GH2 for 'Cinematic look'

I think the struggle to achieve that elusive film look is evolving & that's part of the reason we struggle to put our finger on what's missing from the current crop of inexpensive digital solutions.

Back in the dvx100 days we were all thinking it was 24p & shallow DOF but once we got both of those we realized something else was missing. By now most have come to the understanding that dynamic range is a large part of the equation as well & getting good DR out of cheap products will be as huge a leap as finally getting big sensors.

Another, even harder to define aspect but one that is at least partially tied into DR is the way a sensor/image processing/codec combination handles highlight roll-off & gradations between tones & colors. As a prime example, I give you the clips posted above of that cute kid. (good job mom & dad) Part of the videoish look to it is surely DR, there just isn't enough available to hold detail in her face in a filmic sort of way but also it's the way the bright side of her face is handled. I've always thought of film as being creamy, but that's not the same as saying it's soft in terms of resolution. My use of the term creamy is in reference to the smoothness of transitions between bright & less bright, colorful & less colorful.

I believe one of the last major missing links for the film look other than DR is chroma sampling. Remember a few years back when everyone on these boards was talking 4:2:2 this and 4:1:1 that? That sort of talk has petered out a bit while we've been focusing on sensor size, lens speeds & which tinker toy set to strap on to our $1000 cameras, but it's high time it makes a comeback.

I know it's probably a pipe dream but getting at least 4:2:2 out of one of these cameras would be a huge step in the right direction especially considering that the DR problem is a tougher & more expensive nut to crack. I even understand Panny & Canon wanting to use 'consumer grade' codec in camera from a business standpoint, but when one or the other finally gives us a decent feed from the monitor out that we can take into a secondary recording system we'll be another step closer to getting that film look.

/ramble

**addendum**
I do think that when Red finally get their cameras to market we'll be whacked over the head by the importance of greater DR & recording codec. We'll also be faced with the current reality that these 2 come with a price. For now.
 
Last edited:
question is, what is the most efficient way of mimicing it with 1000$ GH2 (before post)

Low contrast (in camera)
Low sharpness (in camera)
Play around with the profile settings/curves
Good prime lenses
Try and shoot at the magic hour (if outdoors)
Light your shots well
Use shallow DOF to your advantage

I'm not that technical, so other people will probably have better suggestions for the "film look". As was said, untill we get a strong 4:2:2 codec and DR above 10 stops, this is not gonna be easy.
 
Play around with the profile settings/curves

ok.. so at least let's try to expand on this.. can someone please try to write down some preferences on curves?
i mean, let's say that i pick smooth and edit into that. (unless smooth is NOT the best option?)
 
ok.. so at least let's try to expand on this.. can someone please try to write down some preferences on curves?
i mean, let's say that i pick smooth and edit into that. (unless smooth is NOT the best option?)

I don't have a GH1/GH2 and the software... so not sure if it is similar to, say, cine-X (RED) where you can create a look (using pre-shot footage) and export it back into the camera. I think my Canon 5DII did the same.
 
I don't have a GH1/GH2 and the software... so not sure if it is similar to, say, cine-X (RED) where you can create a look (using pre-shot footage) and export it back into the camera. I think my Canon 5DII did the same.

have no idea on those kind of tweaking.. i don't think it's possible.
can anyone explain how to gat close to that on GH2 ?
 
Properly stabilized camera. The "Handy-Cam" look does not scream cinematic.


Low contrast (in camera)
Low sharpness (in camera)
Play around with the profile settings/curves
Good prime lenses
Try and shoot at the magic hour (if outdoors)
Light your shots well
Use shallow DOF to your advantage
 
Here's my thoughts...

1. Spend as much time writing the script as obsessing about the "cinema look".
2. Light it well. Kill all enhancing filters in camera (sharpness, contrast... kill 'em all).
3.Keep that camera locked down onto a tripod, dolly, or steadicam.
4.In post, tweak luma curves to drop in the middle, slightly rise then crushing in the blacks, and smoothly curve up to the highlights.

(IMO, #4 is the least important step in the process.)
 
Low contrast (in camera)
Low sharpness (in camera)
Play around with the profile settings/curves
Good prime lenses
Try and shoot at the magic hour (if outdoors)
Light your shots well
Use shallow DOF to your advantage

I'm not that technical, so other people will probably have better suggestions for the "film look". As was said, untill we get a strong 4:2:2 codec and DR above 10 stops, this is not gonna be easy.

That's fairly on the money I think.

Don't let the camera run away with artificial sharpness, so tone it down a bit.
Also don't let it run away with contrast. I've been interested to test what a low contrast filter can do in this respect, and if it'll grade better than a flatter curve.
Soft/diffuse lighting helps immensely.

One thing that can help bring a bit of organicness (like that's a word) is shooting a bit further up the ISO. ISO 400-800 have quite a bit less edge sharpness than base.

I'd still say number one priority is good light.
 
On paper, the Pentax K5 could be worth looking at, for a more cinematic look..

