GH4 Essential Settings & Essential Post for GH4 Film Look

[visceralpsyche]

The Zeiss family of lenses are widely renowned for their '3D' and 'pop' - it's not something you can easily quantify in numbers. They render the image in a way that makes them feel more dimensional, like you can reach into the frame and touch things.

I used to own Canon L lenses for cinema work when I first started out. I thought they were just fine... until I tried the Zeiss ZE 50mm f1.4 prime lens against the Canon 50mmL f1.2 prime lens. Yes, I loved the manual focus feel of the Zeiss, since it felt like the proper cinema lenses I used on bigger productions. But it was also the look. There was something richer about it, more alive. Compared to the Zeiss, the Canon images suddenly didn't seem so good to look at. Although I didn't get what it was at first, it prompted me to try the Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE lens as well. Same thing happened, only even more so. I found out the 35mm f2 from Zeiss is very highly regarded for its 3D effect, and then I began to research what that meant.

Long story short, I realised I was seeing the character of the lens, and what it could do for my images. They looked more cinematic (which makes sense when you realise that Zeiss make cinema lenses too, often with the same lens formula), and gave better separation between the subject and background (not bokeh, which all lenses have, but the WAY in which the background and subject blend into each other and feel separate, but connected, and dimensional).

Nowadays I am very much into lens character, and do a lot of research into finding lenses with a particular feel for the project I may be shooting. It's why I have my Soviet lens set, and it's why I'm looking to switch to the older Contax Zeiss for their particular look now.

As to needing different lenses for stills work - unless you are shooting sports with high speed autofocus, why not use the same lenses you use for film work? After all, they render the image more beautifully. Manual focus isn't that hard, if you take a bit of time to get to know your lenses. I missed autofocus for a little bit after I switched from Canon, but now I actually much prefer manual focus as it gets me more involved in the image. Today's modern EVF cameras make manual focusing easy, with their live edge detection peaking etc.

My suggestion then, is to first buy the Speed Booster for EF lenses (Ultra 0.71x to be safe, since we don't know how the GH5 is going to handle the XL). That gives you access to a world of lenses, since nearly everything can be adapted to the EOS mount and the focus direction is the same as cinema lenses.

Then, buy the cheapest Zeiss lens (for me I bought the previously mentioned ZE 50mm f1.4) and play with it. Buy it second hand and if you don't like it, you'll be able to resell it for little to no loss.

On that basis, buy or don't buy the other Zeiss lenses, or whatever other lenses you want.

If you want to go ultra cheap, but the Speed Booster, then buy a couple of old Soviet M42 mount lenses. They will be all manual, and adapt easily to the EF mount with a $10 adapter. See how they render, get used to what an all metal, smooth focusing lens feels like, and decide if you want to go down that path, or stick with M43.

There's no easy answer beyond testing, I'm afraid!

HTH!

Paul

 

[joe12south]

I can only speak of my own personal view but I really want to get a set of Rokinon lenses. I have the 12mm Rokinon t2.2 lens and love it. I also love my native m43 lenses and mainly keep them for shooting stills. I'm not in a position to sell my native lenses and buy a set of Rokinons because I shoot stills. In a perfect world I would have two sets. One cine set and one native set. That way all situations are covered. No set is going to be the end all perfect set but really it depends on each persons use case.

I want a versatile set where I can shoot video and stills and use the features of the camera to its full potential.

If you really do plan on 100% only shooting films or narrative work then I say go for the Rokinon set. If you plan on using the GH4 as a hybrid camera then you may want to consider a native set. Or if you have the budget really get both. Then all your bases are covered.

The lens does make a visual difference but they are more like using different film stocks. At the end of the day any film stock is still film and any lens is still a good lens. One person can shoot fine art with a $10,000 lens and the next person will shoot absolute garbage with that same lens. When you see impressive looking videos online a lot of what makes it look amazing has more to do with the talent behind and in front of the camera as opposed to just that p[articular piece of glass.

