At that budget range I think you could hire a fairly high end cinema camera (epic, F55, Amira), not for the image quality difference particularly but for the solid workflow on set and the dynamic range. I love my GH4 but small cameras arent built for this type of production work. If, however your story was enhanced by use of a small discreet camera (street shooting, small crew guerilla style) then it's an amazing choice and I would certainly have it around as a b cam whatever.

If I had 500,000 to 1,000,000 for the actual shooting of the film, above-the-line and below-the-line minus marketing, then it is quite possible I would bring in a slew of GH4's for a fast down and dirty multi-cam shoot.

I would use a good portion of the money to acquire a couple names for two or three shooting days each. I would get as much coverage as I could from each actor in the time allowed. Most of the work would be with the minor actors in the film. Only one day would they work together, and it would only be a couple small, but pivotal scenes. Nothing time consuming with them, but large enough roles to market them as being in the movie without alienating their fans.

I would light the crap out of the movie and cater to the strengths of the cameras. Each scene would be set up as close to final product as I could get.

I would use money to hire GOOD below the line talent to maximize our efficiency. Stunt doubles for the stars, Experienced but cheap effect guys, Super strong audio, strong post production, etc.

The movie will look and sound good. More than that it will be marketable worldwide. Stars = Money even in bad films.

Stars + Good Visuals + Great Sound > Nobodies + Great Visuals + Great Sound

There are exceptions, but this is usually a good strategy to make your money back. More than that, we would probably come in under budget, which always makes the money people happy.

Thanks. All of that is well and good. My main question is about the quality and usability of the camera, though.

Imagine the lowest budget where one could reasonably go after a limited theatrical release. Money is tight enough that money saved on camera systems would play a role. Can the GH4, well operated, deliver a good enough picture without a operability hit that keeps the cost savings from being worthwhile?

Good enough, or not good enough, do you think? Assuming all other choices from script through music are well made and that the savings on camera offers a little extra quality in the process over an Alexa.

Thanks!

Shane Hurlbut, ASC GH4 Test:

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/09/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/

see Voldemort's lair. He recommends Filmconvert with the Alexa Rec 709 profile for an ARRI film look for the GH4.

Shane Hurlbut wrote this

"Tron, I love your passion for this camera you feel rocks your world but my old 5D MK II will still kick this camera’s ass. The 5D looked cinematic right out of the box, you had to do nothing, you did not need to shoot with boosters, you did not have to shoot in this Natural or that Cinema V you just turned it on and even in its worst possible picture style settings it would trounce the GH4, no sure what all the fuss is about but love the commentary."

I can't take his opinion seriously here. Is he sponsored by Canon?

I wouldn't trust anything Hurlburt says about equipment. I don't even particularly like what I've seen from the GH4, and I think his remarks are ignorant and completely unfair. He is sponsored by Canon, at least in large part. Doesn't seem to me he knows much about grading either. It's easy to impress people with tons of equipment and 12 assistants running around.

But back to the question what would a gh4 film, well filmed and well graded look like on a big screen. Shian might have a direct answer.

I read Shane Hurlburt's review (thanks for posting it!) and the comments. I think it does give me some clarity. I like a lot about the GH4--the lightweight 4K and relatively cheap bodies would help a lot on a particular project I have coming up, but all told, I don't think it has enough quality in a variety of real world shooting situations for me.

So what is the next step up? RED Epic? I love Arri Alexas but I think that's probably a little big and heavy for what I have to do on this project.

The real issue is form factor for focus pulls and easy operation. I love what I can achieve with my GH4 but it's not the right tool for serious drama shoots.

@caveport

Use faster lens,use faster aperture, maybe add speedbooster to it, use ND filter and there is your "look"

Yes, of course the GH4 is feature ready. The cost savings therein may result in a better looking film due to the additional funds available to pay the lighting crew and post, if you follow me. The Amira gives a much richer image, and industrial reliability, though can't 'fly' on lightweight rigs. You'd need a special issue Alexa for that. Also, Upstream gives a bad impression of what the GH2 is capable of. Visually, it was a middling effort, with lackluster grading.

