GH3 Introduce me to GH3

[Oller Visuals]

Hey guys.

Decided to go for a GH3 (yay) and while I'm not too lost (GH1 & 2 junkie) some questions;

- Picture profiles. What I've seen online they all look fairly flat and similar once dailed down. I'm particulary interested if any of the profiles provide better black levels once lifted in post? (ie, like we did with the hacked GH2, pushing blacks in post for more room). Also low-light and skintones, if there's any opinions what to go for there.

- I've seen some video mentioning that the audio levels "clips" too early (the camera kicks in a limiter) and one should "pretend" that the audio actually clips half-way on the bars. Any word on this? New firmware?

- Are there any "native" ISO's (like Canon) that looks better in video? This obviously isn't a low-light monster and from what I've seen the grain looks pretty digital, what's the max "usable" ISO in your opinion for clean results? I've heard 400.

- Can I use my H2n to get better internal sound? Just letting it pass through gives better preamp right?

That's all I can think of right now... oh and and hotshoe + LCD issues, should I be extra careful with those? Maybe leave the screen flipped backwards towards the camera all the time...

Thanks

 

[TheDingo]

Everyone has their favorite settings.

Normally I shoot in "Natural" mode with everything dialed down to -5, except for color saturation that I leave at zero.

I also ONLY shoot in the 50 Mbps MOV format, that provides a fair bit of detail in the blacks when lifted.

The GH3 is about one stop better than the GH2 in terms of noise.

For normal shooting I try and not shoot higher than 800 ISO, though 1600 ISO is still very usable. ( DR goes out the window as you raise the ISO, which is why I try to keep it to 800 or lower )

 

[mcbob]

GH3 I'd like you to meet Oller Visuals... Oller Visuals, GH3.

sorry, now for some actual info...

An owner can correct me if I'm wrong, but in my experience both the GH2 and 3 (and AF100) looked cleanest within multiples of 400

 

[Fran Guidry]

...
- I've seen some video mentioning that the audio levels "clips" too early (the camera kicks in a limiter) and one should "pretend" that the audio actually clips half-way on the bars. Any word on this? New firmware?

...
- Can I use my H2n to get better internal sound? Just letting it pass through gives better preamp right?

...

I find the meter nearly useless, even more so since it disappears so quickly. My experience so far is that careful testing is necessary to establish the best Mic Level adjustment for the source. I'm experimenting with various mic setups and it's a learning curve.

But to my surprise the audio subsystem seems very not bad, even when using high gain settings. I've been using the Rode NT4 straight into the GH3 with the camera Mic Level at 18 or 19 and it sounds easily as good as a Zoom H2n.

Fran

 

[Bruce Foreman]

- Picture profiles. What I've seen online they all look fairly flat and similar once dailed down.

They're not.

You really need to get the camera in your hands and see for yourself. I use Natural with only Sharpness dialed down (Sharpness because I shoot mostly with Lumix lenses which the GH3 body enhances sharpness by reducing distortions and aberrations, and with Oly lenses which can be VERY sharp).

- Are there any "native" ISO's (like Canon) that looks better in video? This obviously isn't a low-light monster and from what I've seen the grain looks pretty digital, what's the max "usable" ISO in your opinion for clean results? I've heard 400.

Whew! You saw it on the internet so it has to be true, right?

I find 1600 to be very clean, 3200 I'll use in a heartbeat, and 6400 quite usable. What noise I see in 6400 is kind of like a bit of film grain. But then again I am very cautious about insuring my monitor sharpness and contrast are not set high. The very slightest oversharpening on the monitor can take extremely minor color artifacting and make it look like digital noise.

But I also use the GH3 with "fast glass" in marginal or low light situations so I get plenty of exposure.

I'm a "sharpness nut" so I'm not working with a "soft" monitor!

I find the meter nearly useless, even more so since it disappears so quickly. My experience so far is that careful testing is necessary to establish the best Mic Level adjustment for the source. I'm experimenting with various mic setups and it's a learning curve.

But to my surprise the audio subsystem seems very not bad, even when using high gain settings. I've been using the Rode NT4 straight into the GH3 with the camera Mic Level at 18 or 19 and it sounds easily as good as a Zoom H2n.

A few days ago I did the same thing with a Rode VideoMic and got surprisingly pleasing results.

 

[Ianscreations]

Definitely keep the OLED screen closed when not in use as some have reported it has cracked when left open or reversed.


I tend to agree that the audio starts to clip before the indicators reflect so on the screen. I use the Juiced Link preamp and allow the on-screen levels to reach about 3/4 or 4/5 of the range and basically avoid 'red' altogether.


There is a recent post regarding gain you should read. I tend to stay at or below 2500 for low-light event work, but I agree with Bruce that the look is more like film grain and less digital than previous gain settings I have seen on most prosumer camcorders.

 

[Oller Visuals]

I find 1600 to be very clean, 3200 I'll use in a heartbeat, and 6400 quite usable. What noise I see in 6400 is kind of like a bit of film grain

Well, regarding noise it's all very subjective.

First day with the camera today... what could be better than trying it out in a snowstorm! Seems to have survived... that's a start! Shot a few clips in 1600 ISO, looks about the same as 12.800 ISO on Canon 6D. (Pretty unusable and digital, unpleasant color noise). Even 800 looked pretty bad, grain structure looks like the older Canon models with poor SN. But I'm not disappointed, I didn't buy this camera to shoot under moonlight. I have other cameras for that...

I'm a bit surprised thoguh how muddy it got at higher ISO's, as someone mentioned DR takes a great hit. Sharpness as well. Seemingly not that much improvement over GH2. But as long as there's sufficient DR and uncrushed blacks at the base ISO's I'm keeping the camera for sure, more testing tomorrow.

edit: Also picked up a videomic pro just for the GH3 (read about the +20 db thing), I need to shoot light and small for an upcoming corporate project. Christmas will be an excellent field test, screaming children and drunk parents.

 

[TheDingo]

Sharpness as well. Seemingly not that much improvement over GH2

For absolute sharpness, I find the GH2 still reigns supreme over the GH3, but the GH3 gives you one additional stop of DR, and it gives you at least one additional stop when it comes to low-light noise. ( 3200 ISO on the GH3 looks as good or better than 1600 ISO on the GH2 )

Also, I shoot a lot of talking head interviews and find overall color reproduction better with the GH3 than the GH2, though I'm not giving up my GH2s until the 4K GH4 arrives. ( maybe next year if the rumors are true )

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

I agree with TheDingo and others: The GH3 is an improvement over the GH2 (& GH1) in almost every way.

My only gripes about the GH3 are the well-known "feature" of the on-screen text disappearing after a few seconds, and I wish the mic inputs could be switched to line level (-40db).

I recently shot this home movie clip while on vacation. My Lumix 14-140mm zoom is soft as always (must buy a 12-35mm f2.8 zoom someday!), but I think the GH3 reproduces this scene with much less gradient banding in the sky than the GH2 would have.

http://vimeo.com/81325303

Shot handheld (camera pressed down onto a folded shirt resting on concrete) in 1080p24 MOV 50mbs format. Stabilized and cropped in FCP7.

Meanwhile ...

I'll be shooting interviews all day with my GH3 next Monday using my old, adapted Nikon primes (probably the 55mm f1.2 @ f2.8-f4 in ISO 800). Looking forward to using the GH3's headphone output (which the GH2 & GH1 didn't have). My mics will connect to the cam through my old SoundDevices MixPre (the mixer's line-out signals will be knocked down to mic level using in-line -40db PAD attenuators & XLR-to-3.5mm audio cables, and with the cam's input level set to "1").

At around $900 or so for the body only I think the GH3 is a tremendous value. It'll tide me over until my BMPC-4K cam finally arrives (whenever), and even after that the GH3 will be useful for various video shoots … and the GH3 shoots pretty nice stills, too.

Cheers.

 

[Vesku]

I agree with TheDingo and others: The GH3 is an improvement over the GH2 (& GH1) in almost every way.

My only gripes about the GH3 are the well-known "feature" of the on-screen text disappearing after a few seconds, and I wish the mic inputs could be switched to line level (-40db).


This feature is for prevent symbols "burning into" OLED screen. My GH3 has still burnt symbols in EVF arter 1 year of use. You can always bring symbols back by half pressing shutter while shooting.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

This feature is for prevent symbols "burning into" OLED screen. My GH3 has still burnt symbols in EVF arter 1 year of use. ...

That's interesting. So, if what you say is true, then this "feature" is both ineffective and annoying? ;-)

 

[vtwiz]

Yes, apparently it is a 'feature' to prevent burn in.

They used an OLED screen to improve quality but it means that they have to make the useful info that an operator needs, disappear. The irony is, if you give the operator the right visual information like peaking etc.....then the image quality of the screen is less important.

You would think that a company with a long history in professional video equipment would put it's decades of knowledge to good use. Apparently the wheel needs reinventing every year.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

… I'll be shooting interviews all day with my GH3 next Monday using my old, adapted Nikon primes (probably the 55mm f1.2 @ f2.8-f4 in ISO 800). Looking forward to using the GH3's headphone output (which the GH2 & GH1 didn't have). My mics will connect to the cam through my old SoundDevices MixPre (the mixer's line-out signals will be knocked down to mic level using in-line -40db PAD attenuators & XLR-to-3.5mm audio cables, and with the cam's input level set to "1"). ...

As a follow-up to my previous post, attached below are some un-retouched GH3 frame grabs from the video I shot yesterday. (I don't have permission yet from the client to upload the video itself.)

I think the GH3 tends to reproduce skin tones slightly "too pink", so I set the white balance by shooting a white card through a GamColor gel filter "NCR 3 Rosey Hint", which results in a very slight reduction of pink in skin tone. As this gel material's name implies, it's a very faint rose/pink color, and is not the same color as a 1/8 magenta gel. This "minus pink" WB technique appears to help. The skin tones seen in the attached frames are quite accurate to how these people looked in real life. Some of them really had relatively pink faces!

