GH2 for 'Cinematic look'

[Brandon Freeman]

Yes, if you want a film look, shoot film. Good to remember.

All's I want are nice skin tones (which are possible with many mediums), frame rate options, and DOF options (both deep and shallow).

 

[Black_Ste]

Yes, I agree that everyone has a different interpretation of what cinematic look is. Maybe I'll just post some examples of what I believe is cinematic compared to 'videoy'.

I guess this is what I mean by cinematic:
http://www.vimeo.com/8076064
http://www.vimeo.com/17227632 RAW

and this is what I mean by 'videoy':
http://www.vimeo.com/17604091

I do not feel we can attribute the differences to Camera alone on these examples. There are far too many variables influencing the feel. A Canon or a Panasonic is capable of emulating the feel of the first video.

 

[John Caballero]

If people want to know how the "film look" looks like I suggest that they go to the movie theater and watch some films shot on real film. If you do you will be surprised at how sharp they look, really.

 

[Brandon Freeman]

If people want to know how the "film look" looks like I suggest that they go to the movie theater and watch some films shot on real film. If you do you will be surprised at how sharp they look, really.

Well, not exactly. Movie theaters today have such low quality in their exhibition vs. the original print. I think that might be some of the issue of people wanting the "film look" -- I know I personally have never seen an optimal film screening. I mean, I'm not the expert here, but when a movie, shot on film, is down-rezzed to HD or 2K for editing and processing, then blown back up to 35mm for the print... I dunno, that just doesn't seem like the best example of the "film look", either.

 

[John Caballero]

Well, not exactly. Movie theaters today have such low quality in their exhibition vs. the original print. I think that might be some of the issue of people wanting the "film look" -- I know I personally have never seen an optimal film screening. I mean, I'm not the expert here, but when a movie, shot on film, is down-rezzed to HD or 2K for editing and processing, then blown back up to 35mm for the print... I dunno, that just doesn't seem like the best example of the "film look", either.

This is really to LOL! Well, if a movie is shot on film and exhibited on a movie theater and it doesn't have a "cinematic look" we should really give up on the discussion. Really, stop discussing the point. What should we use as a comparison point. Really, what?

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

If people want to know how the "film look" looks like I suggest that they go to the movie theater and watch some films shot on real film. If you do you will be surprised at how sharp they look, really.

I think people also need to realize that their DSLRs don't have infinite reels of Kodak 500T inside their sensors before wanting a film look...

Film is just unique. Rich color rendition. Sharp but organic. Digitally only RED M-X and Alexa come close.

Thanks for all the answers, I'm more of a 'I need to see it, to believe it' person, So I will hold longer until I see someone achieve this look on the GH2 without doing anything besides color correction in post.

This is what I've gathered from the previous posts, bare with me. I'm a noob!

1. For the GH2 to look more 'cinematic' and not so 'videoy', I need to lower the options that make it look so crisp. The sharpness needs to be lowered for it to look softer, less edgier.

2. It has to do with the way the camera handles the edge sharpness.

3. Canon's lower resolution system and larger sensor allow for shallower DOF, resulting in a more filmic look.


My conclusion and Questions (Correct me if I'm wrong)

The same stuff that makes the GH2 image quality look superior to the 7D, It's also responsible for making it look more 'videoy' and less 'cinematic'.

In order to achieve this look on the GH2, I need to lower down almost all the stuff that makes it superior. So, In the end the footage will probably end up looking softer, less sharp and less edgier, just like the 7D.

I wanted the GH2 because I thought that I could have the superior image quality along with the cinematic look. But If I have to kill everything that made me want the GH2 over the 7D, then I don't see any other benefit besides the price.

I understand that the way the GH2 handles the sharp edges is the reason why it looks less filmic.
So for the GH2 to look sharp and also look cinematic, the camera would need to handle the edges more smoothly.

Are the 'sharp edges' something that could be decreased on the GH2 without loosing the superior image quality? or Is that just the way the camera works? The obvious goal is to know if I the GH2 footage can look just like the 7D, but without loosing the extra image quality that the GH2 brings to the table.

