kye

Well, I started a thread about 6K being overrated as there's not much difference between a 6K image and a 4K one, or a 4K crop from a 6K image and a 2.7K crop from a 4K image upscaled to 4K and I was told in no uncertain terms that the images were completely different and that we all need to film in 6K or we will starve because our films will never be watched by anyone. Never mind the films in cinemas shot on 2K cine cameras, apparently they don't count and you need 6K! I personally find this stuff all very amusing, how people get so upset

HAHAHAHA.... all these people going FF and re-buying all their lenses are already behind the curve! I've always said that if you're not shooting Medium or Large format then you might as well be using a 1/3" chip camera - you're not going to be getting those luscious immersive images! Sell all your FF lenses now - the format is dead! Get out while you still can!!

I haven't looked, but there might be a way to assign a shortcut key to the action. The keyboard shortcut engine in Resolve is pretty comprehensive, if you haven't already checked it out

Or update the firmware on!!

Also be sure to do tests to verify that you’re getting the kind of results that you want. ETTR is more work to shoot with and process in post, so if you’re not getting the level of improvement to justify the extra effort then it’s good to know that early instead of doing it for months or years and realising later

My view of minimalism is that you don’t have things you don’t need, but that you still do have the things that you do need. I think this is a misconception that people have about the whole movement - that you’re meant to be happy with what someone else thinks is the right amount of stuff, or that somehow less is better. No minimalist would ever find themselves in the desert saying that not having water was the best idea, or being outside their apartment and not having their keys is a good idea!

That’s exciting. Hopefully they’ve been scouting the various forums and looking for little annoyances that they can fix. Panasonic if you are reading this, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the aspect ratio guidelines REALLY REALLY obvious, at the moment they’re practically invisible and I forget that i’m meant to be framing inside them. Even better would be blanking out the parts that are out of frame. Even better than that would be to just shoot that aspect ratio - eg 2.35:1 and have the output files in that resolution but still with the full output bitrate so we’re not throwing data away by cropping in post!

Nah, just make sure the colour is no good and you'll be fine... works for Sony!

Spoiler, he chose the 16-35 f2.8 and the 100mm f2.8 macro. TLDR: He shoots music videos He knows his own style and what he wants to get Having more lenses creates anxiety in choosing lenses, is heavy and a PITA in general It's funny because I think I actually have less lenses than him, as I tend to travel with 3 primes, whereas he's kind of got 4 lenses (16, 24, 35, 100). I understand that with narrative or when you're shooting for someone else you need more flexibility to suit someone else's vision, but I do think that there's an optimum number of lenses / focal lengths.

The more I look at the look of lenses the more that i’m thinking that something like a BPM filter is a really useful and key item in developing a look.... more below. This idea that you’ve doubled your collection is very interesting and I think falls into my (still forming) grand unifying theory of lenses... I feel the same about my GH5 and also on reducing the number of lenses to just the right ones that will work for what i’m doing. Lots of cool interesting vintage lenses out there, although that brings me neatly to my first thoughts on a grand unifying theory of lenses... So far I think we’ve got these factors that add up to create a ‘look’: Lens resolution (both the amount of it as well as distribution over the frame, eg, field curvature) Lens hallation and flaring (amount and distribution) Lens colour (across DR but also in hallation) Lens vignetting CA There are other factors, but these are the main ones i’m thinking about for now, and obviously all of these change for any given lens across its aperture range. In terms of how to get that ‘look’: Lens resolution is limited by the lens, but can be (very slightly) perceptually boosted by adding sharpening, and can obviously be lowered by various blurring effects in post, and to a certain extent field curvature can be simulated in post too as long as it's effects are blurring what's in frame rather than bringing it into focus Lens hallation has a number of different categories - the first is what happens with flares and that’s pretty obvious, but the second is micro-contrast which is talked about with the smoothing of skin. This depends on the coatings of the lens (and flare characteristics also by the optical properties) but hallation can be added with things like BPM filters, as well as ‘simulated’ in post (under certain circumstances as outlined in the thread about simulating a BPM filter in post) and the Midtone Detail slider in Resolve does a great job of this too Lens colour can be influenced in post by a global WB adjustment for uniform tints, can be adjusted in shadows mids and highlights with curves or the LGG wheels, but if a lightsource hallation is also tinted (possibly by spreading the wavelengths differently or just a simple uniform) then it can be harder to emulate, however if you apply a blur in a separate layer set to an additive or lighten type blending mode then this can be simulated (the Glow OFX plugin in Resolve does this nicely) Vignetting can easily be change in post so that one is simpler CA can also be tweaked in post to some degree if the effects are localised For example, the Voitglander when wide open has low centre resolution and worse edge resolution, significant hallation, a purple tint, some vignetting, and CA in high contrast areas, however behaves very differently when stopped down. What can't be simulated (realistically) is having a shallower DoF than the lens, or more resolution. This leads me to think that an ideal setup might be to get the sharpest lenses you can find that meet your requirements for largest aperture, and either learn to process in post or to get a BPM filter in order to be able to swap easily to a genuine vintage look with flares and hallation (and also learn how to adjust things in post).

