April 12, 2014

Panasonic Shows Off the $1,700 4K GH4 Camera & YAGH Add-On with HD-SDI Outputs & XLR

Panasonic-GH4-4K-Front-No-Lens-616x407There have been lots of new cameras at this year's NAB, but one that a lot of us have been curious about is the next iteration from Panasonic's GH line of mirrorless cameras. With internal 4K recording and an optional interface unit that adds SDI-Out for sending higher bit-rate 4K to an external recorder, the Panasonic GH4 is here. Hit the jump to watch our interview with Panasonic from the floor of NAB 2014:

And some newer videos shot with the camera:

Specs at a glance:

  • 16.05 MP Digital Live MOS Sensor
  • DCI 4K 4096x2160 at 24p
  • UHD 4K 3840x2160 at 30p/24p
  • Full HD up to 60p
  • 3.0" 1,036k-Dot OLED Monitor
  • 2,359K-Dot OLED Live View Finder
  • Support for 59.94p, 23.98p, 50p, & 24p
  • 4K or 1080p 10-Bit 4:2:2 HDMI Output (on both camera and YAGH), 8-bit 4:2:0 internally
  • High-Speed 49-Point Autofocus
  • Magnesium Alloy, Weather-Sealed Body

Let's talk about the GH4 in the comments below.

Links:

...

NFS's coverage of NAB 2014 is brought to you by My RØDE Reel and Limelite. Subscribe to the No Film School YouTube channel for the latest video updates direct from NAB, as well as filmmaker interviews, tutorials, and behind-the-scenes features.

Your Comment

138 Comments

Lots of great information, video samples and news at the User Group, FYI:

http://facebook.com/gh4users
http://twitter.com/gh4users
http://vimeo.com/groups/gh4

April 12, 2014 at 3:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

I really want to love this camera... In fact I want to buy one but for some reason I really hate the footage... I mean, it's sharp, there's no doubt about it, and it makes everything shot on a 5D (in H264) look like shit but it just screams too much VIDEO for my taste... maybe it could benefit from using vintage lenses (like NIKKOR AIS) to take a bit of the edge off or maybe something could be done in post but so far I'm not impressed.

April 12, 2014 at 3:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

+1

April 12, 2014 at 3:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Gordon

I hear you...

April 12, 2014 at 4:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
demetris

Couldn't you run the footage through something like FilmConvert to "take the edge off"? I know it's an extra step in the workflow, and more money upfront, but if you love everything else about the camera, it seems to me a pretty easy option.

Unless there's something about FilmConvert that won't work with GH4 footage.

April 12, 2014 at 4:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Robert

I agree with that. My plan is to use a speedbooster with vintage primes. A lot of this footage was shot with vintage primes and a speedbooster: https://vimeo.com/89851660

April 12, 2014 at 4:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Interesting footage, but I would prefer 12bit color in 1080p over 4k 8bit look.
This camera would be good for docs and interviews but there are plenty of other cameras choices for cinema.

April 12, 2014 at 4:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

me too... for me it's all about color tonality; there's no way you can get true to life colours with a 8bit codec... not even 10! So far the camera that better matches (or even surpasses film in some ways) is, without a doubt, the ALEXA. Of course that's in a different league so for me the best "budget" camera is still the 5Dmkiii shooting 14bit RAW (magic lantern)

April 12, 2014 at 5:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply

The BMDs look filmic, even on 10 bit prores.

April 13, 2014 at 1:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
calmic

Yep. Just hacked my 7D. I'm shooting 1600X900 till I get a fast card. The 14bit color is amazing. The added resolution and dynamic range definitely helps as well.

April 13, 2014 at 5:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

mmm... better but still no cigar! has a very video look; I think this camera will only look good if you record 4K 10bit 4:4:4 (using the atomos shogun)

April 12, 2014 at 5:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

Purchase filters...

April 12, 2014 at 5:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JD HOLLOWAY

They might not even need to do that. They can try in-camera grading.

April 12, 2014 at 10:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Gene

You just want softer lenses so use smaller part of glass of old Ai lenses and you het less resolution and your "filmic" look. Paradigms are shifting so its quite distractiong for lots of people :)

April 12, 2014 at 6:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
kuk

You can't judge how "filmic" this camera is by the tech footage that's been shot with it. As we've seen with lesser cameras, you can make almost anything look "filmic" with the right mix of lenses, lighting, and post-processing.

If you want to get "filmic" right in the camera then the $80,000 ARRI Alexa is probably your best bet. For me I find a lot of Blackmagic footage looks like "Blackmagic" footage, but some people consider this to be "filmic".

April 12, 2014 at 10:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Guy McLoughlin

Everything I've seen shot with the GH4 has the same video look to it. I've watched quite a bit. I know it's somewhat subjective, but I would say that you can get a good sense of the images produced by a camera through viewing test footage. Of course we're going to light with it, play with it in post etc... but, I have been really trying to like this camera as I'm about to purchase a new one. But for me, as soon as I watch just one video of a Blackmagic camera - the image is immediately resonating with me as more like natural film, more organic - whatever you would like to call it. The Gh4 looks like a really sharp DSLR. Just fine for corporate interviews and such. It looks good - but for narrative work, I don't see it as the camera for me.

