Personal View site logo
GH4 4K Panasonic video camera, User reviews and opinions
  • 1273 Replies sorted by
  • Please post GH4 vimeo here if it is truly "cinematic".

    No, please post here some indie film that you think is cinematic (but unwatchable otherwise as usual).

  • I don't see how this camera can be labeled as "video-ish". I associate "video-ish" by the techniques used in shooting with the camera. Like cam angles, camera movements, colors, etc.

    I just got done viewing clips from my GH4 on a music video I did. And I was more than impressed with it's overall image, no where in the back of my mind did I think it looked "video-ish" to me.

    Blows away all the other dslrs out there on the market that I've worked with and seen. With the exception of the Canon 1DC which is impressive.

  • I'm usually a fan of Blooms reviews and found some of his early work quite inspirational. The GH4 review I found a bit disappointing though - it felt a bit padded out, and I don't know if he's changed edit suite monitors, but I found the grade very odd, kind of 'modern retro'..

  • I think the GH4 looks absolutely great! I own one & have shot a lot of stuff to really test it out. It is really good if care is taken to understand all the options available on the camera. Out of interest, I dusted off my old 8mm film camera and shot a roll of old Kodak stock but I just could not get that sharp 'video' look I was after. Seriously though, I don't get the 'I want it to look like film straight out of the camera' argument. We used to put a lot of work into transferring film to video through telecine equipment and grading equipment because film did NOT look good straight out of the camera!!! Also I have just removed most of my grading LUT's from my system because they just don't do the job as well as starting from scratch and grading according to the raw footage look coming from the camera. When I put some work into grading the GH4 looks BETTER than 'cinematic', 'filmic' or any other shitty old imaging catchphrases. I for one, LIKE modern imaging. The colour from the GH4 looks much closer to reality than all the film emulation plugs & things. I NEVER expect the finished look to come from the camera. BTW I have been editing & colour grading for over 30 years and there is no 'instant film' method that is truly any good. Roll your sleeves up and learn to grade! Bring on the flames!!!!

  • OK - I repeat- Look at Bloom's "street night" shots, the whole of Driftwood's 15-min GH4 thing, the new EOSHD "film-look" GH4 piece - and tell me what is 'cinematic' about any of them. GH4 seems to produce over-sharp video-ish footage.

    The Hacked GH2 is rather 'filmic' out of the box - and grades easily. Not so this stuff.

  • I've been using a GH4 and a GH2 bcam for a set of interviews recently - they cut together really well, and neither suffers from looking non-'cinematic' IMHO. The GH4 image stands up to a fair bit more pushing when grading, and doesn't suffer from FPN either (at least so far).

  • You don't find it has that "over-sharp" look?

  • I think the superb resolving power of the GH4 especially when viewing down converted 4k can be misinterpreted as being overly sharp, when in fact the two are not the same thing. We are so used to seeing 1080p footage from other cameras that really only resolve 800+/- lines of resolution that when we see the full, clean 1080 our eyes are fooled into thinking it is overly sharpened.

    And if this is indeed the case, the solution would be to continue shooting in native 1080.

  • Why do these conversations come up again and again? If you think the camera is too "video-ish" don't buy it. Why do others have to show you a "filmic" clip made with the GH4? Why do you have to essentially insult others who have produced beautiful footage on a $1698 camera and put the "burden" on us to prove this camera is worthwhile. Like many others have said, go make something. Learn about ways to make images "filmic" if that's your goal. This camera has been out for a few months and who knows what is yet to come. 4K recording to disk, etc... If it's not "filmic" enough for you at this price point, that's your decision. Enough already though with equipment micro analysis. There are 1000s of clips available for an interested party in the GH4 to use for analysis to see if it's suitable for them.

  • @aae991 Ouffff, finaly, somebody said that!

  • Note how people tend to slam their fist on the table when they don't understand - or like - the question, or have no answer. Insulted? Get out of town :)

    AndyS is right, GH4's footage is shockingly non-cinematic. For people who expected it to look like BM cameras' footage, GH4 will look patently video-ish.

    If you guys don't see it, that doesn't make any difference - the issue is still there. AndyS makes a valid point here and it would be better to address it on merit, and perhaps provide solutions or tips on how to deal or what to really expect from GH4.

  • @caveport, I don't have anywhere near your experience, but I agree 100% with what you said. I am really loving most of what I get from the GH4, and I intend to go back and shoot some more on Moon T7 to ensure I can use it for B-cam purposes, but the GH4 makes it hard to go back. :) It's really a beautiful piece of equipment.

  • If you guys don't see it, that doesn't make any difference - the issue is still there.

    • Do you see gopher?
    • Nope.
    • But it is here.

    (c) One russian film

  • Wtf is "over-sharp" look? If it looks too sharp, add blur in post. Problem solved.

