GH4 Lots of tests with the new GH4

I guess I have a really different perspective and wishes from most. I am simply not obsessed with resolution. In fact, I find most cameras and the very, very sharp modern lenses - too sharp, too much resolution. Have you shot close ups with actresses - and not just older actresses, any age actresses? And no, makeup can't do it at these kinds of resolutions... oh, filters you say? so, why exactly do I need so much resolution only to need to take it down a notch with filters (plus not all of us love filters), or in post. Seriously, things look nicer with a bit of smoothing - I like footage that's not too razor sharp. If I could trade specs and features, I'd rather have better low light capability without nasty noise, and I'll trade you a good bit of resolution for that. And DR too - I'd take a stop or more of DR and nice highlight handling, and you can have my super sharp resolution. Speaking just for myself and no one else, I'm not thrilled with the emphasis on resolution in these new cams - I'd rather the companies concentrated more on DR and low light. And so I have slightly mixed feelings about the GH4. I have the GH3 - I'm sure the GH4 is better in the aspects I care about - low light and DR, but it seems like it really goes the extra mile for resolution, which I care less about. From my perspective, the resolution race has reached not merely a point of diminishing returns, but almost overkill. But, horses for courses, different strokes for different folks. I'll evaluate the GH4 IQ for the things I care about, and that's also what I'm looking for in reviews.
 
OldCorpse said:
I guess I have a really different perspective and wishes from most. I am simply not obsessed with resolution. In fact, I find most cameras and the very, very sharp modern lenses - too sharp, too much resolution. Have you shot close ups with actresses - and not just older actresses, any age actresses? And no, makeup can't do it at these kinds of resolutions... oh, filters you say? so, why exactly do I need so much resolution only to need to take it down a notch with filters (plus not all of us love filters), or in post. Seriously, things look nicer with a bit of smoothing - I like footage that's not too razor sharp. If I could trade specs and features, I'd rather have better low light capability without nasty noise, and I'll trade you a good bit of resolution for that. And DR too - I'd take a stop or more of DR and nice highlight handling, and you can have my super sharp resolution. Speaking just for myself and no one else, I'm not thrilled with the emphasis on resolution in these new cams - I'd rather the companies concentrated more on DR and low light. And so I have slightly mixed feelings about the GH4. I have the GH3 - I'm sure the GH4 is better in the aspects I care about - low light and DR, but it seems like it really goes the extra mile for resolution, which I care less about. From my perspective, the resolution race has reached not merely a point of diminishing returns, but almost overkill. But, horses for courses, different strokes for different folks. I'll evaluate the GH4 IQ for the things I care about, and that's also what I'm looking for in reviews.
Click to expand...

I agree, given that I'm pretty satisfied with 1920x1080 HD, which unless some one is being obtuse... is 2K...

So, I'd like to have better color sampling and better 'intensity' resolution, and 'user defined' LUTs... or at least easily understandable and accessible 'curve' adjustments, and of course dump Rec. 709 or whatever, in favor of as full an intensity sampling as possible.



Since I sometimes vacillate on 'color' vs. 'B&W'... there are several manufacturers, the usual suspects..., which are bringing out monochrome sensored cameras... No need to worry about 4:2:0, or whatever... no need to (ok perhaps slight need...) worry about CRI of lights..., and typically with pretty 'high' native ISO values... so one can use low wattage lights... that the nolo budget filmmaker can afford...

Except of course these monochrome cameras seem to cost more for some reason...
 
I agree with the above posts about resolution, which is why I still see the C100 as the best thing available at $5,000 and under. It has 12 stops of DR, great in low light, and produces a very detailed, rich image and resolves without looking over sharp, yet still has a workflow that isn't nearly as data intensive as raw (like black magic) The camera also works out of the box without a bunch of add ons and hiccups like bad audio, no audio meters, no formatting of cards, etc like a Black Magic.

The GH4 is an incredible value no doubt, but just food for thought...at $4,999 the C100 might be worth a look for some people looking to generate a "film" type image rather than the 4K super sharp look that is the news of 2014. I'm debating these things myself at the moment. I want to love the GH4, but I already love everything I see from the C series. This is C300, but to my eyes the C100 can do every bit as good.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...t=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJo1qrr_8Hc
 
OldCorpse said:
And so I have slightly mixed feelings about the GH4
Click to expand...

Having shot large format still-photo transparencies for more than a decade, I can live with the DR of the GHx cameras. ( you just have to light for it )

But the main reason I'm upgrading to the GH4 is to finally kill off that dang GH3 moire monster, which has plagued far too many interview videos I've shot. The GH4 in 4K seems to be pretty much moire-free, so I don't mind shooting 4K for 1080 HD output.