The DR off the raw sensor is exceptional and it encodes to 4:2:2 mpjeg (from what I have read).... this gives it a fighting chance of holding onto that precious DR. Obviously, there is alot that can go wrong from sensor to codec though.... anyone got a K5 yet?
 
I think the struggle to achieve that elusive film look is evolving & that's part of the reason we struggle to put our finger on what's missing from the current crop of inexpensive digital solutions.

Back in the dvx100 days we were all thinking it was 24p & shallow DOF but once we got both of those we realized something else was missing. By now most have come to the understanding that dynamic range is a large part of the equation as well & getting good DR out of cheap products will be as huge a leap as finally getting big sensors.

Another, even harder to define aspect but one that is at least partially tied into DR is the way a sensor/image processing/codec combination handles highlight roll-off & gradations between tones & colors. As a prime example, I give you the clips posted above of that cute kid. (good job mom & dad) Part of the videoish look to it is surely DR, there just isn't enough available to hold detail in her face in a filmic sort of way but also it's the way the bright side of her face is handled. I've always thought of film as being creamy, but that's not the same as saying it's soft in terms of resolution. My use of the term creamy is in reference to the smoothness of transitions between bright & less bright, colorful & less colorful.

I believe one of the last major missing links for the film look other than DR is chroma sampling. Remember a few years back when everyone on these boards was talking 4:2:2 this and 4:1:1 that? That sort of talk has petered out a bit while we've been focusing on sensor size, lens speeds & which tinker toy set to strap on to our $1000 cameras, but it's high time it makes a comeback.

I know it's probably a pipe dream but getting at least 4:2:2 out of one of these cameras would be a huge step in the right direction especially considering that the DR problem is a tougher & more expensive nut to crack. I even understand Panny & Canon wanting to use 'consumer grade' codec in camera from a business standpoint, but when one or the other finally gives us a decent feed from the monitor out that we can take into a secondary recording system we'll be another step closer to getting that film look.

/ramble

**addendum**
I do think that when Red finally get their cameras to market we'll be whacked over the head by the importance of greater DR & recording codec. We'll also be faced with the current reality that these 2 come with a price. For now.

Indeed Ethan.

People are ignoring Scarlet just because it doesn't have a 35mm sized sensor (even having a constant f2.4 8x lens, which is impressive), putting aside the fact that HDRx and REDCODE are going to be invaluable tools for the DP and the colorist. A major step-up in quality to what we have access now within the $10K budget.
 
Indeed Ethan.

People are ignoring Scarlet just because it doesn't have a 35mm sized sensor (even having a constant f2.4 8x lens, which is impressive), putting aside the fact that HDRx and REDCODE are going to be invaluable tools for the DP and the colorist. A major step-up in quality to what we have access now within the $10K budget.

Exactly.... the 2/3" sensor and relatively deep DOF will not stop this camera having the film look. At f5.6 s35 equivalent, I think the DOF will be fine for alot of work too. On paper, the specs look incredibly film like, maybe even surpassing it (Epic, at least)!

But who knows what the DSLRs will be doing when Scarlet launches to the masses? If they are hitting 12 stops DR, 4:2:2, 10 bit HDMI out... maybe 2/3", fixed lens Scarlet will seem a little too inflexible for the price tag (for narrative work).

12 stops DR, 4:2:2, 10 bit is the minimum you can start really thinking about a proper film alternative "look", in my eyes.
 
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:))
 
I am not sure if you are going to get an answer here... everyone has a different interpretation of what a cinematic look is. Honestly what you should do is to rent a GH2 or whatever camera you think you want to buy and fool around with it. OR you could just buy it and return it after you have figure it out... Just saying.
 
apologies for throwing this into the mix...

i dreamed about getting the "film" look for years, like most people i hated the "video" look from all the handicams, i feel the footage from my GH1/GH13 is neither "film" or "video" like, its something different altogether and personally i'm totally happy with it, with manual prime lenses the image can be smoothed off a little and with a bit of colour grading in post i feel it stand out as a great look in its own right :smile:

i could dress a cat as a dog and teach it to bark but at the end of the day its still just a lazy old cat. :smile:
 
Sounds like the 60D is the better choice for narrative filmmaking; cheap, great lens choices, DOF, and Canon's street rep. The GH2's auto focus might not be such a plus if you have to shoot it with the kit lens.
 
I am not sure if you are going to get an answer here... everyone has a different interpretation of what a cinematic look is. Honestly what you should do is to rent a GH2 or whatever camera you think you want to buy and fool around with it. OR you could just buy it and return it after you have figure it out... Just saying.

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 really like the look of the GH2 but I've always said Canon is better for cinematic look. When we have 24p, softer image, shallow DOF etc I think it's very much about the dynamic range (color/contrast) like Ethan Cooper was talking about on page 3 and that's why Canon are closer to this filmlook we all want.

I like some scenes in this video: http://www.vimeo.com/7058755 (5Dmkii)
 
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).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top