GH4 Local Series Shot in 4K with 3 GH4's

Erik Naso

Erik Naso

Veteran
Check it out. All episodes are being posted on line.

http://video.kpbs.org/program/savor-san-diego/

For the best viewing you will need to create an account. I know, but at least it's public television :-D

This was a huge project and I'm very pleased how it came out. Final episode of six is next week. This is Season 3. The first two are from another production company.

The main camera was a GH4 and TAGH combination. All audio was recorded into the camera and on a Sound Devices mixer for backup. We never had to use the back up.

These are the episodes. The others are not shot with the GH4. The site doesn't separate the seasons unfortunately.

Artisan Foods
Convoy District
Little Italy
Conscious Cuisine - Green Foods
Food Trends
Feeding San Diego
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mark. I really like the whole series. Season 1 and 2 are very different in style but I think our season 3 has more content and shot variations.
 
Looks great Erik, but wouldn't expect less from you!

Curious why you chose the GH4 for this project instead of your C300? 4k, form factor, multicam, etc?
 
Thanks Bern.

I needed three cameras. The interviews and cooking segments are done with three cameras. One GH4 on a Redrock Micro One Man Crew and the other two for singles. The other interviews are two camera.

I struggled with my budget. Renting wasn't an option since the shooting schedule was spread out. As I was going through the plan I had a C100, A7s and a GH4. Not ideal if I wanted to get the look to match and I also was the colorist on the series so I knew I had to match all the cameras and I felt it would be way to much work with three different cameras. Grading was pretty easy. The GH4's are inexpensive too. I bought two one with a YAGH and a second set of Lumix zooms. The 12-35 and 35-100. Sold 2 cameras and the extra lenses after the shooting was done. It was very cost effective.

Shooting in 4K gave us the reframing option too. That came in handy several times. Working with the GH4's or any stills camera hybrid can be a PITA but I had monitors for all the cameras and small rigs too. It worked out but yes it was a challenge.
 
Last edited:
Hey Erik,

I bought a GH4 last week as I wanted to upgrade from my Af100. It's great to see the quality you're getting out of the camera. So far I've only done a few tests. My first unit seemed super grainy no matter what settings I tried so I sent it back and got a new one. So far this one seems a lot better although there is a tiny amount of grain. Did you find this at all?

Keep up the awesome work.

Peter
 
Bubblegummonster said:
Hey Erik,

I bought a GH4 last week as I wanted to upgrade from my Af100. It's great to see the quality you're getting out of the camera. So far I've only done a few tests. My first unit seemed super grainy no matter what settings I tried so I sent it back and got a new one. So far this one seems a lot better although there is a tiny amount of grain. Did you find this at all?

Keep up the awesome work.

Peter
Click to expand...

Yes. I really dislike the look of the GH4 noise. It has a very digital look to it. I'm not opposed to noise like the C300 that is more organic. The GH4 vibrates. Some call it mosquito noise. I tried to stay under 800 ISO but that wasn't possible all the time. The shadows tend to get whacked first and the red channel does to in post. As you see I had a very Rec. 709 look in the end. Not my choice. We can see in the shadows now and I like that. The dang 5D MKII thing is still haunting producers. Time to move on I think.

In good lighting the GH4 looks great. It's all subjective and some folks are cool with ISO 800 and 1600 but I try to stay under that. Denoiser II is a PITA on UHD footage.
 
I on the other hand happen to agree with Erik. There are a number of cams out there with, as Erik put it, a more organic noise, like the Sony F65 for example. The GH4's noise is not what I would consider "organic" for lack of a better term.

I am not a GH4 basher.... Just a GH4 user.
 
But the distance between F65 and GH4 might as well be like the distance New York City and Tokyo, a very long road to walk. Let's face it, the GH4 is cheap compared to most other 4k internally recording cameras. That cheap price has repercussions.

Now if you were comparing it to something like the NX-1 or even one of the new JVC 4k cameras, then we could have fair discussion and it would probably be an important discussion for people who may want an alternative camera or form factor.
 
