GH3 Most 'organic' look I have seen so far .... How to get this?

S

Stab

Well-known member
I've just seen a video, shot with the GH3 and even with the 14-140mm kit lens, that blew me away. It looks so organic, so filmic or cinematic (whatever you wanna call it :).

Apparently, the guy uses a 'cineLook' plugin for FCP-X. I work with Premiere (CS6) so I can't use it. I do use FilmConvert, but I have never got this 'look' with it and so pleasing images.
So, what is the 'secret' here?

Is it my lenses? (I use the 14mm 2.5 / 20mm 1.7 / and 45mm 1.8) Are they too 'digital'?
Is this cineLook better than filmconvert?

BTW, I'm not talking about the scratches, hairs and flickers here btw, it's really about the colors and grain.

Here's the clip.
https://vimeo.com/61775343

How to get this look?
As a reference I want to show you a film I shot with the GH3 and Filmconvert. It looks good, but nowhere near as organic as the video I found. I cant put my finger on what it is exactly... Maybe you guys see it.

https://vimeo.com/64377878

Thanks!
 
A lot of people poopoo on the 14-140 but I find it to be a great lens when used within its limitations. Outdoors I have never had an issue with it and think it looks great when shooting video.

The look really is all about how you color it. Even film can be ugly until it is color corrected. I honestly think what you are experiencing is a personal taste moment. We all have them when a very specific style speaks to us in a way that seems magical. I have seen it happen with some of the most crude and basic equipment but the look and mood just happened to work well at that moment.

The problem with look plugins is they have a lot of pre canned looks. Some people like that sort of thing but sometimes you have to finesse your own look. Plus a color plugin will affect the footage as it was shot. Two shots that have a different look natively will also have a different look after a CC plugin. You have to find how best to shoot with your camera that gives you the results you like the most with a specific CC plugin filter. Finding just the right formula is difficult and few can just give you a step by step answer.

Go outside and shoot the same scene with as many different settings as possible in the camera and then try all your combinations of CC plugins as well as your own manual adjustments before applying the CC plugins. Yes it is a lot of work.
 
agreed, that cinematic look is predominantly personal taste. To me that reference clip isn't anything super special, its just graded well, shot well, and had some good subject matter/environment.

you have a couple nice shots in yours that I feel were quite cinematic, then there are shots that as mentioned exposure was off, odd camera angles, shaky footage, too much or unecessary use of shallow DOF and sliding dolly shots. I am no pro by any means, just a seasoned movie watcher. I have only shot one short film so far and that was a task in itself to try and get everyshot setup well. It is definitley and art that only comes with time, practice, and experience. The camera is only just a tool.
 
I prefer the "look" you got in your film. The one you seem to admire is too flat, lacks contrast, lacks some color, and when people appeared their skin tones looked...not much alive. I'm a great movie fan and admire much of what is done in commercial movies but do not subscribe to this "slavish" attempt to imitate the shortcomings of the past with film medium.

I'm all about sharpness where it's appropriate (why I converted from Canon to Panasonic GH series), our Lumix and Olympus m4/3 optics are perhaps the best we've ever had, I love what we get with the 14 and 20mm Lumix "pancakes", the Pan/Leica 25mm F1.4, and the 45mm Olympus F1.8.

Where they may be too sharp, judicious use of diffusion filtration (I use old Cokins and Tiffen Black Diffusion series) gives a softer more "organic" look without sacrificing color, contrast, or tonal quality. Start with the natural profile and start dialing down some of the parameters until you get what you want.

I would like to see "Clash" before you applied Film Convert. Or some screen grabs anyway.

The motion picture industry has sought all along to improve sharpness in the viewing experience, the move from 35mm to 70mm for improved definition was an example. So now we have digital and the viewing experience in modern theatres is stunning.
 
