Panasonic LX100 - 4K Video M43 Compact

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Panasonic LX100 4K Video: Inside an Art Museum on Vimeo

[Tom Roper]

I like the color, the contrast, the tones, the balance, the highlight handling, don't like the sharpening. It doesn't need it, has enough resolution already. Edge enhancement draws false outlines, black and white around contrast edges. It's ugly, it's amateur, not film like, video-ish. I guess you can't win because some people will cry "soft."

Resolution and natural film like detail is beautiful, but we are still dealing with what appears to be 4:2:0, 8-bit 709 colors. When that gets combined with edge enhancement, 4k just becomes a sharper version of ordinary video.

I really want to like this camera for its portablility, stabilization, 9.5 stop dynamic range, clarity, built in 3:1 zoom Leica lens, but in the end, the GH4 ends up looking better to me in most respects, probably a lot owing to Cine-D/V gammas. I don't know why else it would.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

I like the color, the contrast, the tones, the balance, the highlight handling, don't like the sharpening. It doesn't need it, has enough resolution already. Edge enhancement draws false outlines, black and white around contrast edges. It's ugly, it's amateur, not film like, video-ish. I guess you can't win because some people will cry "soft."

Resolution and natural film like detail is beautiful, but we are still dealing with what appears to be 4:2:0, 8-bit 709 colors. When that gets combined with edge enhancement, 4k just becomes a sharper version of ordinary video.

I really want to like this camera for its portablility, stabilization, 9.5 stop dynamic range, clarity, built in 3:1 zoom Leica lens, but in the end, the GH4 ends up looking better to me in most respects, probably a lot owing to Cine-D/V gammas. I don't know why else it would.

The video was shot using Standard mode and settings. You can knock down sharpening to -5, just like on the GH4. I suspect the default sharpening for the GH4 just happens to be less than for the LX100. But both have the ability to adjust it. The LX100 does not have the "Cine" modes; it is the only difference really in terms of video quality (leaving aside the what the HDMI outputs).

Did you view this on a 4K screen? If not, whatever you saw was affected by scaling, and that can produce some ugly results. But, in any case, "sharpness" is a setting that can be adjusted to taste, no matter how radical.

[Tom Roper]

No, I viewed it from my monitor at work, a 32 inch desktop 1080p Sony Bravia. It looked clean and great overall. It didn't look like there were down conversion artifacts. Perhaps precisely because it is so clean, the edge enhancement is what catches my eye.

I acknowledge I am keen to EE.

It's just that with 4k it doesn't need edge enhancement, and in my opinion could look better if there was none at all. Would be interesting to see it dialed back to -5.

It is still very excellent video overall.

I do have a 55 inch Samsung UHDTV at home.

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

Did you view this on a 4K screen? If not, whatever you saw was affected by scaling, and that can produce some ugly results.

Upon reflection, edge enhancement does seem slightly more pronounced when downsampled to 1080p than when viewed natively at 2160p. With the Sony PMW-F55, I shoot with Cine-EI mode which has no sharpening applied, and then in post (DaVinci Resolve 11) I may add the slightest "unblur" which is hardly noticeable in 2160p but if I see it resemble an EE artifact at 1080p, I undo the setting.

One of the points I'm considering is how the 4k video will actually be viewed (often 1080p), not just how I am able to view it.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

Upon reflection, edge enhancement does seem slightly more pronounced when downsampled to 1080p than when viewed natively at 2160p. With the Sony PMW-F55, I shoot with Cine-EI mode which has no sharpening applied, and then in post (DaVinci Resolve 11) I may add the slightest "unblur" which is hardly noticeable in 2160p but if I see it resemble an EE artifact at 1080p, I undo the setting.

One of the points I'm considering is how the 4k video will actually be viewed (often 1080p), not just how I am able to view it.

That's a very valid point. Thanks for looking. I have had some report they were seeing moire, that upon viewing at 4k disappeared. So, scaling is an issue, and might suggest never distributing 4K video (downscaling ourselves) until 4K viewing becomes more commonplace. Anyway, hopefully, simply turning down the sharpness control could do the trick on EE. I am not unsympathetic to your view on EE.

