GH4 Is there any well lit GH4 footage?

[muroshi]

I thought I already had decided for a GH4. But after looking at the actual footage on youtube, everything shot with this camera looks like video. I did even deliberately search for 25P footage. Interestingly it didn't make any difference. One last try: Is there already any well-lit narrative footage from a short film or similar project?

What are my smaller sized alternatives? (Equipmentwise I do have a 28mm (2.8), 50mm (1.4) and 135 Nikkor.)

 

[themac]

While we attribute 24fps as part of the "film" look I never thought there was a big difference between 25 and 24, I mean come on it's 1 frame of difference.

 

[muroshi]

I live in old PAL land. But Unfortunately GH4 footage won't look like anything near film. You may prove me wrong, but so far I didn't come over any footage I like.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

What is filmic? Can you say what makes an image filmic? For some is DR. For some its SDOF. For some its muted blacks and grain.

Its so subjective. To me it comes down to composition, lighting, filtration, Colour grade & subject more than just a camera.

I personally think this example is pretty filmic
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326917-Project-Greenlight-Submission-shot-on-GH4

I think this is filmic & shot with GH3
https://vimeo.com/33025136

I think Hugo's work is filmic
https://vimeo.com/beeldlab/videos

Most GH4 users including myself tend toward more corporate type work rather than narrative films.

 

[ras815]

I thought I already had decided for a GH4. But after looking at the actual footage on youtube, everything shot with this camera looks like video. I did even deliberately search for 25P footage. Interestingly it didn't make any difference. One last try: Is there already any well-lit narrative footage from a short film or similar project?

What are my smaller sized alternatives? (Equipmentwise I do have a 28mm (2.8), 50mm (1.4) and 135 Nikkor.)

Here's the thing about the GH4. To get "cinematic" footage, you have to work for it. Tweaking the settings, using the right lenses, using excellent lighting, potentially some noise reduction in post, etc. When it's really good, it's awesome.

On the other hand, it's hard to shoot something that doesn't look cinematic on a Mk III, for instance.

 

[hscully]

Those are great examples of narrative work done on the GH. I think it's long past time waiting for a particular camera to make the difference in how effective a cinematographer you are. Some cameras excel in different areas. I'm for forever dropping the word 'filmic' to describe the quality of digital acquisition. It's a new aesthetic. Let it be so.

 

[mcbob]

If you want it to look like film, then use film. Otherwise it's going to look like video, because it's video.

If you don't like the way this particular camera looks and don't think you could adjust settings to please yourself, don't buy it. Simple as that.

 

[OldCorpse]

I think this is filmic & shot with GH3
https://vimeo.com/33025136

Nope. Shot on the GH2. From the link itself:

"Musgo was shot is just seven days whit the lumix Gh2, on the outskirts of Martinet de la Cerdanya (in the Province of Lleida, Spain) helped along by a small but expert technical team and four great tireless actors."

smooth (all -2) (tokina 11-16/Nikkor 28mm / nikkor 50mm) and the old patch 42 mbps. slds. Hoya Filters.

"use GH2, tokina 11-16 (nikon) / 50mm 1.4 (nikkor) / 28mm 2.8 (nikon) / Zoom h4n/hague mini motion / Konover slider / and DIY traveling like rigwheels, the old patch with use is this zeroplusplus.com/updated-42-mbps-gh2-ptool-v3-62d-patch-visual-instructions/#more-1599
in post PPCS 5.5 /CC:colorista2/ and crop 1920x816 and future "hopefully" DCP."

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Thanks for the correction. I remembered it from a while back as a well shot piece but couldn't remember how far. (I know I know I should have read)

 

[dvbrother]

In about three weeks, I'll have a Gh4 narrative to show. I do find the lack of GH4 footage that has any kind of movie-style lighting puzzling. As a GH1, 2, 3 and 4 owner, I know in my heart of hearts that the camera is capable of great things, but there has yet to be anything significant in terms of narrative to surface.

I have a friend who is shooting a feature with one. I am a cinematographer who has shot several features, but my only work with the Gh4 so far has been corporate style and outdoor tourism videos. That will change in three weeks, like I say.

My speculation as to the lack of narrative GH4 stuff is that there are features being shot with it, so obviously those aren't finished yet, and perhaps the no-budget short filmmaking world is flooded with Blackmagic cameras, or even GH2s, both of which are still kicking ass and getting the job done.

Hopefully, we'll start seeing some well-crafted Gh4 narratives soon.

