GH4 GH4 V-log?

Here's a feature film shot on an 8-bit camera - "Blue Ruin".

https://vimeo.com/84631308 - Trailer

Shot on C300 (canon-log) + EF lenses, absolutely stunning film - visually, aesthetically, and dramatically. I saw this during it's limited theatrical run at the cinema, and looked absolutely fantastic , and I could cared less if it was an 8bit log originated footage. You could have told me it was Arriraw and I would have believed it, it just looked so damn good on the big screen. See it on Blu-ray - if you have doubts about 8bit log, (I mean the film is just so good regardless of what it was shot on), but if you want to pixel peep give it a try - for me it put a lot of things in perspective about 8bit and especially Canon log.
 
k0bayashi said:
Here's a feature film shot on an 8-bit camera - "Blue Ruin".

https://vimeo.com/84631308 - Trailer

Shot on C300 (canon-log) + EF lenses, absolutely stunning film - visually, aesthetically, and dramatically. I saw this during it's limited theatrical run at the cinema, and looked absolutely fantastic , and I could cared less if it was an 8bit log originated footage. You could have told me it was Arriraw and I would have believed it, it just looked so damn good on the big screen. See it on Blu-ray - if you have doubts about 8bit log, (I mean the film is just so good regardless of what it was shot on), but if you want to pixel peep give it a try - for me it put a lot of things in perspective about 8bit and especially Canon log.
Click to expand...
I agree with all you've said, apart from "...I could cared less...". It's "I couldn't care less". Many thanks. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
k0bayashi said:
Here's a feature film shot on an 8-bit camera - "Blue Ruin".

https://vimeo.com/84631308 - Trailer

Shot on C300 (canon-log) + EF lenses, absolutely stunning film - visually, aesthetically, and dramatically. I saw this during it's limited theatrical run at the cinema, and looked absolutely fantastic , and I could cared less if it was an 8bit log originated footage. You could have told me it was Arriraw and I would have believed it, it just looked so damn good on the big screen. See it on Blu-ray - if you have doubts about 8bit log, (I mean the film is just so good regardless of what it was shot on), but if you want to pixel peep give it a try - for me it put a lot of things in perspective about 8bit and especially Canon log.
Click to expand...


This is on Netflix streaming right now.
 
Curnsie said:
Drawing from my own experience I had far better results from C-Log on the C100 than any current profile on the GH4. There's something sweet about grading C-log - hopefully V-log will improve things on the GH4. At the end of the day people will either benefit or moan endlessly about it... ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with you the clog on my c100s were great and I love the gh4 but skin tones are not as good as the c100. I kept the gh4 and sold the c100s but man it takes forever to get the skin tones and color right so I am happy with anything improvment that helps this issue. Also I just bought a NX1 and it has way better colors than the gh4 :) skin tones that is.
 
The anticipation grows........ Smh
image.jpgimage.jpg
V-Log L (GH4) vs S-Log2 (A7S) -- 3D LUTs employed: Panasonic VLog_to_V709_forV35_ver100 & 1.From_SLog2-SGumut_To_LC-709.cube -- NO other grading has been performed after overlaying their respective .cube 3D Luts at 100% from a Atomos Shogun 4K recording. Can you guess which is which?
 
Can you make both look just like each other? If so, what difference does it make? Minor grading and it is all the same thing.
 
Lintel said:
The benefits of V-Log for the GH4 are about more than just dynamic range. It also offers improved colour science, so is therefore arguably MORE important for 8-bit footage than 10-bit. Anyone who's shot RAW stills (or 12fps RAW video: https://vimeo.com/113929718) with the GH4 knows the sensor is capable of much nicer skin tones than the current video picture profiles allow. Compression requires excellent colour science because the palette is so limited. This is where C-Log has been so successful IMO (and Canon cameras in general really).

Anyway, it's clear from the small amount of v-log footage online so far that it's going to give the GH4 a noticeable leap in both DR and colour without the codec going to mush. For me 8-bit V-log at 100mbps (and particularly in 4K) is much more acceptable than S-log on the A7S at 50mbps 1080p (which was/is a marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned).
Click to expand...

