Personal View site logo
GH4 - Best Video Settings
  • 753 Replies sorted by
  • @Mckinise Fairly crushed blacks in low light. No surprise. Let us know when you've tested 0-255 vs 16-235.

  • Also, how do they compare in 0-255 vs 16-235?

    Why would that make a difference? That setting does not change the footage, it just tells the NLE how to interpret the footage.

  • Even tried this with the ol' GH3 ... seem to work nicely there although I'm dialing the contrast down a bit. Surprisingly for me all that sharpness doesn't seem to do the harm it does in Natural with most things dialed back like I've been using. Fun to watch the comments on the GH4 results ...


  • Havent tried low light yet, personally tho...I would try some experiments in that situation...winding contrast back a little, adding a bit more saturation and maybe a little raising of the shadow curve as well. With the current situation the shadows can be quite tones very nice I would use the setting as a starting point for low light, and push a pull the other parameters until it performs well.

  • @zachasurp I have seen issues before editing RAW photos in Adobe Lightroom. I just couldn't understand what was going on for the life of me. After much trial and error I found turning off GPU acceleration cleared up all of my issues! The same thing may be happening in Premiere Pro CC.

  • @Jive

    I am asking if there is a difference when viewing the footage. I was getting a cleaner image with 16-235 selected.

  • Tried the Portrait settings from DVX user link...the skin tones look amazing straight out of grade tried yet, but this looks impressive!

  • I am finding with Panny lenses pulling the sharpness and NR back a bit and lowering the contrast about one or two from his settings seems best. Remember he set those settings for different lenses, so the Panny lenses are probably sharper and more contrast. I found by those few minor adjustments as well as pushing the shadow curves very slighly I was able to get the shadows out of the solid coal black territory and still retain the nice skin tones and highlight falloff. Its just a matter of playing around a bit...

  • I am asking if there is a difference when viewing the footage. I was getting a cleaner image with 16-235 selected.

    @Mckinise what NLE are you using to view the footage? If you're seeing something different, then it likely means the NLE does not work well with footage marked as 0-255. Though rare, there are some programs that expect a 16-235 workflow and need to be explicitly told when working with 0-255 footage.

    In most software though, there should be zero visible difference between these settings.

  • @Fran_Guidry : the Supertone portrait settings sounds really interesting and he makes a good point.

    I have always wondered about the benefit of flat profile versus going for something close the end product in respect to using the available bitrate the best way.

    Think with limited bandwidth there two objectives that point in different directions:

    1. spending the bandwidth on going for something close decired endproduct: less compression in the final image but also less latitude in post.

    2. going for flat profile: more compression in the final image but also more latitude in post.

    It makes sense that 1. is better if you can get it right, when shooting. If the extra latitude is need in post then 2. seems the right choice, expecialy if you know how to use it in post. This is all in theory and I'm sure his point about the difficulty of turning flat into something organic is very valid. Personally, I am just a happy amateur, so I wouldn't know :-) .

  • @Brumbazz

    I really doubt that there's much benefit in going flat to have more latitude in a 8bit file, in my point of view how much you flat the colors the more tones will be baked in only one as there's not much latitude available in 8bit so you can sort all them. I'd like to have a opinion about this from @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    I really didn't dig working in A7S footage in SLOG, there's no comparison with the ones from a F5 also in SLOG for example, in terms of being easy and natural to work with.

    I'd rather work with footage from my GH4 with a more standard profile (tinkered of course) than with a full flat profile in 8bit.

    So yes, i think that makes more sense, if working in 8bit, to get something closer to the final look, getting just a bit more from shadows and highlights so you can play with that.

  • @Jive

    I'm sorry I should have clarified. I mean when viewing the footage outside a NLE at both ranges.

    Basically broadcast versus...

    Of course, I do have a GH4 just sitting in a box. I can run a test or two.

  • I must be doing something wrong... with that modified portrait settings I get a severe contrasty image and skin tones (well, all footage!!) is green casted. Perhaps Astro is rigth. My lens is the Panasonic 14-140mm and I'm using 0-255. Although I live in Portugal, working hours don't let me have enough sun light to test properly changes to this settings. Anyone knows is this profile should work as well in artificial light with correct WB?

