GH4 Leeming LUT One – the best LUT for the Panasonic GH4

Paul, do you see any difference on GH5 in terms of sharpness with -3 vs -5? On GH4 you recommended -5 on native lenses, -3 on adapted or manual (ie voigtlander). Is this still the same, or does it seem the GH5 needs -5 even on adapted/manual?

Also, how do you find High ISO performance on GH5 vs GH4 when setting to NR -5? On the contrary, does it seem to you that the GH5 requires more NR dialed in than the GH4 did since it relies so heavily on post processing for it's cleaner image?
 
Last edited:
I finally got the camera in hand, but gonna be awhile before I can do any real testing.

Anecdotally, the color reproduction appears meaningfully different than the GH4...in a good way. The GH5 handles colors, such as royal blues, that the GH4 could not reproduce. I haven't had a chance to analyze charts, but it's clear I won't be using my GH4 corrective LUT's with the GH5.

Paul, have you measured this delta?
 
filmguy123 said:
Paul, do you see any difference on GH5 in terms of sharpness with -3 vs -5? On GH4 you recommended -5 on native lenses, -3 on adapted or manual (ie voigtlander). Is this still the same, or does it seem the GH5 needs -5 even on adapted/manual?

Also, how do you find High ISO performance on GH5 vs GH4 when setting to NR -5? On the contrary, does it seem to you that the GH5 requires more NR dialed in than the GH4 did since it relies so heavily on post processing for it's cleaner image?
Click to expand...

I've set NR to -5 and find it quite clean. For Sharpness I'm setting -5 also as I tested all the variations and found that -5 was the closest to neutral sharpness. I don't have any M43 lenses so I can't speak to their performanace, but if I'm setting -5 on adapted lenses then I'd say -5 is necessary for native too :D

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
joe12south said:
I finally got the camera in hand, but gonna be awhile before I can do any real testing.

Anecdotally, the color reproduction appears meaningfully different than the GH4...in a good way. The GH5 handles colors, such as royal blues, that the GH4 could not reproduce. I haven't had a chance to analyze charts, but it's clear I won't be using my GH4 corrective LUT's with the GH5.

Paul, have you measured this delta?
Click to expand...
I haven't measured it but you are right - the colours are much closer to correct than the GH4 ever was!

Cine-D is very close to Rec709 now, when set up with Contrast 0, Sharpness -5, NR -5, Saturation -3, Hue 0 and Luma 0-1023 for 10bit. Use 100% zebras instead of the GH4's 105% to properly protect saturated highlights. It's not spot on so there's still room for a LUT, but much better than the GH4.

Check your inbox ;)

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
For those who are wondering, I've just released my GH5 V-Log LUT, with Cine-D to follow in the next few days.

V-Log on the GH5 at 10bit is a huge upgrade over the GH4, and gives around two stops of extra dynamic range over all the linear profiles. I highly recommend it for those doing professional work as the extra shadow room is a meaningful boost in performance well worth the $99.

I have a question for all of you too - should I start a new GH5 focused thread for my LUTs, or would you rather continue this thread?

Cheers,

PAul :)
 
visceralpsyche said:
I haven't measured it but you are right - the colours are much closer to correct than the GH4 ever was!

Cine-D is very close to Rec709 now, when set up with Contrast 0, Sharpness -5, NR -5, Saturation -3, Hue 0 and Luma 0-1023 for 10bit. Use 100% zebras instead of the GH4's 105% to properly protect saturated highlights. It's not spot on so there's still room for a LUT, but much better than the GH4.

Check your inbox ;)

Cheers,

Paul :)
Click to expand...

Just seeing those number 1-1023 on a GH camera warms my heart. :-)
 
Paul, thanks for this lut. A great starting point for a grade.

Your lut plus FilmConvert default profile kicks the ass of FilmConvert's dedicated GH5 VLog profile.

- Mike Hannon
 
Interesting, so you would say -3 sharp on GH4 when using adapted, but -5 on GH5 when using adapted... so GH5 has more artificial sharpening? Or perhaps the same amount, but the more detailed image makes the added digital sharpening less needed?

Regarding NR at -5, I find Neat Video to be quite processor intensive and time consuming as well (maybe I'm doing it wrong). That said, if shooting a lowlight scenario where I know I will be using high ISOs, would it make sense to leave NR at 0, or perhaps at -3 instead of dialed all the way down?

In other words, does it make the most sense to leave NR at -5 for below ISO 1600 work, and either at 0 or -3 for ISO work above 1600? Talking about shooting lots of content / live event / etc., not just a singular narrative scene.

Let me know your thoughts... quite helpful! Thanks Paul. Will download new LUT now and go play :D
 
Paul, one more thing: For Cine-D you recommend -3 Saturation... why? I thought, IIRC, the settled on standard for GH4 was 0/0 for contrast saturation as it is easier to remove saturation then to add it back in? Why the change for the GH5 CineD mode?
 
filmguy123 said:
Interesting, so you would say -3 sharp on GH4 when using adapted, but -5 on GH5 when using adapted... so GH5 has more artificial sharpening? Or perhaps the same amount, but the more detailed image makes the added digital sharpening less needed?

Regarding NR at -5, I find Neat Video to be quite processor intensive and time consuming as well (maybe I'm doing it wrong). That said, if shooting a lowlight scenario where I know I will be using high ISOs, would it make sense to leave NR at 0, or perhaps at -3 instead of dialed all the way down?

In other words, does it make the most sense to leave NR at -5 for below ISO 1600 work, and either at 0 or -3 for ISO work above 1600? Talking about shooting lots of content / live event / etc., not just a singular narrative scene.

Let me know your thoughts... quite helpful! Thanks Paul. Will download new LUT now and go play :D
Click to expand...

I've spent very little time so far, but for general purpose shooting, I'm happy with everything at 0 except for saturation, which I'm knocking down to -3 to avoid clipping.

I personally think that the in-camera noise reduction is integral to how the GH5 works its small sensor magic. I would encourage everyone to give it an honest evaluation before blindly shoving the slider to -5. Remember, encoding noise is hard, so by waiting until later to remove it, you're wasting bandwidth that would be better spent on real image info.

In regards to sharpness, I'm not noticing objectionable ringing in real world moving images at 0. It's a fairly natural look, relatively speaking. If you're going to add it back in post anyhow, again, I encourage people give other settings a try before slamming to -5. It's a lot easier to soften an image in post than it is to bring back detail. Either way, even at -5 the GH5 yields a very detailed 4K image.

I don't have my VLOG-L license yet, so I'm basing this off of the other profiles. The crazy thing is, I think even the NORMAL profile looks usable I would definitely not have said that about the GH3 or GH4.
 
joe12south said:
Remember, encoding noise is hard, so by waiting until later to remove it, you're wasting bandwidth that would be better spent on real image info.
Click to expand...

I haven't shot with the GH5 yet, but there is one big difference here... Internal camera noise-reduction must happen at real-time speed, where noise-reduction in post might take up to 10 times longer with a lot MORE processing power that can produce a better looking image. All of my own non-LOG testing with the GH4 proved to me that NR in post is a much better way for GH4 footage.

Once I have my own GH5 to play with I will check to see if NR in post is still the better way for me.
 
filmguy123 said:
Paul, one more thing: For Cine-D you recommend -3 Saturation... why? I thought, IIRC, the settled on standard for GH4 was 0/0 for contrast saturation as it is easier to remove saturation then to add it back in? Why the change for the GH5 CineD mode?
Click to expand...

I'll try to answer everything in one post for ease of reference :)

Reasons are as follows:

Contrast 0 : adjusting the contrast curve tends to bunch the tonal values at the two ends, stretching the mids where skin tones often lie. I've found it's much better to dial in contrast in post, since the camera captures it all regardless, since you're not moving the brightest and lowest values with a contrast adjustment, just the bits in between.

Sharpness -5 : I did a bunch of sharpness tests as soon as I got the camera, because unlike the GH4, the GH5 has no OLPF and is also oversampling the sensor to derive its 4K or HD frame, so it's no longer about one-to-one pixels. Because the computer is now deriving sharpness, it has made it a lot sharper already, so I actually found that -5 was the only setting I was ok with (I would actually like to see even lower for this, but alas, it doesn't exist). And that's with a Metabones and vintage Contax Zeiss glass. I can't imagine how oversharp native glass is going to be! Too video for me I'm afraid.

Noise Reduction -5 : I understand the argument for keeping some NR in, to allow the encoder to handle the sharp bits better. But I've not seen anything in my testing that looked like it was unfairly penalising the sharp bits over the out of focus bits, and therefore I'd rather keep the inherent grain structure intact and not allow the system to create the opportunity for large swathes of colour to be harmonised by a lack of dithering noise. Those bits tend to become really obvious to an audience!

Saturation -3 : At first I did all my testing at -1, like I had kind of recommended for the GH4 (I had 0 for a while but vacillated between the two). What I found was that the super saturated colours were bending in bad ways at the top end, destroying their purity. By pulling saturation down to -3, and setting zebras to 100% instead of 105%, I could ensure that even a saturated colour did not bend into neighbouring territory. The GH5 sensor, as Joe has already mentioned, is way more sensitive to blue and other colours, so you're not losing anything with a -3, but rather amplifying its colour consistency. The camera is also a lot less noisy than the GH4, so this further allows for less saturation without increasing noise saturation in post.

Hue 0 : Not much to say here. It looks fine at neutral so no need to mess with this, plus the LUT fixes any hue inconsistency anyway.

Zebras 100% : A new one, but I found that with 105% IRE set, the colours would bend a bit when exposed ETTR. The 100% zebras however showed the edge of consistent colour with good brightness, plus it allows for a touch more headroom in any specular highlights, giving a solid and safe, good looking, bright image that corrects really nicely with the LUT on top.

Hope this helps clear up the why of my settings for the GH5 in Cine-D! :D

V-Log doesn't allow changes to Contrast, Saturation or Hue but it has a different response curve with more subtlety, so it's not really necessary to alter them anyway.

V-Log also has at least two stops extra dynamic range as measured from highlight clipping (the only point you can compare true dynamic range from) into the shadows. It's real, and it looks gorgeous! The GH4's V-Log never made any qualitative difference in that regard, but on the GH5 it's a whole other animal. I strongly recommend V-Log on the GH5 as the optimal way to maximise dynamic range, and 10bit 4:2:2 makes it so much better it's not funny.

I shall start a new thread for the GH5 once I get the Cine-D LUT out as well. Gotta finish tweaking it to match it to the V-Log as much as possible, so it can be used in case you work with a GH5 that doesn't have V-Log installed.

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
Thanks Paul! Very helpful!

And just to clarify: by native glass, you mean native ELECTRONIC glass correct? (not native M43 manual glass ie voigtlanders?)

Do you think vlog-L is worth it when shooting in FHD 8-bit (for VFR modes) until the firmware update? Or only with 10bit 422?
 
filmguy123 said:
Thanks Paul! Very helpful!

And just to clarify: by native glass, you mean native ELECTRONIC glass correct? (not native M43 manual glass ie voigtlanders?)

Do you think vlog-L is worth it when shooting in FHD 8-bit (for VFR modes) until the firmware update? Or only with 10bit 422?
Click to expand...
Yes, electronic M43 lenses sorry. The ones with built in profile corrections etc.

I haven't tested V-Log in 8bit yet but I shall do so soon as someone else asked as well. I'll update you with the results soon!

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
Has anyone tried these with their GH4? Curious to see how they work

MFC Essential LUTs

https://youtu.be/cqEK1RlD2nI

The MFC Essential LUTs Pack is inspired by some of the most popular movies, music videos, TV commercials, short films and documentaries. Developed by the video editors at MFCnetwork.com to instantly inject the look and feel of popular film and TV productions while still maintaining the flexibility to further fine tune the look of your image. These LUTs were designed to be used with any camera that produces LOG footage (GH4, BMPCC, BMCC, RED, Arri Alexa, Canon C100, Canon C300, Canon C500, and Canon DSLRs with an installed LOG picture profile). LOG footage generally captures dynamic range that is best suitable for extensive color grading which is perfect for using the MFC Essential LUTs Pack to quickly obtain creative color grading looks. Also included is a set of LUTs for DSLR cameras without LOG recording profiles, so you can use this set of LUTs with Canon, Nikon and other DSLR cameras. The other great thing about these LUTs is that they can be used in any video editing software that accepts .cube files. This package contains over 100 carefully crafted LUTS to assist with your color grading needs.

*Compatible with Davinci Resolve, Adobe Premier Pro, Adobe After Effects, Sony/Magix Vegas Pro, Avid Media Composer, Adobe SpeedGrade, Final Cut Pro X (LUT Utility required for FCPX), and any other video editing program that accepts .cube files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top