I'm hoping for clarification. For years I had used the Panasonic AG-HPX250 and AG-HPX370 P2 acquisition cameras in AVC Intra 100 Mb/s which is a true progressive, 10 bit, 422, 1080p 24p capture in an MXF wrapper calling it "mastering video quality." I've since switched to the Panasonic Lumix GH5 which shoots 10 bit, 422 1080p 24p ALL-I at 200 Mb/s internally. Both are H.264 codecs which are not really for color grading so I'm confused. And, is the video coming out of the GH5 better than the video coming out of the 250 and 370 even though nobody mentions the GH5 having "mastering video quality?"

I can't answer your questions about those cameras, but I can tell you that you are probably concerned about nothing. Whoever told you "Both are H.264 codecs which are not really for color grading" is wrong.

H.264 is just a container and doesn't tell you anything about the gradability of the footage. This is what matters: 422 1080p 24p ALL-I at 200 Mb/s

Assuming the footage is also 10-bit (422 would imply it probably is) then there is no reason it won't hold up to grading.
All other things being equal, 200Mbs is better than 100Mbps, but 100 is still perfectly acceptable for 1080p.

I'm grateful for your reply. More than one article indicated that AVC Intra and h.264 are the same thing, the compression scheme, and the wrapper, or container, is usually .mov or mp4. So I'm confused even more. Not to be obstreperous, I can show you the articles that say h.264 and AVC Intra are one and the same being the codec (as opposed to, say, the Apple ProRes codec in the .mov Quicktime wrapper) and .mov and mp4 being the wrapper or container choices for h.264. However, you did confirm what I assumed had been correct, that 10 bit, 422 ALL-I at 200 and even 400 Mb/s (in UHD) are strong codecs. Hoping for some more clarification. Thank you.

From the Panasonic brochure:

AVC / H.264 is a new generation state-of-the art codec family with both Intra and Inter frame compression implementation
options (proles). Inter-frame compression, (long GOP) is usually used for content delivery and packaged media; in this
mode its efciency is unequaled. However, any image manipulation or processing will severely degrade the image quality
in long GOP compression schemes.
By contrast, Intra frame compression processes the entire image within the boundaries of each video eld or frame.
There is zero interaction between adjacent frames, so its image quality stands up well to motion and editing. Intra-frame
compression it is used most often for broadcast and production applications where such image manipulation is normal.
AVC-Intra takes this process to new heights when it combines the advantages of the new H.264 / AVC software encoding
tools to increase the coding efciency, but does so without the editing / generational quality limitations associated with
long GOP coding schemes.

AVC-Intra is an intra-frame, H.264 compliant compression codec expressly
designed for the professional HD production

5. Is H.264 the same as MP4?
As mentioned above, H.264 is a video coding standard that is used to define the
coding scheme of a video. And MP4 usually refers to a video format or format
container. MP4 and most other video formats (MOV, AVCHD, MKV, AVI, FLV, etc.)
support H.264 video codec

AVC/H.264 is a codec family with both intraframe and interframe
compression implementation pro�les. Interframe compression (long GOP)
is typically used for content delivery and packaged media; in this mode, its
e�ciency is unequaled. However, any image manipulation or processing
will severely degrade the image quality in long-GOP compression schemes.
By contrast, intraframe compression processes the entire image within the
boundaries of each video �eld or frame. There is zero interaction between
adjacent frames, so its image quality stands up well to motion and editing.
Intraframe compression is used most often for broadcast and production
applications where such image manipulation is normal. AVC-Intra takes this
process to new levels when it combines the advantages of H.264/AVC
software encoding tools to increase the coding e�ciency, doing so without
the editing/generational quality limitations associated with long-GOP
coding schemes

In this last paragraph, am I to assume the line "image stands up well to motion and editing" to also mean color grading and not just playback in a non-long GOP codec?