April 13, 2014 at 2:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

Nobody has shot any kind of cinematic short or feature with the GH4 yet, so it's way too early to be judging this camera.

Looking at what people were able to do with the very limited GH2 camera ( i.e. Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color" feature is one of the best ), I expect to see many Indie features shot with the GH4 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 over the next 12 months.

April 13, 2014 at 7:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Guy McLoughlin

What's really nice is it's $1700.00. Anyone just has to do just a minimal time saving at their job to be able to buy one. If they wanted to buy the Atomos Shogun for $2000.00 that isn't a big task to save for either. You could save up in less than a years time for both. Owning this beautiful camera and not needing to rent anymore---I have to believe there's lots of people making movies now or are dreaming of making movies that are very happy over this camera.

April 13, 2014 at 9:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Gene

I agree that the Gh2 produces a great image. I own one. I've shot with it alot. I'm a fan. Like I said, this is quite a subjective topic, but for me, I am preferring the organic look of the Blackmagics and the digital bolex over what I'm seeing here. I have no doubt people will shoot more "cinematic" footage with the Gh4, but I've gotten pretty used to observing what is shot and being able to tell where you could take the image from there. There's just something about a camera look that never changes - no matter what you do to it. It's sort of like film stocks.

Again, for non-narrative work this camera looks really really nice - especially for the price. For narrative work, I don't see it as something I would go to at this point.

April 14, 2014 at 11:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply

Fully agree with you Fernando. But I still prefer the image from most Blackmagic footage. Not perfect, but still a bit more filmic imo. I want to see a serious cinematic approach before I'll make a purchase.

April 13, 2014 at 5:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Martin

Lens have alot to do with "video'ish" look, panasonic lumix lens have been known in past to sacrafice everything including contrast for sharpness.

Also you have to remeber that these are still 8bit compressed videos, to see the true potential it will need an external recorder to make it really sing for 10 bit color space gamut

in my opinion the video does not look "video'ish"

im more concerned with the 96fps and seeing good footage heard that it may possibly be banding or terrible quaility

April 13, 2014 at 10:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JAYE

Jaye, I would disagree about the lenses. Yes, they all have individual characteristics, but a cheap Panasonic 14-45 doens't make a blackmagic not look like a blackmagic. I own a lot of vintage lenses and while, yes I prefer them to many others, they don't take a camera and transform it altogether.

Also, with respect, the argument that we're only seeing this in compressed 8 bit vimeo - or compressed h.264 - or compressed anything online, and that we need to see it on a 10 bit monitor is one I hear all the time and believe is bogus. 99% of people that view Gh4 footage in the coming years will most likely be watching it on the web. Same goes for blackmagic and many other sub $65,000 camera. Largely, we shoot for a web audience. You can't tell the masses "You should come over to my house and watch it on my 10bit monitor. It really looks great."

I completely respect you enjoying the image. I like it a lot. I just think it looks a lot like the current generation of dslr's, just higher resolution. It's great for some aspects! I'll probably buy one. But, cameras like the blackmagic look very, very different to me.

April 14, 2014 at 12:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply

+1

April 15, 2014 at 8:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
soulofsound

The YAGH unit requires an external batter pack - this is a major negative. Beyond that, the camera looks amazing.

April 12, 2014 at 3:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
John Thomas

You don't need the YAGH to record 4K 10bit 4:2:2. The camera already outputs that signal with audio via the HDMI. Many people believe they oughta have the YAGH, and articles like this one mislead you into thinking that too, I don't know why.
The new Atomos Shogun will allow you to take that 4K signal.

April 12, 2014 at 7:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

Although you don't need the YAGH for 10 bit 4:2:2 recording - I would prefer the more secure SDI output (to say a Samurai Blade) over crappy HDMI.

April 12, 2014 at 7:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
terence

Blade won't do 4K. Shogun will.
.
Anyhow, this is a professionally - meaning that the person who did this is a field professional - grading done on an internally recorded 4:2:0. Not sure if this looks "filmic" but it looks darn good.
http://vimeo.com/91003707

April 12, 2014 at 8:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

Shogun - yes, that's what I meant.

April 12, 2014 at 8:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
terence

With the extensive grading you can do in-camera with the GH4 and in the Shogun it wouldn't surprise me that you could make such great looking video you literally would need the $50,000.00 or more to make video that looks better---and it would only be slightly better---a difference that would have to be carefully pointed out to most people or they would miss it.

The GH4 is $1700..00, the Shogun $1999.00. The there's a lens. Let's say you go for it and pay $1000.00 for a great one. That's $4700.00 to get an image that wasn't even available about 7 years ago, anywhere in the world. And to get that image back then you had to pay maybe $50,000.00. I AM AMAZED AT HOW FAST VIDEO TECH IS ADVANCING!!!

