GH2: The "CHOF" look: Truly possible with a GH2?

J

Jenga

Member
I have a question, and a partially formed opinion about the GH2 and I want you guys to be able to prove me wrong (and paint the GH2 in a better light because I prefer how it renders sharpness and suppresses moire/aliasing). I have a specific aesthetic that I passionately LOVE and have been obsessing over. Unfortunately it appears much easier to get out of the problematically soft/aliasing/moire infused Canons:

I am calling it the "Creamy Highlights/Overexposure/Flare" look (CHOF - I know, not another acronym) a good CHOF example should have that FEELING produced by a generally neutral smooth, almost effortless creamy overexposure that doesn't color shift toward blue/purple/unholy hard clip bright white. CHOF is one very SPECIFIC part of a good "Filmic look" but not "the film look" in its entirety. I am asking how to get good CHOF on a GH2 period. Can it be done? Disclaimer: I understand how many of the CHOF examples have tons of flaring because they are using old lenses and/or special techniques like lens whacking. I realize fellow CHOF'ers use older lens for their flaring effect and I am not concerned with lens choice but rather in the rendering of overexposure and the FEELING in produces with or without a flare. They just so happen to be together most of the time. I'm the kind of guy that would choose CHOF over punchy saturated Sony HD default looks.

My ultimate choice between a GH2 or a 60D is based on being able to achieve CHOF relatively painlessly and 99% in camera (with settings tweaking and the odd old lens) without MANDATORY color correction. Super 16, 35 and RED are out of my range. My wages and the cost of living in LA makes a DLSR purchase a once in a 5-10 years kind of an opportunity so I am stuck with what I get for a while!

Here is how it tallies up right now:

7 Canon camera users listed with CHOF.
0 GH2 videos that have it
Only 3 GH13 hacked camera films all from one single user: Hunter H Richards.

EXAMPLES:

>>>>CHOF-tastic!!! (Has it):
by Hunter H Richards:
http://vimeo.com/14252742 (look at the sun flare 5 sec in and the contrasty shot at 1:12 that definitely clips but still looks smooth and does not color shift towards blue/purple).
http://vimeo.com/3590386
http://vimeo.com/12626420 (GH13!)
http://vimeo.com/13524883 (Gh13!)
http://vimeo.com/13982269 (GH13!)

by James Miller:
http://vimeo.com/15821427
http://vimeo.com/12001117
http://vimeo.com/16519308 (pretty darn good roll off on a S95 no less!)

Sebastian Mantilla:
http://vimeo.com/17834104 (interesting because I don't personally connect with the coloring etc, used here but look at the shots at 1:38 and 2:03 for instance. Even with the coloring that is going on here (getting a little too neutral!), it doesn't clip and doesn't get polluted highlights.

Jesse Springer:
http://vimeo.com/17740888

>>>Right on the dividing line between CHOF and videoish:

Randy Chia: It takes massive over exposure with midday sun on white dress clothing to start and break the wonderful CHOF powers of the 5Dmk ii: http://vimeo.com/15514503

>>>>False CHOF! - False positive (similar looking but with banded, Video looking overexposure):

Philip Bloom:
http://vimeo.com/17245744 -GH2 :(
Some of the flaring & exposure is okay but look at the colored highlights here: behind the girls head 0:08, white parts of plane wings 0:46, over mummy's head 1:19 everything looks so video.

Andrew Reid:

http://vimeo.com/17414803 (look at the sky at 0:02 and 0:35)
http://vimeo.com/17265074 (the metallic collar of the lightbulb at the beginning)

Jake Olaso
http://vimeo.com/15558791
 
Hmm....it's funny you mentioned Hunter Richards because he was the individual I would have pointed you to when it comes to the GHxx's. When you find the answer to your question you would be helping me out also. Really....I don't know how Hunter does it.

EDIT: Really though...I believe the lens has a lot to do with those "creamy" looks you are after.
 
