GH2 for 'Cinematic look'

Electric_Haggis said:
Yes, I agree that grading is always necessary... but see the ungraded first half...
Click to expand...

From my perspective, this footage you linked to ( http://vimeo.com/41629648 ) does not look well shot or graded.

It looks like he shot in "Smooth" mode ( which artificially lifts the shadows ) on an overcast day, which is a horrible combination to start with.

"Flat" lighting shot in a "Flat" mode = Super-Flat images ( that needs gamma correction in post to fix this right off the bat )
 
Super flat seems to be all the rage lately, not sure what people have against color and contrast.

How are these cinestyle canon clips holding up when heavily graded? I'm sure it looks okay on vimeo/youtube, but what are the sources looking like?

Super flat in RAW, or even something like 10 bit AVC Intra I can understand... but not crap canon 4:2:0 files.
 
DBP said:
Super flat seems to be all the rage lately, not sure what people have against color and contrast.

How are these cinestyle canon clips holding up when heavily graded? I'm sure it looks okay on vimeo/youtube, but what are the sources looking like?

Super flat in RAW, or even something like 10 bit AVC Intra I can understand... but not crap canon 4:2:0 files.
Click to expand...

... in theory.

But in practice, I've received and heavily graded loads of Canon Cinestyle clips and I can say for sure that it doesn't deserve such a bad wrap.

Btw, it's not "all the rage lately". It's been around as long as film telecines could do lo-con transfers.
When you grade footage shot this way, the penny really drops....
 
OK.
I was starting to get rather antsy, realising that there was scant evidence that the GH2 could shoot flat.

Until I found this...

https://vimeo.com/43163409

I downloaded the original MTS file, brought it into the suite and graded it... and practically fell off my chair.
The word "Amazing" comes to mind.

Then I found these. Some graded, but all very clearly shot flat / lo-con....

2
https://vimeo.com/32697135

3
https://vimeo.com/35999739

4
https://vimeo.com/49607241

5
https://vimeo.com/47423253

6
https://vimeo.com/45045576

7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsU_4Sg00tA

8
https://vimeo.com/46405455

...now, T H A T is what I call "film-like" and "cinematic" ! I defy anyone here to disagree.

Among other things, what's particularly special and unique about them is the sense of wide latitude / dynamic range.

I will get my GH2 shooting these sort of pics if it's the last thing I ever do...
 
Last edited:
Daniel Krnac said:
I´ll try, but since there is no official yes or no... :)

Cinematic:
-shallow depth of field (since they mostly use prime lenses)
Click to expand...

Partially true as long as shallow DOF (zone of acceptable sharpness) is appropriate to the scene in question. Shallow DOF is very much OVERUSED these days by many who have not learned principles of DOF in still photography previously. It by itself does not make a scene "cinematic"

Daniel Krnac said:
-24 fps (although 25p looks the same in the end...)
-1/48 shutter mostly (although in new movies higher shutter speeds like 1/100 and more are used for action scenes)
Click to expand...

24fps is an "archaic" holdover from a time when that was determined to be the best "compromise" between film economy and still fast enough so persistence of vision worked for most folks. The "flicker" effect could be seen by some folks and this sometimes resulted in headaches. So most modern film projection equipment projected each frame twice to "smooth out" the flicker, what we have been seeing in theatres is actually 48fps.

1/48th second was the shutter speed you got with a mechanical rotating shutter with half it's diameter cut out (the 180 degree shutter) to allow the film to be exposed. We've become accustomed to a certain amount of motion blur at 1/48th, there is no real difference from 1/50th and 1/60th is still close enough.

Frame rates are going to be changing, "The Hobbit" is being shot at 48fps and other producers are looking at 60fps. The goal is to really smooth out all flicker and the "archaic" 24fps is going to go "bye bye" for new productions.

Digital projection also changes the game. With no flickering shutter in the projector to block the light while the next frame of film is being "pulled down", it's really smooth.

Daniel Krnac said:
-(if wanted) 2,35:1 aspect ratio
-a tiny bit less contrast and specific color treatement
-sometimes vignetting (barely noticable)
if a style of shooting is considered:
-dolly shots, stedicam moves etc.
Click to expand...

