Lumix GH5 Downloadable Footage

[Axel]

3 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Here is a 30sec (literally: curve+sat adjustment) grade:

 

 

Also tried this shot and find your's close to perfect. Here is why (arguable, as always, but please try to describe what you object to, not just say bad grading): You'd expect the sunset's light to be yellow or orange (there still is the choice which you prefer), you would for the sake of color contrast have shadows tinted in the complementary color, but just a hint of cyan is enough. Everything that's directly hit by the sun should be well saturated, the rest should fall off. You probably crushed the blacks just a bit, I expect the edge of the table (first few frames) to be indistinguishable. The brightest part in the image is the horizon between the branches, it may or may not clip.

All in all, this is no subject for an HDR approach in the classical sense, you don't care if the tree trunks or her rucksack lose detail. The compositional setup of this shot is the direction of the light, which is too prominent to ignore. You'd see all you needed to see if she was a complete silhouette. The tension in the image comes from the three directions of sight, her looking at (and recording) the setting sun, the sun shining in the opposite direction and the viewer looking onto this frame, framed by the dark trees, having depth of field through a stark contrast between foreground and background, known in classic landscape painting as the natural absorption of colors (air contains particles that gradually reduce contrast and saturation the farer an object is away).

I use to shoot my vacation videos with my iPhone which has no DR worth mentioning, but given that I use filmicPro (allowing me to set exposure), I dare say it wouldn't have been overchallenged with that shot. I also shot with BM 10-bit and raw and had some 13 stops to play with in post. That's when I finally realized that the best shots were those with either not too extreme contrast (which could be adjusted in post) or those I did not at all costs try to preserve shadows and highlights to show off the camera's virtues. Too many detail can come in the way of a clear and strong composition. Landscapes (because part of their beauty is related to the sky) of course sometimes need more DR.

30 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Usually, a grade should not call attention to itself.

This!

I am a big fan of van Hurkman who often contradicts professional dogmata.

And for the arrogance of many commentators see this:

To be honest, I would have been among those who dislike Faris' grades. But he is right nonetheless. Say, for God's sake, why you dislike an image. And be precise or forever hold your peace!

[Jimmy]

10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You only have green, brown and black in your grade.

The blacks are crushed big time.

I'd recommend starting from scratch and reading up on how to grade properly.

There's already too much crap out there that has been graded terribly.

You don't want to add to it... trust me.

I guess you've never seen films like Book of Eli?

Seems obvious to me that dbounce was just trying to push a stylised grade (which are highly subjective).

[Neumann Films]

3 hours ago, Axel said:

I must admit I completely dislike at least 95% of other peoples graded shots. Not because I think I can do better, it's probably mainly (but not exclusively, see below!) a matter of taste. My own attempt, with explanation:

On top of Panasonic V-lut (usually not recommended) I desaturated the shadows and also (like mercer) added some blue to them, but not so much. Is her jacket really a very dark blue? I substracted some magenta globally, thereby unwillingly adding more green to the trees, but fortunately the muted shadow saturation counteracted this (don't like the green in any of the shots). I boosted the saturation of the midtones, I like vivid colors, but not to the degree that the image looks artificially colorized.

I admit I am not good as far as serious grading is concerned. I think I know a lot about it in theory, probably more than most here. If you say my version is terrible, you are probably right. Do better, show, explain.

The point of this rant is, people - including me - can't grade. So why are they considering log the Holy Grail? I'd rather have a picture style that spared me all those steps and just left some color correction (which isn't a matter of taste and an artist's "eye" but merely cooking by the book with scopes). I would really love if the skin looked better. It's not wrong, it has the right tones, but it has too few nuances to look really alive. It's a pity that the above face is not in 10-bit, I'm curious to see if that made a difference.

Well...at the risk of sleeping in the dog house, my wife does have a slightly different shade of skin and I always have some trouble grading it.  On top of that, yes, the 8bit/10bit difference makes a bit more of a difference in a shot like this compared to something in direct sunlight/lighting where there would be less shading on the face (which is where the 8bit falls apart).

 

I wanted the snow in 60fps, so I opted for 8bit, kinda wish I had just done 30p here but...what can ya do.

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

I guess you've never seen films like Book of Eli?

