Leaderboard

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the reason footage from professional level cameras looks more cinematic than most footage from amateur cameras is more to do with the professionals behind the "professional" cameras. There's a reason lights comes before camera. Capturing what the eye sees is not what cinematography is about. It's about creating art.

So you don’t believe there is a camera element involved and it’s all based on the users skill level? You know The Revenant is the perfect example of the modern “film” look to me. And Scarface is the perfect example of the vintage film look. When the DSLR revolution began, I believe a bastardized version of the vintage film look was possible with a 5D2 or a t2i or a GH2 and now it seems we’re almost at a point where a bastardized version of the modern “film” look is possible. If I was forced to explain what about the image makes those films cinematic... I would be at a loss for words other than... open your eyes. But in forums like these where tech and creativity are merged, that is not a good enough answer to many... but unfortunately that’s the best I can do... I know it when I see it. And I know it when I accomplish it... Sadly, I see it more often than I accomplish it... lol.

Firstly, the short video clip you posted looks good, @jonpais The sticker for me is what is meant by "cinematic," since it is a word bandied about so often. Firstly, I don't think it is specifically dynamic range of a camera per se that is the main concern. (As someone pointed out, some of the more popular film stocks had limited dynamic range). I would say that - in terms of brightness and darkness - cinematic in part to me means "controlled lighting" or maybe something more like "well managed lighting." But that is just one part of the recipe for cinematic for me. And "well managed lighting" could be everything from using a cheap foam board reflector to using fill lights to shooting in open shade to shooting at the right time of day to using a camera with more stops of DR. So in essence, I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if we look at it as just "how many stops of DR are needed." Getting back to the nice sample footage you posted. As someone pointed out above, not a whole lot of DR in those shots. What would have made it look more cinematic??? Maybe some of these MIGHT make it look more cinematic (maybe or maybe not - I am not implying at all that you SHOULD do these things, just saying that some people might feel your footage is more cinematic if you were to do these things, although others might not): - gelling your key light - shallower depth of field - epic sounding background music - using a diffusion filter - more base makeup on the talent - stronger grading of the footage - adding film grain - adding audio from the environment. ~~~~~~~ Man, I ramble on a lot. I guess it boils down to - in terms of dynamic range - managing your lighting, which you did well in the clips you posted.

Do you have Popeye’s Chicken in the UK? It’s pretty good, but there is something strange happening in its chemical makeup... it literally smells exactly the same going in as it does coming out. And let me tell you, the motion cadence as you run to the toilet is not very cinematic.

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'. Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look. If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

I feel that its gotten down to a point where now we are all nitpicking.

We've hit the point where there is NO excuse for not shooting cinematic footage with even a $1000 camera. Everything from now on will just be nitpicking features to make things easier/quicker/efficient.

I mostly use two settings : 1. cine2/pro ~+10sat 5red color depth 2. slog2/sgammut3.cine ~+25sat +5red color depth . That is for high contrast scenes. I mostly do manual WB with a boost in warmth for outdoor shots. Cine1 is the same as Cine2 but using the full 0-255 range. Cine3 is great for skin but is more contrasty than any other gamma, Cine4 is also pretty good but I feel it needs more adjustments in post than Cine2. Avoid Slog3. The nice thing with the Picture profiles is that you can play around with the settings until you find something that works for you and how you like the colors. I mostly use Pro/Cinema/sgammut3.cine but you can get good results with other profiles as well. Here is a brief description: http://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1420/v1/en/contents/TP0000435736.html And here is a more detailed one: https://docs.sony.com/release/Help_C198100111.pdf

