Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Check out the First Short Film Shot on the 4K Panasonic GH4: Does high resolution = video-ish image

Recommended Posts

Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/first-short-film-shot-on-4k-panasonic-gh4/

Check this out & read the comments. It seems it's common knowledge now that the GH4s image is very video-y and incapable of producing filmic images. I am stunned by the amount of comments saying this. I know it's pure crap and in the right hands it can produce a filmic image, maybe harder than say a Blackmagic but still do-able.

My question is do people actually associate a sharp - detailed image with video-look?
Is this why people see the Alexa's 2.8K resolution more filmic for example?
Does high resolution = video-ish image?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I agree, i have been using mine at 4K and it looks nothing like that, That was just the look he wanted mabye. The cool thing about the GH4 is how you can make it your own...So you can a basic one with a basic lens, or you can have one with a speedbooster and shooting 10 bit and have an amazing image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Not this again :rolleyes:

 

I've tried searching but haven't found a discussion on resolution in relation to video/film look, if you know where please point me to it, I would hate flooding the forum with duplicate threads :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in the hands of the user. 
It can look pretty great if used properly.

 

I'm not sure why that short in the OP came out the way it did. Perhaps Nick was playing a big prank on all of us? I didn't care for the image either, but I know Nick is capable of better. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people doing video work (that looks like film to them  :) ) usually only have one lens beside the stock one, the cheaper 50mm from Canon, that's a safe lens, you can get easily good pictures without much work involved.

With wider lens you have to be more careful, there's much more going on in the image, many people don't get it right easily, i think that this short is one good example, it was made in a hurry also.

The light is mostly bad, the color grading… at some times looks like it came from a Canon DSLR, too much red tint, again made in a hurry maybe with bad reference monitors and maybe by inexperienced grader.

The "actors" and editing… it's that kind of things that can work within a group of friends but you should't show it to everyone else.   :)

 

It's not the camera, it's how and what you do with it. Not so long ago we were putting lens adapters in front of our DVX100, HVX200, PD150 so it could have the "film look", without it it was a video camera that made videoish images. The film that Gareth Edwards made before the new "Godzilla" was shot with a Sony EX3 with a lens adapter http://nakedfilmmaking.com/2010/10/05/naked-monster-the-future-of-film/  

 

I respect Nick Driftwood a lot but i think he got carried away with this hype around GH4 and with everyone trying to show new footage.

 

My order is still awaiting for stock in Europe, i won't cancel it because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/first-short-film-shot-on-4k-panasonic-gh4/

Check this out & read the comments. It seems it's common knowledge now that the GH4s image is very video-y and incapable of producing filmic images. I am stunned by the amount of comments saying this. I know it's pure crap and in the right hands it can produce a filmic image, maybe harder than say a Blackmagic but still do-able.

 

This was shot on film...

 

 

Therefore I have decided film is incapable of producing a filmic image!

 

The first comment on nofilmschool kind of sums it up

 

If I was the CEO of Panasonic, I would buy this film and immediately take it down. Then tell these “filmmakers” to stop using the GH4.

 

Give a hack a camera, and a hack of a film comes out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's certainly lacking the 'look' I associate with film.  but that's due to a lack of exceptional lighting, cinema lenses, cinema grip, oscar winning talent, art dept, make-up, travelling budget, a tarrantino type director, colourist, sound dept , etc etc etc, and the rest of the heaviness and weight added to a real cinema production.

 

The issue is that everyone sat at their computer desks on their high horses reading these sites actually seem to think they will one day be shooting features like Pulp Fiction and Dead Man's Shoes, when in reality they'll never shoot something like this test will never be on set during a shoot for the BBC (which usually pale in comparison to true Hollywood imo), or even a tacky washing up liquid commercial for real TV channels.  

 

We've finally got to the point where the dream of the everyday consumer being a real film maker is killed due to there no longer being any more excuses.  Naturally these muppets expecting to buy a camera and to turn into a film maker overnight  are clutching at straws with their flippant remarks related to the film.

 

That said, personally I think Panasonic may have made a big mistake having this as a centre piece when advertising a consumer camera since it gives the consumers too many opportunities to pull apart the actual film making and creative decisions.  I think if they had shoved some of those lovely Cooke morphics on the front and done a technical test like the one shot for Cooke in london, with lenses wide open the comments would be a different story.

 

Let these fools carry on talking.  It's all they can do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julians shots already were enough to convince me that you can get great cinematic look out of GH4.

