GH4 GH4 or RED Epic ?

[Jim Simon]

This.

I shot a film recently...

And here's where your argument falls apart. I'm talking about event and documentary shooting, where you have little to no control over anything, yet still desire to get as good a finished product as if you did have that control. In those situations, the hardware can definitely be a limitation.

For example, you wouldn't want to shoot a wedding with a RED Epic, but you would definitely want to see the gorgeous rolling green hills and blue sky out the open window behind the best man giving his speech during daylight hours. With any reasonable event camera, that background is going to be a blown-out mess. But if those same cameras could shoot RAW, or had the dynamic range we desire, it'd definitely be a better looking end product.

 

[Jim Simon]

The camera and lens sure make a difference when they can't hit the f-stop/ISO combo you need to make the shot.

Thank you!

 

[Jim Simon]

Yeah, but that's not the camera's fault...... that's a user failing to either not set up the correct lighting, or choosing the wrong tools (lens) for the job.

You're assuming that we always have the time to set things up, or that the tool exists (at an affordable price). That's not always the case, hence the call for better (affordable) tools.

 

[Jim Simon]

Being creative and flexible enough to substitute a different shot, cheat angles, or sneak in lights is what filmmakers have done for over a century.

Filmmakers have the time to do things right. Event shooters generally don't. So any argument from a production standpoint is moot.

I'm saying the gear can be a limitation for event and documentary work, where you often have little or no control over anything, but still want to deliver a product that looks like it came from Hollywood.

 

[stoneinapond]

You're assuming that we always have the time to set things up, or that the tool exists (at an affordable price). That's not always the case, hence the call for better (affordable) tools.

I'm not assuming anything. Look, if you can't work with the very reasonable tools we have at our disposal today, then perhaps a rethink needs to be made. I just spent a month in S.E.Asia with a camera, a single lens, and an ND filter, shooting very much spontaneously and very much on the move. And while some might disagree, most people that have actually commented on the footage have made my humble self blush at the uniformly high praise.

I'm telling you the circumstances at times where very, very challenging. Know your tools and work around the problems. The gear isn't it.

Peace.

 

[Ian-T]

Conveying the message isn't the issue. Making it look like it came from Hollywood while using a $2000 camera, no crew, no time to 'set up' or redo the shot is the issue. Under those conditions, the hardware (or lack thereof) can very easily be a limitation.

I'm no professional...but I've seen 35mm film under much better conditions than what you describe here that looked....um...horrible. But give any type camera to someone who knows what they are doing and you'll always get something good. I think the real issue is everyone has their own interpretation of what's good or good enough . One guy's limited DR camera is the next guy's gold. Just learn how to use your tool....whatever that is.

 

[Jaime Valles]

I'm no professional...but I've seen 35mm film under much better conditions than what you describe here that looked....um...horrible. But give any type camera to someone who knows what they are doing and you'll always get something good. I think the real issue is everyone has their own interpretation of what's good or good enough . One guy's limited DR camera is the next guy's gold. Just learn how to use your tool....whatever that is.

Indeed. I made the feature film CASI CASI on a DVX100 back in the day. The image quality is awful compared to what we have nowadays, but it doesn't matter. HBO bought the movie for DVD and TV distribution, because it was well acted, edited, scored and directed. You can forgive mediocre image quality, as long as the other elements are there in good quality (see 28 Days Later).

If someone can't get an incredible image out of the GH4, the problem is with the shooter, not the camera.

 

[Hywel]

Conveying the message isn't the issue. Making it look like it came from Hollywood while using a $2000 camera, no crew, no time to 'set up' or redo the shot is the issue. Under those conditions, the hardware (or lack thereof) can very easily be a limitation.

You do know that Hollywood can't make it look like it came from Hollywood under those conditions, right? They make it look that way with something other than a camera and a lens.

I'm being flippant, sorry. I do appreciate that for people capturing actual events in real time, there are important features which differentiate one camera from another.

But here's the thing. The GH4 is not good in low light according to the internets. You can get f/0.95 lenses for it for under a thousand pounds. The whole set-up costs less than three thousand with cards and spare batteries and all. The GH4 can shoot images adequate to see what's going on at ISO 6400. Certainly good enough to be watchable if what's happening on screen is compelling enough.

That's at least 6 stops better than a DVX100 would manage. Or, put another way, the camera this forum was named for only a decade or so ago required SIXTY FOUR TIMES AS MUCH LIGHT to shoot in.

Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon on f/0.7 lenses on ISO 100 stock pushed to ISO 200. You have a good four stops more sensitivity than he had; you won't even need triple wicked candles.

