Like a lot of users of Panasonic G series cameras, I have used the Natural colour mode as my work horse setting. I have shifted the settings within that quite a lot, but at the end of the day, Natural has been…..natural.
After discovering the “use Mac colour profiles” option in Da Vinci preferences, which has finally allowed me to get something close to what I see when I grade as my end result, I have been wondering “is there anything else?”.
First up, a quick word on what I am looking for. “Cinematic” is thrown around a lot and tends to you down the paths of filtering, legacy lenses and post, but from what I have seen, it has the following elements;
Atmosphere. Filtering does not replace haze or other real atmospheric elements. Bloomng of highlights is one thing, but actual halation, lighting, Bokeh and naturally “thick” air are not the same as filtering.
Depth of field control. Deep or shallow, it is just the same as still photography and this includes composition and focal length selection. This also speaks to finding a point of balance with each lens I have, looking for the best combinations of depth and sharpness/Bokeh for each at different distances. I have a ton of options**, so this is where the fun is. My ancient Pen 25mm used wide open at 2.8 is a good example of a lens with both a useable flaw (halation and hazing) and creative element (weird, old school Bokeh).
Smoothness, from good practice (24 fps/180 degree shutter), good technique (invisible technique, nothing too obvious or clumsy), well choosen lenses (smooth sharp, not hard sharp) with the right apertures selected, good exposure (and lighting) and gentle camera settings. Filtering can be a benefit here, but not necessarily the usual suspects.
Dynamic range is a curiousity. Very few films have milky blacks, so why chase them obsessively if 90% of the time, you are going to punch them straight back up. Sure, a safety net is important for some projects, but for a true cinematic look, my tastes lean more towards inky, than milky.
I decided to do some non-scientific testing.
Non-scientific testing is a good thing. It is what you do naturally, not in a controlled environment. I am not trying to write an expose on the G9’s possible performance characteristics, but rather, “get some rubber on the road” and feel my way through. To use some intuition not just cold logic because intuition is where the creativity lies.
The clips were shot for “perfect” exposure in mind, i.e.the histogram “hump” middled.
Token still file, but something like what I am after.
Natural first, as a base line comparison. As is usually the case, I found the base image nice (-3 cont/-3 sharp/-0 NR/-1 Sat), and it responded quite well to some mild grading. I find with this, that the Lift slider is usually used only in negatives for adding contrast, but too much blackens shadows, the Gamma slider does the most work, but has still has only a small range and the Gain slider is used sparingly or not at all. Not much room to move. Saturation is however a life saver. Some added colour saturation, lifts the whole file as does a touch of contrast.
Cinelike-D is a favourite of some, loathed by some and comes with known issues. I instantly disliked both the base colours and how it handled grading even with a Lut applied. It was probably me with my limited knowledge of video grading I know, but I am the point. It has too be right for me right now or why am I doing this? Cine-D needs heavy reduction of Saturation for better colour control, otherwise it is pretty good.
HLG. Like above, HLG, which I will admit needs more control when shooting, controls I did not apply, was flatter than Cine-D and took a lot to bring up. Not a fan, although I know it has the potential to be a saviour in tough light, having the widest dynamic range outside of a true Log or RAW profile, but it needs to be learned separately and I do not feel I need it. Not going down this road unless strong highlight recovery is needed.
Cinelike-V has always fascinated me, becasue unlike Natural or the other baked in profiles, it is actually video-centric. I tried it with fairly “hard” settings (-2 cont/-2 sharp/-0 NR/-0 Sat) and got what I expected, a punchy, put pretty much fully “punched” file with blocked out shadows and strong colour. The wins, were a reasonably flexible file with pure colour and a look that appeals to me, but is not universal in application. Cine-V needs heavy reduction of contrast, which will likely be re-applied.
Cinelike-V softer (-5 cont/-5 sharp/-0 NR/-2 colour). This was nicer. It looked flat, but not Log flat, responded well to post and unlike Natural, Lift, Gamma and Gain seemed to have more elasticity and seem to respond equally (this is close to the Flat profile from 4k EM1’s, which I found nicer to grade than Panasonics’ Natural profile). I have gone from one strong and two semi-hobbled controls, to three evenly balanced ones. The same goes for white balance and saturation etc, but the shadows were still a little black (just like in the movies?). I may up the sharpness if I end up using diffusion filters (-2 or 3), but otherwise, this looks like a winner.
Cinelike-V softer, exposed to the right (about a stop over). Interesting. I can blow out highlights here, even loosing detail on white paper, but if I get it right, I have shadow detail (if that is actually what I want!*), highlights I can use and a ton of room in the middle for “character”. Another bonus is, this looks to be a popular profile for low light. Pushing it hard, there is a very slight green cast (expected from some reviews I have read as it shows in the GH5/G85), but it is slight.
*
I am currently leaning towards Cine-V exposed normally. A few tests have been completed, more to come, but compared to my current work flow, I have a more movie-like look with more control and cooler colour. The base C1 settings are 25/50 (Pal), 10 bit, 422, 1080p, Cine-V (Contrast -5/Sharpness -5/NR -2/Saturation +0) and I am looking at adjusting the highlight curve to -2/-3 without filtering, with my post processing work flow aiming to adjust contrast to suit, exposure and white balance only if needed. Fast and efficient.
Saturation is up for debate for the same reasons as Contrast and Sharpness, but unlike these, it is not a safety thing, more an opinion.
Something else that really appeals, is the reality that not many people use Cine-V, so my habit of swimming upstream continues.
*To be honest, I like the deep blacks and “Guy Richie” look of straight Cine-V, but guess I need to be able to adapt to the needs of my clients (Or maybe they need to adapt to what I offer?). I may set the G9’s to a series of Cine-V pre-sets, some with different frame rates, some with different resolutions and some just different.
**15 Leica, 17 Oly, 25 Oly, and old Pen 25, 45, 75, 12-60, 12-40, 12-60 kit.