GH4 GH4 on On larger budget/expectation commercial shoots

J

john deaver

Well-known member
Hey Folks

Quick Question

is anyone using his/her GH4 on larger budget commercial jobs.

Producing content for TV (even local TV) or for web distribution on projects with budgets over $7000. For example major universities, or national brands.


Ive been a M4/3 user for a long time (GH1 user) and a producer for the last 15 years and I'm considering going to something bigger. I'm just wondering if anybody is using the GH4 on projects where larger more "Professional" (i know, i hate that term) gear might be used.

Thanks in advance
john
 
Yep, have used mine on feature films without issue :)

If you are worried about not being taken seriously, throw a matte box in front of the lens. It's like a magical blanket that makes producers feel like they are playing with the big boys! :D

The camera is certainly capable of making high end pictures.

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
It's not a question of being taken seriously,
my current clients have no problem with the work I'm doing or the size of my camera.

I would just like to attract larger clients (read as "who have more money to spend") and larger projects
 
As we know, the GH4 and other mirrorless systems produce amazing images, but for "larger clients" and certain projects, there are usually two factors that are taken into consideration:

(1) Camera Manufacturer
(2) Price

Certain producers may only use certain cameras and there is a very good chance one of them is ARRI, RED or Sony.

If you are working with a group/client who doesn't know the industry names but may still research your gear, then price may be a major factor. If they see that your camera costs $1000 compared to someone applying for the same job that has a camera that costs $20,000, the final decision may be influenced by that.

Not to say that price = quality and we obviously all know that, but that's how things work sometimes. Just the way size impresses people who may not know any better and think a bigger camera is a better camera.

There are also those clients who only look at your reel and your rate and don't care what you use. There are definitely many out there "who have more money to spend."

I am kind of jumping around here, but it also goes the other way too...one may own a RED EPIC DRAGON and have no skills. Having no skills is going to catch up to you sooner or later and the expensive camera won't save you.

In the end, it truly depends on the project, the content, the people involved, your skills (including communication skills), etc.
 
It's all about expectations. We've got a client we've shot bigger-budgeted commercials for, and we've done those on the RED and Alexa cameras. The last go-round, we needed to shoot some web-only pre-roll ads on a budget, so I let the client know that we'd be stepping down to a smaller camera, but still more than broadcast quality (recording to an external recorder). The footage looked great, so good that the client remarked on how similar it looked to the other stuff we shot. They liked it so much, in fact, that they decided to air one of the "web-only" spots as their broadcast commercial across the state.

In the end it was less about the camera, and more about the crew that did the lighting and set design work, the makeup, and the audio. When lit properly, and with a knowledgable crew, the differences between the GH4 and most other cameras become significantly smaller.
 
Jim Simon said:
Feature film, where I can go to my local cinema and plunk down my $15 to see it? Or do you mean feature length film?

There's a meaningful difference between those terms.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they mean the same thing lol, feature film alone doesn't mean it is or has been screened at a movie theater. It just means how long the film is.
 
NorBro said:
Certain producers may only use certain cameras and there is a very good chance one of them is ARRI, RED or Sony...
Click to expand...
And, if it's Panasonic, it's Varicam (LT). Because the brand names and perception do matter.

Stephen Mick said:
It's all about expectations. We've got a client we've shot bigger-budgeted commercials for, and we've done those on the RED and Alexa cameras. The last go-round, we needed to shoot some web-only pre-roll ads on a budget, so I let the client know that we'd be stepping down to a smaller camera, but still more than broadcast quality (recording to an external recorder). The footage looked great, so good that the client remarked on how similar it looked to the other stuff we shot. They liked it so much, in fact, that they decided to air one of the "web-only" spots as their broadcast commercial across the state.

In the end it was less about the camera, and more about the crew that did the lighting and set design work, the makeup, and the audio. When lit properly, and with a knowledgable crew, the differences between the GH4 and most other cameras become significantly smaller.
Click to expand...
I remembered that post and was going to bring it up .... but figured it was lost in some old thread.

In any case, two major shortcomings of the "consumer/enthusiast" hybrids like GH4, A7RII and A6300 are the dynamic range and a (relatively) weak internal codec. Limiting the dynamic range on a shoot to under 10 stops (mostly) takes care of the former, while an external recorder takes care of the latter. And most TV screens and monitors can't handle 10 stops anyway. Careful grading will help the footage look really nice too.
 
If it's Panasonic, it would be the Varicam35.

LT isn't even out yet! Any day now though...
 
Yes, I am currently producing a series of training modules for final distribution to the web, in addition to being placed in the libraries in the rural counties of Kentucky. The project has a +$40,000 budget. The GH4 with Shogun, Gini rig w/follow focus, matte box, and Lanparte Anton Bauer plate and batteries are very impressive to my clients.
 
It seems the bigger budget stuff is less about what camera you own, and more about what cameras you can skillfully operate and rent. Anyone that is skillful with an Arri can rent it and therefore list it in their equipment capabilities. Owning a GH4 suggests that you can give better rates (but still high quality) to the customers that appreciate the discount and don't need the ultimate level in quality files.

