GH4 James Miller's Camera Settings for Best Dynamic Range

vincent thomas said:
I do like this one better, maybe the second gh4 video i enjoyed in the 3 dozen seen. Not sure how much this little setting formula could work for other scenario.

Funny to realize im still tented to buy a second hand 5d III as i must say i quite like the image you get from that full frame sensor, with the RAW output and full support of EF lens . Im wondering how the DR of the canon could be compared to the GH4?
Am alone to feel tented and ask myself this question?
Is it better to take a gh4 and later a full frame sony a7s?
Click to expand...

I've got the same dilemma. I really like a lot of what the GH4 is capable of but the A7S seems to have a little more range and I prefer Sony's color science. I'll probably keep the GH4 and budget for the A7S or the successor to the fs100.

-Chris
Owner of Villagehouse Films
 
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...


I agree with you COMPLETELY. Do you have a preferred setting that you are rolling with? I have been using Cine-D with some minor tweaks with pleasant results. Planning on tinkering with settings extensively this weekend with family and comparing the results.
 
dvbrother said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, raising the Master Pedestal to +15 will only simulate the "flat" low-contrast look, it won't actually give the shadows any more tonal detail than leaving Master Pedestal at 0. Likewise, shooting in 16-235 mode won't give you better shadows either. The reason lies in the math.

When you raise the pedestal, you are adding a constant offset factor to the entire range of luminance values. The near-black values that would have been recorded at levels 0-15 will now be recorded at levels 15-30, and everything else will be raised by 15 8-bit levels as well. This will make the video look brighter and the shadows look grayer, but so long as you don't clip the highlights, the encoded results will be no different than before.

To get the grading benefits of a genuinely flat encoding curve, it's not enough to raise the pedestal or select the 16-235 mode. You need to lower the overall contrast by boosting the shadows with a multiplicative factor (i.e. more exposure) while reducing the exposure of the highlights. That's the reason for using Cine-D rather than Cine-V.
 
I have updated some of my results and posted new TIFF files comparing DRAGON vs. GH4 Cine4K vs. GH4 10-bit 4:2:2 @ 1920x1080 (using Blackmagic Hyperdeck Shuttle).

The 4k resolution TIFF files are here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/41dp7nupvbjv5xh/AAD8rC0HAUp4KvUC3pt-2Zlya

In that same directory is a README file, which says:

Files ending with _1.3.X are DRAGON files recorded at 6K, then scaled to 4096x2160

Files ending with _2.3.X are FullHD files recorded 8-bit 4:2:2 (Blackmagic Hyperdeck Shuttle), then scaled to 4096x2160

Files ending with _3.2.X are Cine4K files recorded 8-bit 4:2:0 (GH4 internal SD card), at 4096x2160 native resolution

GH4 Settings were:

Cinelike-D: Contrast: 0, Sharpness -3, NR -3, Saturation 0, Hue 0
Highlight -4, Shadow +1
i.Dynamic OFF
i.Resolution OFF
Master Pedestal 0
Luminance Level 16-235
WB Adjustment: Amber 2, Green 2
WB @ 4500K
ISO 1600

Dragon Setting were:

WB @ 4700K
Tint @ -10
ISO 1600
DragonCOLOR / RedGamma 4

In Resolve, the GH4 saturation is reduced via a qualifier with Low @ 6.0, Low Soft @ 12.0, and saturation @ 25 (compared with a "normal" value of 50). I changed my mind about whether this appeared to darken the image or not, so I removed the previous Gain and left that at unity.

The other curves I had to true up were Lift and Gamma. I set lift to -0.06, Gamma to 0.03 and left Gain alone at 1.0. That gave me a pretty consistent-looking color chart between the two cameras. But there are still some very large differences.
Click to expand...

Attached is a jpg image that attempts to show the aliasing visible in the GH4 at 4K that is absent in the DRAGON. The original image is 1400x700 and available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u3w1puc571yeaiv/GH4_DRAGON_ALIASING.jpg

GH4_DRAGON_ALIASING.jpg
 
Last edited:
Was the Hyperdeck Shuttle used to capture both the GH-4 and Dragon? Is it me or is recording the GH4's Cine4K files recorded 8-bit 4:2:0 (GH4 internal SD card), at 4096x2160 native resolution not a fair comparison against the DRAGON files recorded at 6K, then scaled to 4096x2160? I understand there's no recorder out there on the market (at least one or two currently proposed) to capture that but if you are looking for weaknesses against the more expensive Dragon then there's no advantage with long GOP 4K at only 100 Mbps.

Shouldn't you wait to record the GH4's 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 out (not 4:2:2 10 bit FHD) then down scaled to do a proper comparison (which should yield it's most optimal image)?