In the end, you are assuring me that shooting UHD in 422 10 bit ALL- I at 400 megabits per second (50 megabytes per second) will hold up well with color grading and image manipulation?

As you have access to media from both, surely you are the ideal person to comment on the quality? Paper specs and data eveal little to me about image quality. My chosen cameras and the good glass on them make my images very pleasing to me. If I post they are brand X Y and Z I'll be told the format is poor, the sensitivity dreadful and they take rotten video. They don't.

What do you think? Is your GH5 media better looking that the 370? A series of camera I have very nearly bought twice.

Good morning, Mr. Johnson! Hope all is well across the pond! I'm not concerned as much about comparing the two cameras as much as I 'm concerned about choosing GH5 internal recording at h.264 .mov ALL-I 422 10 bit 400 Mb/s vs external Prores on Ninja V recording. The picture quality on the GH5 far exceeds that of the 250 and 370. I'm just concerned with codec usage. Thank you, Sir.

In the end, you are assuring me that shooting UHD in 422 10 bit ALL- I at 400 megabits per second . . .will hold up well with color grading and image manipulation?

Absolutely. No question about it.
All the other questions you raise don't need to be answered because this is ultimately all that matters. Using an external recorder will gain you nothing except hassle and unnecessary complexity. Just select that internal format and move on.
I'm not sure why you're choosing to shoot in HD instead of 4K, but other than that, you are good to go.

Absolutely fabulous news! Thank you. I checked out your website and weigh your advice with great earnest. Actually, all I shoot is UHD, 400 Megabit per second, ALL-I, 422 10 bit at true 24p then deliver at HD with an mp4 or .mov wrapper. Is using the Ninja V a hassle? Sometimes. I use it when I need to shoot long form assignments that exceed my SD cards internally or when I shoot using my shoulder rig (I have my Ninja V permanently affixed to my shoulder rig and ready to connect to my GH5 when I have a lot of handheld long form footage to capture).

I am grateful for your patience. Allow me to run something else by you as well to test my ability to understand what I am reading:

Apple ProRes HQ 422 10 bit 1920 x 1080 at 24p runs at 176 Mb/s (as per the Atomos Ninja V website)
h.264 AVC-Intra HQ 422 10 bit 1920 x 1080 at 24p runs at 200 Mb/s (internal GH5 codec)

We are comparing h.265 at 200 Mb/s vs the great and wonderful Apple ProRes at 176 Mb/s. Does this mean the higher bitrate of Panasonic's internal codec trumps my Atomos recorder's codec? Keeping in mind, of course, comparing h.264 to Apple ProRes? (And I haven't forgotten what you said about what's most important to keep in mind: the 10 bit, 422)

Thank you!

Hugh, I can't answer those questions off the top of my head because am not a codec expert. I only know just barely what I need to know about the codecs on the cameras I actually own. 4:2:2 10-bit is the minimum threshold, and once you get past that it gets tricky to compare Intraframe, Long-GOP, various wrappers, and different bit rates, just by numbers alone. What I do is dial in the very best recording format that the camera I'm using offers, and then I get to work. How that codec compares to some other camera or recorder that I do not own is of no concern of mine, and I am not even curious about it unless I am faced with an actual decision to make regarding which one to use.

I'm sure you can find the answers you seek if you dig deep enough into some Google searches.

Oh yes! I've been searching and the answers sometimes conflict. Thank you. I have no problems using the GH5 internal codecs and the footage is stunning.

Absolutely. No question about it.
All the other questions you raise don't need to be answered because this is ultimately all that matters. Using an external recorder will gain you nothing except hassle and unnecessary complexity. Just select that internal format and move on.
I'm not sure why you're choosing to shoot in HD instead of 4K, but other than that, you are good to go.

I started shooting in C4K and editing in a UHD timeline in Davinci Resolve 19. I have all the resolution and picture quality of C4K and the option to deliver in C4K, UHD and HD. Boy have things evolved since the good old days!