Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[bunk]

Looks beautifull ...watching with my Ipad, photo or frame?

[Fritz Pierre]

1 hour ago, AaronChicago said:

The more I use the GH5, the more I love it.

http://imgur.com/a/Ff6ME

 

Great image Aaron...but then you did make the GH4 sing too...I get mine on Wednesday...it's been a long patient two months!

57 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

I am. The Rokinon lens is Nikon. I have a Nikon to MFT Speedbooster.

Ultra or XL?

[Rinad Amir]

beautiful pictures guys i also did couple of still 

GH5 12-60 2.8 Leica & 42.5 1.2

[AaronChicago]

2 hours ago, bunk said:

Looks beautifull ...watching with my Ipad, photo or frame?

Thanks. Clip from 4k video.

2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Great image Aaron...but then you did make the GH4 sing too...I get mine on Wednesday...it's been a long patient two months!

Ultra or XL?

I believe its the XL. It's an old one.

[buggz]

21 hours ago, Orangenz said:

Rewrap or reduce luminance levels not working?

Thanks, do mean to reduce them during recording, or is there an app to do that before you put them into the media pool to edit?

Currently set to:  0-1023

Oh,  I did try to rewrap the .mp4 to .mov, I think it failed, I forgot.

BTW, I use Convert V4 for transcoding - http://hdcinematics.com/V4.html

[Orangenz]

7 minutes ago, buggz said:

Thanks, do mean to reduce them during recording, or is there an app to do that before you put them into the media pool to edit?

Currently set to:  0-1023

Oh,  I did try to rewrap the .mp4 to .mov, I think it failed, I forgot.

BTW, I use Convert V4 for transcoding - http://hdcinematics.com/V4.html

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nt2uqr5pp9xi1st/GH5 10 bit fix.pdf?dl=0 

[buggz]

6 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nt2uqr5pp9xi1st/GH5 10 bit fix.pdf?dl=0 

Thanks for this.

I just read the transcoding/proxy GH5 thread.  It had this information also.

Thanks again!

[Stab]

On 2017-6-4 at 0:23 PM, jonpais said:

How about when you reduce levels on the microphone or mixer by -10 dB or -20 dB? Is this something to be concerned about?

I can lower the microphone levels by -10. This is still way too loud for the music during parties. When I put the limiter as well, then it is usually just fine. Still some small distortion here and there.

With the GH3 and GH4, I could just leave the mic at -20 and lower the input levels, or even take the microphone out and record with the onboard mics. I remember I put the GH3 at -8 during loud music events and it was fine. Now with the GH5, it is recording so loud at -12 that I almost can't make out anymore which song has been recorded. Just a massive track full of distortion.

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Stab said:

I can lower the microphone levels by -10. This is still way too loud for the music during parties. When I put the limiter as well, then it is usually just fine. Still some small distortion here and there.

With the GH3 and GH4, I could just leave the mic at -20 and lower the input levels, or even take the microphone out and record with the onboard mics. I remember I put the GH3 at -8 during loud music events and it was fine. Now with the GH5, it is recording so loud at -12 that I almost can't make out anymore which song has been recorded. Just a massive track full of distortion.

You could always pick up a Saramonic SR-AX100 for 50 bucks. It can reduce microphone levels by as much as -35dB. There may be less expensive solutions as well, like wrapping some handkerchiefs around the microphone. I use one of these with my two RodeLinks.

[TwoScoops]

B&H lists this on the GH5 page-

Continuous ShootingUp to 12 fps at 20.3 MP
Up to 30 fps at 18 MP
Up to 60 fps at 8 MP

Are these RAW or JPEG only? I think the GH4 could shoot 10 or 12 fps RAW.

 

Also to the guys who've used it, is the EVF improved over the GH4?

[buggz]

How well does this work?

Is there noise introduced with this device?

I don't want to add another source of noise.

I see "reviews" that says it introduces a lot hiss.

>> You could always pick up a Saramonic SR-AX100 for 50 bucks. It can reduce microphone levels by as much as -35dB.

[Orangenz]

19 hours ago, Stab said:

I can lower the microphone levels by -10. This is still way too loud for the music during parties. When I put the limiter as well, then it is usually just fine. Still some small distortion here and there.

With the GH3 and GH4, I could just leave the mic at -20 and lower the input levels, or even take the microphone out and record with the onboard mics. I remember I put the GH3 at -8 during loud music events and it was fine. Now with the GH5, it is recording so loud at -12 that I almost can't make out anymore which song has been recorded. Just a massive track full of distortion.

It may well be just way better microphones. They are also used as part of the onboard sound cancellation system when using external mics. An external mic rated to 120dB is probably handy for parties. The TM-2X has a -15 pad that allows for this (for example). 

 

14 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

B&H lists this on the GH5 page-

Continuous ShootingUp to 12 fps at 20.3 MP
Up to 30 fps at 18 MP
Up to 60 fps at 8 MP

Are these RAW or JPEG only? I think the GH4 could shoot 10 or 12 fps RAW.

Attached spec sheet. 12 fps raw. 

 

14 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

Also to the guys who've used it, is the EVF improved over the GH4?

