@CFreak Thanks for the question and post. I am away from my editing station, but if I am not wrong my setting is same as yours (as a starting point as Spyder utility tweaks it), but I am going to double check as soon as I am back and I will visit your post in the proper topic.Thanks!

@cantsin Agree on this, more is better and I am always glad to get it, but I feel that too many people will never get enough before to feel safe. As I said before, the lower DR of my GH1 (compare to whatever is on the market now) didn't stop me to shoot what I wanted to. I am old school and, speaking of limitation, I worked for years as a photojournalist on slide films and no magazine I was working for would accept to publish higher film than ISO400. We had to adapt ourselves to that limit and most of my work had been shot on Provia 100. Nowadays it sounds like if we don't get the highest possible feature from the newest camera, our video are going to look like crap... 15 years ago, with DV camera (such as the Panasonic DVX100) skillful guys were able to produce amazing stuff. And 12 years ago, pro photographer were able to take great shot with less than 8 stops of DR.

It's not dynamic range of the playback display that counts but that of the recording sensor. Even if a display only has 8 stops DR, recording with 12 stops and compressing into 8 stops means dramatically less clipped highlights and blacked-out shadows than recording with 8 (or 10) stops. It's one of the reasons why even on crappy tv sets, cinema films look better than home video.

@zigizigi Very good point and nice experienced comment, for a change. If the difference is not so visible in the end product, I am not in need of 4:2:2, 10 bit and huge bit rates to improve my film. Instead of spending time to handle big files and slowing down the overall post production process, I would prefer to write down a new story, search for location, find people to participate and shoot a new project. One more thing as well. I am using a Spyder4 to calibrate my computer screen once a month to keep my color accurate for edit. How many people who are watching our video on Vimeo are using calibrated screen? How far is the Dynamic Range (Contrast ratio) of their computer or TV screen compare to the Dynamic Range of our camera and the compressed video? Much lower most of the time and they will see no difference on the final output. Of course, if the job is related to TVC (big budget, demanding client, picky art director) or feature film meant to be projected on a big screen, it is another story...

Just a cursory review of 4k content says that for displays <60" the difference between 4k and 1080p is nominal. However, in that TV's nowadays are designed to last five years only, perhaps we'll have no choice to purchase 4k displays. We're beholden to the TV manufacturers.

@Aria I've thought about that too, how audio is a glimpse into the future of video. People have basically settled for a compressed version of CD quality as being good enough.

I'm on the fence on HD --- 4K and how much average joe will care. I would bet my bottom dollar that 4K --- 8K will not become mainstream for a loooooong time, if ever.

I come from the audio world and we went thru a similar issue some years ago where there wasn't much more we could squeeze out of the technology. You can record some extremely high quality audio with very cheap gear now that you wouldn't be able to do back in the day when I started in the late 70's. At this point it's mostly about know how rather than gear that separates the average joe from guys with access to the top gear. It ruined my studio business. Even tho I had lots of great gear and years of know how, guys just felt that they got close enough with the home studio stuff they had. It may not have been the best but it was good enough. Especially when you consider most of the public is listening to MP3's and such anyway. It makes me wonder about the real success of 4K. Will the public feel the need to splurge for it? Sure some with deep pockets and wanting to always have the latest and greatest will, but the wider market in general is hard to tell. None of my Recording studio clients came in asking for 24bit/192K recording even tho I had that capability.

Brianl, I think you are right. The final use of the video is dragging the decision of which camera and which format to use. Will 4K make it? In US, Japan and Europe, there is room for it, but I don't know what is going on, in the rest in the world. On my own experience, connection in/out China with or without VPN is really slow and HD video are never watched smoothly in streaming. And there is no improvement in the last 9 years, as quality of connection is counter balanced by increasing number of connected people and media offered online... I don't know what is the evolution in other populated countries such as Indonesia, Brasil or India, but 4K limitation might come from connection's speed first. For movie theater released, I am not sure, due to the online competition, they will have the money to upgrade their equipment for 4k video projection everywhere. As I wrote earlier, my own reality now, is to be able to upload my video on Vimeo, in HD version and a 4K camera would just add some feature in post with camera movement and lossless stabilization.

I agree with you brianl, somehow out of DR limit consideration, something even more important is the look of the blown highlight. If the highlight keeps pure white, it can be even interesting to work with it. For example, the worst things about the AF100 compare to GH (even DR is similar) is the way the burned highlight turns out to fluorescent green or yellow sometime (whatever set up on the camera: knee, gamma...): and it is awful to cure that thing in post. Again, as I know it, I am careful setting up my light with a guy dressing in white like in my short "WMatching Future HD (US)." As you mention, having a flat answer out of the camera is a key point to get room to work with it, and I got it out of a GH1, despite its limitation on paper. Out of aliasing and moire, one more thing need to get solve is the rolling shutter effect. I worked with CCD camera before (HVX200) and it was a joy to use in any condition.

@ brianl Be fair and check the outdoor video as well. Revolverte and La Deuche from Hell, were both shot in summer in natural bright light. FYI, some years ago, I made a living as a pro photographer with a Nikon D200 which get less than 8 stops of dynamic range and I just needed to know how to frame, and to choose the right composition to not get out of the range of the camera. Have you heard about the Magic Hour? Being there at the right timing to get a beautiful lighting and a less contrasty scenery to shoot without worrying about DR problem. If contrast of the scene is too high and I have no lighting at hand, I treat my subject as a silhouette. 13 stops dynamic range is very far behind what your eyes can see so you still have to adjust your composition according the limitation of your camera. Also, there is many tricks in post to increase the dynamic range by adjusting different area of the image. I am using a D800 for photography work now (the king of DR so far) and I can still reach its limit easily. This is part of our job to know how to adjust our framing and set up our lighting to not meet the headroom. Not a problem for me to not get 10 stops instead of 13, even I know 13 is much better than 10... So what. Any problem in my outdoor video? IF the GH4 provides 13 stops, very nice, but it is not going to change my way of workings so much. One improvement I am looking for is to get a less clinical image out of the camera. GH1 was perfect, GH2 got more videoish and GH3 is 100% video feel camera. And I think the most attractive part of BM camera is the look of the footage out of the box, much more cinematic than what I get out of a GH3. I am just afraid that GH4 will get even deeper in the clinical feel of the image...

Guys, I am very glad to see the way the discussion went through. Thanks to all your valuable input. It is very rewarding and it also helped me to consider things in a different way. I am 50 years old, and I started shooting short movies with Hi8 in 1995 with analog edit. What a pain! I shot a feature film on Sony DigiBeta (720 x 480) in Taiwan in 2000. Video was edited on a very slow and buggy PC and then copied to 35mm film to be projected in theater. What a pain and what a cost! I am coming from an area where dream were big, but tools were inexistent or weak or far too expensive, out of reach. This background explains my minimalist approach in filmmaking. When the HVX200 came out it was a first step, but GH1 was the tool I was waiting for since 15 years, whatever limitation it gets. It is 1000 times better than Hi8 or DV, 100 times better than DigiBeta, and GH4 is just something coming from another dimension.

As many people are mentioning here, the GH4 is a major step up, the real one since the GH1came out and I will have more reasons to buy a GH4 than I had to invest into a GH2 or GH3 (even I did as it was useful for my job). For pro job, I am not sure GH4 is going to eat up Canon 5D demand, as many clients knows about it and are asking for 5D for the full frame look, if they don't go mainstream (Red or Alexa). For documentary job, my AF100 is still more practical (efficient) than a GH: Internal ND filter, direct control of the sound recording, XLR connection on the right place (which is not the case of the brick under the GH4 which limits the opening of the screen and unbalance the cam) and all the preset are already there. I have done lots of work with it and 4K is not needed for my client as final video is posted on the web and burned to DVD... You can check it here: https://vimeo.com/album/2111562 Actually I am considering the GH4 for my personal work as it will help my creativity and assist me in my one man team. For example, 4K will give me the opportunity to add more camera movement in post (dolly move, tilt, pan...) and to stabilize it without losing definition. 96fps at 1080p is also a feature I will consider while writing new stories. I will not buy the brick, 4:2:0 8 bits was fine with me until now and I can keep that way, as AVCHD never break down in post for me. A sample about this. Color grading done on a GH1 for the short film "La Deuche from Hell"

I can't imagine that the new settings of the GH4 won't be welcome tools for many users. Having the Master Pedestal, Cinelike D and Cinelike V, the Ability to adjust curves and the slow mo. Luminance ranges 16-235, 16-255 and 0255. There's just a ton of stuff Pany threw into this camera. IMO this is the most feature packed VDSLR ever made and it most definitely would allow anyone with some skill to make better videos. If it had built in ND it would be darn near perfect. Also since they've added improved sensor cooling the conditions under which we can work with the camera are more flexible and it should be a more dependable tool.

I love my GH1, but at the same time the limitations can't be totally ignored. Making a camera more convenient and flexible in different lighting conditions isn't a small thing. having more tools like zebras and focus peaking aren't small things either. Many of the features of the GH4 would make work less hit and miss and also give us some leeway when it comes to the final product. Starting with that 4K image gives us some options when going to 1080p.

If people didn't need it then why has the majority of this site been clamoring for such possibilities since the GH1 and earlier? I have to agree with @DanPV. Many videographers have been trying to emulate physical 35mm film since DSLRs became available. You'd have to hope this will take them many steps closer if not equal with.