Hard to figure out how to market that, might have to eat the loss and rent a "big budget" camera for a lower budget shoot so you can list it as being done with a high level camera. I guess the short of it is, you need to be a lot more busy or a lot more expensive if you are going to own a camera that is 20x more expensive (or 40x or 50x more than that), plus lenses and rigging, etc.
 
Not disputing anything said here, you can get acceptable "professional" results from it. BUT there's more to the difference between a GH4 and *any* Arri or RED camera than just their price and form factor.

I love my little GH4. but other than budget I'd never choose to use it over something with film like dynamic range and proper color reproduction.
 
joe12south said:
Not disputing anything said here, you can get acceptable "professional" results from it. BUT there's more to the difference between a GH4 and *any* Arri or RED camera than just their price and form factor.

I love my little GH4. but other than budget I'd never choose to use it over something with film like dynamic range and proper color reproduction.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm asking, i love my little GH4 and it punches way above its weight class but....the stuff I've seen from folks shooting with the FS7/FS5 or similar is pretty phenomenal.

And while i can always improve my skills, i am wondering what a higher end camera might do to make my current work better, in order to attract larger jobs.

or if the issue was strictly my skills not pushing my current camera to its limits.

as point of reference here is something i shot recently all on my GH4

 
John,
Nice sample.

Professional results are mostly the result of a professional. If Roger Deakins and I were to shoot the same scene and he had a GH4 and I had a Arri Alexa, he'd still shoot the better scene!

But, all things being equal, a better tool is going to make better results easier to obtain.

There are certain empirical measures in which the GH4 absolutely has more than enough PQ...certainly resolution falls in this category. There are certain measures in which it is clearly subpar...certainly dynamic range falls in this one. Then there are others that are more subjective, such as color rendition...which very few people prefer Panasonic's color science to Arri or RED or even BMD.

Personally, if I could afford it, I'd upgrade to an Ursa Mini 4.6K (not the 4K.) In every way (except for the GH4's extremely compact form factor) it is a better tool. It gives you most of the PQ benefits of cameras costing several times more.
 
From what I can see, it looks like you have some room to grow with the gh4, I'm not seeing it being used to it's fullest potential to where a better camera would help. I say that with all due respect. It's just simple things such as a straight horizon (which I'm a stickler for, unless a Dutch tilt) Also exposure could be dialed in a bit more precise, protect those highlights. I'm not a fan of the green intro, I suppose for a St. Patrick's day promo, sure, but not for this piece. Some of the interviews had a bit to much headroom, some looked spot on. Though I know at times working with people that haven't been on camera can be difficult, they squirm around muffing up the framing. That I get. It's up to you, the grade was a bit contrasty and saturated for my taste. to each is there own.
 
The GH4 is a fully capable camera in the right hands. Instead of wording about which camera will get the job done I might suggest investing in other gear that actually contributes to a high production value look.

Invest in some Kino Flo lights. Seriously this is what makes some productions look amazing. They use a lot of careful lighting. Lighting is really the key to a high quality production. How you light a production will make a huge impact on what the GH4 captures. The thing about lights is that they really are an investment and could likely last you 15+ years if you treat them well. Cameras come and go but a good light kit lasts a long time.

Also consider investing in a 4K external recorder. This is another piece of kit that can likely last you a long time as long as you stick to HD and 4K cameras. An external recorder removes the highly compressed GH4 encoding from the equation and gives you a more robust format to work with. Format is sometimes considered one of those things that seperates prosumer from professional. The beauty of the GH4 is its one of the only DSLR type cameras that actually can output 10bit video. This is pretty huge in terms of closing the gap of what higher end cameras record. If you use V-log and an external recorder to make up a bit of that lack of dynamic range. I once read a video engineer state that 10bit LOG is about 90% of what is usable with raw. This means shooting 10bit v-log gets you much closer to the professional recorded image from higher end cameras. Yes the files are huge but so are the files from a raw camera like RED or the Ursa.

Invest in killer lighting and a great external 4K recorder and you really do close the gap between the GH4 and higher end cameras. Keep in mind even if you moved up to an Ursa it still isn't going to look like high production value without good lighting. That's why I suggest investing in the lighting now and really learn how to use it. This will open up massive doors for you.
 
maranfilms said:
.....I'm not a fan of the green intro, I suppose for a St. Patrick's day promo, sure, but not for this piece. Some of the interviews had a bit to much headroom, some looked spot on. Though I know at times working with people that haven't been on camera can be difficult, they squirm around muffing up the framing. That I get. It's up to you, the grade was a bit contrasty and saturated for my taste. to each is there own.
Click to expand...

Thanks Maranfilms for the feedback. I %100 with the green in the intro, the idea was for it to match the printed material that had that look in the background, i don't care for it but it wasn't my call so.... Your right about the headroom, I had one of the cards for my main camera crap out on my but i was rolling a "backup" angle which i should have framed a bit better but i didn't think i would be using it as the primary.
 