Think I'll spend an hour being happy!! ;-) [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRMOMjCoR58 ]

April 12, 2014 at 9:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

wow the 4k is just incredibly sharp

April 12, 2014 at 3:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Henry

This is just effect of more details, sharpness can be same like on HD.

April 12, 2014 at 6:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
kuk

I am impressed from what I've seen, but the Achilles Heel for GH4 may be same for the Sony A7S - time to talk about rolling shutter, if anyone can speculate further.

April 12, 2014 at 3:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Saied

Tested it at NAB way better then the Sony. Its not that bad at all, I would say around GH3 but a little better.

April 12, 2014 at 4:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

From rumors it looks like the A7s will be priced at over $3000.00. I hope those rumors are dead wrong. With that amazing low light I had a serious eye on the A7s. But The GH4K is $1700.00. No question I would take it instead for my purposes. And the low light of the GH4K is great too.

But for some, money isn't an object---whoever they are.

April 12, 2014 at 4:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

All the honey in the world will make me buy this camera until I see real world shooting conditions.

There is a video showing some real rolling shutter problems. It may be an unfinished product. What do you think guys?

April 12, 2014 at 3:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Edgar

Dynamic Range looks questionable. No rolling shutter tests. Looks very video. No idea yet on how far you can pull in color correction. This 4K thing may be here but on the low cost end its not happening yet. Maybe next year NAB we'll see something. Also Canon has yet to upgrade their cameras and thats got to be coming.

April 12, 2014 at 4:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
saraG

I knew the Voightlander f/0.95 would make this camera look better than with Panasonic lenses. :-)

April 12, 2014 at 4:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

in the paper everything looks great but small sensor size makes me undecided it will ben ot easy to go back from full frame to mft

April 12, 2014 at 4:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Dincer

DXO Mark Test scores for the GH4. Not much different from the GH3. Too bad.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-sensor-review-Heavyweight-contender/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-Versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3-Versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2-Slight-improvement-in-IQ-over-predecessor

April 12, 2014 at 4:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
saraG

If "true filmic" is that you're after, you can scan the final footage onto a 35mm film (and then back to digital, unless you're going to have a film projector showing it somewhere, anywhere). NFS actually did a decent article on it a few weeks ago. The process doesn't seem to be excessively costly but it's probably not what a GH4 user would strive for in general. For a higher quality production, on the other hand, it may indeed be the way to get that look.
.
FWIW, Alexa and film are nice but you do have to have funds for it. Speaking for myself only, the best colors I have seen online are from F65 but that and a decent set of primes will run over $100,000.
.
What can I say, I happen to like deep, saturated colors and this is the tops - Vegas at 1:25 and 2:55
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yhu-UjpVx0 ]
.

April 13, 2014 at 12:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

or maybe we should just let filmic die

April 13, 2014 at 1:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

yeah. because why should we hold onto a superior image? Who needs pleasing high-light roll off, better rendering of motion, superior color, more latitude, and dynamic range?

April 13, 2014 at 9:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Jerome

filmic is superior in all those areas? first I've heard that.

April 14, 2014 at 8:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

filmic has reached epic mythological proportions!!!

April 14, 2014 at 8:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Testing preproduction model with preproduction firmware v0.4 is not much proof of anything. I will wait more, time will tell how good this camere is.

April 13, 2014 at 11:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Kuk

various dynamic range tests - [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOuUG1ggBLY ]

April 12, 2014 at 4:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

To all those saying that the sample footage looks too much like video, that's because almost all of the sample footage has been shot like video. There GH4 has more than adequate specs to deliver a filmic image with proper lenses, lighting, grading, etc. Just as the GH2 and GH3 have been used.

April 12, 2014 at 5:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Joseph Moore

Dude, Driftwood did some of those tests. Filmic is his thing and it didn't come through.

April 12, 2014 at 5:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
saraG

I didn't see that he his goal was to make a "filmic" look in this video. The only thing he says is "untouched", "ungraded". I am certain he could do "filmic". Samples not being "filmic" is comment fodder.

April 12, 2014 at 8:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

what do you mean by "shot like video"? is that even a thing? video is video and film is film and digital cinema is digital cinema... it doesn't depend on lighting or grading! I will stand side by side with the GH4, using the same lens and same lighting conditions but shooting on an Alexa or on a ARRI SR using Kodak 250D and I'll assure you it won't make it look like video without some heavy post work on AE or Flame...

April 12, 2014 at 5:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply

Ok, but do you have $80,000.00 to buy an ARRI??? What's more, the GH2 didn't look that much different than an ARRI in the Zacuto Great Camera Shootout.

This GH4 costs $1700.00. It's a godsend for anyone even mildly interested in making great looking video. Wouldn't it be interesting to actually see GH4 video side by side with ARRI video.........

April 12, 2014 at 8:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

rent a camera. What do you think people did not even 5 years ago? I shoot on the F55 and alexa and the epic and black magic but I don't own any of them...It's how this industry actually works.

April 13, 2014 at 9:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jerome

I think you missed my point.

April 14, 2014 at 10:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Got to test this at NAB just a few days ago, I have to say it was one of the best cameras out there. Its size and power for what you pay is just crazy. I was able to shoot some footage and I love it. I dont believe DXO on this one, sorry. The low light is way better then the GH3 and the stills are also better. The video mode is crazy at 4K and at HD. Both will be used alot. The 96fps is a little soft but it will work just fine once you color and grade it. The DR of the camera I have no clue about because we were in a dark area. This is the camera for those who need it all for cheap. It will be a great B Camera for those who shoot RED or Sony. It will also be a great A camera or crash cam.

April 12, 2014 at 5:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

where is 96fps???

April 12, 2014 at 6:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
kuk

To all those stating that "it looks like video", please put your lack of imagination aside and look at this GH3 footage and tell me if this "looks like video":

http://vimeo.com/82849742

Obviously, there are going to be a handful spiteful critics that will say it does, however, given the lack of creative possibilities that their tiny imaginations cannot seem to grasp, I'm not going to be surprised.

I can show you plenty of RED, even ALEXA, footage that "looks like video". Over-lit, over-sharpened crap with terrible composition and camera movement. There's a ton of it out there. Regardless, with the GH4, especially when 10-bit 4K becomes available via the Atomos Shogun - if you're still producing an image that "looks like video", it's not the GH4's fault...believe me.

April 12, 2014 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Johnny

i'm not saying you can't make it look better... of course you can and the video you posted shot on a GH3 is certainly a good example; what I'm saying is that all the footage so far is overly sharp (it might be that I'm not used to it) and the color science does look a lot like a sony video camera... also that 8bit codec doesn't help because it's impossible to have good color rendition in 8 bit color space.

does this mean that in the hands of an experienced dp it won't work? absolutely not because he will know how to make that camera work for him... the video you posted is a perfect example of that: 8BIT? no problem... let's use a "monotone" palette and it will work for us! (it's gorgeous by the way)

of course that if you record a 10bit 4:4:4 signal it turns the camera into a totally different beast!!

April 12, 2014 at 8:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

You mismatching sharpness vs more resolution of 4K picture like lot of other people. Sharpness is the same like at HD but just more resolution power of 4K cameras create this instant effect like we think we are watching oversharpened footage. I guess you can pretty complain on Batman movie which was partly shot on IMAX cameras and 35mm cameras, very same effect ;) You must get to used to it.

April 13, 2014 at 11:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Kuk

Calm down, it has nothing to do with a lack of creativity. The footage available so far looks very typical dslr video, and that's a fact. Sure there are some workarounds but 4k does not mean it is a filmic image, why do you think most features are shot on a 2k camera? Its all about color science and you just need to glance at the specs to tell this camera is not some huge game changer. Its cheap and it produces a good image for documentary or video work but it falls short in the look expected from a feature film. If you are going for a film look, you'd be better off with a black magic 2.5k camera or a magic lantern hacked 5dmk3. Don't get caught up in the 4k frenzy kid.

April 12, 2014 at 8:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
stephen herron

So are you saying that Panasonic Color Science is off? Or sucks compared to...? Just curious.

April 13, 2014 at 5:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply

The color looks like most other DSLR's out there. I don't make cameras, so I don't know why, but it does.

April 14, 2014 at 4:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

Johnny,

man that was a nice video! I am sure it was the Leica lens that helped make it have that quality. Leica lenses work so nicely with GH's.

April 12, 2014 at 9:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

whatsup wit this "real world shooting
conditions."...was the available footage shot in a glass box...NO!...and whatsup with pple saying they wil wait until they see it in the hands of "normal people" those DPs are normal pple,the same ones who shoot with Alexa and produce beautiful images...or wil you dismiss Alexa's capability until you see it in the hands of "normal people"(that might take you long)...These days sensors are like film you choose whick ever matches the image you are after....Me i like 4k but i dont like overly sharp video thts why i like the image that come out of Red at 4k,from sony not so much but also would never stop me from shooting a music video wit a sony camera over Red...

April 12, 2014 at 7:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply
mathenge

Ya, there's lots of negativity on the internet. Seems like it's a place where unhappy people get the chance to show their unhappiness. Well, maybe it's a chance for them to get some things off their chest and end up happier for it afterward.

April 12, 2014 at 9:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

Competition spurs innovation. The voice of "this isn't perfect" is not our enemy, it's our friend. Don't take it personally.

April 14, 2014 at 4:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Rod

As long as people realize that nothing is "perfect", so you take the Pros with the Cons, and shoot the best work possible with what you have. ( there are a lot of people with unrealistic expectations that need to realize that a $1700 camera will never perform like a $30,000 camera, but that shouldn't stop you from producing significant work with it )

April 14, 2014 at 6:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Guy McLoughlin

Totally agree that the Gh4 will allow people to produce some great work. But, I too see the "cheap video" type of feel within the image. When we purchase a camera, we're purchasing a sort of film stock. The Gh4 will have it's uses, especially for corporate videos and such. But, as for narrative work - I personally don't expect it to be used too much. (I could be wrong of course.) Conversely, I don't see the Blackmagic being used for many corporate interviews. The more organic look isn't needed, and the Gh4 has got a lot of other features that are essential to one-man-band/corporate style work. I'm speaking as one who does quite a bit of both. That's my feel on this camera.

April 14, 2014 at 8:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

The voice of “this isn’t perfect”

The criticisms in this thread do not feel like they were intended to be constructive.

April 14, 2014 at 11:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

In what way?

April 15, 2014 at 2:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

Contact Panasonic with your views on the camera. Anyone that is not willing to do that is not giving constructive criticism. I think most of the commenters criticizing digital have no intention of contacting the camera manufacturers to give suggestions to improve their product. They just want to complain because they think perfection lies in what used to be, in images that can only be found in movies they grew up with. The wheels of time keep on rolling even if those that don't want them won't roll with them.

April 15, 2014 at 5:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Why can't you accept that some people aren't crazy about the image? I don't get it. Please realize that this is all very subjective. You're totally entitled to your opinion, but so are the rest of us. Just like you're allowed to sing the praises of this camera - others are allowed to nit-pick. Personally, I think it's healthy to have these discussions. I like to hear others opinions on things.

Instead of trying to shut people up that disagree with you, you could politely state your points and allow others to do the same.

April 15, 2014 at 10:12AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

But still a small display. I don't understand why they couldn't use the whole backside of the camera as a big screen...

April 13, 2014 at 4:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Thomas

What's with peoples comments...."It doesn't look filmic enough"...."it's too sharp" etc etc. Seriously? Would you buy a camera that wasn't sharp? Maybe you would, I don't know. I think this camera looks amazing. I don't get this whole "it's not filmic enough or it's too sharp" argument. It's a flipping 4K camera, I expect it too be sharp. I would hope it would be. If you don't like it, shoot in 1080p. We all want 4K, we all want the features this camera has, but we poke holes in it.....It's $1,700 for goodness sakes. Like people are saying, want the true "filmic" look, buy you $80,000 camera. You can have it. I just finished a year of shoot/editing on a Sony NEX-7. It only shoots 28Mbps Bit-rate MAX. But I made do and I was happy with what I could do with that little camera. Sure, it's not a 5DMKIII, but it also didn't weigh a tonne and was easy to get around with it. So stop you whinging, if you don't like this camera, don't buy it. I for one am excited to work with this camera and get footage that I can actually colour grade properly for once.

April 13, 2014 at 8:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jared

Competition spurs innovation. The voice of “this isn’t perfect” is not our enemy, it’s our friend. Don’t take it personally.

April 14, 2014 at 4:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

Well recorded (good color science, fat codec) HD still looks better than 4K. I'm all for having more information but, the way digital sensors, currently, record images. Video (the video look) results in large part to 'high-frequency detail' and 4K, with even more capability of recording fine detail, exacerbates further, 'high-frequency detail' rendering. IMO, definitely something to be avoided. Film, in it's capability of recording lots of detail, does so in a way that doesn't include high-frequency detail which, results in a smooth image. I see it often in stills I shoot with my 5D2... excessive contrast in things like hair on faces and arms, skin pores, essentially, any small detail gets a dose of contrast which, produces the effect of over-sharpening. It's something I spend a great deal of time trying to fix in post. It's why most video looks best (more filmic) when shot with slightly soft lenses with which, this digital, over-sharpened high-frequency effect is minimized. OLPF's go a long way in helping to mitigate this, as well. The 4K video I've see on screens in the 80 inch range look highly detailed but, overly sharp and, sadly, video-like and non-filmic. I think this may be what people mean when they say it's too sharp and not filmic enough.

April 13, 2014 at 10:52AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Or more like, "filmic" ain't "digital" enough. Now, it remains to be seen whether "filmic" is more pleasing to an eye because of these roll-offs or simply because folks are used to seeing "filmic" over the last 100 years and digital just looks different. Technically speaking, any digital camera with a sensor+software capability to achieve the same dynamic range as film can be programmed to render "filmic" images post read-out or, as in the case with F65, output 16-bit Raw with the subsequent adjustment of the curves, colors, etc. in post. That new Sony A7s sensor connected to a power processor and well written software should deliver some "filmic" images ... but it won't be for $1,700. Now, in an AJA Cion body, with easier hear dissipation, it just might work.
.
PS. As to 'too much sharpness" - digital photography isn't suffering from it. High end dMF cameras like Phase One and Mamiya are much sharper - with as many as 80 MP - than your consumer grade product. Yet, or perhaps precisely because of it, they can create wonderful and very sharp images ... at least, before they take these images through Photoshop.

April 13, 2014 at 3:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

I don't think the general population is clamoring for more "filmic" looking movies, or tv shows and commercials. They are not standing in long lines for the filmic looking indie movies. They are standing in long lines for action 3-D.

Sure there's always going to be niche video images, filmic, monochrome, etc.---but they're just that, niche. This filmic argument only has this kind of life on the internet where people don't have to stop and think how they look to other people as they go on and on about "filmic". They're "alone" in front of their computers, unseen, unidentifiable to those they are arguing with, unknown if they even met them face to face.