Yeah, I liked your look more actually as well. The film grain felt natural while the other was flickering to the point of being a nuisance to me.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
Yeah, I liked your look more actually as well. The film grain felt natural while the other was flickering to the point of being a nuisance to me.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I agree that the flickering and the grain in the example in the OP is overdone and not pleasing to look at. However, the colors and even the motion seemed very organic to me. Almost BMCC territory there.

Clash looks pretty good, except for the green colors which would have been better with the new filmconvert plugin. In the new version I can select the GH3 as the camera and the 'chemical' over saturated greens of the GH3 are replaced by a much more natural green. The old filmconvert couldn't do that yet.

Clash has some pretty nice looking scenes and I'm proud of it. However, the shots outside could have been better and lack the 'organicness' of the video I posted. At least IMO.
I also have an old Kiron Kino 24-85 2.8-35. I will do some more tests with it to see its strenghts and weaknesses. Maybe that will help building the look as well.

Btw, don't get me wrong. I am really happy with the GH3 and the footage looks amazing. Much more detailed, higher DR and better codec than the old Canon's I shot with (5d's / 7d's). I actually even love the camera more after I saw that video. It's capable of a lot.
 
Update:

I'm currently editing a wedding I shot last week, and I'm experimenting with the new filmconvert and also by lowering the contrast. In the past I always raised the contrast...

It's starting to look really film-like now. In some shots it might rival the video in the OP. Of course 'what you shoot' and 'how you shoot it' play a very big role in getting the organic look. But, it's already getting better.
Next time I will lower the contrast and sharpness both to -5 in camera. (until now, I did like -2 / -2).

Thanks guys. Keep the tips coming.
 
The first video also has a softer light to it because of the haze. This isn't an effect, it's just the way it is a lot of the time in Japan. Pay attention to light and how it changes the appearance of your subjects.
 
Stab said:
Thanks.
I agree that the flickering and the grain in the example in the OP is overdone and not pleasing to look at. However, the colors and even the motion seemed very organic to me. Almost BMCC territory there.

Clash looks pretty good, except for the green colors which would have been better with the new filmconvert plugin. In the new version I can select the GH3 as the camera and the 'chemical' over saturated greens of the GH3 are replaced by a much more natural green. The old filmconvert couldn't do that yet.
Click to expand...

Ah, I admittedly don't have a colorist's eye. I can see the big stuff, but not the subtleties that a lot of people can pick out...sort of like musicians with perfect pitch.

Yeah, these GH cameras are the bomb. I shoot a hacked GH2 and it seems like everything from the GH3 looks stellar right out of the box. Good luck as you keep improving the image to where you want.
 
Stab said:
Update:

I'm currently editing a wedding I shot last week, and I'm experimenting with the new filmconvert and also by lowering the contrast. In the past I always raised the contrast...

It's starting to look really film-like now. In some shots it might rival the video in the OP. Of course 'what you shoot' and 'how you shoot it' play a very big role in getting the organic look. But, it's already getting better.
Next time I will lower the contrast and sharpness both to -5 in camera. (until now, I did like -2 / -2).

Thanks guys. Keep the tips coming.
Click to expand...

Film like is such a subjective term. It really has more to do with your personal preference and not an exact replica of how film actually looks. Whatever that means. There are an endless possibility of film stock, film cameras and color correction methods that can all create very different looks. Yeah to you it feels like film but to say it is film like compared to another style you don't consider to be film like is not entirely accurate either. To that other person they may feel the look they came up with is more film like. Nobody is wrong. Just the reality of all of us trying to apply a our own specific impressions of what film like means. I have my own which not everybody here would agree with.

Just keep exploring and develop the look you love.
 
What is the point of making a film where greens are a million miles from their true colour.
It bafflles me why the majority who who want the film look in video end with pallid looking footage,everything i have seen shot on film has bold colourful colour,if anything giving it a vibrancy of colour that is more than the real world.
 
