GH5's Hidden setting for highest video quality (Almost like RAW) 

Chuba Chidebelu that's actually a nice way to put it! Thanks.

It's the truth!

hahaha

Thanks for telling.

Russtafa B different opinions and thinking will make us all richer. :-) thanks for telling.

Brian Siano none that I know off. There is 8bit codecs as well, but I don't see the point of not using 10bit. :-)

Hey, try the free version of DaVinci Resolve by BlackMagic

Thank you for that suggestion. In fact I did already download it a while ago but did not yet make my way through... can you recommend a good tutorial?

Even when cropped the resolution is +0,298% and when-when you add up all the Lab channels of the 402 resolution you get about the same amount of pixels stored (97,5%). Then because it's h265, you get twice as good (according to some sources) compression, but the codec needs to compress more pixels (2,253X). So you can't really know for sure based on theory which is better, now can you? So that's why I tested and saw a nice boost in details and sharpness the colour look bit better and so on. How do you see the difference of all-I and long gop? I did tests and I simply can't find the difference. It edits faster but other than that. :-/ Can you help me? And I do understand the theory of all-I, I'm not interested in that, only about practical and tested differences that can be seen. So if you happy with all-I how is it diffrent?

Joo.Works, thanks for your reply! Yes, I do see a very noticeable difference when using the all-I codec, specifically when there is fast movement in the Shot, such as with camera movements (requiring many areas of the picture to update at the same time). The All-I codec does not produce blocky compression artifacts, while the long-gop does. As a result, the All-I footage ends up looking more natural and organic, and less digital.

I should run some test again. I did test with quick pans, but was not able to see the difference. Now I wanna try again. :-D Thanks for the info.

Sure you can. On my computer based with a quick tests the editready is just 4x faster.

Can't wait to dive into this! Yet another reason why the GH5, in my book, is like the Swiss Army Knife of cameras. I love it! Appreciate you offering these tests and samples that save others, like me, so much time and money. By the way your funeral footage looked stunning! It was the reason why I watched the entire video!

Rizal Wy it has a bit better noiselevel, so one could argue that it has bit more dr, but not much.

try recover lost data with your Raw video....good luck... - make no sense that statement.

@@Arvidje you can do that in raw.. bruh

@@imabigsandwich1292 lost=lost i quess. Yes you have much more room with raw, its basically not processed, but if your sensor is overexposed and can't handle more light, u don't have that data.

@@Arvidje Have you ever heard about highlight recovery, and the option to literally lower the iso and up the shutter speed in some raw format? yeah.

@@imabigsandwich1292 Surei am a professional videographer. Once something reaches maximum brightness (which can happens very quickly) , thats it - all further image data is lost (highlight clipping no matter its raw) Don't think everything is magic with raw.

Edit ready is 4x faster on my laptop.

Robert good idea. I'll do something like that soon.

That I would need to learn my self first. :-D But not bad idea at all actually.

Yes, I purchased your kit, and the process is straight forward. The problem is whether my environment is setup correctly, and it seems I cannot find the info on this. For example, what should be settings if one works with HDR monitor and uses your kit, and what if one uses regular monitor with your kit process. Thanks and cheers!!!

Beyond The Block try again. I for got to put the file there. :-\ it's in a hiden codec folder.

hzubovi1 yes, it's that codec. I have not tested the effect of frequences. :-\

Thank you, love the image you got.

One more question, how did you grade the footage?

Colour correction kit for the gh5 I use it almoast all the time. joo.works/colour-kit-gh5

Anglo Dutch sounds like a video worth doing. I just migth... Let's see. :-D thanks for the idea!

Chi Artbe do test it before using it in anything serious. :-D

I want to follow up on my own question, in case anyone else is wondering. After bringing the footage into Premiere and looking at its properties, it turns out that yes, when you choose 6K 10 bit, it does indeed record in the HVEC (H.265) codec, even though that doesn't appear to be what's indicated on the "Rec Format" menu.

thx dude

@@RedtailMediaPro thanks helpful even now!

I don't have either of those cameras, but looking at the specs... Yes.

@@JooWorks Ok thanks

The codec works with any colour profile.

from what I've been following the problem is getting the signal across HDMI for the GH5. But its why I'm super excited for the new Black Magic Pro 4K

erich ly what up with that cam and how is it better than gh5? He is able to shoot 6k your talking about 4k

TheHitBrainiac I wouldn’t say it’s better than a GH5 in all aspects, (I shoot a GH5 too and I love the camera) but the Black Magic Pocket records directly to Apple Prores or to RAW with no external recorder needed. Feature for feature it’s looking like a very amazing camera and at a very affordable price to top it all off for smaller creators like me. Definitely look it up!

erich ly absolutely your right about the pro res part I hope pans sonic updates that

TheHitBrainiac that would be awesome if they did

MMOTION didn't I just do a video where I show you how the raw and the still corpares? Or did you mean to do a stress test on how much can one push the video still? That's a good idea. Thanks.

