I think each shot should have been shot with the same exposure from the start. I would have loved to see multiple shots with changing settings from each camera (in other words show each camera at say 320ISO 50mm f/4 or something and see how they compare). All-in-all I chose the C100. The GH3 and GH4 where actually my least favorite.
Cheers. Audio was a bit of a cheat. I didn't want there to be mic stands in the shot, so i miced them up, recorded them, then pulled the mics out and had them play along with the track they had just recorded.
Hillbillygriptruck yeah I kinda figured it was effectively ADR after noticing the lack of cables or what would of been mics in the shot say for the drums;) Good work overall. The original recording sounded great. What mics did you use when you actually mic'd them up?
Ray Ortega Since we only had one gh4 but wanted to test it in 4k and 1080, we had to record two passes anyway, so prerecording got the 2 gh4 shots to sync and also let us clear the gear out. I used all the gear i had - a hodgepodge of video production dialogue mics mounted on c-stands and grip heads. hehe.. The guitar i had a sennheiser 416 shotgun pointed into the sound hole and a schoeps 641 hypercardioid on the neck. The drummer had an oktava hypercardioid on the drum head. (i forget the model number, i want to say the 012? its the poor-man's schoeps i had before i bought an actual schoeps) and a audio technica 4073 on the "kick drum". For the recording Rosie had some wooden thing she'd tap with her foot that had a phono jack on it and supposedly makes a good kick drum sound live. I never felt like I got a proper output from it, as it would either overload the input on "mic" or need a lot of gain on "line". When I mixed the song (i just used garage band) it had an interesting "click" to it so i used it, but mostly the low frequency from it. The mic you are probably most interested in is her vocal mic... I borrowed a neumann u87. This was my dream mic as a teenager so i really wanted to have a play with it. It didn't match her voice super well and i had trouble handling her sibilance, but i was very happy with the sound after eq. I keep wondering if i should have reversed the schoeps and neumann... hmm... All 6 mics and the kick box were run straight into the 6 analog channels of my tascam dr680 @ 24bit/48k. (in hindsight, i should have done 96k, but video production habits die hard. heh) Cheers, thanks for asking! I considered blogging about the audio, but given how much negativity there was towards the cameras, I didn't dare open myself up to the rage of audiophiles. ha!
A test is a test. And this is a test. Conclusions from test seem personal taste and biased. I liked the music and watching the test. So the test passed. Hurrah!
Its funny how many different opinions there are about how to set up a test like this. It really does seem that no matter what you do, some portion of the viewers will dislike it or deem the test "worthless". And really, depending on what you are looking at, it very well may be. With matching exposures you still have mismatched color spaces and profiles, sharpening levels, different interpretation of white balance and contrast, and that is before you get to the variety of lenses. If you match the lenses on the two different platforms and 4 different crop values, then you'd need to physically move the cameras to compensate to match frames, which would then alter a bunch of other variables. As pointed out by a commenter, the the 7d and 5d in raw would have been better, but where does that end? I don't think it is possible to have a clinically perfect scientific comparison between such different cameras. Heck, each camera has its own native ISO, so even setting the same ISO on all cameras isn't a fair comparison. But, really, shooting the gh4 along side other cameras we know was the only way we could understand gh4 in a short amount of time, so the test made perfect sense for us was to directly compare the gh4 with the various kits we already owned. (this test really was just some freelancers getting together to check out the gh4) To that end, we found the shootout amazingly useful. heh. Hopefully some of you have as well. That said, I agree that it totally sucks the gh4 test was so dark. I posted on hillbillygriptruck.com my theories and potential explanation for why it happened, but really, nobody cares if it was a mistake or a bug... It should have been brighter and I completely agree.
thought #4 was the best, haha def didnt think I would pick the GH3, but I'm glad cos I own one and now not too determined to upgrade... 96fps and focus peaking would be nice tho... thanks for doing this!
Thanks for the test. I understand how challenging these are to put together and you won't ever get a perfect test for everyone. But I think lens quality makes a huge difference in image quality. I get the challenges though. Maybe the same exact 50mm on all cameras shot within a few minutes of each other? Just walk cameras in or out to get similar framing? Still another variable that messes it up. Or maybe we put too much faith into these tests. Maybe to each their own and we just have to test ourselves. Thanks regardless.
