GH4 James Miller's Camera Settings for Best Dynamic Range

There is something interesting going on with the GH4 in regards to this luminance setting. I am seeing significantly more information in the highlights when shooting 16-235. I don't have an NLE with scopes, so I can't tell you exactly what its doing. Hoping to have access to some scopes shortly.
 
SuperSet said:
Just FYI .. the FilmConvert GH4 profiles are out, including a CineD low contrast one!
Click to expand...
Yeah, that didn't go well. Discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/FilmConvert/posts/764448836910737

I had a lot of faith in the FilmConvert team for being meticulous, but backing off contrast, sharpening and saturation altogether by the maximum decrement of 5 is risky and severe; not sure what highlight +1 and shadow -5 means, but they're probably referring to the graph. Even so, the company's representative wasn't sure of these settings.

I was planning to just run with whatever they used, verbatim for my work, but now I'm not so sure. Also, I tried applying the new profile to some GH4 footage of mine, and it lacked the intensity (combined with preservation of detail) that I found when applying onto Blackmagic footage with the corresponding Blackmagic profile.
 
Playing with James Miller's settings again and it's really starting to grow on me, especially at Contrast -5 and FilmConvert's CineV setting.
 
Here's a screen grab of scopes and waveform from some clips I shot to test with last friday. UHD 30p, Cinelike V 16-235 and 0-255. Everything else in both clips was zero if I'm not mistaken. It was with an Olympus 17mm f/1.8, a Hoya NDx4 and a Hoya HD2 cir-pol.

I'm assuming Vegas Pro 13 is showing 0% and 100% lines as 16 and 235, but it could be IRE 0 and 100. Anyone know for sure what the default is there on the Vegas Pro waveform?

I'm just trying to learn what this thing is doing relative to software I have been using. Any help understanding the differences this cam is working from would be appreciated.

http://www.c3di.com/c3films/cineV-0_255-vs-16_235.gif

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
One thing I THEENK I read, and noticed personally, is that Vegas scopes are only accurate when preview is set at BEST FULL. Lesser settings, you can SEE scopes view change a bunch. Weird, I know, but I suspect it would be hard to show full rendered scopes in the background while showing a DRAFT QUARTER sized preview, so it kinda makes sense CPU wise
 
wwjd said:
One thing I THEENK I read, and noticed personally, is that Vegas scopes are only accurate when preview is set at BEST FULL. Lesser settings, you can SEE scopes view change a bunch. Weird, I know, but I suspect it would be hard to show full rendered scopes in the background while showing a DRAFT QUARTER sized preview, so it kinda makes sense CPU wise
Click to expand...
Those screen grabs are at Best Full. On this i7 machine I have here at work, nothing plays from the timeline cleanly :)
 
SuperSet said:
Playing with James Miller's settings again and it's really starting to grow on me, especially at Contrast -5 and FilmConvert's CineV setting.
Click to expand...

It seems odd to flatten contrast and then 'ADD' contrast by using Cine V to me. A bit like using Cine D and going to +5 contrast.
 
I started with James settings and was not happy with them. Then.....I just started from scratch and after 2 weeks went out and and shot this....(edit still in progress) with the GH4 (aerials are GoPro Hero 3+ Black) I shot 90% in 1080 96fps. Most used lens was my 25m 1.4 panny. 16-235 has more DR than 0-255 even with clipping to 235 in fast color corrector on premier. Most critical tip is try and keep zebras to a minimum like 5% or less. None of these shots (except the go pro stuff) have filters or corrections. I think my master P is +5 and -2 / +2 on shadows and highlights.

 
Last edited:
dthreatt said:
I started with James settings and was not happy with them. Then.....I just started from scratch and after 2 weeks went out and and shot this....
Click to expand...

Nice rough cut! I love all the over cranked shots. So you used CINE-V but with different settings than Miller's? What were your Picture Style settings?

dthreatt said:
Most critical tip is try and keep zebras to a minimum like 5% or less.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that less than 5% of the frame had zebras (your zebras were at 100% luminance?)? Or did you try to keep the maximum luminance value in the frame less than 95%?

dthreatt said:
None of these shots (except the go pro stuff) have filters or corrections.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see a split-screen version of the video, left side not graded, right side graded. Just a hopeful thought! :)

dthreatt said:
I think my master P is +5 and -2 / +2 on shadows and highlights.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that you had Shadows +2 and Highlights -2 for a flatter look?
 
All Shots:

CINE-D
Contrast 0
Sharpness -1
NR -1
Sat -1
Hue +1

Master PED +5

Highlight -2
Shadow +2

i.Dynamic Off
i.Resolution Off

Lum Lev 16-235

Peaking Level HIGH/GREEN (avoid ANY peaking zebras at all cost) shadows will have detail in final product and highlights will be fine.