  • Has anyone tried these settings with the GX7 / LX100 assuming they have the same colour profile as the GH4?

  • Jopereira you could try to change insettings: "tint". I think I use -1 or +1, I dont recall for the moment which it is.

  • "Combining Cine-D with totally flat settings yields highly compressed mush".

  • @fancydancer Exactly my conclusions after lots of testing last year. My GH4 is now setup using Natural profile, contrast -2, everything else default. It grades really well on properly exposed footage. I would love to see a proper log setting on this camera with a matching LUT supplied from Panasonic. Maybe it could then grade ok in DaVinci Resolve without too much trouble. But I really don't care too much about that as I'm getting fine images using the above settings. For me log works best on high contrast scenes like bright sunny exteriors, where shadow detail and highlight detail can be critical.

  • @digitalflaskpost I'm abandoning these extreme profiles.

    I’m not a pro, I do video for fun, and in my way trying to improve from experienced people, a find myself getting in a lot of trouble just to have a video right. The LUT, special color corretions and so on, perhaps, are not what I need. Besides, opinions vary a lot from “just get as close as you can to you final look in camera” to “CineD -5;-5;-5;-5;-5;-5;-5;-5;-5;-5….”.

    I’m not sure if Joseph Moore or caveport are right, but their opinions make a lot of sense to me.

  • @jopereira It's not really a matter of who is right. I've seen Cine-D footage that looks great, but it really does not work for me as I'm not into the whole retro 'cinematic' or 'filmic' thing. I've been working my whole life in the pro tv industry and never had a client ask for it. I LIKE modern imaging and I grade for a good looking image that suits the job. For MY work, Natural just works more easily at every stage of production & is easier to 'save' if the exposure is a bit off the ideal setting. Others here prefer to tinker with the settings to get a different look. That's fine, it works for them. Do a few tests yourself. Use different scene settings with the same exposure. Use over and under exposure. Record the settings and be precise with everything you do. Then you can setup the camera the way YOU like it. That's the real power of the GH4, it can be setup in many different ways!

  • Of course there are no right & wrongs.. Its mostly about personal taste. The GH4 is my second camera I own, so I have no real experiance or inside the "buisness"... I did in the beginning test these "flat" profiles with +15 master pedistal & -5 at all settings.. But like everyone else experiances, I to got som really noisy and grey image overall which you couldnt bring back in post. I really got to like the settings I use now. Cinelike V, master pedistal +5 s-curve on shadow&highligt, -2 at the settings besides tint whith is -1 or +1.

    I enjoy this forum because here are many people with knowledge I can take experiance from.

    Im just a father trying to do cinematic homevideos. Something different then the usual homevideos you store in the bookshelf or harddrive..

    And about color grading, I think it is fun being able to change the scene to a certain "feeling" besides just "color correct" or "enhance" it.

    This is my second video I done with my GH4. Shot in 96fps with the settings I just described.

  • Settings: Photo Style: Cinelike D Contrast: -5 Sharpness: 0 Noise Reduction: 0 Saturation: -5 Hue: 0 Exposure Mode: "M" manual AFS/AFF; AFS Cont. AF: Off Meter Mode: Center Weighted icon Highlight Shadows: Default I. Dynamic: Off I.Resolution: Off Master Ped: 0 Luminance Level: 0-255

  • Hello community! In an attempt to produce a more "organic" look, I have been working with a lovely Bell & Howell 2x anamorphic lens. GH4 settings as follows, let me know your thoughts!

    Settings: Photo Style: Cinelike D Contrast: -5 Sharpness: 0 Noise Reduction: 0 Saturation: -5 Hue: 0 Exposure Mode: "M" manual AFS/AFF; AFS Cont. AF: Off Meter Mode: Center Weighted icon Highlight Shadows: Default I. Dynamic: Off I.Resolution: Off Master Ped: 0 Luminance Level: 0-255

    Grading: Magic Bullet Looks 3: Film Print w/ custom curve work

  • @fancydancer

    "Combining Cine-D with totally flat settings yields highly compressed mush".

    I agree with that, I have noticed this "mush" before. But seems that all those LUT creators do not, since they all assumes people are using Cinelike D settings.