JazzBox

Yes but are you wanting something to look like it's shot on film or to look cinematic.
Those are different goals in my view.  Seinfeld was shot on 35mm.  But it's not cinematic.
By pointing to lensing, lighting and staging, I was trying to say indirectly it's not really the "camera" or the film look recipe you have in post.  All that stuff happens before the image is captured.  It's mise en scene.  It's an important part of these discussions that always seems to get left out.
The tech stuff can help, but in my view, the objects you shoot, the lens you choose to shoot them with, where you put the camera and how you light them and how those elements iteract all matter a lot more than any magic bullet (pun intended) you think you can have in post to emulate that look.  And in order for the post film look recipes to work, you need a camera with high dynamic range and high bit depth. Which is why I mention those elements next.  Even when you have a scene that appears to have low DR, film has a way of rolling off highlights that you can emulate if you have the DR to do it.  So you take your 14 stop original, crush it to fit into the 8 stop TV you're looking at and jam the extra stops into the highlights to give you a softer roll off.  And in swinging the grade around a high bit depth stops the image from breaking down and looking blocky and digital.
Film has always been not that great by any technical measure, but it's always something we try to emulate.  So far I haven't seen anything that matches the way grain size changes with exposure though for example.  Film grain size gets tends to get smaller or tighter as it goes towards clipping and larger when it's underexposed. In the same image you have different sized grain depending on where it sits on the exposure curve.   That's hard to emulate in an image in a way that's realistic (as a match) because we're often mapping a much higher DR from the camera to a lower display DR.
The colour fidelity is also something that's hard to describe.  No one ever publishes the colour response of their sensors, but film still has the edge. And yeah, just because they have a file that's labeled REC 2020 doesn't mean that file has 2020 worth of info.  Again a higher bit depth image means you can stretch the colour information out a bit before it breaks down.
You're also confusing display technology with capture technology. 
Just because you tube displays in 8 bit 264, doesn't mean that's all you need for capture.  SD tv for many years had a mix of 35mm and electronic cameras.  There was always an easy distinction to make on the camera acquisition despite the fact the resolution was the same for both acquisition technologies.  Super-sampling has been happening since the beginning and is always going to trickle down to lessor display mediums.  Otherwise you'd be happy with what your iPhone shoots right ?  Don't fall for that trick. Compression factors here too in this, but this is a different conversation.
JB
 
 

Like cooking, need to bake the footage ; ) Like love, a plant needs lot of care. Like life, stomach won't fill up with water nor alcohol all the time. Neither love. Filmmaking is not love making but certain rules apply ;-)
Sorry for so strikingly technical reply... :-))

I don't think that's it.  It is important to differentiate between what looks "filmic"/"cinematic" and what looks like it was shot with film.
 
Consider this home movie and this home movie.  In regards to lighting, lensing and staging, there is nothing particularly filmic/cinematic about these home movies, but both of them were unmistakeably shot on film.
 
Also, the dynamic range of the stock was probably equivalent to a 7 1/2 stop or less capture range.  Just before digital took over, negative stock was generally rated at only 7 1/2 to 8 1/2 stops capture range, with normal processing.  So, the technical capture range of today's pro and prosumer cameras is greater than film stocks.
 
Furthermore, those home movies are channeled through 8-bit, YouTube pipes, so the bit depth of what we are viewing is only 8-bits, yet the footage is obviously captured on film.
 
It's something else... a combination of variables that can be quantified for the most part.  The Filmlook people and Eddie Barber (with his Vilm camera) were early pioneers in making video look like film, and they evidently did a thorough analysis of the variables involved.  I never used Filmlook but I did shoot with the Vilm camera, and I was able to glean a little on how it is done.

Maybe a film out? I believe this was done with Birdman....or on lower budget films maybe a subtle simulated gateweave with a touch of motionblur applied pre grain might help?   

Post production can help indeed.

You know Simo, as someone said, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts... ; )
Saluti e Buon Anno,
E :-)

There is something in big production movies, especially in american comedies, that to me it is "cinema" at first sight, at least in my definition of "classic" cinema.
I don't really know what it is: of course it is a sum of great actors, great directors, great DOP, amazing locations, set design and costumes, great audio, wonderful camera with great DR and colors... 

But there is something "magical" that to my eyes is not really understandable: sometime it seems like a subtle slow motion - I'm not talking about 24p/180° - I mean like the movements are different from my footage. 

