Leaderboard

This is a new video where I mix three years of CinemaScope footage from 4 different lens. A surreal nature reel. I hope you enjoy. Filmed on a GH4 in 4k. Finished in 2.35:1 CinemaScope Anamorphic lens used - Baby Hypergonar 1.75x 8mm, Bolex 16/32 1.5x, Kowa C-35 1.5x and Kowa 1.75x Inflight Rectilux Core DNA and 3FFS were used.

Use the lenses, definitely--they cost less in the long run!

Does ANYBODY have a proper comparison video up yet? What about a direct split screen comparison between the 10bit and 8bit mode? And does 10bit make a difference in the grade? Aside from Neumann all the coverage this time has been total lightweight fluff. Really lazy. Quickly punted out, to collect hits. I honestly don't think any of the testers have put more than 5 minutes of work per video into what they have done. Can't find anything comprehensive at all. They really should have given me a camera, the retards

@kaylee Unfortunately for the cost of printing digital onto film (huge) - then telecine/ scanning back again you would probably find it cheaper to actually shoot film in the first place, then get telecine rushes made in your edit file formats of choice and then select take scanning for higher resolution DI conforms. If you can negotiate a deal with a lab, and get very lucky - it might just still be economically viable on a lower budget (shooting 2perf for example)...but for a feature it would be very expensive to do vs shooting digital. Not sure by going through the digital-film-digital transfer process will impart the 'filmic' feel you might be after anyway, since modern processes are meant to be as clean as possible - with virtually no degradation/ grain applied to the image. The best way to achieve the film look is still to shoot on film. Alexa is the best of both worlds - filmic rendering of image directly from the camera..with the workflow convenience of digital. Grain overlays and film stock emulations are never the same as true film....but if applied correctly, can have a very good look. Nowadays it is more cost effective to shoot raw and save a decent chunk of the budget for a talented colourist to make the images emulate a 'shot on film' aesthetic...sad but often true. Perfectly working 35 & s16mm cameras can be cheaply hired or picked up on ebay for cheaper than an A7s body...but the film stock/processing/telecine/scan costs are the real killer. Here is an example of a 'cheap' telecine from 2 perf 35mm...still looks better than most digital cinema footage IMHO so if you can afford to shoot film, go for it! Edit: I still think 5D3 ML raw with some creative work in Resolve can yield some pretty damn close results to the look of film, it is why I no longer regret selling my Arri...5D3 delivers dynamic range and great colours, which are probably the hallmarks of what makes film such a good capture medium. Good couple of 5D raw / 35mm comparison shots here - and the ML version was still not as refined as it is today:

I've been trying to make some new stylized looks for a lut pack, something amongst these lines : And people seem to enjoy, they can be fun at times, but I dont think I could use this for a full project. Heres another one im trying :

Looking again at the 3200ISO footage from Pampuri, the amount of internal noise reduction is appalling. Not only does it produce plastic looking footage, but the temporal noise reduction produces some nasty artifacts like on the trees in 5:16. I would much rather have noise than NR smoothing/artifacts. I believe with the 400mbps bitrate it should look better.

I thought people would be interested in sharing more stylized grades... oh well. The first two I posted were done with programs that are "looks" oriented... this last one was my original version just using curves saturation and an Impulz LUT... I heard that... the low budget creator has to wear so many hats... and for me... all of those hats don't usually fit.

Nice work. The black and white out of this camera just keeps astounding me. So clean.

Certainly very common back in the day of indies shooting on videotape. Does FotoKhem in Burbank do it? Anyway, I think the cost was somewhere around $200 a minute... but this was 15 years ago. The cool thing, for your inner hipster, is that you'll get a can(s) of a 35mm print to show off. So, a "real" film, you know?

Mornings without coffee, i misread what you wrote, sorry bro Anyway both are nice, looking forward to the video.

Yeah, it's definitely expensive to do it the "right" way. First... are you thinking of unloading your Mark iii to get a D16? What kind of budget are you looking at for your film... is it self financed, or do you have help? Personally, I would be very cautious with location scouting and preproduction to make sure you don't have logos, and such, ever filmed. If your story requires specific logos or street signs then make them a physical, filmable entity rather than something you "fix" in post... unless you are planning to do some green screen work and are either very proficient in After Effects or are paying someone who is. Finally, regarding noise, do people clean up the noise on the D16 or with ML Raw? I know Aaron uses the Ursa, so I assume by his comment he is cleaning up the Ursa footage, but I believe he shoots commercial projects from inception to delivery, so it would make sense for him to have a clean, final product... for an indie narrative, I would think you would want to allow some of the D16's organic noise to show through and then build your grain as a second textural element.

Good points. I will try that. This wasn't shown to fix, even though I'm sure it could use some work... I did each in about 3 minutes. It was just a way to show different types of stylized grades as opposed to the more natural style that most people on the board (myself included) prefer.

Hi Manjeet, I would say f5.6 to get sharp image. I think at f4, the footage is usable. Even better with a diopter. That's a fair assessment. this was a run and gun test in the worst possible lighting, with a vintage taking lens. I'm going to do a more controlled shot with this lens and it will shine more.

I had a similar idea some years ago, but a little different, I wanted to shoot in digital and later transfer it to film, the purpose was different, I wanted to release the movie in film in a local cinema, and the main issue is the cost, it is really expensive, but let me tell you how I was going to do it, first you have to produce the final cut of the movie, adding all the effects, etc, then using a DIY process transfer the digital movie frame by frame to film, my idea was to create a system to project each frame of the digital movie to the lens of a Konvas camera, using a step motor to rotate the film, I have seen this done for 16mm cameras; but I wanted it for a 35mm konvas camera, if you only want to transfer to a 16mm camera there are some tutorials available in youtube. In your case you also will have to do the inverse process (called Telecine), also some tutorials are available in youtube, if the money is no restriction probably in a formal Telecine company can help you to do the whole process, but again, is not going to be cheap….

I would just denoise your plate footage, then add grain on top of the composition. For grain overlays I like this one: http://rgrain.com/

Put his short video together. All hand held using third party lenses, metabones speed booster, and FD speed booster, shot in low light situations near sunset, holding ISO to 200 in every clip.

@jonpais A bunch of fanboys and zero-content-gearheads (99 percent of them NEVER hold the GH5 in their hands) defend some "short reviews" of a preproduction camera and dreaming about Hollywood productions...;-) Keep on your solid and pleasant real work Jonpais and never care about self proclaimed experts and lunatics, who already buy LUTs for a camera they never filmed with!

The "film look" is a combination of the entire craft. I've even seen (and shot) 16mm film that doesn't necessarily have the "film look." Embrace the fact that one needs to comprehend numerous elements of motion picture image creation and you'll be on a path that might get you there someday. It's not a single tool, it really is the knowledge and wisdom that makes it happen. ...the least of which, IMHO, is highlight roll off. But, understanding color is a piece of the puzzle. Knowing how to control color in post does help, but don't expect it to be the answer. It's just a fraction.

Well bring me proof he exists, cause I am pretty sure he does not.

The hardware decoding and encoding support for H265 and H264 does not change lots of irrelevant facts, like moon orbits. Hardware encoding and decoding is at least if not more important than simple speed increases for smooth editing and rendering without the need for proxies or something to keep busy while waiting.

Why not a custom built Clevo ? You can choose the components. That's what I did.

Yeah, beautiful Ian! And what a lens selection omg hahaha

Man that is a great great deal you got there

Using an external recorder kills everything I like about the GH5. For the first time ever, I'm willing to trade dynamic-range for ergonomics. 400Mbp 4K ALL-I 10bit/200Mbps 1080P ALL-I 10bit will show this camera's true capability.

I second an ultrawide 34". I find it the best balance of detail/screen size. They are expensive, but very much worth it.

I'm using a 43" 4k monitor and it has changed the way I work quite fundamentally. Screen size no longer being an issue let me use the center of the screen for what I need to see in detail and the borders for interfaces. The big downside is that I've had problems calibrating the screen accurately. Whether you choose 4k or 1440p should depend more on the specific model you are looking at, but I strongly advice against buying a 1080p monitor. I would never be able to go back to one.

Found two new GH5 clips. Very impressed with the beach one.

I shot some high contrast scenes to test out what's the maximum dynamic range you can achieve without F-Log.

Really nice! Having seen the "promotional" clips with this lens, I was expecting world championship in flaring. So was nice to see someone put it out in the real world and show what potential this lens has, other than flaring