+1 And, its hard to explain to someone - what you are seeing and why its cinematic I honestly believe that it has a lot to do with what we've seen in the past... we are just used to it.... I'm guessing that the newbies that watch all their content on 240Hz HDR screens are going to find that cinematic.... but thats the progression of life... watch any current movie say the Revenant, then rewatch Scarface and you can tell that times have changed and what people consider cinematic (then versus now). BUT... there is a clear way of distinguishing video-ish vs. cinematic. Grab an old consumer camcorder (the VHS & DVD variety) - film random sh!t with it. Put the footage that you take side-by-side with your favorite movie - presto, voila! Instant comparison. The best possible result is if you try to emulate a scene from your favorite movie with the consumer camcorder, that way you have a direct comparison. Now, you have 2 extremes.... one side it will be the video-ish look and the other side is the cinematic look. Now, it is your job to take whatever tool you have (or want to invest in) and make it more cinematic - so you will have to travel away from the video-ish look and move towards the cinematic look.

As Deadcode said, it has more to do with raw than with bits. I know you tried to push hard the image so it doesn’t apply to you kye, as having a 10 bit file helps with grading no matter what, but I find it always annoying those comparisons about 8 and 10 bits SOOC saying « i can’t see a difference » when you know almost NOBODY has a 10 bit display. 10 bit doesn’t do much of a difference for internet delivery anyway, but there is a difference, especially coupled with a good codec like prores (codec is even more important than bits to me!).

I think a lot of the footage I have seen from the X-H1 looks too un natural to me. There are good looking colors, BMPCC, Canon, Nikon colors. But Fuji, I like tend to like the new Sony A7 mk III colors better to my eyes. I just don't like over saturated colors. Olympus used to be that way years ago also. But read on below and I will reward you. I am not even going to say it is not Cinematic, Filmic. I like those looks, Mercer does also. But I would think if you are a working Pro, a person trying to make money, you are not looking for that look anymore in this day and age. That is a movie film look. Film is dead in a sense. Not going to be revived. When the old timers die it dies. No going back. No real need to. Most people are making Doc's, interviews, news stories etc to try and make a buck, break into the business. 4k and higher have ended the film look. Normal younger people want to see sharp, clean footage. They don't want film grain from hell anymore. They want 1080p you can cut your face on. And well I guess people now are into that look and I am not. There are more of you then of me left. I personally like the look of the GH5s better, more grungy like the A7s I have. Most people on here like the GH5 and the A7s mk III look now. And apparently now the X-H1 look. So I guess I am in the minority on the Fuji X-H1, and well will concede you win. Times change and I probably won't. Too old for that. But I see no reason for people not to buy it, I am sure it will take a video, a good one. It's more on you than the camera anyways. Go for it and enjoy, it's your money, make the most of it. I will let you guys rest in peace. No further comment from me on it. Only fair to you. And hell I have run out of jokes on it anyways.

I'll add to the list: pulldowns and artifacts from watching a 24 or 23.976 fps file on a 60hz monitor. If we bundle those factors as "motion cadence," I think we all agree that they are verifiable, measurable differences. However, many of them are produced by the scene and compression, not the camera itself. Comparing motion cadence based on compressed files streaming over the internet might not work so well, I think.

Wouldn't it depend on what was being shot? 15 stops in a really dark night scene might look as poor (for different reasons) as 7 stops in a really well lit colourful flower garden.

I know exact number! It is 8.5 stops - that's how much supposed to have GH2 while shooting Upstream Color (here at 720p)...

I largely think we've managed to get things arse backwards when it comes to emulating a film look. Because everyone now has the ability to change everything about an image in post there is barely any emphasis on getting it right - or at least consistent - in camera first. If a camera manufacturer said : "OK, we are putting all our eggs in one basket here but we have absolutely perfected an in camera look that is identical to Kodak Vision 250D (for example). Our entire sensor and processing design is based on purely just replicating that but we guarantee that if you shoot with this it will be indivisible from if you'd used that stock. Oh and you'll only be able to use it to shoot up to ISO800 though". Would you buy it? I think I would. Personally speaking, taking away all those variables that offer endless rabbit holes to explore but often just disappear down and making something work within a constant framework would be challenging but ultimately more creative and productive. This is a really interesting piece about preparation in camera to match film and the follow up piece is here : http://yedlin.net/OnColorScience/ Its quite timely that this has come up because I've been interested in tweaking combinations of base colour profiles and constrast/saturation/sharpness etc parameters in Panasonic cameras for a while with a view to mining some in camera combinations that may not be obvious ones but actually work well visually. The timely part is I've just finished an app today that does automated stepping through all combinations (from selectable ranges) whilst either capturing a still per combo or as one continuous video with the changes embedded. I'll give it its own thread tomorrow if anyone is interested.