All of these help along with good lighting technique. The 24fps and 1/48th of a second are quite simply a frame rate and shutter speed and of themselves do not make a scene cinematic. It's mainly the eye behind the camera and the sense of vision that is applied. One has to learn the craft.

Where a DSLR helps is that one can practice concepts and ideas with stills.

I've had each of the Canon Rebels (T1i, T2i, and T3i) as well as the 7D and 60D, sold those and most of my Canon lenses off to convert to GH2's and native m4/3rds lenses. I guess it's a matter of personal taste but I'm more than happy with the change. I wanted the SHARPNESS of the GH2 with Lumix and Olympus optics. I still have a set of graduated diffusions filters left over from my portrait studio days and I can shoot "soft" anytime I want.

Daniel Krnac said:
Hope I don´t get hanged and quatered for this so so specification :D
Click to expand...

Naw! "Looks" are often so subjective the whole idea can defy definition.
 
Last edited:
This was shot on 70mm film - it's not pretending to be film, it just is :engel017:
It's bright, clear, and saturated, yet still looks like film....


Do you think it's possible to get the GH2/GH3 to look like this? I mean it's just so rich and organic.... but some things just can't be faked :Drogar-Love(DBG):

The outdoor scenes don't need lighting tricks obviously.
Generally when I see people try and make DSLR footage look film like and cinematic, they make it all drab and monochromatic looking...
 
Last edited:
Electric_Haggis said:
OK.
I was starting to get rather antsy, realising that there was scant evidence that the GH2 could shoot flat.

Until I found this...
Click to expand...

With the exception of that first one, the videos don't seem out of character with much that I've seen out of the GH2. Certainly, I've gotten that look from mine. Nor do they seem to exhibit any more dynamic range than the GH2 is known for. What they DO exhibit is either a)shooting into backlight so that the light flaring the lens lowers the contrast of the image and thus makes it seem flatter, or b) they are shot in diffuse or soft light so there are no highlights to blow out, thus seeming less contrasty. But they don't look like they were shot "flat".
Except for that first one, which looks weird. I've never seen the Gh2 look like that, and all I can say is that either it was a foggy day or that lens is very low-contrast. Edit: Looking at it more closely, it looks overexposed. And reading that it was shot with a zoom and not a prime, my guess is that flare is lowering the contrast.
Old lenses are going to help you get this result. Modern lenses with all their anti-flare coatings are very crisp and contrasty.
I have a Canon FD f1.2 that's older than I am, and it is lowww-contrast. I have to pull the blacks way down in post when I shoot with it.
Judging by what you're trying to get, maybe a low-con filter would produce the results in your GH2? Older lenses?
You might be interested in reading up on a 1980's technique called "Lightflex". Freddie Francis used it when he shot David Lynch's "Dune". It was a device put in front of the camera designed to lower contrast.
 
Last edited:
They weren't shot flat. A lot of Roman's stuff is shot with a cheap fader ND. It lends to that look. The "little Stinker" video is done with a 20/1.7 Panasonic Pancake. It is also the video that made me actually go out and buy a GH2 after watching it.

If you want a flat image then just use a low con filter or use 5DtoRGB when converting.


https://vimeo.com/37401780

However, you're throwing away information and gaining nothing. I thought it looked better at first, but it doesn't. Just do it with primaries and get the best image the camera can compress.

Cinestyle on Canon's is such a joke...
 
Thanks so much for those last posts... Finally feel like I'm getting somewhere!

By the way, with "Little Stinker", Roman says "First half shot in ETC mode on a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a Canon 50mm 1.8."
(That said, I'm very keen to try Pana's pancake 20mm/1.7)

I'm getting a sort of "shopping list" together for best results, latitude and gradablility...

* Hack: Flow Motion V2.02.
* A great go-to lens: Still deciding between prime & zoom.
* Tiffen Ultra Con #3 58mm
* Cheap Fader ND
* 5DtoRGB
* Flycam Nano
* ETC mode worth a try...
 
Electric_Haggis said:
I'm getting a sort of "shopping list" together for best results, latitude and gradablility...
Click to expand...