(Sorry for any errors, English is not my primary language)

Well, IMO you'd end up with a superior result by using the GH2, softer lenses and perhaps some subtle diffusion. You'd still have a soft not so crisp look but with resolution there.

Get all settings to -2, except saturation, usually I see people set it at -1 but I use it at 0 and you're set. Then it's all what you film (lighting, art direction) and post.

But keep realistic expectations, the GH is what it is, we can make it look appealing for narrative work (and therefore filmic) but it's not film and it's not RED M-X.

 

[terra1]

I'm not pointing this to any one in particular but I think you guys need to stop using that term "cinematic" so loosley. Anything can look "cinematic"...what you should be really referring to is "film-like." And for those of you who have a problem with "dumbing-down" the image of a GH-2 (or whatever) to get a certain look you should read what other professionals in the industry do to "FILM"....yes...'FILM." Folks like David Mullen sometimes use filters in front of film to get that certain softness especially when it comes to close-ups or purposeful halations etc. Don't knock it until you try it. I am no way near being a professional myself...but it's sometimes difficult to sit by and read some of these comments and not have an opinion. The Canon cameras have a certain look to them that folks like to call "cinematic" (which I think they really mean film-like) but so do the Panasonics. In the end however...none of them look like film. They have a look, texture and quality all to their own....just like more expensive digital cinema cameras have thier own look. Look at it like...film...with its different type of film stocks. None are better than the other....just different tools for different types of looks/textures etc.

Sometimes...the more I see people comment in these forums...the more I realize none of us know what the heck we are talking about. It's more than just semantics. I really don't mean it as an insult (heck....I count myself in that mix).

i agree Ian-T :smile:

"if your gonna shoot! shoot! don't talk!"

altho it is good to talk and discuss things but i realised i was chasing a ghost (film look) and decided to accept what i have in the present (beautiful digital footage)

MTS will never be FILM STOCK, give up the ghost and in 20 years people might be dying to get their 3D hologram footage to look like digital :smile:

plus after some grading and effects in post digital footage can look amazing, you may even forget about that old film look.

i was rather impressed with the "magic bullet misfire" plug in, can get some really nice "faux film" looks. its worth checking out.

 

[ingoandfloyd]

Go 5d markll

Go 5d markll

Iam a gh1/gh2 user and i understand exactly what you mean by cinmatic look, To be honest if you want to buy somthing today that will came closest to that i would go for 5d markll and if sound and real timecode etc is important go for the af 100. The gh2 looks great but i agree there is somting with the markll that gives you that look your after. And there is a reason why people do comresiells, music vidoes, tv shows etc often go for the 5 markll , and iam a big panasonic fan saying this i dont say gh2 is bad in fact very good, but it doesnt matter how much you will mix with the camera you will nerver get the same look of a 5d. Even i thinking of changeing system to 5d just to get that look much easier.

 

[maranfilms]

I can understand people wanting the elusive film look, It's what we have come to compare with. The thing I dont understand is why are people so quick to sell off their dof adapters and hvx,hpx,xha1, ect... To me a good spinning dof adapter on a good camcorder, and properly lit scene, looks more filmic than any dslr footage I have seen to date. I get that that they are awuful in low light, the rigs are big and a pain to use, and your limited to set size in a number of instances. But lets face it, your presented with the same issues if your shooting film. (big cams, need lots of light to expose the film,setup time is much greater)

I dont know if it's because it's a softer look, or if it's the diffusion through the ground glass, or a combination of all. To my eyes it just looks the closest to film of all the dslrs out there. Does anyone agree? or is it just my eyes?

 

[mojo43]

Yes, I agree that everyone has a different interpretation of what cinematic look is. Maybe I'll just post some examples of what I believe is cinematic compared to 'videoy'.

I guess this is what I mean by cinematic:
http://www.vimeo.com/8076064
http://www.vimeo.com/17227632 RAW

and this is what I mean by 'videoy':
http://www.vimeo.com/17604091

IMO both of these videos could have been shot on a GH?. The Apricot video is all about lighting and grading (what an amazing short btw)... As for the second video, you can achieve this with the GH?.

People are shooting flat settings (just like in the "videoy" link). Change the profile to Dynamic and shoot with a good lens at magic hour or in proper lighting with proper exposure and things will look better.

