Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, hyalinejim said:

Yes, do you? But if I didn't, does that mean I shouldn't complain about Panasonic colour rendition? Take a look at the Kai W boating in Cambridge video. The GH5 footage looks like shit, in terms of colour, and the C300II footage looks lovely.

Do you think you could match the GH5 footage from that shoot with the C300 footage, @funkyou86, if you're so fucking amazing?

Wat!!! 

[IronFilm]

On Friday, January 06, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Stanley said:

Mate just make sure she's not a scorned woman that you may break up with, 'cause the only thing you might end up with is a Kodak Instamatic on the mantlepiece, and have to wait a week to see what's on the prints!! 

hahahaha, nah that would never happen! :-D

[funkyou86]

5 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Yes, do you? But if I didn't, does that mean I shouldn't complain about Panasonic colour rendition? Take a look at the Kai W boating in Cambridge video. The GH5 footage looks like shit, in terms of colour, and the C300II footage looks lovely.

Do you think you could match the GH5 footage from that shoot with the C300 footage, @funkyou86, if you're so fucking amazing?

Comparing the 2K camera to to 15K camera, just wow, have you taken your pills mate? :D 

[Arikhan]

@funkyou86

Quote

Comparing the 2K camera to to 15K camera, just wow, have you taken your pills mate? :D 

You don't have to compare the GH5 or other Lumix devices with a 15K camera to talk about color science. You only have to compare the Pannys (NOT camcorder or pro devices) simply with am Nikon D750, which is cheaper than a GH5. No chance for the Panny to reach the pleasant Nikon colors OOC (with correction / grading in post, of course).
And don't say, it's in the eyes of beholder...I made some A/B tests with real people (not with woolly-minded gear heads living in a parallel universe) and a vast majority prefer the Nikon color rendition (OOC) over the Panny one. ;-)

In my eyes Pana still got better in the last two years in handling color science OOC. Just take a look at some pieces of face studies of @jonpais with his GX85...When comparing it with OOC Pana footage from two years ago, you will realise a substancial difference...

[funkyou86]

1 hour ago, Arikhan said:

@funkyou86

You don't have to compare the GH5 or other Lumix devices with a 15K camera to talk about color science. You only have to compare the Pannys (NOT camcorder or pro devices) simply with am Nikon D750, which is cheaper than a GH5. No chance for the Panny to reach the pleasant Nikon colors OOC (with correction / grading in post, of course).
And don't say, it's in the eyes of beholder...I made some A/B tests with real people (not with woolly-minded gear heads living in a parallel universe) and a vast majority prefer the Nikon color rendition (OOC) over the Panny one. ;-)

In my eyes Pana still got better in the last two years in handling color science OOC. Just take a look at some pieces of face studies of @jonpais with his GX85...When comparing it with OOC Pana footage from two years ago, you will realise a substancial difference...

I was reflecting to hyalinejim's comparison. Not sure if you understood my (previous) posts, I was not defending panny colors, I said that you'll open the lumetri panel anyway, so there are plenty of ways of fixing the panny colors.

This whole conversation about colors and specs does not lead anywhere and I am getting sick of it. Light a scene and setting the camera properly improves the final image (and colors). Why not choose a camera based on the needs? If you need a REC709 look, buy a broadcast cameras. If you want a camera with various specs you have to live with compromises, like fixing a colour channel in post.

[bunk]

2 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Considering that grading skills run from horrible to excellent (just view a bunch of graded videos on line), your comment that a Panny has 'no chance' to reach the 'pleasant' Nikon color rendition after the Nikon is 'corrected/graded', strikes me as a bit silly. Yes, it IS in the eyes of the beholder. 

Is reading in the eyes of the beholder? ...as he claims the exact opposite of your bit silly translated quote

[Borbarad]

AFC Tests:

 

 

B

[sgreszcz]

19 hours ago, funkyou86 said:

And for skin tones: there's an app for that http://bfy.tw/AJ9N :D

True, and I use a combination of Hawaiki Analyzer (http://hawaiki.co/hawaiki.analyzer.html which allows you to select a skin tone from your shot and convert it into a swatch), Color Finale, and the vectorscope/skin tone line in FCPX.  It is a bit time consuming but that way I can try to avoid green/magenta faces since I cannot trust my eyes.

