John Matthews

In FCPX, there's nothing to do. It handles it automatically if I'm not mistaken... that's probably why I forgot. It just knows how to handle it by default.

Yes @Cary, my mistake. I think we settled this 50 or so pages back in this thread. I completely forgot. However, at least when you bring into FCPX, it spreads it out and you'd never know.

The GX85 is 4:2:0. The result is an image with values of 0-255 in RGB. The problem with Standard (0,0,0,0) in 4k is that the image looks like bad 1080p, the major culprit is NR, followed by too much sharpening. IMO if you're after a more "filmic" image, they should be dialed down. In all, there are 7 picture profiles and 18 different filter modes I think. All of them treat the image differently with a number of settings for each. One of these modes/settings is going to be a little or significantly better than other ones. This is what many of us are after.

What happens when you don't know what you want the final image to look like? What settings should you use? That's the question I would like an answer to. My reference to "unaltered raw photo" was in terms of contrast, sharpness, NR, and saturation matching the look of a rw2 file opened WITHOUT any extra processing. My theory is that Panasonic engineers might have optimized their processing to the output of a rw2 file- the resulting jpeg or mp4 matching that look would have the least amount of macro blocking and artifacts. I could be very wrong though... Do you have any information on that?

Yeah, I didn't find a massive difference between -5 and 0 and I couldn't say that one was THAT much better than the other. However upon increasing the midtones, I saw a little more noise (in terms of frequency) in the shadows. Unfortunately, you cannot see it much on the youtube video mentioned about due noise suppression. I'm now coming to the belief that the best profile settings (for edit in post) on a 4:2:0 codec would be to match a jpeg to an unaltered raw photo (no post-processing), but that needs to be confirmed.

So, I spent about 3 hours trying to figure out exactly what the best contrast setting would be for specular highlights. The goal was to avoid any high-contrast lines between blown-out portions which is often a tell-tale of poor video quality. Methodology I placed a shiny rounded object on a surface and had a light source in the distance. I adjusted camera settings so that focus was sharp, on a tripod, fixed aperture (F1.7), shutter at 1/50, ISO 200, fixed WB. With Zebras set at 105 IRE, I made sure part of the shiny object was overexposed then recorded 4k video in Natural profile (sharpness= -5, NR = -5, saturation = 0). Contrast was first set at +5, then went down from there to -5 with a total of 11 videos takes. I made these observations: Panasonic does a great job at keeping a subtle degradation from blown-out areas to areas with detail. Contrast settings seem to simply shift midtones up or down, there was only a small shift in the shadow floor, if any. I found it difficult to match 2 shots with different contrast settings; so, something else might be happening with the curve. Increased midtones in post yielded superior results (noise & artifacts) when contrast was at “-5”. Conclusions There’s no real benefit for specular highlights in terms of them looking more “video-like” when contrast was set at any of the 11 settings. However, if you plan on increasing midtones in post, you’ll have superior results with contrast set at -5. Otherwise, you’ll need to live with no visible detail in the dark parts of the image.

One could argue that the GX80 is wrong camera for this as it doesn't shoot log or 10bit, but the fact is it gets "close enough" that, for the majority of us (pro and amateur videographers), it offers "enough" headroom in post... significantly better quality and creative options than smartphones, inexpensive enough to be accessible. I'll be sharing some tests tomorrow concerning specular highlights and optimal contrast settings.

Thanks again for the information. I'm not fully convinced of this... more testing on my part... seeing is believing and so far I've shot a low-contrast scene and jacked the contrast in both directions to see more about what's going on. I do notice the mids having less height, but when I pull them down I'll be damned to see any better quality either way. What concerns me the most is highlight roll-off- not DR... I'll need to test that on some speculars. They are the dead give-away of bad video that my camcorder has. I guess that's why I couldn't see a difference at 600%. Funny. [10 minutes later]... Found the denoise version. It DID take some of the macro blocking without harming the other parts of the image... nice.

Thanks for sharing. This helps many of us to understand what you're talking about. It's a nice image. For the original, what were your settings? I'm guessing your sharpening was higher than -5 as there was a slight halo around all high-contrast elements (building roof and foliage). Also, I'm not seeing a massive improvement in the blocking produced by the codec... maybe it's just me though. Could you be more specific about what area you see the most improvement? Finally, I'd say this would be a good scene to be using -5 on the contrast as you have almost no detail in the foreground... I'm sure that was intentional, but in your opinion, would it have been better to allow some more of that foreground detail to pass through and bring it down a little in post? Just an idea... were you worried about banding issues?

Can you please show us a still you have with GX80/85 footage? ... not much online. What is your logic for removing macro blocking AFTER shooting if there's a setting of removal BEFORE shooting? Given you're using iDynamic, macro blocking & artifacts are not your priority. What is then?

