GH2 Is the Gh2 capable of the film look?

[Danielvilliers]

My answer is yes. There was a thread that I can't seem to find, where the poster was discussing that compared to the Canon the gh2 videos he saw were not very filmic. Looking at those 2 videos below I think that the question can be put to rest. As more and more talented people are using the gh2 the quality example will just go up. The Canons have been here for the last 3 years. The big thing with the gh2 apart from the talent of the user is the lens.

 

[ed_lee83]

True that. Selection of particular lenses play an important role. I've shot with Lomo anamorphic lenses and it definitely has that film look. That said, the GH2 does exhibit more of that sharp, 'video' kind of look. Hopefully a new firmware would somehow allow users to reduce the sharpness more than it already could.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

Yeah I remember that thread. Those vids look great.
I also feel it's largely more about people who are inclined and able to get this kind of look and then bothered posting it I think.

So much 5D work that looks amazingly "film" like... but if you watch some of footage from it's standard profile.... yeeeerrrk.

 

[stip]

I remember that thread also. Right now, the only thing that makes DSLRs look 'filmic' is shallow depth of field, which is something you don't even see that much in real films. The more shallow DoF you go, the more you trick the brain to think it's filmic.

 

[Ian-T]

I remember that thread also. Right now, the only thing that makes DSLRs look 'filmic' is shallow depth of field, which is something you don't even see that much in real films. The more shallow DoF you go, the more you trick the brain to think it's filmic.

I see shallow DOF in films all the time….just not to the same degree as folks use it here (and in other forums). People tend to go overboard with that. But in terms of a more “filmic” look it’s a combination of things. The difference I’ve noticed in DSLRs is the lens used....and that’s especially true for the Panasonic cameras. Yes…they (GH-Xs) are sharper than other cams…but with the right lens you get no moiré, sharpening halos etc. For example…my non-Pana Pentax 50mm F1.4 loses no detail but has such a soft and smooth image when compared to my Lumix 14-140 (which seems video like in comparison). This is probably why a lot of folks like to use Canon FD lenses. So, I think the lens has a lot to do with achieving that “look.”

I shot some family stuff this past weekend using both the Lumix 14-140 and Pentax Super Takumura 50/f1.4 and while they both looked very good in their own way…the differences between the two (contrast, colors, smoothness etc.) were jarring. So…other than the lens …dynamic range is also a big factor. But..even there the lens can help you (IMO). If you are able to get some clean controlled shots (no blown out highs and/or crushed lows) from these cameras then I think most work in post production, no matter how expensive the camera, would be on a more equal footing. These are just my opinions.

 

[ICD Films]

Of course you can light, compose & grade an image with poor dynamic range. It's just much more demanding on your colorist skills, and partially also how/what you shoot.

Instead of just mumbling i'll post an example what i'm talking about. This screengrab was heavy overcast, settings as flat as possible. I tweaked iso/stop/ND-filter back and forth.... impossible to lift the details without clipping the (already quite overcast) sky. GH2 isn't capable with its sensor. Even if you look at the abelcine flat profile for AF100, it's still waaay beyond the leauge of the new Canon profile.

I can assure you, if I had shot this on a Canon with cinestyle, it would looks a million times better and could be manipulated in post. Here i could, at best, flatted the dark areas trying to recover some detail and get a lot of noise.



If you are into cinematic look i would say Canon with techicolor applied is superior. Epsecially if shooting on 5Dmk2. The range is just beyond the m4/3 sensor. And it's not that strange. And it's ceartinly been discussed over and over again on dvxuser. But if you ask any professional colorist, he will likely say, that the biggest thing about cinematic images that range is more vital than any startrek-resolution.

Think of pixels as buckets. The bigger they are, the more water (or fotons) you can fill them with. The white frame is FF 35mm (5D). The green frame is aprox GH2 (*16:9).

There is some great m4/3 footage out there. Of course you can make it look filmic. Just as you could with that old HV20 + 35mm adapter. It really comes down to what you expect and require. Or, to lighten the spirit a bit, how much "nerd" you are.

edit: Some vintage glass produces a much flatter image than modern glass. May be worth looking into.

 

[stoneinapond]

The difference I’ve noticed in DSLRs is the lens used....

Absolutely. I think many people forget that choice of glass is so important. So is lighting.

Another thing to consider is what you attach to the lens. Yesterday I went out with my "cheap" 14-42 with an expensive B&W polarizer on it. The weather was gorgeous with a crystal clear blue sky. When I looked at the footage later I was bowled over at the great quality video the combo captured.

So much so that I though for a moment, do I really need my more expensive lenses? Can I just sell them? And then I looked again at my LOMO 35mm footage and my heart melted. No way is that going away.

So, with all other things being equal, let me paraphrase a famous quote, "It's the glass, ******". I also felt that the polarized footage would intercut well with the more vintage stuff. (I say felt because I haven't tried yet, but I'm pretty confident.)

 

[huatao]

Another filmlook thread. This time I got to post something ... well below are gh1 / gh13 footages ...

and

This one is gh2 and the big Voigtlander Nokton 25mm 0.95 lens

 

[stip]

I see shallow DOF in films all the time….just not to the same degree

That's what I meant.

 

[Danielvilliers]

For me you have 3 element that make the what I will call traditional film look. It is DOF, framerate and and and dynamic range. Why I put emphasis on it is because until now it has not been address. Most people until now don't think about this and it will not be high on the agenda of the majority of manufactures. It is the dynamic range that made the Alexa what it is. For many the first true replacement of film. Not it resolution etc. Other manufacturers like red and Sony are working a lot on it. Sony in the dslr sensor has been step by step increasing the dynamic range. The latest Apsc Pentax and Nikon d7000 in Raw are showing 14 stop of dynamic range compared to about 12 stop for the Canon 5d and 7d. The Sony F3 is another example of the emphasis of Sony on Dynamic Range.

For the comparison above it should be noted that in theory with bigger sensor you get better dynamic range. But you have other aspect, technologies to take into count. It is not as straight as 1 + 1 = 2, look at test on dxolabs, how the apsc D7000 beats the full frame 5d mark 2 in Raw. There is a test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?248669-7D-VS.-GH2-VS.-D7000-Test-results that compares the Canon 7d, nikon d7000 and Panasonic gh2. The values are a bit in the low side, but the gh2 is about the same that the technicolor cinestyle gh2 in this particular test.

 

[Danielvilliers]

In many ways I think that people should look at lens in the opposite way. Most people are glossing about the sharpness and contrast of the lens. In fact they are the enemy of the traditional cine look. With the limited dynamic range of the hdslr less contrasty lens are much better. You can always put contrast back in post. An S-curve is so easy to do and you have the choice to choose what you want or disregard in post. That is why you have all those log base camera used by high end professional. They don't shoot on set, they know that they can achieve much more precision in post. In my photography experience I can 1 to 2 stop gain in dynamic range depending on the lens.

 

[flinty]

Simple if you want the softer look that is not film look at all realy use the canons,the film frame size is not mentioned are the 35mm blockbusters soft.

 

[flinty]

My collection of blu rays including gone with the wind /the sound of music etc although old features have stunning resolution ,only the different color type differentiates film and video IMO although its true DSLRs have color more akin to film strait from the camera.

 

[Danielvilliers]

That is why I said the traditional film look. If you look at todays blockbuster look it is very different. You get the orange and teal look and it is quite sharp. The image is quite contrasty but still in the range of the camera(dynamic range). Even if it is contrasty it is not as if you have blown highlights and crush shadows everywhere. Since the DI age many thing is possible but with the higher dynamic range of film or those high end camera they can start with much more contrasty lens.

 

[Justyn]

The canons also come with the caveat that they overheat.. and in cinematic terms that's a huge no-no. In order to shoot with the 5D you really need two of them so that one can be cooling off while the other is shooting. And if you are like me and shoot everything with two or three cameras then well, that means you need 4 or 6 5D's. We have a 5D and it's great, but now it's just used for stills as the advantages are outweighed by the negatives. I hate the limited record times and the overheating...> What a PITA.

 

[Svart]

Of course you can light, compose & grade an image with poor dynamic range. It's just much more demanding on your colorist skills, and partially also how/what you shoot.

Instead of just mumbling i'll post an example what i'm talking about. This screengrab was heavy overcast, settings as flat as possible. I tweaked iso/stop/ND-filter back and forth.... impossible to lift the details without clipping the (already quite overcast) sky. GH2 isn't capable with its sensor. Even if you look at the abelcine flat profile for AF100, it's still waaay beyond the leauge of the new Canon profile.

I can assure you, if I had shot this on a Canon with cinestyle, it would looks a million times better and could be manipulated in post. Here i could, at best, flatted the dark areas trying to recover some detail and get a lot of noise.

