GH4 James Miller's Camera Settings for Best Dynamic Range

This is genuinely fun. Spent the better part of the weekend with family shooting in Cine-D and Cine-V. I am mixed about which is 'better'. I tend to agree with many of you that it really depends on the end-goal. At the moment I have three custom settings set on the dial...

C1 - 4KC - Cine-D - The perfect setting for neutral shooting with lots of room for grading in post.
C2 - 4K - Cine-V - Great setting for shooting in 4K or 1080p when we know for a fact that either we wont do much grading or the TV studio wont do much grading. Great out of camera footage.
C3 - 1080p/96fps - Cine-V - My opinion: Important to bake it correctly into the footage since we loose detail on this setting in the current firmware.

My ONLY disappointment so far is the quality drop in 96fps. Honestly. That is IT. Everything else is a great upgrade for those of us coming from a DVX/HMC/GH2/GH3 background.
 
Gosh; wish there were some kind of consensus on this! It was a nice start that a known personality (for whom this thread is named) got the conversation going, but it's pretty clear that we're headed in the opposite direction (to the extent we're serious about grading shots for the ideal final result). A huge part of this workflow that can't be overlooked is the eventual application of something like FilmConvert over our entire timelines, and at that, what that software company will bake into their GH4 camera profile (based on what). For safety's sake, I've kept my Cine-D at defaults for now (e.g., http://vimeo.com/hpmoon/chicago). It's worrying to think that almost everyone so nonchalantly, for example, decrements sharpness down to -5 when that could be instructing the image processing internals to soften the image. Similarly, it's always seemed strange to me that by bumping down saturation, we're preparing for a respective boost in saturation during post, but isn't that subtracting color information at the capture stage? These are thoughts I have in the context of shooting with a Blackmagic (which of course doesn't offer these categorical sliders), alongside my GH4. The Blackmagic always, dramatically and truthfully, looks better -- especially in the realm of color gamut and accuracy. Thus I'm not inclined to poke around with these settings willy-nilly, and I question the confidence of people posting settings that worked for a specific shoot that might throw totally different challenges/color information/dynamic range/etc. at the GH4 compared to another shoot.
 
focuspulling said:
I question the confidence of people posting settings that worked for a specific shoot that might throw totally different challenges/color information/dynamic range/etc. at the GH4 compared to another shoot.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for others, but as for myself, I have been using the GH cameras since their introduction in 2009. Before that, I used HVX200s and DVX100s, which featured Cinelike-D and Cinelike-V. Those nearly 10 years of shooting with Panasonic cameras and absorbing their look and feel allows me to make adjustments with a fair amount of confidence. I don't think anybody on here is "poking around with settings willy-nilly", unless it's out of sheer curiosity, and probably not on a project where money is on the line.

I agree with you that dialing down saturation to -5 seems a bit silly if it's just going to be ramped up in post later. But dialing it down a notch or two on certain profiles makes sense, as high saturation in the reds tends to make skin tones blow out earlier than they otherwise should.

As for Sharpness at -5, Panasonic cameras have historically always had SOME sharpness even at their lowest setting. Even -5 has a bit of added sharpness, which is electronic edge enhancement and has nothing to do with actual resolution. People have dropped Sharpness to -5 because it can always be added in post but it connot be taken away (try shooting a glamor close-up on a middle aged actor with sharpness at -5 vs. one at 0 and you'll see the one at 0 adds 10 years of wrinkles).

As for Filmconvert, the "film color" and "curve" sliders are separate, so you can always dial back the curve if you feel your source footage has too much contrast. If you need more contrast, just use a Luma curve. Slapping on Filmconvert across an entire timeline and calling it a day is not a replacement for intelligent and creative color grading.

By the way, your Chicago video looks great. In fact, it looks so good, I would think that you don't need consensus from others. Do your own tests, keep on shooting with the Gh4 and adjust the settings so that the camera works for you. There's not a "one size fits all" setting, luckily. Different sensibilities, different styles of shooting, different purposes will all dictate different settings.
 
