Watching that video makes things pretty clear. He's basically talking about a log curve applied in-camera that you decode in post. To quote from elsewhere on the Technicolor site:

"Acquisition with Technicolor’s CineStyle will generate what appears to be a flat, de-saturated looking image. While this image may appear unappealing and undesirable, it is in fact an ideal starting point for post-production and color correction. To properly color correct and/or view footage shot with Technicolor CineStyle we recommend utilizing a S-curve shaped look-up table (LUT) in your editing or color correction application. You may download such a LUT using the links provided. If your editing or color correction application does not offer the ability to import and use LUTs, other controls like the ASC CDL, Lift/Gamma/Gain, or Offset/Power/Slope can be used to color correct the image."

However, I assume this ability to record a log curve is not possible on GH2 so I'm personally happy to continue trying to maximise the dynamic range there currently is in the GH2 and keep to the least post-processing I can get away with. But that's me - my experience has been with much lesser technologies (BetaCam, DV and even hi-8 / SVHS), which force you to try to get good images out of correct lighting / exposure etc because any attempt at post-production was pretty pointless. One big strength of the GH2 and other cameras, is that you can do much more in post - but of course, you still have to shoot knowing the limitations of your camera, whatever it is. But I think many people have already said that!

@fatpig: "I think MrAnthony thought, that the flat-look was to be kept in your movie as-is."

No, that was the point I was making--Producer keeps begging for the "film-look" and citing the flat images as what he wants. It won't matter for him though, because no matter how flat you make the image, it can't make up for bad exposure and bad lighting. He doesn't seem to understand this and keeps thinking that a flat-look is a panacea, when it's not.

What's funny to me is that film has different looks anyway, depending on the film stock as well as post-processing. It's easier to just understand that the GH1 produces its own look, which can be made more film-like (e.g. 24p settings, smooth film settings, etc.), but it will take some work to make it look like it was shot with 35mm film. Even with the examples he gave about how Canon can do this and that, Producer ignored tons of facts (like House has lighting specialists, people to do post-production, a big budget) in search of a magic hack to give a "film-look." I like how he talks about wanting to bring up details in blacks, but if its too dark (like from his bad lighting), you can't rescue it, so he blames the camera for not having a cinehack. You can't make chicken soup from chicken $h!t.

Love it!

Makes sense what you say about the sensor / encoding. I love what my GH2 does - any fiddling around is much better done with exposure / lighting / reflectors (IMO).

Thanks lpowell.

@Producer GH17 > G2. GH17 is missing the touchscreen, but I rarely use GH2's touchscreen.

The G2 video actually benefitted from the Vimeo compression, which smoothed over the G2's gritty low-light noise. Both G2 and GH1 videos were shot in Smooth Film Mode (-2 Contrast & NR), wide-open at f1.8-2.0, 1/60 shutter, and ISO400. I used a Canon FD 28mm lens with an Optex anamorphic on the GH1, and a Konica Hexanon 40mm with an ISCO Widescreen 2000 anamorphic on the G2.

The major effort, however, was lighting the room to look dark and sharp without crushing all the near-black details. The lights I custom built using a mixture of selected fluorescent bulbs and diffusers. Everything was carefully angled and deflected to eliminate glare and unintentional highlights. The actress was illuminated and directed with the intent of only partially revealing the details of her face and body in each frame. These outtakes have numerous flaws, but they do a good job of illustrating the look I was after.

Nice, LPowell, thanks for saying how you did the lighting. Have you discovered the joys of Cinefoil? I think it's great stuff for creating impromptu barn doors or even lens hoods (thought of that last one when I dug my Optex anamorphic out yesterday and had a go with it - it does seem to flare in uncontrolled lighting).

I love the velvety look of your shot!

Hi - nice shots, but it's not really a video is it? Just another of those tedious, slightly slo-mo bits of test footage with some cheesy titles and random music stuck over the top.

If someone wants to be a stills photographer, go and do that, stay away from video. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is just lazy and I get really sick of seeing this "genre".

Wow, the first thing that struck me was the poor color balance in the opening shots--everything was green-tinted! @Mark: This isn't good from a stills photographer viewpoint either.

I hope he got model releases.

@Producer: do not confuse shallow depth of field with excellent work. There's more to any kind of photography than just shallow depth of field. As stefanos noted, go see Baraka. Amazing.

hey producer, yes, its not a movie, its some tests- again- and yes i understand that people are bored of tests. nevertheless, it is a nice look that he achieved, its not the best i have seen, but its nice. :) certainly not very different from many hollywood looks. :) have a great day and dont let the guys who dont "get" you - get to your head ;)

OK. Just do it, don't keep talking about it.

Your words "I've seen a hell of a lot more motion pictures... bla-bla..." speaks very clearly. Everyone's seen, not only you. But what have YOU created by yourself as a result to allow yourself to compare and spit other's excellent efforts?!?
Hehe, then enjoy your Panasonics with 1000.000.000MBps and adore your news reportage look...

@ Producer: by your own words, you've never taken a class in photography, you don't know how to adjust the exposure settings in your camera, and you constantly ignore everyone's advice about learning about lighting, exposure and color correction while constantly whining for a "film look" or a flat image (which isn't a "film look"), which tells me you have no idea what you're asking for. Try taking everyone's advice and work on your exposure/ lighting skills and stop looking for some magic setting or magic camera to solve all your exposure/lighting problems. Since this forum/thread is about the GH1 hack, I find your comments to be trolling when you come in here and insultingly tell us to enjoy the Panasonic with its "news reportage look." What are you doing here then? Maybe you should be in another forum altogether, one that can appreciate your cool logo and your backlit/underexposure style. We all know that every camera has issues and none of them are perfect, so there's no need to troll here.

>As for producer, he forces this topic to exists. So, do not paint this in black.
flibnarb started the thread, not producer.

many people will read it and start learning proper things.
> I hope so.

>And trolls are quite rare anyway. :-)
Yes, they are. So, I'll take back saying he's trolling, but he needs to understand that just because he doesn't like the answer, it doesn't make the answer wrong. And demanding the flat style repeatedly, doesn't automatically make it a "film style." :-)