The importance of firmware updates and why Panasonic are too late with V-LOG for the GH4

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Art Adams has a nice article with a couple very helpful graphs. http://www.provideocoalition.com/log-vs-raw-the-simple-version

And so far, despite being flatter than CineD, VLog doesn't seem to crush skintones as much, which is the only major concern with a flat profile in 8-bit. Besides, you can always take the 10-bit out if you're worried about muddy tones. 

I wouldn't mind so much if this were a paid update. I'd happily shell out $50-$100 to have this color science and DR on the GH4.

[johnnymossville]

During lunch break I played with the screen grab for a few minutes more just for the heck of it.  Along with the Varicam35 LUT I also played with image in Photoshop Camera Raw a bit here.   I don't think there are any skin-tone issues to worry about at all once we finally get V-LOG.  Image degradation seems nonexistent as well, and this is a screen grab of a compressed youtube video.    I think we are in for a treat when we get the real deal. 

 

[Ed_David]

I think the GH4 will become a very viable camera once it gets v-log if they don't mess it up.

I still like Canon's skintones so much - as well as Nikon.  But not their video capabilities - the moire and all that is pretty crappy.

Samsumg NX1 skintone is good - albeit a little too magneta for me - still haven't made it not feel as good as Nikon or Canon stills.

I wish Nikon would rise from the ashes and make a killer video/stills hybrid.

Until then Samsung NX1 is good for me.  Still don't like the skintones or noise in the A7S.  But I haven't really used it much since the first tests I did with the camera.

[MattH]

Im sure I can't be only one who thinks the v-log L shots look a bit iffy?

 

Even graded, the colours and tones seem to have a sort of matte pastel grey mush look to them.

No natural tonality.

Just like cinelike D but even more exagerated.

 

It looks like when you mess around with the contrast settings and the clipping points stay the same but the image just looks flater and duller.

 

And there seem to be weird yellow-green tinges here and there.

 

Having said that, the outdoor shot in the latest video looks better than others, so im not rulling it out yet.  But it still has a bit of a matte look.

[AaronChicago]

Im sure I can't be only one who thinks the v-log L shots look a bit iffy?

 

Even graded, the colours and tones seem to have a sort of matte pastel grey mush look to them.

No natural tonality.

Just like cinelike D but even more exagerated.

 

It looks like when you mess around with the contrast settings and the clipping points stay the same but the image just looks flater and duller.

 

And there seem to be weird yellow-green tinges here and there.

 

Having said that, the outdoor shot in the latest video looks better than others, so im not rulling it out yet.  But it still has a bit of a matte look.

​I've got to agree with you although we've seen very little. I think saving a JPEG off of YouTube gives it a weird tone too. Keeping my hopes up.

[Fritz Pierre]

Jordan....thanks for the footage and input...it looks amazing, especially considering you just applied an Alexa Rec 709 Lut instead of a full grade...clearly the log profile offers the posibility of many variations of the clips!...did you shoot with all picture settings at 0 or did you adjust them and if so, to what?...Again, thanks much for sharing!!

[Brett Munoz]

Log does work very very well with 8bit. 8bit is not the issue, weak codecs are. 

Example, Canon C300, 8bit 50mpbs, Canon Log works a treat, even with the 8bit 24mbps C100, works beautifully. Sony A7s, works great (no banding or codec break up when while de-logging - some poeple don't like the a7s colour science but that's irrelevant).

Log is simply a logarithmic gamma curve to get a flat tonal range easier to grade and protect both ends of the spectrum it will work with any codec that has the ability to be strongly contrast-adjusted without introducing artefacts. 

GH4 4K 100mbps codec is one of the strongest 8bit codecs, as is the 200mbps 1080p, not to mention the ability to record 10bit 600mbps 1080p ProRes HQ through HDMI (You can get that for 300$ Ninja Star or 500$ Ninja2 that gives you an extra 5" field monitor)

 A strong Log curve coupled with tweaked colour science (which is what V-log is, it's also a little colour magic) is a perfect companion for the GH4. 

I don't mean to offend but maybe it's good enough for grading video of your kids in the backyard but for professional environments where you know you will be color grading you will roll with 10bits if not raw because its not worth the risk.  I rather bake in 8bits if I know I will only be making small adjustments.  