Make a list of your current issues when filming. Things that bug you, things that cause missed shots or shots that you have to spend time fixing in post, things you can't do because you don't have the equipment, things that aren't good enough for something tangible outcome. Then prioritise them. If I could only fix one issue, what would it be? If I could only fix two issues, what would they be? If..... THEN think about where to put your money. The worst way to spend money is to solve a problem you don't have, or that someone else has but you don't!

Nice! Light is so important. For a start, things would be pretty dark in frame without it! I think I'd be a lighting geek too if I didn't shoot only in available light. The people that do those "how to make this camera from 1987 look like a RED Epic" are always doing it with lighting.

My understanding was that they were pretty good. I have been looking at the 7.5mm F2 and read a bunch of reviews and they seemed ok. I guess do some reading.. Oh, I don't know.. think about those times when you've got the 16mm on and you just want to get in a bit tighter.. but can't take half a step forwards..... and can't crop in post...... and...... yes, makes sense you've got the range pretty well covered. I was just watching a video this morning from DSLR Video Shooter and was reminded that he loves the Sigma 16/1.4. I'm looking at the 7.5mm F2 as a replacement for my 8mm F4 SLR Magic drone lens which works fine but the ergonomics are rubbish as it's a drone lens. The extra couple of stops of exposure wouldn't go astray either for night-time city-scapes.

Is it under the weight limits for the (increasingly heavy-handed) drone laws in most western countries? I'd imagine so, but confirming that would be useful. No point anyone buying one if they have to study and register to become a commercial pilot in every country they visit! ???

I read a hack about changing a timeline frame rate even after it's had clips added to it and has locked. (save your project before doing this, and duplicate the timeline as a double-backup, but this is how I remember it going...) Highlight everything on the timeline, edit->cut, go to the timeline setting for framerate (which should have now unlocked) and change it, then paste everything back in. I've tried it with very simple projects (like, when you add a few clips and then remember) and it worked, but not sure for anything more complicated. and yes, I understand about other people choosing settings... life is full of compromises sometimes!

and at the end of the day, you can always take these two images: and with a few quick adjustments in Resolve, adjust the left one to look like this: not the same, but you could certainly cut them together in the same edit and not shatter the illusion.

I think it's personal. You're talking like I haven't tried it, and I have, and you seem to be convinced even though you haven't said that you've tried compensating with sharpening, so all I can say is to actually try it and let us know what you think after that. I've tested it when shooting my own footage with the GH5 at 4K, watching it on my 32 inch 4K computer display. I've tried it by downloading 8K RAW footage from a RED, downscaling it to a range of resolutions from 4K to 1.2K and then putting them all on a 4K timeline and playing with them in Resolve. It's going to depend on how you see, what you pay attention to, what lenses you shoot with (most lenses are worse than people think), what codecs (RAW vs compressed), what post-production software you have, and how good you are at post-processing. I'm not going to convince you by just talking at you - what I was hoping to do is to convince you to try it yourself by actually taking lower resolution footage and applying sharpening and seeing if you can match it.

