GH4 Best settings for skin tones?
- Thread starter awelgraven
- Start date
I actually prefer the slightly more red skin tones of the GH3 and GH4 over the GH2. Perhaps this redness or orangeness is what some people dislike about the skin tones. I always found the GH2 skin tones to look a little green. I prefer people to have some color in their cheeks. Mind you, I don't like super-orange and plasticky, just warm.
themac, reducing Saturation to -5 in most of the Gh4 profiles will drain so much color that it will look almost monochrome. Even though taming reds is a good idea, that seems too extreme based on my experience with the camera. Another approach is to just desaturate the highlights in post. I have a preset in Premiere that adds a secondary color correction to desaturate highlights using the Three-Way Color Corrector. Not only does it tame reds, it also fixes the Cinelike-D tendency for highlights to go yellow instead of white.
themac, reducing Saturation to -5 in most of the Gh4 profiles will drain so much color that it will look almost monochrome. Even though taming reds is a good idea, that seems too extreme based on my experience with the camera. Another approach is to just desaturate the highlights in post. I have a preset in Premiere that adds a secondary color correction to desaturate highlights using the Three-Way Color Corrector. Not only does it tame reds, it also fixes the Cinelike-D tendency for highlights to go yellow instead of white.
What have you guys been finding for white balance and best skin tones? I've seen some posts on the RED forums saying that pushing above 5000 on the GH4 is giving them strange results, with recommendations of 4500K with Amber at 2 and Green at 4 (settings from the GH4/Dragon matching). Other people seem to like Amber at 2 and Magenta at 2. Do you guys think that pushing/pulling the Amber, Magenta, Green, Blue values can help balance out the strong red channeled skin tones internally? If so, how do you all feel about accompanying Kelvin values (balance as usual, or stay away from the 5000+ range)? If it's any help, I'm running these settings:
Cine-D: 0,-5,-5,-3,0
Master Pedestal at 0
Highlight/Shadow curve at 0/0
Luminance at 0-255
iDynamic and iResolution off
- Matt
Cine-D: 0,-5,-5,-3,0
Master Pedestal at 0
Highlight/Shadow curve at 0/0
Luminance at 0-255
iDynamic and iResolution off
- Matt
Harry Pallenberg
Well-known member
Natural
Sharpness -3
Contrast -1 to -3 as needed
Saturation -1 to -3 as needed
Everything else 0 - I used to be -5 for all but have been slowly moving back towards 0
Highlight/Shadow -2/+2
Master Ped 0 to +5 max... I do not understand how people are saying +10 let alone +15. I probably keep it at +3 most of the time. Gives me just a hint.
iEverything OFF - less processing is more
Seems good enough to hand off the card for instant on air / no post, but also saves a bit of room if you want / need to push around the color.
Sharpness -3
Contrast -1 to -3 as needed
Saturation -1 to -3 as needed
Everything else 0 - I used to be -5 for all but have been slowly moving back towards 0
Highlight/Shadow -2/+2
Master Ped 0 to +5 max... I do not understand how people are saying +10 let alone +15. I probably keep it at +3 most of the time. Gives me just a hint.
iEverything OFF - less processing is more
Seems good enough to hand off the card for instant on air / no post, but also saves a bit of room if you want / need to push around the color.
LyleGorch
Well-known member
I've found that it is essential to manual WB every set-up (with the filter pack/ND in), early on I produced some really funny results with AWB on and learned the lesson. I also think you need to develop a separate camera setting for higher ISO and Tungston, its finicky but worth the effort.
Ok I just took the last couple of days playing with profiles, taking them into Resolve and seeing what's what for myself. I'm resetting them back to factory default and then adjusting things systematically. Specifically Natural, Portrait and CineD profiles were what I was working with. What I've found is that this camera is definitely recording the actual *information* needed for great skintones, but the profiles tend to mess with them in ways that subtly undermine them IMO. I actually thought that Natural was the best out of the box, but I got them to actually be "good" with tweaking. Using my gf as a model, I see rosey cheeks separating from base tone and she's not flat or jaundiced, which were my critiques of most of the footage I've seen. I can't post the footage because she will actually physically murder my face, but I was pretty happy with the results.
Also of note is how gradeable the files are. Being 8bit and compressed, they are not and never will be like shooting Raw, but they are much better than Canon h.264 (I'm shooting MP4 (LPCM)). I took the three profiles and was able to make them more or less match, which is so different from my experience with Canon compressed footage.