Oh I agree. I am liking some stuff I am seeing from the GH5s. I think I was looking at @mkabi challenge as which way is each camera easier to go... so I guess in a lot of ways, it is best to be closer to 5... but I also think if a camera can come close to a modern film look, it usually can achieve a vintage film look.

Codec is WAY more important, but the whole bit thing is kind of a mess. The human eye is estimated to see about 10 million colors and most people can't flawlessly pass color tests online, even though most decent 8 bit or 6 bit FRC monitors can display well over ten million colors: 8 bit color is 16.7 million colors, more than 10 million. And remember sRGB/rec709 is a tiny colorspace compared with what the human eye can see anyway, meaning 16.7 million fit into a smaller space should be plenty overkill. But also remember that digital gamuts are triangle shaped and the human eye's gamut is a blob, so fitting the whole thing into the blob requires overshooting tremendously on the chromasticities, resulting in many of those colors in digital gamuts being imaginary colors.... so the whole "8 bit is bad" thing needs a lot of caveats in the first place... I haven't tried 10 bit raw from the 5d, but I suspect in certain circumstances (100 ISO just above the noise floor) 10 bit will have visibly higher contrast noise than 14 bit after grading, though only if it's the exact same frame and you A/B it will the difference be apparent. That's my guess. Something VERY subtle but not truly invisible, though possibly effectively invisible. It's possible there could be banding, too, but the 5D III sensor is quite noisy. The science behind it is so complicated I gave up trying to understand. The more I learned the more I realized I didn't understand anything at all. First you're dealing with the thickness of the bayer filter array and how that dictates how wide the gamut is, then you're dealing with noise floor and quantization error and how that works as dithering but there's also read noise that can have patterns, which don't dither properly, then you're dealing with linear raw data being transformed with a certain algorithm to a given display or grading gamma, as well as translating to a given gamut (rec709, rec2020, etc.) and how wide that gamut is relative to the human eye and how much of the color there is imaginary color, and then what bit depth you need to fit that transformed data (less than you started with, but it depends on a lot of variables how much less), and then you introduce more dithering from noise or more banding from noise reduction, then compression artifacts working as noise reduction and to increase banding via macro blocking, then there's sharpening and other processing, then... then it goes on and on to the display and to the eye and of course that's only for a still image. Macroblocking and banding aren't always visible in motion, even if they are in a still, depending on the temporal banding and if the codec is intraframe or inter-frame. It's possible everyone who's proselytizing about this understands it far better than I do (I don't understand it well at all, I admit). But I frequently read gross misunderstandings of bit depth and color space online, so I sort of doubt that's the case that every armchair engineer is also a real one. (That said, there are some real engineers online, I just don't understand everything they write since I'm not among them.) I know just enough about this to know I don't know anything about this. From the armchair engineers, we do have some useful heuristics (overexposed flat log gamma at 8 bits heavily compressed will probably look bad; raw will probably look good), but even those aren't hard and fast rules, not even close to it. All you can do beyond that is your own tests. Even inexpensive monitors these days can display close to 100% NTSC. They should be good enough for most of us until HDR catches on, and when it does bit depth will matter a lot more.

I think the GH5S can be made to look pretty vintage...

