GH2 for 'Cinematic look'

It's a Film-look thing

It's a Film-look thing

Sun said:
Film is an old technology with a limit capacity and its very costly and not environmental friendly at all. Video has not been around as long as film and its evolution so far is infantile, only today are we getting video that is pleasing to the human eye.
Click to expand...

As an HD convert who's still a 35mm film-maker (with a fridge full of expensive stock!) , I continually research this film-video thing.
The paradox I find is that - whereas video can look *better* than film, it cannot look as good! - (at lease for the time being). As you say, it's all in the grey-matter of the observer. So far, the dramatic genre has been inseparably tied to the medium of film.

I must add that the new Kodak Vision film stocks are amazing! But most recently I have been researching the few successful dramas shot on video. (Care here; even the fantastic RED camera is often cited on IMDB's Technical Details for a movie - but on examination I find that the only HD footage in that movie turns out to be that shown on the TV screen the characters are watching!)

Some of the rare triumphs are:

*Tristram Shandy (A Cock and Bull Story)* -This is the best example of clever genre-merging: the film starts as a documentary about the making of a film, so we viewers suspend our disbelief and go on the journey. Then, imperceptibly, dramatic content is introduced. I found myself watching a drama on HD and I'm damned if I could tell just when the transition happened!

*Social Networking* - This film likewise deserves a little of the pseudo-documentary genre. However, the DOP tried to imitate film - with, for me, very limited success.
I find sometimes video is so good you can't tell it's not film. At other times, it's too bad to tell what medium has been used:
*Social Networking* was a film where the RED camera slunk in the shadows, like a timid guy who wears a cheap suit to a wedding. I found the indoors scenes extensively under-lit and with over-use of rim lighting. It was quite successful at looking like film but only because it was too dark to tell. But then, along came that fabulous boat race scene, with moments of digital hyper-reality which sent shivers down my spine. And *that* is a taste the digital future I am so looking forward to.

A third film is Avatar, which inherits its visual authenticity from gaming imagery. To me, not a good look in its dramatic scenes.

But to show off what HD can do, nothing has so far done better than the *Russian Ark.* How could a film lighting crew have moved as smoothly through the Hermitage Museum as the single steadicam/ video combo? That scene in the large glassed room, lit only by the snow outside and candle lit from within, was sublime!

I agree with those who encourage us to keep striving for image quality in video while waiting for ourselves to "get over it" when it comes to the film look.
 
Last edited:
Roberto Hapsad said:
But then, along came that fabulous boat race scene, with moments of digital hyper-reality which sent shivers down my spine. And *that* is a taste the digital future I am so looking forward to.
Click to expand...
When I saw The Social Network I didn't know it was shot digitally and at no point during watching it did I realise that it was. I am a newb I guess. I reckon that most viewers wouldn't have cared less if the shadows were better this or that- it looked great in general. I did notice that boat race scene though. I wasn't thinking how it was shot but just that I thought it was a terrible scene. In Australia we have a breakfast cereal called Nutri-Grain. It looked to me like a TV commercial for Nutri-Grain. And story wise it just seemed unnecessary. My friend called it the Fincher's "show off scene". No disrespect to you liking it though. I guess I was just illustrating that it's amazing how subjective all this is: the one scene that got you excited was the one scene that I thought was the failure in the film.
 
Searcher said:
When I saw The Social Network the one scene that got you excited was the one scene that I thought was the failure in the film.
Click to expand...
I am glad you enjoyed the film and to hear you have what I lack; ie an opinion of the boat scene. I'm one of those losers who's often so preoccupied with the cinematography of a film that my date has to explain what the plot is. I re-watch the boat scene repeatedly to work out how it was done (but no, I still have no idea who's in the boats!)
 
Pretty sure the boat race scene was done with really fast tilt shift primes for the close ups of the people rowing.

I love that scene :D
 
I am still learning how to use the GH2. Over the weekend, I shot a local artist at his workshop without any special lighting. My goal was to make it look pretty close to Canon's warm rich look as possible. GH2 in Cinema mode looks pretty decent straight out of the camera, but giving a little kick during post makes it look much more filmic.
Two things I was concentrating on -- 1. Not blowing the highlights. 2. Diffusing the footage a bit since GH2 is so sharp, either with Cheap lens or during post.
It's not perfect, but I think I will get it licked one of these days. Need more practice..
http://vimeo.com/22206235
 
Roberto Hapsad said:
I am glad you enjoyed the film and to hear you have what I lack; ie an opinion of the boat scene. I'm one of those losers who's often so preoccupied with the cinematography of a film that my date has to explain what the plot is.
Click to expand...
Blimey. I didn't mean to offend you. I was just trying to add to the conversation in my own "newby" limited way. I even wrote " No disrespect to you liking it though." I wasn't being sarcastic when I wrote that.
 
voelkerb said:
I am still learning how to use the GH2. Over the weekend, I shot a local artist at his workshop without any special lighting. My goal was to make it look pretty close to Canon's warm rich look as possible. GH2 in Cinema mode looks pretty decent straight out of the camera, but giving a little kick during post makes it look much more filmic.
Two things I was concentrating on -- 1. Not blowing the highlights. 2. Diffusing the footage a bit since GH2 is so sharp, either with Cheap lens or during post.
It's not perfect, but I think I will get it licked one of these days. Need more practice..
http://vimeo.com/22206235
Click to expand...
Good job on that. By the way...was that Cinema mode or Smooth (site said smooth but you mention Cinema here)?
 
Great job-this is the first gh2 footage I've seen with good color-though it looks like you got it in post, but still promising. I was starting to consider the t2i, despite all of it's drawbacks, because if it's color, but this has me strongly considering the gh2 again (if I can find one-lol).
 