April 13, 2014 at 4:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Don't know if the general population is clamoring for a more filmic look but, many filmmakers with digital cameras are. And for good reason. Film looks better. The Alexa is case in point as it is the choice where serious cinematography is concerned. Sorry Gene, your comment that the filmic argument lies with faceless internet trolls doesn't really hold up. Send it to Roger Deakins and see what he has to say about it. Or, do you feel he is alone, in front of his computer, unseen and unidentifiable?

April 14, 2014 at 11:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Youre missing my point. And I don't want to spend time replying to you.

April 14, 2014 at 8:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

It looks good enough to me, for the money, that I've pre-ordered one. Speedbooster is next!

April 13, 2014 at 11:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

99,999% people dont know what is filmic look a how to achieve it. They only blame camera of creating non filmic look because they know that is the digital camery. Even film veteran Steven Spielberg on blind screening comparsion was thinking that footage with more resolution was from 35mm film stock and not from digital film camera and when he came back to his screening room he started yelling on his projectionist to sharpen more because hed get feeling that he didnt :)))

April 13, 2014 at 11:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Kuk

I didn't know this about Steven Speilburgh. Funny that someone that is sentimental about celluloid didn't know he liked digital for that more.

April 13, 2014 at 4:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

You can get very nice video look even with 35mm film camera. Use film stock with very fine grain, set everything in frame in focus and less motion blur and you will see how videoishly dull you old good analog film projection can look :p

April 13, 2014 at 11:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Kuk

Im getting tired of this argument. Every modern camera out there is digital! If you want true filmic, shoot with a film camera. And Canon users suggesting a sharp look is a video look: Boring. Tear up your preconceptions. Think again. Not everyone wants soft/sharp, not everyone wants soft bokeh/deep depth of field. There are NO rules in telling your story. Not everyone needs a Canon/Panasonic, nor afford a RED/Arri.
The GH4 brings even more options to filmmakers at an attractive price. And Im for all that.

April 13, 2014 at 1:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
driftwood

For $1700.00 I would think people would be jumping for joy over what this camera has. I am very, very happy about that it can do. It was unimaginable just two years ago to get all it has for $1700.00. Back then (way back then in that ancient history) we were amazed at BlackMagic's claim of 4K for $4k---and that camera could not be graded internally. But yes, now people want $80,000.00 camera features for $1700.00 I would be very interested to see another Zacuto Shootout comparing this camera to the ARRI, Red, and Sony F65. I would want to know if those three really look tens of thousands of dollars better.

April 13, 2014 at 2:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

+1 I love when i hear comment like, its "filmic". Idiots. Video is Video. Grade what you want, but unless your production is up to par with a "look", your video camera will always be a video camera. We have 4k detail even at 8bit and still we have " this sucks for grading". The online filmmaker has no become a joke.

April 13, 2014 at 4:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
John Wilton

+1

April 13, 2014 at 7:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Skeptikal

The only joke is criticizing people for discussing what they are passionate about. These types of passionate discussions are exactly what has spurred the industry to create more tools to please more filmmakers. It's straight up economics bro. Competition spurs innovation.

The voice of criticism for "wanna be" filmmakers simply resonates of your own insecurities.

And if you're tired of the "filmic" look argument, then please come up with a new word. This argument won't ever grow old - because digital video cameras are progressively becoming more film like. Why do you think we have more resolution? More bit depth? It's because we're trying to get more "bits" to simulate an organic feel!! Hello!!!

April 14, 2014 at 3:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

This argument over "filmic" only exists on the internet. Outside the internet the world has moved on to digital long, long ago. Filmic is a niche. It will never come back to the mainstream. 6K is here. 8K is on the way. Higher than 8K will come after that. Images will get sharper and sharper. The will be no reverting to filmic. If you like filmic, and your clients are demanding it, you need to get familiar with editing software, or filters, that will produce it for you. You will find it will be a niche work. But if your clients will only pay for filmic then you need to go with filmic. The doors have been blown off. The digital horse is out of the barn---long ago.

April 14, 2014 at 8:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

We all can see that almost all innovation in video is in digital. If what you say is controlling the video industry, the critiques of camera users, then most must be asking for more digital.

April 14, 2014 at 10:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

Dude. First off... 4k isn't technically sharper, it has more resolution. There is a difference. But, as I mentioned - the word "filmic" is just a word. It's become somewhat of a big label for an image that has higher dynamic range, better color rendering, higher resolution, better highlight roll off etc. etc. etc.

Obviously we're innovating digitally. I'm all for that. Have you ever worked with film? It can look great - BUT it's very cost prohibitive for an independant group, let alone a 1 man band type operation (which is extremely challenging, if not impossible for most people.) It's costly and time consuming for corporate clients too. There are many other reasons besides the look that we've moved to digital. But when I say filmic, for lack of a better term, I am referring to the group of qualities listed above that make up all the aspects of the image. For me - and apparently many others, the Gh4 isn't looking like it's excelling in many of those areas compared to cameras in the same price range - namely blackmagic.