Original Kodachrome was ISO 6. I shot extensively on Kodachrome 64 for years. ISO 6400 and a recognisable image and lenses mere mortals can buy at f/0.95?

The camera isn't the problem any more. I'd say the expectation that you can make something look like a Hollywood film with just a camera and lens is the problem.

If you really, really need to shoot in the dark and you can't use a light because you'll get shot at by a sniper or kicked out by security or scowled at by the bride? Buy an A7S. They're cheap as chips too. But it still won't look like a Hollywood film, because reality isn't lit or staged like a Hollywood film (as you rightly pointed out). It'll look like an A7S shooting in the dark, something that's never existed before in history. So work out how to make it compelling viewing WITHOUT it looking like a Hollywood film, because it's never going to.

We stand a fighting chance of inventing the way to do that. We have a range of cheap cameras, any one of which would give us a recognisable image in light levels undreamed of until the last few years.

A Canon 70D will shoot at ISO 12800. Pair it with a fast prime and you're away- with usable touch screen autofocus to boot. A GH4 will do just fine. A C300 will kick butt. An A7S can see in the dark. A 5D Mark III can turn the dial up to ISO 102,400 and register SOME sort of recognisable image. A Black Magic Pocket will shoot at ISO 1600.

Yes, these cameras have different strengths and weaknesses, not least of which is workflow. Yes, some will be better tools for certain jobs that others.

But none of it matters if what you are pointing your camera at isn't interesting, the edit isn't compelling, the viewer's attention isn't engaged, their emotions aren't stirred.

ALL of these cameras are imaging super-machines compared with what we had even a decade ago (at any price). The problem is that we've got used to demanding the impossible and have lost sight of the absolute bloody miracles we all have in our camera bags. We - and I include myself in this- should be out there shooting, not posting here. It isn't the camera that's stopping us any more.

I could be up on a mountaintop shooting by the light of the moon tonight instead of sitting on my backside in front of the computer. The thing that's stopping me is my lack of imagination for how to put together a compelling storyline from footage shot on a mountaintop in moonlight. And my lazy determination to watch 2001 again tonight instead of shooting something! ;-)

Cheers, Hywel

 

[TheDingo]

I'd say the expectation that you can make something look like a Hollywood film with just a camera and lens is the problem.

+1

Lighting is never optional, even with cameras that can "see in the dark".

 

[Ian-T]

Y... The problem is that we've got used to demanding the impossible and have lost sight of the absolute bloody miracles we all have in our camera bags. We - and I include myself in this- should be out there shooting, not posting here. It isn't the camera that's stopping us any more.

Cheers, Hywel

<<standing ovation for that entire post>>:thumbsup:

...and Jaime Valles good stuff.

 

[Lpowell]

But here's the thing. The GH4 is not good in low light according to the internets. You can get f/0.95 lenses for it for under a thousand pounds. The whole set-up costs less than three thousand with cards and spare batteries and all. The GH4 can shoot images adequate to see what's going on at ISO 6400. Certainly good enough to be watchable if what's happening on screen is compelling enough.

Now here's a prime example of someone I wouldn't hire as a second camera op on an event gig. The GH4 with an f/0.95 lens has a DOF as narrow as your head. How are you going to shoot more than one performer at a time with a lens like that? Not to mention the need for an optically stabilized zoom for handheld shots, which limits you to f2.8, but does produce usable DOF. And the GH4 at ISO 6400, what BS is that? I won't shoot even a Nikon at more than ISO 3200, and that's a desperation shot. The GH4 is good up to ISO 800 and salvageable at ISO 1600 max.

 

[c3hammer]

..The GH4 with an f/0.95 lens has a DOF as narrow as your head. How are you going to shoot more than one performer at a time with a lens like that?...

Depends on the distance to the subject. The closer you are to infinity focus the wider the depth of field. I've actually found that the GH4 with faster lenses actually performs on par or better than the 5D's when you compare FOV, DOF and at a usable ISO. While the 5D's shoot at ISO 6400, they need twice the f stop to get the same depth of field. This is 1/4 the light gathering and brings the GH4 back into the realm when shooting 4K for 1080 output at up to 2500 ISO. If you actually haven't shot the two side by side to make the comparison, one might wonder who should be hiring who here

Cheers,
Pete

 

[mcbob]

I absolutely get where Jim and LPowell are coming from... much of what I shoot is doc, and even the interviews are often barely controlled... "Mr. Megahoncho has 20 minutes, and you have only 10 minutes to set up and it took me 5 minutes to explain that. Good luck!" or simply "So we're shooting in Africa..." Crap only goes down once, you capture as much as you can, and then you get to go home... in a lot of ways it's much less stressful than the endless repeats of narrative/commercial production. The A7S and FS7 excite me with the possibilities they offer... but yet, I can already list a few ways I'd like each to be ever so slightly better., and that's just from reading specs on paper. Wanting "better" is human nature, and I think it's easier to start questioning the gear when, like Jim or Powell, you're already really freaking good at using what's available...

