GH4 GH5: Seems they haven´t thought about DR at all. Awful DR?

[Thomas Smet]

It's difficult if not impossible to say, given that he isn't shooting a DR chart.

This statement right here is why I think we are making more of a big deal about this then we should be. If we get to a point where we can't tell if the DR is good or bad unless there is a chart that tells us we are more concerned about the spec reading vs what we can creatively do with the camera's actual DR. What Luke proves is that the camera has more than enough DR to cover a wide range of shooting situations in the real world to create a beautiful looking piece with high production value. If he can get darn good results with a "hobbled" 12 stop camera any of us can. While I would welcome more DR this is not a show stopper in any way shape or form. In fact slightly limited DR (not that 12 stops is in any way a deficiency or limited) forces us to think about our shots a bit more vs just going with it because the camera can handle it.

 

[Maest]

@emmanuel @dustylense

Oh yeah?!?!
So now its our fault that we want better DR and better overal performance then in the past?! 1990's Advertizing transparency photos of 8 f-stops DR, thats what we should aim for today in Digital Era 2017?!

Well let me wake you up:
Shooting velvia and provia in order to be a pro, was a standard of the -PREVIOUS CENTURY!!!
Get d ef out of the paaaaast!!!!!!

We are well of in 2000s, and you insist that we should be happy with tech superiority of 1980's and 1990's?!
Geeeee......
Can you imagine talking yourself to HC Bresson that he should be happy and satistied with kodak brownie and never look into Leica?!
I mean when will guys like you climb down from the trees (i don't mean anything personal here but rather addressing your inferior logic of deduction and your somnabulic conclusions!)

SECOND:
If you know what you are talking about (which you clearly don't), you would know that nature of advertizing work in the 90's (both budget wise and public awarness wise) enabled much better creative control over these 8 f-stop of ektachrome then it is a case today! So back in a days tes, 8f stops of DR was indeed best that film and photo industry could offer! Should n't we use max capacity and knowledge today too?

THIRD:
If you know what you are talking about (which again you clearly don't), you would know that reason why people aim for more DR, is inferiority of digital image in which unless you have enough DR to capture as much as possible of whole image, evererything that is OVER and UNDER EXPOSED is shamelessy lost all over the place screaming at the viewer: WROOOOOOOOOOOONGGGGGG picture you blody AMATEURRRRRRSSSSSS!!!!!!

Quite unlike from the nature of analog, photochemical image of slides and negatives in which if you lost something in overblows or underexposure, these details will fade away with dignity and honor, without bothering anybody's eyesight! So people can watch storytelling that unfolds on the screen without been disturbed about technical discomfort of the image.

No my friends, we are not spoiled!

We are just tired of mind poo pooing by corporate greed that tries to convince us how their s*%t smells realy nice and that we should be happy when they fart in our face!

Yes, we want AMAZING camera with AMAZING features that WORKS better then models before!

Its called PROGRESS!!!!!

Camera that is intentinaly crippled so tha has just slightly better quality then predecessor, that might have some upgrades and features when is shows up, but it probably wont, especialy because we don't even know when its gonna hit the market-no thanks. I pass. Why would anyone bother with it

The only thing that is more upsetting then marketing plots of corporations is schmucks who acctualy fall for it and then go to polute web space patrinizing to acctualy sane individuals, and convincing others in a style:

"When you get sick, you should be happy and settle with bloodlething and leeches methods, and don't you dare to be spoiled brat that demands antibiotics and penicilin as a choice of heal yourselves. Aspirin is sooo so overated!

 

[Publimix]

So now its our fault that we want better DR and better overal performance then in the past?! 1990's Advertizing transparency photos of 8 f-stops DR, thats what we should aim for today in Digital Era 2017?!

Wow, but who is 'we?'

And you have some points, but the when is DR good enough? And when it becomes a marketing issue?
I already feel my camera is overkill 4K high dr etc. for it's purpose (television and youtube).

 

[TheDingo]

So now its our fault that we want better DR and better overal performance then in the past?! 1990's Advertizing transparency photos of 8 f-stops DR, thats what we should aim for today in Digital Era 2017?!

Back in the 80's and 90's professional shooters were able to make gorgeous shots within the limited 8 F-stop range of transparency film.

Today we should be able to do the same thing with cameras that have 12 F-stops of dynamic range.

Sure more DR would be better, but being limited to 12 stops shouldn't prevent you from making great shots.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

@emmanuel @dustylense

Oh yeah?!?!
So now its our fault that we want better DR and better overal performance then in the past?! 1990's Advertizing transparency photos of 8 f-stops DR, thats what we should aim for today in Digital Era 2017?!

