't get it really what all that fuzz is about those minor sharpness differences, if you have clients that would notice you are probably not shooting with a gh4 or ax100, you are using a red camera instead. The gh4 produces sharper 1080p video then the gh3 can and when I view the video you can download it almost looks like looking through a window and that's just on my 1080p screen. People should stop looking at a video with their face glued to the screen, the 4k camera's that are out right now all produce very nice looking and sharp images but so does my gh3 on my big screen, I won't be losing any client over perceived resolution, that's for sure.

Thanks for chiming in Mark with all that information. I love the scenes and footage you shot in the Cambridge clip.

Do you agree with most reviews that final, best looking 1080P will be had from shooting first internally at 100mbs (at least) 4K and down converting…… vs ……shooting in 100mbs 1080P for the acquisition footage? 24 or 30 fps would be the same result, correct?

Thank you. On shooting 4K or 1080. It's not opinion: 4K in-camera downrezzed properly to 1080 in an editor produces higher resolution and better color sampling (4:4:4) than 1080 video from any camera producing 4:2:0 so-called 1080 video. This is because essentially no camera shooting 1080 actually produces 1080 resolution. This has been demonstrated with both resolution charts and seen in actual video comparisons. Same frame rate of course.

It is why I say that anyone (client or so-called expert) who says that the 4K video from the GH4 viewed at 1080 or 4K is "soft" is not credible.

It is why I say that anyone (client or so-called expert) who says that the 4K video from the GH4 viewed at 1080 or 4K is "soft" is not credible.

So, let me see if I understand this. Those who do not care for the GH4 image because it looks soft, out of focus, or maybe just poorly shot are "not credible"? How convenient.

Speaking of credibility, the best GH4 4K to SD is 4.2.0, to external 4.2.2, how do you arrive at 4.4.4? And the only true 1080 is 4K viewed or downrezzed to 1080? Hogwash...

So, let me see if I understand this. Those who do not care for the GH4 image because it looks soft, out of focus, or maybe just poorly shot are "not credible"? How convenient.

Speaking of credibility, the only true 1080 is 4K viewed or down-converted to 1080? Hogwash...

I'm sorry. I am not trying to pick a fight, but it is well-known that the actual resolution of almost 1080 cameras or cameras shooting 1080 is well below 1080 (leave aside RAW video) and most have bad artifacts as well. There are some very expensive cameras that come close (Canon C100, C300, RED? Alexa?). The Panasonic TM900 comes close. The Sony RX10 comes close. But they do not do it. You start with 3-4X 1080 resolution and you downrez to 1080 and you get exactly 1080, with no moire or aliasing. This is not opinion, it has been shown for both the GH4 and the AX100.

There are plenty of reviews using resolution charts showing this. If you want to resurrect your credibility, show us results from a 1080 camera resolution chart indicating full 1080 resolution. I do not get what you are trying to defend. I am happy to correct anything I have said if you have some credible evidence - I am not trying to sell anything. This is what I have seen and learned. So, enlighten us, and leave out the adjectives.

Btw, if you think a video is poorly shot or out of focus, that's fine. But soft is another matter.

I'm sorry. I am not trying to pick a fight, but it is well-known that the actual resolution of almost 1080 cameras or cameras shooting 1080 is well below 1080 (leave aside RAW video) and most have bad artifacts as well. There are some very expensive cameras that come close (Canon C100, C300, RED? Alexa?). The Panasonic TM900 comes close. The Sony RX10 comes close. But they do not do it. You start with 3-4X 1080 resolution and you downrez to 1080 and you get exactly 1080, with no moire or aliasing. This is not opinion, it has been shown for both the GH4 and the AX100.

There are plenty of reviews using resolution charts showing this. If you want to resurrect your credibility, show us results from a 1080 camera resolution chart indicating full 1080 resolution. I do not get what you are trying to defend. I am happy to correct anything I have said if you have some credible evidence - I am not trying to sell anything. This is what I have seen and learned. So, enlighten us, and leave out the adjectives.

Btw, if you think a video is poorly shot or out of focus, that's fine. But soft is another matter.

Mark, I'm going to agree to disagree here, and leave you to your own opinions.

My credibility can be judged by the quality of my works, though they most likely will not include the GH4.

Mark, I'm going to agree to disagree here, and leave you to your own opinions.

My credibility can be judged by the quality of my works, though they most likely will not include the GH4.

Dan, I like your video work. But, it has nothing to do with this issue, which is not a matter of opinion, or artistic values or video skill.

It is a fact that the downrezzed 4k video from the AX100 and the GH4 produce higher resolution 1080 files than any of the cameras you own. Now, just because you have forced me to harp on this resolution issue, I want to say that resolution is not the only or even the most important attribute of video. So, you may produce better video than anyone owning a GH4 because of your skill and artistic sensibilities, but those videos you make will be - softer. And it is perfectly fine to say, so what. But not to deny the fact or make the unsupportable claim it is just opinion.

And the only true 1080 is 4K viewed or downrezzed to 1080? Hogwash...

I suggest to look at Adam Wilt's GH4 and BMCC reviews on this very site to get the definitive answer to this matter.

Why Does 4K Look Better on 1080p Monitors - YouTube

I still don't understand what clients you would have to convince your 4K camera is sharp enough for their purpose, will those clients shoot with their own 4K camera next to yours so they have a reference before they tell you your 4K camera is not sharp enough? :)

We know that canon 5d's are not known for sharp images, unless you shoot with a raw hack but anyone doing paid work and who rely on a proven workflow are most likely not to shoot with a hack which may be unreliable. There are enough 5D shooter out there that charge a lot more then what I charge for my gh3 or rx10 videos, eventhough my camera's produce more resolution those same 5d shooters still will be able to charge more even if I'd shoot with a gh4 or ax100, resolution alone doesn't set the price for your film, unless you have a client that has very specific needs and then I might be thinking of high end clients but I"m sure they don't want you to show up with a handicam.

I"m sure Dan if I would have a client like you I would have a issue and a discussion at delivery because you probably would take out your own videos to compare :), only in that case you are not looking at the content or how the film was edited, you are purely looking at resolution or sharpness and is that really the definition of a good film? About how sharp it looks? I know my clients as I have to deal with them every week and I know they will not look in the same way to a film like you would, if that would be the case I would find out quick enough during our first meet and I very politely would suggest them to look further as I don't want clients that value pixels over content.