themartist

Yup, I know what you're saying. The same way instagram filters and squarely cropped frames has made everyone believe they're a professional food photographer. Those devices make huge differences, only thing is like all techniques they become gimmicky when overused. Even the wide open anamorphic look can get gimmicky if you know what I mean.

As far as grading the GH4 you might like the following vid.

The issue is that "filmic" infers to looking like 35mm film, but we're working on a digital medium. Andrew has shown the example of that horrible movie (The room) which is shot on film - not a good look. The idea is that people don't always want their videos to look like film, they just want their videos to look like there was skill behind it. And yes, grading definitely is one way of exhibiting skill.

Just out of curiosity, what cameras would be suggested for those who's shooting style is locked down on a tripod?

 

I know almost nothing about video and come at this from shooting stills.   

I think it makes sense for a stills photographer to use the 5D considering its such an amazing stills camera to begin with. You get amazing stills and video.

Moral of the story: if you want a filmic image, learn how to grade. Of course, some cameras will give you a better starting point than others. But if you know your gear, the limitations, and how to get the best out of it, combined with good grading skills, you can make filmic stuff with whatever camera from €300 to €30.000.

These days there are so many drag and drop plugins and presets to do grading for you, I wouldn't attribute grading as being the moral of the story regarding the "film look". Obviously understanding grading and color helps, but I would insist that mastering the principles of photography dictate the real moral of the story. That, coupled with even an entry level camera is the perfect start.

The "Filmic" term is ridiculous really... but ultimately what people mostly mean is:

Watch a high budget movie and lets forget about narrative, score, acting and directing for the time being. Your average movie has great photography. The slick visual image is always attributed to a great DOP, using "a great camera" with appropriate lenses, access to powerful locations and a careful selection of lighting. Click record. There you have the "filmic" look. Grade it, and it looks even better.

The "great camera" becomes the point of contention, but the truth is that even an old GH1 or nex 3 can still achieve that filmic look. If you think 10 years ago, a $3000 Sony PD170 could in no way achieve this look - no matter the DOP. Its ironic for beginners to spend $3000 on the best current camera, while assuming that the better sensor will make up for a lack of basic photography skill. They say it takes ten thousand hours of practice to be an expert. Thats a lot of shooting time. The truth is that even a used GH1 or GH2 for a few hundred bucks can achieve more than what most of us are capable of.  

group hug

I think even in 4 years the 5D still shines as an amazing stills camera, build quality and full frame retains more value - even though in 4 years it might be a bit outdated in the video realm. On the other hand, GH4 would probably be much cheaper in 4 years.

I think anyone who feels so strongly that either camera smashes the other is blinded by being too emotionally involved. My eyes don't see such a dramatic difference, I think it boils down to being a matter of preference . I'd prefer go full frame - but if I had a collection of m43 lenses I'd be delighted with the GH4. 

Thanks Andrew! Loving the GH4 so far, so many awesome features and customization options in the menu. Did a shoot recently with the Nikon D600, Canon 5DmkIII (unhacked) and the GH4. Some people don't see a difference between HD and 4K, well the Nikon and Cameras aren't even shooting true 1080p, they are mushy and ugly compared to the crisp detail on the GH4.

 

The raw hack on the 5DmkIII is nice but the workflow is so slow and cumbersome. It gives beautiful result but is not user friendly at all. The GH4 gets you very close while being very easy to use.

I have only once worked, editing some Red footage. If the ML raw is more cumbersome and heavy... I'd definitely not be interested... no matter the result.

I've always been of the opinion that hd, then 4k, then 8k etc have been quantifiable numbers which happen to be marketing friendly and that it didn't really matter.  I'm not getting a gh4 since I want full frame, but this test really does show how really great that extra resolution is.  If you want it lower res, mis focus slightly or whack a gaussian blur of 2pixels over the image and you have good old 1080p.  the issue is that a lot of users won't consider or implement all of the factors that make up a true cinema experience and the added resolution will only serve to multiply the obviousness of the failings and the pointlessness of the users decision to shoot 4k (who will likely be a consumer under the impression they are a professional, rather than a professional moving with the current trend).  It'll be when Andrew does a creative piece with the camera and his cookes or someone like Hugo Goudsward takes the camera and makes it work for him that we'll see the jump where the resolution really takes it up a notch.  