10 hours ago, Arikhan said:

In my eyes Pana still got better in the last two years in handling color science OOC. Just take a look at some pieces of face studies of @jonpais with his GX85...When comparing it with OOC Pana footage from two years ago, you will realise a substancial difference...

Yep, and even colour-blind me can see the improvement when I tested GX80, G7, LX100 and E-M5II against my son's face and colour charts.  All cameras were colour balanced with the expo-disk and used the same lens (except for the LX100 which is fixed).  The LX100 still has some weird lips/skin colours going on.

 

[bunk]

57 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

Nothing misquoted whatsoever. He claimed the Nikon (cheaper camera) had better colors than the Panasonic after the Nikon was 'corrected/graded'. So how is he claiming the exact opposite???

You're right you didn't quote him. You suggest he claims something he does not.

Let me help you. 

Quote

 No chance for the Panny to reach the pleasant Nikon colors OOC

This part means: No chance for panny to reach the pleasant Nikon colors Out Of Camera.

Quote

(with correction / grading in post, of course).

This part means: unless you apply corrections and grade in post of course.

 

In other words you can get the pleasing colors with the panny but not without post work.

 

But I could be wrong of course.

 

 

[Fritz Pierre]

OK...let me create a shitstorm...all this crap about color science is fucking exhausting...so I'll say....in a camera choice, for me, I prefer Panasonic as more color accurate...I don't want a camera or a computer or a fucking iPhone to create colors that are NOT in front of me and make me think what an incredible photographer I am...it's an easy cheat IMO...I prefer to start with an accurate WB and have a colorist do what I need....in post....to suit the storyline or the mood I'm attempting to create...that's all I want from a camera...an unvarnished image of what is in front of me...for me, the rest comes from post....very little is really ever created by zooming in 400% on still image on a desktop and finding flaws in images.... on the other hand a lot of beautiful work is created by people with imagination on deeply flawed cameras...and reading between the lines, I love this camera....warts and all....

[Matt Holder]

14 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

OK...let me create a shitstorm...all this crap about color science is fucking exhausting...so I'll say....in a camera choice, for me, I prefer Panasonic as more color accurate...I don't want a camera or a computer or a fucking iPhone to create colors that are NOT in front of me and make me think what an incredible photographer I am...it's an easy cheat IMO...I prefer to start with an accurate WB and have a colorist do what I need....in post....to suit the storyline or the mood I'm attempting to create...that's all I want from a camera...an unvarnished image of what is in front of me...for me, the rest comes from post....very little is really ever created by zooming in 400% on still image on a desktop and finding flaws in images.... on the other hand a lot of beautiful work is created by people with imagination on deeply flawed cameras...and reading between the lines, I love this camera....warts and all....

THANK GOD SOMEBODY SAID IT!  I have been using my GH4 commercially since it came out - it is one of the pillars of my business.  I can tell you for a fact that paying clients

notice (in approximateorder of importance)

- engaging content, good sound , lighting,dynamic range  , saturation and contrast pop, resolution/ definition (often they want less if its a more mature female talking head) and then waaaay down the list is accurate skin tones

I actually SLIGHTLY prefer the Canon look over panasonic but have been more than happy with Panasonic's colors.

 

You can waste a lot of productive time grading - my advice to being productive is to get a nice look in camera and get on with the process of refining your story - do a basic cut and paste grade at the end if you REALLY think its necessary. Deliver the project to your client and get on with your next project.

I am not as strict on color accuracy and don't mind a look - mostly because it is part of our job to take viewers on a journey. 

 

[jonpais]

14 hours ago, Borbarad said:

AFC Tests:

 

 

B

These are nice test shots, pretty much what we've been asking for for a while now, since AF-C is most probably one of the major concerns of those of us who've used Panasonic cameras in the past. My only gripe (yes, I know, only one!) is that it appears as though either the in-camera sharpening is cranked up full-tilt boogie, or sharpening has been added in post. As most of you know, even in Final Cut, just adding +1 or +2 sharpening in post can magically transform an out-of-focus image into something that looks quite sharp. I didn't see any information about the camera settings in the info either. Whenever I do a lens test, for example, I always post the camera settings and what was done in post, if anything. 

The first screenshot is from a recent video I posted, with in-camera sharpening dialed down to -5, and no sharpening added in post. The second screenshot is from the GH5 AF video above, where, without even enlarging the image, you can see jagged edges and haloing around the subject, telltale signs of over-sharpening.

In the following screen shots, the first image has had no sharpening added in post. The second image has had +2.5 (factory default) sharpening added in Final Cut, much more than I ever actually add, if any. These are simply to demonstrate the obvious: additional sharpening can conceal blur caused by camera shake or focusing errors.

Contrary to what some may believe, I have nothing against adding sharpening in post. What I object to are tests where we are asked to evaluate an image for things like autofocus ability where the images have too much sharpening to make an adequate judgement. Also, I think this shows that it is preferable to add sharpening in post, where you have much finer control, rather than in camera; though in practice, I would rarely go over +2.

[Vesku]

6 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

OK...let me create a shitstorm...all this crap about color science is fucking exhausting...so I'll say....in a camera choice, for me, I prefer Panasonic as more color accurate...I don't want a camera or a computer or a fucking iPhone to create colors that are NOT in front of me and make me think what an incredible photographer I am...it's an easy cheat IMO...I prefer to start with an accurate WB and have a colorist do what I need....in post....

I like Panasonic colors with Natural profile at low iso. When raising iso the noise makes image unpleasant and dirty. Colors fade too. GH5 iso100 will be very welcome because even GH4 iso200 has some times too much noise. I use always NR -5. Panasonic realistic colors works very well with a high contrast high gamut 4k TV.

Canon colors are not always realistic, they are like "candy" colors.

[jonpais]

High ISO video quality comparison by Gordon Laing. Lumix GH5, Olympus EM1 II, Fuji X-T2, Sony A7s II. I didn't find this comparison very useful, but maybe someone else will.

 

[Herbert Massey]

 

How's everybody feeling about motion cadence. Both seem a little stroby.

 

[dbp]

21 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

OK...let me create a shitstorm...all this crap about color science is fucking exhausting...so I'll say....in a camera choice, for me, I prefer Panasonic as more color accurate...I don't want a camera or a computer or a fucking iPhone to create colors that are NOT in front of me and make me think what an incredible photographer I am...it's an easy cheat IMO...I prefer to start with an accurate WB and have a colorist do what I need....in post....to suit the storyline or the mood I'm attempting to create...that's all I want from a camera...an unvarnished image of what is in front of me...for me, the rest comes from post....very little is really ever created by zooming in 400% on still image on a desktop and finding flaws in images.... on the other hand a lot of beautiful work is created by people with imagination on deeply flawed cameras...and reading between the lines, I love this camera....warts and all....

Interesting that you say this, because I am the exact opposite. Not to say that you are wrong by any means. What you are saying makes sense.

But I think that's why I'm a bit enthused by the GH5, and a lot of new offerings in it's range, for that matter. It feels like having quality, accurate, true to life footage has been achieved. The GH4 and many others already do a decent job of that. I long for something that looks a little different, stands out, even if it's not necessarily accurate. In fact, I'd prefer it to look a little surreal. I think that's why I gravitate towards the digital bolex and the blackmagic stuff. It has a unique look compared to the many Canon/Sony/Panasonic offerings. 

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Herbert Massey said:

 

How's everybody feeling about motion cadence. Both seem a little stroby.

 

While I do not dislike it, there is more videoish feel to it than a cinema camera. That might be fixed with some cinematic movements such as using a slider or jib. Overall, you could do a lot worst. The GH5 looks like an interesting camera, but for me my next move will likely be in another direction. I am pleased to see that these are not slow motion clips. Slow-mo tends to look more cinematic, but can only be used in certain scenes. The colors do not look bad. Like what I am seeing here  as compared to what Sony offers. It would be very interesting to see some anamorphic clips from this camera. That might be the one area where this body can set itself apart from the rest of the fold.

[Simon Shasha]

Those videos were both turn-offs.

[Davey]

1 hour ago, Simon Shasha said:

Those videos were both turn-offs.

You're not wrong there. Utterly bland.

[tweak]

5 hours ago, DBounce said:

 It would be very interesting to see some anamorphic clips from this camera. That might be the one area where this body can set itself apart from the rest of the fold.

Did you even watch the videos you quoted? The second is anamorphic  .