GH4 Essential Settings & Essential Post for GH4 Film Look

[joe12south]

I would amend this to state...

- Shoot with a camera profile that matches your subject and lighting range

Cine-D and V-log profiles are great for high contrast subjects or contrasty light.

The Natural profile is great for normal contrast subjects under medium contrast light.

The Standard and Cine-V profiles are great for low contrast subjects and low contrast light.

*** Choose the profile that matches your subject and lighting ***


You can shoot everything with V-log but you may not be gaining much when you don't need the full 12 F-stops of DR.

I think you've said you'll be recording internally, right? If that's the case, and given the style of shooting you describe, I do agree than Cine-D is going to be your "go to" profile if you then want to massage it in post. *Don't* slam all of the settings to -5 in an effort to get "flat." Don't mess around with highlights, shadows, any of the "i" settings. That's a recipe for post-production pain, and will net you 0% extra range. Paul Leeming's recommended settings are a great starting point. Apply his Leeming One LUT after the fact, and you've got a good, solid, accurate starting point for creative grading. It's an 8-bit image, so there is only so far you can push it, but generally it can survive some decent pushing and pulling.

I know some people are going to sneer at this suggestion, but I also think you should evaluate FilmConvert. I often use it (dialed-down) for a final finishing pass on my completed project to tie everything together and take some of the edge off.

 

[TheDingo]

I've been using Paul Leeming's Leeming LUT One with Cine-D footage for the past year with good results.

And recently I've been experimenting with Jacob Balazer's free Logarist LUT system...

[url]www.logarist.com[/URL]

Which is kind of blowing me away with the results I am getting using several different Sony and Panasonic cameras, including the Sony X70 ENG camera. It's giving me much better color and contrast control compared to other systems I've tried. Definitely worth checking out. ( works with DaVinci Resolve, Vegas Pro 13 or 14, and Final Cut Pro X )

 

[filmguy123]

Logarist looks interesting!

And I have been playing with the demo version of Filmconvert. While it is limited, it can be very helpful for dialing certain looks quickly and then adding another layer with Lumetri/Colorista to dial things in.

One thing i noticed is that with Filmconvert, all of the looks are more muted and drab than anything you get with CineV out of the camera.

I sometimes actually like the CineV look depending on what I am shooting - is there an output LUT to quickly bring back CineD to a CineV setting? IE shoot Leeming LUT CineD settings, apply Leeming LUT ONE, apply a CineV output LUT? Or does the camera process the image entirely different?

I also ask this for vlog, as I will start shooting that exclusively when the GH5 launches. It would be very nice to able to get the CineV look without committing to it, and it doesn't seem as simple as merely bumping the contrast and saturation.

 

[joe12south]

Logarist looks interesting!

And I have been playing with the demo version of Filmconvert. While it is limited, it can be very helpful for dialing certain looks quickly and then adding another layer with Lumetri/Colorista to dial things in.

One thing i noticed is that with Filmconvert, all of the looks are more muted and drab than anything you get with CineV out of the camera.

I sometimes actually like the CineV look depending on what I am shooting - is there an output LUT to quickly bring back CineD to a CineV setting? IE shoot Leeming LUT CineD settings, apply Leeming LUT ONE, apply a CineV output LUT? Or does the camera process the image entirely different?

I also ask this for vlog, as I will start shooting that exclusively when the GH5 launches. It would be very nice to able to get the CineV look without committing to it, and it doesn't seem as simple as merely bumping the contrast and saturation.

The difference between Cine-D and Cine-V is the curve. (Increasing contrast makes colors appear more saturated.) If you're going to post process, use Cine-D, if you want an image straight out of the camera, use Cine-V.

Apply Panasonic's REC709 LUT to V-LOG L (or better yet Leeming One LUT), and you should be very close to the response curve of Cine-V.