 

just to clarify I completely disregarded the term 4k within a consumer camera, and the term gh4 (due to my dislike of anything smaller than full frame:)- until this test.  8 months ago the 5d3 raw hack turned everything on its head and now there is the little gh4 which doesnt need 10gb/min worth of cards to shoot with it.  superb IMO

Totally agree with you Ric. Looks like you and me might be waiting to hear about the A7s, though to be honest I'm ok waiting a good year until investing in my next body. After the GH1, GH2, nex 5 and Nex 7 I'd prefer upgrading to full frame. For now I'm just loving the progress thats happening and the speedbooster does the trick until my next splurge. I'll be following EOSHD daily, as I always did (before I decided to dive in and start posting)

I see what you're saying richg101. It definitely makes sense - though I think Chris was just making fun of the fact that sharpness is obsessed upon through meticulous pixel peeping, only to be blurred down in order to ultimately get more character. I don't think he was being too serious, its obvious that the extra camera resolution is an incredible plus.

I think the camera resolution is at the optimum level for me... I wouldn't require more for now. Next I'd rather see a global shutter remove jello so that that resolution can be equally applied to nice moving shots.

In a couple of days we'll know for sure, but for now rumors point to a competitive price:

 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sony-a7s-priced-at-1800

 

If it's in the ballpark of that amount, or simply under 2000$, the GH4 is going to have some nice competition... and it would seem logical.

Thanks Pablo... If this is true, great news indeed.

Obviously more tests and comparisons need to be done before getting too excited, but this definitely is a reasonable price. I'm eagerly waiting for the announcement and sample videos like a child before christmas.  :ph34r:

As much as I think the GH4 looks amazing, I want a small camera for video and great stills as well. Having GH and NEX bodies - I think I've decided that my next upgrade simply must be full frame (and I'd rather not lug around a MK3). I'd rather keep investing in old primes and legacy lenses at the focal view they were intended for.

You're making the mistake of thinking that older lenses are not sharp, when infact they are usually more than capable of outresolving 4k.  lenses made 50years may not be as contrasty (giving a perceived lower resolution, but they were designed for 35mm film - which surpasses 4k in resolution terms when we start talking about low ASA films.

 

the difference between using a high resolution camera and an old lens (which appears less sharp due to being less contrasty) vs a low resolution camera + modern 'sharp' contrasty lens  is that the lack of resolution from the low res camera is happening in the digital domain due to a technological hurdle.  In comparison the lower perceived resolution/ sharpness of the older lens on the high res camera is attributed within the physical domain, created in the glass and as a result is tangible and more appealing - particularly when the camera is capable of resolving these subtleties the glass creates.

 

a helios 44 from 1965 stopped down to f2.8 is more than adequate right to the edges for 36mpx shots on the nikon d800 and sony a7r - these have imaging areas 3 times that of the gh4 and still photo resolutions almost double what 4k is.  

Are you referring specifically to cinema lenses, generally old lenses or just stating that there are some very sharp old lenses?

I agree with the logic that less contrasty is not less sharp but everyone seems to agree that for example many canon FD's are a little soft and Leica M's often have that glow... with every lens having a "personality". It seems to me that most of the "personality" in older lenses on digital bodies is ultimately some sort of reduction of that digital sharpness in some way or another.

What do you think?

Yes that's pretty much my single reservation as well, that it isn't full frame! A7S is definitely high up my list to try out.

 

As for sharpness, the GH4 at -5 sharpness is actually quite soft in 4K at 1:1... when the image is down sampled to 2K certain downsampling methods can make it look a bit too sharp. Simply add a slight Gaussian blur in post. It will be interesting to use my LOMO anamorphic on it wide open too.

Anamorphics will surely shine on the GH4. Maybe more so than any other camera I'd assume. The crop factor probably works in its favor.

On a side note, showed a photographer / filmmaker friend of mine your site to hold off on buying the BMCC, as your reviews added some new insight he wasn't aware of. As a Nikon owner he hadn't heard of the ML hack (or the Nikon hack for that matter) but was convinced that the name EOSHD made you particularly biased to Canon. I had to run him through quite a few of your various older posts until he was convinced that the site name was entirely incidental and that this is all 100% unbiased pixel peeping and lens porn.

