anonim

On the serious side, for my purpose and enjoy, I'm always trying to grade with match-with bluray movies (their shots, scenes, moods) of choice - I've made collection of scenes and overall looks of movies that I appreciate the most color wise. In another words - I believe much more to the colors of high quality movies than to any monitor calibration solution that I could provide. Besides, with such choice I'm forced to play with grading and careful analyzing movie sequences searching for techniques and similarities with my goals - if term "to be forced" could be applied on frog and her idea about jumping into the water.

I personally find that such marketing approach looks so nicely naive, fresh and... well... different. At the NAB presentation that football-fan CEO merely spoke English, but without doubt he radiated rays of pure confidence and enjoy (and yes, I'm totally aware that I'm not the best person for commenting interesting linguistic bravuras in someone's broken English...) So, I suggest to wait and see. Maybe we will be simple witnesses of the born of such new term as, say, "exponential update".

Yes, technically it is so-called sublime "intuitive poetical" (or, by some other, "deeply inner world") method of calibration with unsurpassable effects and some unexpected collateral result: you may achieve fatal attractive look for opposite sex... you know, "softness of the Moon" etc.

I have to admit that clip from mr Read doesn't look to me so favorable for NX1 because of too much crushed black (probably temporal stylistic preference) that leaves a question about DR. But I have some other personal favorites of NX1 shots - simply, contrary to some other or of the most members, I'm continually impress with results of all modern cameras in capable hands, looking to all of them as flowers in the garden So, to be remembered or some sort of hommage

History in general and recent history obliged us to believe in Chinese marketing even if it sometimes looks strange...

It looks to me that it could be justifiably to have place here for separate thread strictly about revealing/understanding/evolving/learning ideas and behind-techniques of cinematic language. Being myself a translator of Tarkovsky's books and calling for famous Bergman's quotes about Tarkovsky* as truly inventor of a new language, I found that this Sareesh Sudhakaran's post is great as introductory to movie as visual art with independent human-exploring language... So, if someone maybe have some similar insights, I'll be so glad to know and learn from them or read a comments and observations... about relationship between applied, deeply thought-out shooting choices or specific techniques with psychological (or aesthetic or metaphysical) artistic goals. *"My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle... Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease... I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how... Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream... When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally."

Little add to Voigt 17.5 case...

There is wonderful Angenieux 17.5-70mm f2.2 which is S16 lens - it covers GH4 without vigneting, so if you can tolerate some shadows and blur in the corner as artistic effects on 2x crop of GH5 etc, results could be majestic. (Older 17-68 and 12-120 are not S16, but 16 lenses). If you work in more controlled condition, Zeiss 11-110 T2.2 is also S16 lens, but it is pretty big. Angenioux 17.5-70, contrary, is enough compact... (and probably only one lens I truly regret that I had too early in my passion for testing lenses and than sold it - I was so lucky to find, now it is so hard to repeat. )

Just to note that I've already perceived at least two different states of @webrunner comments - I'd call them rebellion/progressive and conservative one, hell/drugs/destructive and calm/serene/supportative one vocabulary wise. After closer inspection (over his own words of acknowledgement) I suspect that it maybe depends of whether reverent member is just in a process of being awake or he is already in fully contemplative power about specific topics, or about this ephemeral world in general, from the angle of extremely experienced camera man... So maybe it could give some clue or direction about mystery of downvoting.

I wish you successful resolving... But, one of the reason I dropped usage of adapted vintage lenses is painful trying to achieve infinity focus, especially (almost impossible) with wide lenses.

Actually, it seems that all shots of Citizen Kane could be accomplished with camera of top modern mobile phones. In fact, they would be probably look much better.

Maybe to try first with some dumb adapter? Try also behavior in regarding to f value... I'd rather say that problem is with lens.

I'd suggest Leica R zooms - I found that their construction is second to none except modern Voigts. They don't protrude, focus and zoom rings are incredible smooth, again only comparable with Noktons. If lenses are in nice conditions (and their long life period is unbeatable) they achieved quality that is the most important to me but I don't know how to better explain it: cleanness. Simply, image without predominant tone/shadow veil. Most of vintage lenses has it - and although it may be interesting in effect, it is near impossible to remove it completely in grading to get proper initial/neutral/clean grading point.

Thanks for kind words... I had 12 1.6, 25 0.95 and 50 0.95, now I have just 10mm. Frankly, I don't remember what I exactly did in these shots - I uploaded them just after shooting session, being in hurry to fulfill promise to one member on forum, who asked about look of SLRM 10mm.. so I was playing a little without luts, because I enjoy in process of grading-to-match - although there are (but rarely) very capable luts to help ... After that I'm still slowly collecting other shots for planed movie and didn't yet return to grade them . If you have 12mm, answer is simple - 10mm is simply better in all aspects than 12mm, keeping the same character. You certainly can't go wrong with 25mm if you need/like that FL (because you can get it with 17/17.5mm via ETC on GH cameras), it is perfect match with 10/12mm. But I'd say that 50mm is a hero: the most underestimated or the least known/discussed gem of SLRM line - especially if you primarily search for bokeh of high end vintage-type charm. I sold it just for the sake of testing equivalent Voigtlanders. With SLRM's there's no need, I think, for any soft-filtering to tame inner software sharpening of m43 sensor - it seems to me that m43 Hyperprime line is some sort of actual "flagship" in cleverly thought-out in construction to revive milky traits of Leica R rendering (or that wonderful/strange 25mm 2.8 Distagon), and they menage to achieve it with great success. But I always found that Andrew Chan is so extremely shy or non-aggressive in advertising. I had metabones speedboosters and many many lens combinations - but finally choosing m43 system I dropped them. One of the reason is result that I got accurately comparing SLRM lenses with speedboster/Zeiss/Leica combination.