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I don't mean to offend but maybe it's good enough for grading video of your kids in the backyard but for professional environments where you know you will be color grading you will roll with 10bits if not raw because its not worth the risk.  I rather bake in 8bits if I know I will only be making small adjustments.  

 

Well no offence taken but I never shot my kids in a backyard. Will I don't have backyard. Aside from joking, I shot 8bit Log for national HDTV, for high-end commercials (Toyota, Ford, High-end make up/fashion clients), and 2 national-wide cinema release feature films. All 8bit. Strong grades were made by high-end post-production houses, and phenomenal image quality was produced. The funny thing is I never want to shoot 8bit, it's just that every project I direct I go to location and they have a C300, it's just the de-facto standard. 

All I am saying is that 8bit is not on itself the main devil. For example, the 8bit H.264 image of the C300 can be pushed further than the BMP4K at 12bit raw! Why? because the moment I try to touch the BM file I get FPN and horrible shadows, due to a sensor defect. While the C300 has a good sensor and a modest codec giving a more robust image for grading. I was shocked grading both side by side, both having the same sensor size, the same lens, one at 12bit raw less gradeable than one with a compressed 8bit H.264 one. 

The point is that it's SO many variables that make up high image quality, so many. Sensor size, lowlight performance, shadow DR, highlight roll-off, aliasing, moire, rolling shutter, lens resolution, colour science, image processor, downsampling algorithm, and of course codec, which in itself has many variables aside from just bit depth, including chroma subsampling, bit-rate, and most importantly the compression algorithm/quality of the codec, log-gop, all-i, motion based, VBR, CBR, etc

All variables being constant, a 10bit image will show less banding than 8bit on solid gradients (which therefore gives more room to push, especially with a sutble gradation in the scene), and 12bit will give more than 10bit, and so on. It is a fact. And that's where you're coming from. I agree. 

But in real world, variables are never constant. Never be tricked into thinking an image on a certain camera is good/bad/gradeable/brittle based on the bit depth on the spec sheet. Real world examples of many cameras prove the opposite can and does happen more often than you'd think. 

I believe in 8bit. I believe in 8bit Log. But only when the camera manufacturer gives me a good sensor and processor and an adequate Log gamma for 8bit. 

A recent disaster was the GH4 with V-Log at 8big, I sold the camera for that. The image quality of the camera simply could not handle the post-production required to correct the Log images. On the a7s it's somewhere in-between, yes while the image is robust enough in terms of de-logging artefacts, the colours end up brittle for a reason that I don't know if it's the weak codec for shooting LOG or just a bad processor (colour science/matrix). Canon and Nikon Log makes me believe in 8bit Log and how great it can be in retaining huge dynamic range and great gradeability  with small file sizes. 

[AaronChicago]

 

Well no offence taken but I never shot my kids in a backyard. Will I don't have backyard. Aside from joking, I shot 8bit Log for national HDTV, for high-end commercials (Toyota, Ford, High-end make up/fashion clients), and 2 national-wide cinema release feature films. All 8bit. Strong grades were made by high-end post-production houses, and phenomenal image quality was produced. The funny thing is I never want to shoot 8bit, it's just that every project I direct I go to location and they have a C300, it's just the de-facto standard. 

All I am saying is that 8bit is not on itself the main devil. For example, the 8bit H.264 image of the C300 can be pushed further than the BMP4K at 12bit raw! Why? because the moment I try to touch the BM file I get FPN and horrible shadows, due to a sensor defect. While the C300 has a good sensor and a modest codec giving a more robust image for grading. I was shocked grading both side by side, both having the same sensor size, the same lens, one at 12bit raw less gradeable than one with a compressed 8bit H.264 one. 

The point is that it's SO many variables that make up high image quality, so many. Sensor size, lowlight performance, shadow DR, highlight roll-off, aliasing, moire, rolling shutter, lens resolution, colour science, image processor, downsampling algorithm, and of course codec, which in itself has many variables aside from just bit depth, including chroma subsampling, bit-rate, and most importantly the compression algorithm/quality of the codec, log-gop, all-i, motion based, VBR, CBR, etc

All variables being constant, a 10bit image will show less banding than 8bit on solid gradients (which therefore gives more room to push, especially with a sutble gradation in the scene), and 12bit will give more than 10bit, and so on. It is a fact. And that's where you're coming from. I agree. 