I stay off that forum, it's a total abject waste of my time to be involved in defending cameras. Defend a country! Defend a person. But not a bloody camera :)

This. I do find consumer loyalty quite funny. Not everyone is in a position to lash out on a new body every year - so its not surprising that there is a bit of that defensive (brand loyal) attitude to justify expensive purchases. I suppose thats where the resentment comes from - having spent hard earned cash on a particular camera, only to discover that there are better buys to be had. It's an inevitable reality. Thats why I always like to hear from those less biased reviewers who own multiple systems and seem less emotionally charged about their splurges.

A GX8 would kill if it had GH3's 50mbps IPB and the IBIS working invideo mode. It would be great for both stills and FHD video, it would have the IBIS for lenses with adapter, it would be smaller than the GH line up, it would not have the articulated screen but it would have a great balance between size, stills and video feats.

Oh yes, for sure. Using manual lenses with in body stabilization is a luxury I've never experienced. Would be awesome. I think with the low light of the A7s its probably never going to come in handy though... but a cool feature nevertheless.

The GH4's resolution is mind blowing there. Really impressive. I think it will be amazing for green screen work specifically. Cinematically, sharpness is not exactly a look I would always want to go for, but you can always use lenses or post to unsharpen or add more character. Vica versa is not possible (i.e.: adding detail where the resolution isn't there) so definitely not putting down the sharpness. Amazing detail out of the box, no hack.

As for the "video" look people talk about... what video cameras are people comparing the GH look to? I think often its either 30p, bad lighting, stock lenses, using all auto settings and ultimately a basic point and shoot handheld style that give these cameras a "video" feel. The whole "video look" comments are quite ridiculous really.

The article wraps up my sentiments perfectly. The single hesitation I have is that its not full frame. FF is not a gimmick - it allows for wider shots to be used with lenses performing at their intended focal view. Better low - light. Shallower depth of field. I like all of these features quite considerably... making my expectations very high at the upcoming Sony A7s.

I think whoever is not really needing a new camera would be sensible to wait 6 months. Now that the GH4 seems to set the standard for sharpness and detail... who knows, maybe the next 4K beast will feature a global shutter. That would be a real winner.

Whatever the case, at $1700 this is very very tempting. Lets just cross fingers for the A7s as being a good FF alternative. 

While that may be true, don't tar all amateurs with that brush - I love film making and yes, I make films about my kid, my dog and a tonne of other stuff you're not going to enjoy watching - but then, you're not the intended audience. When I make a movie about an incredible bridge I saw, just remember, when you sneer at it, you're sneering at my holiday album - I put it on vimeo so that I can share it with the other people who were on holiday with me by sharing a link. Do I rack focus, well actually I do, but do you make you family wait for golden hour to make sure your holiday snaps of bridges are "professional" quality?

 

I'm not a professional, I don't want to be and if you know you can make better than me by virtue of doing it for your living, that's just fine, but I'm a test driver for a living. I get to drive exotic cars every day of my life, fast around amazing roads. Is it fair of me to sneer at what car you drive, offer professional level "critique" when you need a second stab at parking straight, chortle at you in internet forums as you can't change a wheel in 30 seconds? I understand what it's like to be so good at something that you can make a living out of it while being surrounded by everyone else who can only just function, I really do, but I promise you, it's not necessary to be a bellend about it.

I think Filmbrute is misunderstood here.

From what he wrote, I think he's saying that professionals are making great work on cameras that may not be the best... however they're pushed to their limits to achieve awesome results. Some hobbyists may never use features that cost thousands of dollars, yet complain bitterly how these camera are inadequate. Its a true irony that in no way is done to offend hobbyists. Most of the time the enthusiastic hobbyists become professionals, or at least produce work of a pro quality.

Its more of a comment on this materialist trend in consumerism to always have the best, regardless of whether its worth it, needed or even used at all. It becomes more an industry of appearances than actual artistry. This is evident by many clients who see the smaller gh2 or gh3 and assume that the filmmaker is not as pro as one who uses the 5D Mark ii. 

