Photographers Just Don't Understand.

[humzai]

I for one have never said that, other than to point out that it involves more resources than HD. The post-processing procedures will be much the same as for any video file when it comes to editing etc. It's what comes before that, which is most important.

Don't mind me, I'm just poking the hornet's nest and sitting back to watch all the screaming!

 

[humzai]

Well damn it I don't care! I'm going to go walk to this White Castle and prove how easy it is to post process the Waffle And Chicken Sandwich. My voice will not be silenced!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[OzRay]

Quote where ANYBODY said that equipment is the deciding factor. You can't because nobody did.

One of the main arguments here from one side of the gallery has been that the GH4 provides so much more than any other camera, especially video. That side of the discussion has been all about the gear.

And your friend was qualified in film production, she could have just as easily not had a camera and decided to enlist the aid of those who did, which she did. Her endeavours and those who ended up assisting her have nothing to do with equipment, but a cause. They are all experienced story tellers and together they have created a story to convey their cause. That outcome exemplifies exactly what I and Kevin have been trying to explain, these things have very little to do with equipment; the equipment is just a tool by which to convey ideas, create a mood and tell a story.

 

[RRRoger]

[QUOTE What I wonder about is the wisdom of combined still/video cameras.[/QUOTE]
>>>>
>>>
I do the Church Service Videos each week with my GH4.
Recently we needed Stills for our Directory.
All I had to do was switch the dial from Movie Mode to A or S.
Great quality for both and I did not have to bring/go home to get another Camera System.

 

[OzRay]

[QUOTE What I wonder about is the wisdom of combined still/video cameras.

>>>>
>>>

I do the Church Service Videos each week with my GH4.
Recently we needed Stills for our Directory.
All I had to do was switch the dial from Movie Mode to A or S.
Great quality for both and I did not have to bring/go home to get another Camera System.

You can do that with just about every Panasonic/Olympus and other brand late-model camera. You don't even have to change dials, just press the record button and while recording video, take stills at the same time.

 

[GFFPhoto]

GFFPhoto

do you actually have a GH4 and have you gone through the process of capturing and editing the footage?

Its not clear from your posts

I know I have been out of that industry for 4 years professionally but I do still keep up with what is going on, and while technologies have advanced they have not advanced that much. The issues around the best file format for capture, for editing and for delivery still exist, still have gotchas even in regular HD that can eat up computing power, time and disk space very rapidly if you are not aware of what you are doing. I don't see how 4K can do anything but multiply those problems.

I don't think you are afraid of 4K Kevin, and against isn't the right word either. Anything I said to Ray isn't directed at you as well. Your posts do give me the sense you know about video, and I think we figured out we disagree about the impact quality footage can have on your video.

I said in a post earlier that I don't own it yet, as well as saying a few times that I'm still new to video. My knowledge comes from reading about it. And from what I have read, the 4k files are actually smaller than the 1080p files (I'm pretty sure the source for that is the BH live stream which was recorded and available). Render times are longer, but the files actually aren't, so I'm not sure how much more resources (aside from time) it would take over my 1080p files.

But when you say things like "I remain to be convinced that for the average hobbyist it is something that should be high up the list of priorities", it sure sounds like you are implying that its too much for people to figure out or utilize and that they shouldn't buy it. That seems to be a position shared by yourself and Ray, while others here are actually jumping in and figuring it out. And its cool to give your opinion, but I'm not sure why you would stress that point, and earlier you sure seemed to be stressing it... I quoted this

but owning a tool and being able to make use of it are a long way apart

And I feel the same way I did then. If you think its too much for you don't buy it, but your limitations aren't necessarily mine (and based on your history, clearly this isn't a limitation you have). I just don't share your perspective that these things are so difficult and a hobbyist needs to stay away... which seemed to be the argument you were (or are ) making. The hill just isn't that big.

 

[fortwodriver]

Hey fortwodriver what productions are using 8k cameras? The arri alexaa is 2k and is and has been used in a hell of a lot of productions and arri doesn't even have a 4k camera out. What 8k cameras are you talking about? I'm curious about the veracity of your claims.

Pretty much every "film first" production is working with 8k. All of the scanning is done at 8k. The Arriscan systems all scan and then down-res for output as one way to minimize the grain on the film stock.

Granted, the F65 is still an 8k sensor downsampling to 4k for now. Not only that but the Sony is cranking out 4k in 16 bit raw NOW... The Dragon is 6k, and Zeiss has already committed to producing 8k ready lenses.

Last I checked (ie: booted up) the Alexa is a 3k camera...not a 2k.

Don't get me wrong, Panasonic has come VERY close with this. Now people are raving that the LX8 is going to be 4k. Well, my GoPro can do 1080p - that doesn't mean it's making use of the quality that's available.