Last edited:
There is something absolutely going on in some clips than in others, and Canon always made me wonder. Even their DV camcorders had some qualities to their color system that were pretty unique. That said, I do believe you can get there with the right handling of the image in post, and if you have a better signal to work with (like the sharper GH2) you have something that can't be substituted by post processing.

Surely, we're here to find out what it is, so we can actually do it in post! :) I think this discussion is pretty relevant, for the future GH2 or even AF-100 owners.
 
Ian: Yeah Hunter is great! On the 2nd Brie Stoner video on his Vimeo he did bring up under exposing by 1 to 1 1/2 stops and getting a Canon FD 1.4 which I will promptly do if I get a GH2 and like it.. I am assuming if you can do it on the GH13 you can do it on the GH2 but I have not seen a single GH2 video that looks like his (even from him as he apparently hasn't shot anything (in color and in this style) at the time of this writing).

Taubkin: Thanks for comments. I'm glad you both feel this is something that is worthwhile to you too. Personally it is driving me crazy as I want to have a camera for the holidays (60D) but if I can get this with a GH2 I will wait.
 
Hunter commented in one of his videos:

Its mostly from allowing light to flare the lens...
Click to expand...

And that's what I see in most of his clips, lighting bouncing inside the lens and making everything milky.

Stick to old lenses, get digital sharpening down, perhaps use some nostalgic or smooth preset, grade for this smooth neutral look and you're set.

If the guy did it with the GH so can you.

Notice that up to 0:30 of this clip: http://vimeo.com/13982269 how the blown-out whites aren't white. So keep in mind that grading plays a large part as well.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
This thread prompted me to shoot these 3 quick tests with my GH2 & an old "Lee White Net 1" filter I had laying around. I'm not sure how relevant these are to the discussion, but here they are anyway. The camera-original files can be downloaded from (and details are on) the Vimeo pages. Cheers.

http://vimeo.com/18076837

http://vimeo.com/18077363

http://vimeo.com/18077563
Click to expand...

Interested in this filter, specially for outdoors use. I can't really judge indoors without before/after though. What did you conclude about it?
 
Last edited:
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Hunter commented in one of his videos.
And that's what I see in most of his clips, lighting bouncing inside the lens and making everything milky.
Stick to old lenses, get digital sharpening down, perhaps use some nostalgic or smooth preset, grade for this smooth neutral look and you're set.
Click to expand...

It's not just flaring, it's something else. It's what makes the flares look so good and natural, and it's happening after the light hit's the sensor. Sure we have to compensate for the different subjects, for the differences in light, or even the haze that is visible in one of the clips posted, but there is some procedure not everybody is doing that is making some of the images different. In the canons this sort of look seems to be more common.
 
From my stills work, I am quite clear that I am a better photographer when shooting RAW than JPEG, because I can cheat. RAW allows me to make the critical decisions about adjusting the image in post, for things like exposure, colour temperature etc. rather than at the point of capture, and with time and a big screen on my hands I can't lose with RAW. With video, we don't have that luxury (yet) but we have to attempt to make the most post production editable image possible I feel, just like working with film. So my advice is:

1. Don't blow out your highlights (use zebras or highlights indicator) and ND filters if need be. Basically under-expose everything a touch.
2. Set digital sharpening to minimum
3. Shoot in highest dynamic range mode (lowest contrast) for most post-gradable image. Contrast can be added easily in post, but is not easily reduced.
4. Grade in post, add contrast, adjust gamma.
5. Use old lenses.

I personally feel that the first Andrew Reid file you linked to is pretty nice. I think it's the nicest GH2 footage I've seen, and I don't mind the highlights at all.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
... Interested in this filter, specially for outdoors use. I can't really judge indoors without before/after though. What did you conclude about it?
Click to expand...

This type of filter reduces contrast & detail in a scene (as expected).