Well if anyone still wants a 1DC in 2018, maybe you should bid on my 1DC that I am selling to fund some new gear for my YouTube channel.... https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-1D-C-18-1MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-Only/112902067120 Im really sad about this but I am not made of money and any cameras that aren't being used....need to go. I can always re purchase one in the future if my heart remains broken.

OK, I've made the app and it does + and - 18 step bracket in 1/3rd stop steps (so, 6 full stops in both directions).

100% agree with those point. Will ad "camera movement" as key point too. Simple slider/crane shoots and people around you will say "woah!!, looks like a film!!"

Thank you all especially @Happy Daze for investigation. I have concluded for myself that boosting RGB values is similar to highering ISO values but it makes sense that this way can help reduce noise reduction that is probably higher on ISO 1600 and above ( @ReinisK video). But I have test it and found out that details in shadows are higher with lower RGB values but downside is the highlights are clipped because of longer shutter speed (unfortunately it does not work as digital ND filter). So maybe RGB x1.0 is still best compromise. But I still do not understand it... NOTE: Images grabbed from video directly in NX1 0-255, ISO100, RGB x1.99 on the left; RGB x0.50 on the right (just longer exposure to compensate loss of brightness). You can see more details on the ground and clipped highlights on the sky on the right (OK, I know it seems to be clipped on the left, but there completely no details on the right - just solid grey...) 0-255, ISO100, RGB x1.00 on the left; RGB x0.50 on the right (look on the bush and grass - they are more detailed). On the otherside white wall looks worse to me on the right (RGB x0.50) image. But maybe it is not so bad... I do not know... So maybe lower RGB values means more details in dark and complex areas but as downside - DR is is lower.

Jon you talk about Filippo Chiesa a lot. I think has grades are all too dark, a bit depressing looking. I notice you lean that way also. Nothing wrong with that. If you like to grade it that way, you grade it your way. We all have people we look up to we want to emulate. It ticks our box as they say. Now if I was doing a slasher movie that mood fits, dark and foreboding. I like lighter looking colors. Natural looking stuff, stuff like my eyes would see it if I was there, not some veil over my eyes. But that is not what true movies in reality really represent. They represent what the Director Thinks I ought to see. To put me in his, her mood, not mine. And maybe you are right to do what you do, to sort of be like Filippo Chiesa. I am not a big movie fan. I can't stand to sit, that doesn't sound right LoL, to sit for 2-3 hours and watch anything. I have no F ing patience at all. None.I like documentary films more than movies, I like nature shows, history, love that stuff. But I want to see it like it is, not how color wise someone wants me to see it. Honest color, the real deal. But I have seen lots of movies in my life, I just never really want to see them again. I have a good memory I guess , I know what is going to happen LoL. I like the film look, I grew up with it. but now we have digital, and all these newer camera models have gotten a Lot better colors wise. Panny, Sony have made the biggest leaps. Canon, Nikon the same yet, and that is a good thing. They have had it right from the start. But I think we do need to compare camera colors on here to pick what camera output we like the best, why we like it and why we don't. And how we can make it look like other cameras, like Sage is doing. Looks like the new Fuji X-H1 appeals to a heck of a lot more people on here than I would have ever guessed. And that is fine, it's their money they are spending not mine. And I an sure it will never end because every company has Their signature Color Science. And that is the company we will buy into probably for the rest of our time unless some new company comes out with better Science we like. So I will stick with my old ugly A7s colors, I love it, and we can all be happy as pigs in shit about what we bought!

Yeah I am pretty sure I could make Alexa footage look like pixelvision, so you’re right. But I’ve always subscribed to the notion, show me the worst footage from a camera and that’s what one should expect from it. It’s one of the reasons I decided against the GH5. Obviously in competent hands, the GH5 and almost any camera available is capable of great imagery. But the operator should know what they’re capable of and those limitations should be considered when purchasing a $2500 camera, or a $500 camera.

Yeah that “safari” video does nothing good for the GH5s. In comparison, it looks like the Nikon D850 “safari” video was shot on an Alexa.

I think where we may end up with this is concluding that the only way to truly differentiate the motion cadence between two cameras is by shooting unicorns in full gallop. So it doesn't matter whether you go there for fuel or chicken you're going to end up with gas either way. Smart marketing.

Ditto. Another really substantive pearl coming from your posting, mate. This forum would become another thing without your insights, man : ) Filmmaking is actually not based on camera looks but mind stuff to really offer (E :-)

If you actually believe there is something such as 'REAL' color, you clearly dont understand how our brains work.

I'm not sure that conclusion is correct. A - Apple could maintain their pro lines for professional. B - Apple might even advance further that intel on CPU performance. Just looking at their progress on mobile chip, they basically beat everyone else. C - By "Professional Market" you probably mean anything that needs a GPU acceleration. They might still use any of the GPU makers that optimizes image/video processing while use their on CPU for most optimize way of managing the device.

Perception is mainly the whole concept in fact.

REAL... Well, allow me to be picky here too : ) In the narrative world as for instance (but this can apply to Docs as well, it all depends on the aesthetics approach) there's no such thing ;-)

Chicken Treat sounds about as real as motion cadence and cinematic. Lol.

All of them had a colorist. My friend, my first basis for filmmaking background of my own is based on full 3-years training exactly in that field specialty (post) @ Lisbon Film School. Film, not even digital video. For the most part of it, in those old times. E :-)

It is the magic to see something to immediately pop up from vacuum, I guess : D Fuji's mojo. SOOC is a dream to come true there. GH5S is a way further another animal... The best bang for the buck, not exactly the synonymous for the X-H1 top hat ;-)

When I look at what is suppose to be 13 stops on a BMPCC, seems like enough to me. But a Sony A7s is suppose to have that much, maybe more, and it doesn't look like enough. And like has been said when it is delivered in Rec. 709 at around 7 stops hmm, heck I don't really know what is good. But no doubt more IS better.

As a doc director/producer/shooter I can agree with this...and also disagree with this. A good shooter can and will find the best angle for light even in bad lighting situations. Changing the perspective of a shot for better light is always an option. It's not always easy, but that's part of the craft. Making good cinematic decisions under the gun is doable. So, you don't control the light, but you do control how the camera sees it.

As simple as: avoid VLog on GH series. HLG is your friend, no reason to complain :-)

So i heard about the D850 when it came out, and was willing to pull the trigger on it and sell my a6500 and D800 to cover it and as soon as i read what Andrew wrote about it, it confirmed what i was expecting. Fast forward 3months and i did my first little job with it and really liked what it came out of it, i am still trying to figure out how to get the footage from the mavic pro to look cleaner and softer without becoming too mooshy so excuse that part, but the colors straight from the camera are awesome and the detail on the 120fps are amazing coming from an a6500 this is night and day

Yeah but like I said a small HD is worse than a Atomos screen for the same money or more. I have no clue why Atomos doesn't make just small screens for sale. They have a like 20 inch one but..

What if rgb boost is actually boosting each channels iso somehow? ? Should it be tested also with negative values and try to shoot 6400iso or something like that... Example Red x1.99 is actually iso3200 x 1.99 = 6368iso for red channel... I try to do my own tests also tomorrow. This is interesting.

Storm is coming... SD Card writing speed hack If you are familiar with the ML possibilities, you already know the best RAW capable cameras are those with CF card. The CF Card interface is capable of 70MB/s writing speed with 5D2, 75MB/s with 7D, and 95MB/s with 5D3. 6D / 700D which has SD interface is only capable of 40MB/s, limited by the camera and not the SD card. Now the ML team are pumping up the SD card interface writing speed. It seems like the 40MB/s can be raised up to 70MB/s or even further. That means the 700D will be able to record in 2520x1072 continuously I hope they can make it stable

