@endotoxic

I think you go about it backwards with the topic title. It´s not just you, the in-word for long has been wether something is cinematic or not. To talk about "best cinematic image" is just ridiculous, IMO.

Let me just say that the whole GH series can look both filmic, cinematic and camcorder like or just plain "DSLR". The same holds true for basically any contemporary digital image making boxes that we like to talk about.

Are there differences in look between the GH series cams? Yes, absolutely. But to specify these things as more or less cinematic is completely ignoring that it´s all about the hand and eye that wields the tool that he/she chooses and how the footage is edited, processed.

Most people would say that the Alexa gives the most cinematic image if compared to the GH cameras (plenty of DR, beautiful grain). YET, 80-90% of the time I see it immediately (when it has been used) and most of the time it doesn´t look cinematic or filmic at all. Just Alexa. Or dslr. (because people have fallen in love with it´s flat look and abuse shallow DOF)

To sum this up, I´d applaud attempts to bring together good looking stuff that has been shot with this series of amazing little cameras. (and by all means, why not include some tech specs of the equipment used, post work e.t.c.) But to discuss the "cinematicness" of this or that cam is pretty boring.

Don´t take it personally @endotoxic as it´s just something that has been getting on my nerve for a while now; it certainly wasn´t intended as criticism of you, more voicing my concerns over this trend that doesn´t benefit anyone (except perhaps marketing?) – I think we have pretty similar views of this, at least it seems that way! :)

Saying: I think this (or that) looks good is factual. Your next guy doesn´t have to agree. It´s open for discussion and it´s open for other suggestions. I like it.

@aria @RRRR

nothing personal taken, this is forum!! :)

I have one question then. When choosing light, lenses, and postproduction process, and you are given GH series to choose, which camera would you use for shooting and why?

@endotoxic It depends on the project really. There are both practical and aesthetic considerations to make..

For the gh series I sold my gh1 after getting the gh2. It´s much more useful for me overall. Not that I think the gh2 is perfect, but it´s a very handy little tool that I don´t hesitate to use.

Both cams can look very good, the gh3 too. That much is clear!

@aria, the thing is, I prefer to soften up footage with the lenses or likewise in post over having a "digitally" soft image to begin with. For me, I find the kind of organic feel I want in soft detail, but if it feels pixelated/sharpened soft, (or overly soft, excessively short DOF) then it´s the exact opposite - it screams digital/dslr. I like detail, but hate sharpness and digital artifacts.

Normally, I can control the DR (of the scene) when I need to - and color rendition too, so that is rarely an issue for me. I´m looking forward to the BMD cam for hard light situations, big views / landscapes e.t.c. In other words, for such occasions when you cannot control the DR of the scene.. But like I said, I´ve found such situation to be relatively rare and they can usually be handled in other ways. I just love the look of the BMD image, I have to say.

Great DR and color doesn´t always look good IMO. Neither does excessive amounts of detail (could be described as sharp).

@RRRR, I think it's about trade offs tho. Unless you pay a lot you usually have to sacrifice one thing or the other. So at the lower end of Cameras we usually don't get it all and if I had to chose i'd prefer more DR and better Color over absolute best detail. I also tend to disagree that Great DR and Color doesn't ALWAYS look good, unless you want something to look flat for artistic reasons. I'm talking about the nature of the cameras imaging and not the final grading of the footage.

When looking at the BMC what we're seeing is the more natural look of a high DR image with good detail and flexibility of Color. So in that sense it's a more "Filmic" look. You're not getting a lot of NR or anti aliasing filter so it's got a grain and noise, but it's more natural as opposed to a processed look. That's what i'm looking for. I personally felt that the D800 HDMI output to Ninja had that kind of look too. Just enough detail but with a good deal more DR that I feel helps to make the image look more like the way I see a scene. I do my best to try and get that from my GH1, as limited as it is.

@RRRR the word "cinematic"hasbeen used wrongly millions of times, but we know what is being meant by it - how closely can a camera emulate the look of a 35mm film stock. That's it there's no need to get hung up on it. Cinematic... filmic... etc

I have bought my GH1 secondhand because back then only 2009 models were hackable. And I hacked it with LPowell Maximum patch (I don't know if there are better patches now). I'm not a videographer- just an enthusiast who wants to make a movie (or at least a digital video that looks to closely to a film that audiences wouldn't notice the difference). So far, I have been getting images so nice, that I have not purchased a GH2 yet. Maybe when the prices will fall further,I will get a secondhand GH2 only because it has higher workable ISO for dark scenes. So GH2 will be my B-cam. I will not be getting a GH3 because it's colour handling is becoming "cold" like most Sony digital cameras, which I hate. The next step up for me would probably be a BMC, but I'm still not sure about many of the factors surrounding it. As far as I'm concerned, GH13 (with legacy lenses, good Lighting kit and good audio gear) is a perfectly good enough tool to make a full-feature-length low-budget movie.

Yesterday, I have written an e-mail to Steve and Jens at Zacuto asking them to include GH1-hacked in their 2013 shootout along with Kodak 5219 film stock, GH2, Alexa, BMC etc. Why? Because the hacked GH1 has never been featured in their shootouts. It would be interesting to see what their response would be.