Note the blacks in these camera-original clips: The blacks aren't crushed, as is typical of most GHx footage that has not been color-corrected, and especially when shooting with a "modern" lens.

A net filter also adds flaring, as seen when the camera tilts up toward the ceiling fixture.

With the lens at f2.0 the net fabric in the resin filter adds a slight "lumpiness" to the flare.

In these 3 clips, the filter was mounted about 1" in front of the lens, the closest my matte box allowed in that particular configuration. I've since mounted the filter closer to the front of the lens, to see if the lumpiness might be reduced.

Later today, if it's not raining (!), I'll shoot a clip outdoors. I'll set the 20mm lens' aperture at f1.7 -- and with the filter closer to the lens -- hopefully the texture of the filter will be less visible. However, I won't know until I try it if these adjustments will significantly reduce the filter's "desirable" effects.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
It's a quality you get from old lenses, especially the Canon FD's. A lot of newer lenses are coated to cut down on that.
 
Here's a test with a Lee White Net 1 filter shot outdoors in Portland, Oregon's glorious overcast weather! :)

http://vimeo.com/18093160

As noted on the Vimeo page, in this test the filter is positioned 1/2" in front of the lens. Moving the filter closer to the lens smooths-out its effect, and reduces some of its less-desirable artifacts. So that this would the only filter in front of the lens I used a high shutter speed to adjust exposure; as a result the motion rendering in this test is non-standard. More details on the Vimeo page.

Anyway, the point is there are a number of ways to achieve "in camera" (or "in lens", or "in front of lens") effects and looks, with or without post-processing. It's all good.

Further note: No "Slow Children" were harmed in the making of this production (see sign in background).

EDIT:

Just to be clear (no pun intended), I'm not necessarily recommending this particular filter, just demonstrating it. For certain applications it might be appropriate. I paid only $10 for this 4x4 filter at a one-time clearance sale at Adolf Gasser in SF (they normally cost several times as much). As Hunter mentions in a later post, there are many contrast-lowering filters available, each with their own optical characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Dead easy.**

You simply need:

1. Overall softness/lower contrast
2. "Creamy" highlights with cooler shadows

Practically speaking:

1a. On a GH1, shoot with the sharpness, contrast and color down. Tastes vary on whether to start from Neutral, Standard or Smooth. iExposure will keep contrast down at the risk of changing things subtly during takes.
1b. Overexpose a little (you WILL be clipping highlights, but no-one will care after the post).
1c. Do anything else you can to keep contrast down and natural shadow-filling/highlight softening flare happening: light diffusion filters; nets; old lenses; whatever you like.
1d. Be aware you'll still need to seek out good, natural light to really hit the spot -- it just won't happen in a cheaply lit interior or bar or club like it will in a large-windowed room or a open outdoor space.
1e. Good white balance. Outside I prefer to just use the daylight preset -- if there's a beautiful quality to the light color you want to see it, not "balance" it out. Tungsten is different, the preset is rarely enough, so use manual Kelvin or balance off a card. In any case, small tungsten sources aren't going to give you this look anyway.

Then,

2. In post, pull blue (and maybe a tiny bit of green) OUT of the highlights (so your clipped white highlights go creamy yellow-ish), and put a little blue (maybe a tiny bit of red) IN to the shadows. Make subtle mid-tone brightness changes, but leave the shadows where they are. Any color correction tool can do these things. One click or manual controls is up to you.

Although beautiful this look WILL feel incredibly dated in a few years -- it's the default approach to 2 out of 3 fashion shoots these days.

--
** By "dead easy" I don't mean to diminish the craft that goes into the work of the people you linked to. That's where the real talent lies: using this "look" effectively and creatively. The "dead easy" simply refers to the technical requirements of getting the camera to produce those colors and tones under the right circumstances. What you do with it is up to you.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the question in this thread, i was happily suprised recently by my newly acquired Helios 44m. And it's really sharp too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top