Personally, I have big issues with the ergonomics of Panasonic cameras. They remind me of my Canons. In my hands, they are harder to keep steady. For a more reasonable comparison, even the Digital Bolex does RAW and has better encoding depth than the Panasonic... That's a pretty cool little camera and it's not really that expensive.

 

[fortwodriver]

Well damn it I don't care! I'm going to go walk to this White Castle and prove how easy it is to post process the Waffle And Chicken Sandwich. My voice will not be silenced!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Hahaha... I've eaten at WC exactly once... We used to call it WC because the place we went to (in south Georgia) smelled like a toilet.

That's actually one of the better looking WCs I've seen.

 

[GFFPhoto]

what I and Kevin have been trying to explain

Don't try and bring Kevin into your corner. Kevin has done a good job of speaking for himself, and while I disagree with some of the things he has said, his arguments have remained consistent. Yours are shifting all over the place.

That outcome exemplifies exactly what I... have been trying to explain, these things have very little to do with equipment.

Straw man argument. Again, just one quote where ANYBODY has said that outcomes are about the equipment.

 

[humzai]

Pretty much every "film first" production is working with 8k. All of the scanning is done at 8k. The Arriscan systems all scan and then down-res for output as one way to minimize the grain on the film stock.

Granted, the F65 is still an 8k sensor downsampling to 4k for now. Not only that but the Sony is cranking out 4k in 16 bit raw NOW... The Dragon is 6k, and Zeiss has already committed to producing 8k ready lenses.

Last I checked (ie: booted up) the Alexa is a 3k camera...not a 2k.

Don't get me wrong, Panasonic has come VERY close with this. Now people are raving that the LX8 is going to be 4k. Well, my GoPro can do 1080p - that doesn't mean it's making use of the quality that's available.

Personally, I have big issues with the ergonomics of Panasonic cameras. They remind me of my Canons. In my hands, they are harder to keep steady. For a more reasonable comparison, even the Digital Bolex does RAW and has better encoding depth than the Panasonic... That's a pretty cool little camera and it's not really that expensive.

Well you know what they say about theory hitting reality? It's f'ing mess or some ****, I'm just trying to have some fun mucking through crap.

 

[Fri13]

Some of you guys are talking like someone who wants to buy themselves a race car and then think they can enter a professional race, but forget that there are a few additional costs like support crews, spares, testing requirements and a myriad of other things required to become a professional race driver.

For me personally I don't care if I would need to pay 1600-2000€ for camera if I get no lens or single lens with it and I would use it for own hobby alone even if it would be for shooting cats alone (I don't, and I don't have a cat) as it would be my hobby.

If I would buy it for professional reasons, it is nothing. As it is cheaper price than say to client "sorry can't do" and drive them to competitor or deliver a sub-par quality and damaging by reputation for long times if even forever!

If I have money, I can use it as I like and as I need. If I don't have i need to consider what to get, was it a cheaper one, compromise, nothing at all or a bank loan.

For me if Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 is rumored $1700 then it is no go for me if it is converted to 1700€. If it is 1200€ then I strongly consider it. If it is 999€ I will get it on that day.

If I get a gig for a day requiring it, I would get the lens on that day, as in 4-5 such days I probably have paid the lens off.

So should I whine about the cost of single tool if it benefits me in future more? No... Even if I would now have 120000€ on account I would not get it if price is direct conversion as I don't need it now.

More likely I pay other costs so I can travel and hire people and build something.

 

[T N Args]

This thread is terrible!

Not one in a hundred people here have a still image portfolio worthy of their investment in gear and its last ounce of capability -- specifically the additional investment over the next level of gear down. Yes, it's the nut behind the viewer that has the rounded edges. Take it for granted.

Arguments that buying the GH4 has to be justified by the quality of video project outcomes made with it, are desperately dangerous when we look back at our still image portfolio in terms of quality of outcomes.

As for effort needed -- never underestimate the enthusiasm of the enthusiast!

Let's celebrate the new king and move on. We are not dpreview.

 

[humzai]

However it is all relative. 1700 for some might be a drop in the bucket to others not affordable ever. It is however pretty condescending to state the people in this thread don't have port olios worth a damn. Who died and made you arbiter of good photography? What does it matter to you if my photography is good enough for my gear? I take photos for mysel, not for you or anyone else. What I choose to buy or not buy has not a thing to do with you.

 

[Replytoken]

Well damn it I don't care! I'm going to go walk to this White Castle and prove how easy it is to post process the Waffle And Chicken Sandwich. My voice will not be silenced!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

When did WC start selling waffles? We do not have them in WA, and I do miss a couple of Double Whites with onion chips!