If money is even remotely an issue, owning GH4s for the production is a wise move. You could still rent Arris for a couple days on those special scenes if you wanted to(slo mo climax etc.)

@endotoxic - Here's a list of some of my work. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1187456/

It's not the most extensive resume around, but hopefully the fact that I've directed two features in release plus the TV producing and the rest (plus all the corporate and commercial work not on IMDB) explains that I do have some solid technical knowledge here.

I'm really not saying that the GH4 is or isn't a good camera. In fact, I think I was just raving about the GH2 over the 5D. I've used the GH2 on short films and other projects and love a lot about it. I think full frame is overrated. And I've probably said a few times on this forum that the hacked GH2 is a better camera than the Sony CineAlta I used for my first feature film. So, a lot of the assumptions you seem to be making about me must come from somewhere else.

To me, this is a pretty concrete question (although I know it's opened up a bigger question on the topic). But I'm looking at an actual opportunity for making a film. The project will have outsider expectations on it that I would need to address before using a camera system like this.

There are pros and cons to the camera--lightweight, maneuverable, easy to fly on a -copter or gymbal, cheap in case one gets destroyed in a stunt--those are good. Not set up for proper AC-based operation, lower DR and poorer low-light performance, are not good. Noise, moire, post-production workflow -- those were question marks for me but I think I'm getting a better handle on it.

Based on all that, more reading here, and some of the discussions in this forum, I think that the GH4 doesn't really work for theatrical at this time--for me. It's pretty close and a film that wasn't going to have a lot of night shots or daytime exteriors in harsh environments, maybe. The questions are very different when there is OPM on the line and the amount saved on cameras buys very little elsewhere these days.

Thanks for reminding me about the BMCC I'll take a closer look there, too. I've shot with REDs before and I'm not a huge fan of the look or post workflow. What made the GH4 so attractive, really, was its small form factor. I'd love to find a camera about one step up in quality and cost that had the same size. But I suppose that's one of the things that makes this camera stand out is there really isn't anything close in size that can do what it does. (I just wish it was a -little- bit more.)

Thanks all, for helping me think through this.

Interesting comments all around. I have shot two shorts on the GH4 now, one around 30 min TRT and one about 10 min TRT. Both look pretty incredible and filmic. I am not saying this in a toot my own horn kind of way, the camera really performs. I will ask the directors if I could submit some samples of the films to demonstrate my point. One is in post and the other is up for festivals.

I am actually incredibly impressed with it's low light capabilities, and all depends on the glass you use. We shot 90% on FD glass with a speedbooster, and that extra stop on the low end is exactly what this camera needs. We shot some footage with lit only by a lighter, or a flashlight with some pretty incredible results.

The biggest weakness during both of these productions was steadicam work, the camera is so damn light that it took forever to get a good balance after switching a lens. This is easily remedied with a good rig to support the camera.

I think once the shogun comes out this will be a feature ready camera, I think the 4:2:2, 10 bit color will bring this camera home for me. Plus with the shogun you get gen-lock timecode which makes this camera a fully featured cinema camera.

Plus the possibility of V-Log. I believe 6 mos from now this camera will be on a whole new level. I wouldn't plan on using it for this feature, but definitely keep investing time in learning the camera, because what is coming for this camera is going to be amazing.

I mentioned ages ago that I would post some footage for a couple shorts I DPd with the GH4, I haven't gotten permission for the longer one, but the shorter one gave me permission for a couple shots. I have included some of the daytime ext. shots (run and gun, available light).

Also some shots, lit only by campfire, ISO 800. I was surprised by it's low light performance in these shots, if I had taken half a second for a backlight, and to bounce some fill light in, it would be an incredible shot.

All things considered, this would be the camera I would go to if I had up to a $50,000 budget for a indie feature (with a shogun). Anything above that I would opt for a higher end camera. But IMHO to say this camera isn't ready for a feature is an inaccurate statement.

EDIT: Hold the phone, just saw that vimeo really did a number on that compression, uploading in a more favorable codec. Un momento!