Seems obvious to me that dbounce was just trying to push a stylised grade (which are highly subjective).

DBBounce does say he went about doing the grade in a ham-fisted way, which means inept or heavy-handed, and I think he succeeded magnificently in doing just that.

[Jimmy]

8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

DBBounce does say he went about doing the grade in a ham-fisted way, which means inept or heavy-handed, and I think he succeeded magnificently in doing just that.

Well...he didn't use that word, so explaining it's meaning seems a bit absurd... but heavy handed and inept are two very different words anyway. 

Purposefully being heavy handed to test how far a codec can be pushed to achieve a stylised look is fine.

[jonpais]

Just now, Jimmy said:

Well...he didn't use that word, but heavy handed and inept are two very different words. 

Purposefully being heavy handed to test how far a codec can be pushed to achieve a stylised look is fine.

Excuse me, but he did use the word ham-fisted, which does mean clumsy. He said nothing about trying to achieve a stylized look. Those are your words.

[Jimmy]

9 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Excuse me, but he did use the word ham-fisted, which does mean clumsy. He said nothing about trying to achieve a stylized look. Those are your words.

I can't see that word in either of his posts. Apologies if I missed it or he said that elsewhere. (Just seen it... he seems to be talking about the way he can shoot)

I don't think it is too hard to use a logical step to assume a near sepia toned grade is aiming for a stylised (non realistic) look.

[Andrew Reid]

Ah OK I get it now, people on the thread are trying to break the footage.

That must be why it looks so horrific.

Either that or V-LOG colours are off.

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, Axel said:

Also tried this shot and find your's close to perfect. Here is why (arguable, as always, but please try to describe what you object to, not just say bad grading): You'd expect the sunset's light to be yellow or orange (there still is the choice which you prefer), you would for the sake of color contrast have shadows tinted in the complementary color, but just a hint of cyan is enough. Everything that's directly hit by the sun should be well saturated, the rest should fall off. You probably crushed the blacks just a bit, I expect the edge of the table (first few frames) to be indistinguishable. The brightest part in the image is the horizon between the branches, it may or may not clip.

All in all, this is no subject for an HDR approach in the classical sense, you don't care if the tree trunks or her rucksack lose detail. The compositional setup of this shot is the direction of the light, which is too prominent to ignore. You'd see all you needed to see if she was a complete silhouette. The tension in the image comes from the three directions of sight, her looking at (and recording) the setting sun, the sun shining in the opposite direction and the viewer looking onto this frame, framed by the dark trees, having depth of field through a stark contrast between foreground and background, known in classic landscape painting as the natural absorption of colors (air contains particles that gradually reduce contrast and saturation the farer an object is away).

I use to shoot my vacation videos with my iPhone which has no DR worth mentioning, but given that I use filmicPro (allowing me to set exposure), I dare say it wouldn't have been overchallenged with that shot. I also shot with BM 10-bit and raw and had some 13 stops to play with in post. That's when I finally realized that the best shots were those with either not too extreme contrast (which could be adjusted in post) or those I did not at all costs try to preserve shadows and highlights to show off the camera's virtues. Too many detail can come in the way of a clear and strong composition. Landscapes (because part of their beauty is related to the sky) of course sometimes need more DR.

This!

I am a big fan of van Hurkman who often contradicts professional dogmata.

And for the arrogance of many commentators see this:

To be honest, I would have been among those who dislike Faris' grades. But he is right nonetheless. Say, for God's sake, why you dislike an image. And be precise or forever hold your peace!

Axel - thanks for sharing the video. I subscribed immediately. And I really enjoyed your analysis of Wolf33d's grade.

14 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I can't see that word in either of his posts. Apologies if I missed it or he said that elsewhere. (Just seen it... he seems to be talking about the way he can shoot)

I don't think it is too hard to use a logical step to assume a near sepia toned grade is aiming for a stylised (non realistic) look.

Look again and tell me you don't see it. Oh, now you see it. But now he is no longer referring to grading, but shooting, huh? interesting... So, you're saying he thinks you can get away with sloppy white balance, or what? Not understanding your point.

[Andrew Reid]

7 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Here is a 30sec (literally: curve+sat adjustment) grade:

 

This shot was the exception... very nice.