I'm enjoying this thread more than ever. Maybe by rubbing some neurons together we'll be able to spark GX80/85 settings that look as "filmic" as possible. This is fairly subjective; so, let's try to identify what we're after. This is what I'm after in order of importance: minimize macro blocking artifacts in the red, green, and blue channels induced by the codec processing maximize DR maximize color information in the red, green, and blue channels minimize noise in the red, green, and blue channels maximize detail Some of these are related, but do you have other ideas, or in terms of what order? The goal for me is a 4k image that looks organic and that I can tweak. I KNOW that what Panasonic gave us as default settings look like bad 1080p, especially noise reduction. I realize that 4:2:0 is best dealt with in-camera; however, I don't always want to decide on the final look AS I'M FILMING- that simply asks too much of us amateur filmmakers.

Please show us what you're getting... for you to have such a knee-jerk reaction, it must be good! Seriously, we could all benefit from what others think the best way to use the GX80 is rather than making it a echo chamber.

Thank you for finally commenting more on what seems to be one the most popular EOSHD threads since starting your forum. We're all eager to hear your settings... possibly even willing to even pay for them... I believe the consensus (in this thread) was indeed the ones I said above: Standard or Natural (-5,-5,-5,0), many of us commenting on A3G3 WB adjustments. Your contention is the contrast setting... IMO lowering the contrast minimized the hot spots found on skin and other situations. I'm interested in what you have to offer. Maybe you can shoot some video and tell us what you think like your recent Sony video which I found very instructive. Many of us have been asking for a long time for your input.

The general consensus is either Natural or Standard with everything at "-5" with the exception of saturation, which should be set at "0." For WB, I use "Sunny," adjusted to A3G3. In my tests, the Natural profile performed a little better in the blue channel. The reason for keeping saturation at "0" is due the codec being 4:2:0, resulting in limited color information in the first place. Hope that helps.

I'm going to get one, but I still think there's going to be some trial and error. I just tried it. Flicker decrease is only available in Photo mode. Upon pressing the movie record, it jumps to 1/50 and nothing is adjustable after... no shutter, no aperture, no ISO, and no exposure comp.

Thank you so much for that help. Since I was at 5600K and A0M4, I'll try to add a little more blue 5400K and A0M5. It should up the blue and remove a little more green. I'll give that a go.

This is only controlled light in a studio setting without any other shots. In fact, I have a fluorescent light behind a window and I'd like that light to be more like window light shining inside... if that makes sense.

WB suggestions for shooting under fluorescent lighting needed. What's the best procedure with the GX80 as I'm after skin color with no green? Should I just shoot with at grey card? Trial and error? So far, I've simply gone for 5600K and A0,M4 (WB), but it still seems a little off. Other settings are Standard Profile (-5,-5,-5,0).

Exactly where do you see more DR (which seems like the purpose of a flat profile)? Highlight spectacles on the car? More detail under the car? More detail in the grass? If you're shooting the GH4, why don't you get a proper flat profile like V-log?

It's 8bit 4:2:0. The previous remarks were concerning iDynamic high... I haven't tested low or standard. Again, I have my doubts about any difference in DR other than superficial slight modification of processing curves resulting in more noise and artifacts in dark areas. What does @Andrew Reid say, if anything, in his GH4 guide? DPreview did mention a slight gain in DR at the lower end and a generally lower midpoint in their LX100 review. This is probably what you're noticing. I have my doubts that Panasonic has changed anything concerning iDynamic since the GH4, LX100, G7, and probably the G80/85.

In my tests, the resulting red channel from the recorded video in FCPX had areas with no detail in iDynamic (high)... the same areas without iDynamic had more detail... just my observations. Again, if you like the result, that's ok. Besides, these are 4k images; it's not as if they lack detail anyway. IMO not all "flat" images are created equal.

My suspicion is that if you shoot people, the red channel will clip more easily, resulting in unnatural images. In the end though, if you like the image, then use it!

For me, the clipped highlights had harsher edges with iDynamic on. Standard made a more gradual clip. This was not your case?

So, I just did a quick test of ISO 200 (various combinations on Standard profile). I looked at green, blue, and red channels. My conclusions are: There's no additional information in highlights. Shadows in iDynamic are simply lifted, no more detail. Noise in shadows is much more prevalent in general with iDynamic. It seems the red channel suffers the most from iDynamic. My test were in high-contrast situations... so I could be wrong about outside, lower contrast, high-key situations, but I'm fairly certain anything low-key or with many dark colors one would be "better" with iDynamic off and graded in post. If you would like the midtones to be darker (which happens to me regularly), just lower them.

Do you mean to say it works better when there's enough light for ISO 200... or is it better in combination with an outside WB... or both? It's true that the lx100 video posted above was at ISO 800, not 200 and it had clearly less detail on the green blanket. Again, more testing/posts are needed.