I'm guessing this camera isn't for you.

 

[filmguy123]

I also notice that there is a lot of variance in people's background and work here. Some people shoot in well controlled studio lighting situations. Some people shoot docu work, but not very cinematically, where it's more about quality coverage than beauty. Other people shoot weddings in bright sunny weather with a dark skinned groomed and a pasty white bride and no shade. Others shoot more cinematic documentary work where beauty is paramount, carrying much gear is nearly impossible, and the lighting situations vary wildly.

To which does DR make a bigger difference?

I've seen people produce more beautiful content on a DVX100 then a RED (and I am not exaggerating), but that's not really the point.

I do feel in capable hands 12 stops is enough even for challenging situations. I also feel 14 stops is better, even in non challenging scenarios. I perceive that the extra stops helps in subtler gradations and often produce a smoother image.

But to the point of others, if you can't produce impressive results on the GH4 than you aren't good enough to worry about it. Everything else is a bandaid (course, if that's what you are after, fair enough). But If you CAN produce impressive results on the GH4, then I feel it is plenty warranted to discuss why more DR would be EVEN MORE preferable and beneficial to your images.

This is the boat I am in, though I am content with the 12 stops as everything else on the GHx is just so freaking good.

There is NO camera that has it all. Pick your most important points, compromise on the rest. If 14 stops is what you can't compromise on, then you will compromise on size, weight, AF abilities for gimbals, workflow, accessories, or something else. Even the Arri has compromises.

I'll take what the GH5 is throwing down and trade a stop of DR. Make your own call - YMMV.

 

[joe12south]

What Luke proves is that the camera has more than enough DR to cover a wide range of shooting situations in the real world to create a beautiful looking piece with high production value.

No. Luke's footage shows there is enough DR to capture the very overcast Northwest, nothing more. I'm not trying to discount that the guy knows how to shoot, but those are all low contrast scenes that pretty much any camera can capture.

Try to protect the sky in similar shots on a sunny day in Hawaii and then tell us how DR doesn't matter.

 

[joe12south]

And you have some points, but the when is DR good enough? And when it becomes a marketing issue?

When it can comfortably capture what the eye can see, and leave some latitude to push in post. That's 14 stops at the low end, more preferably 16.

Can we make great images in the meantime? Sure. Does that mean we shouldn't ask for more? Of course not.

 

[TheDingo]

No. Luke's footage shows there is enough DR to capture the very overcast Northwest, nothing more. I'm not trying to discount that the guy knows how to shoot, but those are all low contrast scenes that pretty much any camera can capture.

Hmmm... The night street shot from the beginning of Luke's film looked great and it was not a low contrast scene.

Same goes for the shot near the end of the woman looking out over a sunlit ocean vista, which looked like full on sunlight and blue sky. ( It would interesting to see if you could open up the blacks to see if there was more detail in his footage. Adding a large reflector to kick some fill light into the shadows while shooting would have also helped the shot. )

 

[TheDingo]

When it can comfortably capture what the eye can see, and leave some latitude to push in post. That's 14 stops at the low end, more preferably 16.

The human eye can see only 10 F-stops of DR in bright light, and 20 F-stops of non-color vision in dim light. This does not translate well to the photo/video image.

 

[Thomas Smet]

No. Luke's footage shows there is enough DR to capture the very overcast Northwest, nothing more. I'm not trying to discount that the guy knows how to shoot, but those are all low contrast scenes that pretty much any camera can capture.

Try to protect the sky in similar shots on a sunny day in Hawaii and then tell us how DR doesn't matter.

Of course DR matters but 12 stops is a good amount that a lot of serious cinema cameras have had in the past. Saying 12 stops isn't good enough is just an excuse. It sure the heck is good enough. I'm not saying just use a camera with 8 stops because it doesn't matter. I'm saying a good 12 stops is a good amount to use for a lot of productions.

 

[masnart]

Yes, we want AMAZING camera with AMAZING features that WORKS better then models before!
Its called PROGRESS!!!!!

Of course you should want it....but you can't fricking whine about not getting it for under $2k. If you demand that performance go buy a Hasselblad or a RED. If you're spending $40k-50k then you can demand more. If it's still not enough, get an Alexa. If you can't afford to purchase those type of tools then rent them. If you can't afford to rent them, then you're probably not doing the type of work that demands those kind of tools to begin with.

