GH4 GH4: The creative choice

P

Paul Walker

Active member
Apologies for the self-indulgent rant but I get kinda cheesed off with 'professionals' saying they would rather shoot with a Canon C100 than a GH4 10 times out of ten. Shane Talbot, the tremendously talented and successful DoP is of this opinion, expressed it on his Twitter feed and I have heard the comment that it is no more than a prosumer camera a million and one times. My take on the GH4 is it is a tremendous camera and is often a creative and tactical choice above and beyond other cameras I personally use. And I have had everything in my hands from the sublime to the ridiculous.

For example, shot a music video with a limited budget and the GH4 was the creative and technical choice above and beyond any other camera. Specifically, we needed:

- Weight: We needed to move the camera around so we needed something small and light which we could physically turn upside down etc... Due to lack of budget / time constraints, the only option was a shoulder rig or literally handheld so the GH4 was perfect. Also, it was an intensive day of shooting so we were pushing the limits of our physical stamina meaning light was much better than heavy.
- Size: One camera, all day long going into environments which were tiny. At one point, the GH4 was balanced on my belly while I was pushed up against a wall using a 16mm to get as much as possible. The space was the size of a large cupboard and the only option was something small.
- 4k. Needed it for post flexibility as there was such limited time / budget to shoot
- Creative choice. GH4s can produce both super sharp as well as grainy footage which the band needed. Even without the other elements, the type of look the GH4 produces was ideal for the band's needs and was a perfect creative choice, particularly with the childishly simple workflow.

The band chose the look / feel they wanted and it was up to us to execute this. The GH4 was a fantastic option, versatile, light, small, 4K and gave us everything we needed.

Frankly, I love this little camera and not only is it a professional tool, it was absolutely the right tool for the job on the day. It was brilliant, performed excellently and produced the professional result the band was looking for. At the end, they told me the vision was exactly what they had in their heads and this was testament to the versatility and quality of this little tool. As an idea how pleased they were, they told me they wanted to shoot another straight afterwards because they were so happy with the result.

Music vid is here, if any of you want to see the polarised looks they were looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etT4rVrGyXc

Apologies for the rant but, well, getting old and cranky and above all, get annoyed when I am told work is not professional because of the choice of tool. It's a great tool and one which I personally have a tremendous soft spot for because of what it brings me.

* Rant over *
 
Why get upset at someone else's choice of tools?

Here's the rub... In 2016 almost any modern camera is capable of making pretty pictures when used by talented people. If he feels the C100 is the right tool for his jobs, why get upset? Hey the GH4 is a great little tool, but it does have its shortcomings.

I have a restaurant shoot coming up, very dimly lit, not a closed set, limited budget so camera rentals are out of the budget. Which limits me to using my in-house cameras. My choices are F65, GH4, AF100, 5DmkIII. And while there are folks slamming the 5DmkIII as being soft in another thread, it will likely be my tool of choice for this shoot. I could care less what some random dude on a forum says about it. They are not on the shoot with me. So some random "professional" slams the GH4. So what. You know what it's capable of. Go out and make pretty pictures.

All the best!

Dave
 
Last edited:
The GH4 in the right hands is an amazing camera, and I would take it over the C100 for all the reasons you give above :)

I too though find lots of people dismissing it because it's cheap, or small, not understanding how good the image can look. I'm comparing it to FS7 and the like and I think it's the better choice even then!

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
David W. Jones said:
Why get upset at someone else's choice of tools?

Here's the rub... In 2016 almost any modern camera is capable of making pretty pictures when used by talented people. If he feels the C100 is the right tool for his jobs, why get upset? Hey the GH4 is a great little tool, but it does have its shortcomings.

I have a restaurant shoot coming up, very dimly lit, not a closed set, limited budget so camera rentals are out of the budget. Which limits me to using my in-house cameras. My choices are F65, GH4, AF100, 5DmkIII. And while there are folks slamming the 5DmkIII as being soft in another thread, it will likely be my tool of choice for this shoot. I could care less what some random dude on a forum says about it. They are not on the shoot with me. So some random "professional" slams the GH4. So what. You know what it's capable of. Go out and make pretty pictures.

