Why GH2 Is Ever Out Of Cinematic Look, Even After Hacks...

producer

Some of you know me here as opposed to the direction the hack patches went from the very beginning. That's why I know in advance that this thread will be followed by spitting of many persons here, but this is my opinion especially after I saw this: http://osgfilms.com/gh2-driftwood-patches/ and I just want to share it shortly.

So, let's put aside the most common theoretical arguments about that GH2 is not a full frame, not a RAW video camera, about the codec, etc. Ok, the video quality of GH2 after the most of the hacks gets increased - little less noise, higher image details and everything else described for every single patch.

BUT!!! THE BIG "BUT":

Just take a look at the examples "Before" and "After" below and see the difference. At first sight nothing surprising - the "After" frame (with GH2 Intra Patch) looks higher detailed at all, no doubts! Let's save all that can't be said about that more.

Let's see the "Before" frame now - ok, less detailed, loss in the shadows, little burnt highlights, etc.

But what are my own impressions and conclusions - the "After" frame has all the characteristics of a digital video, lacked of dense and getting flat. No, I don't mean the "flat image style"!!! I mean that the hacked picture simply lost its material depth!

While the "Before" frame produces much more characteristics of a movie look, looks much more cinematic closer to the Hollywood motion pictures.

And before some of you are ready to post reply, now it's time to pay attention to the 3rd attached frame, which is from "Tokarev" 2014 (with Nicolas Cage). So: simply compare this frame to any of the "Before" and "After" frames. WELL, WHICH GH2 FRAME IS DEFINITELY CLOSER TO THE 3RD MOVIE FRAME IN EVERY ASPECT??? Of course, I've found hundreds of movies with EXACTLY the same characteristics, and NO ONE with hacked GH2 image characteristics! Just don't let me to upload with hours :)

Like it or not, that's the general reason why every hacked GH2 video, raw or graded, looks always far from what everyone calls "filmlook". Yes, I've seen only few with clear detailed and nice look, but compared with ANY movie production frame, the resemblance is saying at least minimal. Since the GH1 era I posted some ideas about where the hack work should be turned to, but the history of this forum can show you the reactions.

Anyway, it would never happen, but at least I wrote it.

PierreB

I still think Musgo looks really good...by any camera standards!...That it was the GH2!...well I'll always keep mine:)

4CardsMan

I go back to the Super 8 era. For years I held off, hoping for a camera without that video look, particularly that ugly outline around shapes in the picture that, in the analog days, we called ringing. Then the GH2 came out. I bought one and a Leica 25mm D 4/3 and Olympus 4/3 > MFT adapter. I ended up running FlowMotion, but even without the hack, the GH2 produced the kind of footage I had been looking for. aaronchicago is right - there are many choices now, but in 2011, the GH2 had a mojo like no other.

aaronchicago

You know what is funny. I remember watching that Musgo trailer and thinking "I need to get rid of my 60D and get a GH2." I've gone through GH2, GH3, GH4. I haven't seen that Musgo trailer in 3 yrs until today. It doesn't even look that good to me now. Kind of a good reminder that camera tech is finally at that point where anyone can have access to the good tools.

EDIT: I don't mean that Musgo isn't great. It's better than anything I've ever done. Just that 3 years ago it looked like mindblowing-true-cinema quality. Today, not as much.

ilia310101

Not good to restart old threads, but I want to point out that those frames are actually not before and after of hacked and unhacked, but rather before colour grading and after colour grading, I know this because I clicked on the link to the blog post and read the first sentence...

I don't know how that can be missed.

rockroadpix

^This!

LPowell

@producer

But what are my own impressions and conclusions - the "After" frame has all the characteristics of a digital video, lacked of dense and getting flat. No, I don't mean the "flat image style"!!! I mean that the hacked picture simply lost its material depth! While the "Before" frame produces much more characteristics of a movie look, looks much more cinematic closer to the Hollywood motion pictures.

Aside from the impenetrably subjective character of the OP's opinions, the linked screenshots are the type of scenes that the GH2 is most poorly suited for. Murky and dimly lit, monochromatic with blunt, mute details, could any scene take even less advantage of the hacked GH2's ability to capture sharply detailed, high-speed images with virtually no perceptible aliasing? Let's be realistic here, the GH2 is hardly a high-ISO dynamic range champ with exquisite shadow detail. If that's what you need, use a BMC or even a Nikon D800 (since there's nothing in those scenes that would come even close to aliasing).

TL;DR: OP doesn't like the look of a GH2. OK bye, game over.

mrbill

@producer - what camera is your preferred choice?

JOFO

I love gh2 for its superior image quality. I'm not filmmaker so I'm not bothered with some minor problems it has

chauncy

I think, since you have such an unusual idea what comprises a cinema like picture, you should find another camera.