 

There was a time when nofilmschool had some useful comment threads as well, but that time is long gone. Ignore and move along :)

 

To me that video speaks of itself. They clearly mention that it was all done in 2 days. Which probably means they were too ambitious about their idea and the filming - which made them end up rushing the post work to be able to finish. Been there, done that - and learnt that you need to plan which shortcuts to take if you want to produce something good in a short amount of time.

Had I had two days to pull something off with any camera, I'd try a much simpler story with fewer shots so I could focus on getting the shots right and having a much simpler process for editing and coloring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO they didn't do a great job lighting it, or editing it. It's really hard to tell because it looks like the shots were framed right, they just didn't come out. Granted,  i've already seen footage that looks much better than this from the gh4, so i know it can do better.  On the whole it's what i expect, a great image with a limited amount of latitude in post. 

 

But honestly it looks like they didn't even try and grade it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No attention to lighting.  No color grading.  No effort done to get the most dynamic range by using different color profiles in harsh lighting.  Too much camera shake.  Maybe some attempt to show you improvements with moire.  

 

I don't think these guys don't know how to make their *movie* look less like something shot with a p&s.  I think they were trying to give everyone some real-life expectations out of the box, but instead, they made themselves look like amateurs.

 

It's made by Driftwood...the guy who creates hacks for the GH2.  I'm sure he knows his stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was shot on film...

 

 

Therefore I have decided film is incapable of producing a filmic image!

where did you remember this movie "the room"? you know they hold screenings in cinemas to go see this epic cult, probably one of the worst movies ever made... as for the gh4 footage, everyone can have a pencil not everyone can write a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GH cameras can look beautiful, but it doesnt come as easily to them as to others.. Im thinking about A7S as a replacement for my GH3 and starting to believe that a cameras personality is as important as specs on paper. With Nikon and Sony alphas, even looking at video uploads by people without much skill, using cheap or kit lenses or bad lighting, they have something that just looks naturally pleasing to the eye out of the box, which I think comes harder for the GH's.. 

 

Totally unscientific and subjective comment of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did you remember this movie "the room"?


This played in my town a few weeks back. The thing I find ironic about the film is that Wiseau made a movie that'll be more popular and memorable than anything most people with actual talent will ever do.

Even when I own the magic GH4, I'll most likely never achieve his level of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...........Wiseau made a movie that'll be more popular and memorable than anything most people with actual talent will ever do.
 

yes but if you have passion and work hard you can achieve everything, he reminds me Ed Wood with the sci fi movies in the 50s... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's certainly lacking the 'look' I associate with film.  but that's due to a lack of exceptional lighting, cinema lenses, cinema grip, oscar winning talent, art dept, make-up, travelling budget, a tarrantino type director, colourist, sound dept , etc etc etc, and the rest of the heaviness and weight added to a real cinema production.

 

 

 

Absolutely not. Look at 5DIII Raw footage that look amazingly filmic without any light, grip and tarantino. 

It is the same when we compare a MF camera for stills and my iPhone, or with a M43 body. Look is definitely not the same. 
Same apply for video, and FF + Raw is way ahead of what we can get from the GH4. 

Of course in term of pure sharpness the GH4 is amazing. 

I am not sure A7S will be that filmic ... lack of raw. 

 

canonrumors just said 7D II is on the way with a big focus on video. This + Raw with magic lantern will be great. Best will be 5DIV with 4k, 60fps and RAW with magic lantern. 

 

GH4 sucks in stills (compared to full frame, again from the look) and is amazing in video for resolution + 96fps. So I would not buy it even for 1000bucks. 

 

Let's be patient :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish! They ripped off the title sequence from one film & failed to recreate any sense of any of the Dollar films!

Probably nothing to do with the camera, but all to do with the users.

Perhaps they should've tried for something closer to this 20yr old ditty?!

 

 

Could've easily done this in 2 days.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GH cameras can look beautiful, but it doesnt come as easily to them as to others.. Im thinking about A7S as a replacement for my GH3 and starting to believe that a cameras personality is as important as specs on paper. With Nikon and Sony alphas, even looking at video uploads by people without much skill, using cheap or kit lenses or bad lighting, they have something that just looks naturally pleasing to the eye out of the box, which I think comes harder for the GH's.. 

 

Totally unscientific and subjective comment of course!

 

I find the GH cameras often produce a hard, glassy look.  This may be due to the combination of small sensor and high inherent sharpness.  I haven't seen any footage from the GH4 (yet) that looks more appealing than what J SPRUILL posted a few days ago, simply shot with an A6000 without any fancy lighting:

 

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a few seconds of the clip linked in the topic start: both exposure (over exposed highlights) and grading look terrible. No shit it looks like crap. I can make ML raw look crap like that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...