Wild Ranger

5 minutes ago, Sage said:

Do you use the Arri 709 Lut after LogC?

Yes, is much easier to work. Sometime I use film stock luts for LogC. it depends on the project.

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

Honestly, I think what you guys are getting out of the GH5/s with Sage’s post profiles make the new P4K almost pointless. Other than Raw, I see little benefit in color or even with ProRes... but I assume ProRes may have some more wiggle room in post, but you lose IBIS and the anamorphic modes with the P4K.

The black magic cameras still have the advantage of having a "Real" Log profile. These little cameras (gh5, sony a7, canon...) don't have good analog-to-digital converters in terms of video processing, so they don't end up getting all the potential of the sensor in their Log profiles. Take for example, A7III vs Sony FS5, in Slog FS5 gets more detail than the more newer a7III sensor.

That's where black magic did it well, and that's why their cameras are so power hungry. 

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

@Wild Ranger really nice work. You use the CineLikeD version, right? If so, then it’s nice to see how little work is needed from LogC to the finished grade. Very cool. 

Yes, I do prefer shooting in CinelikeD, it uses more of the bit depth and i honestly don´t see a difference on dynamic range to justify V-log. I like to convert it to LogC and the push it from there.

Hello!

Thanks for the comments, I really like you guys take the time to watch it.

Here I share some still, Pre-and-post color grade. The raw was shot on Cine-D and then converted to LogC. I didn't have the time to try the "Main" grade, maybe someone wanna give a try? ?

Hi everybody!

It´s been a long time since the last time i pass on this forum.

Now i wanna share my last work, a fashion/music film.

Shot with GH5 and using @Sage Alexa color for starting point in the grading. Using 2,21 aspect ratio. Mastered in 2.3k (2386x1080)

Hope anyone can enjoy it.

PS: Soon I'll share some stills for comparison. 

9 minutes ago, Coiii said:

Is there any possibility to bring the LUT package to Sony cameras like the new A7RIII / A7III? 

 Agree, i don't own a Sony a7III but Sage, you have made something cool here, and I think that It should be expanded. 

@Sage, here i bring some stills to share.

Daylight interior. With a grade and without, raw shot in Cine-D.

Feel free to experiment!

2 minutes ago, Sage said:

How are you liking Verde?

Looks very good, i haven't did to much test and i wanna see how the highlights behave. 

2 hours ago, Sage said:

Thanks man! I was curious how things would register vs. your standard day interior light (an area I want to explore more fully). It'll be something I can mess around with

Great, I'll try to make some daylight interiors soon.

@Sage, do you want tungsten...?  Here you have tungsten.

I'm uploading stills with a color grade, and without in Cine-D.

There are some lighting variations, with a redhead bounced doing some fill, and other with a lower key.

Sorry for the framing, I was alone.

@Sage Like it! it's so under exposed and warm that reminds me The Godfather. Nice!

Oh, i have a question!

Is this "Verde" new release supposed to replace the actual daylight or is only a different look?

6 hours ago, Sage said:

Sure! And that will help when I revisit Cine-D (I like to collect in-the-field images from everyone to act as a north star, they become part of the reference set)

And if you have true filament tungsten (i.e. halogen, rather than led/flo), that test would be great (in true VLog)

Here are the stills in Cine-D.

These are shot with Daylight balanced leds (around 5500K with a little shift of +3 to magenta). I have some tungsten bulbs around, I will share some stills with them as soon as I can make a test. 

6 hours ago, Sage said:

I think it looks great! And you shoot under the most challenging light conditions (would love to see that in VLog with a halogen bulb if you've got one on hand, just for kicks)

Can you post the VLog stills? I think the black level is good. For interiors/nights, blacks are best between 1-3 IRE (but never at 0 or below!)

Hi sage, I shot all in CineD, i don't use vlog for a convenience matter. But i can share you raw stills of these clips.

If you what i can try shot something in tungsten lights for test and share it here.

Here are some stills in color from my last test with the Pancinor lens. 

I'm more bias toward deep contrast more "drama like" and cooler tones.?

Really loving the contrast and skin tones that i can get with the Alexa conversion! 

7 hours ago, Sage said:

That looks great! Very vintage. I should mention, in the interest of fidelity, that the 4:3 mode uses a different codec with a bit different color science. For EC, I recommend All-I 2K or 4K, for the organic fluidity of motion, smooth gradients, and edit-ability. I hope to get around to a 4:3 Pre

Thanks Sage, i really appreciate the feedback!

I used the normal 4:3; the one which is h264, 10 color for 25fps and 8 bit for 50fps. I suppose the codec is the same. I didnt used the 6k 4:3 because i needed the Ex tele converter in camera to frame the shot, also I know the 6k 4:3 uses h265 codec.

Still a 4:3 pre will be awesome!

that 2.2 soft looks nice!

Here is, I just uploaded!

I was just playing with the lens, it soft but i love the character. I'm thinking in using it on some music videos, maybe some narrative film. The film-noir suits very nice with it.

I shot everything in the 4:3 anamorphic mode so i can frame correctly, then cropped in post. Maybe i will post a 4:3 version. Film grain is real super 16 that I shot my self.