I thought a lot about it: maybe it is something about reducing sharpening/resolution and the color grading? Maybe it is the choice of framing with longer lens and letting the subject floating on the scene? But movies like Birdman are super cinematic and they have not a shallow DOF...  And I can see this difference in movies shot with the same "cheap" cameras or dslr that are videoish in smaller production such as music video... 
I mean "La Vie d'Adèle" (Blue Is the Warmest Colour) is shot with a Canon C300, not an ARRI. And it has this magic "motion". I don't really understand what it is... For sure I can shoot 24p 180° with Lumix, Canon, BlackMagic and my footage is nice, but I am not able to reproduce that magic motion I see in the movies.

If you have any suggestion, please share it  

I also noticed more cinematic motion cadence with the BMPCC and GH4 shooting at true 24.00p with 180 degree shutter opposed to 23.976 and 1/50th shutter, especially using All-I.

Latitude to begin with, for pixel peepers we all are.
But, also resolution in the past old days, motion, progressive versus interlaced was determinant to arrive where digital has placed the motion pictures to pair with a cinematic feeling marked for over more than a century of 35mm format experience.
When there is the absence of artifacts, of course. Even though, rolling shutter, as for instance, can be acceptable within certain limits.
Color sampling for vivid imaging, DOF (not necessarily shallow DOF all the time), framing where perspective, composition and accurate movement of camera are mandatory for creating the idea of POV as primary aesthetic requirement of filmmaking. Last but not least, production design for sure.
In two words, it means space and time. Reason why when we talk about motion, slow motion is much appreciated by the film audiences comprehending an effective way of going towards the suspension of disbelief.
E :-)

Somewhat off-topic. I grew up with film, shot in Super 8 since I was 8, a pun I was aware of at my birthday, life-determing, my Rosebud. I shot 16mm B&W and developed the footage myself. I was a projectionist for many years, it's like my pulse is tuned to 24p ... - but I never understood what is meant by motion cadence (not a language issue, in german it's Kadenz). But I see that there is something special about jonpais' shots. I think you partly nailed it down by "chilled" and "slow motion".
;-)))
Or that asians generally radiate more patience than Europeans or Americans. And that jonpais reacted to that in his static tripod shots. He observes patiently.
 Too cryptic. I quote my favorite director, who put it more simply: If I know WHAT I'm shooting, I know HOW to shoot it. jonpais portraits people, they are his subject. If I shoot action, the natural impulse is to follow it, "track" it.
On-topic again: what is all this stuff about in-camera-stabilization, Dual-IS and so forth? Yes, I understand that with the FoV of a 50mm on MFT it's more difficult to shoot handheld. But then, these techniques didn't exist before and people managed to hold their cameras steadily nonetheless. It's a matter of an ergonomic rig and training. No?

Always remember to download each and every OSX update. Don't install, just download it and then trash it. You're then gonna find it in your App Store archive.

Found it easily on german appstore.
You have to read this and scroll down, then you will be relocated to your local appstore.

I'll start with this, because it's the most important aspect of your request. Your late 2013 iMac is not considered vintage. Until July I had a 2009 MP (vintage) and it did exactly the same things my late 2015 (no newer model exists) 5k iMac does. Was just laggy with non-optimized 4k. There are two things you shouldn't confuse: performance  and the general ability to playback files. The latter may have to do with being up-to-date software-wise. That your Mac accepts ProRes 10-bit means nothing. Every Mac since 2006 plays them, my old office iMac does it. OSX (now called MacOS) monitors 10-bit as such since only recently (before, it was rendered in 10-bit, but monitored in 8-bit, you had to use 3d-party-hardware to feed a 10-bit monitor). You'd need at least El Capitan. Better update to Sierra and 10.3.1. Make a clean install, don't install Perian or old plugins. You are right, you need to preview footage before import!
FCP X uses every trick one can think of to better your performance. You can edit 4k on an entry level MB with weak CPU and GPU by allowing those tricks. One of these tricks is optimized media. It is space-consuming (your iMac has Thunderbolt? Get external TB drives! If you only have TB1, you could by a used Pegasus raid with 8 or more TB for below 500 bucks) but not time-consuming at all. I know because I've been doing it for years. As long as you have a preview of the original codec, the transcoding runs in the background, you just notice that an hour or so later the skimmer speed improves. You can also use proxy. They have a quarter resolution (UHD becomes FHD) - a no-brainer if you don't monitor in 4k or if your export goal was FHD. And the 'workflow' is just a toggle between show proxy and show original. There is no catch. No problems have ever been reported (aside from having forgotten to switch to original/optimized prior to export, but that's not FCP X's fault).
As I've written a few pages earlier, my i7 4GHz 4GB iMac plays all files. But they are short and just a few. And frame skipping occurs (one of the said tricks to not stop playback, but no realtime in the strict sense). If I had to edit a project with hundreds of GH5 clips, I would immediately check the optimized media box or proxy. If I had limited space (I haven't: buy more!), I'd preview the clips and only copy those I needed. So don't be stubborn.

