Upcoming Panasonic GH-4K

[escape 84]

 

I just received rendering image of Nauticam NA-GH4.

I'm not sure this will be same as actual product but looks like button layout changed a lot (WB, ISO, shutter lever, handle...) from GH3 housing.

Edited June 30, 2014 by escape

[peterbkk 110]

While waiting for the GH4 housing, I've been playing with my new GH4, just doing some stuff to become familiar with the controls and settings.

 

As this is my first foray into using a traditional "camera" for video, I've been experimenting with some setups that might make it more of a video camera experience. I was particularly concerned about movements in the "pitch" dimension, amplified by the camera's short front to back length.

 

Also, for most of my work, I like to intermingle some "above water" shots with the underwater footage, adding some local colour or scenery or even an interview or two. So, I need a video camera that can be handheld, often on a moving boat.

 

So, how to make the GH4 into the optimal "above water" video camera for use on and around boats that records decent sound?

 

Here is what I have come up with:

 

 

 

 

Adding the microphone improves sound quality, especially for interviews. It has both stereo and shotgun options. Because it is Panasonic, the camera automatically detects its presence and adjust the settings according. I know that there are better microphones but this one does a good job and is very convenient.

Adding the Zacuto Z-Finder makes the whole back display into one huge EVF - great for manual focus. And really great for focusing your attention on what's happening in the scene.

The combination of the Z-Finder and the Op/Tech hand-strap increases stability because, even with eyeglasses, I can mash the soft rubber finder up against my face. The Z-Finder pops on and off very easily, leaving behind a short frame which helps keep light off the display.

Of course, I will need to buy a second GH4 and lens so I don’t have to keep taking it in and out of the housing...

Regards

Peter

Edited July 1, 2014 by peterbkk

[Pete L 48]

It looks like they have addressed some of the issues I find using the GH3 housings.

It is certainly not optimized for video shooting.

I hope there will be some other options for housings too as I think this will become a very popular camera.

[peterbkk 110]

It looks like they have addressed some of the issues I find using the GH3 housings.

It is certainly not optimized for video shooting.

 

The main differences that I can see from the image are:

- a pull-trigger shutter release (probably better for video)

- moved the WB button to the side (maybe handier for stepping through presets at depth changes)

- moved the front wheel dial to the side (probably better for manual exposure control)

- removed the thumb rest

 

Anything else obvious?

 

I'm not sure how they could further optimise it for video shooting, other than change the whole shape to a cylinder but then they'd also need to replace many of the physical controls with electronic controls. Probably a step too far, given where they are starting from.

 

For this housing, the video shooting balance and handling may need to adjusted by external methods, using a frame, tray or rails with positionable handles.

 

Regards

Peter

[Pete L 48]

No that's about it Pete.

The current housing is not very user friendly regarding the button layout but it looks as though they have made some significant changes.

I'm looking forward to seeing one, I may swap to the new version if it is worth it.

[peterbkk 110]

I'm looking forward to seeing one, I may swap to the new version if it is worth it.

 

I'm sitting here with a brand new GH4 and no way of getting it underwater. But I didn't want to get a modified GH3 housing. So, I hope they'll release the NA-GH4 housing soon.

[thetrickster 328]

I've got the NA-GH3 for my GH4 (as I had briefly a GH3)

 

and yes the NA-GH4 looks nice and features some nice improvements - but I'm not sure I'll upgrade thou as it doesn't fix my main issue...

 

All these still camera housings, still have the issue of them being sensitive to forward/backwards roll, due to the shape being quite tall and wide, where as a video camera is longer and better balanced. I'm currently trying to figure out how to arrange float arms and clamps to get a more stable platform underwater - but the better it is underwater, the harder it is to store / manage on the boat

 

For sure, if I was buying now, I would wait for the NA-GH4 mind

[Davide DB 424]

 

I'm sitting here with a brand new GH4 and no way of getting it underwater. But I didn't want to get a modified GH3 housing. So, I hope they'll release the NA-GH4 housing soon.

 

I love your setup

 

In the meantime you could check the (now) complete Philip Bloom review:

 

http://philipbloom.net/2014/06/30/gh4/

 

PS

Would be nice if some mod could change this topic name in something more appropriate

[Pete L 48]

Has everyone updated their firmware?

Did mine yesterday.

[escape 84]

Has everyone updated their firmware?

Did mine yesterday.

 

I just did firmware update. Hopefully they fixed lock up problem.

BTW, anybody know why no teleconveter (1.4x or 2x) for m43?