Last edited:
focuspulling said:
It's worrying to think that almost everyone so nonchalantly, for example, decrements sharpness down to -5 when that could be instructing the image processing internals to soften the image.
Click to expand...

No need to worry at all. Setting sharpening to -5 doesn't soften the image, it just doesn't add much sharpening. Setting Sharpening to 0 means "Sharpen halfway to infinity" (not quite, but as other have said, it's for darned sure not zero).

Similarly, it's always seemed strange to me that by bumping down saturation, we're preparing for a respective boost in saturation during post, but isn't that subtracting color information at the capture stage?
Click to expand...

If I knew I was going to need to add saturation in post, I'd probably turn it up in the camera, since I'm not shooting RAW. On the contrary, my methodology was based on finding parity with a camera I really like: the RED DRAGON. Through experimentation I found that the GH4's default amount of saturation was too much, and by baking in less saturation, I have a much better starting point.

These are thoughts I have in the context of shooting with a Blackmagic (which of course doesn't offer these categorical sliders), alongside my GH4. The Blackmagic always, dramatically and truthfully, looks better -- especially in the realm of color gamut and accuracy. Thus I'm not inclined to poke around with these settings willy-nilly, and I question the confidence of people posting settings that worked for a specific shoot that might throw totally different challenges/color information/dynamic range/etc. at the GH4 compared to another shoot.
Click to expand...

By all means don't poke around willy-nilly. What a few of us have done is to try to get the GH4 to match a reference, an exercise that is going to be reference-specific. There are others who have said "if you have no fixed reference at all, here's the best way to get good-looking footage straight from the camera, and here's the best way to get the most gradable footage from the camera". Those also have their place, but being able to match a reference makes for a much happier time when looking at things in the edit suite.
 
focuspulling said:
It was a nice start that a known personality (for whom this thread is named) got the conversation going...
Click to expand...

One fact that seems to being getting lost is James Miller clearly stated his settings were a "TEST".

He was using a recorder, & likely a calibrated monitor, while adjusting his settings, & for that particular scene his settings looked good, especially if they were to be handed off directly to a client without being involved in the grade, which is a reality for most DPs these days.

When I initially viewed the video I knew there was no way I could apply those settings unless filming in a very similar backlight scenario. But as a test is was interesting & has sparked enlightening conversation.
 
Last edited:
If anyone caught the B&H Photo Video GH4 Discussion Webcast yesterday, the Panasonic Rep specifically mentioned the difference between CINE-D and CINE-V as being that D is for a flat, log-like image intended for grading in post while V is a rich, contrasty image intended for very little post processing. I thought that was good to know.
 
Benjobe said:
If anyone caught the B&H Photo Video GH4 Discussion Webcast yesterday, the Panasonic Rep specifically mentioned the difference between CINE-D and CINE-V as being that D is for a flat, log-like image intended for grading in post while V is a rich, contrasty image intended for very little post processing. I thought that was good to know.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what the GH4's manual says too ;)
 
Anyone tried out the Cinema setting from EOSHD's book? It looks like he's a fan of James Miller's CineV settings as well. Lotsa contrast.
 
I'm not much of a fan of the cineD flat look either. I think the GH4 gets a lot more out of the 100mbps 4K with the image baked in, in cam.

In my short period with my new GH4 I'm finding 16-235, Cinelike V, master pedestal +5, everything else zero to be near the exact look I like. Obviously YMMV

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
I use the same settings. 16-235 much better than 0-255

c3hammer said:
I'm not much of a fan of the cineD flat look either. I think the GH4 gets a lot more out of the 100mbps 4K with the image baked in, in cam.

In my short period with my new GH4 I'm finding 16-235, Cinelike V, master pedestal +5, everything else zero to be near the exact look I like. Obviously YMMV

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...
 
dthreatt said:
I use the same settings. 16-235 much better than 0-255
Click to expand...

I understand the 16-235 broadcast expectations of things after post, but isn't that limiting what the camera can capture going in? Cutting the number of levels by 35 or so?
Does it capture more dynamic range at 16-235 somehow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top