Well, as often said my grandmother - "Tastes are different", the devil said and sat in the nettles...

Unfortunately, I instantly made update without comparing. I didn't guess that it may be differences color wise because Panasonic review didn't mention it. Shooting yesterday in HLG i had impression that it was little bit easier to grade to the wanted balance of colors... But it is just impression, not at all accurate comparison, so I can be wrong. Although, both above samples without doubt show the same difference. P.S. Actually, I found that difference between GH5 and GH5s are mostly about more greenish cast in the first, also about OLP filtration in second. (But I judge only from published examples, I have no GH5s.) Every single time I make slight correction in green channel and green side of gamma before any other grade tweaking. Not a big science and maybe Panasonic really make such minor, but noticeably finer adjustment without announcing it. We already saw here that they didn't feel obliged to speak about Atomos 4k 60p case.

From both samples It seems that color is also tweaked - less base greenish toward more natural in skintone, gamma also little bit lighter. In first sample, for example, at 8:51 when tester's face is in focus on both cameras - In second sample whole sequence of mother and child, about 1:50 - 2:15.

For a globetrotting isn't it logical to have two cameras? For a low-light, if you think about m43 system, than mostly mean primes. So, logical m43 conclusion looks for me as: two cameras and two primes or keep 12-40 + fast(er) prime. Or put accent/money on globetrotting experience not on videography and buy Panasonic lx100 (or two for either pocket).

Sorry for suggestion, but because I'd say that I have some long and fertile relationship with ideas - maybe it does not have to be strict short... maybe in form of Movie-portrayal-notebook, with every page with different environment and subconscious message. Maybe combining modern and traditional elements in composition.. It is just important that it have some overal and unifying idea behind... Call it, for example, West in the Eastern faces, Gates to the secret spirit or so. Contemplate through faces/eyes and ambience about crossing and intersection of past and today... When finished, propose it to Vietnam government as another view of touristic glimpse instead of postcards and aerial shots. And search for inspiration in movies of Sergei Parajanov... Sorry once again for being free to suggest.

For me it is inspiring... But I always ask myself why do you make these shots just - as it seems to me - randomly and in form of test... It looks obvious that you are fond to portraiture, so I'd like to see results of painter-like full preparing/organization of images; subjects in accurate and well thought (symbolic) ambience and add-ons that participate in chosen meaning ... like this one with added scarf.

I'm afraid that question like this is totally inappropriate and suspicious in its naivety that must be called fake - simply, it is out of ruling concept of this thread, so it must be treated as an redundant blasphemy. It seems that this thread long time ago became some sort of extremely refine theater of the absurd - serious ode to non existing subject, profoundly devoted, extensive preparing for its coming, waves of enthusiastic competency, lessons about every single word and topic that from afar looks as desecration against its unbelievable annunciation - so, from time to time it is very interesting to take a look of its progress.

Agree. I remember that I was sold for usability of solo and solo+gimbal possibilities of IBIS after watched two brilliant examples, and after remarkable author encouraged and favored combined usage of both in the second example: "In fact I tested the camera on the gimbal with IS turned off and on and I expected that having it ON would make it worse because they would fight each other....however I found that the camera IS being turned on whilst on the gimbal helped improve the overall feel of the shot and took out a few of the minor jitters."

Bravo from me for all - transfer of suspense, colors, framing, changes of sequences and usage of depth, movements. And Mussorgsky as a invisible crown above all Just - lets the next be something less violent

Ok than If you look the initial provided comparison in A. Read's article, apart of nominal/objective perspective equivalence it is also noticeable (as one poster already noted) that aesthetic impression of depth of field is not the same. Plans in perspective looks closer or further, so in one case there's impression of stronger 3d quality, or a even deeper background in whole. That is result of inner construction qualities of lenses - and that's the one of the reason, between others, why some lenses cost more and being acclaim as more precious. That fact I used as argument in statement that it is note quite correct to compare very high-end and very precise thought-out m43 lens with their cheaper FF contrepairs based only on the mathematically same DoF. For example, Voigt 17.5 here used in comparison, as also others in the Nokton m43 lines, are extremely precise constructed to be able to provide specific chosen (and of course subtle) distinctive effects. It is as secret receipt of chosen accentuation and inevitable compromised weaknesses - on which distance image is most detailed with smooth back-and-side rollofs or bokeh nuances; which distance-sharpness to sacrifice to achieve wanted strong effects at other favorable distance; on which aperture and why lens get highest sharpness and where (center and peripheral distribution of sharpness); how to play with color shifting and contrast across aperture range; how to render (faster) movements vs static shots etc. We can appreciate it or not, being exalted or not depends of taste and personally search specific attributes - but it is without doubt that very sophisticated know-how experience and long tested elaboration, as also higher quality glasses, are involved in construction of these lenses - so, are they really pricey or not, it is very disputable. Having opportunities to compare them with actual results of much higher price cine-lenses (apart of more technical traits as level of focus breathing etc) - I'd say that nowadays these voigts are very moderate or even cheap in price. By reports and tests it looks that the same is applicable to, say, Veydra line, for their chosen and accurately aimed/provided qualities - some relevant testers claim that they are even better than Zeiss Primes, but double or triple cheaper.