Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Article just posted by No Film School Red Epic vs Panasonic GH4

Joe Marine said:
It was mentioned in the post that the two RAW cameras, the 5D3 and the EPIC, are doing minimal processing in the cameras, but I mentioned it again with Luke's new test, that the EPIC usually requires a bit of sharpening.
Click to expand...

What is the basis of this statement ?
 
Kevin Marshall said:
Probably because the Epic does no in-camera sharpening, which non-RAW cameras do.
Click to expand...

I think Hrvoje is referring to the statement that the Epic usually requires sharpening. Which is a bit of a stretch whichever way you cut it. If we are talking about HD delivery then in my experience, no, it doesn't. If we are talking about 4K delivery then what are we basing it on?, the 3 (exagerating) projects finished this way?, plus are we talking about 5K downscaled to 4K or 4K originated on an Epic. If the latter, well why when you know you need a de-bayer would you shoot 4K on a 5K capable camera if you knew your target was 4K delivery?

Meh, can of worms click generating exercise.

sharpest...what is that anyway?
 
Ivan McCullough said:
I think Hrvoje is referring to the statement that the Epic usually requires sharpening. Which is a bit of a stretch whichever way you cut it. If we are talking about HD delivery then in my experience, no, it doesn't. If we are talking about 4K delivery then what are we basing it on?, the 3 (exagerating) projects finished this way?, plus are we talking about 5K downscaled to 4K or 4K originated on an Epic. If the latter, well why when you know you need a de-bayer would you shoot 4K on a 5K capable camera if you knew your target was 4K delivery?

Meh, can of worms click generating exercise.

sharpest...what is that anyway?
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree.
 
It's been talked about before in RU, but it would be nice to have an on/off sharpening tool inside the DSMC brain; it would help on-set situations.
 
I usually add a little sharpening in REDCINE-X to whatever RED footage I'm processing, you might do something different, that's all I was saying. No, it doesn't actually require it, but if RED shot to some other non-RAW format internally, I'd be very surprised if they wouldn't have built in a sharpening setting into the cameras. It's the same thing with Blackmagic's ProRes internally. They have been working on the debayering algorithm to get sharper ProRes. Does it actually need it? Not really, but it can make a difference.
 
Not that anyone here needs convincing, but I find that this article does a nice job of offering a counterpoint to the in-camera sharpening fans (scroll down a bit). Stu Maschwitz is the man.
 
Firstly, it's not just the sharpening.
It's the OLPF as well.

Secondly, I see that the difference between actual acuity is smaller in camera comparison shot of a superhero doll,
which draws the question of lens and focus variables in exterior shot. In addition, I am interested in the practical purpose of staring at a 300% or 400% enlarged UHD image if one is not a camera manufacturing related engineer or in specific part of post production.

Comparison of a stills camera which also does motion and a dedicated motion imaging camera may be a topic which draws a lot of attention but comparisons like these often neglect differing premises on which those cameras are made.

Some of them are the primary purpose of the camera and its targeted market. Notions related to a 20 feet high human face moving in a CU vs. still image or an online video displayed on an average consumer's HD display. The choice of OLPF is likely based on a combination of both technical and creative decisions from a camera manufacturer because it greatly affects the picture aesthetic.

Regarding linked comment on "Japanese companies", each camera company does have certain preferences in picture aesthetics - to an extent, but a significant part depends on target market and its research as well. There is the broadcast segment and content and informative factual aesthetic and the consumer part. To an average consumer initial impression of "sharper" has typically been attractive, which is largely affected by the legacy of SD and poor HD still fresh and blinking in subconscious. Let's see what happens when UHD becomes widely adopted.

For a next test I suggest using both cameras to shoot a CU of a woman, presenting the results to her in 4K, then checking which one she prefers.
 
The focus on the Epic is much more shallow so its easy to see that the focus is actually on the tree trunks to the left with those pink leaves. Im fine with the gh4 is sharper with no olpf but it is not nice when you set the focus on the epic on the wrong place and upon this also zoom alot. The roof on the epic is quiet alot out of focus.

As b-cam why not. I see this working much better then a go pro wich I have a hard time accpting when intercut to an epic (epic looks film and go pro look video no matter what).
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
For a next test I suggest using both cameras to shoot a CU of a woman, presenting the results to her in 4K, then checking which one she prefers.
Click to expand...

No woman will like 4K of her. Period. Luckily most Red shooters do not like sharp images and finish in HD.

Sharpening is a tricky issue. You can always easily post process blur an image. Getting back original, real ( not fake coring 'Zap' ) detail is near impossible even with advanced deconvolution filters.
I would buy the GH4 in a heartbeat if it had more than 8 bits built in recording at a higher bitrate.
 
If you watched the video example "a Coast Day" you can see how unpleasing the hyper sharpness can be, it lacks depth and feels brittle instead of much finer details that smooth out. Just pause the video on a shot with crashing waves ... it looks like an over sharpened jpeg. So yeah not enough depth, after 12+ bits of info to work with, only having 8 is torture. Though as always good ideas are king, but if you have an awesome idea it can only get better with a better camera system. One thing about all these 'comparisons' is that they are almost never unbiased. Look at the 400% crop, I mean they're not even the same shot, close up vs med-CU, and their matching contrast and white balance is a joke. I know my scarlet is sharper in 4k than their 5k epic shot. But it's all about the snobbery and not about honest reporting. For its price the GH4 might be a cheap b-cam, especially if you soften some of the sharp edges.
 
Justin Kirchhoff said:
That EPIC footage is way soft and the focus wasn't set as deep as the GH4, sharpening or not, I don't find it to be a good comparison.
Click to expand...


I was wondering the same thing myself actually... as well if the sensor size discrepancies were accounted for... but unless i am testing stuff myself its difficult to really try and figure out any discrepancies if i wasn't there taking notes
 
Brian Merlen said:
I was wondering the same thing myself actually... as well if the sensor size discrepancies were accounted for... but unless i am testing stuff myself its difficult to really try and figure out any discrepancies if i wasn't there taking notes
Click to expand...

I too was thinking about sensor size, which could be a large determining factor for deep focus...The EPIC shot is focused on the foreground branches and leaves, while the GH4 seems to be set to infinity. Hey, I'm just observing, so forgive me if I'm wrong.
 
Any camera can look fine:

1 - Under limited, perfect conditions: Not too much motion, not too much detail that could moire, not too much dynamic range or any clip to white, etc. The better camera gives a good shots much more of the time.
2 - Unless you grade it much. You can't really grade 8 bit footage ("log" or not - 8 bit log is a joke, really) without severe limitations (like you can't use secondaries much if at all, you can't stretch contrast, etc.) Anyone who say different simply does not understand grading.

So… Both cameras seem very similar if you don't know much nor give it much thought.

These Phillip-Bloom style sites feed dreams "I don;t need an education, nor money, nor even a good camera to make a film like Hollywood". Well, no, that's not possible. It is true that anyone with lots of talent passion and persistence can make it to Hollywood, but you're not going to make a hit film with your college buddies in your garage with $1000. This has been done maybe 5 times in 40 years (and unless there was some gimmick to justify the bad camera, with the best tech from the time).

Meanwhile, during those 40 years, thousands of people "made it" by working their way up the system ladder the old way.
 
Last edited:
GH4vsEpic3_zps14f0d0f6.jpg


You're welcome universe. We can now return to more productive debates like Star Wars vs Star Trek etc.

At this point I'm not even surprised when tests are botched. I just expect it. At least they had the good sense to include the source files so that someone who knows what they're doing can actually compare things. Even my comparison is bad, the trees are waving in the wind like someone with their hair on fire--these were the least motion blurry frames I could find for each, as they say Garbage In Garbage Out.

I don't know why we would expect a very big difference between the two. They both have similar numbers of photosites. They both are bayer pattern. They both have OLPFs. I would be more surprised if there was a large difference between the two than anything. And when you actually look at the parts of the frame in focus it's pretty clear that they're pretty much the same resolution with just the GH4 being slightly softer (more out of focus? motion blurry?) and more heavily compressed and artifacty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top