The i5 processor doesn't use Quicksync (mpeg4 hardware de- and encoding). You should use optimized media (also for Resolve, if you plan to use that).
That's why I asked for some standard profile comparisons some pages ago. 
Very subtle.

Exactly.
One could be an absolutely brilliant filmmaker but produce dreadful colour from LOG footage, it takes years to learn how to be a good colourist. It's really a separate job altogether OR another thing to learn and to hope and pray you have talent for. Then there's the fact that all displays are different and you could be getting one thing on yours and people will be seeing quite another thing. I cannot believe for example that one of the guys on this thread really wanted to put saturation to the levels he did!! Must be something else going on.
This is partly why I came up with EOSHD Pro Color to sort things out so that they only require tiny, simple changes in post to get the most out of the sensor. V-LOG is nice and all that but it so often goes horribly wrong - just like S-LOG.

Yes it will have 5 axis even with old glass (unlike Sony u only get 3 axis with manual lens), just if u use compatible Panasonic lens it will get Dual IS 2 which is even more stable

Ciao!

This is a music video I shot with GH4 and G7 (both with Natural profile, saturation -5, contrast -5).
I shot it very quickly: two afternoon and an evening, one week between the 2 days of shooting and in that time I sold the GH4, so the second day of shooting was with the G7.

I shot all handheld without shoulder rig except for a part of the indoor shot with the voodoo witch, where I used a tripod while she mix the potion.
The drone scenes are shot on DJI Phantom 3 Professional (not mine, we called a pilot), which is a little too "digital" for my taste. 

I used Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic and I'm really happy about the skin tones and the overall colors. I also used FilmConvert's Kodak Vision3 5207 with grain 20%.

Thank you Andrew

p.s.: can you spot which is the GH4 and which is the G7?  
 
 

Thank you very much!
I used the strap only on the first couple of shots.
For the one at 0:10 I tried to use the straps to simulate the Wing ( https://www.edelkrone.com/eu/p/187/wing ). The Olympus 12-40 was on 40mm.
For the shot at 0:13 I started very high with the camera and I went down on my knees, the lens was set to 12mm, in order to have more parallax. Of course I had to try 4 or 5 times in order to have a decent shot that during the editing I had to stabilize (and crop) a little. 

Some shots were with tripod: the voodoo-witch indoor (but not the OTS shot indoor, that were handheld), the dancing, the curly girl when in close up and some wide shots.

On some shots I just put the camera down to the ground.

All the rest was totally handheld with no strap, especially the playback that was shot very quickly and very shaky on purpose.

For the playback I took the camera in my hands, the right hand on the G7 grip, the left hand on the lens (the Olympus 12-40, on 25mm for the wide shot, on 40mm for the close up) for pulling focus.  

The other lens were the CY Zeiss 80-200 f/4 (for the curly girl's close up, for a couple of guy's walking and for the dancing), the CY Zeiss 35 f/2.8 for the medium shot of the voodoo-witch, the CY Zeiss 50 f/1.7 for the indoor close up and OTS, all always at the widest aperture possible.  

All the rest (playback, walking etc...) was the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8, mostly at 25mm and 40mm. 

For the playback I used an HOYA Pro ND 16.

The video was shot very quickly, so I had no time to setup follow focus, cages, stabilizer etc..

(I had a mini-gimbal some months ago, it was quite good but 99% of the time I had no time to balance it so I sold it. After some research I tried an Ikan Beholder DS-1 which I did not like at all, a super nice Zhiyun Crane - great, but no assistance in Italy, so I did not buy it - and now I've bought a FlyCam HD300 with vest, but it arrived las week).

Anyway for music video with super low budget like this one I prefer to work with some technical limitations (no follow focus, no external monitor, no rigs), mostly handheld to be as mobile and as quick as possible, in order to spend all the time trying to achieve a nice framing and lighting. 