IMO, one of the reasons why GH13 produces such a cinematic imagery at ISOs below 320, is because it's sensitivity is actually lower than that of any other camera in that range. Watch this video to understand and pay attention to how low is Kodak 5219 film sensitivity:

Combined with GH1's colour rendering and codec, and Vitali's hack and IPowell Maximum patch, GH13 delivers very filmic looking imagery. In other words, GH13 could be a one-off "lucky accident" , a "freak of nature" . What GHx project should have done is keep the sensitivity low (or give an option to keep sensitivity low) and increase it's DR. That would achieve a more filmic/cinematic look.

Combined with GH1's colour rendering and codec, and Vitali's hack and IPowell Maximum patch, GH13 delivers very filmic looking imagery. In other words, GH13 could be a one-off "lucky accident" , a "freak of nature" . What GHx project should have done is keep the sensitivity low (or give an option to keep sensitivity low) and increase it's DR. That would achieve a more filmic/cinematic look.<

ITs the best example i have read!! thanks @Kronstadt, your humble opinion makes a lot of sence here.

I think too that GH1 has better "texture"

its like GH1 had fixed ISO to work with, like film.

@EYESOUL i have one question...how can you describe the "texture feeling" tha make GH1 series better for you?

For me as i have expresed before, lack of detail, and better color reproduction is the base. Maybe its its pixel bining...maybe its matrixed. We could maybe call @lpowell or @cbrandin @driftwood . They maye have a better inside about why is GH1 image more pleasent when even detail is not that good. Maybe they think all this is not about sensor...maybe code... i dont know.

@endotoxic I agree and also liked the pictures taken with GH1 better.

repost sorry..

Difficult to say. I definitely like the GH2 hacked over the GH1 period. But there are things to like about the GH3, and things that aren't so great. Until the GH3 is hacked and we can see what is possible I can't make a determination.

I really feel that the GH2 and GH3 are neck and neck, except for the banding and dynamic range. The GH3 is the clear winner there, but it doesn't yet possess that nice "filmic" grain, and slightly softer image like the hacked GH2 running the high end @driftwood hacks like AN 444 and Intravenus. When the GH3 has those characteristics, it won't even be a competition - the GH3 will be king. For now, it's just in the running.

that's MHO

Wow... there are quite a few people who prefer GH13 texture over GH2 and GH3. For a while now, I was beginning to think that I was crazy, or maybe of just bad taste.

@endotoxic one of the most recurring confusions is that sensitivity is ISO. Not really. They are quite distinct from each other. Watch that video that I posted from 2:20 onwards.

Another reason why I like GH13 is that it emulates closer the traditional cinematographic workflow - in a way that it does not make your life immediately easier by easily making available higher workable ISOs. So you have to light your scene, and by doing so, learn from the cinematographers whose movies you liked. You might think that I'm a weird guy for loving difficult workflows? Well, very often I type my screenplays on a typewriter (because the quality of writing improves dramatically), and if I had the resources to shoot on film stock, I would prefer that, but then the costs would sky rocket, especially with montage and sound mix.

But then one has to ask which particular "cinematic" textures one likes. My personal favorite films are from 1990s and 1970s, so even the modern Kodak 5219 film stock is too "High Definition" for me. I watch those films in BR 1080p along with my own footages from GH13 and I'm quite satisfied.

Panasonic should have worked to improve the DR and colour space (4:2:2, 4:4:2). Instead, they have improved sensitivity, resolution, ISO, etc, which is great, but does it deliver a more filmic look? No. Why they did it? It's straight economics -- so that they could put an improved chip into a bigger camera and sell it for much much higher price.

@kronstadt

The usage of "cinematic" as a buzz word is promoting stupidity / obscures clear defenitions. It´s far better to talk in terms of "I think, I like or In my opinion.." preferences of different kind of images than to try and make a one clear definition of the cinematic/filmic image (all such attempts hitherto has failed quite miserably and only succeeded in terms being swung all the more recklessly without any real thought put into it). In my opinion, this is all the more important since there are so many popular "sources" around that simply promote stupidity.

I can fully subscribe to the idea of describing different camera outputs sort of as different film stocks.. Although it doesn´t paint the whole picture since they behave rather differently. What is cinematic / filmic and what isn´t? We all have different opinions on what´s nice and what isn´t and preference for certain characteristics over others. Many on them depend on how we process the footage and for some (me) it also depends on the project.

For me, the gh1 can succeed very well in emulating s16mm film stock.. The gh2 on the other hand is a bit more in-between and can emulate both s35 and s16. It´s one of the choices I like to have with it.

@aria I get what you are aiming at but I think we have two different approaches to getting what we want. For me, DR is nice, useful to have and great fun to play around with but it doesn´t always look nice (especially straight out of the camera) and it´s far from always necessary. For me the moldability of the BMCC is the key (while it preserves a natural looking image - with pleasant organic grain). F.i. I hate the "Alexa look" these days. It looks lazy, dslr and not one bit filmic.