I'm being told to shoot GH4 for theatrical release feature doc.

U

ultramaze

Active member
I'm the DP for an $80,000 budget feature doc. It's being played through fathom events for one night only in theaters across the country. Fathom only accepts a 1080p master. The director is insisting on shooting all GH4 to keep budget down and also because he owns one. I have minor experience shooting on GH4 and have been somewhat satisfied. I would prefer to shoot all Canon C100/C300 as its a better tool for the job and the image is better.

Should I push for Canon cinema or can I make GH4 work. I know I could but it seems like it'll be a lot of hassle for a worse image. I'm going to be doing some camera tests with our colorist to show examples to the director and producer. I'm the DP so I feel like it's my call if I can get it within our budget. But I'm getting a ton of friction from the Director to shoot all GH4.

What should I do?
 
I guess it depends on how the budget is allocated, but I would not shoot anything intended for theatrical projection in 8-bit 4:2:0. It does not hold up well on really large screens. The GH4 with its external video module and and external Prores recorder could do the job quite well image wise. Deepending on shooting style it might be a bit cumbersome. The C300 is widely regarded as an excellent doc cam.
 
If the pushback is too much, you have two choices:

#1 walk away and let someone else shoot it.

#2 do your best and take the money.

The reasons for the gh4, might be less about money, and more about familiarity. The images are good and you could hop it up with a 4k recorder, after downsampling it would provide a perfectly usable 1080, while still giving the option of doing push in moves and reframing in post.
 
At $80k every penny counts. So your super-awesome-deal for C300 would still come out to a few thousands (including accessories). At $80k a "few thousands" means an extra grip and an AC. I don't know about you but i would take the extra hands to give you the look you want over the camera that needs to be rented. A few years back Zacuto did a mega shootout and GH2 (or was it GH3?) came out as one of everyone's favorites, so don't worry too much. If you have the skill , it will look great shot on GH4 or C300 - and if you don't...
 
^-- What Patryk said.

Sure, maybe Chris Nolan doesn't want to shoot his next film on a GH4, but the Panasonic 4k image is sharp, clean, and RELIABLE.
ESPECIALLY if it's getting downrezzed for delivery.

If you're worried about it's low-light ability and cropped field of view then put a Metabones Speedbooster on it and it will suddenly be one fairly large step closer to the Canons in performance. This part is really not in question at all. Maybe the GH4 owner already has one.

I've seen GREAT looking documentaries shot on a GH2 in 1080p... the GH4 will certainly deliver what you need - and Patryk is giving you GOLD COINS when he explained about how that money can REALLY be put to better use elsewhere. Because cameras these days are all wonderfully similar in output quality (thank the Gods of Cobol) so your "Look" is really going to come from all that OTHER stuff you will need to create great footage and run a successful production.
 
Patryk, it was a hacked GH2 running somewhere above 100mbps. But it was also years ago back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and the GH2 was freshly hacked.

Back to budget, I overlooked something... You said he owns a GH4, therefor no rental fees. If you really want to price match that, you'll need to supply a C300 for free. Are you willing to do that so you can use a "superior" camera? I guess that depends on how much you are getting paid. If it was me, and I was really worried about my reputation from the quality of the video, I'd buy an external 4k recorder, bonus this "rental" to the guy, and deduct it from my taxes. But I'm funny like that.
 
Ultramaze,

Rather than spend the money on a C300, you would be better off trying to add a second GH4 and shooter to your mix, or extra days to the production. Give yourself the best possible chance at a winning project and that means springing for something more useful than the kind of camera, the GH4 is entirely competent especially if you shoot V-Log and can capture 10-bit externally. Even if you can't add those things the camera blows away entry level cameras from the past few years. I'm not sure what criteria you are judging, but at least in 1-regard the C300 is not superior to the GH4, and that is in resolution.
 
If they are stuck on using a particular camera you can either pass on the project, or do the job, get paid, and move on to the next job. I don't see what the big deal is. If it were me I would take their money and pay my bills. But that's just me.
 
Great tips guys. I think I'm going to buy my own Atomos recorder so I can at least have a 10bit recording. I'll shoot V Log to the recorder and for B and C cameras we can easily rent some GH4s at a really affordable price. I'll rock the 18-35 most of the time. The doc is about a comedian so we will have a shoot where we will have 6 cameras rolling the whole time for a live comedy show. I may just shoot all internal 4K for that to not worry about renting a bunch of recorders and just shoot on the Natural PP. I think we will be alright ����
 
The clue is in the title. You are the DIRECTOR of photography. If you were the cameraman, then you often have no say in equipment choice - it's provided and you use it. It's the old thing where people have limited budgets and think that a fancy title, without the responsibility is compensation for working cheap.

It boils down to how much you want the job. How good are you? Can you get the type of images you need with an unfamiliar and maybe inappropriate camera?

If they have engaged you for your skill and reputation, then they need to give you the tools. maybe their budget is low, and spread thinly - but if the end product is spoiled by their random choices, it's their fault, but you get the blame.

I often need people and have fixed budgets. My equipment needs some skills to work it, and so I look for people who already work well with what I use. There is no point me taking somebody on who is an expert on product X, when I have a different one I need them to use.

How much do you need the money?
 
I shoot a doc on the GH4 and projected it on the big screen. Shoot all internal UHD. Mostly shot with a Nikon speedbooster and a Sigma 17-50 2.8. The image held up nicely. No problems. I would't change it for a C100 or C300 mk1. The thing is that you are shooting UHD/4k and that just ads a whole nother dimension to the IQ.
Just don't shoot Vlog internaly. If shooting internaly shoot with the "Natural" profile.
There is just one thing the GH4 isn't good at and thats low light. This is where the Canons would win.
 
I agree with everyone here especially KINOKS. The GH4 is terrible in low light and I hate the v log internal look it is really noisey. The GH4 is a great documentary style camera for the price. I'd go with a Sony A7sii also if you can swing it. Just for the low light capabilities
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top