 

[estarkey7]

Right! 70-75% for skin tone, correct? What's the best way to quickly and efficiently monitor that IN CAMERA (internal screen) with GH4? Set zebras to 80%, make skin tone have zebras, stop down once? Is there a quicker way to swap between Zebra1/Zebra2 with a function button?

As for ETTR, I don't know if I phrased my question correctly but it's hugely important to me to understand the rationale here. No skin tones, no humans, just a nature or urban shot. In the histogram, I can fit the ENTIRE shot with room to both the right and left on histogram. Sorted! Right? But no, ETTR says push it as far to the right as possible, bring down in post. I assume to save shadow noise and give the dark areas more light thus more data and flexibility, right?

SO - Let's say I have a snowy roof and sky in the top right back corner. It's not really important for the shot. I can already fit everything on the histogram, but then comes the ETTR question - if I can afford to lose those highlights, should I clip them out to get another stop in the shadows and midtones in the main part of the image, even if not really neccessary? Will that extra stop give me a cleaner image for the 85% of the shot I care more about? Or is this a point of no return trade, where in reality I already have plenty of light in the shadows/mids and I can still ETTR and fit everything in, every pixel happy, full image. Or does "every stop count" in those shadows and mids, even after they are well away from the left?

Basically I understand the ETTR principle to give light to the dark areas, but I am wondering how far we take that if everything is already fitting well into the camera's DR/histogram. At what point does an extra stop of light cease to help the darker tones?

The first thing I did after I got the V-Log upgrade was to buy a Ninja 2. I did this because it was cheaper than the Ninja Assassin and I needed False Color!!! False color is just a life saver! I soooo wish they had added false color over waveform monitor as I think this is the premiere tool for getting exposure correct. The Histogram just ain't gonna cut it. It just shows you that something is hot, but you really don't know what. Even though you can let some parts the seem unimportant over-expose, they may end up being a distraction. Just flag them or use an graduated filter and bring things into available dynamic range.

 

[filmguy123]

I picked up the Feelworld 7" monitor:

https://www.amazon.com/Feelworld-Ul...id=1484714007&sr=8-3&keywords=feelworld+fw760

It was cheap, but it does have false color and good reviews from the people who have used it. I recognize it won't be an odyssey/atomos. I am guessing there is some compromise. Will this not monitor Luma 0-255 properly here? Will my color be off? I'm fine relying mostly on my 3" screen, especially with HDMI lag, but I wanted the monitor just so I could see more clearly my focus and framing, and the false color will be nice.

What drawbacks should I expect here with this guy?

 

[estarkey7]

I will have to consider all of this!!

Related, and sort of looping back to that film look / larger sensor look on M43. Here's a video that's not the best thing, just someone with some know how doing a quick camera test in the snow. It's on FS700 + Zeiss 21mm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6odrJa75m0

All of this, but particularly at clip 0:45, there is a distinct sort of layering, pop, and smoothness to the image that I don't think could be replicated on a M43 camera. I am not just referring to the exact focal length either, as this is indicative on other focal lengths and deeper depths of field as well. But can you see what I mean?

This clip is out of focus when it starts.

The perception that you are visualizing has to do with the subject distance to the lens, and the lens itself. I own some legacy Canon FD glass (50mm f/1.4 and 35mm-105mm f/3.5) and neither is sharp wide open, and just okay stopped down, but there is a beautiful rendering to them that at first I couldn't put my finger on. Then I tried to intercut some footage shot with a Panny 14-45 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens and the difference was crazy obvious!! The Panny was crazy sharp compared to the adapted legacy Canon glass. The Canon lenses were very warm in color, while the Panny was very cool (my preference actually).

If your chasing that look then your in for a treat!! You can get the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 for around $50 off ebay and a no name passive adapter cost around $10.

 

[estarkey7]

I picked up the Feelworld 7" monitor:

https://www.amazon.com/Feelworld-Ul...id=1484714007&sr=8-3&keywords=feelworld+fw760

It was cheap, but it does have false color and good reviews from the people who have used it. I recognize it won't be an odyssey/atomos. I am guessing there is some compromise. Will this not monitor Luma 0-255 properly here? Will my color be off? I'm fine relying mostly on my 3" screen, especially with HDMI lag, but I wanted the monitor just so I could see more clearly my focus and framing, and the false color will be nice.

