GH5 GH5 Video Look

J

james d

Member
So I'm realising that the Gh5 just is just not holding up well. From the majority of peoples footage online, it looks great in youtube standard frame size, full screen it and now you start to see that the majority of the GH5's footage is lacking something, I compare it to the Ursa which is kind of the next best thing and you start to see in the footage the difference.

I have found two examples using an Anamorphic LOMO lens which totally transform the videoish nature. Learning about the lomo lens and I can start to see that particular lens has alot of character and thats has a lot to do with it.

Would like to hear peoples thought on this-

Lomo - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?356825-Anamorphic-Music-Video-V-Log-10-bit-2496p

Lomo - https://vimeo.com/249674013


Iscorama - Adapter setup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTLC96ylXQ


Lens test - Lomo -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc3D0l2pC5M

https://join.sharegrid.com/ultimate-lens-library.html?hideModal=true
 
There are multiple factors that go into making a "cinematic" or "filmic" image ... which I'm guessing is what you are looking for.

One trait is a softer, or more analog response. Old lenses definitely help on this front. Another aspect is less contrast. Again, old lenses typically help here, too. They take the edge off.

One aspect of the Uras's image that old lenses won't change is dynamic range. The GH5's latitude is noticeably less, so you'll have to take correspondingly more care to protect your image.

Another is how the different sized sensors handle depth of field. A Metabones SpeedBooster (or clone) will allow you to approach the same DOF response as the URSA.
 
I generally love old glass on new cameras as long as they are sharp across the full image. I really hate the look of cheap anamorphics where the center of the frame is sharp but things get very "soggy" looking in the last quarter of the frame, and sometimes turn to total mush as you get close to the edges.

I also hate when people are addicted to the "film" look, where every project has to emulate how film responds to light. It's a nice look, but I don't want to see it all the time. ( especially with the faded low-saturation color pallette )
 
Native *electonic* M43 glass artificially sharpens the image, even with sharpness set to -5. Try non native/adapted glass (even if not old or vintage, such as sigma art 18-35), or native fully manual glass (ie voigtlander kit), and set the sharpness to -5.

Use LUTs such as GH5 to Alexa LUT, or Vision LUTs. Or Leeming LUTS + FilmConvert. Etc.

There is really so much variance here in terms of lenses, camera settings, and color grades that it can get confusing to think the problem is the GH5, when it really may be a certain combination, settings, or user.

But I agree. If you shoot the GH5 stock, with an electronic native lens (even a good one), it is going to look decidedly more "video" and digitally sharp. So, don't do that.
 
Anamorphic really isn't worth the headache...You're better off with a speedbooster and some good manual cine lenses.
 
Batutta said:
Anamorphic really isn't worth the headache...You're better off with a speedbooster and some good manual cine lenses.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I have to disagree.

Using anamorphic lenses is an artistic decision, if you like that look there is no way you are "better off" with regular lenses, with or without speedbooster.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I am sorry but I have to disagree.

Using anamorphic lenses is an artistic decision, if you like that look there is no way you are "better off" with regular lenses, with or without speedbooster.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is better off if he just wants to avoid the video-ish look. If there's no other way to get the the look you want than anamorphic, then deal with all the headaches I guess. I'd use it if I had a few camera assistants to handle all the issues. But for one guy with a camera, it adds too many complications.

Side Note: I was watching John Wick 2 and it was obvious they used an anamorphic filter instead of a real lens for much of the film (the line through the bokeh being the giveaway).
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I think the OP is better off if he just wants to avoid the video-ish look. If there's no other way to get the the look you want than anamorphic, then deal with all the headaches I guess. I'd use it if I had a a few camera assistants to handle all the issues. But for one guy with a camera, it adds too many complications.

Side Note: I was watching John Wick 2 and it was obvious they used an anamorphic filter instead of a real lens for much of the film (the line through the bokeh being the giveaway).
Click to expand...

I have found virtually all non-true anamorphics to be just awful.
The great true anamorphics are wonderful...and wonderfully expensive, so I understand why many people would try to get the effect at lower costs. I just think it doesn't work.
 
DPStewart said:
I have found virtually all non-true anamorphics to be just awful.
The great true anamorphics are wonderful...and wonderfully expensive, so I understand why many people would try to get the effect at lower costs. I just think it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

No hard feelings if you disagree, but i modded a set of Contax Zeiss lenses with fixed 2x oval apertures and am pretty happy with the result. I'm not into the horizontal flares though so didn't pursue recreating that. It was fun/scary cracking open every lens and mounting the discs inside, but worth it.

https://vimeo.com/217777173
 
White in Revery YouTube channel : Wilderness wedding shot with a few GH5 cameras using just the Natural profile...

 
Semi tangent, I know ARRI is selling more than specs when you pay their price, but I do wonder how much longer such high priced cameras will be able to maintain any market share?

Don’t read that as an ARRI criticism, they are amazing. Just wondering as tech keeps increasing at breakneck speeds, an ARRI even with cash in the bank would be a rough sell seeing how incredible of a look you can get out of even a GH5s. Will enough market share in 10 years still pay that sort of premium?
 
It's just been a massive snowball rolling down the hill for a decade. They created the right camera at the right time, and it has become the default option for everything (Hollywood) without much consideration for anything else. Of course you have your REDs and the very few Sonys and Varicams and Canons, but there is just no comparison in the numbers.

Big budget productions probably spend more on catering than the cost of an ARRI camera. Or 5 of them. You wouldn't even blink at its price tag when you're talking about making a $50-$100-$200+ million dollar film.

It's really those $10K-$20K cameras that will have trouble surviving (and eventually anything over $5K) because there's no middle ground anymore. I don't know who would want to buy them. Independent individuals have remarkable options for much less money as we all know, and can invest in so much other gear with that same budget.

So IMO, you'll see either those $2K-$5K cameras or the best for $50K+ (for studios, groups, etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top