We are innovating digital. It's nice, easy, quick and can look really great when done right. I'm all for it. But let's not pretend we don't want our digital images to respond to light in a manor that has been reached by film for decades. We simply do want it. That's why the cameras that do it the best cost the most.

April 15, 2014 at 2:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rod

sounds like what you're saying filmic means perfection.

April 15, 2014 at 5:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

funny that a few people think digital can't mean excellence

April 15, 2014 at 5:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

I didn't say film was perfection. But you can't deny it is a standard to measure by.

April 15, 2014 at 10:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Rod

Filmic is a myth. This standard you have created is in your imagination.

April 19, 2014 at 1:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Gene

filmic or not

since nobody - including potential clients i have shown all this too - likes all the available footage.....isnt that a big problem. it ticks all the check list boxes.....but the result...

April 13, 2014 at 2:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Greg Raden

never mind. the dynamic range is poor and dxo and other sites are confirming this. i think everyones eyes are picking up on this and rejecting what they see.

April 13, 2014 at 2:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Greg Raden

ISO is better than on the BMPC4K and probably on par with the AJA Cion. In any case, DxO is basically testing photo cameras. If you buy GH4 as a pure photo camera, you're paying too much for too little, since Olympus OMD E-1 is probably the best pure photo camera in that price range. If you're buying it for the 4K , you're probably getting the best bang for the buck anywhere.
.
PS. They're in 1.0 now, apparently. Shipping to commence soon.
.
A quick Vegas strip vid - [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnMqixNtrTw ]

April 13, 2014 at 5:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

11
Reply
DLD

thanks for that link DLD. what a nice video. That bus on the curb to the left looked sooo shiny! The low light of this camera is more than aplenty!

April 13, 2014 at 5:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

holy poop! the fact that those digital billboards were not blown out is pretty sweeeeet!!

April 14, 2014 at 4:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

I'm calling BS on this. Most clients just want a good look. If you're showing them footage that you didn't shoot then you're either misrepresenting yourself or you don't have any good footage. 98% of clients don't give a shit what camera you use.

April 14, 2014 at 2:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
GHDM

So many "Artistes" moaning about the "video look" of the GH4. WTF...be grateful for a clean, sharp 4K image with excellent 10Bit color...with minimal or no noticeable aliasing.

Think of it as a very affordable, excellent acquisition tool that is capable of producing a master image...that can then be manipulated in many ways to approximate that elusive "I am a wet dream wanker film cinematographer" look...

April 13, 2014 at 7:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Skeptikal

I don't think people are moaning - but we are discussing. You're welcome to do this too. But, to label people as "Artsies" who just won't shut up and not be passionate about images is just dumb. If you think you can manipulate this camera to look just like anything else you probably haven't shot much.

April 14, 2014 at 3:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Rod

It doesn't shoot raw does it?

April 13, 2014 at 11:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Shane H.

No. the only Raw cam in this price rage is BMD Pocket cam.
.
Speaking of which, here are some tests - un- or only partially scientific - of the Pocket cam vs. GH-4 (but GH4 UHD downsampled to 1080)
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zuzXW663jI ]

April 14, 2014 at 3:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
DLD

Thanks for posting that test. The final shot of they guy sitting really demonstrates one of the best qualities of the BMPCC image - the tonality. The colors don't feel falsely saturated as in most DSLR's (the relatively even tonality of the Gh2 is why I prefer it's image to the Gh3). This is one of the reasons I think the Gh4 really has a video look to it. I'm no engineer, but obtaining video without all the saturation pumped in from the camera helps the image a ton.

April 14, 2014 at 3:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply

Here are some "saturated vs. flat" tests - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKoXpfENXdM ]
.
I think even the basic Cine D looks fine. Flat footage needs to be graded ... back into the saturated Cine D?
.
In any case, I like slightly saturated look as long as the RGB matches with reality. I don't like the extra green or extra blue as in "Stalingrad" (2013) or extra red (in Red cameras) or magenta (in Digital Bolex).
.
Now, this is the look to hate [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlMw8CjyV80 ] It was shot on Red but so heavily graded, it looks like a video game.

April 14, 2014 at 5:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

Yes, I understand that flat footage is for grading.
What I mean is that the color of most DSLR's (including what I've seen in the Gh4) feels rather cheap compared to an image from the blackmagic after grading. (I also understand the BM is recording more color info, but I really think it has something to do with the sensor. As soon as the Gh line switched to Sony sensors, I became less a fan of the colors.

April 14, 2014 at 8:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Lane

I think one should only compare likes-for-likes. BMPC4K is fairly poor at low light while GH4 seems quite able at 800. Also, at the moment, BMD records at a much higher rate as its UHD 4:2:2 ProRes 24p is ~ 700 Mbps, which is far superior to 100 Mbps 4:2:0 internal recording for GH4. So, we'll still have to see what GH4 looks like when it's recorded at 10-bit into the same ProRes codec.
.
As to film, how many film cameras can one buy for $1,700?

April 15, 2014 at 3:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

I saw Stalingrad. I think they were trying to make the image look like it was shot in 1942. The strong point of that movie was the special effects. The opening and ending were more like what I think you're looking for. Those two parts were set in Japan after the 2011 earthquake.

April 15, 2014 at 5:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

Also the image in Stalingrad---the movie was a romantic tale. It takes departures from reality into romantic fantasy fairly often, such as Russian soldiers having not only super human fighting ability, but super human morals. I think the look of the movie was supposed to have a fantasy tale look to it.

April 15, 2014 at 5:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

I was referring to the pocket cam, not the BM4k cam. Because, I don't really see the Gh4 as a 4k deliverable cam. It shoot 4k (at least for me) for 1080p delivery. So really - it's a nice 1080p cam. I have no problem comparing those two cams, because frankly, I'm about to buy one or the other.

April 15, 2014 at 10:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Lane

This talk of "filmic" is putting me in mind of something the chap from Atomos said a few days ago. He said they aren't concerned too much about having RAW recording ability in their recorders since only 5% of shooters use RAW. They focus on the 95% first. Since I see so little concern by camera manufacturers over putting a "filmic" menu option into digital cameras I could probably bet most users don't ever use it and the manufacturer would rather focus on them than the few that want it.

April 15, 2014 at 12:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

"Filmic"? "Video"? I think this debate is generally misguided and ignorant to the details. But, what is really strange is that nobody ever mentions the use of filtration. It is a huge component of what people generally perceive as the film look. How has this not become part of the conversation?

April 15, 2014 at 1:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Casey

I don't think it's going to become part of the conversation since most shooters aren't looking to have a a fimlic look. There's just a few hangers on that want to complain about every camera that comes along. Digital has very quickly taken over the video world. There just will not be any going back. Those very few projects that will need "filmic" can be dealt with in post---or, they can just use film. The vast majority has moved on to the digital look---with no qualms.

April 19, 2014 at 1:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Gene

So now raw and with the adapter it will cost MORE than a hacked Mk3 or BM4k?

Hmmm

April 15, 2014 at 1:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply
Theo Slawin

My first project shot on a GH3... is it filmic or not? If so, then why wouldn't the GH4 be?

http://blip.tv/dayzerotv/day-zero-2x2-redemption-6786360

April 15, 2014 at 2:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Cal

Looks great. The GH4 will look even better. And it costs $1700.00---SWEET!!! You probably saved a boat load of time and money not using film. Your producer wanted a film look?

April 19, 2014 at 1:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

So many of you are too hooked up on gear. Getting a cinematic look and feel is all about style, lighting and storytelling. Gear is a crutch. In the right hands, this camera will blow most of the crap you see people shooting (and people are shooting a lot of crap, despite whatever "filmic" camera they're using).

This camera is a portable powerhouse. If you don't see the potential, you're limited in your vision and might as well stick your head in a box.

In my 15 years of experience, I know one thing for sure: the people who are most religious about their gear have the least real talent. Harsh but true.

April 15, 2014 at 8:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Ron I

Aaaaaaaaaamen.

April 16, 2014 at 2:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Gear is a crutch? Um.... tell that to the Hollywood DP's i eat lunch with. Gear is a tool.

April 16, 2014 at 3:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
ED

This. A million times this.

April 16, 2014 at 11:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JP

Graded footage of Nick Driftwood's shots. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb7V9GN_Aos ]

April 15, 2014 at 9:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

Yep. Still looks like the Gh4.

April 16, 2014 at 3:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Bill

Yeah, still looks good!!

April 19, 2014 at 9:09AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

Looks a lot like vhs.

April 21, 2014 at 11:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Ralph

This grading looks worse than the original camera footage. Too much contrast.

April 16, 2014 at 6:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Guy McLoughlin

Is it really possible to get theatre quality movies from this camera?

I know it's 4K, but it has s small sensor. Just wondering.

April 19, 2014 at 7:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Check out the aerial footage on the auto focus article comment section posted yesterday.

April 19, 2014 at 7:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

what's the link to that comment?

April 19, 2014 at 9:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

It's in the Andra Auto Focus comment section under my name.

April 19, 2014 at 9:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
DLD

oh, still don't know what you mean.

April 19, 2014 at 9:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

April 19, 2014 at 9:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
DLD

Funny how unhappy people are in these comment threads.

April 19, 2014 at 9:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Gene

I agree about the unhappy/angry thing. It reminds me of that line by Woody Allen,

"Didn't you hear...commentary and dissent have merged to form dysentery."

April 23, 2014 at 9:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Greg

It's just exciting to have more and more capable tools at lower prices. Compitition fuels innovation. I would love to shoot some footage with the GH4. Looks great.

May 3, 2014 at 8:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

does it do 4k over one SDI or is it a quad deal?

May 27, 2014 at 6:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Ignacio Genzon

I like the valuable info you provide in your articles.

I will bookmark your weblog and check again here
regularly. I'm quite certain I will learn a lot of new stuff right here!
Best of luck for the next!

August 25, 2014 at 8:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply