Personal View site logo
Panasonic GH5S GH5 S, 4K Video Edition
  • 512 Replies sorted by
  • @DrDave Yep, I was just gonna say that was probably it...

  • @bwhitz @Nino_Ilacqua Those jumps are because the person making the film did not know the difference between 24p and 25p. They simply put it on the wrong timeline and then didn't notice the jumps from the missing frames. It's amazing how often you see stuff like that.

  • @ bwhitz

    At 0:35 for example, the red bus on the bridge going left, or the woman at 0:46 walking to right. The movement stops for a tiny fraction of second then there is a very little jump forward.

  • @Nino_Ilacqua

    It's true, but why it jumps like that? Movements are horrible.

    Which part? Looked like most of it was on a tripod. Maybe the end parts were just handheld?

  • @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?

  • @kin869

    Here's some wide outdoor shots from the GH5s that also show a lot of detail:

    Ah yea! That one does look allot better! There may be hope yet! Definitely going to have to rent a GH5s sometime this month and try it out...

  • 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.

  • Some side by side comparison between the GH5 and the GH5s at various ISOs:

    Besides the slow motion tests, it seems like the GH5s resolve about the same amount of detail as the GH5.

    Here's some wide outdoor shots from the GH5s that also show a lot of detail:

  • @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...

  • I'll probably be getting the a6700. Can't wait to see the a6700. Or the NX2. Please, please. But if I had to choose between the GH5 and the GH5s I would go for the GH5. It's a great camera. If they improve the 5s, which I'm sure they can, it would be really great to have the multi aspect sensor.
    @endotoxic I for sure have had several videos ruined by stair stepping and moiré. It isn't a question of art for me; I just don't want it. It didn't like the pulsing, clumping grain in the GH1, either. Every cam from Panasonic has gotten just a bit better in resolution, color and moiré, and the GH5 is now the best one all of those. I wouldn't buy a camera just for LL, but if I needed one, I would certainly consider the 5s because I have so much glass already. If it was really really dark, I probably would go with the Sony.

    @kellar42 my ax100 is too sharp. See, I do complain if it is too sharp :) But the ax700 is very nice.

    @bwhitz 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).

    The 5s is the first attempt at low light. Imagine that it is the GH1, and down the line there will be a GH 7s (7s--hmmm....) from Panasonic with incremental upgrades that is even better. I hope they continue it.

  • @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

  • Yea, I'd have to say neither looks good in that comparison. GH5s is crunchy again... looks like Canon 7D detail. And the A7SII looks muddy.

  • @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.

  • But I would be mainly using the 6300/6500 if the heating problem was a total non issue. I even thought of buying one and just drilling holes in it.

    Drill just one hole through the sensor.

    Overheating problem solved forever.

  • And if you are worried about crunch, this is really crunch from the 5s.

    a6500 gh5s 2.jpg
    1012 x 534 - 171K
  • Check out the wideangle comparison--


    So, that is cool. But overall the GH5 picture is just a bit better.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    For now you want to push your personal taste as some benchmark.

    Yea, that's all I was saying. For the projects I'm working on the rest of the year... I wanted a smaller-DSLR camera to own, that has a similar high-detail, yet un-processed look to it. The same look you get from Red or similar camera. Very smooth, but very detailed. I'm not saying my bench-mark is what everyone should go by. And it looks like the GH5 IS capable of it from that horse video I posted. I'm just trying to figure out where in the pipe-line the "crunchy" image comes from (cause the horse guy avoided it) and find a similar GH5s video.

    @DrDave

    I have to say, the GH5 is pretty clean as far as artefacts, haloing, etc. It's a good balance.

    Yes, I've seen a few videos that look very clean... thanks! Just hoping to see similar stuff from the GH5s now.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    You can just look at MTFs to see any issue with halos or such. And this is proper way.

    No such way as "natural image" exist. Each image is natural, even full negative with stripes and 300% green channel.

    For now you want to push your personal taste as some benchmark.

  • @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...

  • @bwhitz

    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!

    This is why science exists instead of "I feel it" stuff. Because all this "look compressed" is from same opera as "definitely high end and airy heights" in audio.

  • @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!