PS - I also found that the noise floor when tweaking highlight/shadow was maybe not worth it in CineD. It's already trying to be flatter than normal and trying to make it flatter might be overkill. I'm also leaving NR at 0. Saw no benefit to pumping it down.
Also of note is how gradeable the files are. Being 8bit and compressed, they are not and never will be like shooting Raw, but they are much better than Canon h.264 (I'm shooting MP4 (LPCM)). I took the three profiles and was able to make them more or less match, which is so different from my experience with Canon compressed footage.
PS - I also found that the noise floor when tweaking highlight/shadow was maybe not worth it in CineD. It's already trying to be flatter than normal and trying to make it flatter might be overkill. I'm also leaving NR at 0. Saw no benefit to pumping it down.
you are talking NATURAL while in VIDEO filming mode, right? I was watching the incam HISTOGRAM while switching and NATURAL seemed to be the brightest - might work best for night video?
Anyway, the manual I read said NATRUAL was "soft" or something... did it seem any less sharp to you? (I forget what page that was on)
Anyway, the manual I read said NATRUAL was "soft" or something... did it seem any less sharp to you? (I forget what page that was on)
Hmmmmm. That might explain why it looks he best overall to me.
I have always had a tough time with skin tones and I know it is more me then the camera. For some reason, I like images of faces that are much cooler and less saturated. I have attached a screen shot of a video interview test I just shot with my new GH4 and I tried to get better skin tone. This is shot in the "Standard" setting, right out of the camera. I would REALLY APPRECIATE if all of you would give me some feedback on this skin tone. Is it too orange, just right, too saturated, not saturated enough? Thanks!!
Thanks Fahnon! See, that's the issue, my daughter looked at it and she also said the face is too "pale" yet, when I look at it, it looks too saturated to me. This is for a simple, informational video. I am trying to get a nice balance between the person and the background and I want the viewer to have their attention on the speaker and not be distracted by anything else.
Harry Pallenberg
Well-known member
Saturation levels look ok BUT he looks too green to my eye.
Well, here's a new try reducing some green. Does this look better, or am I just heading in the working direction here. Looks like I really need to re-shoot the video. Any other feedback is appreciated.
Attachments
Last edited:
joe12south
Veteran
A few Saturday's ago I did some tests with a Spydercheckr chart under natural daylight. The numbers showed that the Natural profile was the most accurate of of the box. I don't know if this varies from camera to camera, but I had to reduce saturation -3 and bump the tint +2 to get in truly dialed in. Under tungsten light, the tint was most accurate at +1. My LED lights are too cheap to bother trying to deal in, they have evident spikes that the GH3 and 4 both exaggerate.
While the cine profiles do offer more DR, they both do odd things to the color that are quite evident in skin tones and pretty hard to correct. Mostly I see it just being covered over by heavy grades.
While the cine profiles do offer more DR, they both do odd things to the color that are quite evident in skin tones and pretty hard to correct. Mostly I see it just being covered over by heavy grades.
joe12south
Veteran
Definitely give Natural a try over Standard. I think you'll find it more accurate and less exaggerated out of the box. Standard is kind of like how TVs are set to sell at WalMart. Way over saturated and some goofy pushes.
Although Harry may be right in that your original might have a slight greenish cast, I think your 2nd correction went too much the other way.
Also, although technically all skin tones fall into a specific range on a vectorscope, each person has their own particular hue and saturation so to speak.
Without knowing how that person in your shot really looks in person, it's hard to determine what the correction should be.
Although the shot can be balanced correctly given the exposure and the profile you used, that may not equal what he really looks like in person under those lighting conditions.
Sometimes it comes down to just a matter of taste as long as you are in the correct ballpark. Not everyone is going to agree on your color correction as each persons
color perception is not equal.
I think your shot looks generally very good. You have nice depth behind the subject with a soft non distracting graphically interesting background.
I don't think you need to reshoot.
Also, although technically all skin tones fall into a specific range on a vectorscope, each person has their own particular hue and saturation so to speak.
Without knowing how that person in your shot really looks in person, it's hard to determine what the correction should be.
Although the shot can be balanced correctly given the exposure and the profile you used, that may not equal what he really looks like in person under those lighting conditions.
Sometimes it comes down to just a matter of taste as long as you are in the correct ballpark. Not everyone is going to agree on your color correction as each persons
color perception is not equal.
I think your shot looks generally very good. You have nice depth behind the subject with a soft non distracting graphically interesting background.
I don't think you need to reshoot.