It's not that I don't expect the Dragon to kick the lesser costing camera's proverbial behind, it's just that a more fair comparison here (in my mind) would be to capture both the Dragon and GH-4 o at their optimal capturing ability....unless I missed that part.

EDIT: Also...scaling the GH-4's FHD to 4K...doesn't that introduce new issues with the image?

Just some questions I have.
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
Was the Hyperdeck Shuttle used to capture both the GH-4 and Dragon? Is it me or is recording the GH4's Cine4K files recorded 8-bit 4:2:0 (GH4 internal SD card), at 4096x2160 native resolution not a fair comparison against the DRAGON files recorded at 6K, then scaled to 4096x2160?

Shouldn't you wait to record the GH4's 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 out (not 4:2:2 10 bit FHD) then down scaled to do a proper comparison (which should yield it's most optimal image)? I understand there's no recorder out there on the market (at least one or two currently proposed) to capture that but if you are looking for weaknesses against the more expensive Dragon then there's no advantage with long GOP 4K at only 100 Mbps.

It's not that I don't expect the Dragon to kick the lesser costing camera but it's just that a more fair comparison here (in my mind) would be to capture both the Dragon and GH-4 on the same medium (or at their optimal capturing ability)....unless I missed that part.
Click to expand...

My bad. I checked that this morning and have updated both the README and the posting.
 
HotConductor said:
I agree with you COMPLETELY. Do you have a preferred setting that you are rolling with? I have been using Cine-D with some minor tweaks with pleasant results. Planning on tinkering with settings extensively this weekend with family and comparing the results.
Click to expand...
HotConductor, I'm still doing tests and trying different settings. A few days ago after some tests, I had talked myself out of using Cine-D. But yesterday I had to shoot footage for a project that I began with Cine-D settings when I first got the GH4. Looking at the footage, Cine-D is really the best profile for latitude if the plan is to add contrast and grading in post. It grades really well.

So, short answer to your question:

For projects with high contrast or when you have time to spend on color grading:
Cine-D
Contrast 0
Sharpness -5
Saturation -2 (Cine-D is more saturated than Cine-V)
NR-5
Highlights -3, Shadows 0

Master Ped +1

I adjust this to taste based on whether I'm using vintage lenses vs. Panasonic lenses, which are more contrasty.

For walking around and shooting everyday stuff:

Natural
Contrast -2
Sharpness -5
Saturation -1
NR-5
Highlights -3, Shadows 0
Master Ped 0

Natural has really good rolloff in the highlights. Compared to Cine-D at least. So if highlights blow out, they look OK.

I'm going to make a more detailed blog entry soon.
 
dvbrother said:
HotConductor, I'm still doing tests and trying different settings. A few days ago after some tests, I had talked myself out of using Cine-D. But yesterday I had to shoot footage for a project that I began with Cine-D settings when I first got the GH4. Looking at the footage, Cine-D is really the best profile for latitude if the plan is to add contrast and grading in post. It grades really well.

So, short answer to your question:

For projects with high contrast or when you have time to spend on color grading:
Cine-D
Contrast 0
Sharpness -5
Saturation -2 (Cine-D is more saturated than Cine-V)
NR-5
Highlights -3, Shadows 0

Master Ped +1

I adjust this to taste based on whether I'm using vintage lenses vs. Panasonic lenses, which are more contrasty.

For walking around and shooting everyday stuff:

Natural
Contrast -2
Sharpness -5
Saturation -1
NR-5
Highlights -3, Shadows 0
Master Ped 0

Natural has really good rolloff in the highlights. Compared to Cine-D at least. So if highlights blow out, they look OK.

I'm going to make a more detailed blog entry soon.
Click to expand...

I'm in general agreement based on my testing. To summarize what worked for me:

Good results with:

Photo style: Cinelike-D
Contrast: 0, Sharpness -3, NR -3, Saturation 0, Hue 0
Highlight -4, Shadow +1
Master Pedestal 0
Luminance Level 16-235
WB Adjustment: Amber 2, Green 2

Better results with:

Photo style: Natural
Contrast -2, Sharpness -5, NR -5, Saturation -4, Hue 0
Highlight/Shadow: flat
Master Pedestal 0
Luminance Level 16-235
WB adjust: Amber 2, Green 2

In both cases:

i.Dynamic OFF
i.Resolution OFF
Color Temp 4500K
 
Same here. I've got my GH4 for just a couple of days, but I think cineD, highlight/shadows, etc.. isn't going to help where the camera can't deliver.
Natural with sharpness, contrast and saturation all down, looks good enough for me. Not a big surprise the dynamic range is narrower than my Scarlet. Nonetheless this little camera looks nice as an HVX200 at 3840x2160! And can shoot honest high FPS, for very little money!