Honestly, I would just buy one GH? and one 60d and try them both out and return the one you don't want...

 

[roei z]

IMO both of these videos could have been shot on a GH?. The Apricot video is all about lighting and grading (what an amazing short btw)... As for the second video, you can achieve this with the GH?.

People are shooting flat settings (just like in the "videoy" link). Change the profile to Dynamic and shoot with a good lens at magic hour or in proper lighting with proper exposure and things will look better.

Honestly, I would just buy one GH? and one 60d and try them both out and return the one you don't want...

honestly, that specific "videoy" look is also nice.. i can imagine a whole film shot like that on a big screen... to me it's filmy. not like a lot of canon stuff that looks VERY videoy to me.

 

[Boatybotany]

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents into the mix. There's a big difference between cinematic and film-look. Cinematics has to do with the art of cinematography which is truly an artform, just hitting record and pointing your camera is not going to achieve this. There's a reason why Hollywood productions hire professionals for each element of cinematography. Now the film-look is just a look and to truly achieve it you need to shoot on film, bottom-line. With dslr's you can get somewhat close but it isn't the real thing. A lot of people chase the elusive film-look and end up going through camera after camera while never actually shooting anything of note. I'm of the school of doing, get a camera and start shooting, learn, and grow from there.

 

[Ian-T]

When I think about it...all the things that we've loved about film over the years are actually...."defects." The grain, noise etc. is something we've got used to . But now that video technology is making headway.. folks (mainly from the old school) want to trade in these "newer defects" for the Old. I ask..."Why go backward?" Accept the fact that digital is different. There's nothing wrong in trying to emulate anything (we've been doing the same thing with audio for years) but we have to remind ourselves that this is not film. I'm glad I'm not too strung on the "film look"...but there are certain things that I would like to see changed in video that brings it "closer' to film texture. I like film's softness/detail and its latitude. Other than that I'm cool with video.


Oh...and as far as the differences of the Canons and Panasonics... I had both. It's funny...I could be shooting with a Canon camera and then see footage from a Panasonic and say to myself 'wow...that looks more filmic" and then go out and purchase a Panasonic. Then When I'm shooting with my new Panasonic I look at a Canoon footage and say.."wow...that looks more filmic"... which brings me full circle to where I started out in the first place. What's going on? What's going on is...they both have some aspect of what we expect "film-like" should look. In other words...they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

IMO what we see in Canon cams is....the softness...which is really a "defect." It's the same thing I've seen in the HVX-200 cameras. They are also soft..which to me was both a blessing and a curse. We loved it because it, along with the curves, made the image look more film-like in texture....but when we looked too closely (or compared it to other cameras) we realized it was lower in resolution. <<<<You see...both a blessing and a curse. So the GH-1 comes out...which seemed to sort of alleviate (somewhat) the "softness" issue. It had the same type of "Pana-Mojo" (or "warmish" like tint) like the HVX...but now folks are complaining it looks like "video" The only reason they say that (IMO) is because they are comparing it to the Canon lot of cameras which are soft due to their inability to resolve detail. So...here we are...two different cams...with their own defects. Me personally...I'd rather start with a sharper/detailed image and have the option to "dumb-it-down" in post. I've actually used a "soft" blur in post on top of some of my GH-1(3) footage and it shockingly matched some of my old 7D footage. I think what it boils down to for each of us individually is "what defects are we willing to live with?"

By the way...the Red and even Alexa do not look like film to me. They actually look like............a Red and Alexa. That's a good thing IMO.

 

[htinla]

Ian-T: very good point and well said.

 

[ICD Films]

Low contrast is not dynamic range, people still don't seem to get this

Modern film has for sure the "qualities" of video, so some opinions are actually not that relevant. Again it's very much about dynamic range, that's also why Epic (& possibly Scarlet) will be the first videocams that, for real, can be intercut with film undetected.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

1. Film a cinematic subject and your project will look cinematic.
2. Learn about exposure and focal lengths and lighting.

All the rest of this stuff is ridiculous! Oh, if I just get this one setting right, blah blah blah, it'll look cinematic... What will? The potted plant in your backyard?

