Nothing better than the CineD, especially when you want to grade-edit your footage.

Exactly. And the results with those settings are very videoish...

Just a heads up...

Cine D and Cine V go all the way back to the DVX and HVX 3 CCD camera lines... Us Panny users from as far back as 1999, know that Cine D is for extended Dynamic range (D) with a log curve (Cine), and Cine V is the same log curve (Cine) but with emphasis on Vibrance (V)

V is for those who are color grading challenged, or who want something ready to go right off the card, into a quick edit, and out the door.

D is for those who like to control the image in post.

Make your decisions with that in mind. I never shoot V.... ever. I don't like the way it looks by itself, and it doesn't grade well.

Hi all. If you watch my GH4 series you will see that I really am taking the GH4 through test to see what the best settings are for heavy color grading. If you want a great image right out of the camera then like Shian said use cinelike V. But I think Natural with everything at 0 would be better looking then the V. But it's all up to you and your own taste. Film and enjoy.

Oh sorry one more thing, I go by Aron J Anderson AJA was a graphic in motion that I took the still to use as the video thumbnail. Also if anyone is interested in watching my GH4 series it might be easier to go to my web site.

@c3hammer Interesting view. I came to the opposite conclusion. CineD with all settings at 0 and no shadow/highlight adjustment gives me a VERY clean image that grades easily. I did a whole conference shoot with a GH2 in standard profile and a GH4 in CineV. The CineV crushes the bottom 20% of the luminance range and made grading REALLY difficult. I had to lift the shadows to see the hair detail and it became noisy which required some noise reduction. CineV gives a good impression to the casual observer due to the slightly higher contrast it gives. I like CineD for grading and Standard profile for a good in-camera look.

I recently bought an X-Rite color checker for my shoots and used with Resolve 11 color chart match feature works brilliantly with CineD. Also CineD is not a true log profile. It is a gamma curve which lifts the dark areas or creates a black 'stretch'. I did lots of testing to see what was happening with my test charts and found it is VERY different to Canon or Sony log curves. It is actually a very mild curve.

@shian So as I wedding guy, I'm pretty much bummed if I go with just zebras set to 100 and do a ETTR?

@oscillian no I'm talking severely off. With my settings what may look fantastic on the screen, may ALSO be severely underexposed. And If I don't take the time to check the exposure meter, and just shoot it, I'm gonna get crap. It's really easy to do. If u are used to relying on the in cam meter, and check it religiously, then you should be fine... It really has only happened to me when I've been in a hurry, saw something I liked and went to shoot it on the fly, and didn't check my exposure. The zebras help a little with overexposure, cuz you will double check it. But there's nothing there to remind you to check the shadows, and these new shadow boosting options fool you into thinking u r ok.

@shian Ok, I catch your drift! Thx :-)

What people miss is where Cine D comes from... go back and find the original brochures for like the HVX200 and you'll see that Cine D is used to make the codec's job easier in terms of reigning in the highlights and in effect extending the DR as well as giving more cine like skin tones. If anything my settings make things easier on the codec.

Watch any of my ColorGHear exposure tutorials and you'll see exactly how I expose... nothing has changed. This is still a DSLR but it has a closer DR to that of film than the GH2. So instead of 5 stops, we have something closer to 7 stops to work with. Everything else is pretty much the same. I stopped using ETTR because I spent a day comparing stuff I used to shoot with Skin tones around 45-50% vs 55-65% and I like the way they looked better. So I'm back to that.

The only difference between now and then is that I've grown confident enough in my abilities to get it right in camera on a DSLR, that I am not afraid of exceeding those ZONE limitations when I absolutely need all the camera's DR to capture the image, especially with this camera. It's not a RAW camera, but it's as close to having a small lightweight film camera as I need to be able to fall back on my experience with 35mm.

You might notice on Flickr that with these still grab PNG renders straight out of AFX - the graded file size @4K is 2 and half times that of the raw image. (24mb vs 10mb) The flatter you make your image the less stress you put on the codec. The more color info, contrast, and vibrance you make the camera compress, the harder the codec has to work to capture the info. I went over this with GH2 shooters who thought Vibrant was the best profile to shoot with cuz it gave them more color information, and why they were completely wrong. And that you got better results with less chroma smearing by adding that vibrance in post, letting more complex software algorithms and computer processing power handle the color. Nothing has changed, FYI.

I've included compressed jpg versions for easy reference here. Graded in ColorGHear Pro using Density, Toner, and Custom Film Stock Generator LUTs.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76276262@N04/sets/72157646356478566

Yeah Shian you are correct. You so need to nail exposure with GH4 in cinelike D. (Like Log) Back of screen looked great with no zebra got home, shot was unusable. I am swaying to keeping Master pedestal at 0. I used + 15 for a while but that was for inside shots out side stuff you will need to use levels to take the mids back. So might as well keep pedestal at 0. Also Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 + Metabones bmcc Speedbooster not good enough for GH4 4K.

Hey Shian what lens are you using on your music video.