Pretty happy with my first footage (Natural+Olympus 12 and 200€ stabilizer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVKUc99M910&feature=youtu.be
 
KMA_WWC said:
A lot of people here are confusing others with misleading information.

2 There is only one recorder on the market that can record that with the YAGH through 4 channel SDI and that's KiPro Quad.

3 People have tried to do the same with the YAGH and odyssey q7. It DID NOT work. Convert may or may not fix it or make it compatible.
Click to expand...

Where was it verified that the Odyssey 7Q doesen't work with the GH4, I must have missed that thread.
 
Did you shoot at 60p, slowit it down in post and conform it to 25p or is it shot at 96fps straight?
Did not look bad to me, does it look like real 1080 resolution or more 720p?

The stabilizer looks to work well actually! For 200Euros, which one is it? :)

Alvise Tedesco said:
Same here. I've got my GH4 for just a couple of days, but I think cineD, highlight/shadows, etc.. isn't going to help where the camera can't deliver.
Natural with sharpness, contrast and saturation all down, looks good enough for me. Not a big surprise the dynamic range is narrower than my Scarlet. Nonetheless this little camera looks nice as an HVX200 at 3840x2160! And can shoot honest high FPS, for very little money!

Pretty happy with my first footage (Natural+Olympus 12 and 200€ stabilizer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVKUc99M910&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...
 
vincent thomas said:
Did you shoot at 60p, slowit it down in post and conform it to 25p or is it shot at 96fps straight?
Did not look bad to me, does it look like real 1080 resolution or more 720p?

The stabilizer looks to work well actually! For 200Euros, which one is it? :)
Click to expand...

Shots at 1080p60 were conformed in Apple Cinema tools to 1080p25, as played naturally those would be 50 frames per second.
Shots at 1080p25 (VBR 96p) were played at 25p, as this IS the timebase of the format.
First is better. Both show artifacts, but nothing compared to a 7D@60p.
Stabilizer is a Glidecam 2000 pro I bought second hand in 2009 when I bought first dslr (5DmkII). Fits well with the GH4. Upsidedown, nice I can swivel the lcd.
Hope that helps.
A
 
True North said:
I am pretty sure the Multi Stream option refers to the ability of the 7Q to simultaneously record up to 4 incoming HD signals
Click to expand...

Which is how you would record from the YAGHI. All of the single-wire 4K signals the 7Q accepts are proprietary RAW formats. They don't have a generic 4K 4:2:2 10-bit capability over HDMI (that I can find on their website, and I looked hard).
 
KMA_WWC said:
It wasn't posted here.

Here is where I've heard about it the first time. Check from 7min mark.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AX56Mo8WPM0

I wasn't really sure about their testing until a buddy of mine confirmed.
Click to expand...

Interesting

it does work in recording 10 bit 4:2:2 but it didn't work in recording 4k 10 bit 4:2:2. That might have been a pre-production issue. I'll have to ask Mitch Gross to verify that

I could have sworn I remember the Hot Rod Camera people had it working with 4K....could be wrong
 
Guys a week ago-

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by lightstrum
Mitch can you be clear about this? Od7 hdmi will someday work with GH4 or A7S 4k? Or it never will?



We have not yet determined our implementation from several options, so here is what I can state now:


We will have a path to allow support of 4K via HDMI on the Odyssey7Q. This will include support for the GH4 and the A7S.

I hope they come thru as I use the Q7 with my c500 and love it and want to buy another or maybe 2 more for my GH4 and the A7S when released. I want to standardize around the ODq7 and not have to get the Atmos.
 
It's for sure just a question of time to have this working. Im not worry it will come, and very soon. The only thing im wondering if how much picture quality will be increased. How the gh4 capture the information and output a proper 10bit image with all the tone. So far, it's very important for me as my main problem with the Gh4 is the color and DR, which could work well but need some grading most of the time, at least to my taste. Now i have to experiment when i will get my adapter and start using my iscorama, Leica summilux and german contax zeiss less...

True North said:
Interesting

it does work in recording 10 bit 4:2:2 but it didn't work in recording 4k 10 bit 4:2:2. That might have been a pre-production issue. I'll have to ask Mitch Gross to verify that

I could have sworn I remember the Hot Rod Camera people had it working with 4K....could be wrong
Click to expand...
 
"it does work in recording 10 bit 4:2:2 but it didn't work in recording 4k 10 bit 4:2:2. That might have been a pre-production issue. I'll have to ask Mitch Gross to verify that"

These guys n the video did not have it working with the OD7q at all. They switched to the Atmos Blade to get 10 bit 4:2:2 from the GH4 signal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top