This sort of thing is completely turning me off of these forums. None of these tweaks/hacks or settings are going to make someone who doesn't know how to use a camera deliver work that looks like it came out of a professional cinematographer's hands, and it's not magic either.

You need to know what you are doing, approach the camera as the tool that it is, and then get out there and use it - nobody can do this for you, I'm constantly amazed that folks think the "cinematic" look is all about camera settings, as if there is some magical set of settings that will work for every situation - it's just bologna. Who cares if you pick up an extra stop of DR if your composition sucks, the lighting is wrong or the story/talent is no good?

You've got to figure this stuff out for yourself, and the only way to do that is to get out there and shoot, shoot, shoot - stop taking Philip Bloom's word as gospel, and that goes for any other DP ASC with a youtube video who thinks they've figured out the one set of settings that's "always" right, or what ISOs you should use or never use - it's just absurd - photography just doesn't work that way. There are lots of voices on this subject, but unless one of those voices is going to come on set with you and shoot your project, their "magic" settings aren't going to be of any real help to you - okay, your image is flatter for principal...great...but what are you going to DO WITH IT? There's just no way to know how a camera and its settings are going to react in any given circumstance - the possibilities with film are infinite - skill MUST come into play.

I just read a post on another forum that went on and on about how they couldn't understand why they used ISO 1600 on a Canon 7D for some of the scenes in "Black Swan" instead of ISO 1250 since it's so well-known that 1250 is cleaner, as if Darren Aronofsky and the crew spend all their time reading posts on dvxuser and Cinema5D - I can pretty much guarantee you that they don't - and it's because they already know how to use a bloody camera, approach these tools for what they are, and then use them to tell an interesting story.

All these cameras even in their very stock forms can deliver awesome results if you know what you're doing and have an interesting story to tell - the rest is all a serious waste of time - it's time to start worrying about you good YOU are as a photographer/cinematographer and less time worrying about the camera.

Sorry for the rant but these threads are getting really really old - it's always about the camera, never about the operator.

 

[Xian]

You talk like the rest of us are relying on the camera only and you just add more information to the discussion but nothing is new to us. Good point though.

This thread is about 7D and the Gh2 and which one that is closer to this film look we all want. Most people (me included) prefer Canon for a "cinematic look". The camera never does the job for you but they have different characters.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

1. Film a cinematic subject and your project will look cinematic.
2. Learn about exposure and focal lengths and lighting.

All the rest of this stuff is ridiculous! Oh, if I just get this one setting right, blah blah blah, it'll look cinematic... What will? The potted plant in your backyard?

This sort of thing is completely turning me off of these forums. None of these tweaks/hacks or settings are going to make someone who doesn't know how to use a camera deliver work that looks like it came out of a professional cinematographer's hands, and it's not magic either.

You need to know what you are doing, approach the camera as the tool that it is, and then get out there and use it - nobody can do this for you, I'm constantly amazed that folks think the "cinematic" look is all about camera settings, as if there is some magical set of settings that will work for every situation - it's just bologna. Who cares if you pick up an extra stop of DR if your composition sucks, the lighting is wrong or the story/talent is no good?

You've got to figure this stuff out for yourself, and the only way to do that is to get out there and shoot, shoot, shoot - stop taking Philip Bloom's word as gospel, and that goes for any other DP ASC with a youtube video who thinks they've figured out the one set of settings that's "always" right, or what ISOs you should use or never use - it's just absurd - photography just doesn't work that way. There are lots of voices on this subject, but unless one of those voices is going to come on set with you and shoot your project, their "magic" settings aren't going to be of any real help to you - okay, your image is flatter for principal...great...but what are you going to DO WITH IT? There's just no way to know how a camera and its settings are going to react in any given circumstance - the possibilities with film are infinite - skill MUST come into play.

I just read a post on another forum that went on and on about how they couldn't understand why they used ISO 1600 on a Canon 7D for some of the scenes in "Black Swan" instead of ISO 1250 since it's so well-known that 1250 is cleaner, as if Darren Aronofsky and the crew spend all their time reading posts on dvxuser and Cinema5D - I can pretty much guarantee you that they don't - and it's because they already know how to use a bloody camera, approach these tools for what they are, and then use them to tell an interesting story.

