Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Panasonic GH5 anybody using 400 Mbps All-Intra?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 13 August 2018 - 05:25 AM

I have just finished decomposing the various codecs used by the camera to record on the memory card and I have to say I am disappointed.

 

I had previously looked at endless comparisons between the various codecs to conclude there is not much difference in it but now that I have looked myself I am even more frustrated. I had hoped that the 150 Mbps 422 10 bit color codec was going to be enough for HDR but frankly this is really poor beyond my expectations obviously the camera internal processing is not strong enough to compress this signal real time and make it usable.

 

If anybody fancies looking into super technical stuff the findings are here http://interceptor12...rding-settings/

 

I am now wondering if I should fork some serious cost and invest into V90 memory cards to use all-intra or should I just not bother entirely and use the 100 Mbps codec I am curious to see if anyone has experience with all intra at UHD resolution? I already know myself this has not enough headroom to compare with external recorder but just wanting to check it out

 

 


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#2 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 13 August 2018 - 05:38 AM

Very interesting - some great investigating there. Nice.

 

As I've got the Inferno, I havent tried (yet) the internal 400mbps option as I haven't got any UHS-II V60/V90 cards

 

I think from other online reviews there is very little difference between ProRes and the 400bmbps - so even thou they are expensive cards, its a LOT cheaper than an external recorder.


Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com


#3 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 13 August 2018 - 07:35 AM

I don’t really trust the online reviews to be frank. Like the videos on YouTube comparing codecs displayed on a 8 bit monitor after compression clearly crap
To have a proper comparison you need a monitor capable of 10 bit colour (8 bit FRC or native 10 bits) or is a total waste
Then in terms of motion both avc intra and prores contain full frames so you just have to gauge the difference between a 1.9 MB a 2.35 MB and 3.5 MB set of images with 422 sub-sampling. If the GH5 is not really able to output 10 bits there won’t be any difference between 422 and 422 HQ that you can see. However if you have a 8 bit monitor you won’t see them anyway...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#4 bubffm

bubffm

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 August 2018 - 10:47 AM

Hi Interceptor,

I have used the 400Mbps All Intra codec on a recent trip, played with VLog, HLG etc. Just frustratingly investigating the results over the past days. All-in-all, I would say, for underwater stuff where dynamic range is hardly ever more than 7 or 8 stops, its not worth the hassle. The results are pretty disappointing. Cinelike D to me looks better.

But in fact I would go as far as saying that to my eye, the 100 Mbps XAVC codec of my old trusted AX100 looks even better and can be „stretched“ more in post even though only 8bits... Just playing with some older footage of mine and just amazed what I get out of it with Davinci compared to back in the day when I corrected it with FCPX.

It makes me think very hard about trying the Sony Z90. I played with it overland and the Autofocus just knocks you out of your socks. Totally amazing. On top you now get proper picture profiles and the XAVC Long GOP Codec.

Good that I have time to think before next divetrip is coming up :-)

#5 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 13 August 2018 - 11:06 AM

Hi Interceptor,

I have used the 400Mbps All Intra codec on a recent trip, played with VLog, HLG etc. Just frustratingly investigating the results over the past days. All-in-all, I would say, for underwater stuff where dynamic range is hardly ever more than 7 or 8 stops, its not worth the hassle. The results are pretty disappointing. Cinelike D to me looks better.

But in fact I would go as far as saying that to my eye, the 100 Mbps XAVC codec of my old trusted AX100 looks even better and can be „stretched“ more in post even though only 8bits... Just playing with some older footage of mine and just amazed what I get out of it with Davinci compared to back in the day when I corrected it with FCPX.

It makes me think very hard about trying the Sony Z90. I played with it overland and the Autofocus just knocks you out of your socks. Totally amazing. On top you now get proper picture profiles and the XAVC Long GOP Codec.

Good that I have time to think before next divetrip is coming up :-)



I think dynamic range maybe can be there but colours obviously disappear underwater so there are not going to be BT.2020 or even PCI colours but 10 bit for banding purposes may be interesting
Am currently heading towards cinelike D maybe with a post processing LUT rec709 I just have to decide if I buy the V90 memory cards or not as am not planning to house a recorder
VLOG or HLG: I don’t have the equipment to process it
Have you tried 400 all-i with cinelike D?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#6 bubffm

bubffm

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 August 2018 - 12:34 PM

>>Have you tried 400 all-i with cinelike D?

 

Yes, the difference is not material. At 150Mbps the files hold up just as well.



#7 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 13 August 2018 - 11:23 PM

>>Have you tried 400 all-i with cinelike D?
 
Yes, the difference is not material. At 150Mbps the files hold up just as well.


It depends of course on how the motion prediction works if you are shooting macro it will be ok wide angle with schooling fish maybe less?
What memory cards are you using?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#8 bubffm

bubffm

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 August 2018 - 11:43 PM

For 400Mbps I use the SD cards from Angelbird, a Tech-Firm from Austria. They are rated the best. I also have one Sandisk ExtremPro rated at 300MB/s which also works perfectly.

 

Both are pretty expensive...

 

On Motion: Thats what I tested, WA schooling fish. I really struggle to see a difference. I guess still worth having those cards. One day you may get to record ProRes RAW with them.  I cant stop dreaming....



#9 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 14 August 2018 - 01:38 AM

For 400Mbps I use the SD cards from Angelbird, a Tech-Firm from Austria. They are rated the best. I also have one Sandisk ExtremPro rated at 300MB/s which also works perfectly.
 
Both are pretty expensive...
 
On Motion: Thats what I tested, WA schooling fish. I really struggle to see a difference. I guess still worth having those cards. One day you may get to record ProRes RAW with them.  I cant stop dreaming....

I was thinking angelbird too as they now have a GH5 dual 128 GB pack that looks good mostly because of outside water not just for underwater and to experiment with HDR however monitors are also very expensive and the internal LCD not adequate for it. Maybe for LOG still good
If you can’t see differences I guess the codec is pretty good at prediction. What people don’t know is that the camera buffers a few MB before coding so it will only fail drastic scene changes that you typically don’t really do anyway. As you say as the colours are limited underwater the bitrate is going all towards motion and sharpness

From what I can see the IPB 100 mbps codec is rock solid the 150 422 less so but still 150% of sony xavc

I don’t have a 10 bit screen but I think is the combination of 422 and 10 bit that holds things together




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#10 bubffm

bubffm

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 August 2018 - 03:47 AM

Actually I am not the only one not seeing much difference on the All-Intra.  If you look into some youtube reviews, there are quite a few that conclude the same.  I thought with the more complicated environment in the water, particles etc.. the difference might be more obvious. But it really isnt.

 

On 150 (GH5) vs 100Mbps (AX100/700) Mbps: Spending more time comparing the two, the Sony files hold up just as good as the Panasonic, if not better during heavy color correction. Of course I never had the two cams in the same spot at the same time, so really hard to be totally conclusive, but if I look at comparative scenes in terms of visibility, depths, light conditions etc. I would have thought the Panasonic files would come out better with more latItude.  In that respect my expectations had been a bit higher.



#11 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 14 August 2018 - 04:05 AM

Youtube comparisons are not really correct you need a 10 bit monitor to see the differences
Sony uses IP only so the best comparison is the 422 150 codec
For what concerns latitude this stuff is super compressed you need to decompress to prores 422 and then edit otherwise you add rendering problems to the mix


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog