kye

I've been musing how to proceed next, but figured out I have two challenges: - work out what lens characteristics I can emulate in post vs those that can't be emulated easily / practically - work out what lens characteristics I actually care about The reason the first one is important is that there's no point in testing how much vignetting there is between various lenses when I can simply apply a power-window or plugin in post and just dial in what I want. This will then leave the lens testing to compare the things I can't do in post, like shallow DOF etc. I figure there's no point choosing a lens with strengths I can emulate in post over a lens with strengths I can't. In my setup the real question is why wouldn't I just use the Voigtlander and Sirui combination, because it is relatively sharp anamorphic with reasonably shallow DOF, and then just tastefully degrade it in post. So, naturally, I asked ChatGPT which things were which.. ==== Characteristics You Can Emulate in Post (2D effects). These are primarily image-level artifacts that don’t depend on actual 3D geometry of the scene: Vignetting (darkening at frame edges) – trivial to emulate. Chromatic aberration (color fringing at edges, longitudinal CA is harder) – lateral CA is easy to add/remove, longitudinal CA (color fringing in front/behind focus) is less convincing. Distortion (barrel, pincushion, mustache) – geometric warping filters can mimic this accurately. Flare & ghosting – lens flares, veiling glare, rainbow ghosts can be faked, though authentic multi-bounce flare with complex aperture geometry is tricky. Bloom / halation – glow around highlights is very doable with diffusion filters or glow nodes. Contrast “roll-off” from flare veiling – can be mimicked with tone curves and haze overlays. Field curvature (apparent focus falloff toward edges) – can be approximated with selective blur masks. Edge softness – can be faked by blurring vignette. Focus breathing (slight FoV change with focus) – can be keyframed with a digital crop/scale. Bokeh shape overlays – you can fake oval bokeh, cat’s-eye bokeh, onion rings to some extent with blur kernels, though it looks “pasted on” if pushed. Characteristics That Are Hard or Impossible to Emulate in Post. These are fundamentally tied to how the lens bends and gathers light in 3D: Depth of field & true bokeh rendering – You can blur in post, but real optical bokeh depends on entrance pupil geometry, field position, occlusion, and interaction with 3D scene depth. You can approximate with depth maps, but never get the organic overlap of layers of out-of-focus light. True lens breathing with parallax – cropping simulates magnification change, but real breathing also subtly shifts perspective/parallax in the image. Perspective rendering (due to focal length + entrance pupil position) – can’t be changed in post without full 3D scene reconstruction. Aberrations that depend on 3D ray paths – e.g., coma (stretched points off-axis), astigmatism (different focus for tangential/sagittal rays). You can fake streaky stars, but not with the depth-dependent accuracy of real glass. Micro-contrast / “lens pop” – the way fine details render due to MTF, stray light control, and glass polishing isn’t really capturable in 2D. Polarization effects – coatings reduce or enhance reflections differently based on polarization of incoming light; impossible to recreate after capture. True specular highlight interaction with aperture blades – starbursts, iris shape, and diffraction spikes are fundamentally optical. Subtle 3D flare interactions – when a bright light causes ghosts that float relative to the scene geometry, which post plugins often fail to mimic convincingly. Sensor–lens interaction effects – e.g., color shifts or vignetting from oblique ray angles on digital sensors, microlens interference. ==== It's not a bad list, although some things are a bit mixed up. The things in the above that stand out to me for further investigation are: Longitudinal CA I wonder how much of the Tokina + wide-angle adapter look was this, it seems to have subtle CA though everything Experiment with oval inserts to get a taller bokeh shape, maybe between the taking lens and Sirui adapter ...and just setup some tests in post for barrel distortion, edge softness, resolution (blur and halation). The rest of the stuff above I either know about or don't care about.

I don't really know much about what their highlight recovery actually does, but if you're talking about super-whites (levels above 100) then they might get decoded and might be available in the nodes? My GX85 records super-whites and in my standard node tree for it I just pull down the Gain slightly and they just get pulled down into the working range. If you're talking about the smart behaviour of using some colour channels to recreate a clipped colour channel then I think reducing the saturation of the highlights might do broadly the same thing. There are also other tricks you can use like combining masks with the channel mixer to effectively copy one (or both) other channels to the one that's clipped. That will preserve the saturation of the recovered area, useful for recovering things like tail-lights or flames, whereas reducing the saturation obviously won't.

and also confirmed here (linked to timestamp):

Also, the new iPhones all use a new "Apple Log 2" profile, so that will require Resolve to be updated as well to support the new colour space:

They mention it at 1:06:21 - below is linked to timestamp: I must admit that if BM camera supports it then it's a step towards it being supported in Resolve. It's not currently listed on the BM website, but that makes sense as (IIRC) no iPhone can record it yet: I'll be ordering a new phone and my GH7 already records Prores RAW internally, so I'll be in a strange place where both my main cameras support internal Prores RAW but my NLE doesn't! 😆 😆 😆

Sad to hear. Living and working with someone that long is truly remarkable, even if it didn't end up lasting. Gotta be careful about the wedding ring thing though, I've noticed couples that both simultaneously stopped wearing them and it's turned out to be them preparing to renew their vows and getting their existing rings polished / embellished / etc before the celebration! It was even a surprise so their close friends didn't even know it was happening!

With great interest and care! As an enthusiast with complex requirements myself I sometimes come upon a new set of requirements and try to find something that will suit my situation but it's hard to find something that meets all the specifics I have. This is typically when I would post as people who know more than me might know of a particular thing that meets all my needs. This is why it frustrates me when people just give random thoughts and riff on my carefully set-out requirements. TBH, now I just ask AI.

Yes, it has an emotional component doesn't it - that's a good way of putting it. There are lots of parallels between cinema and dreaming or memories, so in some ways the more realistic the image is the less aligned it is with all the other things about it that are dreamlike or like a memory (e.g. we can teleport, jump time, speed up and slow things down, we can see something happening without being there, we can fly, etc). Considering that memories are formed more readily at points of heightened emotion, I think there's a link between a slightly surreal image and something feeling emotional. Unfortunately the front element rotates with focus on this lens. I had it in my head that means I can't use it with the anamorphic adapter but just realised that's not true as the taking lens should stay at infinity... I'll have to try that next! I'm not sure about hard-edged bokeh.. maybe I'll come around but not sure. Our attention is directed by a number of things, one of which is sharpness, and so focusing the lens is the act of deliberately directing the viewers attention by adjusting the focal plane to be on the subject of the image. When the out-of-focus areas have hard edges, this takes the viewers attention and pulls it towards things that have not been chosen as important in that image, so it sort of undermines the creative direction of the image in a way that you can't really counter.

Today I tested the Voigtlander 42.5mm and Helios 58mm F2.0 lenses with the Sirui 1.25x adapter. GH7 >> Voigtlander 42.5mm >> Sirui 1.25x adapter.. Wide open at F0.95: ...and more stopped down (I didn't have enough vND for this much light): GH7 >> M42-M43 Speedbooster >> Helios 58mm F2.0 >> Sirui 1.25x adapter There's a certain look to the Helios, but it's hard to separate it from the changing lighting conditions, and I wonder how much of the differences could be simulated in post too.. reducing contrast by applying halation / bloom, softening the edges, etc. In pure mechanical terms the Voigts go much better with the Sirui, and the extra speed is really handy, so that will probably be my preference over the Helios.

Thanks. If you like contrasty light, my next batch of images should please you! What is it about them you like? Is it how imperfect / degraded they are? They certainly have an incredible amount of feel, that's for sure. This zoom is the Tokina RMC 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 and I understand these were held in reasonably high regard back in the day, so it's potentially not a disaster, although I'm not sure that it's the sharpest / cleanest vintage zoom in the world. Looking back at the initial set of images I posted in my first post, this seems to have gotten the closest with the softness of the OOF areas and the CA / colour fringing etc.

Shot a quick test with the Tokina RMC 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 zoom wide open with the wide-angle adapter. Combined with Resolve Film Look Creator it's super super analog, and maybe a bit too analog for what I would find uses for. Still, interesting reference. GH7 shooting C4K Prores 422 >> M42-M43 SB >> Tokina 28-70mm >> cheap wide-angle adapter >> cheap vND Resolve with 1080p timeline: CST to DWG >> exposure / WB >> slight sharpening >> FLC >> export Personally I am not really a fan of the hard-edged bubble-bokeh and the flaring with strong light-sources in frame is too much for most of what I shoot (mostly exterior locations and uncontrolled lighting) but it's great to know that looks with this level of texture are possible. I'm keen to compare it to the setup but without the wide-angle adapter. That would be less degraded but maybe in the right kind of way.

