GH4 Are you liking the GH4 colors?


I have been really happy with the colours coming out to the GH4. I think this one turned out pretty well. It was corrected first with Colorista II and then graded in Film Convert. Can't recall which film stock.
On the other hand, I have also seen some insane color problems in some videos from users who have been severely adjusting all the custom settings. I learned that you can get a really nice image out of Cine D or V or Natural if you leave stuff alone. Maybe dial the contrast back a tad but don't mess with the pedestal or implement a reverse S curve. The problem is people seem to think that they are shooting in raw or in a log format. They are not. The codecs in this camera are designed to function at their highest and most efficient level when they are fairly close to the default settings. Of course there are certain instances when pedestal adjustments or s or reverse s or hue adjustment makes sense, but I have found for the vast majority of shots, the best thing you can do it leave the settings pretty much as they are and focus your efforts on a good white balance and making sure the sensor is getting enough light. Not sure what setttings Erik Naso used there on his news promo, but I think they look pretty natural probably more so than my film, although I was going for a more extreme look as it was a wedding film not a commercial.
 
I love this camera. So versatile. The following clips were shot mostly under horrible light conditions and are straight out of camera except for some gentle exposure adjustments. Could have done with some additional color correction but that wasn't the focus of the test. If memory serves, this was with the Natural setting and everything flat.



The embedded player here color shifts things slightly so I recommend watching this on Vimeo, or downloading the original ProRes file.
 
bruceallen said:
Later, I did a bunch more tests with Stouffer wedges and colored etc that validated what I saw, plus helped me find a workflow I liked.

The reactions here on DVXuser were so damn nasty that I decided to just keep them private though.
Click to expand...

I asked for that first off, because I find 'reference' charts to clear up any question about is the fruit this or that color/hue/saturation/etc. Same thing with someone who claimed extraordinary 'noise' at any ISO... with no real reference chart test shots... and a clip that most observers consider to be 'well underexposed'...

At the time, I was thinking about upgrading to the GH-4 from the GH-1, so I was interested in 'what problems'. As it is, I took advantage of the 1/2 price sale on the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera (what a mouthful...), and have blown my camera budget for the next year... the camera is on back order because of all those taking advantage of the sale, but be assured, when I get it, I'll do some tests with the reference charts I have, and if I observe any peculiarities... I'll have the reference images to back up the statements I make (and if I have made a systematic error, like using a defective camera... hopefully some one can point that out...).

Here's a "Shirley" card showing the differences of printing for a still for a 'caucasian female'. It was the 'standard' for printing stills, and most likely something equivalent was used for printing film distribution prints.

00QSrk-63291584.jpg


The point of that being... it doesn't represent all the skin tones one can encounter in the world, nor does was there a 'male' equivalent for that matter...
 
The Gh4 is a rocking little machine which lets you focus on small footprint with high quality. But in the end it's just another camera that can get the job done.
I hear lots of "it sucks in low light". Well, maybe your lowlight sucks and you're expecting too much from a scene that wouldn't work on most cameras. And if it's low light mercury vapor lighting you're after, get a Sony A7s or C100. It will be less noisy but the shot will still most likely ugly because of the lighting. Or, film under that big giant orb in the sky called the sun and when it goes away pull out some lights. Photography is about light. It's the basic element and building block for images.

I think the colors are great on the Gh4. I think what people are doing is setting their cameras up too flat by taking all the contrast out and messing with the PED and curves and shooting situations that look like crap with those settings. I have 4 settings on my Gh4. One that is Cine D with -2 contrast. Another Cine D with -4 contrast. 3rd is Cine D with +1 contrast. And then a zeroed out Cine V. All of them with Sat at -2. Noise and sharpness depends on the scene conditions and optic. 90% of the time I'm using Cine D with contrast at -2 sat at -2. Thats it. And it always reminds me of the C100's WDR with just a subtle color difference.

Reds seem to get a bit hyper here and there but they are easy to key back.

Here is a piece I shot over the weekend using mainly the Gh4 with some GoPro phantom footy and gave my buddy the RX10. All the Gh4 stuff is the moving ground shots and high aerials. It was just us and the cameras. No lights, no bounce, and really no plan expect to show beach lifestyle for an apartment community that is still under construction. Video is to be used at the companies launch VIP party.

https://vimeo.com/104370558

And here is just me running around Waikiki with the Gh4 on a monopod using the 14-140 on my days off from a stills shoot.
https://vimeo.com/95320292

In the end it's just another camera. But one that has video features upfront and some nice controls for video. Small and compact but what I believe packs a serious image.
 
dvbrother said:
the GH3 and GH4 have a different sensor and different colorimetry than the Gh2, and they don't produce the same look when you apply the preset designed for them.
Click to expand...

Curious. You applied the correct FilmConvert camera settings? You shot with the camera at the same settings the FilmConvert team used to measure the sensor?
 
Based upon what I am seeing, I think I have done exactly what some of you said, I messed with the S Curve and flattened out the Cine D setting too much and it has done some funky things with my skin tones. I am going to do some more shoots using Natural and will go from there. In viewing the clips here and elsewhere, the camera is obviously capable of decent skin tones, I think it was me using a setting that works really well for landscapes on people and the end result is lousy. Overall, I like the colors on the Canons better but that doesn't mean I won't learn to love the GH4 colors as well.
 
Jim Simon said:
Curious. You applied the correct FilmConvert camera settings? You shot with the camera at the same settings the FilmConvert team used to measure the sensor?
Click to expand...
Correct. granted, I didn't do a rigorous test. But I did a 2 camera shoot with a Gh3 and Gh4 on Natural. Both cameras were set the same, but with the appropriate Filmconvert preset applied to each, there was a subtle difference. Not huge. Subtle. But it could partially be that the white balance of the Gh3 and Gh4 are not the same, and therefore the preset altered the color differently.
This brings up something that hadn't occurred to me: I wonder if Filmconvert works best on footage that is very neutral in its color cast. Meaning perfect white balance. I'm wondering if I need to color balance the footage first if it is a touch off, then add Filconvert, then apply my intended grade after that. It's worth a test.
 
puredrifting said:
Based upon what I am seeing, I think I have done exactly what some of you said, I messed with the S Curve and flattened out the Cine D setting too much and it has done some funky things with my skin tones. I am going to do some more shoots using Natural and will go from there. In viewing the clips here and elsewhere, the camera is obviously capable of decent skin tones, I think it was me using a setting that works really well for landscapes on people and the end result is lousy. Overall, I like the colors on the Canons better but that doesn't mean I won't learn to love the GH4 colors as well.
Click to expand...

Cinelike D is just fine, if you don't lower the contrast and don't adjust the highlight/shadow settings. ;)
My suggestion:


ISO200-800:

CineD
Contrast: 0 (with anything lower than that, skintones get some weird tonal compression, looks like a negative s-curve)
Sharpness: -5
NR: -5
Saturation: -5
Hue: +1
Highlight/Shadows: 0/0 (weird tonal compression again, if adjusting these, however producing a positive s-curve doesn't do that of course)
iDynamic: OFF (produces ugly blotchy colored noise)
iResolution: OFF (Picasso painting effect)
0-255: (Have to adjust that in post of course using levels, but better use of the 8 bit gamut)


ISO800-3200:

CineV
Contrast: -5 (looks nice, skintones included with these settings)
Sharpness: -5
NR: -5
Saturation: -5
Hue: 0 (already more magentaish)
Highlight/Shadows: 0/0
iDynamic: OFF (produces ugly blotchy colored noise)
iResolution: OFF (Picasso painting effect)
0-255: (Have to adjust that in post of course using levels, but better use of the 8 bit gamut)


ISO3200 and above:

Use a Sony A7s :D
 
dvbrother said:
there was a subtle difference. Not huge. Subtle.
Click to expand...

I think that's to be expected. Like you said, it's not magic. If you look at the sample on their web site, even the RED colors do not come out 100% identical to the film colors. But the difference is negligible, I think. The software will get you better than 99% of the way there.

The white balance theory makes sense. One would assume that the FilmConvert team took their sensor measurements using a proper white balance, so we should shoot the same. I typically use the WB presets on the GH2 and the conversion comes out very useable. Much better looking than what comes off the camera. (At least to my eye, which is likely more critical than the average viewer but, I'll admit, may not be as critical as a DP's.)
 
Last edited:
DeeZiD said:
ISO3200 and above: Use a Sony A7s :D
Click to expand...

Right? I was stunned by some of the low-light images Philip Bloom was getting from that thing, enough to make me seriously consider the A7s over the GH4 as my GH2 replacement. But...cost and other factors brought me back around to Panny.
 
dvbrother said:
But it could partially be that the white balance of the Gh3 and Gh4 are not the same, and therefore the preset altered the color differently.
This brings up something that hadn't occurred to me: I wonder if Filmconvert works best on footage that is very neutral in its color cast. Meaning perfect white balance. I'm wondering if I need to color balance the footage first if it is a touch off, then add Filconvert, then apply my intended grade after that. It's worth a test.
Click to expand...

I have found that I often have to change the color temperature setting in Film Convert from the default 5600 to around 5200 to get it closer to the original footage's white balance. It always warmed up my footage in default setting. This is when I shoot daylight with 5600k setting in the GH4.
 
I may be changing my tune on these film emulation LUTs. I just started trying out the Impulz LUTs (don't say it fast!), and I'm really liking the looks. I really like how Fuji 200 Superior looks on GH4 footage shot on Natural. To be specific, I use the Rec 709 LUT, not the GH4 LUT, which brings the midtones way, way down. This LUT warms up the image, adds just the right amount of contrast and gives the film a very cinematic look. I'm impressed.
 
Umm, the camera has won both Eisa and Tipa as being the best photo/video camera. I think the colors are great and people just need to fiddle around more with the settings.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
Umm, the camera has won both Eisa and Tipa as being the best photo/video camera. I think the colors are great and people just need to fiddle around more with the settings.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am doing, I have tried Cinelike D and V and now I am on to Natural. My clients for broadcast have generally liked the colors, it is more me not liking them that much. But I think it was my own fault for messing with the S curve on the shadow/highlights. Recently shot a PBS Special and used Natural and overall, the colors looked better. I edited the show I shot two months ago using the tweaked, super flat Cinelike D settings just last week and the skin tones looked awful and I couldnt correct them to make them look very good. Live and learn.
 
Does the camera have more dynamic range than the GH3? In a 'normal' preset like natural with everything at -3 / -4? Just wondering.
 
Stab said:
Does the camera have more dynamic range than the GH3? In a 'normal' preset like natural with everything at -3 / -4? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Maybe about 1/3 of a stop more. And it seems to be in the shadows, not in the highlights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top