joe12south
Veteran
That was exactly my point, it's subjective. Your head is in a very contradictory, confrontational place. ;-)
GH4 Essential Settings & Essential Post for GH4 Film Look
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
Since the 80's I've owned Olympus SLRs, Nikon SLRs, Mamiya RZ67 cameras, Sinar large-format, Canon DSLRs, Panasonic Mirrorless... For me it has always been about using what works.
I was on the fence about staying with m4/3 or moving over to Sony FF cameras, until Panasonic confirmed that the GH5 was going to have 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 color. Everything else with the GH5 has been icing-on-the-cake for me. ( so happy to go back to a full size HDMI connector )
joe12south
Veteran
Unless you are a "high end studio" production, and then you're only allowed to use certain tools. ;-)
joe12south
Veteran
There's nothing inherently wrong with investing in one system over another.
By in large, I'm brand agnostic, but like many, I don't have the luxury of having a specialized tool for every job. (Yes, I could rent, but that's a whole other set of issues.) In the category of best all-around hybrid camera, the GH-line objectively is the clear winner. Because this has been true for so long, I've invested quite a bit in it over the years. That makes it harder to switch, and makes me more interested in promoting the line and encouraging Panasonic to make it better. Does that make me a fanboy? I hope not. I try to objectively evaluate each new iteration of each system.
The reason I recommend the GH-line to so many people (indie-filmmakers, event shooters, hobbyists, etc.) is because their needs are similar to mine. I find it is fairly rare that someone needs a specific feature so desperately that it trumps overall usability.
Low light capabilities are a great example. I was sorely tempted to jump to the Sony A7s line. But after renting one, and actually using it for a bit, living with the trade-offs, I realized the loss of countless small features wasn't worth it for that one.
If someone else made a GH-killer that was equally thoughtful in regarding the video shooter, I'd have no problem switching. But let's face it, at least right now, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Nikon don't think that way. They treat video on their "hybrid" cameras as an add-on, not as an equal citizen.
By in large, I'm brand agnostic, but like many, I don't have the luxury of having a specialized tool for every job. (Yes, I could rent, but that's a whole other set of issues.) In the category of best all-around hybrid camera, the GH-line objectively is the clear winner. Because this has been true for so long, I've invested quite a bit in it over the years. That makes it harder to switch, and makes me more interested in promoting the line and encouraging Panasonic to make it better. Does that make me a fanboy? I hope not. I try to objectively evaluate each new iteration of each system.
The reason I recommend the GH-line to so many people (indie-filmmakers, event shooters, hobbyists, etc.) is because their needs are similar to mine. I find it is fairly rare that someone needs a specific feature so desperately that it trumps overall usability.
Low light capabilities are a great example. I was sorely tempted to jump to the Sony A7s line. But after renting one, and actually using it for a bit, living with the trade-offs, I realized the loss of countless small features wasn't worth it for that one.
If someone else made a GH-killer that was equally thoughtful in regarding the video shooter, I'd have no problem switching. But let's face it, at least right now, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Nikon don't think that way. They treat video on their "hybrid" cameras as an add-on, not as an equal citizen.
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
Amen Joe!
The Sony A7S2 sensor is just amazing. Truly, it's the best sensor I've ever played with, and building LUTs for it really showed how lovely it could look, with the right settings. But it is severely hampered by the rest of the system, to the extent that I too stuck with the GH4 (and soon the GH5).
What I'd really like to see is an APS-C, or even full frame, version of the GH5. Give me the ability to have a full frame field of view (either natively or with a Speed Booster) married with the GH5 features and ergonomics, and you'd have the best camera possible with zero compromises (at the prosumer level at least).
Sony won't do it to protect their upper line of cameras (which are far too bulky for my needs), Canon the same, etc etc.
Too bad really, but until then, the GH5 is about as close as possible to the perfect all-rounder camera. That's why I've already pre-ordered it and that's why it's probably going to be THE camera of 2017 for video and hybrid shooters.
Cheers,
Paul
The Sony A7S2 sensor is just amazing. Truly, it's the best sensor I've ever played with, and building LUTs for it really showed how lovely it could look, with the right settings. But it is severely hampered by the rest of the system, to the extent that I too stuck with the GH4 (and soon the GH5).