Ok, here's a theory... I think the Voigtlanders might be the MFT equivalent of the Zeiss Super Speeds. This is why: Both have very wide apertures and are amongst the fastest lenses available for the sensor size Both are known to be very soft wide open but when stopped down become very sharp, giving both of them a real split personality reputation Both are known for their soft rendering when wide-open and are prized for low-light work and bokeh at night, and also for how sharp they can be when closed down, giving aesthetic options depending on the project Both have very poor performance at the outer edges of their image circle, even when stopped down considerably (*) Both have CA problems at larger apertures, but are improved when stopping-down Both are configured for fully manual cinema use with de-clicked apertures and long focus throws Both are very solidly built, heavy, with very smooth controls making them a joy to use They are both very expensive compared to their more moderately priced competitors (acknowledging that cine glass prices can be stratospheric / catastrophic) (* On the Voigtlanders this isn't because of field curvature. I have no idea what causes it on the SS) I've read that Voigtlander essentially build their lenses so that they can't be repaired, which is contrary to the Zeiss approach with the SS which are regularly serviced and maintained by lens houses. Of course, on the plus side, a set of Voigtlanders costs about 2% of what a set of SS costs, plus MFT is meant to be dead so who cares, right...? Reference materials and supporting evidence..... This article includes the 17.5mm and 25mm Voigtlanders, which go from being in the last two places wide open, to 4th and 5th places at f2.8, to a very close 2nd and 4th at f4. This is all centre sharpness measurements, as their outer performance isn't great, but most people don't put the subject of a shot at the edge, so it's less relevant. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results/ Aperture tests....... Voigtlanders: Zeiss SS: I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument, but there are a lot of similarities. Even if it's true, not everyone is a fan of the Super Speeds, and once again it's about taste. Some prefer the Master Anamorphics or the Cooke glass as they're more consistent, being sharper than these wide open and softer when stopped down, so not being so schizophrenic in temperament. I think I'm gradually talking myself into buying the 42.5mm Voigt.

I'm contemplating other lenses to 'match' the Voigt but I'm not so certain that matching is the issue as the Voigt doesn't actually match with itself over its aperture range. It has significantly different colour at f0.95, 1.4, and 2+ (it's quite purple wide open), and it has perceptibly different resolution at 0.95, 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8+. I'm beginning to think that the Voigt is the MFT equivalent of Zeiss Super Speeds, in the sense that it has two (or more) fundamentally different 'looks', but that each of them is great. I'll post more in my lens rabbit-hole thread when I've gathered more thoughts, but in this sense, they're Dr Jekkyl and Mr Hyde, or the 17.5mm is at least. In this sense the Veyrda, Meike, and Laowa are likely to be much more consistent.

How would you use it on set and why isn't it a casual length? My main lens is the 17.5mm Voigtlander which is on the camera 80%+ of the time for the environmental portrait and medium landscape shots while travelling. It's not a length I chose casually either. For those looking for a great walk-around lens and are on MFT this Laowa looks like a great option!

What focal lengths do you have / use?

I've worked with multiple frame rates in Resolve for a while now, so I'll see if I can help. This is my understanding of how it works and how I use it. I start with a Project at the same frame rate that I want the finished video to have, for me this is 25fps. Then I create one (or more) timelines in that project, and they will default to the same frame rate. In v16 (which I am using now) you can also change frame rates on timelines individually through Timeline Settings and there's a button that lets you customise them individually. Then I just drag all the clips onto the timeline. When you do this, Resolve puts them all on the timeline in real-time, ie, if you recorded in 50p and drag it to a 25p timeline the video will play in real-time. If you exported that then the output video would have every second frame of the 50p clip. If you want to slow the 50p down to 25p (and therefore play at 50% speed) then you can do that on the timeline through Clip Speed, as well as the various speed ramp type functions. I believe you can also set the speed in the clip in the Media Pool and then when you add it to the timeline it goes in there at 50% normal speed, but that's not how I work. In terms of sound, when you have a clip on the timeline that isn't at real-time then Resolve does a time-stretch on the audio automatically. The effect is good but has its limits. In terms of syncing sound I've never really tried to do it so can't comment on that part. The way that Resolve displays FPS all through this scenario is rubbish and completely confusing, so I ignore FPS on everything except the Project, Timeline, and Source Clip. If I'm doing anything that involves all three of those not matching then I work in percentages. When exporting you can just set the export settings to your target output frame rate and it should work. I haven't tried to output a different frame rate than my Timeline so there might be issues there that I'm not aware of, but that's what's worked for me. Hope this helps! BTW: why did you film an interview in 50p?

Can you set it to apply the effect at partial strength? Say 50% or 75%? The levelling out is useful, but the example seems to be too steamrolled to the point where the emphasis has been eliminated.

You forgot the Veydra / Meike.... ??? Sold to the gentleman with the very prestigious beard!