All these cameras even in their very stock forms can deliver awesome results if you know what you're doing and have an interesting story to tell - the rest is all a serious waste of time - it's time to start worrying about you good YOU are as a photographer/cinematographer and less time worrying about the camera.

Sorry for the rant but these threads are getting really really old - it's always about the camera, never about the operator.

You talk like the rest of us are relying on the camera only and you just add more information to the discussion but nothing is new to us. Good point though.

This thread is about 7D and the Gh2 and which one that is closer to this film look we all want. Most people (me included) prefer Canon for a "cinematic look". The camera never does the job for you but they have different characters.

I should agree with both of you. I think this discussion right now is the sign of times.

I think no DP back in the days would get ranted upon (nothing personal Apoc, just an example) because they were discussing about film stocks.

Indeed each has a certain character of its own, the thing is no one would think a DP, specially when you had to know how to work with film stock, wouldn't have known and wouldn't have practiced his craft about lighting, composition and everything regarding all aspects of cinematography.

But I think it's a valid word to send out to someone starting out that may get caught up in this tech-craze. I think everyone who started recently (me included) gets caught up, the thing is to learn everything properly and move on, then the focus changes.

i agree Ian-T :smile:

"if your gonna shoot! shoot! don't talk!"

altho it is good to talk and discuss things but i realised i was chasing a ghost (film look) and decided to accept what i have in the present (beautiful digital footage)

MTS will never be FILM STOCK, give up the ghost and in 20 years people might be dying to get their 3D hologram footage to look like digital :smile:

plus after some grading and effects in post digital footage can look amazing, you may even forget about that old film look.

i was rather impressed with the "magic bullet misfire" plug in, can get some really nice "faux film" looks. its worth checking out.

That's one bad film stock, gate and projector lamp you got there eh!

I think we can say film look is just production value and good taste... That's why it's so hard to get!

 

[bonobored]

I am coming from the stills photography world.

Could someone, please, define what is meant with the "filmic look" or the "cinematic look" ?

I also understand that I should abhor the "video look"?

I recently overheard two people criticizing the video look. One said it was too sharp. Another said it was too smooth, much too real looking. They both agreed it looked terrible. Having bought into the storyline from the beginning, I failed to notice because I was actually watching the damn MOVIE.

If you want the absolute film look you'll need something like an Arri 16 BL. Video cameras only shoot video but some people will try to pretend it's really film. If you've ever seen any of Orson Welles' stuff you'll realize it has nothing to do with shallow DOF but depends more upon lighting and a damn good script with actors that can walk that walk.

Basically video gets rid of what photographers who had no choice but film in the old days, used to hate such as reciprocity, grain, lab screwups, the inability to instantly visualize (although some old guys have the long experience to pre-visualize what , for example, Eastman 7239 at a 3:1 key to fill would actually look like back from the lab), shallow DOF (because you needed a ton of light to get the needed DOF), jerkiness, shutter chatter, and so on.

The film look is legitimate of course and if that's the way you roll, then go for it. I personally don't think video should be burdened by the limitations of obsolete technology but video can do a suitable mimic of film if that's what you need. Unless enticed by a great sum of money, I will happily never shoot another inch of film. 24p is an interesting tool but certainly not essential to making good movies.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Good point re: film stock discussion.

Aside from that, no matter what camera/lens you use, your footage is always going to look like YOU shot it - it's the same with music, no matter what kind of guitar or piano you play, you're always going to sound like YOU, so focus on YOU and worry a little less about the camera. Sorry for the earlier hot-headedness - we're deep into finishing production on my feature and I'm tired and starting to lose a little of my sanity (or a lot, depending on who you ask) - and I find that as I go further into the process, the things I worry about less and less are the camera and which lens I'm going to use (I still think about this a lot - but not anywhere near as much as I did before production started when I was fully obsessed) and more concerned with every other aspect of production (locations, scouting, composition, directing, the talent, etc.) the camera (started with GH1 and now using the Canon 7D) has been the easy part compared with every other aspect of pulling a production together - the more you do this I think the more you start to focus on story and technique and a little bit less on the gear (so long as it is of reasonable quality).