  • @AndyS your ""over-sharp" look" argument is very flawed. If you like a soft image, dial the sharpness to minimum, or shot full HD instead of 4K LOL.

    If you rave for the "filmic look", in post production you can apply grain emulation and the color correction you desire. The only possible argument is the greater DOF than 35mm film. This last argument is also invalid, because man can use a SB or a very fast lens to get the shallower DOF. Actually most of the cinema productions prefer grater DOF instead of a shallower one.

    @caveport You made a very good point, I totally agree with what you sad.

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev nice quote!

    @tonalt LOL good one!

  • Maybe if we specify what irks film folks in GH4's video-ish image, we can say it is dimensionally flat. Everything seems to be compressed into an unpleasant-looking 2D plane.

    Now, with best lenses it does get better; but not quite to the point of BM cameras. It is not a sensor size issue, either - since again, BM cams have even a smaller sensor yet produce a very pleasing cinematic image. Which is pleasantly sharp (in RAW) but never irks you as video-like.

    I guess this is the best I can describe it. And yes, I like GH4 for what it is, I tried it extensively before it was shipping to the public, and then I bought one for myself. It is indispensable for quick jobs on location when you cannot do any proper setup. Articulated OLED monitor is golden. 4K looks great. IMHO, GH4 shines on wide shots (landscapes, crowds etc) and in its limited slo-mo. Also great with extreme telephoto.

    Nowhere near cinematic image though, agreed. As always, use it as appropriate...

  • Too sharp, too crisp.... How much effort does it take to add a slight blur and/or lower contrast/saturation in post? I'll tell you it's a lot easier than taking blurry, flaccid footage and making it sharp and crisp in post!

    I think Seb Farges managed a pretty "filmic" look.

  • @mo7ies It sound like you are payed by BMC to praise their 4K camera over GH4. I personally dislike the MBC colors, even after a very careful grading the files look unnatural, especially when incandescent lighting is involved. I'm not saying they are bad, only if you are unlucky and get a sensor with fix pattern noise.

    GH4 is a joy to use, and I'm blown away by the image quality and especially the colors. I find the natural profile (with some -2 or -3 contrast and - 5 NR dialed) so good, that it makes me want to just keep the file as they are, and do just a minimal grading.

    If you GH4 films are to "unpleasant-looking 2D", just ad another GH4 to get the 3D look ;)

  • mo7ies said - "Note how people tend to slam their fist on the table when they don't understand - or like - the question, or have no answer. Insulted? Get out of town :)

    AndyS is right, GH4's footage is shockingly non-cinematic. For people who expected it to look like BM cameras' footage, GH4 will look patently video-ish."

    My response...

    What many of us get tired of is blanket statements of "truth" by someone who makes claims about a piece of equipment. As for "insulted", I stick with it. The comments imply the camera is flawed and insufficient for the "filmic" look and therefore infers anyone who uses it for that purpose can not or should not. None of us are so thin-skinned that we can't look at objective evaluation of equipment, but blanket claims and strong statement of so-called "facts" about performance are absurd.

    As others have said, there are plenty of ways to make it look more "filmic". How many times does it have to be said? The bottom line remains, look at the clips out there and decide for yourself if the camera fits your needs. I defy anyone to show me the perfect "filmic" camera that solves all the issues claimed - especially for under $2000. The new Sony A7s looks really great but has its own set of potential issues, not to mention the fact that the cost to play in 4K is close to $4500+.

    I use the GH4 for corporate and personal projects and I knew going in what it's capable of - and not capable of. But for $1698 it's one helluva step forward. When the Shogun comes out this fall, the possibilities with 4:2:2 10 bit out should provide even more grading options to make this a better system. If money were no object I'd grab the A7s as well for great low light stuff, but money precludes that for now. Besides, a year from now who knows what will be available. Gee, there might even be a "filmic" 4K dSLR for under $2000 lol!

  • Shogun: will require a Pana dock for GH4 that costs more than the camera itself. There goes your low cost solution. But yes, personally I'll probably rent the dock and Shogun and see if GH4's RAW is worth all the extra effort.

    @Eno: I'm also a KGB spy, here to undermine the entire infrastructure of Panasonic. You got me.

  • Shogun: will require a Pana dock for GH4 that costs more than the camera itself.

    Who told you this? GH4 has 4K output on it's HDMI.

  • mo7ies - your claim about the Shogun is incorrect. The Shogun will interface directly with the HDMI from the GH4. That's why so many people are not buying the very costly dock. Like me, they're waiting and saving their money for the Shogun if it turns out to make a real difference. Time will tell.

  • What I am really interesting to see is @Andys @mo7ies or any other person for comparison sake put up THEIR OWN footage taken with THEIR OWN FILMIC camera(s) so I can see.

  • Was referring to GH4's RAW capture