Tim Naylor

Test is not as bad as you say. At least you shot movement and people. I can't stand the tests that shoot historic buildings and rivers on sliders with no faces. The flesh tones were the most revealing. Thanks for shooting in a neighborhood I know all too well. The night shots were nice. I'd love to see how the night holds up at 800-1600 ASA. I'm a Brooklyn DP, give me a shout next time you want to take the camera through its paces. I have charts, lights, people, etc.

I'm torn. I love the night footage and latitude of the A7S but that RS is not pretty. The Atomos option sounds great. I usually shoot DSLR's with monitors anyway. At 2000.00 for 1920x1080 that records 4k, that's insane. My Small HD 5.6 ran be 1600.00 back in the day.

We are Film-makers. Video-makers. If there's anyone who will criticize the video, it's us.

You can't ask us to watch this from the POV of a fan teenager of the band, if you want that POV, there are many forums for contemporary music. 

If we find a flaw in the video, we will criticize and point it out, otherwise we're not good filmmakers and don't know what's right and wrong.

And when we do, we shouldn't get a pretentious - rude reply asking us to show our own work,

or telling us we have to go and make a better video to be worthy of criticizing. We don't.

___________________________

Good point. It's rather obtuse to use the old "make a better one" or shut up argument. Imagine if that extended to all facets of life ( i.e.: "Make a better country if you don't like it. or "you find a better way to deal with the Middle East"). Anyway, this video does bring up the dichotomy between content and technique (gear and execution). At what point does technique become an impediment or benefit? What end of our technique truly influence the audience? For example, contrary to many here, I feel 4k is insignificant compared to 2k for virtually all audiences. Which is why I shoot almost all of my narrative work on a 2k camera. In terms of this video, I feel the same about any "warping". It's so "lo fi" that warping is the last thing anyone would notice. But if it were present in Lawrence of Arabia.....

It could've been shot on a Fisher Price pixel vision and I would've loved it. Regarding Gondry's "genius", surely you can't say Bjork's "Human..." is that deep. Nothing on the level of his feature work. Not knocking Gondry, but I think he too understands that videos by nature get as a deep as a comic book compared to a novel. 

I applaud the audacity by OKG to shake things up and make people question the nature of a video. In the end, it captures and embellishes the spirit of the song while also selling the personalities of the band. What more could they ask for? Less "warp"?

Horrible stabilization. Appalling, I can't watch it! Is something wrong with me? Have I been pixel peeping too much?

 

Yes. See a doctor.

I think the video's brilliant and the camera a perfect choice. I can't believe people are harping on about stabilization and less than perfect execution. It's like complaining about their earlier videos because they're not professional dancers. 

We should be celebrating the attempt to do something different and intriguing rather than the usual mind numbing video tripe. I'm currently working on a movie and my gaffer, Jordan Bell, was also a grip on this video. They paid well and had the money to make it Movi smooth. They spent a couple weeks just rigging effects. It was lit by overhead space lights. Never was the intent to make it big budget slick.

If you don't get the video and think it amateurish, you can't be helped.

Also depends on the exposure. James Miller has had some nice shadows out of it

 

Thanks for this reference. Very helpful. Anyone in NYC with a GH4 care to run some tests. I'm now thinking about using it as a B cam for some hard to mount  situations (for the Alexa). Contact me asap.

Agreed.  Check this out:

 

Says very little about rich skin tones.

It's added in post. Just his personal taste/ aesthetic. Perhaps a bit much on a larger display, but I think it suits the tone of the video nicely.

Didn't know. Thanks for clearing that up. 

This skin tone conversation is complete nonsense. There has been lots of footage of people shot with the GH4, and skin tones are beautiful. But it's great to hear the GH4 being mentioned in the same breath as cameras costing $30,000 and up!

@Tim Naylor Did it come as a huge surprise that the Arri had better colors than the Red and the F55?

Nonsense how? Sure I can get great skin tones on most any camera with enough grading but it often comes at a cost. In the case of the F55 it would distort the color chart to the point the art department would have to attempt some unworkable interpolation or we're stuck with having to key and power window every shot with faces.

I've seen some well shot flesh tones on the GH4 but I don't know what they started with. A large part of my job is to match footage from shot to shot, scene to scene, so color accuracy is paramount. Should you care, try this test: Light a face at 2:1 contrast next to a Macbeth Color chart (in the fill light). Then do it 4:1, 8:1, 16:1, 32:1 64:1 (basically taking the fill from -1 stop to -6 stops)  at a variety of ASA's. It takes two lights and half an hour. You'll quickly know how chip behaves.

Regarding the "huge surprise" that Alexa performed better, I'd say yes. Mainly because, it's 2-3 year older technology. all cameras are 16 bit and much of the hype I'd been reading on Dragon, I was expecting better. I did not expect Sony to be so bad compared to Epic and Arri. But I truly believe that the Arri being 2k (down sampled from 3k chip) plays a large part in the better color space. 