 

[cinemasteve87]

Cinematic/filmic is very subjective nowadays. It's more than just image quality. The aspects that make something look or feel cinematic is production value, lenses, settings in camera, lighting, color grading, and of course great content. It's dumbfounding to me why people think a $1600 camera should look like film just because it shoots in 4k and expects it to be perfect. NO camera is perfect. The only digital cameras I consider even being close to film is the Arri Alexa and the Sony F35. As for the GH4 I've seen plenty of great things shot on it already and good enough to look cinematic. So if you haven't seen anything you like then you're either not looking hard enough or this camera is simply not for you. Here is my favorite GH4 video shot on the SLR Magic Anamorphot lens. You'd be an absolute moron to say this video doesn't look good:

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If you want it to look like film, then use film. Otherwise it's going to look like video, because it's video.

If you don't like the way this particular camera looks and don't think you could adjust settings to please yourself, don't buy it. Simple as that.

I beg to differ. At this point, if someone were to shoot 'film'... it would look like crap, unless they had been shooting film for years.

Why is this... because the same principles that make Film film look like Film, and most Digital Film efforts look like crap, is because few people seem to be learning how to light, how to set dress, how to get non-union actors to act, etc.

In other words there are a number of issues and the image capture portion is a small part of that.

Further, most DSLRs and more expensive Digital Film solutions, are not truly 'video', in the sense that most of the controls are based on Film film concepts such as ISO rather than dB gain settings, the transfer curves tend to be more like 'slide film' rather than 'vidicon' or equivalent tubes, etc.

Just the use of 'second sound' systems typically with DSLRs put such efforts more in the Film film camp than Video which even in the digital versions had features such as XLR imputs, an almost usable audio recording feature, etc.

What most people who produce 'it looks like video' results are not doing is testing their camera, finding the actual dynamic range, calibrating a personal effective ISO value for whatever the camera setting may be, and then they are also not studying films of yore, and attempting to produce lighing and depth in the frame that 'we' understand to be a narrative Film film convention.

Moving on... No Digital Film camera, whether the GH series or the often touted Canon 7D/5D/Cx00 whatever... produces 'Film film' look out of the box.

Any Film film looking product is the result of serious effort to produce such a look.

Sorry if 'work' was the bad news in this message, but that's what it is... it is 'work' to understand the capabilities and limitations of the media, namely the GH-4 in this case, and work within those parameters.

Back in the olden days, to do an outdoor shoot, one had to bring a small army's worth of staff and equipment just to shoot outside. One can see huge arc lamps being carted around, and generator trucks, not those near 'silent' Hondas, to power said lamps. These days one is not so required. But that doesn't mean that it is now 'point and shoot'.

And what is more interesting is, some of those productions of yore, had major 'saturated' colors... in fact... that was the draw... During the late 60's/70's color 'style' did change to a more muted look... but Film film was quite capable of full blazing color.

Further how talent is lit has changed. Just watched "Funny Girl"(1968), and "Hello Dolly"(1969) (don't blame me... I dislike Streisand's voice... but the Wife wanted to watch the 'new' BD transfers...)... anyway, colors were 'saturated' relatively speaking, and most interior shots had 'top' lighting, which these days is an indication of 'tv' style, at least until recent times, when now some TV is being produced in a more Film film way...

 

[muroshi]

Here is my favorite GH4 video shot on the SLR Magic Anamorphot lens. You'd be an absolute moron to say this video doesn't look good:

It looks good, but it's a slow-motion photography-video and not a narrative film. I have the feeling it must be something about how this camera handles framerates, although I've searched for 25p. I agree, as soon as it's using slow-motion it looks cinematic, unfortunately the movements of people in real-time I've seen so far look very videoish to me. All the given examples are intentionally(?) avoiding using real-time with this camera. Here is another example from a poster on the first page, which apart from a dialogue scene only consists out of slow-motion:

I personally think this example is pretty filmic
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326917-Project-Greenlight-Submission-shot-on-GH4

Here's something more illustrative for narrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5niWpEJQxJk

If you want it to look like film, then use film. Otherwise it's going to look like video, because it's video.

My T2i doesn't look like video from what I can tell.

 

[dvbrother]

It looks good, but it's a slow-motion photography-video and not a narrative film. I have the feeling it must be something about how this camera handles framerates, although I've searched for 25p. I agree, as soon as it's using slow-motion it looks cinematic, unfortunately the movements of people in real-time I've seen so far look very videoish to me. All the given examples are intentionally(?) avoiding using real-time with this camera. Here is another example from a poster on the first page, which apart from a dialogue scene only consists out of slow-motion:

There is nothing video-ish about the Gh4's real time video compared to other DSLRs. If footage is shot hand-held without a rig, it will have micro-jitters no matter what DSLR you use. If you shoot with a high shutter speed, the lack of motion blur might read as looking video-ish. These are not inherent problems of the GH4. These are issues any DSLR has unless the operator knows how to use the camera properly.

I shot a short narrative film the day I got my GH4 back in May for another director. The edit is just being finished now, and I'm doing the color correction. I wish I could show the rough edit to prove it can look good. Here are a few raw clips. Keep in mind this was shot with available light on purpose to give it a raw, gritty feel. That said, I feel it's cinematic. Especially when edited together to tell a story, it looks and feels like a real movie.