Surprisingly, it seems that Minolta didn't make so many slower lenses? This list here might not be complete, but it barely lists any slower ones: https://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens Reviews.html and the page on the lens history doesn't include many extras either: https://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens History.html Is Flickr still a thing? maybe some searching on there might reveal some other options, and with bonus sample images too.

OP asks for lenses that focus the Canon way.... Queue long discussion of lenses from Nikon, Pentax etc. OP asks for lenses that are slow to use wide-open.... responses include stopping down faster ones! 😆 😆 😆 Lots of people really just waiting for you to finish talking so they can go back to stream of consciousness without any thinking required!

Canon FD might do it - price might be an issue perhaps? Plenty of F3.5 or F4 lenses in the lineup, they focus the way you want, and you even get a choice of coatings (normal, S C, or S S C). Some of the slower ones are macro lenses too! https://cameraville.co/blog/list-every-canon-fd-lens-ever-made Zooms are also an excellent idea. An out of the box idea is to use faster lenses, but to keep the aperture wide open and cut a round hole in a lens cap and get the aperture you want that way. I'm not sure if this would reduce the DOF in the right way? It would definitely lower the exposure though, and would definitely keep the bokeh the shape you want.

I don't really use the audio for dialogue so can't really comment on it specifically. To zoom out and think more holistically about sound, and also a bit about getting in front of the camera, there are a few approaches. High-quality sound on location. This is great but you pay for it in terms of paying for extra equipment, extra faff of charging it, setting it up, using it, cleaning and maintaining it, etc. High-quality in-camera audio is the most convenient and the most expensive to get. External audio makes it easier / cheaper but creates extra work to keep the audio files managed and to sync them in post. Acceptable sound on location. This could be through a combination of average in-camera audio and average external audio. The in-camera audio could potentially using on-camera mics like the Rode VideoMicro or a plugin Lav mic that don't require any power and are plug-and-forget but are dependent on the quality of preamps in the camera. The external audio could be as simple as using a smartphone right next to your mouth, or using the integrated mic in the headphones as a short lav mic. I've seen lots of vloggers do this in very noisy environments and it works fine. First example, second example. Record in post. ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement) is where actors re-record their dialogue in post production to match their lips in the footage. It is so common that many films simply didn't bother to get good sound and created the audio (dialogue, sound effects, sound design, the lot) in post after the fact. I've done this before on short films and if you take a bit or time to do it then you can get results indistinguishable from doing it on-location. Recording in post also comes into the idea of appearing on screen, or not. By taking lots of notes and recording your thoughts during the trip (potentially just using voice memos on your phone at the end of each day) you can then narrate the finished film and have a significant presence in the finished edit, have high quality audio, and also take away the burden of getting great audio for everything that happens throughout the whole trip. Narrating the film will also enable you to communicate ideas and feelings and information in a concise way with carefully chosen words, rather than trying to piece together a coherent summary from fragmented snippets of footage. Narrating the final piece also takes a huge burden off the footage too, because anything you didn't capture can be explained in V/O so the film doesn't rest solely on the footage to be self-explanatory, which is a high-bar to achieve. There's a hidden mindset that you're at the cutting edge of (and being cut by), which is that the entire film-making industry assumes that anyone wanting high-quality equipment doesn't mind it being large, and that if you care about size then you don't care about quality. I've gone round and round with people online and it's like "small and good" is a combination that somehow doesn't exist in their world-view. This has lessened over recent years, but is still the elephant in the room. Speaking of the elephant in the room, be careful not to lose sight of the final prize, which is an engaging final product. I don't know how much editing experience you have, but making a doc is like making a bunch of lego pieces without knowing what you're eventually going to want to make, then designing the building, and then trying to assemble the building out of the lego blocks you have made. Obviously those with a lot of skill will be able to anticipate the final result better, and will make better pieces, but to a certain extent the more pieces you make and the more variety you include, the easier it will be to assemble the finished product you want. This is why I advocate for setups that: 1) you will use (giving you more footage) 2) is fast to use (giving you more footage of things that happen quickly) 3) is flexible (giving you more variety of footage) 4) is enjoyable to use (making you more likely to use it and also making the whole thing more enjoyable and more likely to be successful overall). Remember, this person is ready for anything, but misses almost everything switching equipment, and has a hernia by the end... You should start with the idea of just using your phone and only add equipment that will make the end result better, not worse.