kye

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!

This seems to sum up a lot of the variables in this whole topic.

Sorry to hear all that - life can be rough sometimes. Great mood piece - the sunset shots were spectacular and colours like that are very difficult to capture so well done!

That looks like a very good lens, and for the money looks like a fantastic bargain! For reference here's it's MTF chart: and here's one of its competitors: and take note that the Laowa is plotting 20lp/mm and 60lp/mm. And for reference, here's the 35mm Veydra absolutely destroying a 35mm CP.2 (the coloured range is MFT coverage) to give you a reference about what great performance is: Anyway, there's more to lenses than resolution, but that's a pretty good initial indicator! Geez, the Meike primes look a fantastic value after the pricing of the Veydras, and now this looks to raise the bar significantly yet again!

Great stuff and congratulations!! Let's hope there are many more and that the process gets easier and faster each time!

Great stuff.. and gives me subject matter ideas

Just playing with an idea.... Taking the concepts of resolution and micro-contrast and trying to emulate them in post. This is an attempt to match the look of the Zeiss SS at T1.3 with the Xeen at T4 (one of the sharpest most clinical looking images). Obviously there is no match for the aperture, but in terms of skin softness / naturalness I wonder how well you think I closed the gap? You'll have to zoom to the full images for this one. Zeiss SS at T1.3: My grade: Original Xeen at T4 image: Even if I only got the image half-way that would still mean there's a huge ability to degrade images in post to match between lenses (and different apertures of the same lenses) in any sensibly chosen set.

What people say about the aesthetics of lenses. Starting with the lenses that had more character and less sharpness. Super Speeds: The super speeds are crisp at a 2/2.8 split without being clinical, allowing us to forgo any diffusion in front of the lens. We tested several sets of modern and vintage lenses that all opened up to at least a T1.4. Ultimately, we landed on the Zeiss Super Speeds because they had a cooler, less saturated color rendition and a softer contrast when shooting wide open. I remember when Super Speeds were the cheap lenses, I’d use the Panavision zooms and add a set of Super Speeds because back then they were cheap. Now everybody wants them because they are a little flawed and we want to make this digital cinema look more human. It’s all about the glass today. (talking about Zeiss Masterprimes) BUT: They have no personality, an ugly flare and are ridiculous large. All these things can my Super Speeds much better. Especially the flare is second to none. They are softer wide open (t1.3) but get just as sharp as Ultra Primes at 2.8 and up. They are still decently sharp wide open, just give a smoother appearance rather than crisp. Skin looks many times better on Super Speeds. On a 5K chip, the SSpeeds even wide open deliver an awesome look, almost like all the "defects" are perfectly rendered, thus making them sem alive. The wide-open look that Matt describes is particularly charming, since it combines a slight softening with lower contrast and highlight blooming. Best of all, the effect is somewhat variable between wide open and 2.8, so you have a bit of control if you can light to a certain stop. Cooke S4: We chose Cooke S4s because of their softer attributes and warmer skin tone Well, it's not so much the image being softer, it's the way things go smoothly out with S4 lenses. The play of light and the roundness of its quality, bokeh, the way a lens renders the human face, are all more important from my own personal point of view. The S4s are plenty sharp when they stand on their own, and render a very rich and complex image. I just like the Cooke lenses because they're very sharp, but feel very natural. I like the way they work on faces. they have a softness to them and I think it’s very important with digital cameras not to let the image get too sharp. The other thing is that the Cookes don’t flare very much and we had a lot of practical lights in shot, so they worked very well with our sets chose the Cooke S4s because they are "gentler" than other lenses. I decided on the Cooke S4s because of our multi-racial cast, and the warmth I knew the lenses would bring to their rich skin tones. I couldn't find anyone saying good things about the Xeens. Master Anamorphics: However, once we were on set I could only use the Master Anamorphics because they were so pin-sharp, perfectly straight and square – all the way to the corners – that it was impossible to match them with the other brand. I'm a huge fan of the Master Anamorphics because they don't really look like anamorphics but they have that anamorphic aspect ratio. And they also are one of the fastest anamorphics, you can actually shoot them wide open and still be reasonably sharp. I’m leaving out the Master Anamorphics because those are so clean and crisp it almost defeats the point of shooting anamorphic imo Other comments of note: Yes, in many ways, what's nice about the modern primes is not their sharpness or flare-prevention, it's the fact that they MATCH each other in a set so well, compared to older lens sets which are a lot more quirky in terms of matching in color, contrast, and performance. Hence why I'd be happy to shoot either Primos, Cooke S4's, or Zeiss UltraPrimes.

