@humpman But you can make shit from any chocolate, so we can see a lot of shit footage from any cam shooters, even raw shit )

Yep, not even close. Two completely different cameras.

Thanks for interest of my point. I am not saying that these are equal quality to raw and I dont want to use any raw camera - thats too much work and inconvinience. Besides I like to shoot 50P or 60P and there is no raw option for that in reasonably price tag. What I am thinking is how close or far is graded raw frame of video in normal light. Can one notice a big difference? I would very much like to see some examples.

Hack would be nice and I am very much waiting for it. I think video quality benefits little but PAL/NTSC switch is first in my needlist. But with fast sensor and 4-core processor I wonder what could be possible with hack. I hope hack will come before GH4k because it will be too late for me then.

@vitaliy_kiselev

I've seen (I think) much of the speculative comments here on the GH5 ... do you have any recent guesses/feelings/hints as to what the GH5 will be more than what's been hinted, which ... in all ... has been all over the place.

Neil

The first shot looks as though it has way too much sharpening applied in post. It's also a .jpg so it's been recompressed.

How could a GH3 be a poor man's Raw when a BMPCC is below a $1000????? Stop trying to make 4:2:0, 422. 8 bit and 10 bit are as different as Audi and a freaking Skoda.

In any case, the price of RAW does not stop at the camera. Storage, rigs, time spent colour grading all start to add up for serious paid work.

Please I dont want to be left alone :-( I appreciate your comments. Your experienced eyes will help me to render better results. These frames are from video and I like sharp results. Lens is indeed 14-42 cheap kit. Very observative from you sangye. My plasmatv shows very sharp videos pleasantly because it has some kind of dithering or so called plasma noise wich softens gradations and noise and artefacts. Thanks for your interest.

That video hurts my eyes. Damn it's hard to watch. Good info but too hard to watch.

I'm just shooting a music video now with the BMC 2.5k and a GH3 for 60fps... and while the GH3 obviously isn't a match for the Blackmagic, it really does hold it's own for the slow-motion material. The color-science is very similar on both cameras. Very "Nikon-like". BMCC and GH3 render great blue-teal hues. I love the Blue and Teal tones in Nikon's color science (Canon is very ugly in this area and more Red-biased) which is probably why the GH3 and Blackmagic are so appealing to me. Not to mention the resolution is close-enough on the GH3 for 1080p-delivered projects. Blackmagic's still definitely better at high-detail wide-shots, but they match fairly well when the frames are in motion.

The GH3 does feel more like 4:2:2-lite than other 4:2:0 cams. I've been throwing some pretty tough-curve adjustments at the GH3 and it's really not breaking yet. It does feel like it's got allot of color-information in it's codec. I'll post some still when this video gets close to being finished.

Can't blame the technology for lazy writing. I'm just glad that the quality is improving so much over the last 5 years. Just think of how far we've come since the 5Dmk2 came out? I think that for MANY projects the GH3 will be more than enough for the avg viewer of low budget projects to appreciate. There can always be better since it's a subjective thing. If care is taken I can anyone should be able to get some great results from a GH3. Coming from the Audio side of things, I find it funny how we spend so much time and money to make great recordings only to have most listen to MP3's on low quality headphones.

I'd love to see more info on how to scratch even more quality out of the GH3 for those that want it and even for mixing with BMC footage. I think it would be worthwhile.