Personal View site logo
Panasonic GH1 - Film Mode Settings
  • 114 Replies sorted by
  • Watching that video makes things pretty clear. He's basically talking about a log curve applied in-camera that you decode in post. To quote from elsewhere on the Technicolor site:

    "Acquisition with Technicolor’s CineStyle will generate what appears to be a flat, de-saturated looking image. While this image may appear unappealing and undesirable, it is in fact an ideal starting point for post-production and color correction. To properly color correct and/or view footage shot with Technicolor CineStyle we recommend utilizing a S-curve shaped look-up table (LUT) in your editing or color correction application. You may download such a LUT using the links provided. If your editing or color correction application does not offer the ability to import and use LUTs, other controls like the ASC CDL, Lift/Gamma/Gain, or Offset/Power/Slope can be used to color correct the image."

    However, I assume this ability to record a log curve is not possible on GH2 so I'm personally happy to continue trying to maximise the dynamic range there currently is in the GH2 and keep to the least post-processing I can get away with. But that's me - my experience has been with much lesser technologies (BetaCam, DV and even hi-8 / SVHS), which force you to try to get good images out of correct lighting / exposure etc because any attempt at post-production was pretty pointless. One big strength of the GH2 and other cameras, is that you can do much more in post - but of course, you still have to shoot knowing the limitations of your camera, whatever it is. But I think many people have already said that!
  • Actually the guy looks like Helicopter Ben!!
  • @fatpig: "I think MrAnthony thought, that the flat-look was to be kept in your movie as-is."

    No, that was the point I was making--Producer keeps begging for the "film-look" and citing the flat images as what he wants. It won't matter for him though, because no matter how flat you make the image, it can't make up for bad exposure and bad lighting. He doesn't seem to understand this and keeps thinking that a flat-look is a panacea, when it's not.

    What's funny to me is that film has different looks anyway, depending on the film stock as well as post-processing. It's easier to just understand that the GH1 produces its own look, which can be made more film-like (e.g. 24p settings, smooth film settings, etc.), but it will take some work to make it look like it was shot with 35mm film. Even with the examples he gave about how Canon can do this and that, Producer ignored tons of facts (like House has lighting specialists, people to do post-production, a big budget) in search of a magic hack to give a "film-look." I like how he talks about wanting to bring up details in blacks, but if its too dark (like from his bad lighting), you can't rescue it, so he blames the camera for not having a cinehack. You can't make chicken soup from chicken $h!t.

  • 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:

  • Love it!

    Makes sense what you say about the sensor / encoding. I love what my GH2 does - any fiddling around is much better done with exposure / lighting / reflectors (IMO).
  • +1 on exposure/lighting/reflectors
  • Thanks lpowell.

    @Producer GH17 > G2. GH17 is missing the touchscreen, but I rarely use GH2's touchscreen.
  • 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!
  • The G2 video actually benefitted from the Vimeo compression, which smoothed over the G2's gritty low-light noise. Both G2 and GH1 videos were shot in Smooth Film Mode (-2 Contrast & NR), wide-open at f1.8-2.0, 1/60 shutter, and ISO400. I used a Canon FD 28mm lens with an Optex anamorphic on the GH1, and a Konica Hexanon 40mm with an ISCO Widescreen 2000 anamorphic on the G2.

    The major effort, however, was lighting the room to look dark and sharp without crushing all the near-black details. The lights I custom built using a mixture of selected fluorescent bulbs and diffusers. Everything was carefully angled and deflected to eliminate glare and unintentional highlights. The actress was illuminated and directed with the intent of only partially revealing the details of her face and body in each frame. These outtakes have numerous flaws, but they do a good job of illustrating the look I was after.
  • 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)
  • Nice, LPowell, thanks for saying how you did the lighting. Have you discovered the joys of Cinefoil? I think it's great stuff for creating impromptu barn doors or even lens hoods (thought of that last one when I dug my Optex anamorphic out yesterday and had a go with it - it does seem to flare in uncontrolled lighting).

    I love the velvety look of your shot!
  • Sorry, it's not exactly about the topic and Panasonic, but I just couldn't resist to share this excellent work of a compatriot:
  • Hi - nice shots, but it's not really a video is it? Just another of those tedious, slightly slo-mo bits of test footage with some cheesy titles and random music stuck over the top.

    If someone wants to be a stills photographer, go and do that, stay away from video. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is just lazy and I get really sick of seeing this "genre".
  • @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"
  • Wow, the first thing that struck me was the poor color balance in the opening shots--everything was green-tinted! @Mark: This isn't good from a stills photographer viewpoint either.