Hi everyone!

I'm just passing by to show this...

It's a Som Berthiot Pan-Cinor 17-85 f2. Old C-mount lens from super 16.

In a couple of hours I'm uploading a video test I show with this one, using Alexa color and some Super 16 film textures that had shot my self a couple of years ago.

...

9 hours ago, mercer said:

Btw, @Wild Ranger I recently saw your short film Record on YouTube and I really have to say what a great piece of work that was. That short alone could keep people in the GH5s camp instead of buying a P4K. Great images, great story and excellent directorial choices!!!

It’s definitely one of the best low budget short films I’ve seen in a while. 

Thanks @mercer comments and opinions about one's  work are always very appreciated! ?

6 hours ago, Sage said:

Its true though, that there is a lot that goes into the magic of a cinematic image. I've seen some visually terrible Alexa films shared on forums; those were funny and eye-opening, because they reveal that the Alexa can only do so much for a production.

That's the real magic of making films and other stuff, you have know how to put all the elements together, pretty images are only that... pretty images.

I have shoot a feature during 3 years with a Nikon D7100 and D5300, and also a couple of super 16mm cans (Fuji Eterna); and I'm pretty satisfied with how the film end up looking. But It's also the hole production value that's in there that make the film look nice, not only the camera.

I think what you have made with this luts is great, it' just give some really nice color to the GH5, and i'm not really that picky if it's 110% accurate, for me it's just works.

1 hour ago, Sage said:

I like it! Did you use Arri's Rec 709?

I tried different methods, in this used Filmconvert for Arri Log-C

Hi everybody. I just want to share a frame of a mini test i did.

I used the Daylight LUT and converted to Arri LOG-C. The Skintones are incredible!

Damn I'm looking good! 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

"...There’s something going on in the blacks by the way, with custom Picture Profiles. With a lot of the third party film profiles that have a raised black level, it reveals quite a lot of fixed pattern noise and even a split down the middle of the sensor as if there’s two sensors stitched together. You don’t notice it with the built in picture profiles though or when the scene is normally exposed. I’m going to see if there is a workaround. It is something the other Canons do not have. Is it a bug? Possibly."

That's funny because it sound like a similar problem i have found in my GH5 a few month ago. 

I have made a post about it but almost nobody saw it. I have tried two gh5 bodys and they do the same.

5 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

This is what I mean by depth: if you would film this with a smaller sensor and place the camera in the exact same place and try to have the same frame you would have to use a different lens, maybe a 1000mm, then the plane wouldn't look so close to the actors. 

 

Yes, you have to change the lens, and that is why you use crop factor. But the camera stays in the same place and perspective wont change.

9 hours ago, blondini said:

I disagree about this. From what I understand, a 17mm lens is always a 17mm lens, even if it's fast and you crop it's field of view to correspond to the same field of view and DoF as a full frame 35mm lens. The way the lens renders perspective is still like a 17mm lens, which is a result of its focal length, not the field of view or the DoF. That's my understanding and I always feel that when I swap between shooting on my full frame 5D and, say an Arri (Super 35 sensor). By that I mean, a 32 or 35mm lens on an arri never truly feels the way a 50mm on my 5d does. A 50 on the arri feels like a 50 even though the field of view is different than my 5d (more like a 75 -80mm). It renders space flatter, focus falls off quickly in the way a 50 does. Different fields of view or DoF achieved with different sized sensors doesn't change the way a 50mm lens renders perspective. As I understand it.

I agree in part with this, but what you are talking is distortion, and not perspective. Perspective is the relation of objects in a space, that is affected buy the placement of camera. 

The distortion can happen, but i agree only in part because it depend in lot of factors as lens design, manufacture, the year and style of the lens. Remember that the classic anamorphics of the 70's has a lot of distortion compared to modern one, they look some more like wide lenses in some cases, even a 50mm.

The example of your 50mm is not that valid because a 50mm in Medium format its wide, and looks like a 30mm, obviously with the same DOF of the 50mm. 

6 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

There is some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm wides the space twice as much, this is almost not noticeable in many cases because. Also, a 17mm will have more distortion especially when you are close to the lens, and also focus will be easier on the 35mm 2.0 than on a 17.5 at 0.95 .  

I don't bite on this classic argument. Perspective doesn't change (at least it shouldn't) because the camera is set at the same distance, that's why you use crop factor for measurement.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nice find. Have you also tried their Nikon F mount for Sony E-mount adapter? Curious to see what the AF is like on that.

Nope, i have a variety of Old Nikon glass, unfortunately using those in this adapter, the EF electronic connectors get in the way of the Nikon aperture pins. But i also use a Zonghy Lens turbo II, which it also is nice.

57 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

As far as that goes, I used to shoot FD lenses on a cheap $100 Chinese speedbooster.  I always liked the look.  Clean but not pristine.  If you want to get away from the "digital" look, that could be one ingredient in the recipe; worked for me.  For those of you shooting manual glass it's an inexpensive way to go, FWIW.

I know, I have a lot of old manual glass. But i prefer using good optics in the adapters so it doesn't change the rendering of those.