GH4 Does the GH4 give a theater-quality image

S

scottfs

Well-known member
I'm looking for a camera to replace my miniDV one. I'm in that $1500-3000 range. On my short list is the GH4, about $1350 + $700 speedboster and a Canon zoom at $800. Then there's the Canon XC10, $2000. A Blackmagic pocket camera, $1000 + 700 for the fpeedboster and $700 for the glass. The Canon c100 and the Blackmagic production and the Ursa are out of range.

I have a number of projects lined up; a doc about birds in flight and roosting at night, two or three features, several sit-down interviews.

Is the a camera iny price range that can satisfy my needs?
 
It's going to be tough with the either. You will have additional battery, monitor, rigging, media, lighting and audio costs.
Can you use the same lens for birds in flight and sit-down interviews?
 
If used properly, any of those cameras will produce theater-quality images. I personally would go for a camera that shoots in 4K for futureproofing the footage, but all of them are extremely capable.
 
As much as I LOOOOVE the Blackmagic Pocket Image... For something like a nature documentary I would absolutely want to see the extra detail offered by 4k. Hands down.
Now the GH4 might not be the most cinematic image right out of the box, but again the 4k allows the use of wonderful filters like the Schneider Hollywood Blackmagic filters without losing too much sharpness but gaining a potentially much more "movie-like" image feel.

Your second 2 categories will render beautifully with the BMD Pocket or Cinema cameras.... but that nature documentary...hmmm.

Although if you step up to the Cinema 2.5K and shoot in RAW - that will almost always smoke the 4K of the Panny 4:2:0 bit-depth. The Gh4 will do 4:2:2 bit-depth too of course - but that's only out to an expensive external recorder.
 
There is no finer cam than the GH4 for wildlife work. The crop factor in 4K is a huge advantage. I shoot extensively in 4K UHD with the 2x digital zoom function when filming wildlife. Every time I say this everyone's hackles go up and they laugh off the idea of the 2x digital, but it creates one of the most cinematic images you can get on the GH4.

I have three go to lenses I use almost exclusively now. The Pan/Leica 15mm f/1.7, the Pan 42.5mm f/1.7 and the Pan 100-300 f/4-5.6. The 15mm for landscapes and stabilizer work, the 42.5mm for interviews and closer up work (this is the best lens Panasonic has ever made for the money) and the 100-300 to bring in the action. Use the 96 fps mode to film the birds in flight on a super good fluid head and you will have all the tools to bring the content right up close and personal.

I'd pass on the speedbooster and canon lenses if you don't have them already. They are huge, heavy, expensive and give zero advantage in image quality when trying to bring in the content. I sold all my canon lenses and only have a speedbooster for my collection of vintage OM lenses. I just never found them to produce an image that was worth the hassle and weight when getting out and about in the mountains where I film most of the time.

Here's a sample of the 100-300 with the 4K 2X digital combo for reference


Cheers,
Pete
 
I was thinking speedbooster because I'd only have to invest in one set of lenses, Canon EF lenses. I have no lenses except a Nikon 50 mm from my old FM3a. So confusing. Did see a Timothy Busfield short he wrote and produced, shot on a c100 and a Mark5.
 
Yes.

Around 40% of my reel is GH4 in cinematic situations. The rest is Red Epic-X. If you can't accurately tell which shot belongs to which camera, that will give you your answer ;)


Cheers,

Paul :)
 
And the answer to the question posed, "Yes. GH4 does provide a theater quality image ... if that theater is the Pussycat Theater".

(seriously, the key with GH4 is controlling the dynamic range of the shot and underexposing V-Log by a stop ... refer to that Shane Hurlbut themed thread)
 
DLD said:
...the key with GH4 is controlling the dynamic range of the shot and underexposing V-Log by a stop ... refer to that Shane Hurlbut themed thread
Click to expand...

Matt Frazer from Panasonic suggests the opposite (generally considered to be the better option), and that is over exposing by up to two stops, especially when recording internally.
 
stoneinapond said:
Matt Frazer from Panasonic suggests the opposite (generally considered to be the better option), and that is over exposing by up to two stops, especially when recording internally.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know the context of him making that suggestion, because on the surface I would disagree vigorously. I've been advocating underexposing V-Log L by about a stop since the camera came out, to help balance the curve and protect highlights and give some separation from skin tones to whites.

Typically the advice about overexposing LOG curves is to minimize noise, but V-LOG L is not a "normal" log in that it is grossly asymmetrical, and overexposing it does it no favors as it further unbalances the ratio of the curve. If you overexpose V-LOG L by two stops, you end up with a gamma curve that has 10 stops below middle gray, and two stops above. There are very few cases where one could say that's a good idea.
 
Roger that. In listening to him, the question that was asked at 0:25 was "how do we keep noise out of the shadows." If you want to keep the noise as minimal as possible, and don't care what happens to the rest of your image, then yes, overexposing two or three stops will help with that. Note that the question wasn't "how do we get the most beautiful footage out of V-LOG L", it was "how do we keep noise out of the shadows." And Matt answered that question by giving proper exposure advice, and then saying that if you overexpose a bit and bring it back down that can help to hide the noise in the shadows. That is entirely consistent and appropriate if your #1 priority is noise. But I still maintain that shooting a grossly imbalanced exposure curve (10 stops below, 2 stops above middle gray) is a generally bad idea - and that's what you'd get if you overexposed V-LOG L by two stops.