All the best!

Dave
Click to expand...

I wish I had your zen but do get frustrated when having to justify. My in-house choice is C100 or GH4 and it's a spoon or a fork conversation. What pains me greatly is dealing with half-informed clients who read forums and then want a fork to eat soup with. It affects everything I do.

For example, I was dealing with a famous actress. Not an 'A lister' but big enough that everyone on this forum would know her. No way could I turn up with a GH4 to shoot her, even though I'd want to. It would have to be a C100 unfortunately, irrespective of the environment because, well, that's what her understanding is. It is frustrating and I'm still at the stage where I enjoy creative freedom and creating the better result.

Or maybe I just need to meditate...
 
Do you have a big matte box? There is a certain well known actor that feels a camera is only professional if it is behind a big matte box. Rig it in a cage with rails and a matte box and know one will care what it is.
 
dop16mm said:
Do you have a big matte box? There is a certain well known actor that feels a camera is only professional if it is behind a big matte box. Rig it in a cage with rails and a matte box and know one will care what it is.
Click to expand...
Hehe, yep, totally :) I have a big matte box for just such occasions, even though it's overkill given that I use circular NDs attached directly to my lenses with Xume magnetic adapters.

That said, if you're the DP, and the client is hiring you, remind them that they hired you because they like your images in the first place, not because of your gear (I hope).

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
dop16mm said:
Do you have a big matte box? There is a certain well known actor that feels a camera is only professional if it is behind a big matte box. Rig it in a cage with rails and a matte box and know one will care what it is.
Click to expand...

visceralpsyche said:
The GH4 in the right hands is an amazing camera, and I would take it over the C100 for all the reasons you give above :)

I too though find lots of people dismissing it because it's cheap, or small, not understanding how good the image can look. I'm comparing it to FS7 and the like and I think it's the better choice even then!

Cheers,

Paul :)
Click to expand...

Always reminds me of this (right at the bottom): https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera
 
Here's the deal... does your camera of choice allow you to create a product that the client is happy with and willing to pay you your rate for? Yes? Who cares what your camera of choice is then, so long as it allows you to effectively do your job :)
 
Paul Walker said:
... For example, I was dealing with a famous actress. Not an 'A lister' but big enough that everyone on this forum would know her. No way could I turn up with a GH4 to shoot her, even though I'd want to.

Or maybe I just need to meditate...
Click to expand...
This has more to do with the salesmanship - ie., the actress was sold on something before you had a chance to pitch. The way I might have worked around it, had I had the infrastructure, is to take a couple of shots with both and then let her decide.

A couple of nights ago, I was watching a year (2 year?) old Robin Wright shoot for a fashion mag. The photog had a high end laptop on the set and they went over the shots with the actress during the process.

Of course, the other way is to ask the client if s/he prefers the 820 lines of resolution to 1,550 and listen to their technical justifications. If you play it completely deadpan, it might even come off.
 
The simple truth is.........It really doesn't matter what camera you use.

The most important aspect is the visuals and your vision. How you light, how you move the camera. How you tell the story no matter what the video is.

We are living in the best of times. The camera really isn't in the way anymore.

I shot a local 6 episode Season 3 show with three GH4's. Not one person judged me on that decision. They hired "me" not the camera I use. I used the GH4's because I couldn't fit 3 cameras like the C100 into the budget. It was a much better business decision to buy 3 GH4'a and a YAGH than renting C100's for this show's schedule. Be smart and make money. That's words to live by.
The only thing about the GH4 that frustrated me was. ISO over 1600 and that horrible HDMI lag.
 
Last edited:
Erik whats your main GH4 Picture Profile if u don't mind me asking?

I just purchased a GH4 and have settled on Neutral with NR & sharpness -5 the rest around -4 to 3. I find this a good match for C-Log, but damn that GH4 is noisy.I haven't gone further than 800 ISO and I'm using a Speedbooster with the 24-105, I'm just so concerned about the noise at the moment to use on a professional shoot. BTW i bought it for 4K and the 96fps.
 