To blame a camera manufacturer for not giving you everything you want or you expect is just silly. Companies are trying to sell to an audience at a price-point that works for everyone. Need more, spend more. You can't be pissed off McDonald's won't give you PRIME RIB when you order a happy meal.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[Jim Simon]

...But if he was shooting an interview at that table, how high could the ISO go and still end up with a decent looking result ?

A fair question to ask, but...not the subject of this thread.

 

[Jim Simon]

While I would welcome more DR this is not a show stopper in any way shape or form.

It's actually why I switched from the GH4 to the BMPCC. There were too many situations where a proper exposure on the bride's dress left her face too dark, and a proper exposure on the face left the dress blown out.

 

[filmguy123]

For some it's not about the $$.

I don't care about the cost, I just want RED/Arri performance in a GH5-ish package for size and weight considerations. With the same intuitive use, rugged well built design, etc.

I would pay $15K for an S35 15-stop sensor with 240fps overcrank, 4K 60p overcrank, Internal SSD ProRes 10bit 422 Recording, a 5.5" iPhone style HD IPS screen, VFR mode with great menus, Super fast AF system, 5-Axis Stab, etc. Make it carbon fiber. Make it 2.5-3.5lbs max (half the weight of the Alexa Mini, with LCD etc. built in). Give it a footprint the size of a 1DX or something. Make the battery last long on small light batteries.

Anyway, GH5 is great. Just pointing out that for some of us, the specs desire has less to do with just upgrading to a more spendy camera. Even the A7S II is full of compromises compared to GHx. FS7s are way too big and heavy. So are REDs.

Anyway, pretty sure the aforementioned camera shall arrive well before 2020, and probably at a way lower price, so carry on!

 

[TheDingo]

A fair question to ask, but...not the subject of this thread.

I think it does relate because DR changes depending on the ISO you are shooting at. Looking at Luke's ISO test, the GH5 DR doesn't appear to change very much going from 400 ISO to 1600 ISO. I know that my GH4 would have died trying to do the same, which is why I never shoot higher than 800 ISO with it. It really looks like 1600 and perhaps 3200 ISO are totally usable with the GH5, provided you use a little NR in post.

 

[OldCorpse]

Adding a large reflector to kick some fill light into the shadows while shooting would have also helped the shot. )

Using additional tools is often necessary because of shortcomings of the camera. It has always been so. The reason why I personally would like to see greater sensitivity and so low light capability is precisely so that I don't have to resort to more and more and more tools like additional lights and the like. It's odd that people don't understand that argument, when they're all grousing about having to use external recorders so that they are not limited by the camera, or external monitors because the onboard camera screen is limited in quality or what it's capable of displaying, and so on. I came at it from the opposite end. I would like to NOT have to use an external recorder, NOT have to use an extra monitor, extra sound gear to get decent recordings in camera, extra lights because the camera can only operate with gobs and gobs of bright light. Then you end up with a camera that looks like a Frankestein creation. How about carrying less gear, not more, because I don't need workarounds? If the camera can operate with less light, then I can bring along lights that are much smaller, lighter, easier to power and so on. But no - people pop out of the woodwork to tell you how your camera is not pro and you're not a pro unless you use a truck full of lights and generators. It's insane. I don't know about anyone else, but a camera that is more capable allows me to extend what I can do and the possibilities for filmmaking. If someone prefers less capable gear, there's room for that too - note not just the nice camera but the excellent tripod to truly warm the heart:

http://www.samdodge.com/html/mitchell360/pages/m360a.htm

 

[Jim Simon]

evererything that is OVER and UNDER EXPOSED is shamelessy lost all over the place screaming at the viewer: WROOOOOOOOOOOONGGGGGG picture you blody AMATEURRRRRRSSSSSS!!!!!!

I have to admit, it does at least seem like we're getting a LOT more blown out "through the window" shots in the digital era than we did with film production, even at the Hollywood level.

 

[Jim Simon]

I think it does relate because DR changes depending on the ISO you are shooting at.

I see your point. But better DR at higher ISO's is a somewhat limited reading of the thread's subject matter. Better DR at native ISO is how I was reading it because that translates to an across-the-board improvement (assuming the ISO noise didn't get any worse).

Put another way, better DR at high ISO doesn't help when I'm shooting at low ISO, where I found the DR insufficient.

 

[TheDingo]

Using additional tools is often necessary because of shortcomings of the camera.

Better low-light performance and better dynamic range will NEVER replace proper lighting.

"Found" lighting is often a crap shoot, so you have to bring everything you've got to pull off the best shot you can, which often means having lights and/or reflectors fix what's missing to make a great shot.