I will say that there is a certain visual difference between native lenses and adapted lenses and that comes down to the in body correction the m43 cameras do. Any adapted lens will not be corrected and to some that makes a more natural organic looking image. This is true of any adapted lens be it Canon, Nikon, Rokinon or some other old school set.

I own the complete set of the Rokinon Cine-style lenses (even the stupidly wide fisheyes.) For the price, there is a lot of good. When talking about lenses, even people that evaluate cameras in very clinical terms tend to drift into fuzzy, emotional language about the lens characteristics. Objectively, my thoughts on the Rokinon's:
- Decent but not great build quality. Aperture and focus movement is fine, but not buttery smooth or super long.
- Light for cine lenses...heavy for anything else
- Low contrast (milky, light blooms into shadows)
- Soft (never super sharp, gets really soft at wide open apertures)
- Match pretty well from lens to lens.

I also do other types of shooting with native Panasonic lenses. Manual cine lenses are very different tools from compact, auto, native lenses. I find them hard to even compare.
- Very sharp, even wide open
- Full contrast
- Static focus is a breeze...just half press the shutter. Manual focus sucks...feels like playing with a toy.
- Small, light. No need for a rig.

Here's something to consider. If you want to use cine lenses because of how they handle, there's no comparison. Real gears, stepless aperture, and long throw are worth their weight in gold if that's how you work. BUT, if you don't want the hassle, but want the look...you can largely replicate the look in post. Some aspects are nearly impossible to fake...bokeh comes to mind...but it's trivial to soften the image, to make it bloom, to lower contrast, to use a LUT to match color rendition, etc.

 

[joe12south]

The Zeiss family of lenses are widely renowned for their '3D' and 'pop' - it's not something you can easily quantify in numbers. They render the image in a way that makes them feel more dimensional, like you can reach into the frame and touch things.

I used to own Canon L lenses for cinema work when I first started out. I thought they were just fine... until I tried the Zeiss ZE 50mm f1.4 prime lens against the Canon 50mmL f1.2 prime lens. Yes, I loved the manual focus feel of the Zeiss, since it felt like the proper cinema lenses I used on bigger productions. But it was also the look. There was something richer about it, more alive. Compared to the Zeiss, the Canon images suddenly didn't seem so good to look at. Although I didn't get what it was at first, it prompted me to try the Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE lens as well. Same thing happened, only even more so. I found out the 35mm f2 from Zeiss is very highly regarded for its 3D effect, and then I began to research what that meant.

Long story short, I realised I was seeing the character of the lens, and what it could do for my images. They looked more cinematic (which makes sense when you realise that Zeiss make cinema lenses too, often with the same lens formula), and gave better separation between the subject and background (not bokeh, which all lenses have, but the WAY in which the background and subject blend into each other and feel separate, but connected, and dimensional).

Nowadays I am very much into lens character, and do a lot of research into finding lenses with a particular feel for the project I may be shooting. It's why I have my Soviet lens set, and it's why I'm looking to switch to the older Contax Zeiss for their particular look now.

As to needing different lenses for stills work - unless you are shooting sports with high speed autofocus, why not use the same lenses you use for film work? After all, they render the image more beautifully. Manual focus isn't that hard, if you take a bit of time to get to know your lenses. I missed autofocus for a little bit after I switched from Canon, but now I actually much prefer manual focus as it gets me more involved in the image. Today's modern EVF cameras make manual focusing easy, with their live edge detection peaking etc.

My suggestion then, is to first buy the Speed Booster for EF lenses (Ultra 0.71x to be safe, since we don't know how the GH5 is going to handle the XL). That gives you access to a world of lenses, since nearly everything can be adapted to the EOS mount and the focus direction is the same as cinema lenses.

Then, buy the cheapest Zeiss lens (for me I bought the previously mentioned ZE 50mm f1.4) and play with it. Buy it second hand and if you don't like it, you'll be able to resell it for little to no loss.

