I don't see how this camera can be labeled as "video-ish". I associate "video-ish" by the techniques used in shooting with the camera. Like cam angles, camera movements, colors, etc.

I just got done viewing clips from my GH4 on a music video I did. And I was more than impressed with it's overall image, no where in the back of my mind did I think it looked "video-ish" to me.

Blows away all the other dslrs out there on the market that I've worked with and seen. With the exception of the Canon 1DC which is impressive.

LOL good one @Vitaliy_Kiselev

OK - I repeat- Look at Bloom's "street night" shots, the whole of Driftwood's 15-min GH4 thing, the new EOSHD "film-look" GH4 piece - and tell me what is 'cinematic' about any of them. GH4 seems to produce over-sharp video-ish footage.

The Hacked GH2 is rather 'filmic' out of the box - and grades easily. Not so this stuff.

You don't find it has that "over-sharp" look?

Why do these conversations come up again and again? If you think the camera is too "video-ish" don't buy it. Why do others have to show you a "filmic" clip made with the GH4? Why do you have to essentially insult others who have produced beautiful footage on a $1698 camera and put the "burden" on us to prove this camera is worthwhile. Like many others have said, go make something. Learn about ways to make images "filmic" if that's your goal. This camera has been out for a few months and who knows what is yet to come. 4K recording to disk, etc... If it's not "filmic" enough for you at this price point, that's your decision. Enough already though with equipment micro analysis. There are 1000s of clips available for an interested party in the GH4 to use for analysis to see if it's suitable for them.

Note how people tend to slam their fist on the table when they don't understand - or like - the question, or have no answer. Insulted? Get out of town :)

AndyS is right, GH4's footage is shockingly non-cinematic. For people who expected it to look like BM cameras' footage, GH4 will look patently video-ish.

If you guys don't see it, that doesn't make any difference - the issue is still there. AndyS makes a valid point here and it would be better to address it on merit, and perhaps provide solutions or tips on how to deal or what to really expect from GH4.

If you guys don't see it, that doesn't make any difference - the issue is still there.

• Do you see gopher?
• Nope.
• But it is here.

(c) One russian film

@AndyS your ""over-sharp" look" argument is very flawed. If you like a soft image, dial the sharpness to minimum, or shot full HD instead of 4K LOL.

If you rave for the "filmic look", in post production you can apply grain emulation and the color correction you desire. The only possible argument is the greater DOF than 35mm film. This last argument is also invalid, because man can use a SB or a very fast lens to get the shallower DOF. Actually most of the cinema productions prefer grater DOF instead of a shallower one.

@caveport You made a very good point, I totally agree with what you sad.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev nice quote!

@tonalt LOL good one!

Too sharp, too crisp.... How much effort does it take to add a slight blur and/or lower contrast/saturation in post? I'll tell you it's a lot easier than taking blurry, flaccid footage and making it sharp and crisp in post!

I think Seb Farges managed a pretty "filmic" look.

mo7ies said - "Note how people tend to slam their fist on the table when they don't understand - or like - the question, or have no answer. Insulted? Get out of town :)

AndyS is right, GH4's footage is shockingly non-cinematic. For people who expected it to look like BM cameras' footage, GH4 will look patently video-ish."

My response...

What many of us get tired of is blanket statements of "truth" by someone who makes claims about a piece of equipment. As for "insulted", I stick with it. The comments imply the camera is flawed and insufficient for the "filmic" look and therefore infers anyone who uses it for that purpose can not or should not. None of us are so thin-skinned that we can't look at objective evaluation of equipment, but blanket claims and strong statement of so-called "facts" about performance are absurd.

As others have said, there are plenty of ways to make it look more "filmic". How many times does it have to be said? The bottom line remains, look at the clips out there and decide for yourself if the camera fits your needs. I defy anyone to show me the perfect "filmic" camera that solves all the issues claimed - especially for under $2000. The new Sony A7s looks really great but has its own set of potential issues, not to mention the fact that the cost to play in 4K is close to $4500+.

I use the GH4 for corporate and personal projects and I knew going in what it's capable of - and not capable of. But for $1698 it's one helluva step forward. When the Shogun comes out this fall, the possibilities with 4:2:2 10 bit out should provide even more grading options to make this a better system. If money were no object I'd grab the A7s as well for great low light stuff, but money precludes that for now. Besides, a year from now who knows what will be available. Gee, there might even be a "filmic" 4K dSLR for under $2000 lol!

Shogun: will require a Pana dock for GH4 that costs more than the camera itself.

Who told you this? GH4 has 4K output on it's HDMI.

What I am really interesting to see is @Andys @mo7ies or any other person for comparison sake put up THEIR OWN footage taken with THEIR OWN FILMIC camera(s) so I can see.