View attachment 33983

If you are into cinematic look i would say Canon with techicolor applied is superior. Epsecially if shooting on 5Dmk2. The range is just beyond the m4/3 sensor. And it's not that strange. And it's ceartinly been discussed over and over again on dvxuser. But if you ask any professional colorist, he will likely say, that the biggest thing about cinematic images that range is more vital than any startrek-resolution.

Think of pixels as buckets. The bigger they are, the more water (or fotons) you can fill them with. The white frame is FF 35mm (5D). The green frame is aprox GH2 (*16:9).

There is some great m4/3 footage out there. Of course you can make it look filmic. Just as you could with that old HV20 + 35mm adapter. It really comes down to what you expect and require. Or, to lighten the spirit a bit, how much "nerd" you are.

edit: Some vintage glass produces a much flatter image than modern glass. May be worth looking into.

The M4/3 sensor is pretty much identical to the 35mm academy frame size. 35mm motion film and 35mm stills film are totally different sizes.

 

[Perder]

I like the look of this little thing. Shows what you can do playing around with colors. and the lenses used can be had for around $100 (give or take a macro-ring). Granted, it's all macro and there are no people in it so I guess it's hard to compare to the other vids..

 

[ICD Films]

Svart: Has anyone stated something different? Apparently you didn't read anything...

 

[Soldier]

Sure dynamic range is important but personally I'd rather have sharp images in my wide shots. I shoot with the nostalgic profile and would gladly give up one stop of dynamic range for real detail. that said, i do what i can to get as much dynamic range as i can- contrast filters, lighting shadows with fill, control of tones through art department

i agree that the canon has a better 'film' look but unless everything you shoot is shallow focus -its a nightmare to use.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

For me you have 3 element that make the what I will call traditional film look. It is DOF, framerate and and and dynamic range. Why I put emphasis on it is because until now it has not been address. Most people until now don't think about this and it will not be high on the agenda of the majority of manufactures. It is the dynamic range that made the Alexa what it is. For many the first true replacement of film. Not it resolution etc. Other manufacturers like red and Sony are working a lot on it. Sony in the dslr sensor has been step by step increasing the dynamic range. The latest Apsc Pentax and Nikon d7000 in Raw are showing 14 stop of dynamic range compared to about 12 stop for the Canon 5d and 7d. The Sony F3 is another example of the emphasis of Sony on Dynamic Range.

For the comparison above it should be noted that in theory with bigger sensor you get better dynamic range. But you have other aspect, technologies to take into count. It is not as straight as 1 + 1 = 2, look at test on dxolabs, how the apsc D7000 beats the full frame 5d mark 2 in Raw. There is a test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?248669-7D-VS.-GH2-VS.-D7000-Test-results that compares the Canon 7d, nikon d7000 and Panasonic gh2. The values are a bit in the low side, but the gh2 is about the same that the technicolor cinestyle gh2 in this particular test.

To me this whole issue of 'the film look', is fraught with problems... One of the main problems is that most people create their 'film look' template from watching finished films... that is films that have been shot, processed, edited, and reproduced via a number of generations worth of internegs/interpositives, at least in the olden days, but still even with the film being digitized, they are still viewed via distribution prints, or eventually via some form of electronic screen...

What this means is the whole post processing activity contributes to viewer's 'definition' of what a film look likes...

While projection speeds are universally at the moment 24 fps, portions of a film can be shot at a number of speeds, typically 24 fps, but can be highspeed, stop motion, whatever... The point being the director and cinematographer decided on what is best for the situation... high speed capture for slo mo play back... whatever...

At the fundamental 'image formation' level film behaves differently than how most digital cameras behave. Forget about 'grain' for a moment, at the physics level, 'film' response is logrithimic whereas photo cells are linear... this leads to a significant difference about how the values are reprsented in the 'negative' of film, and the subsequent positive.

And putting aside such things as lighting... which to me is one of the most important aspects of 'film look', set design, art direction... etc...

In 'film' movie production the negative that is capture is not what is directly show to the viewer... out of the camera, film 'negatives' are shot with the understanding of what happens later, and so they are 'flatter' than what most people like to 'see', and through a combination of processing activities, brought to what is on the screen.

So, here's the 'real how to get a film look'... shoot as flat/neutral as possible to capture as much tonality and spatial detail in the scene as possible. Accept that 'post processing will not be denied'... and learn to use tools that produce the 'film' look, that are now available to the 'ordinary' user.

Trying to get 'out of the camera' 'film look' basically increases the number of compromises that are put into place to 'achieve' that... whether it is throwing away spatial resolution, color space information, etc.