Last edited:
flinty said:
What is the point of making a film where greens are a million miles from their true colour.
It bafflles me why the majority who who want the film look in video end with pallid looking footage,everything i have seen shot on film has bold colourful colour,if anything giving it a vibrancy of colour that is more than the real world.
Click to expand...

I agree with Flinty here! I've worked with film (still photography) for almost 50 years. Most of working with still films transfers over to motion picture. The attempts to get the "flattest" look one can are pretty much perfectly described by Flinty. Even some very experienced colorists have found they have encountered uncorrectable casts in skin tones.


Thomas Smet said:
Film like is such a subjective term. It really has more to do with your personal preference and not an exact replica of how film actually looks. Whatever that means. There are an endless possibility of film stock, film cameras and color correction methods that can all create very different looks.
Click to expand...

With each new "generation" of film technology, the "film" look was subject to change. We had the B&W "Film Noir" look where DP's worked with form, texture, contrast, and lighting for that look, with the advent of 70mm motion picture film we had the beginnings of superb color, noticeably increased definition of detail, and the improvements kept coming.


Thomas Smet said:
Just keep exploring and develop the look you love.
Click to expand...

I'd keep trying but I'd definitely avoid the "plug ins". A few years back I got an "update" on an NLE that included "Magic Bullet Looks". I never found anything I could use, just an array of "lazybones" looks that just never quite hit the mark. I could always do better with the editing tools that came with the NLE. I can adjust Brightness, Contrast, Gain, Black Level, Gamma and much more on each clip on the timeline or on a group of clips with a "slider" for each. And that same tool let's me have the same control over each of the color channels. A little bit of work but I can fine tune it to my exact taste if I got the exposure right.

Ryan Farnes said:
it seems like everything from the GH3 looks stellar right out of the box.
Click to expand...

This is my impression. I've got a pair of GH3's and they give us several "looks" with parameters we can adjust on each yet we stay within the quality the camera delivers.
 
When I get a chance I'm going to do a write up on the work we've done with the GH3 and Filmconvert, settings for different uses etc. (probably on my own site/blog).

But I'll start by reiterating - if you're trying for a more organic look you can;t get it by starting with contrast, sharpening dialed up - which you are if they're anything above -5.

We did a ton of testing w/ and w/out NDs variable NDs, and settings from Vivid to Portrait and a simple starting point of Natural, -5 -5 -2 -5 is the best place to start building a look.

And Filmconvert, using the right combination of settings, works as a great "LUT" for these flat settings.
And again, depending on the nature of the scenes, I've found a couple of combinations that make the GH3 sit well beside virtually any of the footage people are showing from the C100, BMC etc.

The GH3 is an absolute little monster when you consider what it offers at just about every level.
For instance, aside from a nice little sensor and color, the BMPC is like a model T compared to the functionality/usability of the GH3.
 
jimagine said:
When I get a chance I'm going to do a write up on the work we've done with the GH3 and Filmconvert, settings for different uses etc. (probably on my own site/blog).

But I'll start by reiterating - if you're trying for a more organic look you can;t get it by starting with contrast, sharpening dialed up - which you are if they're anything above -5.

We did a ton of testing w/ and w/out NDs variable NDs, and settings from Vivid to Portrait and a simple starting point of Natural, -5 -5 -2 -5 is the best place to start building a look.

And Filmconvert, using the right combination of settings, works as a great "LUT" for these flat settings.
And again, depending on the nature of the scenes, I've found a couple of combinations that make the GH3 sit well beside virtually any of the footage people are showing from the C100, BMC etc.

The GH3 is an absolute little monster when you consider what it offers at just about every level.
For instance, aside from a nice little sensor and color, the BMPC is like a model T compared to the functionality/usability of the GH3.
Click to expand...

Cool! I would definitely want to read that!
 
jimagine - Looking forward to reading your post as well. I have FC but use it only for the grain as I've been using Shian's ColorGhear with Davinci Resolve with good results. I'm always up for other approaches as I also shoot in Natural -5 -5 -0 -5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top