Not seeing much detail in the shadows but the colour is great.

[Axel]

13 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Either that or V-LOG colours are off.

Look decent. It's just that I feel green to be unnaturally saturated then, in every shot, particularly Seattle_Dolly.

Left is Panasonic V-Log applied, middle is auto balance applied to this, right is green selected and slightly desaturated.

[Davey]

5 hours ago, Axel said:

I must admit I completely dislike at least 95% of other peoples graded shots. Not because I think I can do better, it's probably mainly (but not exclusively, see below!) a matter of taste. My own attempt, with explanation:

On top of Panasonic V-lut (usually not recommended) I desaturated the shadows and also (like mercer) added some blue to them, but not so much. Is her jacket really a very dark blue? I substracted some magenta globally, thereby unwillingly adding more green to the trees, but fortunately the muted shadow saturation counteracted this (don't like the green in any of the shots). I boosted the saturation of the midtones, I like vivid colors, but not to the degree that the image looks artificially colorized.

I admit I am not good as far as serious grading is concerned. I think I know a lot about it in theory, probably more than most here. If you say my version is terrible, you are probably right. Do better, show, explain.

The point of this rant is, people - including me - can't grade. So why are they considering log the Holy Grail? I'd rather have a picture style that spared me all those steps and just left some color correction (which isn't a matter of taste and an artist's "eye" but merely cooking by the book with scopes). I would really love if the skin looked better. It's not wrong, it has the right tones, but it has too few nuances to look really alive. It's a pity that the above face is not in 10-bit, I'm curious to see if that made a difference.

This is the best one out of the lot in my eyes, though the whole subject of colour is subjective and some would stone me to death for even thinking such a thing.

Less is more, more often than not.

[Axel]

Imo the best one so far is that of EOSHD member cantsin, who posted it in another forum. I am sure he will forgive me for putting the link in here:

My image looks like from a Christmas carol TV show (too kitschy skin). You can imagine she's just about to sing let it snow, let it snow, let it snow ....

cantsins image looks as if it was from a film with Julianne Moore. 

[SlanderShot]

Here some others crashs tests :

Tried to get more warm colours, adjust color balance, recovery maximum in highlight/lowlight.

As i said, im not used to work with VLOG. I'm learning in this thread.

Sorry if i do "horrific" work

 

 

[Taranis]

What's happening here could be more fun if there was some kind of an app connected to this forum where you could upload a log footage and let people post their grades, and people with more than x posts could upvote the ones they like. I know, turning grading into a competition is not the best idea, but it's sort-of happening here already, so why not :D Oh, and the winner should be rewarded somehow, I haven't figured out that one yet.

[Axel]

15 minutes ago, SlanderShot said:

Tried to get more warm colours, adjust color balance, recovery maximum in highlight/lowlight.

Good. I think you recovered too much above. The clouds look too faded. 

@Taranis

We evaluate what can be done with this footage. That's all.

[SlanderShot]

1 minute ago, Axel said:

Good. I think you recovered too much above. The clouds look too faded. 

I used the qualifer tool for this one, but you're right, the sky lose in contrast.

I have real difficulty for work on the shot called "Seattle Dolly" too. Can't find a decent grade for this one. I abandoned.

 

[Brian Flint]

Thanks Neumann films for the original GH5 files.

It is interesting to have some h264 files with 4:2:2  and 10bit . I guess this will become much more common in the near future.

I also found these were not accepted by Davicii Resolve. 

[hyalinejim]

28 minutes ago, Axel said:

We evaluate what can be done with this footage. That's all.

Trying to get a bit of contrast into skintones at 8bit 4:2:0 reveals macroblocking, still visible when downsized to 1080.

31 minutes ago, SlanderShot said:

I have real difficulty for work on the shot called "Seattle Dolly" too.

 

I'm finding it hard to avoid the classic Panasonic colour palette with that one without resorting to LUTs, despite the malleability of 10bit. The detail in the image is amazing, though.

[Taranis]

46 minutes ago, Axel said:

@Taranis

We evaluate what can be done with this footage. That's all.

And as a side effect some grades turn out to be "better" (liked by more people), than others. But I get it, I should leave it a side effect