Vesku

I think that Sony RX100 mk4 has less banding in sky in this example than my GH4:

Maybe even GH4 iso200 looks little rough and noisy because it lacks colors between perfect gradients. Blurred areas are not smooth in GH4 video.

My issue is that I want to know if the GH4 fools with colors causing banding and is there some best settings to avoid that. I usually just look my clips without editing. Some players can add dithering to cure banding. I just wonder why GH4 videos has more banding than JPG photos. Is the luminance levels 0-255 but color levels 16-235 or what may causes the limited amount of colors? Is the YUV in general weaker to record gradients than RGB? Is the codec reducing colors to match 100Mbs in 4k?

Mercer, Danco, you two have banding and roughness...

GH4 got a FW update 2014 autumn which increased the 4k bitrate from 85Mbs to 100Mbs. Before that the banding was maybe more visible.

Thanks, Aaron. Looks quite good. There is still some roughness in sky. GH4 codec adds dithering. It helps but the JPG photo is still better. How did you do that capture? Can you remember settings? Looks cineD to my eyes:

G7 reads more sensor data than GH4 for 4k and down samples it. It has cleaner image especially in high iso but it may have more aliasing/moire and has more rolling shutter than GH4. I wonder if G7 has less banding in sky too.

Can you post a GH4 video capture frame without banding in sky gradient?

Is it true that users can not see sky banding in GH4 4k videos and G7 is even better? I am not talking about V-log amount of banding but little more than normal banding. GH2 was horrible, GH3 better and GH4 quite good but I think that Canon and Nikon has still smoother sky colors.

I have tested Natural and Standard and contrasts between -5 to 0. Always banding in skies. I thought it is normal for 8bit videos but I have seen many "lower quality" videos without sky banding. In theory there is no reason why 8bit video should have more banding than 8bit photo, especially with high bitrate and static clip.

I dont think it is that easy. IDynamic or iResolution does not introduce banding in photos, why in video? They may increase noise but that is usually good for banding.

When I watch TV programs with very low bitrate there is less banding in skies than in GH4 100 Mbs 4k files. I think 4:2:0 is not limiting color steps, it just reduces color resolution. If I render a photo slideshow in 8bit 4:2:0 video there is no banding. Samples: http://***URL removed***/forums/post/57394235 Has the Panasonic codec less "colors" than others? Or is there a differences in color channels? Does the sharpen 0 cause banding? How about contrast setting? I have heard that Panasonic cameras records green colors better than other cameras but has difficulties in skin tones (reds) and skies. GH4 renders nature greens beautifully and sharply. Also the red "spill" or spread over real details is minimal in GH4. A friend said that his Nikon makes less banding in sky than GH4. It is impossible to know what camera makers do when they down scale their sensors and tries to get small enough data rate for video.

Everything was still shooted with 4k, Alexa or other. Is it so that the movie looses its power if the image is sharp, contrasty and clear? Why people are prefering foggy stuttering movies? Is 4k pointless for movies?

I watched The Revenant 4k in big 4k theater. It had very beautiful landscapes and images between action scenes. The 4k sharpness in big screen was impressive. The image was still too dim and black level "gray" so there was lack of strong and contrasty image I have used to with my 4k TV. There was an issue with motion. The camera moves nicely almost all the time. It caused blurring to image. In fact most of the 4k movie was blurred under fullhd level. The 4k projector obviously had not any motion enhancements, end scores was stuttering very badly and there was stuttering trees and backgrounds many times. (There was rolling shutter too). My GH4 4k videos from Norway mountains are more impressive and clear with my TV when there is little motion. I think 4k needs HFR and faster shutter speeds or/and motion enhancement. 24P spoils the image because the camera moves so much in modern movies.

These new "super fast" Sony sensors cant do 4k 60P. GH5 will do it and take the lead again.

What do you think about that test: http://m43photo.blogspot.fi/2015/05/lumix-14-140mm-ois-jitter.html Is it possible that there is no jitter like he says?

If you think gh4/14-140mm kit I tell you that the OIS in that lens vibrates or jitters in video recording.

​If we shoot very bright images with 8 bit codec and adjust colors back to normal in post we may get banding even if we have perfect 8 bit source. Every light shade darkens to double so we get half the shades or steps in mid tones. Would it be better to have that correction in-camera (profile) when sensor makes the 8 bit image from 12 or 14 bit sensor. The problem is that when we select a darker profile (contrast +) the highlights clips more easily. This thing is after all a compromise of better dynamic range/noisier (low iso underexposure) or less dyn range/cleaner (high iso ETTR). We must think what is the main subject or goal in image. One thing is that new televisions has very good NR and motion enhancements. Quite noisy videos looks very good with them and miles better than with normal computer monitor. So if I have a very good display I can tolerate more noise.

I thought that when using 8bit codec and ETTR we must use darker profiles, not flat. There is a supertone method for GH4 which uses contrast +5 and highlight -5 and ETTR: http://www.supertone.dk/#!GH4-Optimal-Film-Setting-works-in-stills-too/c24o4/8E18836A-F271-4A14-AF0D-C575B9D5F4B6 So when exposing to max and using darkest settings we get very clean image but less dynamic range. When using ETTR with flat 8bit profile we must darken it so much in post that it may introduce banding and other issues. We also darken floor noise when we darken image in post. In my tests with GH4 I prefer low contrast look with usually 1/3 underexposure. The noise is acceptable. I must also test more. The problem is that when I set contrast to normal or even + I loose dyn range.

​The thing is that usually you dont have that light to expose to the right. Options are low iso/underexpose or high iso/normal exposure.

60i is not 60P. 60P fullhd is just coming to Youtube and web streaming and there are almost no 60P movie in theaters. Canon and Nikon are just now adding 60P fullhd to their consumer cameras.

​Very interesting article. Thanks. I was a little ahead of time. Two quotes: “To capture all the resolution of an anamorphic 35mm film image, you need a scan somewhere between 8K and 12K. So while everyone brags about 4K cameras and scans, we’re shooting on, effectively, a 10K camera. Why replace that with an inferior technology?” “On the location scout, we were standing in the pouring rain, and I said, ‘We need film cameras. We can throw them down on the sandbags in the mud and they work.’"

Dreamy look is OK as one art form but it is not OK for everything. I wonder how 24P survives when 4k becomes mainstream. Do people want sharper motion and more realism? It is interesting to see what happens. The change seems to be slow. Movie makers has trained their 24P skills so good that they can hide its faults very well. They must also learn new tricks and skills for higher frame rates before they can get it work optimally.

It is a paradox for me. Image must have faults to convince viewer that the story or set is true or believable. If you add realism to image the film is not true any more. It is like a fairy tale book is not as believable if it has photos instead of drawings. Many movies are still "true" stories or documentaries. Why we must shoot these real life films with dreamy look?

​Do you want pixelation all the time, not only in movement?