GH4 in the Field: Cambridge, UK in 4K

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by David Dixon

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.

[Ron Fabienke]

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?

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

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.

[Noa Put]

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.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Ron Fabienke

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.

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

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...

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Dan Carter

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.

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

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 Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Dan Carter

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.

[Peter A. Smith]

Originally Posted by Dan Carter

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.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

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

[Noa Put]

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.