White Balance 5200KV
A:2 M:2

All shots 180 degree shutter
varying Apertures
Vari ND

Lenses 12mm 2.0, 75mm 1.8, 25mm 1.4, 7-14 f4, 35-100 2.8
 
dvbrother said:
Okay, I did a test with settings similar to the "James Miller Settings" and compared them to my preferred settings. Leter, I will make my own thread about my findings (when I shoot new footage on a tripod that will show the difference better).
I found Cine-V to actually be a good choice if you don't want/need to do a lot of grading.

BUT setting Master Pedestal to +15 accomplishes nothing in terms of creating a more "gradeable" image. In fact, it makes the image noisier. My tests show that using Master ped at +15 and then creating a curve etc. to get the contrast beck in post creates way more noise than just setting the Master Ped to 0 and the contrast to a reasonable setting in camera. Plus, lifting Master Ped to +15 decreases luminance tonality in the shadows and eliminates tonal values below about 7.5 IRE.
Now, as a creative choice, Master Ped at +15 can be great. If you leave it looking like that, it can be like having a Low Con filter on the lens. Just don't try to grade it back to a normal look or you wil get noisy shadows.

Speaking of noisy shadows, let's talk about iDynamic.
iDynamic, as my test will show, does its thing by "intelligently" lifting shadow areas by increasing their ISO. So, if you set iDynamic to Standard, shoot at 400 ISO, you may get shadows with 1600 ISO-style noise. It doesn't look pretty.
And it fluctuates as the dynamic range of the scene changes, which for narrative shooting is not helpful.

Cinelike-V is one of the most contrasty profiles on the GH4. Especially with Contrast set to 0 like in James Miller's settings. Using this profile with iDynamic to bring detail to the shadows is counterproductive.
Standard, Natural and Cinelike-D have more shadow detail than Cine-V, especially if you set their contrast to-5, and all will provide an image that is just as flat as Miller's settings but with much less noise because iDynamic is not mucking up the shadows.
In all fairness, the short test clips I've seen from James Miller look fine. And luckily, it's all subjective. All opinion. As long as the end results look good, who cares what settings were used to achieve them? But if the goal is gradeability and less noise, high Master Ped and iDynamic are not your friends.
Click to expand...

Where you able to do the tests and start a thread with your results? I was following this thread back then and this got buried. I'm wondering whats the current consensus on James Miller's settings.
 
Ted Ramasola said:
Where you able to do the tests and start a thread with your results? I was following this thread back then and this got buried. I'm wondering whats the current consensus on James Miller's settings.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I certainly don't use them, and get best results pairing the FilmConvert "Cine-D Low Contrast" setting with Cine-D, totally unmodified, adding -5 on Highlights and +5 on Shadows in the separate menu item for Highlights/Shadows.
 
Ted Ramasola said:
Where you able to do the tests and start a thread with your results? I was following this thread back then and this got buried. I'm wondering whats the current consensus on James Miller's settings.
Click to expand...
Actually, I ended up getting too busy with actual production work to do a dedicated test. All I can say is that, fromseveral months of shooting commercials, corporate stuff, interviews, and outdoor recreational videos, I have gotten great results with settings that have nothing to do with James Miller's settings.

When I have time to grade footage, I shoot Cinelike-D 0 Contrast, -5 Sharpness, 0 NR, Saturation 0 to -2 depending on project. No adjustments to highlights/shadows (that introduces noise and messes with skin tones really badly). No iDynamic, Master Ped at 0.

If I'm handing footage over to someone and can't do my own grading, I shoot in Natural with Contrast at -1 or -2 depending on lenses used.

What I have discovered is that these settings have the best balance between dynamic range and noise. Setting NR to 0 especially at higher ISOs really helps produce a clean image. I have also discovered that a lot of complaints about the Gh4 and Cinelike-D in particular ("orange skin tones") are because of white balance issues. The tungsten and daylight presets are weird, and it is best to set a custom white balance with a white card, just like you do with a camcorder. Once you do this, skin tones look fine.
 
I don't use them either. There is too much variety in scenes to have ONE perfect setup, especially dealing within the limits of 8-bit color settings. I find myself detailing each new scene and using CINED or NATURAL - depending on the DR of the shot, and sometimes STANDARD, with contrast tweaks and Sharp at -2 or -3

Haven't used CINEV yet
 
dvbrother said:
When I have time to grade footage, I shoot Cinelike-D 0 Contrast, -5 Sharpness, 0 NR, Saturation 0 to -2 depending on project. No adjustments to highlights/shadows (that introduces noise and messes with skin tones really badly). No iDynamic, Master Ped at 0.

If I'm handing footage over to someone and can't do my own grading, I shoot in Natural with Contrast at -1 or -2 depending on lenses used.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I do also.
 
Thanks for the replies,

I can also confirm that the WB presets are not so good with skintones, a Manual WB gives a much better skin rendition.

dvbrother said:
I have also discovered that a lot of complaints about the Gh4 and Cinelike-D in particular ("orange skin tones") are because of white balance issues. The tungsten and daylight presets are weird, and it is best to set a custom white balance with a white card, just like you do with a camcorder. Once you do this, skin tones look fine.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top