But in real world, variables are never constant. Never be tricked into thinking an image on a certain camera is good/bad/gradeable/brittle based on the bit depth on the spec sheet. Real world examples of many cameras prove the opposite can and does happen more often than you'd think. 

I believe in 8bit. I believe in 8bit Log. But only when the camera manufacturer gives me a good sensor and processor and an adequate Log gamma for 8bit. 

A recent disaster was the GH4 with V-Log at 8big, I sold the camera for that. The image quality of the camera simply could not handle the post-production required to correct the Log images. On the a7s it's somewhere in-between, yes while the image is robust enough in terms of de-logging artefacts, the colours end up brittle for a reason that I don't know if it's the weak codec for shooting LOG or just a bad processor (colour science/matrix). Canon and Nikon Log makes me believe in 8bit Log and how great it can be in retaining huge dynamic range and great gradeability  with small file sizes. 

I agree with the Canon 8 bit codecs in the Cx00 line. They're pretty amazing.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Yes they really are a living proof that 8bit is not the issue we're fighting with these lower-end cameras.

You immediately say ''oh, so it's not 8 bit after all'' the moment you ingest C300 files and pull the curves aggressively. 

[Brett Munoz]

 

Well no offence taken but I never shot my kids in a backyard. Will I don't have backyard. Aside from joking, I shot 8bit Log for national HDTV, for high-end commercials (Toyota, Ford, High-end make up/fashion clients), and 2 national-wide cinema release feature films. All 8bit. Strong grades were made by high-end post-production houses, and phenomenal image quality was produced. The funny thing is I never want to shoot 8bit, it's just that every project I direct I go to location and they have a C300, it's just the de-facto standard. 

All I am saying is that 8bit is not on itself the main devil. For example, the 8bit H.264 image of the C300 can be pushed further than the BMP4K at 12bit raw! Why? because the moment I try to touch the BM file I get FPN and horrible shadows, due to a sensor defect. While the C300 has a good sensor and a modest codec giving a more robust image for grading. I was shocked grading both side by side, both having the same sensor size, the same lens, one at 12bit raw less gradeable than one with a compressed 8bit H.264 one. 

The point is that it's SO many variables that make up high image quality, so many. Sensor size, lowlight performance, shadow DR, highlight roll-off, aliasing, moire, rolling shutter, lens resolution, colour science, image processor, downsampling algorithm, and of course codec, which in itself has many variables aside from just bit depth, including chroma subsampling, bit-rate, and most importantly the compression algorithm/quality of the codec, log-gop, all-i, motion based, VBR, CBR, etc

All variables being constant, a 10bit image will show less banding than 8bit on solid gradients (which therefore gives more room to push, especially with a sutble gradation in the scene), and 12bit will give more than 10bit, and so on. It is a fact. And that's where you're coming from. I agree. 

But in real world, variables are never constant. Never be tricked into thinking an image on a certain camera is good/bad/gradeable/brittle based on the bit depth on the spec sheet. Real world examples of many cameras prove the opposite can and does happen more often than you'd think. 

I believe in 8bit. I believe in 8bit Log. But only when the camera manufacturer gives me a good sensor and processor and an adequate Log gamma for 8bit. 

A recent disaster was the GH4 with V-Log at 8big, I sold the camera for that. The image quality of the camera simply could not handle the post-production required to correct the Log images. On the a7s it's somewhere in-between, yes while the image is robust enough in terms of de-logging artefacts, the colours end up brittle for a reason that I don't know if it's the weak codec for shooting LOG or just a bad processor (colour science/matrix). Canon and Nikon Log makes me believe in 8bit Log and how great it can be in retaining huge dynamic range and great gradeability  with small file sizes. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it matters and most people won't be able to tell the difference.  Content is king!  However, on a budgeted professional shoot, I have only seen Reds or Alexas on raw or prores but I am sure there are the exceptions.  As for reality TV, I've seen it all.  A buddy of mine works on Daly show and is being shot on the 5d Mark III at H.264.