This leads me to wonder what happens if we look at a Tiffen Black Pro Mist. Observations: No real loss of fine detail (even though I played with it trying to show up the differences), even with the BPM2 It only seems to act on the sharp edges with very high contrast like the edges of the light globe, and edges of the text on the slate. It's also slightly visible on the edges of the colour chart squares. I guess this confirms that it spreads light but doesn't blur, so you'll get less micro-contrast but not zero micro-contrast (which is what blurring is). In theory they're the same, but the similarity is so slight I couldn't really highlight it. I think this, combined with the last post about the lenses, confirms (or at least supports) the idea that the perceived softness of filters like BPM and the famous Zeiss T* are almost independent of resolution, so you can have a lens that looks soft but is also high resolution.

I've had a few, I get bored then move on and it either sits there dead or some technical aspect annoys me (like moderating comments) and so I take it down. Here I figure I can do the same thing but it can remain available for the long-term. Plus if Andrew gets a few hits to the site out of it then that's a side-benefit and helps me give a little back for his work in creating this thing in the first place. Anyway, mid-level detail. This is the same thing, only I'm comparing one copy of the image blurred at a fine-level of detail to another copy blurred to a larger level of detail, so the differences should only be medium-sized details. Observations: Lots less difference between lenses when they're wide-open and stopped-down, which makes sense Dog Schidt, CN-E, Zeiss SS, and Master Prime are all a bit less when wide-open, but the Dog Schidt is really the one with the lowest contrast (even when it's T2 wide open and the Master Prime and SS are T1.3). I think this is an interesting thing because we might be measuring the contrast amount impacted by coatings. Apart from the Dog Schidt and Cooke Anamorphic all lenses seem to be pretty equal at T4. I kind of adjusted this to try and see differences between the lenses with less contrast / vintage look and the more modern ones, but it's fairly subtle.

Fine detail. The method to generate these images is as following: I put each image on the timeline I copied the whole track to a second track, so now every image has a second copy of itself on top I changed the blend mode on the top ones to Difference so now it only shows what is different - black is no difference, white is maximum difference I then blurred the top image with a very small radius blur Then over the top of the whole lot I boosted the brightness hugely in order to make the differences visible What this will do is if there is an image with very few fine details then a blur will do very little and will therefore show very little difference, whereas if there is fine detail that gets blurred that will show a large difference and will be highlighted. You will note that the background is black in all shots (with the exception of the edges of the bokeh which is sharp on many lenses) and that's because the background is out of focus. Conveniently, it also shows us the lens and aperture Images: Observations: Many of the lenses show very little fine detail when wide-open. We should be careful comparing them as their maximum apertures are all different, but it's an interesting thing. The Master Anamorphic is interesting because it shows some fine-detail when wide-open and not so much at T4, so it's a more consistent performer, unlike the CP.2 which has a significantly different level of detail when stopped down. The Cooke Anamorphic is also on the more consistent end of the spectrum. The Dog Schidt (Helios with coatings removed) remains at the lower end even when stopped down, although the focal plane appears to be slightly further back on the T4 so take that into account. The Cooke S4 on the other hand is at the sharper end of the spectrum both at T2 and T4.