Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
GH4 4K Panasonic video camera, User reviews and opinions
  • 1273 Replies sorted by
  • True 24 or 23.9 etc etc?

    When the frequency is set to 59.94hz the framerate is 23.98. If the frequency is set to 24hz then you get true 24fps.

  • 24p with 24hz, and 23.98 with 60 hz. Does anyone know what the advantage of shooting 24 hz is?

  • B&H is still out of stock. Got this today!

    One or more items from this purchase are still out of stock as we haven't yet received the merchandise from our supplier. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. We will keep you posted periodically.

    We appreciate your patience and patronage. Feel free to contact us with any questions or comments about this order.

    Thank you.

    B&H Photo-Video

    My guess is April 30th hmmmm.

  • @jamesgh2

    It is wrong topic for such posts.

  • @giuliobottini, as it always is, adobe is string matching for model numbers, so new camera models ALWAYS require an update from ACR and lightroom to read the raw files. However, you can often get around this by either hacking the RAW files to have a model string the same as an older camera, or by hacking the adobe files to tweak an older similar name to the new one (such as GH1 to GH4). Generally it works fine, though sensor specific optimizations and such obviously won't be included.

    Or just wait for adobe, or use another company's products...

  • @aaronchicago one advantage of 24hz is that the camera MUST be set to that frequency in order to shoot C4K. I'll have to do some comparisons to see if there's any IQ difference in other modes.

  • Here's a rather alarming discovery! I was just comparing my GH3 and GH4 at same exposure using the same lens from the same tripod and it appears that the GH3 is almost a full stop (.9 EV) brighter than the GH4. Obviously that means that in a low light setting you will have to use, e.g. ISO 3200 with the GH4 when you could have gotten about the same exposure with the GH3 at ISO 1600. Not good....

  • @AdamT

    Such things happen due to some test error usually :-).

  • I'm going to be shooting at a Club/Concert tomorrow night. Any thing you guys want me to test in a low light situation?

  • @Vitaliy I hope you're right but I don't know what error I could have made. Again, same shutter speed, same aperture, same ISO setting (all manual), same tripod....

    Now some of this could be due to the difference in profiles but I don't think it can account for all of it. I just tested doing a still photograph and in that case the GH3 was about .6 EV brighter. I think Panasonic is being a bit ... optimistic ... with the GH4's base ISO!

  • @aaronchicago - Driftwood's hacks for the gh2 always produced better footage at 24fps than using any of the hbr settings. But now with the gh4, there's no advantage per se in shooting at that frame rate.

  • Done some more testing and it appears that most of the difference in apparent EV values is a result of the Cinelike D profile. It consistently requires about +.9EV adjustment to match the exposure of the GH3's standard or natural profiles.

    OTOH, the GH4's standard profile requires just about a +.25EV adjustment to match the GH3 standard profile's exposure.

  • That's good info, AdamT. Thanks for that.

  • @Adamt - Looking at Imaging Resources still life examples, the exposures for the GH3 and GH4 are identical (same shutter, aperture and ISO). So perhaps there's something else going on.

  • @rickastro I tried to control for light but there is some variation due to windows. But I don't think that's it. The IR tests use jpegs so it could be in-camera processing that's equalizing things.

    Also, this same issue came up when those guys in NZ or Australia compared the GH4, GH3, and several other cameras. They tried to control for exposure but the GH4 shots came out about 1 stop darker than their GH3 shots.

  • Thanks for your testing @AdamT, good info either way. The real test though, will be between RAW files. Then we'll know if it's processing or actual sensor differences. My guess would be the latter, but who knows how they determine ISOs anyway? I'm sure someone does, but not I.

  • Adam T, could the difference be the luminance setting on the GH4 0-255 to 16-235 or 16-255.

  • I can't display anything on my SmallHD monitor when the camera is set to 24 hz. That's a bummer.

  • @AdamT

    I have to agree with VK. It is almost always an error in the lighting from the test. If you are lit by sunlight even a few minutes can make a big difference.

    I just tested it with controlled lighting and everything was the exact same between the GH3 and GH4. The cameras light meter read the same value for all color profiles except for the Cine-D and Cine-V. Those were 1/3 stop off. That is far from a significant difference.

  • @AdamT

    Can you post some examples. I am not seeing a significant difference at all between the light meters in both cameras on the color profiles that they have in common.

    You should make sure you are absolutely positive about this before you post conclusions like this. Saying "I tried to control for light but there is some variation due to windows" is a very bad testing practice. You need very controlled lighting not just sunlight coming in the windows.

    Try a controlled test and you will see that only the Cine-D and Cine-V have a difference and even that is not significant. Remember your margin of error could be almost 1/3 of stop since that is the smallest increment it measures in.

  • Resolution! Remember these are stills from Video and then they are also compressed after that to be able to be posted here. Still looks great to me.

    4K from GH4 and 1080p stills from the GH4 and GH3

    The 1080p from the GH4 isn't the best example. I didn't have time to find the one I took with the matching standard profile. However, you can definitely see the difference between the 4K resolution and the 1080p from the GH3.

    The 4k Video probably out resolves my printer.

    Virtually no aliasing in the 4K image.

    GH4 4K.jpg
    3840 x 2160 - 2M
    GH4 1080p.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 255K
    GH3 1080p.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 519K
  • @mpgxsvcd first, get an easier screen name! ;-) Second, I did try to control for external light but I don't have blinds that seal completely shut. I just retested getting it as dark as I could and then flooding the test area with a soft box and now it does appear that was mistaken. With both cameras set to standard profile the EV value looks to be about the same. There is a difference in WB (both set to auto) but that's neither here nor there.

    The Cinelike D profile still appears darker (about -.25EV) but that's just down to the processing.

    Sorry if I caused a panic. :-)

  • btw, changing the luminance levels from 0-255 to 16-235 made no apparent difference.

  • @AdamT

    No that is great. Your second test sounds very controlled and gives us good test data. No experiment is a bad experiment if you learn something from it.

    While changing from 16-235 to 0-255 shouldn't affect overall exposure levels it did appear to give a very slight increase in apparent dynamic range when I tested it. I now shoot in 0-255 for everything. I still need to see what drawbacks that has in playback on other devices though.

  • @mpgxsvcd

    great chart test, I see no reason to shoot below 4k unless I want 60p or 96p. Aliasing wise the 1080p on the GH4 seems to improve on the GH3 and as you say the 4k is perfect with really no problems. I haven't seen a chart this good in 4k unless you go to FS700 4k recording or C500. The GH4 is an absolute beast for the cash. Since 4k is still 100mbits then unless you don't want to do the extra encoding and down-sampling, shooting at 4k will deliver the very best the camera has to offer.

    4k here looks so good that you can really just shoot video as a documentarist and extract stills with very close to JPG quality as long as you mind the shutter values for motion blur.

    @AdamT mpgxsvcd is an old school tool for converting footage to the SVCD format which was a step below DVD but recordable in regular CDRs back in the day if I'm not mistaken.