On that basis, buy or don't buy the other Zeiss lenses, or whatever other lenses you want.

If you want to go ultra cheap, but the Speed Booster, then buy a couple of old Soviet M42 mount lenses. They will be all manual, and adapt easily to the EF mount with a $10 adapter. See how they render, get used to what an all metal, smooth focusing lens feels like, and decide if you want to go down that path, or stick with M43.

There's no easy answer beyond testing, I'm afraid!

HTH!

Paul

I'm gonna disagree with my good virtual friend on this one. ;-)

Shooting stills all manual on cine glass is a crazy pain in the ass. Why do that to yourself? Why ever miss focus on a still? Here's a great budget starter kit that gives you a variety of different tools:

- SpeedBooster
- Sigma 18-35 1.8 (The Sigma isn't geared, but if you want to add a follow focus it has a long enough throw to make it practical.)
- Panasonic 25mm 1.7 (Nifty 50 equivalent)

With that you can shoot a movie, infant photos, weddings, music videos, you name it. When you're ready, you can move to a whole "kit" of cine lenses, and add another native or two as needed.

 

[joe12south]

The Zeiss family of lenses are widely renowned for their '3D' and 'pop' - it's not something you can easily quantify in numbers. They render the image in a way that makes them feel more dimensional, like you can reach into the frame and touch things.

"3D" = less compression
"pop" = contrast

 

[joe12south]

To clarify: not talking about the cheesy film burn or the desaturated, cool, likely magic bullet stock look dropped on. And definitely not looking for a camera or piece of gear to do it for me.

Also not trying to be argumentative at all either, I'm just shocked that no one here can seem to discern the difference much, even though most people who own larger sensor cameras seem to consistently express the same sentiment...

The sony clip is sloppy in so many ways. You REALLY can't see the difference in the way the image renders between that clip and the GH4 clips?

I hear what you're saying. It's a valid appraisal. I'd encourage you to look at Shane Carruth's work with GH cameras (Primer, Upstream Color.) I think Primer was shot on a hacked GH2.

- In terms of FOV, if all variables are accounted for, you can make any sensor size render the same as any other. That one is just simple math. The right lens and the right adapter (focal reducer) can turn any sensor size into any other.
- in terms of dynamic range, and response curve, color science, sensors and their supporting electronics very GREATLY. That's the main difference with BlackMagic cameras ... how they prioritize the image coming off the sensor. They don't prioritize clinical perfection, they prioritize a certain aesthetic. So does Arri. To a lesser degree, so does Canon.
- Out of focus rendering (bokeh) is 100% a lens characteristic.

To put it another way, a 4K 10bit (externally recorded) V-LOG L image off of a GH4 shot with a SpeedBooster XL and Cooke primes is technically capable of looking every bit as cinematic as anything being shown at your local cineplex. In any meaningful way, it's a better image than the early digi-cine cameras that Lucas and Mann used for multi-hundred million dollar pictures.
Put that combo in the hands of Roger Deakins and it will kick the ass of anything I could shoot with any camera at any cost!

 

[Batutta]

I hear what you're saying. It's a valid appraisal. I'd encourage you to look at Shane Carruth's work with GH cameras (Primer, Upstream Color.) I think Primer was shot on a hacked GH2.

Shane must have actually invented time travel! The GH2 was released in 2010, Primer was released in 2004. They shot it on Super 16mm. Upstream was on the GH2 with Voigtlander's.

 

[joe12south]

Shane must have actually invented time travel! The GH2 was released in 2010, Primer was released in 2004. They shot it on Super 16mm. Upstream was on the GH2 with Voigtlander's.

Thanks for the correction, I knew he shot something on a hack GH2!

