GH4 Is there any well lit GH4 footage?

dvbrother said:
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.
Click to expand...

When I was young, most lens manufacturers were touting their new improvements, such as 'sharper', 'better contrast', more coatings to control flair and inter element reflections, 'computer' ray tracing, etc.... to achieve much higher performance.... when we could have eschewed all that and just explained we prefer 'character' to those expensive attributes.

Actually petroleum jelly idea was what we did to 'fuzz' up the image( or nose grease if one had an oily enough complexion...), perhaps keeping the center of the lens 'clean' to give that soft vignette look... or in printing, use cellophane to soften an 'older' woman's wrinkles or teen girls sudden acne outbreak...

There were portrait photographers who used 50 year old lenses for that 'soft' look... again to cover the telltale signs of age in many cases...
 
Last edited:
"Character" is a moving target, full of variables and difficult to define. I have not yet come across a lens that is beyond redemption when it comes to clinical glass.
As was said, we used to use vaseline and skin oil…. The problem I often find with so called character is it is one note and difficult to depart from, as opposed to good clean glass: a tabula rasa on which we can leave our own impression.




And "available light": stills guys have been making masterful images with it for a century, not to mention the likes of Lars Von Trier and Steven Soderbergh…. The well planned lighting scheme is wonderful when masterfully done, and often necessary, after all we are creating worlds of fiction; but the new filmmaker should be prepared to study and understand natural/available light qualities in order to harness its exceptional beauty. Not easy, as millions of "photographers'" works will attest.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
When I was young, most lens manufacturers were touting their new improvements, such as 'sharper', 'better contrast', more coatings to control flair and inter element reflections, 'computer' ray tracing, etc.... to achieve much higher performance.... when we could have eschewed all that and just explained we prefer 'character' to those expensive attributes.
Click to expand...

Luckily, there are a variety of tastes and styles among cinematographers. Everyone is different and prefers different things. And luckily, what works for one type of film or story may not be appropriate for another. Some cinematographers prefer no filters. Clean and crisp. Other cinematographers like it a little sloppy. Or they like lens flare.
Jan De Bont intentionally shot the original "Die Hard" with a set of flare-y anamorphics from the 1970's, even though a newer series existed that had much better optical characteristics. He just liked how the older ones responded to light.
And there's nothing wrong with either approach. Art is subjective, thank God.
What is interesting is that the desires of the artist and the desires of the engineer don't always match up. A designer of lenses is often chasing optical perfection. Certainly for scientific or medical uses, these types of lenses are desired. But they may not always be right for telling stories.

Another example is the evolution of modern 35mm film stocks (which are now basically a moot point). They have such dynamic range and are so grain free that some cinematographers yearn for earlier stocks that weren't so damn perfect.
One thing that cinematographers have historically done that has confounded Kodak employees is expose the film at a much higher ISO than it is technically rated for. They push the boundaries, reduce dynamic range and increase grain...all the things that seem like the wrong thing to do...to sometimes produce great art. Harris Savides was known for massively underexposing his negative and yet producing Academy Award-winning work.

Doing things wrong, embracing imperfection. This can lead to amazing stuff. But you have to know the rules in order to break them. I would bet lots of money that all the cinematographers who embraced this imperfection were very, very savvy and knew their craft.
 
Last edited:
muroshi said:
I've come to the same conclusion. There seems to less benefit for getting a GH4. Both cams have quirks. I can work around the quirks of the T2i better. Without the need of a expensive speedbooster.
Click to expand...


I had a T2i and I can honestly say it pales in in comparison to the GH4 and GX7 in regards to looking like film.

There are some great works on it: http://vimeo.com/kendyty is the best stuff I've seen from that camera. But the T2i looks mushy and low res, whereas film is really fine and detailed yet still soft. I can't help but think the same footage would look far better on a 5DIII, a C300, or a GH4/GX7.

As for GX7/GH4 examples, there's plenty. I love Vinyl Styx's work here: http://vimeo.com/100958195
And I'm too lazy to upload my own stuff yet, haha.
 
muroshi said:
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.)
Click to expand...

How's this for cinematic?
https://vimeo.com/groups/gh4/videos/105633584
 
muroshi said:
Uhm.. a model on a couch?
Click to expand...

Is that not 'Well Lit GH4 footage' ? Is this thread just trolling?

You asked for well lit footage and there are lots of examples of good looking footage in this thread also many shots the t2i is just not capable of.

Just use your t2i as it seems nothing will satisfy you here short of a full length narrative short which given the newness of the camera won't exist yet same is it doesn't for the A7s and many other new cameras.

Please post some of your own footage or better yet your own narrative short so we can take a look at the image you are getting that none of these great examples shown the GH4 can achieve. If you happy with what you have then why start a thread about a new camera and fine some negative in every example when the variety of footage shown couldn't be more varied in looks achieved?
 
This thread is STILL going? Dude, the camera is capable of shooting. You're not gonna find a feature narratives from the camera because it's just too new. But I can tell you this. I have the Gh4, C100, BMC4k, and Sony A7s. I can make them all look the same. I can make them all look different. But I can't make the Canon T2i look like any of them.

There are plenty of good examples in this thread to prove the Gh4 is a capable camera. There are plenty online too. I love the little beast of a camera called the Gh4. It's amazing!

And how is that model on the couch not a well lit piece?
 
1. Not sure why the OP expects others to prove something to him
2. Not sure why others are trying to prove something to the OP
 
muroshi said:
I didn't state anything like this. Please read more carefully.
Click to expand...

muroshi said:
everything shot with this camera looks like video.
Click to expand...

muroshi said:
My T2i doesn't look like video from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

I can read just fine. I am truly curious as to what aesthetic you are getting in your t2i footage that wasn't demonstrated in any of the examples graciously posted by users in this thread.

You asked for well lit footage and have crapped on every single sample posted many of them with very good lighting and a great image. So the question is what do you consider good lighting? what is filmic to you. Since you find the GH4 'video' and your t2i 'not video' implying 'filmic' lets see some of your footage to figure out what your looking for since you can't seem to articulate what you are looking for in motion images. Maybe you don't know what you are looking for which is fine but its hard to have a discussion of image qualities if you can't articulate what you hope from a camera.

If your current camera produces images you like then there isn't a point in upgrading unless you are interested in one of the many features the Gh4 or A7s or BMCC has that your T2i doesn't and it appears you don't have an interest in any of those features or the budgets that are required to take a step up image wise.

I'm not here to try and change your mind I am truly interested in what you are looking for aesthetic wise as its now peaked my curiosity. The only think I can see is softness which I prefer to add through filtration not line skipping.
 
Nothing I have posted is mine as I don't shoot narrative style content like he was asking so I posted others work which I like and respect. Like Dusty said I match my Gh4 to the C300 for shoots and no client can tell the difference when they watch the finished product.

This thread is what happens when I'm busy transcoding and its raining out. lol Guess I'll go watch a movie and just enjoy moving images. :)
 
I hope you don't think I was taking a shot at you. I have seen what you have posted and it's really well done. No matter what camera you are using. Rarely the arrow mostly the bowman.

RatLabProductions said:
Nothing I have posted is mine as I don't shoot narrative style content like he was asking so I posted others work which I like and respect. Like Dusty said I match my Gh4 to the C300 for shoots and no client can tell the difference when they watch the finished product.

This thread is what happens when I'm busy transcoding and its raining out. lol Guess I'll go watch a movie and just enjoy moving images. :)
Click to expand...
 
jlpskydive said:
I hope you don't think I was taking a shot at you. I have seen what you have posted and it's really well done. No matter what camera you are using. Rarely the arrow mostly the bowman.
Click to expand...

oh no I didn't think anything. I just didn't want to take credit for some of the great work of others.

The internet isn't serious. Now lets all go out and shoot! (damn its still raining)
 
This footage looks great to me, especially considering it was shot CineV and not color corrected at all--

 
I'm shooting my "narrative" right now on a GH4. It is WAY BETTER than my Canon T3i. Finally, the detail is what I can see, not what the Canon claimed to be HD. As far as it being a "well crafted" narrative... I don't think so, since I shoot these to LEARN things: This one is about 4k final product, night shooting and lighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top