What I'd really like to see is an APS-C, or even full frame, version of the GH5. Give me the ability to have a full frame field of view (either natively or with a Speed Booster) married with the GH5 features and ergonomics, and you'd have the best camera possible with zero compromises (at the prosumer level at least).
Sony won't do it to protect their upper line of cameras (which are far too bulky for my needs), Canon the same, etc etc.
Too bad really, but until then, the GH5 is about as close as possible to the perfect all-rounder camera. That's why I've already pre-ordered it and that's why it's probably going to be THE camera of 2017 for video and hybrid shooters.
Cheers,
Paul
filmguy123
Veteran
^ This
What make the Panasonic GH4 suit indie filmmakers and event shooters better than say the Canon 80D, or 7D MKII, or 5D MKIII, or 5D MKIV?
joe12south
Veteran
I only have first hand experience with the 5D. I really like its color, especially how it renders skintones. Actually shooting video with it is a big bag of hurt compared to the GH4. Like I said, it's a myriad of small details. No one thing I can mention would seem significant, it's the total package. It starts with the trade offs you avoid with a mirror less system, through the menu system, on to the physical ergonomics. If all you care about is the image, and you like the Canon image, then stick with it. If you also care about the shooting experience, then you owe it to yourself to rent the GH4 for a day.
1-articulated screen.
Once you try this, it's realy hard to go back to 5D.
Lets say you are against the wall and you need a shot from high angle right above your head? Or lets say you need very very low angle and from a side (or around the corner if you're filming hidden shot or in unwelcoming terrain)?
With 5D these shot are possible only as a guessing.
With GH2/3/4 you can acctualy see the frame of what you are filming!
2-weight.
Try to put 5D with 100mm on a gorillapod. Impossible.
GH4 with 14-140 works perfect.
How're you gonna capture a steady shot (not hand held) from the area where tripod can not reach like outside of vehicle or a boat, from branch of the trees, from any low point...(shooting snail crossing the curbside with people walking in a blury background par ex.).
5D and such, makes all of these situations a special shooting situations for which you need a special rig, special equipment and dedicated set up time (with you lying on the floor or on your knees).
Which means if 5D is your tool in these situations, it litterelry means you might not even get the shot with it as opoosed to gh2/3/4.
5D demands set up and prep time. GH Is almost no set up time (think tripod vs gorillapod).
GH's are truly unobtrusive format. You are much closer to invisible.
With 5D everybody notices you.
3-autofocus (for fast point focus not for tracking or rack focusing).
Par ex:
You just spotted Your character is walking from bus into a building (left-right, where point A and point B is the same distance) and its gonna walk for only 15 sec.
With GH4 Just tap the point where he is on the screen and 95% its gonna be in focus and it will take less then 5 sec to do it. You press roll and you have a 10sec shot of character walking into a builging.
With 5D this shot becomes a matter of luck and not of your abilities. By the time you autofocused to the person (95% of time you have to doublecheck if its accurate) or if you are on manual then you magnify first and then you focus. If you get lucky you might have 3-4 sec of the very same entrance but probably none
And now try to imagine that you are filming a criminal/president/foreign spy meeting somebody who he/she shouldn't meet, and then they enter a court/hotel/vehicle and its NO FILMING ALLOWED area (and armed security is there to enforce that rule)!
So you have to shoot from around the corner and lets say from 100 yards away? GH4 with 12-35mm and you have a shot! (you punch in later on in post and you have a medium shot of a walk).
5D might get you shot with a bullet and no video recordings of it in your camera.
4-long takes (non interrupted shooting of long speaches and performances). Do I need to explain this?
6-battery life. Also this dosn't need explanation.
You are filming a 18th birthday party or a wedding of the youngest and only daugher and favorite child of a local tycoon, wealthy industrialist, local governor or a Cosa Nostra Godfather (only they have budgets to hire you with your rates
.But you didn't realy recorded the speach when Daugther was saying how much she loves her Father or he was giving the speach how much he is proud of her. So job is done, you sent them a DVD with a movie, Father saw that the speech, the most important speech in hos life, is missing from the movie...?!?!
They don't understand and ask for explanation!
And you still need to be paid your last instalment of a 10.000$ fee that you contracted with them for your video services.
Which excuse they are gonna accept?
1-sorry boss my canon sensor was overheating!
2-sorry boss battery on my canon died even though it was indicating everything was fine at the beginning of your speach!
My guess is whatever explanation you offer, you will be sent a package sith dead fishes in bulletproof vest wraped in a brown paper on which is a handwriten message that sppells:
"you should have used Panasonic GH4!"
7-4K image. It allows recomposition in post. This is also self explanatory: if you shoot just a bit wider, later on in post you can fix and recompose the "ugly" frame (if its run'n'gun situation sometimes you just make sure that camera is rolling and you don't havectime to bother with composition).
In some instances, its almost like you have 2 cameras: lets say you shoot somebody standing and talking. GH4 litteraly enables you to capture both wide shot and MCU with one take (punch in 4K image in post).
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Nothing.
What makes the GH4 not good enough for those things?
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. None of this matters. All these modern cameras are 100% capable of doing the work you want. That has been my entire point here. Not to praise the GH4 or try to convince you that the GH4 is somehow better but to point out that it is just as great of a camera as any other and you will be just as good of a film maker as you would with any other camera.
I'm sure that doesn't really help your situation but its the truth. Some of us myself included obsess over features and quality aspects but in the end all that matters is your talent and the talent of the people around you. A 720p badly compressed bootleg of Guardians of the Galaxy is still just as enjoyable of a movie and when I watch little clips of those movies on some YouTube review site like CinemaSins the same movie and same look is still there. You hand the worlds best DP a Canon T2i and I'm sure they will pull off an amazing movie. Hand my dad an Arri Alexa and my dogs wouldn't even want to watch it.
We freak out over things like DR and low light and all that crap but really its just subtle stuff in the overall scope of making a movie or shooting an event.
Why I picked the Panasonic m43 cameras is a very long and complex story. It really came down to features and bridging the gap between the DSLR world and the cinema camera world. It isn't 100% a cinema camera but it gets closer than any other DSLR out there. I started with the GH1 and at that time I was really put off by the look of Canon DSLR video. My background was using 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" 3 chip ENG cameras and compared to the natural look of the video without any odd artifacts the Canon look just didn't hold a candle to what I was used to. Canon can have a nice pleasant look to it but it never matched the quality of what HD could be. Panasonic does that much better. So I started with the GH1 and every upgrade from there was a pretty significant upgrade vs the stagnant approach Canon takes with their upgrade cycle. I moved from the GH1 to the GH2 then the GH3 and finally the GH4 and every step of the camera the camera changed dramatically for me in terms of features and not letting camera limitations get in my way.
David W. Jones
Veteran
+ infinity
If you can't make pretty pictures with just about any modern camera in 2017 it is not the cameras fault!
Pick the right tool for the job at hand and move forward.
joe12south
Veteran
A craftsman's tools either help or hinder in the execution of his vision. It is perfectly reasonable for one to invest (time, money and care) into his tools. It is perfectly reasonable, even advisable, to search out the tool that becomes the most invisible, the one that gets out of the crasftsman's way and becomes a natural extension of himself. If this is done at the exclusion of practicing the craft, that is obviously a problem. Otherwise, good enough is not good enough.
filmguy123
Veteran
Agreed Joe! (Not that I disagree that all these cameras make pretty pictures and you must max out your craft, etc.) It is quite simply true that at a better camera with an excellent cinematographer can give better results, especially in demanding scenes. That's just the way it is. And while it's also true that compensating with other technique can help alleviate this, that very often is not desired - not for lack of skill, but for lack of practicality or desire.
Remember, your work is not my work. I don't do what you do. Unless you hike to the top of mountains with a small backpack in Nepal and want to capture people in the shade cooking dinner with the smoke drifting out of their shaded hut set back to the sunset, and can't bring lights and wouldn't bring lights anywhere because it's a local native tribe and that would be weird and you want a white shot, and you are tired of getting artistic and turning them to a silhouette against the sunset (which also looks beautiful) and then using editing to combine and cut close where they are properly exposed, or trying to work with multiple layers on a tripod and combine them in after effects for a quasi HDR effect... then YES. More DR is helpful. And so are other sensor factors.
But none of that's the point.
This thread was *NEVER* suppose to be about which is more important, craft or camera, though some have turned it that way. It is about camera settings, lens options, etc. on the TECHNICAL FRONT ONLY. *ONLY.* To achieve a more filmic look, and understanding on a TECHNICAL LEVEL what the camera is capable of or not.
As the OP, I would love to get back to this.
Back OT, some questions I have:
1.) outside of the GHx series sharpening, what is it in their electronic processing that leads to such a "crisper" image than say the Blackmagic camera? It is evident even on ungraded RAW clips compared back and forth. And is there any setting to control or tune this more?
2.) Is the best option Sharp -5, don't shoot with electronic Panny/Oly native lenses, and a tiny bit of blur/soften in post?
3.) I noticed in Luke Neumann's LUT back settings he recommends slamming everything to minus 5 except color. Saturation and contrast too. Is this a point of debate in the community still, or is that old wisdom and generally considered wrong? Are there any example tests scientifically comparing this?
4.) Does speedboosting FullFrame glass give a better result (since there are larger glass elements) than working with high quality native glass? I am not talking about the differences in brand here. Let's say Voigtlander made the exact same lens (well, not exact but super close, same process, etc.). Back to back. A FF 35mm lens, and a M43 17.5mm lens. Same character and process, same focal length equivalents. Is there any reason why the FF version might look better when SPEEDBOOSTED onto the camera VS the M43 version? Not worried about fastest aperture or sharpness wide open, but in the sweet spot of both lenses. What I am getting at is if the larger glass area to draw from nets better quality optics on FF lenses, all else being equal.
Remember, your work is not my work. I don't do what you do. Unless you hike to the top of mountains with a small backpack in Nepal and want to capture people in the shade cooking dinner with the smoke drifting out of their shaded hut set back to the sunset, and can't bring lights and wouldn't bring lights anywhere because it's a local native tribe and that would be weird and you want a white shot, and you are tired of getting artistic and turning them to a silhouette against the sunset (which also looks beautiful) and then using editing to combine and cut close where they are properly exposed, or trying to work with multiple layers on a tripod and combine them in after effects for a quasi HDR effect... then YES. More DR is helpful. And so are other sensor factors.
But none of that's the point.
This thread was *NEVER* suppose to be about which is more important, craft or camera, though some have turned it that way. It is about camera settings, lens options, etc. on the TECHNICAL FRONT ONLY. *ONLY.* To achieve a more filmic look, and understanding on a TECHNICAL LEVEL what the camera is capable of or not.
As the OP, I would love to get back to this.
Back OT, some questions I have:
1.) outside of the GHx series sharpening, what is it in their electronic processing that leads to such a "crisper" image than say the Blackmagic camera? It is evident even on ungraded RAW clips compared back and forth. And is there any setting to control or tune this more?
2.) Is the best option Sharp -5, don't shoot with electronic Panny/Oly native lenses, and a tiny bit of blur/soften in post?
3.) I noticed in Luke Neumann's LUT back settings he recommends slamming everything to minus 5 except color. Saturation and contrast too. Is this a point of debate in the community still, or is that old wisdom and generally considered wrong? Are there any example tests scientifically comparing this?
4.) Does speedboosting FullFrame glass give a better result (since there are larger glass elements) than working with high quality native glass? I am not talking about the differences in brand here. Let's say Voigtlander made the exact same lens (well, not exact but super close, same process, etc.). Back to back. A FF 35mm lens, and a M43 17.5mm lens. Same character and process, same focal length equivalents. Is there any reason why the FF version might look better when SPEEDBOOSTED onto the camera VS the M43 version? Not worried about fastest aperture or sharpness wide open, but in the sweet spot of both lenses. What I am getting at is if the larger glass area to draw from nets better quality optics on FF lenses, all else being equal.
Last edited:
I own a bunch of Nikon FF AI-S manual lenses that I use with my GH4 because they have softer contrast and they are lower resolution than my Lumix electronic lenses. ( they help to turn the GH4 "video-ish" image into something more pleasing to my eye )
Compared to a Voightlander native lens, these Nikons are pretty similar, but the Voightlander is sharper once you've closed down 1-2 F-stops. ( some of the lens testing sites state that the Voightlander 17.5mm and 25mm lenses hold their m4/3 lens resolution records when stopped down to f/2.8 )
When shooting with Lumix glass on my GH4 I always set sharpening, noise-reduction, and contrast to -5, then apply NeatVideo NR in post. ( I am curious to see how things will change with the GH5 )
joe12south
Veteran
Don't forget diffusion filters, which I consider a much better option than blurring in post. These will allow light to bloom into the shadows, leaving highlight details and give a much more filmic look than synthetic artificial blur.
Luke's a great shooter, no doubt, but taking contrast and saturation to -5 is not a good idea ... ESPECIALLY with Cine-D. I don't have the links handy, but I exhaustively tested every setting to find the most accurate and published many of the results here and on my blog.
Depending on what you mean by "better", theoretically, yes. The newer SB elements are so good that in the process of reduction, the micro-contrast (detail) can actually increase over a native sized sensor. In practical terms, the technical specs of good, modern native glass is already so high, that it's not a meaningful factor. Since your goal is to look "filmic", I'm not sure technical perfection is what you want out of a lens. I'd consider leaning towards lenses with a personality that viewers equate with high-dollar cinematic productions...which often include aesthetically pleasing flaws (like anamorphics.)
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
Just to back up what Joe said, putting everything to -5 is only making life harder in post, not easier. I started my LUT back in the day with this, based on what others were using, but after doing a lot of testing, I found that no additional dynamic range was gained; rather, it just pulled the limits towards the middle of the tonal curve, effectively bunching it up and giving an uneven spread of tones from light to dark, plus raising the noise floor of the image and thus diminishing the effective dynamic range. Try it and you'll see - shoot something Cine-D with Contrast and Saturation at 0 (or -1 for Saturation if shooting high saturation objects like flowers), then shoot the same thing with -5 -5. With the 0 0 shot, lift the shadows in post, then compare it with the -5 -5 shot. Not only will the shadow detail still be there with the 0 0 shot, it will have less effective noise than the -5 -5 clip with its saturation raised back to effective 0 levels, since you've now raised the noise floor pixel saturation also.
It's like a lot of settings people recommend online. Sony shooters loooove Cine4 with S.Gamut, everything dialed back. Then they complain about how hard it is to achieve nice skin tones. Of course it is! It's a terrible combo, with uneven tone curves, 0-100 IRE instead of 0-109 IRE, plus the S.Gamut color is nothing like what our eyes see. I did a bunch of testing with the Sony A7S2 and found that Cine1 with Pro color gives a very good starting point, with Contrast Saturation set to 0, which can then be gently tweaked with a LUT to get it perfect, with lovely skin tones and tonnes of clean dynamic range.
My point is, find the people who have tested these cameras extensively, see WHY they recommend certain settings, and then evaluate if this makes sense, or if they are simply going for an arbitrary look they think is nice for THEM.
Bit of a rant, I know, but I wish more people would test instead of just repeating bad camera settings on the internet without understanding the science behind it (or lack thereof!).
Cheers,
Paul
It's like a lot of settings people recommend online. Sony shooters loooove Cine4 with S.Gamut, everything dialed back. Then they complain about how hard it is to achieve nice skin tones. Of course it is! It's a terrible combo, with uneven tone curves, 0-100 IRE instead of 0-109 IRE, plus the S.Gamut color is nothing like what our eyes see. I did a bunch of testing with the Sony A7S2 and found that Cine1 with Pro color gives a very good starting point, with Contrast Saturation set to 0, which can then be gently tweaked with a LUT to get it perfect, with lovely skin tones and tonnes of clean dynamic range.
My point is, find the people who have tested these cameras extensively, see WHY they recommend certain settings, and then evaluate if this makes sense, or if they are simply going for an arbitrary look they think is nice for THEM.
Bit of a rant, I know, but I wish more people would test instead of just repeating bad camera settings on the internet without understanding the science behind it (or lack thereof!).
Cheers,
Paul
filmguy123
Veteran
Super helpful! Thank you both!
So basically, if I like the look of Voigtlander M43 glass, there is no reason to adapt FF Sigma Art glass via Speedbooster? The Voigtlander will look just as good, if not better, and be smaller and easier to handle to boot? Any downsides other than lack of flexibility for mounting to other camera systems?
And diffusion - great! Yes. I picked up the Tiffen 1/8 and 1/4 Diffusion filters to see how they do. Haven't experimented yet but I am guessing 1/4 will be too intense?
So basically, if I like the look of Voigtlander M43 glass, there is no reason to adapt FF Sigma Art glass via Speedbooster? The Voigtlander will look just as good, if not better, and be smaller and easier to handle to boot? Any downsides other than lack of flexibility for mounting to other camera systems?
And diffusion - great! Yes. I picked up the Tiffen 1/8 and 1/4 Diffusion filters to see how they do. Haven't experimented yet but I am guessing 1/4 will be too intense?