I have been tempted to buy a C100 over the past year, but I think I'm going to go for a Panasonic PX270 instead. I've had too many jobs where a good ENG camera is handy to have, and I want to see what the 200 Mbps AVC-Ultra upgrade brings to the PX270. ( GH4 will be my alternative camera )
 
OldCorpse said:
I guess I have a really different perspective and wishes from most. I am simply not obsessed with resolution. In fact, I find most cameras and the very, very sharp modern lenses - too sharp, too much resolution. Have you shot close ups with actresses - and not just older actresses, any age actresses? And no, makeup can't do it at these kinds of resolutions... oh, filters you say? so, why exactly do I need so much resolution only to need to take it down a notch with filters (plus not all of us love filters), or in post. Seriously, things look nicer with a bit of smoothing - I like footage that's not too razor sharp. If I could trade specs and features, I'd rather have better low light capability without nasty noise, and I'll trade you a good bit of resolution for that. And DR too - I'd take a stop or more of DR and nice highlight handling, and you can have my super sharp resolution. Speaking just for myself and no one else, I'm not thrilled with the emphasis on resolution in these new cams - I'd rather the companies concentrated more on DR and low light. And so I have slightly mixed feelings about the GH4. I have the GH3 - I'm sure the GH4 is better in the aspects I care about - low light and DR, but it seems like it really goes the extra mile for resolution, which I care less about. From my perspective, the resolution race has reached not merely a point of diminishing returns, but almost overkill. But, horses for courses, different strokes for different folks. I'll evaluate the GH4 IQ for the things I care about, and that's also what I'm looking for in reviews.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with you there.

For me the main point about shooting 4k is not to have 4k but to overcome the limitations of a single sensor design. Bayer is a butcher to natural resolution and the only way to really get that back is to shoot 4k and deliver 2k. This way you get a cleaner image than what any native 2k sensor could ever be capable of. Sensors and lenses are not perfect either and shooting 4k and delivering 2k for the most part solves all of these problems. You really are left with a very pristine 2k motion image.

This is the approach many in Hollywood take as well. Shoot 4k but do all the FX work and editing at 2k. Even they realize 4k as 4k is simply overkill and a waste of money with very little benefit.

In a perfect world the camera would do all of this for us. The GH cameras do a very good job at taking a 4k sensor and creating a 2k image but of course the process has to cut corners to do so. Since a camera doing that much processing is very expensive the next best thing is to basically give us a 4k sensor dump and let us be the processor that converts that 4k into a 2k video. It really is the best possible way to capture a 2k image. Without a darn good 3 chip setup that is.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
I will try a C100 WDR vs GH4 4k test tomorrow. Will have them both in the field.
Click to expand...

Awesome! My 2c from our tests if you are doing a side-by-side is to try underexposing the GH4, lifting Shadows and using perhaps using a little i.Dynamic. Definitely turn Sharpness and Contrast down of course.

If you are sensitive to color issues in the highlights, just make sure not to expose anything you care about there.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I have to say, dynamic range aside, Dalia's Dream looks embarrassingly badly shot. It's like they didn't realize the effects of crop factor on DOF, and had no idea how to create a cinematic look from a small camera. I am sure most of you reading this thread could achieve better with a GH2.
 
Testing the BMCC raw and the GH4 side by side the usuable dynamic range seems really close. The BMCC has better color, better shadow retention compared to the GH4 4k codec. The GH4 has a significant resolution advantage as well as less moire/aliasing.
 
OldCorpse said:
I guess I have a really different perspective and wishes from most. I am simply not obsessed with resolution. In fact, I find most cameras and the very, very sharp modern lenses - too sharp, too much resolution. Have you shot close ups with actresses - and not just older actresses, any age actresses? And no, makeup can't do it at these kinds of resolutions... oh, filters you say?
Click to expand...


I think you might be talking about a different thing? And yeah I've taken photos of actresses at 50 megapixels... granted, they're stills, but it's totally relevant. I think the GH4 is too sharp even at lowest sharpness - but on the contrary, it means I think the actual resolution probably isn't enough.

Contrast this with amazing 4K masters of good films we know and love, and IMAX footage. I watched Transcendence on 4K and it was brilliant. Same with the IMAX stuff of Hunger Games etc. The resolution and detail is outstanding, and close-ups of skin tones can still look soft and wonderful.

It's just that fake digital sharpness on these prosumer cameras that need dialing down somehow...
 
After a couple of days, definitely settled on "natural" with contrast, sharpness and saturation all the way down. On a specific shot basis I could raise very little the shadow, but only if there's light enough hitting those shadows. Really nice camera for the money.
Reminds me a lot a the HVX200.
CineD and -5 +5 can't help with that limited dynamic. Maybe when recording externally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top