@Zachasurp really useful video!!! the way best so far for comparison the different "trendy" settings .. I will defo give a try to the Dragon settings as this summer i will film a lot MTB and nature...

Here's a test I shot this morning at the beach at about 7am of some different profiles and settings. All internal 8Bit C4K 24.00 (A few 1080 Slow Mo Over Crank at end). There is a full write up in the description.

From my tests, if someone wants something more straight out of camera, I wouldn't use Cine V (or Cine D). I would lean towards the other profiles. The Standard/Vivid/Etc couldn't be pushed much in post, except a reverse C (Just dragging the Mids down for a curve in RGB (Premiere)), but straight out of camera they were the cleanest and closest to the end result. Cine V and D are too milky out of camera, and Cine V doesn't render as much color as D does. It has a higher contrast but still comes out milky, which needs light post work, and really seems to ditch a lot of color information. Cine D and V can be great, but both do need post work to be useful.

Cine D is, to me, the best setting. With the other adjustments you can really dial in the look you want and then do some post work after. I really like the Dragon and Low Contrast settings I have, I think they will be my main settings after I test skin tones. Using the Shadow/Highlight curve I don't see any noise being introduced in my image, which is amazing. Though some may say they are over saturated and probably a thousand other things, I really love the color that is coming out of these. Even 8Bit 100/Mbs at 4K, this camera really can do a lot, and be pushed far in post.

I've been getting amazing results using James Miller's Cine-V profiles, so far very impressed and satisfied.

@zachasurp, 96fps to 24p test, cineV, all zero's, 16-235 a bit of an s-color curve and sharpening added in post

youtu.be/g2SWcXzCb74

UHD 30p then 1080-60p 100mbps for the closeup. cineV, all zeros, 16-235, mp+5, exported to XAVC S UHD 4K

youtu.be/VvdWzvG2SM0

UHD 30p conformed to 24p cineV 16-235 mp +10 all zero's

youtu.be/8A5chlSqu7Q

Shakey footage falls apart when you compress it. The GH4 is particularly sensitive to this effect. btw, why did you completely change your post? Our responses look strange, as they address the main point that you've now completely removed along with your sample.

Cheers, Pete

@FilmingArt

I agree, very jittery. But even non jittery footage isn't as clean as some I find online. The 422HQ export looked great even for the shaky shots, but every compression came out extremely poor.

As for setting the camera down on something, it was at the LA River, and its a 45* angle down to the water, nowhere to set it down and rest. I was hoping with a Zacuto Z-Finder I could hold it steady enough. I was wrong, you can step down from your high horse now.

@c3hammer

Like I said above, those jittery shots came out fine from the camera and 422HQ, but when converting for upload it could not keep up. I look forward to your tests though.

The biggest problem with that type of jumpy footage is that the codec definitely can't keep up. Shakey footage destroys image quality more than any other factor. Mushy images ??? There's your answer right there.

When these cams can determine where they are going with any sort of consistency, they do an incredible job of compressing to the mediocre data rate. When the thing is herking and jerking all over the place, there's no way it can keep up and you get dog chow.

Main settings I have been using:

iDynamic/iResolution off.

Cine D, no changes to settings. Just plain Cine D.

James Miller D: Cine D, -5, -5, -5, -5, 0. Shadows and Highlights +2, -2 respectively. Master Pedestal 0.

James Miller V: Cine V, -5, -5, -5, -5, 0. Shadows and Highlights +2, -2 respectively. Master Pedestal +15.

Dragon: Cine D, 0,0,-3,-3,0. Shadows and Highlights +1, -4 respectively, and WB Adjustment 2-Amber 2-Green. (Found in a RED Dragon User Forum from someone who tested GH4 and RED Dragon attempting to match. Prioritizing saving highlights, but only barely raising shadows to reduce introducing noise.)

Driftwood: Cine D, -2, -2, -2, -2, 0. Shadows and highlights 0,0. Master Pedestal 0.

Film Convert Low Contrast: Plain Cine D, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. Shadows and Highlights +5, -5 respectively. Listed on their site as the setting for Low Contrast.

For those wondering whether or not 16-235 vs. 0-255 is just hype or if it affects DR and highlight rolloff...well, I did a little test. More to come.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/175557#Comment_175557

I will agree with FilmingArt that cineD and noise reduction turned down is what is creating all the noise. Having the cam do the processing in cam with full sensor data before the codec is producing way better images for me as well. 100mbps is simply not enough data rate for 4K to allow much of push in post at all.

Everyone complaining about noise are almost always shooting for a flat image in cam. Shoot for a final image in cam and it's much cleaner. The information is there and you can move it around just as much (which isn't a lot), only you don't end up with as much noise.

The GH4 doesn't appear to be the best option for that washed out low contrast final image. Fortunately, I really like the super contrasty over saturated image that the GH4 does so well.

Cheers, Pete

I tried recording with Atomos Ninja and it doesnt work. This is settings but I suspect the sensor is over its limit.

You are right Tyler. But in professional use clients tend to be more demanding than I think they should. With the hacked GH2 I have better low light response (less noise). I think Panasonic could solve it with firmware. They are pushing up the detail hence greatly increasing the noise. Or probably taking too much detail from such a small sensor

I will be 100% honest with you. That noise is 100% acceptable! I used to think the exact same thing about all of my gh cameras but turns out it was my monitor's gamma settings showing much more than was actually visible to most people. It's not as clean as any of the professional canon cameras sure, but for such a small sensor and extremely detailed image, this is completely fine!