It's just a tool. I grabbed a gh4 and dove in because I was excited about all the video centered features, 4k, 2-96fps, and a ton of other stuffs. The two things that bother me the most when people talk about cameras is that they never mention lenses or post processing. These are the factors that make the images what they are (aside from lighting and content etc).
 
Last edited:
BeeHop said:
Erik whats your main GH4 Picture Profile if u don't mind me asking?

I just purchased a GH4 and have settled on Neutral with NR & sharpness -5 the rest around -4 to 3. I find this a good match for C-Log, but damn that GH4 is noisy.I haven't gone further than 800 ISO and I'm using a Speedbooster with the 24-105, I'm just so concerned about the noise at the moment to use on a professional shoot. BTW i bought it for 4K and the 96fps.
Click to expand...


I think Erik mainly uses Sony camers these days.
Anyway about this noise thing I just dont get this at all.
I have had the GH4 well over a year and shot in many different conditions, and no real problem with noise.
I take it the histogram is ETTR mainly? I mean I have done shots in the evening with a 12-35 2.8 ap, no major problems with noise, even a bit underexposed.
Shot close ups indoors at 1600 ISO, looks fine unless its dramatically underexposed, I am a 3d artist by trade and I often work with images where I have to reduce luminance noise and color noise for textures to UV wrap,
so I have a good eye for this
You must either be doing something wrong...or have a dud camera, obviously a M4/3 cam is not going to compete with a full frame when it comes to noise specs in really low light.
But as far as being overly noisy, I just dont see that...and I have shot tons of stuff with it.
YMMV
 
Last edited:
I agree, I think the noise complaints are nonsense. I've shot in really underexposed situations many times and was surprised by how well the camera handled noise.

astromann said:
I think Erik mainly uses Sony camers these days.
Anyway about this noise thing I just dont get this at all.
I have had the GH4 well over a year and shot in many different conditions, and no real problem with noise.
I take it the histogram is ETTR mainly? I mean I have done shots in the evening with a 12-35 2.8 ap, no major problems with noise, even a bit underexposed.
Shot close ups indoors at 1600 ISO, looks fine unless its dramatically underexposed, I am a 3d artist by trade and I often work with images where I have to reduce luminance noise and color noise for textures to UV wrap,
so I have a good eye for this
You must either be doing something wrong...or have a dud camera, obviously a M4/3 cam is not going to compete with a full frame when it comes to noise specs in really low light.
But as far as being overly noisy, I just dont see that...and I have shot tons of stuff with it.
YMMV
Click to expand...
 
Halibut?

The C100 has stuff you need if you are running and gunning - higher ISO, ND filters, AF(!) - the Gh4 has other stuff (small size, low mass)

They are just tools - I have FS7 and Gh4 and choose the right one for the shot or job.

S
 
The main reason why so many choose the C100 over the GH4? Because the GH4 doesn't have the name Canon on it.

Honestly that may be part of the reason more than many want to admit. There is an insane amount of obsession over Canon in the film community. While some may have valid creative reasons to choose a 7D, 5D or C100 over a GH4 the reality is most choose the C100 because it says Canon on it and there is little other reason.

The word m43 is treated like cancer in the film community by many that don't even know what m43 even means. I'm not saying thats true of everybody but I have met my fair share of wannabe film makers who had a 7D just because their friend had one. They didn't even know Panasonic cameras could shoot HD video. Heck a lot of them didn't even know Panasonic DSLRs existed.

A large part of this is plain old snobbery. Coke vs Pepsi, Ford vs Chevy, HD-DVD vs Blu-ray type of snobbery.


I'm not saying the C100 doesn't have its creative advantages. I'm sure it does but then so does the GH4 or many other cameras in this league. Outside of low light the GH4 can hold its own to cameras way above its price point. I always considered low light a silly argument for film making. m43 has enough sensitivity to create beautiful results when professional lighting is used. If somebody chooses to ignore the importance of lighting to make a shot not look flat, dull and lifeless that is their choice but they don't get the right to blame m43 or the GH4 for that. The GH4 captures light extremely well. It isn't a light sucking magical sensor but it has it where it counts. Light is not just used to fill a void but to add richness and definition to a scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top