Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Attempting to match GH4 to DRAGON (my results thus far)

The dragon is def better, but the price disparity really makes ya think...
 
Michael, are you renting the Dragon for these tests or do you own it? Also, is this the old OLPF or the new OLPF/sensor calibrations/color science tweaks? I know some people think it shouldn't matter but I think it's relevant.
 
Brian Boyer said:
Michael, are you renting the Dragon for these tests or do you own it?
Click to expand...

That should not affect performance!

Also, is this the old OLPF or the new OLPF/sensor calibrations/color science tweaks? I know some people think it shouldn't matter but I think it's relevant.
Click to expand...

It's the old OLPF. And for this latest test we are comparing a Fujinon Cabrio 19-90 at around 30mm vs. a Voigtländer 17.5mm, both at f4.0. I think the Voightländer is delivering slightly better optical performance, but the Dragon is killing it in terms of color acuity and fidelity.
 
Michael Tiemann said:
That should not affect performance!
Click to expand...

I asked because...

a) you mentioned renting Dragon before to see if you wanted to buy it and

b) if you rent, you may get an old OLPF one time and a new OLPF another, depending on what's available. Since you haven't stipulated which one it is in the majority (any?) of your posts, I'm always left to guess.

If you owned it and it was the new OLPF, I could reasonably assume every test you did would be the same without you having to say it.
 
Hey Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to do this test. I'm performing a looks test at my office with just the GH4. Would it be possible for you to create a LUT that I could import on my end in FCP X using LUTutiity?
 
Thoughts on the GH4 from my tests:

Try Natural instead of Cine-D. Cine-D has a little hue wobble in the color. Natural does not and is actually slightly less saturated.

Modify that Natural picture profile by taking Constrast, Sharpness and Saturation to -5.

For a non-bumpy curve, try i.Dynamic medium, with Shadows and Highlights at 0.

Here are some tests I did, if you are interested:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bx36eGbmhPWuZ0Q4UEdMSW93WTg&usp=sharing

I also recommend white balance at somewhere between 4000 and 5000 - but I see you're already doing that :) WB at 5600K does some very odd things.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
There is no question they botched the test.
Click to expand...

#1 - Sharpness in camera - We want to push the GH4 footage through with no post work. Ours will personally always be set to -2, -1, or 0. Not botched, personal choice.

#2 - DOF/F-stop - The lens we decided to use that day (80-200mm f 4) changes drastically from f 5.6-f 11. The lens performing the same (in our test) was more important than matching the DOF. Sorry if it didn't meet your expectation for the test. It met ours and I don't think it matters at all. In fact, I think changing the f stop to match DOF gives one camera an advantage over the other IF the lens you're using changes in performance.

#3 - Focus being off - If anything it was only off a hair. At that distance and focal length it was close enough that it didn't play a huge factor. The tree on the left (that you claim to be in focus) still isn't as sharp as the GH4 (even if you say it is...the focus of the GH4 was on the barn so isn't that JUST as an unfair comparison as the barn?)

#4 - Inconsistent framing - It doesn't matter. Scale the 5K down to meet the 4K GH4 or scale the 4K up to 5K. Doesn't matter. Get them both to the same resolution. 4096x2160 vs. 4096x2160. Blow up each by 300%. It doesn't matter if the barn is larger in the GH4 frame or not. You're still looking at the same number of horizontal and vertical pixels. In your 400% zoom in of the tree you scaled each to match which isn't necessary and isn't fair to the GH4.


All in all, they were shots that we quickly captured after doing (more important) tests...lighting/skin tones/low light (which we included at the start of the video). Good enough for us which means...not botched. :)
 
Brian D. Goff said:
So far my test comparing the Scarlet and the GH4 are disappointing, meaning the GH4 is not getting anything near the Scarlet, except that the resolution is somewhat close, but defiantly not better as claimed by the NS test. Contrast is at least 2 stops less and pulling anything up from the shadows is simply unusable wit the GH4. I think if you have good lighting and are aiming at a hard grade (like the GH4 youtube demo films from panasonic) then you might be happy with the camera - otherwise RED still rules by far.
Click to expand...

We didn't really "claim" anything. If you wanted to create a set of circumstances that would yield similar results to ours it wouldn't be that difficult. Use the same lens, shoot with sharpness at 0 on the GH4, and that's about it. Obviously if we used Master Primes and pushed the in cam sharpness down it would have been a landslide the other way. We don't own Master Primes though. The biggest thing that test showed me? I will NEVER use that lens on the Epic again. Ha ha! I had only used it on there a few times before but hadn't zoomed in that close to see how it looked. Yikes.

Agree with you though. The GH4 just falls apart when you try to shoot for any sort of post work. The colors get really strange and the shadows are bizarre. Good BTS camera and I'm sure others will dig into it and find a good image but it's not doing it for me at the moment. Looks great when you use the "non flat" profiles though! Our plan is to use it to record a ton of material that doesn't require a second of post work. For that, I think it's a great camera. For anything else...not my cup o' tea.
 
Bruce Allen said:
Thoughts on the GH4 from my tests:

Try Natural instead of Cine-D. Cine-D has a little hue wobble in the color. Natural does not and is actually slightly less saturated.

Modify that Natural picture profile by taking Constrast, Sharpness and Saturation to -5.

For a non-bumpy curve, try i.Dynamic medium, with Shadows and Highlights at 0.

Here are some tests I did, if you are interested:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bx36eGbmhPWuZ0Q4UEdMSW93WTg&usp=sharing

I also recommend white balance at somewhere between 4000 and 5000 - but I see you're already doing that :) WB at 5600K does some very odd things.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Very nice...I will investigate Natural! One thing I learned the hard way with the AF100 is this: never ever try to squeeze more dynamic range out of the image than the native sensor can reasonably give. i.Dynamic might well help you see into darkness that is otherwise hidden, but the cost of getting still-not-useable shadow detail is that it impairs otherwise-useable normal-range detail. I have become a convert to the idea of using lighting to limit DR issues, which means that if I want to see into the shadows, I simply light that area better. I know that it's a fool's errand to try to get the GH4 to match the 16 or so stops of DR that DRAGON can muster. My aim is to get a good match for the middle/most important 10 stops of range. And to decide whether it's worth it to get the YAGHI breakout box and an external 4K recorder.
 
lol I thought my post on nofilmschools FB last night would get your attention here! Glad to have a fruitful discussion on it, and cheers! PS how come there are always so many anti red shooters on your FB, (it makes for fun banter though)?! Everyone calling Red expensive makes me laugh when Arris cost an arm and leg and are more "popular anyway" (in certain circles) lmfao!


Luke Neumann said:
We didn't really "claim" anything. If you wanted to create a set of circumstances that would yield similar results to ours it wouldn't be that difficult. Use the same lens, shoot with sharpness at 0 on the GH4, and that's about it. Obviously if we used Master Primes and pushed the in cam sharpness down it would have been a landslide the other way. We don't own Master Primes though. The biggest thing that test showed me? I will NEVER use that lens on the Epic again. Ha ha! I had only used it on there a few times before but hadn't zoomed in that close to see how it looked. Yikes.

Agree with you though. The GH4 just falls apart when you try to shoot for any sort of post work. The colors get really strange and the shadows are bizarre. Good BTS camera and I'm sure others will dig into it and find a good image but it's not doing it for me at the moment. Looks great when you use the "non flat" profiles though! Our plan is to use it to record a ton of material that doesn't require a second of post work. For that, I think it's a great camera. For anything else...not my cup o' tea.
Click to expand...
 
You don't need the Yaghi breakout box to go to an external recorder. HDMI 4k straight into the new Atmos or according to Mitch at Convergent Design they are going to mod the Osyssey 7q to accept 4k hdmi from the gh4 or the sony a7s. I am hoping this comes about as I have a 7q and love it.
 
Actually first time ever posting anything here. But thought I would say something as we recently did a shoot using the Epic MX and a GH4. The subject was an Emergency Medic and we were shooting in ambulances and helicopters. After throwing my back out shooting Epic with Cabrio and onboard monitor etc... I thought I would give the GH4 a go with OIS in 4K on a second outing. Footage was more than acceptable and obviously it was a piece of cake to shoot.

The GH4 is really a nice little camera. It has limited DR than the Epic MX, lacks the more graceful roll off, and the color is thin by comparison. But I will say used in the right circumstance it is such a cool easy tool to have in your bag. I loved it.