What drawbacks should I expect here with this guy?

Probably color accuracy. It looks like a great monitor for the price though.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I've been using Paul Leeming's Leeming LUT One with Cine-D footage for the past year with good results.

And recently I've been experimenting with Jacob Balazer's free Logarist LUT system...

[url]www.logarist.com[/URL]

Which is kind of blowing me away with the results I am getting using several different Sony and Panasonic cameras, including the Sony X70 ENG camera. It's giving me much better color and contrast control compared to other systems I've tried. Definitely worth checking out. ( works with DaVinci Resolve, Vegas Pro 13 or 14, and Final Cut Pro X )

Dude that is awesome. How have I not heard of this? Downloaded and playing with it now. Me likey.

 

[TheDingo]

What drawbacks should I expect here with this guy?

It's low cost so you probably won't get great color from it, but it will help you nail focus / exposure / and composition, which is mainly what I want from a monitor. ( I've never had a monitor that was an exact match to what my camera recorded, even my $800 Marshall is good but not an exact match to what I see when I start editing my footage )

 

[TheDingo]

One thing i noticed is that with Filmconvert, all of the looks are more muted and drab than anything you get with CineV out of the camera.

It's a film emulation app, so that's the kind of looks you can expect from it. I own it and have used the film-grain feature for a few projects, but so far it's been under used for me. ( great tool to create the film look, which may not be what your corporate clients want, but a different story if you're shooting Indie work )

 

[Joshua_G]

You can avoid all of those especially if using the camera correctly to achieve high production value. The GH4 only suffers when a production gets sloppy or cuts corners. The higher end the production the better the GH4 will fair.
…
Highlights can be protected with care. High ISO noise is only an issue if one attempts to shoot a movie with no lights which I wouldn't suggest. 50% of the "film" look is lighting and without good lighting even an Arri Alexa looks dull.
…

Strongly disagree.
- Highlight clipping is largely avoided through controlled lighting, not relying on camera. (Although many like how the Arri processes it to look like a film roll-off.)
- Rare is the film that shoots at high ISO's. The GH4's high ISO performance is certainly better than the early Sony digital cinema cameras (Star Wars, Miami Vice, etc.) You don't shoot studio movies without lights.
…

Both of you are referring to higher end, studio productions. In such cases, you do have a point. However, higher end, studio productions aren't the target market for this camera. In higher end, studio productions, compared to the total budget of the production, the cost of renting the best camera is negligible. On top of that, a camera that doesn't have the ability to shoot RAW isn't a good choice for higher end, studio productions.

It looks like the GH4 isn't the best choice for events and documentaries in its' price range (unless 4K is a strict demand by the client).

Future proof? - No one can predicts what cameras, with what abilities, will come up on the next months and the next few years.

…
Color science is only an issue if you let it be an issue and think the camera can do a look for you out of the box. CineD plus the Leeming Lut greatly changes the color science.

They change the color rendering of the in-camera processing - they change the colors, to a degree - but they don't bypass completely the Panasonic color science. Nothing save shooting RAW can bypass completely any camera's in-camera color processing.

V-log puts the color in your hands.

To a degree, only to a degree. Only shooting RAW puts the colors fully in your hands.

Plenty of people can get good color out of the GH4.

Good colors to their subjective taste - it's always, necessarily, subjective. While many people can get good colors (to their subjective taste) out of the GH4 - many other people don't like the colors out of the GH4, with all possible profiles and LUTs. Which is why the GH4 isn't a good choice for higher end, studio productions.

…
This is why I prefer V-log for manual grading. I remove most of the processing in camera and deal with the color myself.

Not really so - V-log isn't RAW - though it does give better control over color rendering, it doesn't bypass completely the Panasonic color science.

So, it's back to the personal choice, to the way one may like, or dislike, the Panasonic color science.

- Color "science" is highly subjective.

Indeed.

Is it pleasantly warm like Canon or Arri? No. Is it "bad"? No. Empirically, if you bypass the h.264 encoder (external recording) it's pretty damn accurate. Once graded to taste, no worries.

As you wrote above, 'good' and 'bad' are highly subjective.
Bypassing the in-camera h.264 encoder with external recorder eliminates the h.264 compression artifacts, but not the in-camera color science. Again, nothing save shooting RAW can bypass completely any camera's in-camera color processing.

It can be graded to suit some people's taste, but not all people's taste

Even though high ISO and clipping can't be controlled *as* well in live event + docu settings (making its defense irrelevant to 50% of shooters, and 50% of my personal work) …
…

So, this camera suits 50% of your work. Which camera will suit better your other 50% of work? Is there a camera, in this price range, that will suit 100% of your work?

I picked up the Feelworld 7" monitor:
…
What drawbacks should I expect here with this guy?

Apart from colors accuracy, which was mentioned, with its' brightness of 450cd/m² it isn't usable outdoors, especially on sunny days. There are other monitors which are cheaper and have the same features plus brightness of 600cd/m², like this one: http://www.cinemartin.com/monitors/7inch/loyal/lt/ .

 

[Thomas Smet]

We are not just talking about studio productions with controlled lighting. The GH4 is a fully capable camera for live productions and plenty of people use it for that exact purpose. I have shot a ton of outdoor and mixed lighting projects and I know people who shoot amazing weddings with the GH4. The GH4 has more detail, better color, higher DR and a more cinematic look than 100% of the traditional video cameras out there that are used on live productions, events, weddings and documentaries. The GH4 is actually one of the best DSLRs I have ever used for event work and would gladly pick it over an APS-C camera and most of the FF cameras out there. I also use it when my wife and I go on vacation because I love it that much for real world use.

 

[David W. Jones]

Here is "THE" film look you should try to emulate!

 

[TheDingo]

Here is "THE" film look you should try to emulate!

The colors look so organic, they have that indescribable quality that only silver-halide film can capture...

 

[Joshua_G]

We are not just talking about studio productions with controlled lighting. The GH4 is a fully capable camera for live productions and plenty of people use it for that exact purpose. I have shot a ton of outdoor and mixed lighting projects and I know people who shoot amazing weddings with the GH4. The GH4 has more detail, better color, higher DR and a more cinematic look than 100% of the traditional video cameras out there that are used on live productions, events, weddings and documentaries. The GH4 is actually one of the best DSLRs I have ever used for event work and would gladly pick it over an APS-C camera and most of the FF cameras out there. I also use it when my wife and I go on vacation because I love it that much for real world use.

Apparently, you love this camera and prefer it to over any other mirrorless, APS-C or FF DSLR. That's excellent for you, finding a camera that you love and prefer over any other similar one.

However, when I pointed out the drawbacks of this camera you wrote that those drawbacks are meaningless, or can be overcome, in higher end productions. Comparing this camera to traditional video cameras isn't the issue raised by me, I referred to how this camera compares to other cameras in similar form (mirrorless or DSLR) and price range.
It looks like we are left with personal preferences, rather than the actual benefits of this camera over other cameras in similar form and price range.

 

[joe12south]

Apparently, you love this camera and prefer it to over any other mirrorless, APS-C or FF DSLR. That's excellent for you, finding a camera that you love and prefer over any other similar one.

However, when I pointed out the drawbacks of this camera you wrote that those drawbacks are meaningless, or can be overcome, in higher end productions. Comparing this camera to traditional video cameras isn't the issue raised by me, I referred to how this camera compares to other cameras in similar form (mirrorless or DSLR) and price range.
It looks like we are left with personal preferences, rather than the actual benefits of this camera over other cameras in similar form and price range.

