@producer
Producer, I think it would do you a lot of good to read others' comments and my previous comments concerning color-correction, "film-look", camera settings etc. I'm sorry, but I can't accept that video you linked to be called "excellent work". If that is excellent work, then what would you call a really good short film that has good story, good acting, meaningful cinematography and color correction that compliments everything else? What would you call Baraka or the Tree of Life? So it would be more appropriate to call it "Another boring/half-decent test video with unmotivated and technically poor color-grading"

Sorry, it's not exactly about the topic and Panasonic, but I just couldn't resist to share this excellent work of a compatriot:

There is no need to use 5d2rgb. Most of the newely released NLE deals with rgb without problem. Just set gamma properly and you will see everythintg in shadows and blown out whites. Every time when you convert video with 5d2rgb you just shrink rgb spectrum from 0-255 to 16-235. So you obviously loosing data. Try newest version of Adobe Premiere or Edius 6 or Sony Vegas above r9. In some NLE's in clip properties there is even option Super Black. (Sorry for my english. I hope you understand what am I talking about)

I know G2 is weaker than GH, just that's what I had as a choice at that moment...
LPowell, thank you for the comparison between GH1 and G2. Meanwhile, which lens did you use with both cameras? Also, do you remember all the exact settings you used for those two videos in every of the two cameras? I'm really interested in the settings of the modes, color profiles and changes, ISO, F-stop, Shutter, etc. G2 video looks kinda blurry, weird...
Thanks!

+1 on exposure/lighting/reflectors

CineStyle's logarithmic luminance curve is a good mathematical simulation of the way film responds to light. However, nothing can change the electrical behavior of the camera's CMOS image sensor, whose photocells respond in a strictly linear proportion to light. CineStyle's technique relies on the high-resolution 14-bit linear image sensor output to produce something like a 10-bit logarithmic curve. The GH2 has neither the 14-bit sensor resolution nor a way to reprogram the luminance curve before it's fed into the encoder.

Fortunately for me, I'm delighted with what the GH1 produces straight out of the camera, regardless of whether it's anything close to an authentic "film look". Of course, my personal sense of aesthetics could probably be described as more "lurid" than "lyrical" (and yes her face is intentionally blurry):



My advice to Producer is to ditch the G2 and upgrade to a GH1. The G2 just can't cut it in sketchy lighting. Here's that same take shot with a G2 from a different angle:

Actually the guy looks like Helicopter Ben!!

stonebat, youre right surely, but i think we established that better dr and 10 bit is not going to come to gh2, so flat picture style is really all we have, right?

vitaliy- is a flatter picture profile a possibility with hack?

A movie maker friend of mine told me once that you can't effectively work on colors in post with GHx or DSLRs, I presume the "problem" is to not have RAW format out of our cameras. He also told me that the point in shooting with post in mind was because shooting in professional productions is far more expensive than fixing in post. For cheap independent works, it looks a better idea to keep the files as they are, and re-do shooting if necessary.

this video should really clear up the mess in this thread, he explains it all, and nothing to argue ;) vitaliy: is there a possibility of something like this in GH2?

Here is small video with recent interview about Technicolor

I think 5dtoRGB is stunning, as it reveals a ton of detail in the shadows, which i would have sworn, is not there in the first place. What I think is missed here- is that the FLAT look is not to be kept in the picture, but is a good starting point for color-correcting the footage, as it keeps more detail in the shadows aswell as in the light areas, for me flat would be superb- but to colorgrade it afterwards!

@ Producer: Quit trolling. Try reading and listening for a change. Even in the link you cited, there's a whole section you ignored on the post-processing to get those images as well as the huge financial investment to get those images. Sheesh.

And yes, I think it's a crappy look, that flat-look you keep pushing. One need only look at the marvelous film technicolor images, beautifully saturated and photographed, to see why that flat look isn't the only way to make something "film-like." Look at Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz, and The Adventures of Robin Hood, for example. They do not have that flat look at all.

Again: learn about lighting, metering, and how to use your equipment. I guarantee that those things will pay off more than any hack. If you take a good class in photography and lighting, you will be a better photographer.

As for your rants citing "House" and other shows, remember that they have a ton of money and a ton of people using lots of expensive software to do all the post-processing they want. When those places achieve their final images straight out of the camera, then come here and cite them.

Otherwise, please stop wasting everyone's time asking for some kind of magic hack to replace basic exposure and lighting skills. If you properly lit your subjects and exposed correctly (and properly selected the correct settings on your equipment, which you clearly don't know how to use), you would achieve the initial look you seek which you could post-process to your heart's desire. If, on the other hand, you insist on exposing incorrectly and refuse to properly light your subjects, then nothing will help.