GH4 Dynamic range comparison between V-LOG L and Cine-D

unadog said:
Joe, do you have an external recorder available, to compare 8 bit to 10 bit? Anyone you can borrow one from?

Also, can we buy you a coffee/ beer/ car as a reward for your time? Post your PayPal address some where for small gifts. ;)

+++

As a Nikon-Canon-Sony shooter, I had never used Panasonic before August. I just bought 2 Panasonic to do 4K video for events where I also do stills. I am running 4 cameras at the same time- 2 Nikon and 2 Panasonic. No way I could afford Sony with 2 external recorders for 4k too.

I really appreciate your sharing, it is helping me get up the learning curve much more quickly with the GH4.

Now, can someone show me how to turn the camera on? Do I need a "card" or something like that? I've been told I do. Also a "lens." This stuff is complicated! :)

Cheers!
Click to expand...
I don't have an external recorder yet, but after I return from Yosemite I'm going to rent one to see if it is worth the purchase.

Beer money is always nice, but I'll trade it for karma instead. ;-)
 
Jim Simon said:
I would even say image 3 has more dynamic range, looking at the highlights in the sky and the dark fence along the left. There seems to be more highlight detail in the Cine-D and more shadow detail as well.
Click to expand...
You could push and pull both curves to get very similar results, but out-of-the-box the Cine-D curve is more tuned to a natural image. The absolute extremes are very nearly the same.
 
Hey Joe, were you using a speed booster during these tests? specifically a non-metabones one? a lot of the shots seem to have the big blue spot problem, it doesn't look like a normal flare to me... only mention it as it would interfere with any colour charts you're using.
 
ukfilmer said:
Hey Joe, were you using a speed booster during these tests? specifically a non-metabones one? a lot of the shots seem to have the big blue spot problem, it doesn't look like a normal flare to me... only mention it as it would interfere with any colour charts you're using.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but just on these DR tests. Like I said, don't try to draw any conclusions about color from these shots.
 
joe12south said:
Yeah, but just on these DR tests. Like I said, don't try to draw any conclusions about color from these shots.
Click to expand...


Yeah I gathered that. Could interfere with your 18% grey exposing though.

Just a thought.

Thanks for all the testing you're putting in, saves me the hassle!
 
walkaboutcamera said:
I am using an external recorder, and the sensor is capable of putting more Dr into v log l than Panasonic is giving us.
Click to expand...
Panasonic claims V-Log-L can deliver a 12-stop DR from the GH4. Judging from the original V-Log-L footage I've examined, I'd say that claim was technically true, though in practice, 8-bit encoding crushes the bottom two shadow stops into oblivion. As the GH4 sensor outputs RAW data in 12-bit precision, it cannot produce a linear dynamic range greater than 12 stops max. While signal processing tricks can be used to make it appear to produce more than 12 stops DR, that is its underlying limit.
 
Lpowell said:
Panasonic claims V-Log-L can deliver a 12-stop DR from the GH4. Judging from the original V-Log-L footage I've examined, I'd say that claim was technically true, though in practice, 8-bit encoding crushes the bottom two shadow stops into oblivion. As the GH4 sensor outputs RAW data in 12-bit precision, it cannot produce a linear dynamic range greater than 12 stops max. While signal processing tricks can be used to make it appear to produce more than 12 stops DR, that is its underlying limit.
Click to expand...

I get where you are coming from, except the gain on the data amplifiers is non linear.
 
Here are two clips from a small test I did with my wife on Sunday. Both were using the Ninja 2 10-bit from a GH4 4K scaled (through HDMI settings) to 1080p to ProRes HQ.


V-Log with Varicam 35 LUT and graded to taste.
Wife V-Log L with Panny LUT and Graded.jpg


CineD graded in an attemp to match the above shot.
Wife CineD Graded in an attemp to match.jpg

I feel the skintones out of the V-Log are much better than the CineD. You also can see a very hard transition to the bright area at the top of the frame that I just couldn't recover (or even make the transition more gradual, even at 10 bit), where V-Log had a more analog rolloff on it's way to clipping.
 
estarkey7, are you using my LUT? Because Cinelike D out of the box has quite bad skin tones, that need to be fixed to match and exceed V-Log L. Also, ETTR is the best way to shoot a digital camera, so if you blow highlights it will always show a hard rolloff.

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
estarkey7 said:
Here are two clips from a small test I did with my wife on Sunday. Both were using the Ninja 2 10-bit from a GH4 4K scaled (through HDMI settings) to 1080p to ProRes HQ.
Click to expand...

I've have to say that all this pixel peeping is bordering on nuttiness. If the story is compelling, either of those image styles would not impact my enjoyment, although without question the V-Log footage is superior, and may make a supposed production more entertaining.

I've done some testing with V-Log that has yielded several beautiful glimpses of what's potentially in there, and in other cases horrific results as I stumble around coloring. So it's all on me, not Panasonic.

Thanks for posting.
 
Stone, it's all about tweaking more power out of our hotrods. Been done for hundreds of years. :) I don't mind squeezing out a little more DR or better color from my current gear, instead of running out and buying $5,000 in BlakMagic cameras..... I'm very thankful to the people here with the knowledge to turbo charge every last bit of quality imaging out of the GH4.

I'd prefer to shoot the best profile I can get from my GH4, rather than one that is good but could be better. I already own it... why not? :) And I can't afford everything about the new 4.6k 15 stop ursa: the accessories, the storage media, the fiel sizes, the new computer to handle said files....

Having seen my crappy canon t3i films projected in a real movie theater, I know FOR SURE we'd arrived a few years ago, quality wise. Everything since then has been icing on the cake with quality rivaling professional movie cameras for less than $2,000. Pretty amazing times we are in!
 
stoneinapond said:
...If the story is compelling, either of those image styles would not impact my enjoyment, although without question the V-Log footage is superior, and may make a supposed production more entertaining...
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your statement. I was watching this YouTube video about the Four Types of Filmmakers, and I clearly fell into the cinematographer filmmaker classification. This wasn't surprising, as I started this creative journey as a photographer 15 years ago, but its the first time I've heard this related to how it affects your film. I am not a bad writer, but I could never to it for a living, as it takes me a whole lot of work to get something decent, and triple the work to get something good. But I can sit behind my camera all day long, moving the key, softening the fill, throwing gels on backlights for hours with complete an utter joy. Because, I'm a shooter. That's what I do, and that's who I am.

The goal for me is to complete a work that people would see and wonder when is it coming to the theaters. An indie filmmaker trying to make films that don't look indie.
 
David Del Real said:
Okay, why does this Vlog L footage look pretty darn good???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSJQQtxsLV0&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

I guess to each his own, but looking at that footage left me scratching my head. Some of the noisiest stuff I've seen from the camera and even after web compression. Look at anything medium grey in any of those shots. I too want gems to come out of this 8 bit camera as I want to convince myself to pick one up, but I'm starting to agree with the post Thomas made about the placebo effect. Perhaps the GH5 will give everyone here what they are aiming for. But for now, the camera does what it does, which at its price point is pretty fantastic, but trying to make this thing look like it has more DR than it does really destroys the image.
 
Yeah, after a second look, it's not as good as I originally thought. I just watched full screen and saw some of that ugly magenta blocking. Sorry guys, my bad.
 
David Del Real said:
Yeah, after a second look, it's not as good as I originally thought. I just watched full screen and saw some of that ugly magenta blocking. Sorry guys, my bad.
Click to expand...
I thought it looked fine...For a two year old camera that cost $1300.

You guys keep pixel peeping and you're all going to have hairy palms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top