DeeZiD said:
Don't agree with that. Which settings do you use in camera?
Click to expand...

Nothing to crazy in my settings.

Cinelike D


Contrast 0
Sharpness -2
Noise Reduction -2
Saturation -2
Hue +1


i.Dynamic LOW
Luminance Level 16-255


No Curves (DONT TOUCH! Really bad on skin)
No Master Pedestal (Ah the noise maker)

I tested lots of combinations and they all make the camera noisier. i.Dynamic didnt add noise but did lift the image up a little. I stayed in the low setting. I tested it for noise and didnt find it to be the root of anything bad. We all have a different tolerance for what its satisfactory. Heck I used the camera for a broadcast job and it worked great. Would I do it again? Nope. It was a lot of work shooing a show with a mirrorless camera only. My second unit guys hated shooting with them. I have a higher tolerance for pain. LOL!
 
I wasn't trying to compare the GH4 to the F65. I was just using the F65 as an example of a camera which has a more organic, almost film like look to the in camera noise.
 
I haven't used all the smaller cameras on the market but I do own the A7s and it's noise is more appealing to me too. Also very usable higher ISO levels. I'm talking 3600 levels not mega see in the dark ISO. I would have used three A7s cameras but wanted to shoot in UHD. The cost would have gone way up adding in external recorders and the rigs would be bigger and harder to manage.

I think cameras are getting better with how the noise looks. Thats a good thing. It's part of the image and has been since the beginning of film and it's okay to have noise juset as long as it doesn't look digital and vibrate. YUCK!

The GH4 is ground breaking for it's price point and 4K internal ability. knowing it's limitations is a good thing.
 
There's some great stuff in there. Congrats on putting together a fine series for sure !!!

As for the noise discussion, I think a lot of that comes from the native Panasonic glass. When shooting Olympus m.zuiko or OM vintage primes I don't see anywhere near as much of the mosquito noise if any at all.

Curious as to your choice of 16-255 for luminance?

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
There's some great stuff in there. Congrats on putting together a fine series for sure !!!

As for the noise discussion, I think a lot of that comes from the native Panasonic glass. When shooting Olympus m.zuiko or OM vintage primes I don't see anywhere near as much of the mosquito noise if any at all.

Curious as to your choice of 16-255 for luminance?

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...
Me too :-D

I probably should have went with 0-255 but I didnt have highlight issues since I wasn't blowing out scenes and the lighting was very controlled for the most part. 16-255 tends to take the highlights over 100 IRE.

Interesting thought on the noise relating to the lens. I haven't thought of that. I used primarily Lumix 12-35 and 35-100 with occasional speed Booster and Canon 24-105
 
Erik, I've read some online crap about "linearity of digital sensors" where like the upper end gets a wider bit range on the high side, than the lower, due to the amount of light coming in... I'll see if I can find the links... thus ETTR gets your more space to work with than the dark side.... any reality to that? I could see it happening but am not a camera tech type guy....

EDIT: ah ha! found one (sorry, I'm going off topic a lot!)

    • But digital sensors are inherently linear. Double the light and twice the voltage is generated. This then ends up producing more or less twice the data.
  • A typical consumer DSLR recording 12 bits per sensel is able to record up to 4,098 separate tonal values.
    • If we assume a 10 stop dynamic range this is how this data is distributed…
      • The brightest stop = 2048 tonal values
      • The next brightest stop = 1024 tonal values
      • The next brightest stop = 512 tonal values
      • The next brightest stop = 256 tonal values
      • The next brightest stop = 128 tonal values
      • The next brightest stop = 64 tonal values
      • The darkest stop = 32 tonal values
    • As can be seen, each stop from the brightest to the darkest contains half of the data of the one preceding it.
  • This helps explain why noise is seen most in the darkest areas of a file. In the brightest areas there is a lot of data and so the noise floor (which is always present) only represents a small percentage of the total signal (or data). In the darker areas, where data is sparse, ever-present noise becomes easily visible.
https://luminous-landscape.com/optimizing-exposure/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top