--Ken

 

[meyerweb]

How well does IBIS and 4/3 lenses work on the GH4?

And what makes you think that's a key consideration for everyone? All of my lenses that really need IS have OIS, and I have no intention of purchasing a 4/3 lens.

How well does 4K video work on your EM-1? How effective is the E-M1 at pulling high-quality stills out of a video stream?

I ask these questions not because I think they'll be important to everyone, but just to point out that each camera has strengths and weaknesses, neither is perfect, and what's best for you isn't necessarily best for someone else.

 

[dornblaser]

I assume that everyone has seen the post that the new Panasonic LX8 will shoot video in 4K? http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-panasonic-lx8-will-have-shoot-4k-video-and-be-priced-at-900/ 4K for the masses.

Some seem to this that the fact that the GH series is superior for video somehow makes them less well suited for stills. Certainly not the case!

I am one who uses my GHx's only for video; however, I recgonize that it is an excellent stills camera. I think that part of the conversation was the lament that stills only photographers are paying for video capability that they are not using. And, wondering how exceptional a camera Panasonic could make if it was designed to be a stills first camera.

 

[pdk42]

Has Amin sold out to DPReview? This thread is turning (or already has turned) into a flame war. Why all the passion guys?

 

[humzai]

It's a great camera man! And it deserves a little love! Just a little!

 

[jurgen]

Having not read the entire 22 pages, I don't know if this qualifies as a unique perspective in the context this thread, but I've owned both an E-M1 and a GH4 (the GH4 is my current camera), and my experience is that -- and I'm really not trying to be dismissive or trivial here -- they're much more alike than they are dissimilar.

In terms of video, I think the E-M1 is better than it is given credit for - certainly suitable for recreational video, and potentially optimal for some professional applications like web photojournalism and vlogging. I do think IBIS has some oft-ignored downsides -- the big one being unpredictable frame warping -- but I don't think any of the "negatives", be they artifcating or a lack of more diverse frame rates, preclude the E-M1's video mode from being useful.

Is the GH4 a better video camera? It's certainly a more fully featured one. 4K is an impressive tool and one I'm glad to have access to, but honestly, it hasn't made me measurably better at any aspect of cinematography, nor has it changed the way I work . And I know no one in this thread is saying anything to the contrary, but I think it is a point that bears repeating from time to time - when it comes down to it, absolute image quality is only a small portion of what makes a good finished product (and in this instance, there really, honestly isn't all that much between the two.)

In terms of stills, if I didn't see .ORF after one set of files and .RW2 after the other, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you want to be aggressive in your nitpicking you can use certain tools to demonstrate subtle differences in color response, etc. between the two, but even then I have my doubts that anyone would be able to reliably pick one camera or the other in a double blind, all-other-things-equal selection.

There are aspects of each camera's physical construction I prefer -- I miss the front function buttons of the E-M1 with my GH4, but am glad to have a more robust feeling SD card door -- and aspects of each camera's performance that are objectively better in relative terms -- the E-M1 is easier to shoot at shutter speeds slower than 1/50, but the GH4 locks focus more reliably in dim lighting conditions -- but nothing from either camera is appreciably, deal-breakingly better or worse than the other. There are quirks to both, problems with both, upsides to both, but nothing that -- at least to my mind -- is objectively capable of producing the level of partisan vitriol you see on some online forums.

I think it's silly to dismiss gear outright in favor of "just taking good photos!", because clearly gear matters, if not for the technical aspects than for a photographer's own rapport with his tools. But I also think too much emphasis can be placed on the notion of specificity, because wrapped up in the concept of "right tool for the right job" is the implicit idea of a tool that is righter than others, and therefore worthy of a disproportionate amount of attention. Certainly in some cases this is true -- a Hollywood film probably requires an Alexa; an Olympic skiing shoot, a 1DX -- but when you're talking about the differences between a GH4 and an E-M1, they're both -- at least to my mind -- right for whatever job you might consider them for.

They're not all that different, and they're both excellent. It's worth thinking about, but not losing your cool over.

 

[OzRay]

And what makes you think that's a key consideration for everyone? All of my lenses that really need IS have OIS, and I have no intention of purchasing a 4/3 lens.

How well does 4K video work on your EM-1? How effective is the E-M1 at pulling high-quality stills out of a video stream?

I ask these questions not because I think they'll be important to everyone, but just to point out that each camera has strengths and weaknesses, neither is perfect, and what's best for you isn't necessarily best for someone else.

Did you miss the wink at the end of my post. The OP asked in his very first post why the GH4 isn't getting as much love as the E-M1, especially with it's 4K. I gave my tongue in cheek reply as to why my love is directed at the E-M1.