Most log curves are balanced, C-LOG is generally six above, six below. That makes sense. If you need to overexpose by a stop, you end up with a 5/7 split, and even if you overexpose by two stops you end up with, at worst, a 4/8 split. That's disproportionate, but still within reason, it still provides for four full stops above middle gray. But that's where V-LOG L STARTS! It's already at a 4/8 split, if you overexpose by two stops you'd end up with a 2/10 split, which makes for an awful curve.

Overexposing V-LOG L by two stops is roughly equivalent to overexposing C-LOG by four stops. Would anyone on earth think it's a good idea to overexpose any video camera by four stops? I sure wouldn't. Yet there's some equivalency (in gamma distribution) between overexposing C-LOG by four stops, and overexposing V-LOG L by two stops.

Again -- if your #1 concern is shadow noise, go ahead. But if your concern is overall image integrity and tonal distribution, you're better off getting some separation between your skin tones and your whites and your highlights, and you can get that by exposing properly (as Matt said, 42 IRE gray/61 IRE white) or even underexposing a stop. Which, after extensive testing, is exactly what Hurlbut found.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
I'd like to know the context of him making that suggestion, because on the surface I would disagree vigorously.....
Click to expand...

I'm aware of your position and thought of you as I posted my response.

DLD beat me to the punch.

BTW, I never said 3-stops. Two at the most.
 
stoneinapond said:
I'm aware of your position and thought of you as I posted my response.

DLD beat me to the punch.

BTW, I never said 3-stops. Two at the most.
Click to expand...
Understood, and no, you never said 3 stops, I was just illustrating that yes, if one was hyper-sensitive to noise, the more you overexpose and bring the image down, the more you will crush noise out. So why not consider two, or three, or four stops of overexposure?

And the answer is glaringly obvious -- because noise isn't the only concern in shooting, I think we all know that 3 stops over would be a bad idea. Yet, in VLOG-L, it could be argued that at least in some respects, two stops overexposure is (in terms of gamma distribution) roughly equivalent to four stops of overexposure on a regular LOG gamma. I maintain it's just as bad an idea to overexpose V-LOG L by two stops, as it is to overexpose C-LOG by four stops.

What works for other LOG gammas doesn't necessarily work for V-LOG L, because V-LOG L is not like other LOG gammas.

Hey, y'all can shoot however you want; I'd just advise that you shouldn't just follow advice that other shooters give for other cameras, and instead do your own testing. Hurlbut did, and came to the conclusion that 2/3 below resulted in better overall imagery. Even with some noise. If you prefer the look of 2 stops over (noise vs. highlight rendition) then more power to you. I'd just recommend that you all make an informed decision after running your own tests, is all.
 
Last edited:
I guess it might depend on the scene too. If the scene was primarily dark and all the highlights were light sources that would be clipped anyway, then over exposing to reduce noise might be the best way to handle it. Scenes with nice balanced lighting with a "normally lit feel" would follow the advice of exposing a stop or so under to protect the near highlights.

Sure would be nice if they provide 2 log settings, one for the V-log Lite so people could more easily match their Varicam, and a GH-log that is 6x6 or 5x5 or whatever the range really might be (but crossing dead in the middle).
 
Overexposing V-LOG L by two stops is not a good idea unless you are filming shadows. (If you're filming shadows, then get an A7S.) You can tame noise is shadows...you can't bring back blown highlights. As with pretty much any prosumer camera with limited DR, enail your exposure when you can, and ETTR when you can't.
 
Barry_Green said:
I'd just recommend that you all make an informed decision after running your own tests, is all.
Click to expand...

Wise words. And that is exactly what I have done. Again, I said two stops at best. V-Log on the GH4 is a strange beast and as you stated, is unlike other Log formats. It has further issues when recording internally. My experience has been that slight overexposure renders the better image (again shooting internally) and can be left at the correct exposure with 10-bit. As Greg mentions, it also depends on the scene and subject being filmed.

Either way, appreciate your input and I will be doing further tests to see how your understanding translates for me to the GH4. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of relocating my studio, so further tests will have to wait a while.

Once more, thanks for participating.
 
scottfs said:
I'm looking for a camera to replace my miniDV one. I'm in that $1500-3000 range. On my short list is the GH4, about $1350 + $700 speedboster and a Canon zoom at $800. Then there's the Canon XC10, $2000. A Blackmagic pocket camera, $1000 + 700 for the speedboster and $700 for the glass. The Canon c100 and the Blackmagic production and the Ursa are out of range.

I have a number of projects lined up; a doc about birds in flight and roosting at night, two or three features, several sit-down interviews.
Click to expand...

You don't mention sound, but sound can make or break a nature documentary. It can also easily screw over dialog recording. Just sayin'.

I wouldn't depend on any of these for decent sound. The GH4 is passable, but only if you turn the volume all the way down and feed it "hot" with a field mixer that itself has the decent preamps the camera lacks. Or... budget for a reasonable recorder and go full second system, say one of the entry level Tascams, like the dr-60d mkII or dr-70d.

The Blackmagic cameras aren't even passable sound quality from what I can tell. I have no idea about the Canon XC10, but it may be your best bet for usable sound if you just gotta record to camera.
 
FWIW, DxO rated GH4 at 12.8 (landscape) and GX8 (the same sensor as in DVX200, I believe) at 12.6 (landscape).
 
Well where did I get the 11.3 from? Must have been the GH2... sorry 'bout that. If the GH4 can deliver a full 12+ stops of dynamic range then yes that eliminates the concern I'd raised earlier (which I'll now go edit out and delete, as we don't want inaccurate info out there).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top