Cheers, mate. While we tried to be fair, we really were testing the private gear of 4 freelancers against the possibilities of the new camera for our own sake, not the public. (The test was covered on some news sites, but we didn't get anything from it and didn't monetize the video. The most that came of it is i got hits on my blog, which also is unmonetized). I got heaps of information from the test and decided to share it as neutrally as possible, since i'd love to see the same from somebody else if they had a chance like I did. I couldn't give much of a care about using the same lens on each camera, as each of us has chosen the lenses in their kit for an assortment of reasons from fast AF to sharpness to color to IS. As many of my clients demand a youtube delivery, even image sharpness is kinda secondary to dynamic range and color rendering... to ME. Here's what I took out of the test: I prefer the ungraded skintones of canon vs panasonic. The c100 was nicer than I expected (I kinda thought beforehand that it was a 5d with a different body and a big pricetag) but the price premium makes the camera not make sense to me. Plus, I hate avchd workflow. The GH3, I could not be happy with that DOF. I want an IS lens AND narrow DOF. For that, the canon 17-55 2.8 is and the 24-105 f4 give a fairly similar image and DOF on aps-c vs full frame. The panasonic gives you options and lots of them. I like that. I like the feeling that the camera manufacturer is opening her up vs the obvious limiting of features that canon does. Thats an emotional reaction but it motivates me to some degree. Image wise, the gh4 is a big jump up from my 7d. The 4k downsampled gave me a lot of grading latitude for some reason and I was able to get skintones that I liked out of it. The 4k file sizes aren't prohibitively large like on the blackmagic and at 1:1 I reckon 1/4 of the gh4 looks about the same as a full frame on my 7d if not better, which means I have heaps of resolution available and reframing options. There is no perfect camera for me. not yet. However, the price on the gh4 and the handiness of 96fps and the 4k means I'm going to buy one. I won't sell the 7d just yet and I have yet to figure out which speed booster and which lens to buy for it, because the m4/3 isn't shallow enough for me. Thats my 2c anyways, which, unless you are me, is probably worth about that. hehe. Cheers!
Hillbillygriptruck Right on. I too was surprised by the C100. I felt the same as you with it being a souped up 5dM3, but perhaps Canon has done some enhancements there. It is definitely an exciting time to be a filmmaker. I'm very interested in seeing the Sony a7s before taking out any cash. But honestly, I made a pact with myself to just use my 5dM3 and make my feature with that first before getting any other toys. And just for clarification, I was not trying to dismiss your test, I was just offering a possible alternative. No need to respond to that. I can see there are a billion people on here talking a lot and not doing their own tests. Me included. And I can see it becoming annoying with people telling you what to do. Thanks for this again and take care.
WoW I like GH3 much better then all of them. I was surprised that I like it better then the GH4 although I did like that image too! Im kind of confused that the GH4 with speed booster was darker this should of made it brighter so don't know if they stopped down twice or had it on auto. all cameras I could live with but Canons were my least favs. in this test! Good job! Took a lot of work to put that together
The GH4 with speed booster baffled us too. However, All the cameras were absolutely on f4, so even while doing the test we couldn't figure out why the gh4 with speed booster wasn't brighter.
The 7D is showing its age. The 7D image from the 7D sensor can be improved with the Mosaic Engineering VAF-7D. The filter fixes aliased guitar strings and lots of other problems. The awful 7D codec can be fixed with an install of Magic Lantern. See vimeo.com/74952341 for a short example of how image and dynamic range can be fixed on the 7D. ML is not the best solution for the 7D. For me, it is either the GH4 or the rumored 7D MII. The GH4 arrives 4/30. Who knows what Canon has planned for the 7D MII. I'm expecting too little, too late for too much.
that's a good comparsion, i am going to buy one between GH3 & GH4. will u compare them again??when the latest verion of firmware of GH4 relese from panasonic. THX
Why have all the cameras out of order/all over the place? Its really hard to keep track of which is which. By the end I had no idea which one I thought was best and to make things worse, there's no 7D mentioned in the title. Also, there's no Canon 24-105 2.8 lens available as far as I know.