I would love to use 1.4x with Oly 60mm.

[Pete L 48]

I have never had the lockup issue so maybe I'm lucky.

Peter BKK, I like your setup & one of the advantages of this camera is you can afford to have a dedicated land version & a dedicated u/w version too.

[Pete L 48]

I wonder wether despanding will catch on

vimeo.com/99808847

Hope Panny fix the 10 bit interlaced output situation soon.

[dreifish 353]

A little bit off topic, but I'm considering investing in a GH4 setup mainly for video, and one of the major limitations compared to a dedicated video camere is that you can't have flip red filters. So, how good is the manual white balance on the GH4 (or the GH2/GH3) for underwater use? Can you get rich colors without a red filter? If so, how deep?

 

How do the Panasonics compare to the Canons? (I've seen some excellent white balance results without a red filter from the 5D Mark III -- can GH4 do similar?)

 

What about compared to the RX100? I have an RX100, and the manual white balance without red filter doesn't produce very good results below 5 meters or so. Are the panasonics/canons better? Or do you need a red filter with all of them?

[peterbkk 110]

A little bit off topic, but I'm considering investing in a GH4 setup mainly for video, and one of the major limitations compared to a dedicated video camere is that you can't have flip red filters. So, how good is the manual white balance on the GH4 (or the GH2/GH3) for underwater use? Can you get rich colors without a red filter? If so, how deep?

 

 

I hate red filters!

 

I stopped using them when underwater video cameras reached a quality level that enabled editing adjustments to get close to real underwater colours.

 

That's why we are all excited about the GH4. 4K 10bit 422 footage gives you a lot of scope to adjust things in editing - at an affordable price in a portable package.

 

Think about how a red filter works. It removes blue and green to increase the relative proportion of red. (look at a colour wheel). As we know from scuba diving 101, after about 10 meters deep, there is no red. So then, all you are doing with a red filter, is reducing the amount of light that's hitting the sensor. That just reduces quality. Above 10 meters, there should be enough light to get natural looking footage without any filters and in-camera adjustments.

 

These days, when I see footage that been obviously shot through red filters, I think, "that's not what it looks like underwater". Underwater things are naturally blue-green, so why not show that to our audiences. Red filters, IMHO, make everything look plastic.

 

Similarly, I don't like underwater footage that's been aggressively white-balanced to an unnatural level. Aggressive white-balancing is just like adding a red filter. It reduces blue and green to try to increase the proportion of red - a colour which does not exist in any usable level in natural light below 10 meters.

 

If you want more red in your underwater footage, take down some lights. Of course, that's only effective for a meter or two. Unless you take the Jaques Cousteau approach of having a lighting guy swim behind you with a humongous bank of lights powered by umbilicals to a generator on the surface.

 

I think that you'll find most quality cameras produced these days will produce good results without a red filter. Canon and Panasonic both have color engines that work well underwater. Sony have had issues with their color engine underwater in recent years.

 

Regards

Peter

[Pete L 48]

Pete, did you watch the Atomos video link above?

You cannot get 10bit 422 progressive footage in 25 or 30 frames at the moment through hdmi.

I hope panny unlock it soon as I am starting to warm to the idea of the shogun

[Pete L 48]

Oh & yes the GH4 in 4K mode has very good colour depth for correction.

I am pretty happy with it but of course 10bit 422 in 4K would be awesome.

[peterbkk 110]

Pete, did you watch the Atomos video link above?

You cannot get 10bit 422 progressive footage in 25 or 30 frames at the moment through hdmi.

I hope panny unlock it soon as I am starting to warm to the idea of the shogun

It sounds like a firmware thing. I wonder if 1.1 has fixed it.

 

In any case, if you had a Shogun, why wouldn't you just shoot everything in Cinema 4K 422 10bit at Cine 24P. Seems to be the sweet spot for this camera. Maximizes it's sensor and its output capabilities. You can always crop the edges if you want to output full-screen UHD 4K.

 

The cadence difference between 24P and 25P is not detectable to most humans. As long as the finished timeline is 24P, you should be able to intermingle 24P and 25P footage. Maybe 30P shooters will have to be careful when intermingling footage.

 

Right now, I'm shooting UHD 4K in 25P, only because I'm mixing into the main timeline shot in HD 25P on my XF100. But, as soon as I have a housing and a Shogun, I'm going to switch to Cinema 4K 422 10bit at Cine 24P for everything.

 

Regards

Peter

[Pete L 48]

The firmware update didn't address this issue.

There is also no record trigger through hdmi in some modes.

I am sure panny will sort it out.

Despite that, it is still a great little camera.

[paratom 1]

the newly announced GH4 Nauticam housing does look great.

I am just getting ready to buy an EM1 housing but then I see this beautiful GH4 housing.

I am mainly still photographer but sometimes a small movie can be great.

An underwaterhousing should really be something I can use for a couple of years....so with the GH4 Iwould be futureproof not only in regards to still but also in regards to movie.

For some reason the Olympus EM5/EM1 seem to get much more attention from divers.

Thanks for all the GH4 info here.

 

But what about IS? Is it needed for wide angle under water?

[textilet 7]

Not in my experience

[Raptor^ 0]

What do you guys who have the GH4 think of the video autofocus? I have seen a few tests on it and to be honest it really looks like sh*t. Extremely slow and hunting very much compared to the tests I've seen on the GH2 and the GH3. The GH3 seemed to have much faster autofocus and more precise than the GH2 which also was great, but the GH4 seems to have taken a giant leap in the wrong direction?

 

Here is just one example of it not even being able to track a person walking towards the camera.

https://vimeo.com/98789826 Autofocus test at 25:09

 

GH4 vs 70d autofocus, again the GH4 is really slow.

 

And to compare, under is a GH2 vs GH3 autofocus test; much faster!

 

Finally Griffin Hammond with his GH3 vs GH4, take a look at 06:28.

[thetrickster 328]

What do you guys who have the GH4 think of the video autofocus?

 

Personally, I was all agitated by Nautilcam releasing a 6" Dome with MF knob, while I was putting my GH4 Rig together - I have the Zen 170mm one, and I did also read about the relatively poor AF compared to the 70d etc.. so was too thinking have I made the right choice

 

But on actually diving with the thing and having it set to S-AF and f5.6 - I see no reason to use C-AF/MF underwater. the hyperfocal distances for the m43 lenses are pretty extreme for these apertures so everything from 3m to infinity will be in focus, so focus on something 3-4m and hit record - all is good.

 

Also I would note that, the video above comparing it to a 70d isn't really a fair comparison.

 

Its using the Olympus 60mm - which a) is pretty awful for AF on its own b) Doesn't benefit from the 'Depth from Defocus' which the GH4 can utilise with Panasonic lenses

Edited July 11, 2014 by thetrickster

[textilet 7]

This chart http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html has the hyper focal distance at about 2 ft for 7mm@ f/5.6 (assuming the numbers are similar underwater and through a dome). 3m actually had me a little discouraged given my local visibility ☺

[dreifish 353]

This chart http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html has the hyper focal distance at about 2 ft for 7mm@ f/5.6 (assuming the numbers are similar underwater and through a dome). 3m actually had me a little discouraged given my local visibility ☺

 

I think the virtual image with domes might throw all those calculations out the window. If I understand dome port theory correctly, the virtual image created by the dome of a subject at infinity, will lie in a position which is 3 x the radius of the dome (ROD) in front of the front surface of the dome. Subjects closer to the dome than infinity will have a virtual image closer to the dome.

 

So if the ROD is 7", that means the furthest your lens would need to focus is 21" in front of the dome. If you're prefocused on the hyperfocal distance so everything from 2 feet to infinity is in focus, you'd basically have none of the virtual image in focus.

 

Can anyone elucidate how dome theory impacts hyperfocal distances? Does it mean that to have everything sharply in focus you just need the zone from the front of the dome (i.e. ROD) to 3XROD in front of the dome in focus? Or do you need the area from right in front of the lens to 3XROD in focus?

Edited July 11, 2014 by dreifish

[Interceptor121 713]

In a thin glass case the focus point is actually 4xr so for a 7" dome would be 14" this means your lens minimum focus distance on land has to be less otherwise you cannot achieve focus.

In reality as the domes are thicker the requirements are for shorter minimum focus distance.

The effect of aperture in a dome is more to control diffraction in the corners (smaller dome needs smaller apertures) and brightness than to actually control hyperfocal distance in the traditional sense as the port is not anymore flat each dome hits a certain f/stop that produces optimal results if you go wider the corners are blurred. Larger domes lower f/stops

The 7-14 Panasonic has a 25cm minimum focus distance hence smaller dome is 5" in case of a perfect thin glass, Nauticam want to make sure the apertures are not too small so they go to 7" as probably 9" won't work with the form factor of the lens camera.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Interceptor121