We were CineV. Sharpness -5. Contrast -3. Saturation-3 and in the 16-235 range. All the 'i' stuff off.

THAT SAID.

I truly do not see why anyone would waste their breath comparing the two cameras in any serious technical way. The GH4 is a great tool. The best I have found for situations where you need speed and convenience so far. We will see what the Sony A7s brings to the party. But the image quality is nowhere near Red. The post color play is nowhere near the same. And speaking of easy great tools. I still marvel at a small camera (EPIC) where I can dial between 4K and 5K for different focal length looks, and all manner of fps in a couple of seconds with no added boxes. I am confounded where the Red hating started but based on use of the camera without a problem for three years now it is groundless. It feels like all anyone is looking for is a violin that plays itself - the cheaper the better. Not much of a goal in life if you ask me.
 
Scott I used the 7Q recently and agree its awesome! Hoping when Red gets the 4k module out it can be a great 4k proxy solution!

PS

Welcome to RU Tarquin and I agree entirely!
 
Brian Merlen said:
lol I thought my post on nofilmschools FB last night would get your attention here! Glad to have a fruitful discussion on it, and cheers! PS how come there are always so many anti red shooters on your FB, (it makes for fun banter though)?! Everyone calling Red expensive makes me laugh when Arris cost an arm and leg and are more "popular anyway" (in certain circles) lmfao!
Click to expand...

Ha, I didn't see it as I'm not on Facebook in any capacity anymore. The majority of our viewers are DSLR/BMCC users so naturally RED is out of their price range. I think RED was a pretty easy target for a few years there (tbh BMCC is taking over with their inability to deliver product on time). I do think RED is taking big steps to winning people back over though. I have never let that sway my opinion on the image and/or the camera though. I have always loved the image and am going to be moving to Dragon here shortly!
 
Luke Neumann said:
#4 - Inconsistent framing - It doesn't matter. Scale the 5K down to meet the 4K GH4 or scale the 4K up to 5K. Doesn't matter. Get them both to the same resolution. 4096x2160 vs. 4096x2160. Blow up each by 300%. It doesn't matter if the barn is larger in the GH4 frame or not. You're still looking at the same number of horizontal and vertical pixels. In your 400% zoom in of the tree you scaled each to match which isn't necessary and isn't fair to the GH4.
Click to expand...

Luke you're just digging your hole deeper. If the framing isn't the same it's impossible to upscale or downscale to get valid 1:1 scale comparisons. I even went out of my way to help illustrate this for you with examples and everything off board. Oh well you can lead a horse to water...

Luke Neumann said:
I think changing the f stop to match DOF gives one camera an advantage over the other IF the lens you're using changes in performance.
Click to expand...

You can get effectively infinite depth of field on both cameras if you stop down to something reasonable but less than the diffraction limit of the lens. Also you can't say "It's more important to keep the lenses the same" but then have two wildly different depth of fields.

Ultimately for your conclusions you didn't match framing, you had different depths of field and your focus in both frames wasn't what you zoomed into for your resolution comparison. Say whatever you want about it being about skin tones, it was a useless resolution test.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
If the framing isn't the same it's impossible to upscale or downscale to get valid 1:1 scale comparisons.
Click to expand...

LOL, how is it "impossible"? Use your eyes to see which is sharper. Very simple. You won't have the exact same window to compare it to but the results will be exactly the same. Sharpness/resolution isn't based on framing...at all. It will be a more pleasing comparison and easier to come to a conclusion, but not necessary. ALSO, let's stop acting like ours was far enough off that it could make any difference. That's where you lose me. If the barn took up 50% of frame in one shot and 10% in the other, sure, I would agree with you (even though it still wouldn't matter as long as it was the same lens/same settings/same crop into footage). But we're talking a 2-5% difference here, it doesn't affect the final outcome AT ALL. If I matched it perfectly it wouldn't have affected the outcome one tiny bit.

Let me re iterate, the tests were for us and not Gavin. You should change your post to say "I found it to be a useless resolution test", not "it was a useless resolution test". It wasn't useless because WE got something from it. Make sense? Walking around stating your personal opinions as fact has always caused friction. Life should have taught you this already. I know exactly what I need to know about the GH4 because I spent time with the files. We didn't offer any conclusions in the video. None. We uploaded it and the source files for people to come to their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top