 

[visceralpsyche]

I'm gonna disagree with my good virtual friend on this one. ;-)

Shooting stills all manual on cine glass is a crazy pain in the ass. Why do that to yourself? Why ever miss focus on a still? Here's a great budget starter kit that gives you a variety of different tools:

- SpeedBooster
- Sigma 18-35 1.8 (The Sigma isn't geared, but if you want to add a follow focus it has a long enough throw to make it practical.)
- Panasonic 25mm 1.7 (Nifty 50 equivalent)

With that you can shoot a movie, infant photos, weddings, music videos, you name it. When you're ready, you can move to a whole "kit" of cine lenses, and add another native or two as needed.

Hehe! When I say cine style lenses, I'm referring to my Zeiss ZE stills lenses which I've attached gears to. I wish I owned a set of Cooke S4s, but alas, I'm not that rich!!

Focus peaking on the GH4 is actually pretty amazing for manual focus lenses, plus iris is a non-issue with EVF type cameras, since WYSIWYG rules! Peaking means you can quickly see the focus roll through your point of interest as you adjust it, so it only takes a second or so you hit it with accuracy.

Then again, my subjects are generally static or slow moving, plus my years of pulling focus on movie shoots means I'm pretty used to the feel of focus tracking and depth of field considerations.

But I agree, for speed, nothing beats a good, connected autofocus system.

Your lens recommendations are sound too Love my Sigma 18-35mm Speed Booster combo, and it even does reasonable autofocus.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[TheDingo]

BMCC looks much smoother and less digital. Very organic.

To me this is more of a "Blackmagic look" that I can spot a mile away. So many people shoot with the default color from their BM cameras that it's almost a visual cliché. I don't hate the look, but I do think it's overrated.

Older Nikon AI-S lenses are one of my favorites for the GH4. They are softer and less "crispy" than the modern lenses, but they have a gorgeous look to the image they produce, which is why I currently own eight of them for my GH4.

 

[filmguy123]

Thanks all, this is very helpful.

Not bashing on the GH4 either, learning and distinguishing for myself what exactly it is capable of (and not), and why, and what attributes cause that (color grade, sensor size, internal processing, gamma curves, etc.). What elements are in my control, and what aren't.

I have a GH5 on pre-order, an M43 lens kit to boot.

I think there's a lot more I can do in camera to dial in my look. I love the look of my Noktons over Panny/Oly by a long shot, to me the difference is massive. I'm learning I also *REALLY* like the look Zeiss'. I agree the stock BMCC look gets old fast, but the way that camera renders images is preferable to my eye, and it seems that attaining that on a GHx is not possible. Same with some of the aesthetics on S35+.

That's not to say there's anything inherently WRONG with not having the aesthetics that aren't that possible due to the engineering or processing on the GHx, it's just DIFFERENT. And don't get me wrong, I both seen and produced images on Panny m43 I am *THRILLED* with. In the last couple days I have done a long overdue analysis and assessment of what properties are creating what effects on the image. Some might call this obsessing over gear, I call it being a passionate DP who wants to understand their craft to a deeper level. I mean seriously, this is what good DPs do. Yes they tell great stories and have great lighting and composition, but their technological knowledge and understanding of film stocks and sensors, gear, gammas, lenses, etc. all supports and informs their art.

For me, the reality is that story and content comes first. That's why I'm with the GHx series. It's not because it's my favorite image or sensor on the market (I am not bashing it here, because fantastic results can absolutely be had with it). I do long for images more in line with my tastes and want to do EVERYTHING I can to achieve that in the GHx bodies, because for me to switch to an A7S II or a BMPC or an FS700 would be untennable, not from a cost perspective, but from a workflow perspective. Panasonic has flat out NAILED it in nearly everyway in terms of feature set, workflow, build quality, menus, options, etc. And the size and weight for me are musts. It's a brilliant, brilliant camera.

As such, the CONTENT I can produce is better because I can work fast, work well, have a ton of options, and the gear flat out gets out of my way. That's what I want, and that comes first. It has to come first.

But at the same time, I am a DP. I am in love with visuals. I am passionate about image quality in a way that I have no doubt some here can't understand, and I soak it up, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing. As long as that passion SUPPORTS one's craft, instead of replacing it (I realize for some, it does).

