Is the GX85, G7 and G85 so skilled with dynamic range?

[Gesmi]

Hi everyone, this is my first post 🙂

I saw a video on YouTube that I can't believe.

I have a Panasonic GX85 and I watched the video of a content creator named Hamidreza Sohrabi.

This one:

Lumix G7 + 14-42 kit lens

I looked at the comments, to see if he said anything about the camera settings. In this video, no one says nothing about it.

On the other hand, I have searched another video that he uploaded. I have extrapolated the settings of the other video (Sedona) to the other video recorded with the G7:

Sedona

According to him, it is recorded with standard mode, with the sharpness and noise reduction at -5. He doesn't say anything else. Contrast and saturation are supposed to be at 0. It also doesn't say anything about iDynamic or H/S. Therefore, iDynamic is disabled and the H/S values are also at 0. I've seen the video and, despite what Mr. Sohrabi says and fails to say, i can't believe he achieved that much dynamic range with that setting. If he had said it was recorded with CinelikeD, i would have believed it.

The videos look fantastic. Even with a LUT applied, there are almost no artifacts typical of an 8-bit compressed video.

I'm telling you all this because it's possible that I'm wrong. Maybe I've missed something. What is your opinion? I hope @BTM_pix and @Kye can say something about this.

Thanks in advance.

[fuzzynormal]

I used the gx85 for a documentary series.  Sure it's 8-bit, but if you shoot clean it looks clean.

My opinion is that a bad shot can't be saved regardless of what camera you use.  So, you know, don't do that.

[Gesmi]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I used the gx85 for a documentary series.  Sure it's 8-bit, but if you shoot clean it looks clean.

My opinion is that a bad shot can't be saved regardless of what camera you use.  So, you know, don't do that.

Yes, i'm sure about i'm missing something and i'm currently doing bad recordings.

I need to do more tests. At the moment, the little material i have recorded is usually overexposed, but it is recorded in CineD (-5,-5,-5,-3 -- H/S -1,+1, iDynamic off) or in Natural (same settings). I have the zebra alert at 95%. I choose the right WB for each ocassion too.

I'm avoiding the standard mode, because i can't believe that the dynamic range quality of these videos can be achieved with this setting.

But maybe i'm wrong. After all, i'm a newcomer to the videography territory.

Have you seen the video of the G7?. If so, based on your experience with the GX85. Is that dynamic range possible?.

 

[newfoundmass]

It's possible to get those kinds of results using a standard profile on an 8-bit camera. Picture profile settings are just part of it, though. Nailing color and exposure are important.

I'm not necessarily blown away by the dynamic range personally. I think it looks good, especially considering it's shot on what is almost a 10 year old camera, but I think it really just boils down to it being a nice day out. 

[fuzzynormal]

21 hours ago, Gesmi said:

Yes, i'm sure about i'm missing something and i'm currently doing bad recordings.

I need to do more tests. At the moment, the little material i have recorded is usually overexposed, but it is recorded in CineD (-5,-5,-5,-3 -- H/S -1,+1, iDynamic off) or in Natural (same settings). I have the zebra alert at 95%. I choose the right WB for each ocassion too.

I'm avoiding the standard mode, because i can't believe that the dynamic range quality of these videos can be achieved with this setting.

But maybe i'm wrong. After all, i'm a newcomer to the videography territory.

Have you seen the video of the G7?. If so, based on your experience with the GX85. Is that dynamic range possible?.

 

I don't know what's going on in your world, but I can tell you it doesn't matter how you fiddle the menu on a camera that leads to good shots.

All the real work that happens with a good shot starts outside of the camera.  The camera is honestly one of the LAST things you should fret about.

I swear to God, you can be a better shooter by visiting a museum full of Romanticism Artistic movement paintings.

Study how light affects a scene, and you'll become a more sophisticated videograper that way.

If you can't train yourself to "see light" you're always gonna struggle.

I'm not being flippant here.  It's the cheat-code.  Skip all the tech BS and learn light.  Take a classic art appreciation class.  Learn composition skills.  These are the things that actually make a difference.  Train your eye to be a shooter and a person that can paint with light. 

