hyalinejim

I've had a bunch of fun with 35mm film camera bodies, a few rolls of film and my existing lens collection. Started with Olympus OM bodies that I used my manual focus Zuiko's on. Also shot a bunch on Canon EOS bodies with EF lenses. This is autofocus, auto everything, if you want it. Everyone has a Canon lens lying around, right? Give it a go! It's loads of fun. You can still get a crappy Canon for almost nothing. Check out the specs at: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=camera&s=film&s2=eos&a=E&sort=new

I was thinking of a constant correction that you could just apply to all clips and forget about it. For my GH5 I use a lut I made that mimics Portra 400 film. It works fine on the S1 too as long as the input is V-Log V-gamut in a Rec709 colour space. It's quite contrasty so the signal might need adjusting before the lut to bring the image within range (grading should be done on the VLog signal before the lut, not after). But skintones should be very nice: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WC3uiROs7-088UeBHwPpwPLQxsuzZPju/view?usp=sharing

Three major variables (there are others) that affect and explain how and why a given film stock looks different under different circumstances 1. Exposure. Under or over exposure will change the look significantly. Contrast and colour are not linear with regard to exposure. 2. Freshness of the film. Expired film will look underexposed. 3. How it's scanned. This is essentially taking a digital photograph of a piece of celluloid. Different scanners give different results. Brightness, contrast, saturation and white balance can be altered. If these variables are held constant

@zerocool22 have you tried adjusting skintone hue in the hue vs. hue control in resolve? If you create 3 anchor points, one on skin tone hue and 2 on either side of it and then just pull the middle point a bit towards green that might be a quick fix, assuming that you're happy with everything else in the conversion.

I agree with all of your post, but I have found that film's colours are generally less true to life than contemporary digital video. Absolutely agree. I often blur photos, particularly if I add grain. Otherwise it doesn't look right.

Yes, the default conversion from V gamut to Rec709 makes skintones a bit red. This is the way Panasonic designed it, unfortunately.

It does if you shoot VLog But you have to convert your lut to a specific file type. I think LutCalc can do it, but I might be mis-remembering.

Before you invest in a Sony or Canon (which is recommended for better autofocus) it's worth trying a couple of things with the GH5 to see if the autofocus behaviour improves: 1. Update to the latest firmware as AF behaviour has been improved, slightly 2. Shoot at 60 or 50 frames per second (60p or 50p) instead of 30p or 25p 3. Experiment with AF speed and sensitivity in the AF menu 4. Make sure focus mode is set to "continuous" You might need to consult the manual to figure out how to do some or all of these things.

One of the huge advantages of working within ACES is that gaps between stops are equally spaced. Each stop is the same distance apart on the waveform. So it's truly logarithmic (conventional log curves have a significant toe in the shadows) - each doubling of light results in a boost of the same number of IRE units. This makes it incredibly easy to colour correct as any effect that globally affects the waveform will correct your footage as if you were making adjustments to linear RAW data. Here's twelve stops of VLog-L straight out of the camera: And here's that same step w

I also do a lot of run and gun type stuff and don't have time to be faffing about with getting perfect exposure. I take a glance at the exposure meter (with the camera pointed towards the ground rather than the sky), the zebras (set to 80 so I can see what's actually clipping in the file) and sometimes I switch on the waveform for a quick look at that. And I also base a decision on the LCD or viewfinder (it's quite easy to see if things are overexposed but underexposed can still look fine, so it can be misleading). So I end up with a variety of exposure levels but I'm usually within one s

So if you expose that chip so it sits at 42 IRE on the in-camera waveform for VLog-L then that should be the technically correct exposure. Then you can note where the relevant skin tone chips fall on the waveform, and switch over to HLG to cross reference the values. That said, I've found that using an 18% grey reflective target as a guide to exposure gives varying results, for a few reasons. Firstly, the angle you hold the chart at in relation to the light source will raise or lower the brightness of the grey patch quite a bit. Say you've got one key light at 45 degrees above a

I don't know for sure, but if X Rite says that the second large chip is "40 IRE" then surely it must be 18% grey.

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I keep running out of time to make edits To illustrate my points about contrast, the only difference in this comparison is the RGB curve. Here's Adobe Standard with linear curve from ACR: And here's the same shot with a Fuji 400H box speed curve applied so that middle grey remains middle grey. Watch what happens with the shadows and notice highlight roll off on skin is softer: (The shadows are also warmer, but that's just the nature of the shadow colour cast for that particular film stock).

And I think this is one of the ingredients in "image thickness"... but probably not the only one. Anyway, a very interesting discussion with some great examples and a lot to think about here. Another difference I've noticed between film and digital (photos) is that the contrast curve tends to be different. Film has more contrast in the shadows and less in the highlights compared to digital. This makes sense when you consider that film has about four stops under middle grey when shot at box speed, and many more above. For digital it's the opposite: about four stops above middle grey (it va

The situation with film is complex, as so many things in life are. From my tests, the midtones of a scene shot on negative film are most saturated when exposed at +1 or +2 above box speed, and then brought within range when scanning. Nevertheless and regardless of under or overexposure, a comparison of the same scene shot on film and digital will show that the film has more saturated shadows and more desaturated highlights than the digital, when the contrast of the digital is made to match the film scan and when the global saturation of the digital is altered so that midtone saturation matches