Canon is good right out of the box and can be great when properly color graded, but there is nothing you can do about not-so-good resolution. You have to have awesome lens to maximize dated sensors and compression scheme, but we all know that Canon L-series costs BIG BUCKS, not affordable for many people, including me.
GH2, on the other hand, lacks Canon-like color out of the box, but has an advantage of having much higher resolution. Pretty much all the color information is there, it just takes more work to draw 'em out. Best of all, it can use almost any lens. I seem to get the best cinematic filmy look out of cheap low definition lens! As more people get their hands on GH2, I strongly believe that we are going to see some unbelievably awesome stuff, rivaling much more expensive cameras.
 
There is about 2 stops difference between a GH1 and 5Dmk2. GH2 seems to have lost another stop by the look of things. May wanna take into consideration regarding "cinematic look", since dynamic range is a vital component in making video look like film.

imo the Panny sensors (GH1-->AF100) all have a S16 estetic to them, rather than 35mm film.
 
Searcher said:
Blimey. I didn't mean to offend you.
Click to expand...
No offense taken, Searcher - nor meant in return! I just think there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that I liked the boat-race scene; just that, once the digital camera stopped lurking underexposed in the indoors shots trying to imitate film - and was set free in the outdoors, it unleashed brilliant, hyper-real clarity which I doubt film will ever achieve. I think we should each watch the whole film to try to see it through the other's eyes. :-)
 
Martin Oller said:
... dynamic range is a vital component in making video look like film.
Click to expand...
I agree. Colorists say we should shoot with them in mind. So ideally, if I can light well, then I shoot so as to keep all the needed color information in my GH2's file, then the cinema look can all be done in post. This may even extend to keeping the image sharp and applying any softening later. (You can always soften but can't re-sharpen a blurred image).
This would be especially relevant if we were ever able to confirm Ahikabara News' claim that the GH2 embeds a RAW data in its files. [citation needed]

Congratulations on great footage, Voelkerb!
 
Last edited:
What I dont get is, that you cant film manual with "MyColors" mode and only with auto iso and auto exposure. This mode reminds me a bit on the Nikon/Canon picture styles, well at least you can change the color output more than with the cinema modes i.e. standard, cinema,xxx.
 
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but here are my thoughts (I know you were all simply waiting for me to weigh in)...

Perhaps the word we're looking for is "fictional" rather than "filmic." Films are generally geared toward telling stories and often seek to make the world look different or new. It's like when filmmakers resisted going to color because it was a step closer to reality and a step away from fiction. There's also the whole "foreign DP" thing. They look at our everyday surroundings with fresh eyes since they're not used to the landscape.

So naturally, if you have a camera with less detail and shallower focus it's going to look less like reality, especially with some special color profile attached to it or color grading. How do iPhone photos look decent? Hipstamatic fictionalizes them.

I don't think that's the whole story, though. I think Panasonic's reputation, or lack thereof, is killing them. If more pros used their cameras there would be more material out there to ease your fears about the image being video-y. In the examples given, there's a clearly very well-produced short film versus a "camera test." Which would you expect to look more filmic?

Ironically, I thought the video-y example had some of the most "filmic" looking shots I've seen with the GH2. They reminded me of Asian art-cinema. Whereas some of the 5D/7D examples reminded me not so much of film, but of advertisements.
So I think the biggest difference is that the Canon's more often find themselves in the hands of pros, whereas the Panasonic's are less known and respected.
Of course, the only real way to put an end to the discussion is with examples. Canon examples are easy to find, Panasonic ones not so much.

This is probably one of the best examples I've found: http://www.vimeo.com/14839484
Even though it's shot with a GH1 and the kit lens! Would you see this in a theater and go, "Bleh! Looks like a cheap camcorder!"?

This is with the GH2 and reminds me of Danny Boyle: http://www.vimeo.com/24561491

GH2 again, very filmic and fictional to me: http://www.vimeo.com/22605282

A nice reel using all sorts of Panasonic: http://www.vimeo.com/20199147

Something I have much difficulty finding, though, is good narrative work with the GH2. There's plenty of student shorts with poor production values, but very little that's properly done. That's what I'd really like to see and what would really settle the issue.

The closest I have found is this: http://vimeo.com/18766884
It's the only one where I had to put headphones on because I wanted to hear what was being said because it interested me. Unfortunately it's just a song underneath. But this one stands out because it doesn't have ridiculous DOF and the color/style is very natural, but still very "filmic" or fictional.
 
Checkout few test shoots on GH2, done by us:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMOaZbavXdg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7n9rT_jVac&NR=1

There are grains coz of compression in youtube and my skills with color grading:) do they look filmic?

A small correction: GH2 sensor is not the size of S16, its double its size, almost as big as motion picture 35mm negative (same as APSC sensor cameras). 5D has full frame, which makes it's sensor bigger than the 35mm motion picture camera. It adds 1.4 stops of light, so it is good in low light and may be has few extra stops of dynamic range. But bigger the sensor bigger the compression since the o/p is same 1080p. GH2's 720p mode has better resolution than the canons 1080p. Very less moire, rolling shutter and better tonality in images.

Guess if you have a story to tell, these things are marginal ;) Be happy with your Canons/ GHs/Nikons etc :)
 
Also its difficult to keep characters in focus, especially in 5d. The pro DP don't shoot anything below f2.8..for 5d it will be f4...In ADs 95% of the frame is out of focus...5D suits this kind of format...but motion picture is diff. depth of field is a tricky thing:)

As you can see in the 2nd video I posted...At f1.4 most of the image is soft. In 5d that would be at f2.8 .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top