In the coming weeks (after my film) I plan to shoot a contrast test with the GH4. From some of the setting advice I'm seeing here and elsewhere, I have high hopes. I'll also take it to the same post house as the other tests. I'll be sure to post it.

I find Sony boost the red channel in all their cameras at the expense of blue, possibly accuracy in greens can be lacking too.

 

My Sony RX1 stills camera for instance is extremely harsh for portrait shots, it really does make people look ill, with red bags under their eyes, magnifies any imperfection, gives blotchy redness and spottiness to faces... You have to desaturate the red channel massively afterwards. Not good.

 

This is where Canon are much stronger. Panasonic takes a bit more work but it gets there.

That's exactly what we found with the F55 tests. You get the red channel to behave, it screws up the balance of everything else. Real disappointment. 

I completely agree. I honestly didn't notice the noise until I read the comment - not that I couldn't see it, it's just that the image overall was so lovely that I didn't really take notice of it. Quite pleasing, and if it every frustrates in the future it could probably be completely removed with NeatVideo.

Side note: excellent review, Andrew! Well written, beautiful footage.

I  thought the noise was from a mis set ISO. I viewed it on a large monitor and found it somewhat degrading. Most of the GH4 footage I've seen is much cleaner.

There seems to be various pissing matches concerning specs of this camera and that. At the end of the day, does it produce an image you like and how useable it is? I'm in prep for a movie I start in a few weeks. Intended for theatrical release we need IQ that'll hold up to the big screen. So we tested F55 vs Dragon vs Alexa. The tests were precise and extensive: ISO, over / under exposure, all with people and Macbeth Color Charts. Because of the tight schedule, I wanted the smaller cameras (f55 and Dragon) to be as good or better than the Arri. So we graded and projected the results at a full on commercial grade suite with a 15' screen.

The producer and director immediately felt the Arri was a hands down the better image. They couldn't quantify it. Being a tech, for me and the colorist, it all came down to flesh tones and color grade across the entire exposure range. When we wrestled with the F55 to get a rich honest flesh tone, the color chart was completely off (read: extra time in post keying and windowing that no one wants to pay for). The Epic came close, having quietest noise at all ISO's, but it too had some flesh tone issues as well as color aberrations in clipped areas. Worth noting, we shot the Alexa at 444 Pro Rez, not Arri Raw. How does it retain its amazing colors? Trading pixels for color space, instead of spreading your butter too thin.

Why do I bring this up? Because much of the conversations here obsess about pixel count, DR and other specs but few mention how well it grades the human face and how the grade effects your back ground colors. When I compare cameras, it's the first thing I look at (and what audience's pay the most attention to). The F55 despite it's stellar specs is dead to me as a feature film camera. We don't make movies for techs.

So I'm holding my judgement on the GH4 until I see some footage, not of rocks, bridges and buildings at night, cars, aggressive music video LUT's but just attempts to shoot faces, graded as naturally as can be. This is what attracted me to the BMC line up. I felt the colors were honest, requiring little work out of the box. I believe this is much of the success of the C300/500 line (see Hurlbut tests) despite being 8 bit and clippy on the high end. The F55 held highlights 6 stops over key. Insane DR. But specs do not a great image make. We also tested Scheider Xenars vs Cooke S4's vs Super Speeds. The sharpest of the bunch, the Schneiders were the F55 of lenses. Soulless paperweights.

The one question I have is: how does the gh4 stack up against the original Red One? A lot of movies I enjoy were shot on the Red, and I'm curious as to just how far technology has advanced over the last few years.

I used to own a R1 MX. I thought if took outstanding footage that no DSLR could touch in terms of colorspace and DR. If I were in the market, I'd buy one over the new BMC shoulder cam or AJA scion. You'd probably score one for 7-8 grand US. 

I appreciate the Yosemite link. It's good to see how the camera reacts to high info stuff like water as well as hi con like snow. That said, I mostly shoot dramas. Does anyone have links non - experimental narratives with a "natural" looking grade or even DR tests that focus on faces? My biggest concerns are natural full range flesh tones and a decent contrast range.

Thanks

The GH4 has nearly 12 stops of dynamic range in 4K mode and the colour looks like 10bit... The issue is that the camera hasn't been handled right in post or with the in-camera settings for at least 95% of the footage out there so far on the web. There's a range of weird things you need to do to tweak it and you also need to adjust a few curves in post as well.

 

I have only just mastered it myself!

I'll keep my eye out. I think  we could be witnessing a learning curve. BTW to get 12 stops, what settings do you change?

This is truly fascinating. Reminds me of the 35mm adaptor days. As wonky as they were, I loved the look. I'd actually shoot a project on one now just to bring the funk back. If it had a moving ground glass that would really bring it back. Keeping an eye on this.

Does everyone here really like the look of this camera?  I am finding it hard to find any dissent.  The narrative and framing of this is excellent just not a fan of the actual look.  Curious to see what the a7s looks like as it becomes more available this summer.

