Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Adam Wilts' Deep-diving GH4 Review  (Read 8349 times)

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
Adam Wilts' Deep-diving GH4 Review
« on: May 21, 2014, 01:38:26 pm »

In the sense of hard data regarding resolution, electronic shutter readout times, and much other well-documented info regarding DR and color "style" choices:

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/review-panasonic-dmc-gh4-camera.html

Particularly striking to me is the resolution gain from FHD to 4K down-converted to 1080p timeline, on the order of 50% before aliasing sets in, to a full 1080 TV-l/ph

Pete
Logged

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Adam Wilts' Deep-diving GH4 Review
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2014, 11:30:07 pm »

Yes it's those lovely, detail-rich 1080P down conversions that sold me on the GH4.  Looking at those things on a 1080P LCD or a good monitor, one could almost imagine one was looking at a 4K screen.  For a landscape oriented guy like myself, this is the point where I finally have a video camera that can do justice to landscape work in the image quality department.

Based on all that I was prepared and willing to suffer some workflow consequences from using 4K camera files.  What a delight to discover there was basically zero impact on my Premiere workflow, versus working with 1080 originals.  No transcoding, no proxies, no raid arrays, timeline rendering only needed with heavy effects loads.  Just plug those big, beautiful mp4's into the timeline and go.

But you do need a pretty good GPU card.  If you're buying new, a Nvidia 760 class or better with 4GB of ram is worthwhile.  For future-proofing consider selecting one with a DisplayPort output.   If your present card is so-so at 1080 as mine was, you'll want to upgrade.  But don't spend money on raid-arrays without bumping up against the real need for such which may never happen.
Logged

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
Re: Adam Wilts' Deep-diving GH4 Review
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2014, 12:25:13 am »

Bill, I'm eagerly awaiting my GH4, and your Premier 4K to 1080p conversion comments just made my day! And having just gotten a 55" UHD TV to replace the dying Sony 42" HD, sorting out the color style mods needing the least PP for the looks I want will be interesting. I'm way too much of a video rookie at this point to go the ultra-flat/heavy grading route starting out.

Pete
Logged

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Adam Wilts' Deep-diving GH4 Review
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2014, 01:14:24 am »

I'm waiting for a full report on that UHD screen!  I'm gonna wait for a good 4k computer monitor.  My unlikely-to-be-fulfilled dream is that NEC will soon produce such a monitor that works with its Spectraview automatic screen calibration software.  In the meantime, I think I'll try to schmooze Best Buy into letting me plug a USB thumb drive into one of their 4k TV's.

Don't worry about grading!  It's easy, especially if you've ever used PS or LR or ACR or whatever.  The paradigms used by video are a little different however.  Watch a couple videos on the Reference Monitor, which is the video equivalent of a histogram.  Start out with Fast Color Corrector, it's usually all you need.  But there are some really jazzy tools that you may start wishing were available in PS as well!  But bottom line: less grading is better than too much grading.  The best goal of grading is to make a sequence of clips seem related in color, contrast, lighting, and maybe even time of day and weather conditions so that they flow into each other without visual bumps.  You've got to find a common "look" denominator among your clip sequences, and then figure out what kind of look you impose on the group of them that will work within the  limitations of the technically weakest clip.

FWIW, I've noticed a trend among newbie GH4 users to fiddle with the "parameters" to get either a more "cinematic look" or a file that is somehow "more gradeable."  I think this is a mistake that creates data-poor files. Yes the files wind up looking like genuine, simulated low contrast raw files, but unfortunately they are really just data-starved mp4 files that only get worse with the slightest grading!  Such files more closely resemble dim projection at the 48-plex, rather than anything I would call cinematic.  I have not done exhaustive tests, but my one test with online-recommended, so-called cinematic parameters was conspicuously disappointing compared to leaving all the parameters at "0" which yielded a much richer and more malleable file that could easily be graded down to "cinematic" in PP, if I foolishly chose to do so.
Logged

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
Re: Adam Wilts' Deep-diving GH4 Review
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2014, 01:31:46 pm »

I'm waiting for a full report on that UHD screen!  I'm gonna wait for a good 4k computer monitor.  My unlikely-to-be-fulfilled dream is that NEC will soon produce such a monitor that works with its Spectraview automatic screen calibration software.  In the meantime, I think I'll try to schmooze Best Buy into letting me plug a USB thumb drive into one of their 4k TV's.

Well, even though it's an "off" brand - Hisense - it's performed admirably once it's crushed blacks/blown highlights were tamed. My 1080p GH3 files are spectacular, and at the seme viewing distance as with the 42", look more detailed, even with TV sharpness waaay down. No tracks from the up-sampling I can see, beautiful gradation, and even old TCM classic B/W films look great at their much larger size. Got a Costco floor sample for $900, ($700 off), plus $90 to extend in-home service warranty to 5 years.

Don't worry about grading!  It's easy, especially if you've ever used PS or LR or ACR or whatever.  The paradigms used by video are a little different however.  Watch a couple videos on the Reference Monitor, which is the video equivalent of a histogram.  Start out with Fast Color Corrector, it's usually all you need.  But there are some really jazzy tools that you may start wishing were available in PS as well!  But bottom line: less grading is better than too much grading.  The best goal of grading is to make a sequence of clips seem related in color, contrast, lighting, and maybe even time of day and weather conditions so that they flow into each other without visual bumps.  You've got to find a common "look" denominator among your clip sequences, and then figure out what kind of look you impose on the group of them that will work within the  limitations of the technically weakest clip.

This approach makes good sense to me for not starting with a true RAW image - sort of like taking your JPG stills down to ghosts with neg. sat, contrast, clarity, sharpness before resuscitation in PS. I'm well familiar with CS6 and ACR, with basically a stills RAW workflow. Which version of Premier do you use? I know CS6 has some video editing capabilities, but don't know the full extent.

FWIW, I've noticed a trend among newbie GH4 users to fiddle with the "parameters" to get either a more "cinematic look" or a file that is somehow "more gradeable."  I think this is a mistake that creates data-poor files. Yes the files wind up looking like genuine, simulated low contrast raw files, but unfortunately they are really just data-starved mp4 files that only get worse with the slightest grading!  Such files more closely resemble dim projection at the 48-plex, rather than anything I would call cinematic.  I have not done exhaustive tests, but my one test with online-recommended, so-called cinematic parameters was conspicuously disappointing compared to leaving all the parameters at "0" which yielded a much richer and more malleable file that could easily be graded down to "cinematic" in PP, if I foolishly chose to do so.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 01:36:04 pm by Pete Berry »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up