In a similar form factor and price range there are some cameras with in-camera stabilization, better low light performance, better dynamic range, better color science than the GH4. (I know there are other features, but these are the biggies.) That's a fact, for sure.

There is no other camera in a similar form factor that offers as complete and balanced package of features and usability as the GH4. (That was, until the GH5.) They're really too many to list here, and many of them aren't evident unless you actually use the camera, but little things like being able to specify shutter-angle vs shutter speed add-up. I think the sum total of those create a camera that is in fact, by "benefits" empirically better than its competitors for all-around use.

 

[joe12south]

Good colors to their subjective taste - it's always, necessarily, subjective. While many people can get good colors (to their subjective taste) out of the GH4 - many other people don't like the colors out of the GH4, with all possible profiles and LUTs. Which is why the GH4 isn't a good choice for higher end, studio productions.

Bzzzt. If good color is subjective, than how can you definitively declare that the GH4 isn't a good choice for higher end, studio productions based on its color rendition?

I've said it many times, while I chose to use the GH-line, I've never been totally happy with it's color rendition. I shoot people, and it could be a lot better. I don't like Sony's color either, for the same reason. That doesn't mean either line of camera can't be use in a studio environment. I have matched my GH4 to several different much more expensive cameras, and only the most eagle-eyed nerds like us would ever know.

All that said, have you seen the leaked Panasonic PDF that goes into more detail about the color improvements in the GH5? Looks very promising. It specifically calls-out how they use 3D transforms in-camera to address the skin tone problem of hue shifting as the luminance changes from highlight to shadow. Combined with recording in higher color resolution, this tech improvement may prove a meaningful real world improvement. If so, I'll have very little left to complain about!

 

[Joshua_G]

In a similar form factor and price range there are some cameras with in-camera stabilization, better low light performance, better dynamic range, better color science than the GH4. (I know there are other features, but these are the biggies.) That's a fact, for sure.

There is no other camera in a similar form factor that offers as complete and balanced package of features and usability as the GH4. (That was, until the GH5.) They're really too many to list here, and many of them aren't evident unless you actually use the camera, but little things like being able to specify shutter-angle vs shutter speed add-up. I think the sum total of those create a camera that is in fact, by "benefits" empirically better than its competitors for all-around use.

I'm amused by the fact that some people are fanatic about the camera brand they are using, trying to convert everyone else to the brand of their choice. I'm not bashing the Panasonic GH cameras, I'm only saying that there isn't one size that fits all.

Preferring (a) camera(s) over other(s) is purely a matter of personal preference. There is no objective 'best camera for video' at a given price range.

For those who put the set of features on the top of their priority list, the GH4 and GH5 are probably on the top. For those who prefer better low light performance, and/or better dynamic range, and/or better color science, and/or better automatic focus and follow focus in video mode, and/or better handling {especially in run & gin situations} and/or built in ND filters, and/or better in-camera audio preamps, and/or the ability to shoot RAW - there are better options.

 

[Joshua_G]

Bzzzt. If good color is subjective, than how can you definitively declare that the GH4 isn't a good choice for higher end, studio productions based on its color rendition?

Very simple: higher end, studio productions require either the ability to shoot RAW, where the in-camera color science is bypassed completely, therefore irrelevant - which gives complete control over the color science in post - or a color science with maximum flexibility for manipulating in post.

The fact is that the GH4 is rarely used, if at all, in higher end, studio productions.

I've said it many times, while I chose to use the GH-line, I've never been totally happy with it's color rendition.

That's your personal preference. Other people have different evaluation of the Panasonic color science.

All that said, have you seen the leaked Panasonic PDF that goes into more detail about the color improvements in the GH5?

No, I haven't seen it and I'm not going to. All I'm interested in is footage from this camera - both graded and ungraded. Seeing footage tells me what I'm most interested about, seeing data sheets and white sheets tell me only about the features list, plus marketing statements. Thou there is already some footage from this camera, it isn't enough for me to form an opinion.