    I hope he got model releases.

    @Producer: do not confuse shallow depth of field with excellent work. There's more to any kind of photography than just shallow depth of field. As stefanos noted, go see Baraka. Amazing.
  • Actually, I didn't mean a story, I meant especially the beautiful shots and the great color grading that you don't like again somehow. I think I will stop discussing anymore because it seems like you've never watched motion pictures look. I can attach a lot of snapshots from many Hollywood movie productions with very similar look, but you deny it. Harry Potter movies have very similar look to what I shared earlier in this link http://eugenia.queru.com/2011/06/05/terminus-by-solomon-chase , but again you denied it. I really don't get what your conception is actually... Anyway......
  • hey producer, yes, its not a movie, its some tests- again- and yes i understand that people are bored of tests. nevertheless, it is a nice look that he achieved, its not the best i have seen, but its nice. :) certainly not very different from many hollywood looks. :) have a great day and dont let the guys who dont "get" you - get to your head ;)
  • Yes, you're right, I don't give a s..t.
    What makes me really confused is what kind of movie those persons watch to create such a weird and obviously not clear criteria even to themselves.
    Meanwhile, talking about the look of the 5D Mark II video above, I simply don't understand how such a look can be criticized. That means that those persons just spit on every motion picture look. At the same time, with all my respect to LPowell, his video above (with GH1 and G2) has very amateurish look no matter of the position, lights and everything else applied. This is definitely a look out of any conception of mine. If that's what GH can produce, then I have to replace to Canon.
  • OK. Just do it, don't keep talking about it.
  • @producer
    this conversation is spiraling into s#*t... For the love of God, try to listen... Trust me, that is not great color grading in that video and if u think it is, then I'm sorry but you are completely clueless, which is fine, as not everyone needs to be an expert in color correction but at least don't pretend to be. I've seen a hell of a lot more motion pictures than I care for, I've been watching 3 films a day in the cinema for the last month at a festival and I can tell you for sure that is not a motion picture look. these screengrabs http://eugenia.queru.com/2011/06/05/terminus-by-solomon-chase bear ABSOLUTELY no resemblance to the color management of that video u linked. They are a world apart, how is it possible to think they look similar??
  • Your words "I've seen a hell of a lot more motion pictures... bla-bla..." speaks very clearly. Everyone's seen, not only you. But what have YOU created by yourself as a result to allow yourself to compare and spit other's excellent efforts?!?
    Hehe, then enjoy your Panasonics with 1000.000.000MBps and adore your news reportage look...
  • @producer

    Behave yourself :-) You moved completely offtopic and towards personal.
    Want to talk about personal - use personal message.
  • @ Producer: by your own words, you've never taken a class in photography, you don't know how to adjust the exposure settings in your camera, and you constantly ignore everyone's advice about learning about lighting, exposure and color correction while constantly whining for a "film look" or a flat image (which isn't a "film look"), which tells me you have no idea what you're asking for. Try taking everyone's advice and work on your exposure/ lighting skills and stop looking for some magic setting or magic camera to solve all your exposure/lighting problems. Since this forum/thread is about the GH1 hack, I find your comments to be trolling when you come in here and insultingly tell us to enjoy the Panasonic with its "news reportage look." What are you doing here then? Maybe you should be in another forum altogether, one that can appreciate your cool logo and your backlit/underexposure style. We all know that every camera has issues and none of them are perfect, so there's no need to troll here.
  • >What are you doing here then? Maybe you should be in another forum altogether, one that can appreciate your cool logo and your backlit/underexposure style. We all know that every camera has issues and none of them are perfect, so there's no need to troll here.

    I think that this are plain bad words that must be taken back.
    Each guys here is different.
    As for producer, he forces this topic to exists. So, do not paint this in black.
    many people will read it and start learning proper things.
    Some who understand that they need will be searching for flat style.And this is also not bad.
    And trolls are quite rare anyway. :-)
  • >As for producer, he forces this topic to exists. So, do not paint this in black.
    flibnarb started the thread, not producer.

    many people will read it and start learning proper things.
    > I hope so.

    >And trolls are quite rare anyway. :-)
    Yes, they are. So, I'll take back saying he's trolling, but he needs to understand that just because he doesn't like the answer, it doesn't make the answer wrong. And demanding the flat style repeatedly, doesn't automatically make it a "film style." :-)