I don't think its anything to get too defensive about. If you test cars, travel or have a beautiful family, you have incredible inspiration for some amazing footage. However sometimes purchasing the best camera with all of the bells and whistles starts to become the inspiration, which is sad.

If you're new to filming, you have more than enough firepower in the 5d Mark III. I would try learn more about principles of photography and film - and do some tests of your own before even dreaming of selling your 5D in order to upgrade. If you can't pull off the look you're wanting to get on a 5D - you won't get that look on any camera. Have you any video samples that you've done, where you see the results are not satisfactory - prompting you to upgrade?

Thanks for the feedback.  I've found a few clips that show the GH4 in a better light:  

>

 

Still can't tell which one I'd like better...I guess i'll have to wait until around May/June when people have had a real go at filming and editing, as well as comparing.

 

I am an amateur.  I am a public school teacher looking to make narratives as well as interview documentaries that are both visually stimulating and with a meaty storyline.  I don't have a huge budget and love the look of 5d3 Raw, yet do not possess the equipment or knowledge on how to maximize my usage of raw filming and footage.  I could go out and buy the extra storage etc. but at the end of the day with the a7s and gh4 on the horizon why hamstring myself?

Damn... I would have really liked my next camera to be the A7s

Amazing - like turning night into day - unfortunately the day part just looks like a normal cloudy day with bad light :)

 

Anyone else think this is an absurd way of presenting a test anyway?

 

It's so compressed that ISO 1600 looks noisier and blockier than ISO 25600.

 

Cannot get a proper impression of anything from YouTube.

 

This is why I put my camera tests on Vimeo instead.

 

Get the original file up somewhere!

 

Well I think if I was in charge of marketing the most light sensitive prosumer camera ever designed - effortlessly turning dark into light and effectively "seeing in the dark" - I'd definitely do some more polished promotional work. Design an award winning site devoted to the A7s with downloadable full res files, hire the best videographers and do various studio tests to show exactly how this camera is so vastly superior. 

Marketing creativity is everything and selling a product that is a creative marketing tool in its own right, you'd expect a bit more. Well, at least I do. Its a bit bizarre that they leave it up to bloggers to do all the tests but I suppose they know what they're doing. When I create a multi billion dollar company I'll be in a position to tell them how to do things... maybe the public suspense and indepnendant parties blogging is far better PR. But then again Canon had no interest in Magic Lantern and neither did Panasonic care much about Vitaly's hack... I wonder what the guys up there in the labs and boardrooms really are thinking.

With the ISO power of the 12.2 MP sensor, I don't see much need in speed booster. While a stop is worthwhile on deeper depth of field sensors, with the huge ISO power of this new sensor, I'd save the money and get a cheaper adapter. 

Speed booster is for cropped frame sensors to replicate the FOV of a full frame. A7s is full frame - theres no using the speed booster on full frames.

What do you think of this article? "8 bit or 10 bit? The truth may surprise you"

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/156-8-bit-or-10-bit-the-truth-may-surprise-you

Not many seem to appreciate M43 photos.   Steve Huff is about the only one making a mark evangelizing for M43 as a photo format.  Personally, I like it.  It doesn't feel limiting to me.

Im a gh1 and nex 7 owner and certainly enjoyed both for photos, but my decision as to whether to go for the GH4 or A7s would definitely take stills into consideration. Full frame and not dealing with crop factor opens up more options. at the same time, I do like the pana 20mm 1.7 and the look of the new 15mm 1.7. It's a tough decision. I'll enjoy the next few months of pixel peaking and watching tests and comparisons thoroughly.

I'm just saying that if the sony is a far better stills camera, that carries some weight in my decision. 

I think an important factor to add in is, how good will the A7s be for stills. If you have a smaller Canon Mark 3 equivalent - you're enjoying the best quality stills camera with the best quality video camera. I think the GH4 could be lacking in that department a bit.

hmmm - this camera is suddenly very attractive.

Upstream Color shot on GH2 and voigtlanders... imagine the A7s full frame at 4k with some fast voigtlanders

So what hardware is required to shoot in 4k?