Cameras were out of order so that people wouldn't carry a bias shot to shot. Rather than "i always like the one on the left" it forced you to kinda re-evaluate what you liked/didn't like about the image. Purely an oversight to not mention my 7d in the title, but as i clearly go into detail on the methodology blog in the description - the 7d was just tossed in for the heck of it, as the compression on it looks awful. Yeah, thats a 24-105 f4 @ 4. Cheers!
andrew dean OK fair enough. I guess i just also found it hard cause the actual numbers kept moving to different places on the screen so i couldnt keep track of what was what. Always tough to pull off a comparison video for so many reasons but keep it up!
That kinda defeats the purpose of the video... You aren't supposed to have preconceived opinions about the cameras you are watching.. Pick the one or two you like the best then find out which ones you picked. I picked the GH4 and GH3 first but now I picked the GH4 and C100.
the speed booster for micro 4/3 works perfectly on the gh4. The speed booster designed for the black magic cinema camera works as well and reduces the crop down to around 1.4x, but can leave a slight mark on the shutter housing and you'll need to use the electronic shutter instead of the physical one. note that they haven't released a speed booster for canon lenses yet, but there are rumors one may appear in the next month or so.
the over exposed C100 shots where pretty bad in here, never mind the 24-105 isn't a great lens....the gh4 though looked good and was my pic out of the bunch. really should of used the same lens on all the bodies to make this real, but I guess if you only have a few hours is was ok.
Comparison is a comparison, No more... no less. It's not about winning, losing. Its just a comparison and also a test to see if our "eye" Sees the better image. Sometimes we get caught up in numbers, specs, that sometimes we forget to look at the pure image comparison to see what we are getting/investing. I wish more comparisons kept the the camera info secret till the end like they did. A person might personally choose the 7d as the image they like better between the 7d and GH4 if they didn't know the cameras. But if they knew one was the GH4, the fact they know that the GH4 is newer might skew the opinion. Our brain tends to put weight towards newer/more expensive things even if there isn't that much of a difference. (Penn and tellers 'bullshit' on expensive wine demonstrates this beautifully.) But in short, a comparison is just a comparison. It's not meant to be fair or unbiased. That is left to the person making the final opinion... Which in this case, Is you and me.
Not conviced because of the lenses. Why different ISO ? Less conviced. Let's make a race between a Porsche and a Fiat 500 : Rolling start, Porshe at 90Km/H and Fiat 500 at 100Km/H The winner will be a big surprise !
Ruffneck101 Ok but don't forgot to count the price of the lenses. In this test. Unfortunately they didn't use the Yagh, another reason to believe that this test is not fair.
Well, since ALL the cameras were recording internally, that's pretty fair. It wouldn't be very fair to use an external recorder on one but not the others.
A fair test, is with the same lenses at the same ISO and aperture. This test is not with the final firmware and came out just before the release. Canon thanks them.
Different exposures, different lens brands, cameras of different prices, this is completely nonsense. Sorry to say that but this test is almost useless.
I worked out which was the 7D, that camera is just awful, it's got all the problems; low DR, no sharpness at all, moiré aliasing and it only records for 12 minutes, I've used it at work, it's mostly useless for video, it looks worse than HDV cameras. 5D MKIII did look softer than the GH3 and 4 and the C100. I the issue I've had and still have with my GH3 is aliasing, which you really notice in cities and generally any short of buildings, if the GH4 solves that, then I'm fine.
Best comparison of cameras for video I have seen. And my favorite was camera #4. Should have added Blackmagic to the test.
Love the music too!
much better now. thanks for redoing this. the c100 looks great now.
But you're paying $4000 more for that and you don't get slow motion.
the gh4 looked best to me. and that's even though they didn't expose the scene correctly.
For me, number 2 was the best throughout. I'm glad it turned out as the Canon 5D Mark III, as it's what I use.
For me it was #4
great comparison, thanks for this! I own a 6D so I think it would have been like the 5DIII shots which looked great!
I think each shot should have been shot with the same exposure from the start. I would have loved to see multiple shots with changing settings from each camera (in other words show each camera at say 320ISO 50mm f/4 or something and see how they compare). All-in-all I chose the C100. The GH3 and GH4 where actually my least favorite.
Forget the video settings, what was the audio setup?;) Nice work. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers. Audio was a bit of a cheat. I didn't want there to be mic stands in the shot, so i miced them up, recorded them, then pulled the mics out and had them play along with the track they had just recorded.