Up until the last 3 months with the gh4 and sony a7s along with the magic lantern Canon 5dmarkIII and BM, I don't think there's any camera in the gh2 price class that is even close to the video image quality of a hacked gh2. I'm far from alone in that conclusion. I think you're pretty much alone in yours, though.

producer

@oscillian: Oh, yes! Although I'm not a Sony fan at all, A6000 just melts GH2 (and not only!). The look, details, shapes, depth, nuances that it produces by itself are much far better. Even with its 8-bit, it can be graded wonderfully because the colors and all the nuances it gives - they don't need much tweaking in post to get what you'd never get from GH2 even with serious grading.

A friend owns Sony a57 which gives very pure and organic image characteristics, no matter that the model has some things not better than hacked GH2.

oscillian

The Tokarev image @producer posted is shot on a RED One, which has a larger (super 35mm) sensor and a dynamic range much wider than the GH2.

Also, the shot has some motion blur in it, making it softer than the "videoish" GH2.

Maybe the BMPCC with the custom made Speedbooster could be what he's looking for?

The Sony A6000 could also fit the bill, albeit being an 8 bit camera. Philip Bloom seems to like it, and most of the footage I've seen is very pleasing to the eye.

caveport

What a crock of BS! If @producer was able to understand the article that he posted a link to, he would see that his whole argument is unfounded. BOTH sample images are the hacked GH2, before and after grading. Producer says 'While the "Before" frame produces much more characteristics of a movie look, looks much more cinematic closer to the Hollywood motion pictures.' Well in effect he is saying he likes the UNGRADED HACKED GH2. End of argument. I would be very pleased if electronic camera sensors could capture the colour space of film stocks, but they don't, yet. One day it might happen. Meanwhile I choose the best looking cameras for my work and get on with it. Cinematic is a word I never use because it is a purely emotional term that means different things to different people.

dancerchris

@johnnymossville that was cool! I loved the stuff with the clock.

johnnymossville

Always thought this looked pretty good from a look standpoint.

Ian_T

"Musgo" is the only example given by everyone as a prove?

http://cdn-media.hollywood.com/images/l/upstreamcolor_620_012213.jpg

There's also "Upstream Color."

johnnymossville

@producer My take is that if you are not pleased with the way a camera shoots or looks for your particular tastes then you should probably go find one that does. Life is too short to be trying to do something you aren't cut out for, or trying to make something fit the image you have in your mind when either you don't have the skill to do it, or you find the equipment you are using is not capable of achieving that ideal.

neokoo

@producer

I took a look at images you've posted on forum previously, as well as Youtube channel that would seem to be yours. Forgive me for making assumptions, but what you appear to be looking for is simply more dynamic range. In practice GH2 is limited by hardware (around 10 stops IIRC) and then further by video codec. If it was easy to improve in a hack, someone would have done it already.

As of now, only way around it is lighting within limits of what GH2 can handle. If you shoot in available light that cannot be controlled, and dynamic range of the scene exceeds what GH2 can save to video, only choice is to expose for what is important in the scene and let other areas suffer. Same with any low DR video cam.

GH4 is somewhat better but not quite magic either. Maybe consider BMPCC for your needs? It's still a video camera, but arguably better if getting "cinematic" kind of image is your first priority.

jpbturbo

I'm happy enough with the colors I get out of the GH2.

This shot is a bit noisy because of how I exposed it but it captured enough of what I wanted it to which was to keep the sky from blowing out to white. The stills photographer was shooting a 5DMkII and she was complaining about the lighting and dynamic range in the scene.

I think part of the softness comes from the 14-42 kit lens and the ND2.1(7 stops) filter that I had on so I could keep the shutter at 1/40.

Aashay

I will be a happy man, if my movie doesn't compare to Tokarev in any way. :D

jpbturbo

chauncy

did you look at these other films in the thread? They look not flat or blown out to me. I can create depth where none exists in a sequence by power windowing around the character and changing their color slightly to pop out of a background or raise exposure with the window or defocus the background so it looks like boken. As can many others.

There's nothing in any frame you've included that the gh2 could not do in the right hands.

endotoxic

Yes get it.

What you referente to material depth is color resolution. Working on an 8bit code ruins it all. Greens skin tones all messed up

Gh4 should avoid this issue with its 10bit 4:2:2 color.

producer

@endotoxic: I've seen some of your videos time ago and honestly I like them at all. You successfully keep the "atmosphere" of what you shoot. But this is the right moment to confirm my opinion: the image characteristics and the "material depth" I mentioned in my 1st post - that's what your pictures miss. A serious missing. Here I attached some frames from the flattest movie trailers I've found to be similar to your scenes. In every case your frames look significantly blown out, like shot on a very archaic reel. I accept that as a conception of yours, no problem. But that's the truth, right? Do you get my point now?

endotoxic

Ithink what you meen y cinematic is good exposure on the highlights. I un der. Expose all my footage -2 on exposure compensation and run shutter of 40 on 24p no 50 or 60. Shutter 40gives the cadence Of cinema on gh2

In post thanks to the high bitrate you can get more information from the shadows.

The rest is coloring

endotoxic

I Think that my footage is pretty cinematic. Moon t7. T5. All my work si on Gh2 exept slomotion. Check my page.

http://vimeo.com/user683215

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters