I don't know what these charts mean, Driftwood, but I'll take your word for it. Could you explain to a layman how it shoots 100 Mbps, which many of the unwashed, who claim to see horrible artifacting, aliasing and moire, consider to be inadequate, utilizes 200 Mbps?

One thing worth mentioning - this was shot on uncoated Cooke lenses which can add some color cast/flare effect while shooting directly into the sun. Reid also states in his review that his manual white balance was off from the very beginning. If you grade the images you will also notice that default saturation on the files is relatively high (typical of mfr settings) and things start to look more natural when desaturated to around 85% in the NLE. I preceded to warm up the WB a little and the files looked fantastic to my eyes.

@Astro @Vitaliy +10 at least. Thanks for trying to stop this endless.......

The skin tones blurb, plus the "colors aren't rich enough" etc...argument is soo totally boring....as is the "Cinematic/Filmic" rave.. If you don't like the Gh4 then simply buy the Black Magic Camera and make great movies, the endless pixel picking and debating reminds me of guitarists endlessly debating over does Alder sounds better than Ash ..or Nitro sounds better than Acrylic...yada yada or such and such a handwound pup makes a guitar a zillion times better, its basically nonsense, because composition, ability and all the rest of it matters at the end of the day and minute image and sound details will not be noticed. Most of these newer cameras are good enough to make a great movie or doco or music vid, but if you endlessly debate pixels on forums you wont have time to do that...will you?

@Vitaliy +100

@cantsin

Are you an alien ancestor? I mean that you have different ratio of sensors in your eyes compared to other poor humans.

My initial thought was also that skintones look unnatural, but I think It's more about lack of detail on areas like skins and solid like areas. So basically it's about codec and bitrate (some of you disagree with this probably). There was some 1080p All-intra footage that didn't suffer this skin- problem...

@cantsin the screen grab DOES look like a magenta blob, now that you mention it :) But I have been shooting with the notorious GH3 for months now and my skin tones aren't chalky or magenta at all. I think it's all a matter of the light you shoot under, color correction, grading, etc. I've posted some of those clips in the GH3 best settings thread. They are far from perfect as far as color goes, since I'm new to all this, but most people who've seen the clips see that it's entirely possible to get good skin tones with the camera. And I find working with the GM1 that colors are improved. I have no doubt they will also be better with the GH4. You should keep in mind that these are some of the first clips Andrew has had the chance to work with, and he himself admitted that he'd made a few mistakes along the way, with exposures (I think it had something to do with the ND filters he was/wasn't using), etc. If I'm not mistaken, he also just applied a LUT in film convert that was intended for BM cameras. He admits that he was in a rush to post, and could have gotten better results had he spent more time grading the image.

I'll add that I'm tired of all the posts saying Panasonic gives plastic skin tones. It's simply a falsehood. Screengrabs (ungraded, should be live in 30 min.) https://copy.com/EjcvwpX6xfCM

Here's a 1:1 screen grab from one of the camera files that Andrew uploaded to copy.com. IMHO: the same issues with not-so-great color resolution (artificially looking colors, especially when rendering white people skin) as in the previous GH cameras. Arguably, white balance - particularly on the green/magenta axis - is off in this shot, but this is still no reason why the man's skin in the foreground appears as an almost monochromatic magenta blob.

Once again, Panasonic's engineers seem to have opted in favor of resolution/sharpness over richer color sampling in its image processing/debayering and codec implementation. I guess that that the GH4 will divide DIY filmmakers into two camps, those going for resolution + great ergonomics + run'n'gun capabilities + maturity and robustness (in everything from hardware design to software workflow) with the GH4, and those going for richness of the image (at the expense of practicality) with Blackmagic cameras.

(The included screengrab is a JPEG at 80% compression quality because this forum allows a maximum file size of 2 MB. The original, losslessly compressed PNG screengrab (33 MB) can be downloaded here.)

@johnnymossville Yes, we can both agree and call a truce :)

@Johnnymossville very intelligent remark Because we all know that consumer cameras all have weather sealing, 4:2:2 10 bit output, time code, color bars, master pedestal, zebras, cineliked, shoot all flavors of 4K, have peaking, etc.

I'm not sure I understand your comparison with desktop publishing though. This is awesome precisely BECAUSE it puts all these tools at everyone's disposal. What you do with it is up to you. In what way is anyone forcing you to endure anything in the process?

@last_SHIFT does taking a swing at Andrew somehow make you feel like a big man? or do you think you're accumulating points by doing so?

Did a grab from voldemorts video on a frame that looks really bad when scaled internally. It's a bit jagged in 100% too, but you can see 1) that it looks sharpened and 2) that it's pretty compressed. (there's additional compression from my jpg conversion, too) What we get straight out of the cam exactly is up in the air until there are factory copies out there.