Regarding FilmConvert and GH4 pack - I already had FilmConvert installed, downloaded GH4 pack, found it in Library/Application Support/RubbeMonkey/Profiles. However it was not appearing in FCPX in the camera profiles section. I then went to FilmConvert website and updated my application - now there are two applications which appear in FCPX - the old one FilmConvert Pro and the new updated one - FilmConvertPro2. When applying the new app onto a clip and checking "Show OSC", the GH4 pack can be found in the camera profile window above the color wheels.

What GH4 settings would be best to record video of extremely bright light sources, such as plasma cutting (similar to arc welding)? I have a variable ND filter and various welding masks, but I'm not sure what other settings I should make in the camera. Any help is appreciated!

Just a note that in regards to the above "Afternoon in Kihei", I improved a bit on the coloring and replaced with a graded only version. In summary, it seems best to use Cinelike D rather than Cinelike V when you are shooting during late afternoon with the warm light, otherwise you will have excessive orange tones to deal with if on auto white balance. I'm sure that a custom white balance would improve the results of Cinelike V but Cinelike D clips were so much easier to deal with. The first few clips were all Cinelike V and I had to pull out a lot of orange while with the Cinelike D clips I had to add in some warmth.. Also of note - watch the hat - even though downscaled to 1080p from the 4K, the GH4 has rendered the hat very well as compared to the problems that other GH cameras would have had with it!

Just a thought: You know, I like the fact that there are so many grading LUT's, color profiles, film looks etc. etc. They're fun. I've used them. I still use them from time to time. But the more i practice grading and understanding color, the more I lean away from those "one click color grades" and effects. I don't say this in a snobby kind of way so I certainly hope it doesn't sound like that. It just that I was talking with a friend of mine not too long ago. A good guy. He's a colorist with about 16 years experience. He (kindly) laughed when I asked if he used film convert or cinema color LUT's or whatever. His reply was, "I use curves, levels, overlays, gain, gamma, pedestal and my eyes to get those effects." Straight talk but he was trying to tell me something. The more I begin to understand the physics of color, light, my editing software and my camera's codec - the less I need expensive add-ons and plug-ins. (Kinda pissed me off at the time but later I got his point. LOL.) Perhaps a bitter pill to swallow at first, I think that was the best color technique and grading advise I've every received from anyone.

-Sorry if that was a bit off topic.

My tip: Don't try to combine technical color correction with artistic color grading of the final edit. Pro colorists may work this way, but in practice it requires experienced eyes and hands and high-end gear to make it all work smoothly and efficiently. I don't know about other shooters' experience, but my multi-cam footage almost never matches - the exposure and color balance of different takes need tweaking to make it look like it was all shot at the same time by the same camera.

Before I even start editing, I do technical CC on each clip with After Effects/Color Finesse, and then export the clips in high bitrate MP4 or Cineform. This takes the processing load off Premiere and makes edits and transitions much cleaner. But aside from Managed Color mode, there's nothing special about AE, you can use any 32-bit color corrector that has separate banks of shadow, midrange, highlight, and master controls. I've found secondaries helpful for salvaging flawed footage, but unnecessary for properly lit and exposed footage. All you're looking for in technical CC is to fix the glitches and get a consistent exposure and color balance across all usable footage.

What's also helpful about doing a preliminary technical CC is that it'll give you more consistent results when you later use something artistic like Film Convert or Looks. Even if you want to do the final grade by hand, those packages are good for quickly proofing a variety of palettes for directors or clients to consider. I like Looks because in half the time it would normally take, I can usually tweak in something that's very close to what I want.

@kellar42 Looks good! BTW, James Miller's settings are CineV so more contrasty than CineD.

Keeping all the settings at their defaults, Cine-D makes the most sense also in terms of using 3rd party LUTs. For those that use them -- why not? How many of us can really be colorists and have the hardware needed to do it right. (Beyond fixing problems, I mean in terms of artistic grading with great finesse and accuracy). And these Impulz LUTs, for instance, include a setting for the GH4, Cine-D. It was designed for that default. The Panasonic people have suggested that the other settings don't improve the image, but might be desired for special conditions. Why go crazy? Unless you really like doing that, which is OK. Not me though!

@kikojiu I really recommend not going Highlight Shadow + and -5 if you're shooting faces of people. This will create weirdness in skin tones as basically all the variety of contrast and highlights are lost and you get a bland painterly face look with zero definition. If i'm shooting faces, then i'm dialling Contrast no lower than -2 and highlight shadow flat.

have you tried impulz luts, or other luts?

nobbystylus I used the Highlight Shadow + and -5 with film convert pro and the skin tones look amazing with no problem whatsoever...the only problem I encountered with it and I had to lower to + and -2 was in lowlight where it increased the noise on the shadows. Apart from that I worked great.

i am an error

@ezbzpop I couldn't disagree more. Can you post an example of your "mushy" 4K output?