But hey, I have what I have, it's what I can afford, and it has limitations. So do the A7S, FS7, C-cams, so will Panasonic's new AF-ish thing, the C300.2, and every other camera that I can't afford or will ever be made. That's physical nature.

I spent a few couple way too many years when I first started out climbing up a delusional mountain of gear progression, like climbing a hill of sand that keeps slipping underneath as I deemed gear "obsolete." Truth is I never used half of the features on that HVX that I absolutely "had to have to be marketable." I used it, sure, but the camera far outclassed my skill set and working rate at that time. So would a Red or F55 where I am now... I'm not getting $2000/day work, and the only job I ever had at that rate wound up shooting with GH2 and AF100 anyway. There are plenty of OK cinematographers out there today sinking themselves deep into indentured servitude to fly the Red flag, when most of what they do could be pulled off at a fraction of the cost.

There will always be business reasons to buy and upgrade cameras... satisfying what the clients that are hiring you demand, or upon simply making your job that much easier that it pays for itself. But for personal work? I don't know... that last Zacuto camera shootout really shamed me. Screw the constant upgrades. I need to work on other things. A new camera won't solve my planning and executing problems.

and then I went and bought a GH4... yeah, some lessons aren't so easy to learn.

 

[Lpowell]

Depends on the distance to the subject. The closer you are to infinity focus the wider the depth of field.

When shooting handheld on a stage, you'd need an extremely wide lens to shoot at anything close to infinity focus. Most shots are going to be 6-15 feet away and use a 17-50mm APS-C lens or 14-35mm 4/3 lens. To shoot at infinity focus, you'd need to shoot from a balcony or raised plaform, and use something like a 70-200mm lens. At that distance and magnification, lens vibration is far more noticeable, and you'd have to shoot from a fixed tripod with limited framing options. Where you hit the wall though, is with the GH4's limited practical ISO range. There's no way I'd shoot under typical venue lighting at ISO 2500, more like ISO 1250 max.

 

[Hywel]

Now here's a prime example of someone I wouldn't hire as a second camera op on an event gig. The GH4 with an f/0.95 lens has a DOF as narrow as your head. How are you going to shoot more than one performer at a time with a lens like that? Not to mention the need for an optically stabilized zoom for handheld shots, which limits you to f2.8, but does produce usable DOF. And the GH4 at ISO 6400, what BS is that? I won't shoot even a Nikon at more than ISO 3200, and that's a desperation shot. The GH4 is good up to ISO 800 and salvageable at ISO 1600 max.

I started to type a reply, but then I decided: Shoot. Or shoot not. There is no test.

Short film shot and cut in the last two hours:

http://www.restrainedelegance.com/temp/Stalked_1080p_8Mb.mp4


GH4 ISO 6400. Voigtlander 25 mm 0.95 and Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8. Ronin Gimbal Rig, except for the funky interior shots which I handheld. I couldn't be arsed to rebalance the rig when I started cutting my initial footage together and it suggested the idea of stalking my wife, I just went and grabbed a few more shots handheld.

Exterior lighting: streetlights, car headlamps, the full moon, and spill from interior lighting usually two rooms or floors away because otherwise it burned the hell out.

Interior lighting: streetlights, and lights two rooms or two floors away. If I lit up a light any closer, it was like full daylight and the shot lost all atmosphere. I had to keep turning more and more lights out just to get the light levels down. It was DARK in there; I was feeling my way around the house.

No colour correction, no stabilisation, no noise reduction in post (although I did reverse a couple of clips, and double speeded one - funky effect, looks crap but I couldn't be bothered to go shoot it again quicker).

Autofocus, or pre-focussed on the f/0.95 because no 1st AC at this time of night, just me at home. Oh, and my poor wife, who was already asleep despite someone being wrong on the internet http://xkcd.com/386/

It won't win me an Oscar. But the GH4 is demonstrably useable at ISO 6400. Most of the artefacts are from the final MP4 compression for the web, the original is noisy, but no blocking artefacts and a hell of a lot more detail than the web MP4.

I'm NOT saying that the GH4 is the optimum gear choice for all working professionals. Your gear bag will surely differ from my gear bag, which is as it should be. But damn, the camera just isn't the problem any more. I could NOT have shot that on a DVX100.

