I have not seen any significant artefacts with 0-255 4k. I have not still tested 16-235. I consider better colorspace more important than possible IQ loss. If your goal is 16-235 and you are not color correcting much it may be better to shoot 16-235.

@caveport

If I have full 8 bit 256 steps YUV color/luma resolution instead of 220 steps it is kind of " YUV color space", maybe still not exactly the right word.

What is actually a color space in video? How those color coordinates (YUV) is defined. Photos has sRGB and AdobeRGB. Some editors use converted RGB and some native YUV, some use 0-255 and some 16-235 and what about RAW and rec709 or rec2020. It is hard to always use correct words for different video terminology, especially when english is not my mother language.

One guy has tested these 16-235 and 0-255 IQ artefact difference and he saw no difference.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?331358-Best-Day-Light-Settings-With-Gh4/page3

The bit depth difference (0-255 has 16% more steps/channel) is still obvious when studying 16-235 vs 0-255 histograms.

What do you think are the reasons for 0-255?

If you are shooting in 0-255 mode, the histogram seems to show 16-235 as darkest and lightest limits. That is, 100% zebra will show at 235 where it should show at 255 when shooting 0-255.

Hey everyone! :) I'm glad to be able to join the GH4 conversation again! Here is a quick test grade I did. I shot it in the DCI 4k settings. Color settings are @shian 's. It is a mix of different LUT's from the osiris. Graded with Resolve 11 with a final export through Film Convert just for the grain.

Weird thing though, when I tried grading and rendering the 4k file directly, it would constantly freeze. I tried both straight out of the camera and prores. Anyone have issues with Resolve lately?

So what I did was, I downscaled it to 2k, graded it. downscaled again to 1080p. I'm not so much after the detail here yet. Just more on the ability to grade it to my liking. So far so good! I definitely miss RAW or true 422HQ, but it handles really well. I miss being able to save highlights as you will see in the 2nd clip I blew out for the sake of some shadow detail :p

I am also getting lost in this 16-235/16-255/0-255 debate. I don't see any difference, maybe because I'm not too technical or I don't know where to look. But, I say use what you think suits you best. Its the final product we are more concerned with after all right? BUT knowing the difference of each and what its "advantage" is would be helpful. Like does it mean more highlight detail retention? Less chance of blowing out? I got lost the moment it was brought up :p sorry peeps!

The new Mercalli CMOS correction is very impressive. It corrects rolling shutter wobbling and vibration better than anything earlier. It is though a very slow process.

I use mine GH3 and GH4 for aerials and sometime I need to make video and photos during one flight. I set it to photo mode (manual), start video recording manually before flight and than shoot photos in flight when needed with remote trigger.

Two things are confusing me with settings - photo mode is set to manual but in recorded video I see that it record in some auto mode and I don't know how to set it to manual also (is it even possible?).

During the flight video recording is all time on and number of possible photos in this mode is limited to only 10. Why and is it possible to change that?

Thank you for answers :)

It's one option but very often clients don't need 4K and I like to shoot in 50p which is not possible in 4K.

@PiotrJ it doesn't matter what is being cited as the native ISO of the GH4... If you are in a situation where you actually use your camera you'll know fairly quickly what the best ISO settings are. Until then, why are you even asking? Shoot at 200 ISO and then shoot at 800 ISO and make up your own mind.

Im suspecting various things after the Shogun ship and made possible to test the HDMI output from the GH4.

This is what I write based on this test:

"There is something strange in the test. The image coming from GH4 w/ Shogun is obviusly crushed in the blacks. Maybe is the config output, or the Shogun, or how you handled the file in Premiere/other, but definetly something is wrong. Second, and this is more hard, did someone notice how the grain structure of the native MP4 and the ProRes is the same? There is NR from camera, but also the temporal smoothing of compression of H264... the noise structure and finesse in the ProRes file must be diferent in nature and this is not happening, so we need more test about this. This may explain the basically null differences between internal/Shogun in the GH4. I research other test and reviews but i cant get good files to compare & analyze."

Anyone notice this?

@caveport I download other test ProRes original, and view the full photos from flickr that I suspect is extracted from the original/timeline

Yes, I use it. I like it very much.

@Fran @natureflixs @maddog15

I have also been using these settings for the lat few days. Yes I was also a bit worried about the crushed blacks, but the interesting thing is they retain detail and no real nasties...and its easy to adjust these in post, the mids and color tho are exactly what I love, its more exciting than waiting for V-Log..... for me anyway.

I have shot several comparisons on skin tones...and what it does is really shift everything to a nice golden undercurrent in the color which really adds a classic cinematic warmth out of the box, I am pretty stoked about this. It totally gets rid of that boiled crayfish/salmon/plastic skin look that the GH4 has at times, as well as somehow softening the contrast on blending areas of the skin, so smoother highlights as well...yes it darkens shadows but it does retain important details.

No other setting for me anyway has done this so well (all the well known DP's settings...well I havent really liked any of them that much...so I ended up doing my own)

Yesterday I shot in a high contrast setting outdoors (no skintones in that setting)...the interesting thing was this scene had dark shadows over woodgrain, bright skies, and far off trees, so a difficult scene shooting towards the bright sky with lots of ground stuff as well. I shot this scene in Natural, Cine-D and Michaels portrait settings...at first I liked the natural look the best...(for this scene) because the shadows on the woodgrain were pretty good...but on the Portrait settings they were fairly black and dense looking...however in post I was able to lighten them up again and see the detail in the wood grain again.

The other interesting thing was (especially in Cine-D) the far of trees looked flat, lifeless pasty and 2d and although they were better in natural, it was not by much,,,whereas in his Portrait settings the far off trees had a nice 3d look to them (I am a 3d artist by trade so I know what I am looking for), those trees looked very cinematic, and the colors were great. I would add (for me) its hard to get that kind of dimension and detail in trees starting from Cine-D in post...no matter how much you tweak them, and even more importantly a true soft golden undercurrent is very hard to get too. So once I lifted the shadows I liked his setting the best for that scene as well...so its my go to setting from now on.

@Fran @natureflixs @maddog15 @Astro

How are these Portrait settings working in low light settings as compared to natural and cinema D? Also, how do they compare in 0-255 vs 16-235?