GH4 "video-like" vs "film-like" cameras

R

ralfmouth

Well-known member
It seems cameras are said to be either one or the other but I know "cinematic" or "video" is mostly done with grading / capture rate. How does the capture device effect it? Relevant parameters I know of:

frame rate
dynamic range
color
highlight clipping
grain
sensor size (added)
shutter speed (added)
digital sharpening (added)
magic (added)
filters (added)
anamorphic distortion (added)
 
Last edited:
I think you covered it. Not sure what highlight clipping means, but I always considered the other 4 as the "film look"
 
ralfmouth said:
It seems cameras are said to be either one or the other but I know "cinematic" or "video" is mostly done with grading / capture rate. How does the capture device effect it? Relevant parameters I know of:

frame rate
dynamic range
color
highlight clipping
grain
Click to expand...

It is a little known fact that the GH-1 is the only 'filmic' camera alive. The reason for this being so unknown is, due to the fact that the 'feature' is not quite understood by most.

Here's how to get at it...

Place lights, subject, and action, such that there is 'depth' in the image. Light the subject for 'dramatic' effect, that is a bit more contrast that one would find on most TV shows.
Frame the subject for dynamic composition. Dress the set to match the dramatic action. Work with the talent to 'act', through rehearsals, and perhaps even some drama/theater games.

Then here's the secret feature... once those items above are achieved... press the shutter release button.
 
FRAME RATE has two parts for film look: frames per second AND shutter speed: the amount of blur per frame in movement
 
ralfmouth said:
It seems cameras are said to be either one or the other but I know "cinematic" or "video" is mostly done with grading / capture rate. How does the capture device effect it? Relevant parameters I know of:

frame rate
dynamic range
color
highlight clipping
grain
Click to expand...

You forgot one...magic.
 
One particular factor is electronic sharpness or edge enhancement done in camera. Different cameras have a default look for the amount of sharpness they add. One of the reasons why RAW looks the way it does is because there is no electronic sharpness added to the image. The natural data a sensor captures is rather soft and cameras have to add a bit of sharpness to make the image looked more detailed. Some cameras add more than others. Most cameras also allow the user some level of control over how much sharpness is added. Many assume a sharpness of 0 is natural but in fact that is already a very high sharpness level added to the image off the sensor. Even at the lowest setting of -5 there may still be a bit of sharpness added to the image.

M43 takes this another step with their M43 lenses by adding a certain level of image adjustment and correction based on the lens itself. This has an overall effect of added a bit of image altering look which may not look as natural as full manual adapted lenses on M43 cameras.

Too much electronic sharpness added to a RAW image starts to make it look fake, electronic and video like. This is one of the biggest factors that can make an image look digital instead of organic. Again one of the big draws of RAW and 4k. With shooting 4k you capture extra pixels so you can get a higher detailed 2k video as opposed to adding sharpness to a native 2k image. The end results are more organic and natural.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

Article that shows an example of the same image with low detail with sharpness added to compensate and high detail. Acutance is an important factor to measuring detail although not as important as resolution. Look at the high acutance low resolution sample vs the low acutance high resolution sample. See how the second looks more organic and not as digital or electronic. The high - high sample is what one can get by shooting 4k and down sampling to 2k.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
It is a little known fact that the GH-1 is the only 'filmic' camera alive. The reason for this being so unknown is, due to the fact that the 'feature' is not quite understood by most.

Here's how to get at it...

Place lights, subject, and action, such that there is 'depth' in the image. Light the subject for 'dramatic' effect, that is a bit more contrast that one would find on most TV shows.
Frame the subject for dynamic composition. Dress the set to match the dramatic action. Work with the talent to 'act', through rehearsals, and perhaps even some drama/theater games.

Then here's the secret feature... once those items above are achieved... press the shutter release button.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the consensus is the camera doesn't matter much if any. Certain lenses (which were omitted in the list) are also described as "video-ish" or "filmic". See i'm not good at this. Anybody know what they are referring to? (contrast maybe)
 
Thomas Smet said:
The natural data a sensor captures is rather soft and cameras have to add a bit of sharpness to make the image looked more detailed. Some cameras add more than others. Most cameras also allow the user some level of control over how much sharpness is added. Many assume a sharpness of 0 is natural but in fact that is already a very high sharpness level added to the image off the sensor. Even at the lowest setting of -5 there may still be a bit of sharpness added to the image.
Click to expand...

Added. Been ignoring this one but probably plays bigger role than suspected. Maybe ties into the lens thing also.
 
I think filmic is the wrong term to use. I say this because I’ve seen some 35mm shot shorts that looked like video. I think for most people the term to use is “cinematic.” I personally think the Red cameras look like high end video. But most of what I see coming from that camera looks cinematic (usually high end users with high end production value etc. use these cameras). This is where it’s all about the shooter and not the camera. If you can suppress most of the visible artifacts that lower end cameras sometimes produces then anything can look cinematic (of course with all the right elements in place). I think the Alexa looks more “organic” than the Red cameras because its image is…soft…like film. I used to think the same about the HVX200 with its lower resolution image. This is where I think Thomas Smet’s post comes into play. Electronic enhancement (at least too much of it) makes the images more harsh and further away from the organic texture of…film.
 
Filmic and cinematic are two different things, in my opinion.

Filmic is about the qualities you're describing: frame rate, shutter speed, depth of field, dynamic range, etc. Cinematic is about lighting, make-up, production design, etc.

You give a 3-year-old a 35mm film camera and the footage will look filmic. It won't look cinematic, though.

You give Steven Spielberg a Handycam that shoots interlaced and the footage will look like video, but will likely be very cinematic.
 
Ian-T said:
I think the Alexa looks more “organic” than the Red cameras because its image is…soft…like film. Electronic enhancement (at least too much of it) makes the images more harsh and further away from the organic texture of…film.
Click to expand...

So "cinematic" must = "soft". Win for Canon?
 
Jaime Valles said:
Filmic and cinematic are two different things, in my opinion.

Filmic is about the qualities you're describing: frame rate, shutter speed, depth of field, dynamic range, etc. Cinematic is about lighting, make-up, production design, etc.

You give a 3-year-old a 35mm film camera and the footage will look filmic. It won't look cinematic, though.

You give Steven Spielberg a Handycam that shoots interlaced and the footage will look like video, but will likely be very cinematic.
Click to expand...

The topic was too broad.. Yes definitely talking about "filmic" not cinematic.
 
Watch an old TV show like Gilligan's Island or the Brady Bunch. Neither one would be considered particularly filmic or cinematic, and yet both were shot on 35mm film, which most here would consider the gold standard. Folks now seem to hop from camera to camera in search of the elusive "film look" when in reality almost any modern camera is capable of delivering stellar results when used by talented film makers. Just think of what we could achieve if we concentraited more on our story telling abilities and compelling acting rather than camera vs camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top