Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,278 visits to this link)
17,288 topics in this forum
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 460.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 700 replies
- 305.4k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 751.9k views
-
- 314 replies
- 146.6k views
-
- 12 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 51 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 110 views
-
- 16 replies
- 674 views
-
- 30 replies
- 33.1k views
-
- 67 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 146 views
-
- 4 replies
- 454 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.1k views
-
- 45 replies
- 12.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 465 views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 565 views
-
- 7 replies
- 380 views
-
- 7 replies
- 3k views
-
- 120 replies
- 63.1k views
-
- 560 replies
- 258.8k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 317 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 57 replies
- 18.7k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.3k views
-
- 3 replies
- 765 views
-
- 126 replies
- 57.8k views
-
- 88 replies
- 58.2k views
-
- 71 replies
- 34.2k views
-
- 14 replies
- 936 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 10 replies
- 836 views
-
- 79 replies
- 55.6k views
-
- 26 replies
- 19.8k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2.8k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.7k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By Samantha_Hong · Posted
It absolutely feels like a modern Super 8! Especially when you pair it with Magic Lantern to shoot raw video, slap on a vintage C-mount lens, and add some heavy grain in post. The workflow is quirky and slow, but that’s honestly half the charm - it forces you to shoot more intentionally, just like actual film. One random but massive headache with this setup is sorting out custom aspect ratios and cropping thumbnails or cover art for projects if you're trying to match that classic 4:3 or square retro look perfectly. If you don't want to mess around with heavy Photoshop templates just to resize a quick reference image or profile shot for a project, a simple online tool like Visaphoto works surprisingly well. It’s technically an automatic passport photo cropper, but it's great for instantly forcing any image into exact dimensions and pixel constraints with clean compression without having to open an editor. Definitely keep shooting with the M. For the price, nothing else gives you that organic, textured aesthetic quite like it. -
By Samantha_Hong · Posted
I think the niche aspect is actually a strength. The best documentaries often pull people into worlds they knew nothing about beforehand. From the comments alone it sounds like the film has strong characters and a genuine sense of place, which usually travels further than the subject matter itself. I'd definitely explore the festival route and maybe even a shorter cut for online release later on. -
If that is the case, it’s a stupid tactic. If sales had begun within 7 days, I would have bought one. As things now stand, unlikely to any time soon, if at all. Now the dust has settled, I think I’ll wait it out a while and get my S9’s audio fixed. Then it’s a case of keep the fixed S9 until such time as an S9II comes up, preferably with the S1Rii sensor, but probably unlikely, or flip to a third S1Rii which would also make sense. But any impulse buy for an L10 has passed as it will have done for others. And as for the great unwashed, they won’t be sitting around waiting but will simply buy something actually available. -
As a 47mm F2.2 it's pretty close to a 50mm, so a pretty good FOV if that's the look you like. I've just bought the Panasonic 25mm F1.7, which is 50mm F3.4 on the GH7, and it's my first 50mm FOV lens, so I'm keen to start taking that out and about and "learning" that focal length. It probably seems odd to most that I've never shot with that focal length, but it's never really suited the situations I've been shooting in. Big and heavy isn't desirable, especially as I have some pretty killer combinations in that range already. I've got the Voigtlander 17.5mm and 42.5mm F0.95 lenses, which are 35mm and 85mm F1.9 equivalents, and with the Sirui 1.25x adapter they're as wide as 28mm and 68mm F1.5. Problem is those combinations are each 1300g / 4.6oz (2100g / 74oz with GH7) which is usable for hand-held shooting but my arms are pretty much done after a few hours. Of course, I'm also pretty much done with being on my feet for that long too so the setup isn't the limiting factor. These setups also have the advantages and coolness factor of being anamorphic too, so there's that! I'm slightly tempted by some other much stronger anamorphic adapters too, but in playing with the Sirui I've learned that they're very dependent on the taking lens, and some lenses work and other lenses that seem very similar are an absolute train wreck, so it's basically a blind purchase and these things aren't that cheap. My current preferred Night Cinema combo is the Takumar 50mm F1.4 and M42-MFT speed booster, and I bought the EF-MFT speed booster to try and get a slightly cleaner image, but unfortunately the 50/1.4 -> M42-EF adapter -> EF-MFT speed booster stack doesn't work as the back element of the Takumar interferes with the EF SB glass. I figured that the EF SB would open up a whole new world, as EF used to be the default standard for about half the worlds camera users, plus EF and PL were the de facto standards for cinema. My recollection was that there were tonnes of interesting and super-fast third party EF lenses, but now I go looking there doesn't seem to be so many to be found. If budget was no-option then there are a lot of cinema lenses that are very interesting, even anamorphic ones, but budget is a consideration so unfortunately things like the USD1400 Blazar Cato 85mm T2.8 2x anamorphic lens will have to just remain a dream! Apart from this being like me asking "can you recommend a lawnmower?" and you suggesting "just sell your house and move to a NYC apartment", I actually don't think it's true. I've done a lot of "what if" scenarios for what I'm trying to achieve, and while it might have worked for you specifically, when I look at the lenses for a given system I find every system to be very lacking. Sure, you can get fast lenses at 28/35/50/85, but there are all kinds of other gaps that MFT just doesn't have. This is gradually changing, as manufacturers gradually fill out the various lens lineups, but my impression of the current landscape is that most FF systems have the fast primes and holy trinity zooms (28/35/50/85 and 16-35/24-70/70-200) but very limited and patchy coverage of small and light lenses and in-between focal-lengths, etc. Adapting vintage SLR lenses gives access to character lenses, but only FF ones, not really S35 cinema ones (unless you go to crop mode which is throwing away resolution and now you're half-way to MFT!), and not the S16 ones. You sort of get the