Yep the footage looks great. Most of the time it is the excessive contrast that is problematic. Also another aspect of the dynamic range is not so much the range itself as much as how the highlights (and color) rolloff to clipping. Hard clips with hue shifts are something that you rarely see in cinemas. Sometimes you even have hard clipping in the shadows but that is most often a fault of the processing of a camera and not the sensor. Once you have control of the lights dynamic range of the camera is not important. Even for outdoor scenes where there is a strong light from the sun you can use reflectors to balance the shadows. So I would say if someone wants a cinematic look the best way is to learn how to use light cause even 15 stops won't help In my experience for everyday use with no control of light, I would be happy with 12 stops and no hard clipping.

Wow a Atlas Orion 65mm, you must have won the Lotto LoL. I would think a 65mm would be a bit too long even using a Speed Booster with the crop factor? Yeah if I had the money I would buy one in a heartbeat. Closest thing to a Cine camera we can afford. I can't believe how many people here on a Video site are thinking of buying a Fuji X-H1 over a GH5s! Your getting the hang of it no doubt. Nice looking LuT.

I've done some tests today. The camera was set to UHD, 25p, Gamma DR, -5 contrast, -7 sharpness, 16-235, sRGB. I compared different ISOs with and without RGB set to max (1.99). So what I found out: All RGB channels at 1.99 increase exposure by 1 stop (or very, very close to it); Therefore ISO 1600 with RGB at 1.99, is the same exposure as ISO 3200 with RGB at 1; It positively affects the inbuilt noise reduction. Seems like the NR really is triggered by ISO value and not the actual sensor gain; It doesn't have any visible gains in highlights. Here's the test. The password is - rgb . Here you can download the edited test file, if you would like to take a closer look - https://failiem.lv/u/xvgh44ks

I think this camera has mojo. I don't often feel that way about a camera. I didn't feel that way about my Sonys or my GH5. I feel like its the best of both worlds. Cinematic, but small and when you want it to be, cinematic. I am going to be adding the Atlas Orion 65mm to the mix in the coming months. I think it was truly made for the GH5S. It's gonna be a lot of fun shooting. But in the mean time I will try to up my game. I am pretty happy with the looks this camera is capable of. The color grade is a preset I created called VLogL Prolochrome.

Amen brother. The 7" formfactor is a joke, yet most monitors and recorders go for 7 and 10". That is fine for an actual director's monitor. But one that you use on-camera? Especially now in this day and age that we use gimbals where we can't necessarily always see the screen of the camera that well, or when said camera is a GH5 that outputs 4K60p 10-bit that you want to capture, it's about time these screensizes started to make sense. I appreciate what Videodevices did with the PIX-E5(H), but if you're looking at the price to get it up and running, it's not so funny anymore. The Blackmagic Design Video Assist 5" was a great little tool and boy have they added functionality with firmware, but it isn't a great 4K grabber. And then we've already ran out of options I believe. Concerning monitors... there are quite a few, like the Feelworld F570 for example, which I guess is great value. But I fail to understand why Aputure and Lilliput aren't giving 5" a real go... they did for 7". To me a 5" monitor makes more sense than a 7" one. And apparently that echoes here in the comments. Then how is it that we've got so little to pick from here? Are we all just mad and there's just too little of a market for 'em... not sure, but it's a shame there isn't much else going on in this space.

I would prefer a 5'' over a 7 inch for anything even remotely run & gun

wish I could be of more help, but if changing gamut is not entirely obvious, maybe the F3 is different. on the F35 and other sony cinealta cams, just head to gamut in the menu. congrats on the fsi and video io. I wish more of the image making community would take the time/money to get the most crucial part right. I don't know how all the bloggers, YouTubers, forum members etc... can give advice about a cameras image vs anothers that's worth 2 cents. their assessment is actually just an interpretation of their very @^$#*imaging pipeline.

This guy reminds me of every bad, psychopathic boss I've ever had. Which is 2. He reminds me of both of them.