Thomas Smet said:
......Invest in killer lighting and a great external 4K recorder and you really do close the gap between the GH4 and higher end cameras. Keep in mind even if you moved up to an Ursa it still isn't going to look like high production value without good lighting. That's why I suggest investing in the lighting now and really learn how to use it. This will open up massive doors for you.
Click to expand...

Good advice on the lighting

Ive never used Kino's.. I used a 3 foot octobox from wescott for my main light in these interviews, in retrospective i should have gelled them to match the background lights and white balanced accordingly.

Ive seen a few comparisons online and even downloaded some test footage and i don't see a whole lot of difference between GH4 internal 4K Vs 4K recorded externaly, is there a resource you feel demonstrates the benefit? or perhaps your own work/experence.

And thanks for the suggestions Thomas

John
 
john deaver said:
Good advice on the lighting

Ive never used Kino's.. I used a 3 foot octobox from wescott for my main light in these interviews, in retrospective i should have gelled them to match the background lights and white balanced accordingly.

Ive seen a few comparisons online and even downloaded some test footage and i don't see a whole lot of difference between GH4 internal 4K Vs 4K recorded externaly, is there a resource you feel demonstrates the benefit? or perhaps your own work/experence.

And thanks for the suggestions Thomas

John
Click to expand...

You likely won't see much of a difference in comparisons online because the people who do those comparisons completely forget where the advantage of such a codec is. H264 is an exceptionally good codec already but it adapts based on the complexity of the scene. Scene complexity can either be from a huge amount of random detail like water waves, surf, tree leaves dancing in the wind or even shooting a pile of gravel or complexity can be from sudden complex motion like shooting a car blowing up or a camera whip. Even a high amount of noise can kill a codec quickly because the codec has to try to predict blocks of pixels with dancing noise all over the place. It is extremely difficult to predict how a block of pixels should look when random color pixels are dancing all over the place every frame.

A format like H264 works off of motion prediction and tries to figure out what part of the frame isn't moving because it can save a lot of bits in those blocks and use more of the data for the parts that do move. So doing a test on a still life scene or a locked down camera will rarely if ever show any advantage to an external recorder.

Where an external recorder shines however is when the scenes do get complex and the 100mbps H264 isn't enough to capture the shot. This is why higher end cameras will shoot with a higher end format. Because without a doubt the shooter knows every frame will be solid no matter how complex the situation. By using an external recorder you guarantee to your client that you will capture the best quality no matter the situation.

There is also a difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 it may be a bit more subtle on 4k but the difference is there. Again its about starting off with the most robust signal you can get in case you need it. 90% of the time shooting raw is a waste but its good to have it when its needed. Same goes for ProRes, 10bit and 4:2:2. Its really good to have it when you need it. If you don't have it and you did need it the shot will suffer.

With v-log an external recorder helps a lot. The 10bit thing makes a difference but even 8 bit external v-log is a help. The macro blocking with the internal codec makes too many assumptions of what colors can be grouped together and since v-log is so flat it can cause issues because of this. Many assume the blame lies with v-log itself but I think the cause of many of the issues people see with v-log internal on the GH4 is because of the encoder itself which was never optimized for a log format. Even 8bit external removes the concept of macro blocking from the recording and you get solid frames without the color grouping or prediction.
 
maranfilms said:
From what I can see, it looks like you have some room to grow with the gh4, I'm not seeing it being used to it's fullest potential to where a better camera would help. I say that with all due respect. It's just simple things such as a straight horizon (which I'm a stickler for, unless a Dutch tilt) Also exposure could be dialed in a bit more precise, protect those highlights. I'm not a fan of the green intro, I suppose for a St. Patrick's day promo, sure, but not for this piece. Some of the interviews had a bit to much headroom, some looked spot on. Though I know at times working with people that haven't been on camera can be difficult, they squirm around muffing up the framing. That I get. It's up to you, the grade was a bit contrasty and saturated for my taste. to each is there own.
Click to expand...

I agree with what maran is saying here. I can say that because I've made plenty of the same mistakes and still do! Luckily, most of that can be fixed in the edit, especially since the 4K of the GH4 is a little more forgiving in terms of cropping. Even if you didn't acquire in 4K, you can still improve the quality of your video with some grading and cropping.

Most of what I deliver is on the "low-end" in terms of gear and budget (e.g. Canon C100, GH cameras, etc). However, I frequently work with some operators/filmmakers who don't even own their own gear or own only a GH4 rig similar to mine. When there needs to be a step-up in budget/quality they'll frequently rent. If you haven't been getting inquiries for REDs or Alexas or been getting turned down for jobs due to your rig, then I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Also, the bulk of my work is in-house industrials and corporate work for a tech company. I've often shot alongside agency folks, whose shooters often have the same rig as me (5D MK iii / C100 or GH4). I know for a fact that they're getting paid big budget dollars (or at least their agency is) to use the same gear I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top