Sure, you can be a pixel nerd, but that has a low ceiling of accomplishment and, honestly, advanced tech makes those acomplishments not a big deal to begin with.

And look, when you study art, you'll learn more about the human condition along the way, maybe even some philosophy.  Win-win.

[fuzzynormal]

22 hours ago, Gesmi said:

i can't believe that the dynamic range quality of these videos can be achieved with this setting.

You can make a video shot on a 1980's VHS tube camcorder look pretty if you have elegant, soft, and nice lighting.  When the light in a scene doesn't have a harsh spectrum, it'll look decent. 

Thats why exceptional shooters get up at 3am, get ready, and "chase the light".  There's a very good reason they do a lot of their work during the so called magic hour.

I could send you URL's of promo reels from camera products released 15, heck 20, years ago and it'll blow your mind.  Cameras with 6 or 7 stops of DR looking freaking awesome .  How?  Pro cinematography with good light.

I love playing with the tech side of cams, but i never accomolished great shots 'til i broke out of the teccentric mindset.

Anyway, enough soap box.  Will leave you be...

[Gesmi]

16 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It's possible to get those kinds of results using a standard profile on an 8-bit camera. Picture profile settings are just part of it, though. Nailing color and exposure are important.

I'm not necessarily blown away by the dynamic range personally. I think it looks good, especially considering it's shot on what is almost a 10 year old camera, but I think it really just boils down to it being a nice day out. 

Ok, thx. I'll keep trying :)

[kye]

I'll chime in with my usual advice about colour grading.

The simple fact is that colour grading has a much more significant role in getting great looking images than the camera does.  I'll also re-enforce the points above that what you point the camera at is more important than anything else.

When we look at something shot on ARRI or RED or the high end Sony cameras, the reason they look great are 70% the scene, 25% the colour grading and 5% the camera.  I know this is a bold statement, but I stand by it.

Colour grading is the elephant in the room of all online discussions about cameras.  Everyone is looking at sample videos and going "wow, this looks great - I want to get that look without doing any colour grading or work in post at all!" and it's just not true.

If you need more convincing, here are a few things to look at:

• The BMPCC 4K can match the Alexa almost perfectly...   So, why don't all P4K videos look as good as Netflix shows?  It's not the camera!
• The image from the GX85 is more flexible in post than you think...  @John Matthews I haven't forgotten about doing a follow-up with skin-tones in it.
• Simple colour grading > Camera colour science...  I compare a few examples of the 709 version of some professional grade images with the final colour graded image, and it's pretty obvious that the 709 version looks quite plain - a lot like the images we get when us mere mortals shoot
• The best film-making advice I ever got was to do with colour grading, but it helped me improve my shooting, editing, sound design, etc etc, the whole lot.
• Here are a bunch of GX85 shots SOOC that I took in Korea last year..  this just goes to show you that not only is the GX85 a very capable camera, but that it's the subject that you put in front of it that really makes the difference.  Of course, colour grading will elevate these beyond that level.
• High-end TV shows and movies look nothing like the standard images out of a camera... In this thread I compare some standard images from ARRI with real images from TV shows and movies and it's pretty obvious that not only are the colours significantly changed, the real images aren't sharp and clean like the videos that camera YT seems to idolise.  The goal isn't technical purity, the goal is creativity, and this means taking your sharp and clean images and giving them some character.  

I could go on (many will wholeheartedly agree on this!) but long story short...  the camera is a minor part of the journey that the image takes from finding / creating something cool to point it at, to all the work done in post.

Also, learn to edit.  Well edited bad-quality clips are better than boring high-quality images every time.

[Gesmi]

Thank you very much for your time and advice, Kye. I am going to study all the material you have provided in your post, to learn what i need to know. 😉

I've just started in the field of video (I've always been more into photography and playing with RAW). I have also recently purchased a course on how to use Davinci Resolve.

It actually blew my mind when i saw the video of the G7. Even at base ISO and with a LUT applied (which seems quite aggressive), the video looks very clean, full of detail, free of the typical artifacts of grading 8-bit videos and with a dynamic range that i didn't expect to be possible get with a Panasonic G85/GX85/G7, at least in standard mode.

That's the reason i started this post, because i knew there are people here who have experience with the GX85 (like you). I was curious to know your opinions. In fact, thanks to this forum, i have learned how to activate CinelikeD on the GX85 (and that many people here longed for it to get the most out of the camera's dynamic range). However, after watching the G7 video, i think i have more than enough with the standard/natural modes.

In a few days, i'll buy an ND filter and start shooting video and editing it.

Thank you so much 🙂

[kye]

4 hours ago, Gesmi said:

Thank you very much for your time and advice, Kye. I am going to study all the material you have provided in your post, to learn what i need to know. 😉

I've just started in the field of video (I've always been more into photography and playing with RAW). I have also recently purchased a course on how to use Davinci Resolve.

It actually blew my mind when i saw the video of the G7. Even at base ISO and with a LUT applied (which seems quite aggressive), the video looks very clean, full of detail, free of the typical artifacts of grading 8-bit videos and with a dynamic range that i didn't expect to be possible get with a Panasonic G85/GX85/G7, at least in standard mode.

That's the reason i started this post, because i knew there are people here who have experience with the GX85 (like you). I was curious to know your opinions. In fact, thanks to this forum, i have learned how to activate CinelikeD on the GX85 (and that many people here longed for it to get the most out of the camera's dynamic range). However, after watching the G7 video, i think i have more than enough with the standard/natural modes.

In a few days, i'll buy an ND filter and start shooting video and editing it.

Thank you so much 🙂

Welcome to doing video!  Stills photography is so easy by comparison that comparing the two is almost impossible.  I also came from taking RAW stills into doing video, so you're on a difficult but well-worn path.

Of all of my advice, this is the most important...  Don't believe anything you read - test as many things yourself as you can.

I have done this over the years and I have routinely found that a third of what "everyone knows" is completely false, and another third on top of that is completely misunderstood.  It shouldn't surprise anyone, but the misconceptions and outright lies will often push you in the direction of buying things that you don't actually need, and come from the manufacturers pushing very one-sided or suspect information and then it being "re-interpreted" by consumers who are too stupid or lazy or both to question it.

Best of luck!

[FHDcrew]

On 3/17/2024 at 1:59 AM, newfoundmass said:

this post is broken 😞

[FHDcrew]

On 3/17/2024 at 1:59 AM, newfoundmass said:

It's possible to get those kinds of results using a standard profile on an 8-bit camera. Picture profile settings are just part of it, though. Nailing color and exposure are important.

I'm not necessarily blown away by the dynamic range personally. I think it looks good, especially considering it's shot on what is almost a 10 year old camera, but I think it really just boils down to it being a nice day out. 

Half of the shots in this video I shot are in 8-bit rec709 but graded in post.  Learn your gear and 8 bit is just fine.

 

[FHDcrew]

A-Roll is completely 8-bit

[TomTheDP]

If you expose and white balance on point most 8 bit cameras will look nice in REC709 profiles. You have a bit more range to play with if you are shooting log on a higher end sensor. However you will be compressing everything down into that colorspace and dynamic range limitation regardless(Unless you are mastering for HDR displays). 

[kye]

15 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

If you expose and white balance on point most 8 bit cameras will look nice in REC709 profiles. You have a bit more range to play with if you are shooting log on a higher end sensor. However you will be compressing everything down into that colorspace and dynamic range limitation regardless(Unless you are mastering for HDR displays). 

It's partly a theoretical point, but I'm not actually sure this has to be the case.  It's definitely not the case if you're comparing 709 8-bit vs LOG 8-bit, as LOG 8-bit can be so fragile that you can't even make nice images if you don't need to change WB or exposure at all.