I am sure being on the forum constantly with tech questions can make it feel like no one shoots, just pixel peeps. Especially when numerous different posters are in and out, in and out, etc. But the reality is, over the years I have hardly asked any of these questions. I am too busy shooting. I am trapped in a snow storm and have several MAJOR projects coming up this year, starting next month, and am in full on research and gear buying/prepping mode. In addition to gear, my days now are split between craft techniques. I am going through a story & marketing workshop, learning more how to hone in my lighting and audio game, scripting and storyboarding out the videos, etc.

All that to say: please excuse the technical questions and sometimes challenging posts. Please remember that while I am asking a lot of technical stuff right now, and it may seem like a lot, in comparison this is an extremely short blip on the radar in my history of filmmaking. Telling someone to focus more on the craft of filmmaking is truly great advice, but it by nature also assumes they aren't already doing that. For me, these technical questions do not come at the expense of the artistic ones. For years, my artistic focus has actually come at the expense of my technical back-end know how. I admit I am playing a bit of catch up here, and I am merely trying to learn for the sake of the art.

And I have learned a TON here. So many helpful posts and patient people.

THANK YOU!

Anyways, carry on

 

[filmguy123]

Paul, to clarify I don't shoot stills and have no need for AF. I actually don't like the AF native lenses, not only because they add the extra image sharpening in camera, but because the fly-by-wire is a nightmare for me. All about all manual!

Now that said, I do have the new 12-35 on pre-order, but that's because of Dual IS and good AF with the new GH5 AF. It's small and light. It should be a dream for gimbal work... quickly change focal length with minimal re balancing needs, f/2.8 AF focus on face or object, and roll. We'll see how that holds up. And for quasi handheld, shoulder mount or steering wheel type rig handheld, it could be a great, great way to get smoother hand shots in live event style work (even though I tend to shoot live events a bit unconvential, with fantastic results: all manual, all on primes, with a ThinkTank lens change system). It just looks so much better! But a good 12-35 with Dual IS will no doubt come in handy for those fast moving moments.

So, adapted lenses are no problem for. The classic Zeiss ZE look very interesting. I lean more towards the Milvus though. I have read and heard that arguably the microcontrast is better on some of the older Zeiss' because they have focused on resolution with the new lineup. That said, the microcontrast is suppose to still be great and it maintains the Zeiss look, and I think the Milvus would probably be a better long term solution for me as cameras continue to increase in resolution. I could see the Milvus line-up being a life long set.

Right now I am leaning more towards rounding out my M43 kit with the rest of the Noktons, because they are just the best thing since sliced bread for a native M43 mount. I seriously don't know how anyone owns a M43 camera without at least one lens from this set. But I digress. I feel more comfortable investing a little in M43 because the M43 BMPC look is so fantastic, it gives me great hope for the M43 future. Even if I am not in love with the GHx look (I am in love with everything else on it though), the future is bright. Anyway, I think they will always find a well loved place, especially as more MFT options come to market.

Additionally, the incredibly small, lightweight and complexity free workflow of working with the Noktons should fit my overall workflow better.

But I think what I may do is collect the Nokton set used, and in doing so save about $1,000, which I can use to purchase the Zeiss Milvus 35mm EF mount. Add a speedbooster, and see how I like that. For workflow issues, this allows me to just leave the speedbooster permantently attached and always use it with that lens in more fast paced settings.

This will open the door for me to slowly collect and invest in more FF glass as I eventually prepare to move into larger sensor cameras, as well as quickly throw on anyones glass onto my GHx cameras (everyone around me has EF glass, making it easy to rent, or borrow and use great lenses if needed or desired) in certain situations. The Zeiss 35mm seems to be the wow lens for the Zeiss effect, and is conveniently the perfect focal length for me on speedbooster, and also conveniently the cheapest of their entire Milvus line up. Score!

In addition, I am enjoying playing with the CineD and adjusting settings, applying lots, and working towards more advanced color grading to really maximize the tools I have no and will likely be working with for at LEAST another year of great content.