standard focal lengths in modern and in vintage, but that's it. MFT has all the small and light and in-between focal-lengths, but the weakness is in the fast primes and fast zooms. MFT used to have all the advantages of mirrorless essentially being able to adapt any SLR lens, but as time goes on, more and more of the interesting lenses are designed for mirrorless APSC/FF cameras and therefore not usable (or only available in MFT mount so you don't get a SB advantage) or are EF cinema lenses and are huge/heavy/expensive because they compromised on size and cost to ensure they're sharp sharp sharp sharp sharp enough for modern use. As an example, I have a tracking sheet of all the lenses I own (not every one available) and it's FF equivalent. This table includes: 15mm 18mm 26mm 28mm 30mm 31mm 34mm 35mm 40mm 50mm 53mm 56mm 59mm 64mm 70mm 71mm 75mm 78mm 80mm 82mm 83mm 85mm etc. I don't even think it's complete! Most of those are different characters too, being a mix of different manufacturers, vintages, and combinations of being native / with a SB / with an anamorphic adapter / with SB and anamorphic adapter, etc. So yeah, if you happen to want a fast standard focal length, or a fast trinity zoom (that's enormous), then FF is great, but the rest is pretty lacking. The other reason I'm not moving to FF is that most of what I shoot is on a native 10x zoom, which FF doesn't really have a good answer for. The other other reason is that the work for me to sell all my MFT equipment and re-buy in FF would make it so that I should just work those hours at my day job and increase my budget, so selling things isn't really cost effective. The other other other reason is that the GX85 has all sorts of configurations that FF can't match, so I wouldn't be selling that anyway. -
Great post and lots of good points. Research on preferences is possible and there are actually some great resources out there talking about what aberrations are preferable, and are likely what ARRI have included in their colour processing. You have probably come upon these before, but for those who haven't, some of the resources I've come across are.. Color image reproduction of scenes with preferential color mapping and scene-dependent tone scaling https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/41/0a/e5/0a78ae57552549/EP1158779A2.pdf It's a patent obviously, so it's very dry and technical, but it contains interesting phrases such as: "a visual color reproduction of a scene having preferred color reproduction" "It is well known in the art, that the best reproductions of original scenes do not constitute a 1:1 mapping of scene colorimetry." "Pre-ferred color reproduction is defined as a reproduction in which the colors depart from equality of appearance to those of the original, either absolutely or relative to white, in order to give a more pleasing result to the viewer." There are other patents from earlier (1995 and 1996) from the same authors, so you can see them developing their knowledge. Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces LINK to PDF It's a research paper, so technical again, but contains: "Here, we show that facial skin color distribution significantly influences the perception of age and attractiveness of female faces, independent of facial form and skin surface topography." "The results presented suggest that visible skin color distribution plays an important role in subjective evaluation of female facial beauty." These can seem very theoretical, but they have direct application in colour grading and development of looks etc. This video below shows how adjustments in hue compression and tone manipulation can make skin tones far more pleasing. FilmLight and the work of Daniele Siragusano are really the most advanced that I've seen (published publicly anyway) so are incredible references. Video (linked to timestamp): If you can't be bothered watching, essentially he takes the following image: then alters it to be very unflattering by adding green under the eyes and increasing magenta on her nose and cheeks: but then applying a film look, the rendering of colour almost completely removes these unflattering alterations: The film look reduces the magenta/green in that area of skin tones, which is why the rendering is flattering. This is the film rendering of the image, but without the unflattering alterations: Obviously the image is nicer without the alterations, even with the film look applied, but the alterations are far less unflattering with the film look applied rather than just with the normal 709 style grade. This is a very simple example (compression of the magenta/green axis in the skin-tone area of the colour cube) and there are others too, such as the compression of the hue outright, to reduce the variation between yellow and red in the skin tone area. For example the ARRI Alexa 65 promo video shows a range of people and skin tones, including this older gentleman: Obviously this whole image is desaturated, but look at the variation in tone - there's a lot less than in real life, but it's in a way that is flattering, and it seems completely natural in the context of the video, where the whole video is quite muted: but compare that to the amount of skin tone variation that people actually have when they age, the lips and areas around the nose and eyes etc are far more red and contain far more yellow-red variation than the above image shows: There are all sort of other things - that's just two. Going back to the Kodak patent and seeing what the "preferred colour reproduction" is doing, we see it's doing all kinds of crazy stuff: This is a plot in L*a*b space, so is essentially the colour wheel (luma is the axis not plotted). The symbols are where the transformation puts the colours and the line points to where the colour used to be. So it's taking the more saturated colours and making them more saturated, but not doing this with the less saturated colours, however you'll note there are some exceptions in there. This is happening in a 3D space though, and some adjustments will be happening dependent on the luma values involved. HOWEVER, and I just realised this, because the Alexa outputs don't do luma-specific manipulations to hues, any such luma specific adjustments must be in the ARRI709 LUT, not in the camera. There's tonnes of stuff in here, for example, the paper shows this diagram - Figure 14: and the description of what it shows is: "Fig. 14 shows how the hue reproduction could be modified for a system including variability, so that the optimum system color reproduction is obtained including all the sources of processing variability. In this case, the memory colors skin 60, sky 58 and foliage 56 are consistently and smoothly moved towards a hue line, while yellow hues 62 are shifted towards orange." It doesn't talk about skin specifically, but the a*b* space is this: So the skin is in this area of the plot: Which doesn't seem to involve any hue compressions or alterations at all. I'm not sure why they omitted those. Anyway, fun stuff, but a very deep rabbit hole indeed.
-