The missing piece (and why I said "I'm not sure this has to be the case") is having the colour management to convert back from 709 into something where WB and Exposure adjustments will be made proportionally to the image (ie, like they were done in-camera).  I've done a lot of work with the GX85, as I'm sure you've seen, and am still planning on doing more, and I got quite good results with the Gamma wheel when the image was in 709, and using the WB and Offset controls when I'd done a CST to a LOG space (in my case using DWG/DI in Resolve).

The reasons that I suggest this are that:

• when shooting 8-bit there is far more data in the saturation, so the impacts of quantisation are much less when grading the final image to have a normal level of saturation
• when shooting 8-bit the image SOOC is much closer to the final image in terms of the gamma curve, so you're not stretching those bits that much further apart than they already are, whereas 8-bit LOG needs a lot of additional contrast to be added

Of course, the ultimate is having 10-bit HLG, which has full 709 levels of saturation, has a gamma curve much closer to a 709-style output but still retains all the DR from the camera, and it has all the benefits of 10-bit.  Once again, HLG isn't a standard so the conversion is a challenge, but I've found that interpreting it as either Rec2020 or Rec2100 works pretty well.

I'm currently programming my own grading tool in DCTL for Resolve and my main aim is to incorporate the tools that I'll need to grade 709 images, considering that the GX85 is now my main focus and it's the one that is hardest to get right with the existing tools.  Once I have a working prototype I'll be filming my rec709 WB/exposure tests again (with skintones this time) and will update the other thread.

[TomTheDP]

On 3/22/2024 at 5:54 AM, kye said:

It's partly a theoretical point, but I'm not actually sure this has to be the case.  It's definitely not the case if you're comparing 709 8-bit vs LOG 8-bit, as LOG 8-bit can be so fragile that you can't even make nice images if you don't need to change WB or exposure at all.

The missing piece (and why I said "I'm not sure this has to be the case") is having the colour management to convert back from 709 into something where WB and Exposure adjustments will be made proportionally to the image (ie, like they were done in-camera).  I've done a lot of work with the GX85, as I'm sure you've seen, and am still planning on doing more, and I got quite good results with the Gamma wheel when the image was in 709, and using the WB and Offset controls when I'd done a CST to a LOG space (in my case using DWG/DI in Resolve).

The reasons that I suggest this are that:

• when shooting 8-bit there is far more data in the saturation, so the impacts of quantisation are much less when grading the final image to have a normal level of saturation
• when shooting 8-bit the image SOOC is much closer to the final image in terms of the gamma curve, so you're not stretching those bits that much further apart than they already are, whereas 8-bit LOG needs a lot of additional contrast to be added

Of course, the ultimate is having 10-bit HLG, which has full 709 levels of saturation, has a gamma curve much closer to a 709-style output but still retains all the DR from the camera, and it has all the benefits of 10-bit.  Once again, HLG isn't a standard so the conversion is a challenge, but I've found that interpreting it as either Rec2020 or Rec2100 works pretty well.

I'm currently programming my own grading tool in DCTL for Resolve and my main aim is to incorporate the tools that I'll need to grade 709 images, considering that the GX85 is now my main focus and it's the one that is hardest to get right with the existing tools.  Once I have a working prototype I'll be filming my rec709 WB/exposure tests again (with skintones this time) and will update the other thread.

Yes I'm talking shooting in 8 bit 709. When I mentioned log I meant 10-12 bit. I was saying even though the master is 709 you can potentially make 10 bit log better looking than a baked in 709 profile. For instance the emotive color lut looks nicer than the 709 profiles out of most cameras straight off the card.

[sanveer]

Long ago there was a discussion here (and many other places online), about 4k 4-2-0 being converted to 1080p 4-4-4 (or maybe even 4-2-2 if that sounds more reasonable?).

I guess with the various upressing software available, increasing resolution from 1080p to 4k, and increasing bit depth too, a little downscaling (from 4k to 1080p) and increasing bit depth (from 4-2-0 to 4-4-4 or 4-2-2?), and then upressing to 4k from 1080p may work well. Especially if the shadows aren't too noisy and highlights aren't blown out. 

 

P.S.: Didn't realise the thread was started by the luminary of photography and videography 😉