The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS!

GH4: The samples are starting to appear

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Being a GH3 user, the GH4 is an obvious replacement for my current backup camera, the GH2. Until now, I've been convinced that I would shoot 1080P with the GH4, since I don't really need 4K. However, seeing the samples, 4K reduced to 1080P looks amazingly much better than native 1080P. I need a new, faster computer :lecture:
 

Charles Wood

New member
I shot a time lapse sequence about a year ago on my DSLR and processed/downresed it to 4K, pulled it into Fotomagico as part of a slide show presentation I was making. I noticed immediately the 4K clip downresed to 1080, looked immensely better than native 1080 clips.
 

Charles Wood

New member
UPDATE:
My GH4 arrived three days ago. After shooting over an hour of 4K video test clips of various subjects, here are my thoughts.

4K video, even the lowly MOV files recorded internally, kill 1080P. 1080P looks ok and likely as good or better than out of most DSLR or mirrorless bodies but the 4K is in another league. The 4K images almost look over sharpened with default settings. I adjusted the curve to open up shadows and reduce highlights a bit to make color correction a bit easier later. Also used Natural setting and reduced sharpening. Simply amazing. I did a demo for an acquaintance who had never seen 4K. His exact words: "It's like looking out an open window". I can remember hearing those words from people 25 years ago at the first HDTV demos I attended.

Using a MAC and for simple editing, I pulled the 4K files into Fotomagico, a slide show program, to trim the clips, add some transitions, and downsize to 2560 to fit my 30" Dell. Stunning. I then repeated, downsizing to 1920. The results are still a knockout and so far superior to native 1080 out of the camera that it almost makes 1080 look like SD rather than HD. 1080 down converted, post, looks as good or better, to my eyes, than anything you'll see over cable or satellite. It's easy to see why broadcasters, production houses, sports, will be going to 4K simply to down res to 1080 for distribution. The improvements in IQ should be significant.

The downside of all of this is I now see a need for a new computer becoming more obvious. My 2010 Mac Pro struggles badly with 4K 30fps. 24fps (which I hate) is tolerable. Surprisingly, my 13" 2012 (late) MBP Retina does just fine and is what I'm using for editing. Another financial downside, WA lenses for m4/3 bodies are expensive. My wife is not going to like this.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well written by MR:

GH4 Video Primer

A couple of weeks ago, I was offered a second GH3 for a very nice price. Having read a lot about the GH4 lately, I'm happy that I turned the offer down. The GH4 is the way to go, even if it will cost me 3 times as much.
 

Bernard

Member
I think that what the video shows is that lighting is more important than megapixels.

This kind of thing (pulling a still from a video shoot) can occasionally be useful, but it compromises the still and motion images. You wouldn't frame the same way for still/motion, or light the same way, or even focus the same way. The images he uses as an example are very stilted: no depth, almost no camera movement, shot straight-on.
I don't see why you would want to work within these constraints just so you can save a bit of time and money. Thinking as a client, I would rather have the best possible still and the best possible video. Having a video that also kind-of works as a still wouldn't interest me.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
In mFT, I love my E-M1 for stills work. But from everything I've been reading, the GH4 is The Bomb for video. :)

Now if only I had time to learn and do some video ... !

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think that what the video shows is that lighting is more important than megapixels.

This kind of thing (pulling a still from a video shoot) can occasionally be useful, but it compromises the still and motion images. You wouldn't frame the same way for still/motion, or light the same way, or even focus the same way. The images he uses as an example are very stilted: no depth, almost no camera movement, shot straight-on.
I don't see why you would want to work within these constraints just so you can save a bit of time and money. Thinking as a client, I would rather have the best possible still and the best possible video. Having a video that also kind-of works as a still wouldn't interest me.
I agree, but still, it can be useful to pull a frame or two simply because I can only do one thing at any given moment. Having the ability to get a shot that I would otherwise lose is an interesting option, even if it isn't perfect.
 
Top