@bwhitz

" Speaking of the Varicam... let's use it as a reference for amazing detail! Look how deep and clean that image resolves... damn! It's looks like photoraw-mode from a DSLR... "

It's true, but why it jumps like that? Movements are horrible. Can you please explain me why? And how to avoid it?

This is a decent video. If you are not filming above 25,000 ISO the A7R III is a nice balance of color and detail. The weird greenish tint of the Panasonics is a bit off putting, but the 5s is way better than the 5 in that regard.

@endotoxic

I think the void is entering the discussion. Detail artefacts are part of the digital process. I understand the frustration based on some expectations maybe some specs didn't live to the word, but we have now a very capable camera that has 4k In a 4/3 amazing lowlight sensor. who would imagine this could be achieved at those sensitivities.

That's true. I agree with most of your whole post. But, on the other hand... there are cheap cameras that don't seem to have digital-artifacting. The Blackmagics for one, they all seem to render very nice, filmic, detail. Sure, the 2.5k are kind of old now, and a bit grainy... but, damn, I can't say they look digital. Still a very organic image free of artifact-ed details (maybe not the Pocket cam). I've even had 4k Blackmagic footage that looked better than the Alexa under the right lighting (since Alexa wasn't actually 4k)... so it can be done.

But, hey, like I've been saying... I could still be wrong. I'm just calling things as I see them currently. We haven't seen a whole ton of GH5s footage yet... there are allot of variables from shooting to uploading. So I'm gonna keep my eye on it! Cause it is a really amazing camera still with great features. Both the GH5 and GH5s are. I just really wanted that smooth, cinema-detailed look. It's what I really like for my projects. Not everyone needs to share my preference though.

@DrDave

the "horse" video on my monitor--the green looks like astroturf. Maybe that's the look they wanted but I wouldn't have pushed it that far (using the Spider Pro for calibration).

Yea, the colors aren't great. I was just using that as an example of pretty good-looking detail. Not sharp... but highly detailed and smooth.

but to be real and honest I want a varicam Lt.

Yes! The Varicams are one of my favorite cameras right now as well. Very awesome footage from those. Speaking of the Varicam... let's use it as a reference for amazing detail! Look how deep and clean that image resolves... damn! It's looks like photoraw-mode from a DSLR...

@Bwhitz and @allthepeoplefromthisthread

I think the void is entering the discussion. Detail artefacts are part of the digital process. I understand the frustration based on some expectations maybe some specs didn't live to the word, but we have now a very capable camera that has 4k In a 4/3 amazing lowlight sensor. who would imagine this could be achieved at those sensitivities.

In a way I'm very glad that we have the opportunity to live use and watch the evolution of such grate machines. The GH series has gone very far and it is in a inacurate state of limbo, since is very pro capable but still consumer oriented. That makes professional confused, since they have prolike specs at low prices but lack of real control. Not that much far from a red camera in fact. We only lack raw material from gh5.

About the halos and artifacts the mud or the alliasing, they are part of the character of the camera and to that extend As a professional I'm able to overcome its limitations creatively. It's just a tool. And there are lots of them around.

In general I like what gh5 series offer. Has come a long way to what it is now.

The ideal situations would be buy both as panamarketing thought from the begining. Do you really think they don't have the knowledge to make the s line better? In fact only a firmware update could change all its behaviour completely.

Don't brag about its features, and implementation, see the way to overcome them in the best possible way

I'm in a current state of doubt. I have 30k+ to invest in editing machine and gear. 10 or such in amd thread ripper or Epyc workstation 8k ready and the rest on smart buy equipment. C200 ,eva1 ,ursaminipro, 2xgh5 , c300mk2, but to be real and honest I want a varicam Lt. Even second used, That is my dream more than an alexa mini or any camera at the moment. It feels right.

that image from gh5 it is not designed to be on set with its bigger brothers, that's a marketing strategy and lies, that makes you think GH series share parts with varicam series, like color and fake dual.gain sensor, its utter lies. Approaching consumers with professionals work.

Gh5s and gh5 is better that any camera at that price point on video. That's it, no more apples to oranges. Untill Sony comes with a Better aproach or the nx2 or whatever makes it 10 bit 422 at 400mbit 60p DCI, GH series is better from codec implementation to features.

6k anamorphic !! Come on bro!! For 2k!!!!???

Cheers

I guess I'm not a good pixel-peeper. To me the GH5S looks great

@Ironfilm OK I will try it! Drilling now!

Looking at the truly weird log clip comparing the a7s ii with the GH5s I think we unfortunately have to ask the question, why?
Why is the sky blue on the right and not on the left?
Why is the Sony not graded properly?
Why are the rocks orange on the left and not on the right?
Since it's outdoors, in decent light, why wasn't the clip on the left made using the R series or the a6500?
Why isn't the GH5 used, as well, to show precise difference between the two cameras in a typical, outdoor situation?
And we know that the 6500 is going to outresolve the GH5s, so why isn't it there? Weird.
Why were the clips filmed at two different times, with different cloud coverage?
Why is the the building overexposed. thus affecting the color of the entire clip?

I mean, seriously. Anytime you have a non blue sky video of a blue sky, all it shows is that you don't know what you are doing.

Check out the wideangle comparison--

Some of the Sony cams output 4:2:2 over HDMI. It isn't 10 bit, but it grades well. I have to say, the GH5 is pretty clean as far as artefacts, haloing, etc. It's a good balance.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

I know, what I'm looking at. I look at footage all day. There is visible compression, "halos", and "crunch" around fine details on allot of this footage I'm looking at. "Science" is weird to bring up here... because there is also "science" going on that could explain what I'm seeing... somewhere in the pipe-line there is over-de-noising, or over-sharpening going on that ruins the natural image. The images are over-processed, that's also science. There is sceince as well as art to things... that's why there are directors and DPs... not just a technician that says... "well, scientifically speaking, your cell-phone is more advanced than the Alexa 65... so we're going to shoot Avengers 5 on the iphones we have laying around"

Here is even some more GH5 footage that does NOT have the crunched-processed look to it. The crunch is a very distinct look. It's easy to spot, but it's not in this video. The detail looks very natural here on the horse shots...

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Sure. The Alexa is actually pretty old now. So is a simple Blackmagic 2.5k camera. But, the images don't look compressed from either of these cameras... the details aren't crunched-down and over-sharpened. I don't really care if something is technically done better... if it still has that cell-phoney, over-processed look, it's a no go!

@firstbase

Yes, it is very sharp. Like a cell-phone. My iphone is very sharp also. lol. It ruins all the detail though...

I'm just gonna have to rent and try it out.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

May be something personal? :-)

Yes, it is. I'm too used to Alexa, Red, or Varicam footage and now everything else looks like crap.

To be fair... here are some examples of what I'd consider to NOT have the horrible cell-phone-detail look. All viewed from the same computer, same monitor, all on Vimeo.

(and this is on GH5... which makes me think it's the settings, or GH5s is actually worse w/too much NR) I'll just have to rent one. Too many variables online. But I figured I'd post about it and get input either way.

Soft/organic... yet still highly detailed. No fringing or "crunch" around detailed areas...