It's rather nice. I do recommend checking it out in a store. Get someone to film you when you first look through it. 

GH5_Leaflet.pdf

[AaronChicago]

I just listened to an hour long podcast with the DP of Fargo season 3. I've been really digging the look of the season. He gave some insight to his color profile, so I decided to make a LUT for V Log L based off of Fargo Season 3. By no means is it perfect but have fun: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gtpwt6gxczfnyrf/FargoSeason3VLogL.cube?dl=0

[mercer]

44 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

I just listened to an hour long podcast with the DP of Fargo season 3. I've been really digging the look of the season. He gave some insight to his color profile, so I decided to make a LUT for V Log L based off of Fargo Season 3. By no means is it perfect but have fun: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gtpwt6gxczfnyrf/FargoSeason3VLogL.cube?dl=0

That was cool of Ewan McGregor to sit down for you. Lol. Awesome idea. This season is great. I think I liked the look of last season a little more, but anything different than the normal Hollywood TV look is much appreciated!!!

[Orangenz]

Another good reminder to expose to the right to avoid noise in the shadows. 

 

[jonpais]

Very good video, thanks for sharing, @Orangenz. I still think this is more of an emotional issue - those who insist that underexposing is the way to go won't be convinced that there is greater dynamic range and color bit depth, as well as less noise in the shadows when ETTR. Even my best friend here, an outstanding stills photographer, regularly underexposes by as much as 1/2 stop, his images are still gorgeous, but even after explaining to him the benefits of ETTR, he continues to shoot the same old way. Many mistakenly believe that if you're shooting a dark scene, you should shoot it 'dark', which, if you've ever watched a professional grading tutorial, you'll realize is nonsense. Typically, the colorist is lowering the shadows in post, not lifting them. Of course, there are exceptions, I'm speaking in general. As I've said repeatedly before, using the ETTR technique, often my exposures are close to a normal exposure, or perhaps only 1/3 stop 'over', depending on the scene contrast, of course. And ETTR really applies mostly to base ISO. If you're shooting at ISO 6400, obviously, you're just trying to capture enough light to make an image. There's also a lot of needless confusion in the forums about clipping, and even the terms underexposure and overexposure, as few in the forums share histogram, waveform monitor or RGB parade screen shots. If someone says they underexposed a clip by 1/3 stop, we can't really be certain that's an accurate statement without actually seeing the scopes. We read far more frequently in the forums about lifting the shadows than we do about ETTR for the simple reason that it is still not a widely accepted practice. As one photographer put it, we're still using one hundred year-old metering methods with digital cameras. Then there's the fact that many, if not most of the videos we watch online that we love have probably been exposed 'correctly' or even underexposed. Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have benefitted from an extra 1/3 or 1/2 stop more light, just as there are thousands of nice videos that have been shot with sharpening at factory default and shutter speeds violating the 180 degree rule. 

[Fredrik Lyhne]

@jonpais I think it's a little more complicated than that. What really matters is what you expose for, skin tones, skies etc. And it's really difficult to get it spot on without a light meter and a monitor as Curtis mentions in the video. It's a lot harder to expose v-log than cine D with just the camera. 

I mess up the exposure to often when I shoot, but I agree with @kidzrevil that the colors look better when they are slightly underexposed, and corrected in post. 

You've probably seen it before but I'm really curios to hear your thoughts on this test by Shane Hurlbut? 

http://www.thehurlblog.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4-vlog-l-latitude-test-cinematography-education/

 

 

[jonpais]

I'm sorry, but I can't stand to watch any more of Shane Hurlbut's videos. I've been shooting Cinelike D now for months now using ETTR and have never had such consistently good results using just the histogram and zebras. I'm sure V-Log must be trickier. But many mistakenly believe they should be shooting V-Log when shooting Cinelike D would be better. V-Log is not the be all and end all for every situation. As for the work of the other person you mention, from what I've seen, all their videos have crushed blacks. I need to see the clips straight out of the camera. 

Edit: Again, I strongly urge readers to check out the YT channel of those insisting that underexposure is better, and compare their videos to those who recommend ETTR and decide for yourselves which results in richer colors and greater dynamic range. You can even have a look at my own channel and see how much better my skin tones are than in the past, when I was underexposing. Many of my videos are straight out of the camera, and several of my more recent videos also contain screen shots of the scopes so you can see for yourselves.

[Orangenz]

30 minutes ago, Fredrik Lyhne said:

@jonpais I think it's a little more complicated than that. What really matters is what you expose for, skin tones, skies etc. And it's really difficult to get it spot on without a light meter and a monitor as Curtis mentions in the video. It's a lot harder to expose v-log than cine D with just the camera. 

I mess up the exposure to often when I shoot, but I agree with @kidzrevil that the colors look better when they are slightly underexposed, and corrected in post. 

You've probably seen it before but I'm really curios to hear your thoughts on this test by Shane Hurlbut? 

http://www.thehurlblog.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4-vlog-l-latitude-test-cinematography-education/

 

 

A link to some of your own underexposed GH5 footage and then corrected in post would be the obvious way to go here. 

[jonpais]

@Fredrik Lyhne I don't see any need for underexposure in any of the videos you've posted up till now.