GH4 Is there any well lit GH4 footage?

[FrameFarmMedia]

So we don´t need to point out ANY camera, because looks are created in post these days...?

I'd say any camera can look good given the right processes. Any camera can look bad not knowing how to use it best.

I would still like to see an image the OP has created on a t2i that can't be created with a GH4.

 

[muroshi]

I think shooting BMCC is what your looking for to capture the film look.

I don't think that's an option for me. It takes years to become a good colorist (it's even a full time profession and it shows from all the instagram corrections applied on vimeo). Of course you always can boil a lot of money and time in post.

 

[mcbob]

Because it is film?

Exactly.

I'd say any camera can look good given the right processes. Any camera can look bad not knowing how to use it best.

I would still like to see an image the OP has created on a t2i that can't be created with a GH4.

...rather the question should be, 'is there a look from the GH4 that the OP could not create with his T2i?' And sure, the list would be long - shoot bricks, blowing leaves, infinite sharp exteriors, 96p slow motion, 60p, true 1080p, anything in 4K... but if that's not what the OP needs or wants to image, then there's no need to waste his money on a new camera.

 

[TheDingo]

So we don´t need to point out ANY camera, because looks are created in post these days...?

...Yes, to a great degree this is true. When you see direct camera footage that hasn't been color corrected, graded, or manipulated in post, it looks very different than the final product.

If all cameras are accurately representing the subject you are shooting ( and most will with the right lighting and camera settings ) then it's largely dynamic range and highlight/shadow retention that separates one camera from another.

I still find it funny that many people are judging cameras by what comes out of it without color correction, without grading, and often without proper lighting, which can totally make or break the final image you see.

 

[albertogj]

The fact is that I the footage I see everywhere from A7s has something the GH4 cannot give me in videos I see. An easy question to illustrate that thread: Can anybody show me any GH4 footage that compares to that A7s image in terms of... organic/texture/filmic aspect/I dont know what exactly/...?


That´s to begin from somewhere.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

to me that frame is more about the colour correction than anything. What does the out of camera frame look like?

Here is some GH4 footage run through impulz luts that give it a much more filmic look than the stock image.

https://vimeo.com/98201553

In my opinion the most 'filmic' dslr is the 5D3 RAW. The images have so much more than the A7s & GH4 but a pain to work with. No pain no gain.

I find the GH4 submission for Project Greenlight posted by myself earlier in this thread looks very 'filmic' from the GH4

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326917-Project-Greenlight-Submission-shot-on-GH4

 

[joe1946]

 

[BobPilz]

I really liked the one Zacuto shoot out (might have been 2012) where they had folks experienced with each camera shoot a short narrative scene in identical lighting and then with lighting modified as they wanted to make their camera look best. They were all then color graded by the same colorist and then shown blind to an audience of cinematographers. I wish they would repeat something like that for the current crop of cameras.

Bob

 

[dvbrother]

The fact is that I the footage I see everywhere from A7s has something the GH4 cannot give me in videos I see. An easy question to illustrate that thread: Can anybody show me any GH4 footage that compares to that A7s image in terms of... organic/texture/filmic aspect/I dont know what exactly/...?
View attachment 91036

That´s to begin from somewhere.

Here's a still from something I shot with the GH4. Seems similar in terms of being "organic". I think this has more to do with what the sun was doing and my choice of lens.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Have to say I really like some of the vintage russian 'cheap' glass for that organic look. I keep a few around for these reasons. They are soft and vinette a little but that is what gives them character. I use my sharp modern glass for branded content commercial shoots.

 

[mcbob]

It's really all the same cycle as before:
- Panasonic releases something revolutionary with a wide range of very practical features
- A few months later, Sony releases something slightly less-featured and cumbersome but with one or two 'oh WOW!' tricks
- A few months later, Canon releases something with the absolute minimum features very solidly implemented at a premium price

Messageblogoboardsphere-atron: lather, rinse, repeat

 

[dvbrother]

Have to say I really like some of the vintage russian 'cheap' glass for that organic look. I keep a few around for these reasons. They are soft and vinette a little but that is what gives them character. I use my sharp modern glass for branded content commercial shoots.