You should investigate the Tiffen Black ProMist filters, which come in a wide range of grades, 1/4 all the way to 2. ( it's a strong effect so the lighter densities work better for me )
 
CoolColJ said:
This was shot on 70mm film - it's not pretending to be film, it just is :engel017:
It's bright, clear, and saturated, yet still looks like film....


Do you think it's possible to get the GH2/GH3 to look like this? I mean it's just so rich and organic.... but some things just can't be faked :Drogar-Love(DBG):

The outdoor scenes don't need lighting tricks obviously.
Generally when I see people try and make DSLR footage look film like and cinematic, they make it all drab and monochromatic looking...
Click to expand...

I think you could get very close with a GH2...on Vimeo and other streaming services (it wouldn't be nearly as sharp and colorful as 70mm in a proper theatrical projection or in any digital format that comes close to equating all the information that format can record). Look, part of the issue is that nobody is going out and shooting these amazing, exotic scenes, they are filming their cat or the kid playing in the backyard. A lot of people going for the cinematic look, are, like you mentioned, trying to do the drab monochromatic look. "Cinematic" is so abused that it has ceased to mean anything, because in real-life cinema, you have such an abundance of styles, from barely color and out of focus to brightly colored and deep depth of field and everything else in a variety of combinations. YOU are what matters. Do YOU like what you get out of the camera? For me, that answer is a resounding "YES", and the GH2 is my go-to camera at this point anytime I desire quality in the images I deliver.
 
Kholi said:
However, you're throwing away information and gaining nothing. I thought it looked better at first, but it doesn't. Just do it with primaries and get the best image the camera can compress.
Click to expand...

I complete agree with Kholi on this. In my opinion, trying to get the GH2 to shoot artificially "flatter" than it can is simply taking a slow 10 steps backward so you can run 10 steps forward. You still end up in exactly the same place. I have seen no evidence that it will bring out one iota of extra detail or look one grade better in post color correction doing it that way.
 
Sorry about misquoting what the LIttle Stinker vid was shot on, that's right it was a 30/1.4 -- the ETC mode shots really got me, though. ETC looks amazing on this camera, especially with some fast glass or S16's.

And yeah, flat no bueno. But if people like it, it's possible to achieve.

Also, if you want to make sure that you're getting everything the camera can grab in a shot, adjust your LCD: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?272861-Calibrate-your-LCDs&highlight=

After doing that, all of my footage has turned out a lot better.
 
Electric_Haggis said:
Thanks so much for those last posts... Finally feel like I'm getting somewhere!

By the way, with "Little Stinker", Roman says "First half shot in ETC mode on a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a Canon 50mm 1.8."
(That said, I'm very keen to try Pana's pancake 20mm/1.7)

I'm getting a sort of "shopping list" together for best results, latitude and gradablility...

* Hack: Flow Motion V2.02.
* A great go-to lens: Still deciding between prime & zoom.
* Tiffen Ultra Con #3 58mm
* Cheap Fader ND
* 5DtoRGB
* Flycam Nano
* ETC mode worth a try...
Click to expand...

Only use that cheap Fader if you're okay with it killing your detail and no IR filtration. It's a look, for sure.
 
Kholi said:
Only use that cheap Fader if you're okay with it killing your detail and no IR filtration. It's a look, for sure.
Click to expand...

I tried out a cheap fader and hated the way it made my footage look, so I returned it. I ended up with just a normal ND filter kit that I stack if I need to. Works just fine for me.
 
Thanks for the tips, fellas.

Started trying out the Flow Motion hack today. Very impressed thus far. Very reliable too.

I think for the money, I'd do well to grab the same Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens that Roman uses, along with a Kipon adaptor...
I'm just endlessly blown away by the quality of ALL his pictures.
 
Last edited:
Electric_Haggis said:
Started trying out the Flow Motion hack today. Very impressed thus far. Very reliable too.
Click to expand...

I have the Flowmotion hack, but haven't used it yet. I've heard good things though. I can also add that Sedna is very reliable in my experience, as I've used it on several professional (i.e. paid) jobs already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top