The cuts in editing are quite fast, so the handheld look it is not too disturbing to me  

For any questions just ask, I'm here  


 

Thank you very much!
I used the strap only on the first couple of shots.
For the one at 0:10 I tried to use the straps to simulate the Wing ( https://www.edelkrone.com/eu/p/187/wing ). The Olympus 12-40 was on 40mm.
For the shot at 0:13 I started very high with the camera and I went down on my knees, the lens was set to 12mm, in order to have more parallax. Of course I had to try 4 or 5 times in order to have a decent shot that during the editing I had to stabilize (and crop) a little. 

Some shots were with tripod: the voodoo-witch indoor (but not the OTS shot indoor, that were handheld), the dancing, the curly girl when in close up and some wide shots.

On some shots I just put the camera down to the ground.

All the rest was totally handheld with no strap, especially the playback that was shot very quickly and very shaky on purpose.

For the playback I took the camera in my hands, the right hand on the G7 grip, the left hand on the lens (the Olympus 12-40, on 25mm for the wide shot, on 40mm for the close up) for pulling focus.  

The other lens were the CY Zeiss 80-200 f/4 (for the curly girl's close up, for a couple of guy's walking and for the dancing), the CY Zeiss 35 f/2.8 for the medium shot of the voodoo-witch, the CY Zeiss 50 f/1.7 for the indoor close up and OTS, all always at the widest aperture possible.  

All the rest (playback, walking etc...) was the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8, mostly at 25mm and 40mm. 

For the playback I used an HOYA Pro ND 16.

The video was shot very quickly, so I had no time to setup follow focus, cages, stabilizer etc..

(I had a mini-gimbal some months ago, it was quite good but 99% of the time I had no time to balance it so I sold it. After some research I tried an Ikan Beholder DS-1 which I did not like at all, a super nice Zhiyun Crane - great, but no assistance in Italy, so I did not buy it - and now I've bought a FlyCam HD300 with vest, but it arrived las week).

Anyway for music video with super low budget like this one I prefer to work with some technical limitations (no follow focus, no external monitor, no rigs), mostly handheld to be as mobile and as quick as possible, in order to spend all the time trying to achieve a nice framing and lighting. 

The cuts in editing are quite fast, so the handheld look it is not too disturbing to me  

For any questions just ask, I'm here  


 

This video looks soo good man. On the handheld technique...did you use a strap to balance it out with your neck or literally just hands close to the body? Or another method?

Thank you very much!  I'll tell your kind words to the artist!

Such a good video and song - very well done!

Ciao!

This is a music video I shot with GH4 and G7 (both with Natural profile, saturation -5, contrast -5).
I shot it very quickly: two afternoon and an evening, one week between the 2 days of shooting and in that time I sold the GH4, so the second day of shooting was with the G7.

I shot all handheld without shoulder rig except for a part of the indoor shot with the voodoo witch, where I used a tripod while she mix the potion.
The drone scenes are shot on DJI Phantom 3 Professional (not mine, we called a pilot), which is a little too "digital" for my taste. 

I used Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic and I'm really happy about the skin tones and the overall colors. I also used FilmConvert's Kodak Vision3 5207 with grain 20%.

Thank you Andrew

p.s.: can you spot which is the GH4 and which is the G7?  
 
 

I shot that video a couple of week ago, but I'm going to set the contrast as you suggest in the guide, because the colors you gave us are AWESOME, so I want to record the best file possible in order to process it with your color science!

I think that it is just crazy not using your profile: hours of work for getting right skin tones in 1 click!  

 
No
Artist playing guitar, indoor scene and night scene are G7.
All the rest (walking in the nature, girl, dancing etc..) is GH4  

Ciao!

This is a music video I shot with GH4 and G7 (both with Natural profile, saturation -5, contrast -5).
I shot it very quickly: two afternoon and an evening, one week between the 2 days of shooting and in that time I sold the GH4, so the second day of shooting was with the G7.

I shot all handheld without shoulder rig except for a part of the indoor shot with the voodoo witch, where I used a tripod while she mix the potion.
The drone scenes are shot on DJI Phantom 3 Professional (not mine, we called a pilot), which is a little too "digital" for my taste. 

I used Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic and I'm really happy about the skin tones and the overall colors. I also used FilmConvert's Kodak Vision3 5207 with grain 20%.

Thank you Andrew

p.s.: can you spot which is the GH4 and which is the G7?