Joo.Works jes a stress test because you now the video still and the raw is on the same level. Normally you would push or you can push the raw in Post very heavy without quality loose. The Video still will crush very soon i think but i will try it myself ;)

MMOTION yes, raw does it theory have more flex to it, but let's try it out in practice. :-D maybe a new video about it. :-D

That's exactly what i was thinking. RAW is not at all about image quality. It is about the amount of sensor data it can retain, therefore how much you can get from a file in post. The practical image quality can be great with or without RAW, whereas the flexibility you have in post, strictly depends on RAW. H.265 is still a playback codec so i doubt it comes even close to RAW in the mentioned terms. Thanks for the tips though!

Micah Lindstrom theory vs. practice again? :-D But this time theory is on the codec's side. It's 200mbps long gop and 402, so it's a rather high bit rate combined with most effective compressions there is. H265 is said to be about 2x more effective to h264 so it would be about 400mbps as h264. Then it's long gop, so as a h264 all-I it would be about 800mbps. And as 402 it saves 1\3 of the brandwidth, as 422 it would be maybe "I don't know". Sounds good right? And you can see the proof in the pudding. Or you wanna stay in theory land? ;-)

And to be clear h265 has twice as much info as h264 (Depending on who sais that) the reason is mostly (as I have understood it) that h265 has much more advance macroblocking compession than h264.

h265 has a smoother and more relative compression, h264 has a more blocky compression. if youtube adopted h265 I would be happy, but not everyone has a powerful cpu/gpu

But if your going to crop out 25% for a 16x9 frame, what you got left is effectively at 150mbps H265 right?

Detail is one thing, but that has no relationship to raw. It's simply 'less compression errors'. The difference between raw and compressed codecs really isn't 'HOW COMPRESSED IS IT', it's 'WHERE IS THE DATA COMING FROM'. RAW: the data is being pulled from direct sensor data (compressed or not, ie compressed raw or uncompressed raw). But with compressed codecs of ANY form, the image has already been debayered and processed and THEN COMPRESSED. So h.265 has a specific data rate and it retains more INFORMATION from the debayering, but does that make it anything like raw where the data is coming directly from sensor data? Nope. Not in the slightest. In the end I would argue that h.265 in its current form in the GH5 is not really much better in any way over the long gop 422. They're extremely similar with the h.264 having slightly more color data and the h.265 having fewer compression errors. And I don't appreciate how critical you get of people that disagree with you. "Stay in the land of theory?". You've got a ton of comments echoing my sentiment. h.265 is nothing like raw, both in theory and in practice. It's not more like raw than long gop 422. They're a tradeoff of the same method of capturing the image. If you want to go with 'the proof is in the pudding', people who know how to use raw (and those who want to learn) will and should go get a camera that shoots raw. That's the proof because h.265 is nothing like raw. Maybe learn how to respond to your critics better and you'll have more fans.

Yes, it's important, but there is the fact that different programs use different colour spaces. for example premiere displays P3, but outputs sRGB... :-/

Timothy Higinbottom my curent computer is mac book pro 15 late 2017.

Mahender K Sharma well there might be many reasons, but one is that I`m not a colorist, just a colour nerd :-D one thing that I`m currently trying to do is to get somekind of colour management system set up from end to end that will take the guessing game... my new computer`s dci p3 gamut is giving me problems. :-D

Check this one instead: jooworks.mykajabi.com/advanced-color-grading I'm replacing all my old products with this.

Ok I shall look at this.

No, they don't have h.265 for the gh4, and they most likely won't.

Hmm.. I don't know if the 4k photo mode is any better in the gh4 than normal video. Test it out, it's the only way to know.

I doubt it. On the gh4 there is not the h265 codec. There is the anamophic mode as well, but it's not 10 bit even. :-/

Unfortunately no, it won't. The GH4 maxes out its resolution and codec performance at 4k h.264 420. There is a 4k anamorphic mode, but you will have very similar performance with either resolution. The best way to improve the GH4 performance is to use the 10-bit output and record with an external monitor/recorder in 422 10-bit. Definitely improves the GH4 image in a lovely way.

and on the GH5S?

FESTIVISION STUDIOS nope, but you can shoot 4k at 60fps in this 4\3 mode, but I have not compared the quality,

mbickerdike17 what does that mean? Are you talking about the local adjustement that adobe camera raw uses?

Joo.Works Right, the Shadows and Highlights won't behave as they would in a RAW image which is the main reason to use raw. Your method here is still pretty cool.