Ok, here I go. I haven't seen anything from this camera that makes me want to buy it. I prefer the BMC 4k and the 5d3 (even in non raw) to the images I've seen from the GH4. They all feel crushed or clipped and somewhat video-ish to me. Perhaps it's the operation or grade. I'm not sure. But it seems to retain a lot of what I never liked about the GH2 and 3 (contrast, DR, colors, etc). And contrary to other claims, the Panasonic rep on the Zacuto clips says it's 11 stops DR at best. Footage I've seen bears this out.

What little I've seen of the A7s looks of a much higher quality. This is subjective of course, but I also feel some acolytes of the GH4 seem to see what what they want to believe. As someone who feels 4k doesn't walk on water, I just finished testing an Epic Dragon 5k vs F55 4k vs Alexa 2k for a movie I start soon. The 2k camera still came out on top (judged blind  to brand by director & producer).  Anyway, like you, I await the A7s and hope it delivers. 

Am I allowed to say all this?

The primal aesthetic of Kendy works because not only does he have an eye for drama but its consistent. If for instance, there was a perfectly steady slider shot with no noise and lit, the whole thing would fall apart. Something about shooting one lens IMO helps bring about consistency. 

 

I am still torn on what to use for an upcoming music video shoot. This has a set built in a basement of a tattoo studio and very little room to position the camera and we have a lot we want to obscure with focus tricks. The 5D Mark III in this situation would probably be the better bet.

When I go to Taiwan and do more documentary style shooting punched in on people and subjects from a distance, then that is where the GH4 is going to shine over full frame.

Tilt/Shift lenses?

It's worth pointing out that the sensor in an Alexa, Epic, F55, APS-C DSLR or a GH4 with a focal reducer is closer to the size of 35mm movie film that carried the golden age of cinema for almost a century than a 5d3.

Good point. I totally get that. What I'm trying to say, is Full Frame is its own distinct aesthetic that none of the digital pro cameras cater to (for now). I started ages ago with 35mm film before touching anything digital. The reason few would shoot Vista Vision or 65mm was because it was almost three times the cost in stock and processing as well as the gear being cumbersome as hell. With full frame digital cameras you can achieve a similar optical aesthetic at pennies to the dollar of yesteryear. In the Golden years of film, if it were economically viable to shoot on a bigger chip many more would have. Instead it was saved mostly for Epics, Sword and Sandals, Seven Bride/Seven Brothers, etc.

I guarantee in the next few years, the big boys will roll out Full Frame or 65mm, Alexas, Reds, Panavision, etc. 

At the end of the day chip sizes are like different brushes so to speak. Which is why I'm somewhat loathe to compare a 5D vs a GH4 as opposed a 5D to vs A7s. I'd choose the right tool for the right gig.

Some of the most inspiring work I've seen on this or any site. He gets the shots to tell the story without being obvious. I love how I forget about what it's shot on or care. Keep them coming.

Good low light test:

 

https://vimeo.com/94391188

Suggestion for doing an ISO test. Change only the ISO but keep exposure and all other variables the same. As you raise the ISO add different strengths of ND filters (or scrims when using lights) to keep the exposure consistent. It's truly one of the most un fun boring things to do, but you'll isolate what you're testing and be able to know with certainty what its thresholds are.

Unfortunately with this test, because the exposure goes up with the ISO to the point of being badly overexposed, it's difficult to judge noise thresholds when different ISO's are properly exposed.

Where I feel compelled to get a GH4 is the size. With gimbals, coptors, and rigging cameras into tight spots, in demand, I can see myself bringing one to every shoot, even if it isn't listed as our "A" cam. And the smaller chip could be an advantage as with floating shots focus becomes a dicier operation. Considering the money I'll be shelling out on a gimbal soon with FI control, wireless FF, and wireless feed, 1700.00 is looking like the cheapest component.

From the few sony videos I've seen, I am under the impression that the A7s  IQ is better than GH4. Not to speak of the DR.

 

If one cares about 4k, it seems obvious to go with the pana. But for someone like me who simply wants a great full HD 1080p quality, the dilemma is not so easy to overcome.

 

I am hoping that we'll see some decent and unbiased reviews / comparisons regarding the IQ of both cameras NOT ONLY at 4k, which has suddenly become the holy grail for everyone, but also at 1080p.

 

It is evident that gh4 has more features but what i'd like to see is a comparison focused strictly on the image quality at 1080p. Hopefully around mid May someone will be kind enough to make one.  :)

 Agreed. From what I've seen, I like the overall image of the A7s considerably more. I'm also most interested in 1080p delivery. Though I haven't heard anything definitive on Gh4's DR, from what I've seen this seems to be its biggest limitation. The DR on the A7s looks quite amazing, giving IMO just better more natural IQ. What's the word on rolling shutter? 

Just found this: 

Interesting how it grades.