Settings: Full manual movie mode, 1080p30, Record quality: MOV-FHD-30p, ISO 800, Photo Style: Standard (0, -2, -1, -2), custom white balance (see above). Lens: A >45 yr. old Nikkor 55mm f1.2 SLR prime @ f2.8. Lighting: Hot tungsten lights 650w softbox key, and a 250w back/hair light, plus a bounce reflector just off-camera to the right of the frame. No gels on the lights other than white diffusion; the "rosy hint" gel was only used to set the WB.

Audio: Recorded in-camera using an overhead Sennheiser ME64 mic & an A-T wired lav mic. Line level outputs of my SD MixPre mic mixer were converted to mic level using 2 "pad" attenuator cables, and the camera's audio level was set to "1" (its lowest setting). The resulting sound quality is quite good.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

GH3 I'd like you to meet Oller Visuals... Oller Visuals, GH3.

sorry, now for some actual info...

An owner can correct me if I'm wrong, but in my experience both the GH2 and 3 (and AF100) looked cleanest within multiples of 400

160, 320, 640 are cleaner, but beware the 320 issue on the GH2. Only come up to it from the middle row when selecting.

 

[Oller Visuals]

I think the GH3 tends to reproduce skin tones slightly "too pink"

What I do (did) with Canon to get rid of the orange skin tones is set a cool WB & grade it back in post. As flat as possible and a cool WB. I have no idea if it works with GH3, christmas will be the first field test (apart from skintones also trying out the whole rig, sound, rolling shutter etc...) Can't show up at the clients doorstep without having tested this thing throughout (snowstorm and molten water pouring in between the lens & camera... check!)

 

[M. Gilden]

edit: Also picked up a videomic pro just for the GH3 (read about the +20 db thing), I need to shoot light and small for an upcoming corporate project. Christmas will be an excellent field test, screaming children and drunk parents.

I haven't tried it with a GH3 yet, but the GH2's preamp was a bit too hot for the +20db setting. It would peak constantly, even when turning the recording level to 0 in the menu.
That setting was truly necessary on the Canon DSLRs due to their weak preamps and high noise floor. I would regularly use magic lantern to set the Canon's amp to absolute 0, then come in hot with the +20db, and came out with respectable results. On the GH2 however, it peaked and crackled unless I set the mic to 0. Since I already have the VM pro, I'm still using it without the +20 gain. But if I had to purchase something now, I'd consider saving some cash and go with the standard video mic (sans the "pro").

Not sure if the GH3 is the same way.

The irony is, if you give the operator the right visual information like peaking etc.....then the image quality of the screen is less important.

You would think that a company with a long history in professional video equipment would put it's decades of knowledge to good use. Apparently the wheel needs reinventing every year.

Interestingly enough, all the other Panasonic models (G6, GX7, heck even the new GM1) have focus peaking built in. The original rumored specs for the GH3 listed it as well, so I'm wondering if they left it out on purpose. My theory is that they didn't want any single model to have everything, because perhaps they feared competing with the AF100 at this price point.

 

[JoeThePro]

I dont know how many people have this issue, but Ive noticed that the video autofocus, even when set to AFC, is absolutely worthless. I will set focus, start recording, then move to a point where it should obviously refocus, and it just stays there and doesnt do anything. This happens about 75% of the time, and this is with an Oly 17mm 1.8. Though, randomly it will work very well. I dont get it.

 

[meinyvr]

edit: Also picked up a videomic pro just for the GH3 (read about the +20 db thing), I need to shoot light and small for an upcoming corporate project. Christmas will be an excellent field test, screaming children and drunk parents.

what +20 db thing?

 

[M. Gilden]

what +20 db thing?

The video mic pro has a tiny preamp built in that can boost the signal to +20db. This was because many DSLRs have weak and noisy audio chips, so you can turn down the input volume as far as it goes and feed it a hot signal. That's primarily the difference between the regular Rode Video Mic and the Pro.

But as I mentioned above, this feature is useless on the GH cameras that I've tested it with. Besides, the GH cameras have much better audio chips than your average DSLR (noise floor similar to HMC-150 supposedly), so there wouldn't really be a benefit even if it worked.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

I dont know how many people have this issue, but Ive noticed that the video autofocus, even when set to AFC, is absolutely worthless. I will set focus, start recording, then move to a point where it should obviously refocus, and it just stays there and doesnt do anything. This happens about 75% of the time, and this is with an Oly 17mm 1.8. Though, randomly it will work very well. I dont get it.

It has to do with your subject contrast and background contrast. In some cases subject contrast is strong enough so that AFC works, in other cases it does what you describe (if subject and background contrast are too close together). And with the GH2 I've seen it "pump" back and forth between subject and background, so I gave up on it with the GH2.

I haven't been able to run serious testing with the GH3 but it does look like it works better. I found with the GH2 that using "face detect" (on one of the dials on top) was actually more reliable than AFC. Again I haven't had the time or chance to test this with the GH3.