 

[muroshi]

These are not inherent problems of the GH4. These are issues any DSLR has unless the operator knows how to use the camera properly.

Might be. The T2i has a very soft image. Looking good. I hope you can get that director to upload some more outtakes. What shutter speed do you recommend?

 

[DeeZiD]

Here's a small test.
https://vimeo.com/105503574
PW: test20140907

Colorgrading isn't final, some shots could be stabilized in post, but you get the idea.

With a good ND, 180° shutter should be set and motion looks good (and set sharpness to -5 to minimize strobing).

@dvbrother: Your footage looks really good, congratz

 

[joe12south]

The camera is more than capable of producing a filmic look, because the film-look is more about good lighting, good art direction, good composition, etc. Virtually any 24P camera with a sensor bigger than 1/2" can do the job.

 

[mcbob]

My T2i doesn't look like video from what I can tell.

Film doesn't have moire and aliasing. Video does. Film is an organic chemical reaction, digital is digital.

I beg to differ. At this point, if someone were to shoot 'film'... it would look like crap, unless they had been shooting film for years.

Why is this... because the same principles that make Film film look like Film, and most Digital Film efforts look like crap, is because few people seem to be learning how to light, how to set dress, how to get non-union actors to act, etc.

In other words there are a number of issues and the image capture portion is a small part of that.

There were plenty of horrible movies made in the 50's/60's/70's/80's... even though many of them have terrible acting, shabby lighting, and all the other things that many modern independent digital features have. But they look like film, because they're shot on film. If I see a conspicuously Canon Rebel piece, I know it's not film because those images have a particular 'look' to them... not film, and not that sharp smooth high-framerate 'evening news' video look, but a look that is very Canon. Panasonics look Panasonic. Sonys look Sony, Red looks Red, Alexa looks Alexa.

What most people who produce 'it looks like video' results are not doing is testing their camera.....
Sorry if 'work' was the bad news in this message, but that's what it is... it is 'work' to understand the capabilities and limitations of the media, namely the GH-4 in this case, and work within those parameters.

Completely agree there. Threads where somebody complains they can't find samples from a new camera that perfectly meet their expectations are becoming more common. In the olden days, generally you'd rent, borrow, or sample cameras in a store before settling on a system and dumping several thousand dollars into it. Now, you can get a camera with unimaginably good specs for less than $3K, and people feel borrowing or renting to affirm their preference doesn't make sense for whatever reason.

shutter speed....

If only it were that simple.

Generally, 180 degree shutter speed is the 'norm': if shooting 25p, shoot with 1/50 shutter speed; if shooting 50p, shoot with 1/100 shutter speed.

HOWEVER, it's not always the case. The popular example is 'Saving Private Ryan,' much of which was shot at 45 or 90 degree shutter to eliminate motion blur, and still looks very much like film.

It's also not depth of field or sharpness. Welles was famous for using very deep focus. A film like "The Searchers" is incredibly sharp, deep, and saturated - film. Thousands of other examples are out there. They all look like film, because they are film. Even a movie like 'O Brother Where Art Thou' that originates on film and goes through digital processing retains that look of film.

anyway... repeating for the OP: If you want film, use film. If you like your T2i better, use that. If you want to replace it, rent a newer system and see if you can make it work for you. If you don't like the look of newer cameras, don't use them. It's pretty simple.

 

[dvbrother]

Might be. The T2i has a very soft image. Looking good. I hope you can get that director to upload some more outtakes. What shutter speed do you recommend?

Your in PAL land, right? Just shoot at 1/50th. Whether in 24p or 25p, a 1/50th shutter speed will give you filmic motion blur and will be safely flicker free under fluorescent, LED and HMI light sources.

 

[dvbrother]

There were plenty of horrible movies made in the 50's/60's/70's/80's... even though many of them have terrible acting, shabby lighting, and all the other things that many modern independent digital features have. But they look like film, because they're shot on film.

But the operative word is "lighting". These bad films were lit. Perhaps poorly but they were lit. It's an extremely rare case to find a narrative film from that time shot in available light. The most obvious reason is because film was slow and needed a lot of light to expose, but from a pure storytelling level, available light rarely gives you what you need. In urban environments, it's generally flat, toppy, with mixed color temperature featuring lights that are not full spectrum. So you get a horrible mish mash of unflattering, flat light that makes skin look yellow and ashen.

I think this is what seems video-ish more than the actual technical differences between film and video, which are a given. Something shot on Alexa by a master cinematographer is going to look more filmic than something shot on 35mm by a clueless amateur, depending on the definition of "filmic".

For reference, look at "Hugo" shot on Alexa and "The Room" shot on 35mm.