I agree with this, there were comments that the V-Log looks mushy in some areas, well first of all that was an earlier version of the V-Log beta, and these assumptions are often made based on viewing youtube and Vimeo footage.
But Jordan Drake who has version 2 of the V-Log (recently released) had this to say.
Just getting started working with GH4 VLog L, but I'm already loving the skintones and dynamic range!
I shot this upcoming episode internally, and it's grading quite well. Similar to internal A7S footage but more detailed.
Click to expand...

So the mention of the skintones, dynamic range etc...seems to indicate Panansonic are serious about this, they have a lot riding on this...I dont think its going to be a compromised LOG like the A7S 8 bit one.
After all Panansonic now has very strong and aggressive competition in Sony, BMD and also Samsung, they have to pull a rabbit out of the hat, and if V-LOG is not well recieved that would not be good for them.
They would be hyper aware of all this, so my 2 cents is...they want it to be as good as it can be.


 
wwjd said:
Can you make both look just like each other? If so, what difference does it make? Minor grading and it is all the same thing.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly! In the end, we just want a good picture coming from our cameras that can be matched easily with other cameras if need be in a multi cam shoot. Regardless of which one the GH4 is, I think it's a great step up from our current picture styles.
 
Jason Rae said:
I agree with you the clog on my c100s were great and I love the gh4 but skin tones are not as good as the c100. I kept the gh4 and sold the c100s but man it takes forever to get the skin tones and color right so I am happy with anything improvment that helps this issue.
Click to expand...

I agree. Of the 2 cameras I now use I much prefer the BM Pocket Camera's colour science.
 
brudney said:
Hideous colors and skintones on the G7 review. I hope it's the grade's fault...
Click to expand...

I agree actually. It didn't look very different to Cine-D in terms of skin tone (I preferred the video from the G7 itself!). I think we can blame some of it on the grade though because contrast was poor, and that doesn't need to be the case. It always happens - soon after the release of a "flat" shooting camera all you see is people trying to show off as much dynamic range as possible and forgetting that contrast is important - for colours, perceived resolution, crushing of noise, composition, etc, etc. But I'm not sure that will fix the skin tone issue. We'll see ...

Eager to know which is which in Driftwood's V-Log/S-Log side-by-side image above. I fear GH4 is on the left. But again the grade could be to blame - it's not really a comparison to just throw a 709 LUT on each of them. I'd rather se him try to get the best he can out of each. Lenses could have been matched better too ...
 
Wasn't impressed either...
Would love to see some source footage and grade out by myself. ;-)

This just looks flat with strange skin tones and neon green...
 

I much prefer the image on the right, whichever it is. Hope it's the GH4 but really can't say. The image on the right appears to have greater colour depth (e.g. differentiation between the different greens, absent in left image) so 10-bit on right (i.e. GH4) would be logical conclusion. But I'm concerned I'm wrong ...



 
shallower DoF would suggest Sony on the left, but you never know:)
Judging the image before the grade, I prefer the image on the left - skin seems to have more pore detail and is less waxy-flat.
 


If you compare their recent review of the G7 on top with their previous video of the Veydra lenses on bottom (presumably shot in cine-d) you can see that the image looks a lot better, although the hue of the skin tone does seem to be similar. Kinda yellowish, but still much less waxy and much better looking than the second video.
 
I've come to the conclusion that CineD and any flat profile on the GH4 ruins color. I've been using a modified Cine V setting (+3 shadow, idynamic low) and am getting much more detailed skintones and natural looking color. This is a still from a simple shoot I did for a local school with the stock lumix 14-42 lens and a bounce board for fill. Didn't even white balance, just used the built in daylight setting.
gh4_cinev1.jpg


I believe when you flatten the image, you flatten the colors and mush them together, and can't really pull them apart later. And I also believe the 'extra' dynamic range in CineD is kind of fake extra range and not really that usable. Cine V in its stock setting is too crunchy in the blacks though, which is why I raised them to get some extra shadow detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top