I agree that lenses lend just as much, if not more, character to an image than the camera. Here's something I shot using c-mount lenses off an old Bolex 16mm film camera. This was shot on an unhacked Gh2. The lens vignetting is real, not done in post.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I unfortunately do not subscribe to the idea that 'softening' the image lends to 'filmic' look... One need not get an 'old' lens, just a finger full of petroleum jelly on a UV filter, or plain glass for that matter, or... well if someone smoked... cigarette pack cellophane wrapper, (ok maybe a DVD/BD celo wrapper for the non-smoker...), and 'wah lah'... soft image. And of course there are a number of post filters that could be done.

And for me, "organic" is a marketing hype phrase for selling vegetables or other edible products.

There are in my mind better ways to deal with the 'jaggies' resulting from the digital sensor rasterizing process. One of which is to add a slight 'grain' effect. This has been done for years with computed digital images, and with the GH-4 producing a 4K original image... I have no idea why people do not use a combination of 'good' grain filtering, 'smart' subsampling down to the usual presentation resolution of 1080p.

And naturally... given most people only see the results online, or via BD disks for that resolution, this in to me is a reasonable thing to do.

As I've noted before, most of what I'd call 'non-filmic' look of the myrad of clips to be found, stem from lighting, framing, subject matter, and 'talent', not to mention art direction, and set design. (Like how many filmmakers of the GH-4 class, even bother with looking at color schemes, even check 'complementary' or the like 'colors' for their set looks and wardrobe selections...).

I also do not have any 'fond' memories of in theater film presentations, as I was never able to see most films in a near pristine print state... most had scratches, to lesser degree for first run films, most has some form of sprocket jitter, depending on the service schedule of the projection equipment.

About the only thing that I can say that was positive, was that for the most part the theater was dark enough and the projection intensity values were such that 'blacks' looked black... but even there sometimes one would have a totally whacked setup...

 

[Jim Simon]

Can anybody show me...I dont know what exactly?

That's a rather strange request. If you don't know exactly what it is you want to see, I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to show it to you.

 

[Jim Simon]

I wish they would repeat something like that for the current crop of cameras.

When folks see me out shooting with my tiny little GH2, I always tell them the story of that shootout, and how my camera was the favorite of Fracis Ford Coppola. But I don't think that little experiment was the most useful camera shootout. It was more of a nod to production and post production crews and how they're even more important than the camera. That's a fine lesson for those who do production work, but not very telling as a gear review.

I'd love for them to host a real shootout, meaning from the viewpoint of an event or documentary shooter, where there is often little to no control over the scene, the lighting, or the action, where the shot has to be gotten right the first time, or you lose that shot forever. Under those conditions, the camera itself must take on much of the burden of a full production crew, and we want our footage to look every bit as good as what a full production crew can do. THAT would be a genuinely useful shootout.

 

[DeeZiD]

Here's some daylight footage I shoot while doing a music video.
I think with the right settings, grading, etc... the GH4 looks great and not digital at all!

https://vimeo.com/105683840

 

[R Hudson]

I have no idea why people do not use a combination of 'good' grain filtering, 'smart' subsampling down to the usual presentation resolution of 1080p.

I was under the DISTINCT impression that this is precisely what some people are already doing.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I was under the DISTINCT impression that this is precisely what some people are already doing.

If you or other have examples and some indication of 'how it was done', I think I'd rather see that sort of discussion and examples than the ever popular 'it isn't filmic out of the box'.

 

[R Hudson]

If you or other have examples and some indication of 'how it was done', I think I'd rather see that sort of discussion and examples than the ever popular 'it isn't filmic out of the box'.

I agree 100%. I have no examples myself to provide but I will dig further to see if I can find something to post.

 

[dvbrother]

I unfortunately do not subscribe to the idea that 'softening' the image lends to 'filmic' look...

I think it does. Not only are modern lenses super sharp and contrasty because of technological advancements, but many DSLR lenses have distortion correction and electronic edge enhancement added to them. This looks decidedly digital and non-filmic. A large percentage of cinematographers choose older sets of lenses (not necessarily crappy soft lenses) because they have character. Optical imperfections give the image a personality that can't be replicated in post. It's not just softening.

As to lighting and attention to color schemes playing a more important role in what is filmic, I agree completely.

I'm torn on the whole "adding grain" thing. I have done it to good effect on my Pro Res master files, but once they hit Vimeo, the effect is all but lost, and I feel like the grain is actually working against the strengths of h.264 compression. I'll admit I'm not a technophile in terms of compression schemes, etc. I wish I knew how to get the grain structure to be preserved on Vimeo.