Cheers, Hywel.

 

[Bern Caughey]

I started to type a reply, but then I decided: Shoot. Or shoot not. There is no test.

Short film shot and cut in the last two hours:

http://www.restrainedelegance.com/temp/Stalked_1080p_8Mb.mp4

Well played, Sir.

Glad to see you around here! Are you still in Paris?

Best,
Bern

 

[Lpowell]

@Hywel, nice shooting and atmospherics, but you're working on a different playing field. It's great that you can make f0.95 and ISO 6400 work for your intended purposes, but from my perspective, it's a pretty limited range. To wit:

1) Murky, low-contrast scenes with no in-frame light sources.
2) Indistinct objects and scenery with inconsistent, near-sepia color balance.
3) No human faces with complex skin tones and elusive facial expressions.
4) Nothing happening in-frame, just ambiguous and arbitrary camera moves.
5) I can plainly see the GH4's Fixed Pattern Noise at ISO 6400.

 

[Jaime Valles]

I started to type a reply, but then I decided: Shoot. Or shoot not. There is no test.

Short film shot and cut in the last two hours:

http://www.restrainedelegance.com/temp/Stalked_1080p_8Mb.mp4


GH4 ISO 6400. Voigtlander 25 mm 0.95 and Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8. Ronin Gimbal Rig, except for the funky interior shots which I handheld. I couldn't be arsed to rebalance the rig when I started cutting my initial footage together and it suggested the idea of stalking my wife, I just went and grabbed a few more shots handheld.

Exterior lighting: streetlights, car headlamps, the full moon, and spill from interior lighting usually two rooms or floors away because otherwise it burned the hell out.

Interior lighting: streetlights, and lights two rooms or two floors away. If I lit up a light any closer, it was like full daylight and the shot lost all atmosphere. I had to keep turning more and more lights out just to get the light levels down. It was DARK in there; I was feeling my way around the house.

No colour correction, no stabilisation, no noise reduction in post (although I did reverse a couple of clips, and double speeded one - funky effect, looks crap but I couldn't be bothered to go shoot it again quicker).

Autofocus, or pre-focussed on the f/0.95 because no 1st AC at this time of night, just me at home. Oh, and my poor wife, who was already asleep despite someone being wrong on the internet http://xkcd.com/386/

It won't win me an Oscar. But the GH4 is demonstrably useable at ISO 6400. Most of the artefacts are from the final MP4 compression for the web, the original is noisy, but no blocking artefacts and a hell of a lot more detail than the web MP4.

I'm NOT saying that the GH4 is the optimum gear choice for all working professionals. Your gear bag will surely differ from my gear bag, which is as it should be. But damn, the camera just isn't the problem any more. I could NOT have shot that on a DVX100.

Cheers, Hywel.

That was fantastic, Hywel! Super creepy, very well done. Better than most episodes of NCIS.

 

[Hywel]

1) Murky, low-contrast scenes with no in-frame light sources.
2) Indistinct objects and scenery with inconsistent, near-sepia color balance.
3) No human faces with complex skin tones and elusive facial expressions.
4) Nothing happening in-frame, just ambiguous and arbitrary camera moves.
5) I can plainly see the GH4's Fixed Pattern Noise at ISO 6400.

LOL

1) I could have pointed at higher contrast scenes with in-frame light sources, if I'd so chosen. Not the camera's fault.
2) I could have made different white balance choices from shot to shot. There were mixed colour temperatures and I chose to let the street-lighting remain very orange, and used that as a "dark" signifier in the house when the lights went out by shooting daylight balance under tungsten. Not the camera's fault.
3) My wife was asleep and the only version of her face available was therefore a photo. Not the camera's fault.
4) There was no-one else here to make something happen in frame, and I hadn't scripted or planned camera moves to be more motivated. Not the camera's fault.

5) There's some fixed-pattern noise which can be distracting if the content isn't compelling enough.

As I've repeatedly said, not all the low-cost camera options are the same, and your gear bag will not be my gear bag. But I just made a short film in the dark with the camera that's "no good in low light", on ISO 6400, which is "BS".

"Buying a new camera" does not even appear on my list of ways to improve on that short film. It would have been precisely NO more compelling shot with an A7S.

Cheers, Hywel.

 

[Hywel]

Well played, Sir.

Glad to see you around here! Are you still in Paris?

Best,
Bern

Not in Paris, no... actually I've only ever visited Paris.

We recently moved to a lovely old house on the Welsh borders in a little town called Welshpool. The house is starring in many of our movies!

Cheers, Hywel