My big take aways so far from the thread are:

- Reduce in camera sharpness, especially for native M43 lenses (meaning native ELECTRONIC lenses, not voigtlander)

- Shoot flat (Cine-D GH4 internal for now), change color tones manually from baked in Panasonic settings if that is not of preference

- GH5 vlog should grant me some extra lattitude and flexibility for dialing my look

- There are limits to how much the GHx look can be adapted, no matter what settings used, the electronic processing is baked in to a certain extent. I am not referring to this in terms of "better" or "worse", just an aesthetic observation, and the same could be said of any other camera.

- Lens choices aren't just about f-stop, FOV, sharpness, and build quality. Lens character can DRAMATICALLY alter the look of a shot, even if it's the same focal length and F-stop as another excellent lens.

- Content trumps all

 

[joe12south]

To me this is more of a "Blackmagic look" that I can spot a mile away. So many people shoot with the default color from their BM cameras that it's almost a visual cliché. I don't hate the look, but I do think it's overrated.

Older Nikon AI-S lenses are one of my favorites for the GH4. They are softer and less "crispy" than the modern lenses, but they have a gorgeous look to the image they produce, which is why I currently own eight of them for my GH4.

To be fair, a lot of people got hold of bmd cameras, had no idea how to grade, and unleashed a slew of bad low-con images. But that's definitely not the cameras fault.

 

[TheDingo]

and it seems that attaining that on a GHx is not possible. Same with some of the aesthetics on S35+

Completely disagree on this one. You aren't going to get this look with the default settings and the default Lumix glass, so you will have to develop your own process to get the look you are after.

I look at the work that Kendy Ty produces with the crappy old Canon T2i and I am amazed that it came out of that camera. I know it's ALL about Kendy Ty and NOTHING about shooting with a Canon T2i camera.

 

[filmguy123]

I'm more than thrilled if that is the case! I want it to be, because I am sticking with GHx. And if so, that is what this thread is all about!

The T2I stuff looks phenomenal. Not surprised by what's possible with that - though again the camera's baseline image processing and sensor is different. I started a best of GH4 thread but there's been limited response to it, would love to see more examples of the best of GHx.

 

[TheDingo]

The T2I stuff looks phenomenal. Not surprised by what's possible with that - though again the camera's baseline image processing and sensor is different.

Most people can't duplicate what Kendy Ty can do with the T2i. It's ALL about how Kendy Ty shoots and handles his footage in post. The same can be done for GHx cameras provided you have a clear vision of what you are trying to create.

The best GH4 work that I've seen is on the Vimeo GH4 Channel : 3,675 Videos to Check Out

 

[Joshua_G]

…
To put it another way, a 4K 10bit (externally recorded) V-LOG L image off of a GH4 shot with a SpeedBooster XL and Cooke primes is technically capable of looking every bit as cinematic as anything being shown at your local cineplex.

It may be so, except highlights clipping, high ISO noise and color science, especially skin tones.

 

[Thomas Smet]

It may be so, except highlights clipping, high ISO noise and color science, especially skin tones.

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. Remember how well the GH2 did in the Zacuto comparison?

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. 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. V-log puts the color in your hands. Plenty of people can get good color out of the GH4. It just doesn't have a push record and oh hey pretty concept to it. Part of the bad reputation the GH4 had with color came from people horrifically abusing the camera settings trying to achieve a flat look. This is why I prefer V-log for manual grading. I remove most of the processing in camera and deal with the color myself.

 

[joe12south]

It may be so, except highlights clipping, high ISO noise and color science, especially skin tones.

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.
- Color "science" is highly subjective. 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.

 

[TheDingo]

- Shoot flat (Cine-D GH4 internal for now)

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.

 

[filmguy123]

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) - that actually isn't what I'm talking about or concerned with, that's just something you live with.

Talking about the perfectly exposed, composed, lit, and graded image itself.