Hillbillygriptruck yeah I kinda figured it was effectively ADR after noticing the lack of cables or what would of been mics in the shot say for the drums;) Good work overall. The original recording sounded great. What mics did you use when you actually mic'd them up?
Ray Ortega Since we only had one gh4 but wanted to test it in 4k and 1080, we had to record two passes anyway, so prerecording got the 2 gh4 shots to sync and also let us clear the gear out. I used all the gear i had - a hodgepodge of video production dialogue mics mounted on c-stands and grip heads. hehe..
The guitar i had a sennheiser 416 shotgun pointed into the sound hole and a schoeps 641 hypercardioid on the neck. The drummer had an oktava hypercardioid on the drum head. (i forget the model number, i want to say the 012? its the poor-man's schoeps i had before i bought an actual schoeps) and a audio technica 4073 on the "kick drum". For the recording Rosie had some wooden thing she'd tap with her foot that had a phono jack on it and supposedly makes a good kick drum sound live. I never felt like I got a proper output from it, as it would either overload the input on "mic" or need a lot of gain on "line". When I mixed the song (i just used garage band) it had an interesting "click" to it so i used it, but mostly the low frequency from it.
The mic you are probably most interested in is her vocal mic... I borrowed a neumann u87. This was my dream mic as a teenager so i really wanted to have a play with it. It didn't match her voice super well and i had trouble handling her sibilance, but i was very happy with the sound after eq. I keep wondering if i should have reversed the schoeps and neumann... hmm...
All 6 mics and the kick box were run straight into the 6 analog channels of my tascam dr680 @ 24bit/48k. (in hindsight, i should have done 96k, but video production habits die hard. heh)
Cheers, thanks for asking! I considered blogging about the audio, but given how much negativity there was towards the cameras, I didn't dare open myself up to the rage of audiophiles. ha!
A test is a test. And this is a test. Conclusions from test seem personal taste and biased. I liked the music and watching the test. So the test passed. Hurrah!
Gh4 in 4k All day. The light seemed to off in a few shots.. not sure if it was the upload or what but I noticed crushed blacks in a few shots.
I chose 2, which happened to be my camera
Its funny how many different opinions there are about how to set up a test like this. It really does seem that no matter what you do, some portion of the viewers will dislike it or deem the test "worthless". And really, depending on what you are looking at, it very well may be. With matching exposures you still have mismatched color spaces and profiles, sharpening levels, different interpretation of white balance and contrast, and that is before you get to the variety of lenses. If you match the lenses on the two different platforms and 4 different crop values, then you'd need to physically move the cameras to compensate to match frames, which would then alter a bunch of other variables. As pointed out by a commenter, the the 7d and 5d in raw would have been better, but where does that end? I don't think it is possible to have a clinically perfect scientific comparison between such different cameras. Heck, each camera has its own native ISO, so even setting the same ISO on all cameras isn't a fair comparison.
But, really, shooting the gh4 along side other cameras we know was the only way we could understand gh4 in a short amount of time, so the test made perfect sense for us was to directly compare the gh4 with the various kits we already owned. (this test really was just some freelancers getting together to check out the gh4) To that end, we found the shootout amazingly useful. heh. Hopefully some of you have as well.
That said, I agree that it totally sucks the gh4 test was so dark. I posted on hillbillygriptruck.com my theories and potential explanation for why it happened, but really, nobody cares if it was a mistake or a bug... It should have been brighter and I completely agree.
Thought you'd like to see this.
IS anyone else wondering which camera is which? I'm a little confused.
thought #4 was the best, haha def didnt think I would pick the GH3, but I'm glad cos I own one and now not too determined to upgrade... 96fps and focus peaking would be nice tho... thanks for doing this!
Thanks for the test. I understand how challenging these are to put together and you won't ever get a perfect test for everyone. But I think lens quality makes a huge difference in image quality. I get the challenges though. Maybe the same exact 50mm on all cameras shot within a few minutes of each other? Just walk cameras in or out to get similar framing? Still another variable that messes it up. Or maybe we put too much faith into these tests. Maybe to each their own and we just have to test ourselves. Thanks regardless.
Cheers, mate. While we tried to be fair, we really were testing the private gear of 4 freelancers against the possibilities of the new camera for our own sake, not the public. (The test was covered on some news sites, but we didn't get anything from it and didn't monetize the video. The most that came of it is i got hits on my blog, which also is unmonetized). I got heaps of information from the test and decided to share it as neutrally as possible, since i'd love to see the same from somebody else if they had a chance like I did. I couldn't give much of a care about using the same lens on each camera, as each of us has chosen the lenses in their kit for an assortment of reasons from fast AF to sharpness to color to IS. As many of my clients demand a youtube delivery, even image sharpness is kinda secondary to dynamic range and color rendering... to ME.
Here's what I took out of the test: I prefer the ungraded skintones of canon vs panasonic. The c100 was nicer than I expected (I kinda thought beforehand that it was a 5d with a different body and a big pricetag) but the price premium makes the camera not make sense to me. Plus, I hate avchd workflow. The GH3, I could not be happy with that DOF. I want an IS lens AND narrow DOF. For that, the canon 17-55 2.8 is and the 24-105 f4 give a fairly similar image and DOF on aps-c vs full frame.
The panasonic gives you options and lots of them. I like that. I like the feeling that the camera manufacturer is opening her up vs the obvious limiting of features that canon does. Thats an emotional reaction but it motivates me to some degree.
Image wise, the gh4 is a big jump up from my 7d. The 4k downsampled gave me a lot of grading latitude for some reason and I was able to get skintones that I liked out of it. The 4k file sizes aren't prohibitively large like on the blackmagic and at 1:1 I reckon 1/4 of the gh4 looks about the same as a full frame on my 7d if not better, which means I have heaps of resolution available and reframing options.
There is no perfect camera for me. not yet. However, the price on the gh4 and the handiness of 96fps and the 4k means I'm going to buy one. I won't sell the 7d just yet and I have yet to figure out which speed booster and which lens to buy for it, because the m4/3 isn't shallow enough for me.
Thats my 2c anyways, which, unless you are me, is probably worth about that. hehe.
Cheers!
Hillbillygriptruck Right on. I too was surprised by the C100. I felt the same as you with it being a souped up 5dM3, but perhaps Canon has done some enhancements there. It is definitely an exciting time to be a filmmaker. I'm very interested in seeing the Sony a7s before taking out any cash. But honestly, I made a pact with myself to just use my 5dM3 and make my feature with that first before getting any other toys.
And just for clarification, I was not trying to dismiss your test, I was just offering a possible alternative. No need to respond to that. I can see there are a billion people on here talking a lot and not doing their own tests. Me included. And I can see it becoming annoying with people telling you what to do.
Thanks for this again and take care.
Camera 2 ... is very pleasing
C100 and 5DIII! Lens choice affects alot too...
WoW I like GH3 much better then all of them. I was surprised that I like it better then the GH4 although I did like that image too! Im kind of confused that the GH4 with speed booster was darker this should of made it brighter so don't know if they stopped down twice or had it on auto. all cameras I could live with but Canons were my least favs. in this test! Good job! Took a lot of work to put that together
The GH4 with speed booster baffled us too. However, All the cameras were absolutely on f4, so even while doing the test we couldn't figure out why the gh4 with speed booster wasn't brighter.
andrew dean I don't know if you can make the F-stop brighter I thought you can open up one more if stop. Maybe your shutter speed changed?
There is flare in the left corner. If you want a clean image you should have flagged the lens?
The 7D is showing its age. The 7D image from the 7D sensor can be improved with the Mosaic Engineering VAF-7D. The filter fixes aliased guitar strings and lots of other problems. The awful 7D codec can be fixed with an install of Magic Lantern. See vimeo.com/74952341 for a short example of how image and dynamic range can be fixed on the 7D. ML is not the best solution for the 7D. For me, it is either the GH4 or the rumored 7D MII. The GH4 arrives 4/30. Who knows what Canon has planned for the 7D MII. I'm expecting too little, too late for too much.
I expected more from Canon at NAB, I was surprised they didn't release any new 4K cameras which people can actually afford.
that's a good comparsion, i am going to buy one between GH3 & GH4.
will u compare them again??when the latest verion of firmware of GH4 relese from panasonic.
THX
Why have all the cameras out of order/all over the place? Its really hard to keep track of which is which. By the end I had no idea which one I thought was best and to make things worse, there's no 7D mentioned in the title. Also, there's no Canon 24-105 2.8 lens available as far as I know.
Cameras were out of order so that people wouldn't carry a bias shot to shot. Rather than "i always like the one on the left" it forced you to kinda re-evaluate what you liked/didn't like about the image. Purely an oversight to not mention my 7d in the title, but as i clearly go into detail on the methodology blog in the description - the 7d was just tossed in for the heck of it, as the compression on it looks awful. Yeah, thats a 24-105 f4 @ 4. Cheers!
andrew dean OK fair enough. I guess i just also found it hard cause the actual numbers kept moving to different places on the screen so i couldnt keep track of what was what. Always tough to pull off a comparison video for so many reasons but keep it up!
Good video, perhaps it would be better if you just labled each camera as you switch them. Rather then revealing it at the end.
That kinda defeats the purpose of the video... You aren't supposed to have preconceived opinions about the cameras you are watching.. Pick the one or two you like the best then find out which ones you picked. I picked the GH4 and GH3 first but now I picked the GH4 and C100.
which lens on speedbooster for gh4 ;)??
Is there a speed booster available for the GH4?
the speed booster for micro 4/3 works perfectly on the gh4. The speed booster designed for the black magic cinema camera works as well and reduces the crop down to around 1.4x, but can leave a slight mark on the shutter housing and you'll need to use the electronic shutter instead of the physical one. note that they haven't released a speed booster for canon lenses yet, but there are rumors one may appear in the next month or so.
the over exposed C100 shots where pretty bad in here, never mind the 24-105 isn't a great lens....the gh4 though looked good and was my pic out of the bunch. really should of used the same lens on all the bodies to make this real, but I guess if you only have a few hours is was ok.
Amazing for sharing this great video. But I believe that C100 could do it better job. Thanks.👍
You compare the 7D with the GH4? that doesnt sound fair, the 7d is a 5 year old camera and the GH4 is a just released camera...
Comparison is a comparison, No more... no less. It's not about winning, losing. Its just a comparison and also a test to see if our "eye" Sees the better image. Sometimes we get caught up in numbers, specs, that sometimes we forget to look at the pure image comparison to see what we are getting/investing.
I wish more comparisons kept the the camera info secret till the end like they did.
A person might personally choose the 7d as the image they like better between the 7d and GH4 if they didn't know the cameras. But if they knew one was the GH4, the fact they know that the GH4 is newer might skew the opinion. Our brain tends to put weight towards newer/more expensive things even if there isn't that much of a difference. (Penn and tellers 'bullshit' on expensive wine demonstrates this beautifully.)
But in short, a comparison is just a comparison. It's not meant to be fair or unbiased. That is left to the person making the final opinion... Which in this case, Is you and me.
They man... Thank you
Not conviced because of the lenses. Why different ISO ? Less conviced.
Let's make a race between a Porsche and a Fiat 500 :
Rolling start, Porshe at 90Km/H and Fiat 500 at 100Km/H
The winner will be a big surprise !
A quick pitstop here might answer some of those questions! Cheers! www.hillbillygriptruck.com/2014/04/i-got-call-last-week-from-my-friends-at.html
Hillbillygriptruck Still not conviced.
Guess there's a reason I'm a Canon fanboy. Dat c100.
At that price, i hope the C100 is the best...
Angelrebirth Once you add the price of the external recorder to get proper 4K 10bit 4:2:2 from the GH4, there isn't a huge price difference.
Ruffneck101 Ok but don't forgot to count the price of the lenses. In this test.
Unfortunately they didn't use the Yagh, another reason to believe that this test is not fair.
Well, since ALL the cameras were recording internally, that's pretty fair. It wouldn't be very fair to use an external recorder on one but not the others.
A fair test, is with the same lenses at the same ISO and aperture.
This test is not with the final firmware and came out just before the release.
Canon thanks them.
WTF am I looking at?
Different exposures, different lens brands, cameras of different prices, this is completely nonsense. Sorry to say that but this test is almost useless.
I worked out which was the 7D, that camera is just awful, it's got all the problems; low DR, no sharpness at all, moiré aliasing and it only records for 12 minutes, I've used it at work, it's mostly useless for video, it looks worse than HDV cameras. 5D MKIII did look softer than the GH3 and 4 and the C100. I the issue I've had and still have with my GH3 is aliasing, which you really notice in cities and generally any short of buildings, if the GH4 solves that, then I'm fine.