I don't know. Wanna test and report back here? There is the 4K photomode, but does it have better image quality?

I did drool over some lenses back in the day, but I'm not so interested anymore. :)

I cheat, I fake, I have no respect for traditions.. :-D the end result is the only one that matters. Some do say that I'm not telling the truth... I'm really open for critic, but just someone saying "that's a lie!"... I can't do anything with that. I need proof. With proof I'll change my opinion immediatly.

H265 is not "more lossy" it's more efficent. It has a bigger library of macroblocs to choose from allowing for less data to create the same image. Like you can explain something faster if you use task related tems instead of simple english and define all new words. If white point means white balance, that can be fixed with log as well with usable results. And if you have a good enough codec the ISO change can be mimiced in post with log as well. Applying a new log profile is possible as well, but again bit less accurate. But RAW codecs won't make a canon raw to be possible to turn into log-c either with the original arri colours, either. This h265 codec is better that h264, but not as good as raw codec of course.

​@@JooWorks Yes, "white point" = "white balance". Some confusion is hidden in your phrase "usable results". AFAIK, this depends on taste and can be problematic. Raw data has no video processing, so no user decisions, no mistakes are baked into it. Great! But nobody can see a RAW as a picture and file size is huge. Bad! As soon as you want to look at your Raw data on a monitor, you have to make artistic decisions on how to translate these RAW data into a picture. Once you "print" your settings into a video file you make your decisions irreversible and bake it in. The good thing is: this video file is now much smaller in size than your raw data set is. But you lose something - you can never go back. This is regularly overlooked. Here the biggest issue happens. Log -like ANY other video file that a monitor can show-has decisions like white balance (WB) already calculated into it - a process that can mathematically NOT, i.e. NEVER, be undone. And this can ruin your career. This means WB decisions can NEVER be undone once your footage was saved as a video file (being it log or else) - we can only try to hide WB mistakes making it less obvious via grading - and hoping that the artifacts of grading - which are a direct consequence - are not too bad. Additionally - and very few people are aware of that - Raw still contains all (444) color information. Log profiles usually throw color away, i.e., compress color to 422. RAW and Log are very much NOT the same; however, they’re both designed to get the most information out of the sensor. Raw is getting EVERYTHING the sensor has to offer; likewise, Log curves are designed to get at least the most tonal range out of the sensor (but cross fingers that WB etc is acceptable). In order to really dive into the matter I can recommend the following article - very readable - non scientific - but still correct: www.hdvideopro.com/workflow/capture-workflow/formats-explained/

medium.com/@jasonzhang_22759/some-thoughts-on-log-curve-color-correction-white-balance-and-exposure-adjustment-e3613fc4f8cf From that article: "If you think it’s a challenging task to do WB adjustment for non-RAW footage, convert them to linear space and do it there. You would be amazed. Accurate color adjustment would only be possible if it’s in the linear space. It is no mystery." Try it out! It's really handy. Feels like working with RAW.

​@@JooWorks In that article that you cite, we should be aware of the following: converting a video back to a so called "linear space" is a nice sounding way of saying that we now try our very best to UNDO the baking-in of a (log, natural, portrait, cine, ...) profile and white point/ISO by dividing the data exactly by the applied profiles again and hope we end up with raw again. ;-) This is in principle the right idea for better white point adjustments and indeed should lead to improved (while still not accurate) results in post! Please be aware that since any sensor is NEVER perfectly linear (what the author assumes) and that you always add an unknown constant and multiplier to the RAW sensor curves during white point adjustment and ISO amplification for every color there are more unknowns than knowns in this equation. You cannot reverse engineer the perfect raw data.

@@iregre7579 You are correct.

Great to know that there are some who apreciate these nerd details. :-D

I don't shoot event's anymore, so don't take my advice for the busines side of event shooting. :-D but would it not be best practice to take as much care for video shooting as you would photos?

Dude... no LOL They are two different disciplines that require a different approach. And as evident by your video you didn't add any extra effort because you were going to use the video as stills. You just made a video and got crappy stills from it.

Ah. I like it when you try to provoce me. Or is this just how you communicate? Any way... yes you are correct photography and videography are visuallu different, but migth not need to be. I still think one should give as much attention to video as to photos. If you think my "photos" aren't any good, I sure you that the composition wouldn't have impoved if I had shot the event as raw stills. :-D

Did I miss something? When did he say to use video to capture photos for clients? I thought he was just comparing the quality of video you can get, using this new codec, to capturing on RAW.

Nathaniel Garcia this even was the funeral of my grandfather and my family asked me to take few photos. I took video and gave them still from the video. Everyone was happy. :-)