[Tom Roper]

On the subject of moire, I think it appears extremely well controlled on the LX100. I do not think it a problem at all. Every cam I've had has a bit of it, more or less, visible under certain conditions, including the PMW-F55. Moire was a problem I complained about with the 5DMK2, and I think I was one of the first. But while I've seen mention of it with the LX100/GH4, it has no merit.

I see no artifacts of any kind to note with your art museum video, except the EE at 1080p. It's so detailed now, I can't imagine any need for it at 2160p, and I would want it muted enough where it wouldn't be visible at 1080p either, where it still is very detailed.

With 2160p, sharpening enhancement may still have its place with out of focus shots or those using low contrast lenses.

[Ken Ross]

Tom, I too have viewed Mark's museum video @4K on a 28" 4K monitor and see no real signs of EE (nice job Mark). Having had the LX100 for the last few days, I concur with everything that Mark has said about the camera.

The range of adjustments it provides, should make most users quite happy. You can pretty much achieve most 'looks' that you are after. It's really a pretty amazing 4K shooter in such a small package. It's the first camera that's made me reach for something other than my trusty AX100.

[Tom Roper]

Ken, the EE that you are not seeing on your 28 inch 4k monitor is hiding from you, in plain sight. I spotted it even before Mark acknowledged standard mode, and that there are 5 levels more of lesser EE that you also would not be seeing.

When you analyze it, the dot pitch of UHD is one half of HD. When you down sample UHD to HD in post, those EE outlines become coarse. If you watch in UHD, and don't see them in UHD then why have them?

The fact is they are visible, become even more apparent when video is down sampled to HD.

I appreciate Mark's objective approach. He's using excellent camera operator skills and technique to demonstrate in an unbiased manner, the image qualities using the standard settings, acknowledging that the tuning exists to adapt the image to what you like.

[Ken Ross]

Tom, we may just have different tolerances for EE. Many videos that some rave about, look too soft to me. I know many of these folks claim the real detail is there, but when I look at some of those videos in 4K, I don't see the same level of real detail that I've seen in some other videos that those same folks claim look too 'videoish'. I don't recall who did a comparison here between the AX100 and some other 4K camera equipment, but even there, despite the fact that the AX100 looked less 'filmic' than the other camera, there was simply more detail in the AX100.

I myself, for the kind of shooting I do, enjoy the 'live' look of video. So we are after different looks and, not surprisingly, see things differently. We choose our tools and our looks. ;)

[Tom Roper]

Sharpening is artificial because it doesn't add real detail. It exaggerates the perception by adding artifacts that didn't exist in the source. That's why my tolerance for it is practically nil. I think my opinion is shared by quite a few others. I've seen a lot of people complain about it, more so in cinema than in broadcast where there seems to be more of a tolerance of it. My $0.02

[Ken Ross]

Tom, I obviously understand that, but I'm talking about the difference between lesser and more detail, not artificial sharpening which I agree adds no more detail and many times obscures real detail. That's why I have all my displays ISF'd. I don't like artificial intrusions into the picture.

I find the LX can be adjusted just fine to avoid this.

[Tom Roper]

Are you saying that at "0" the image is not sharpened? If so then I disagree because there are outlines around contrast transitions. "0" is simply the default level of sharpening, not the point that above detail is enhanced nor below detail is suppressed.

[Ken Ross]

In viewing the 4K output on a 4K display, I do not see EE at a setting of 0. No false outlines around thin tree branches against a clear sky (an easy way to see EE).

If you feel it necessary, it's easy enough to drop the sharpness to -5. I don't.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

All the Panasonic 4K shooters (GH4, FZ1000, LX100) allow you to choose among a number of Photo Styles, or color profiles. Among the most popular are Standard and Natural. But which is best, for video?

I shot a variety of scenes - high contrast bright outdoors, low-light indoors with high and low contrast - alternating Standard and Natural Profiles. This video contains all the scenes, with Standard first and then Natural for each, using the LX100:

Panasonic LX100 4K Test Video: Comparing Standard to Natural Color Profiles on Vimeo

This video contains only the Natural mode shots from the above:

Panasonic LX100 4K Test Video: Video in Natural Mode on Vimeo