The Aesthetic (part 2)

[maxJ4380]

I thought i was the only one who had to deal with windy days...

I suspect that the gustiness of the wind on the day, might be causing some issues with the cadence ? things seem to jump around a bit, not that the the g7 should have any cadence issues but rather the gustiness is making it look like that. I also suspect that the edit points dont help the issue either. Just seems to make it more apparent. Obviously its a test and your not trying to tell a story, however the jumpiness is a bit distracting.  For me anyway.

As to softening I think it looks ok from here, from what little i know... personally i'm still working out some of the ground rules for a look i like. I think your much further along the road to where i am at. In fact the last project i did went the other way and i was sharpening ever so slightly. So there you go. Hopefully some of the more experienced people can be more insightful.

[EduPortas]

On 7/25/2025 at 12:24 AM, kye said:

Wow, "too clean" wasn't a reaction I anticipated!!

Yes, it was 24p (well, 23.976p anyway).

I don't think I've heard of shooting a little slower to give a more filmic cadence - interesting idea and one I will absolutely try.  I'm not sure how I would actually shoot at that speed, as I don't know which of my cameras would offer that option, but as a test I could just slow some of the above 24p plant footage down as plants moving slightly slower in the wind is a thing that happens so shouldn't be too surreal.  I've slowed 30p cameras down to 24p, which is a 20% speed reduction and noticeable, which would be about the same for slowing 24p down to 20p.

I am yet to really study that test I posted, but my initial impressions were that while it looked like film, it didn't have that certain something I'm looking for.  What I'm looking for I can't describe, but it's sort-of the opposite of that "video look" of shooting 60p with sharp lenses and with accurate colour science and proper WB.

Thanks for the detailed answer. 

You're right, only the more advanced videocameras will allow to you record at different fps, either higher or lower than 24fps (8, 12, 18, for example). Not sure about your GH7, though.

But as you mentioned, you can play around with a lower shutter speed to break the 180º rule. Try 40 or 30 instead of the usual 48 or 50 and see what happens. Can't lose anything for trying, right?

I don't mean to be rude, but it's hard to make innanimate objects feel "cinematic". We'd get a much better feel of the cinematic vs. video aesthetic you mention by recording human movement. 

 

 

[kye]

10 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

Thanks for the detailed answer. 

You're right, only the more advanced videocameras will allow to you record at different fps, either higher or lower than 24fps (8, 12, 18, for example). Not sure about your GH7, though.

But as you mentioned, you can play around with a lower shutter speed to break the 180º rule. Try 40 or 30 instead of the usual 48 or 50 and see what happens. Can't lose anything for trying, right?

I don't mean to be rude, but it's hard to make innanimate objects feel "cinematic". We'd get a much better feel of the cinematic vs. video aesthetic you mention by recording human movement. 

I've had an initial look at the test I shot that compared shutter speeds, including longer exposure times than 180-degrees as you suggest, but didn't really notice any improvement there.  Maybe there is and I'm just not sensitive to it, but it's not what I'm sensing.

I absolutely agree that human movement is better, but I don't have any volunteers handy that don't mind being published on the open internet, so unfortunately that isn't something I can easily do.

I edited up my other test of the four-camera setup and that didn't yield any joy either.  That test included lots of camera movement as well as subject movement and so I probably would have noticed if there were significant differences, so not noticing any is probably a good thing because it means that the camera isn't the answer.

I was beginning to wonder if I wasn't viewing things objectively, but then I randomly fired up The Bourne Supremacy and it auto-resumed to some random timestamp and within seconds delivered these two frames, which have it in spades.

I'm now convinced I'm not chasing a ghost, so that's positive.

I think I've been struggling because I've been conflating the look I've been chasing with the fact that I have mostly witnessed it on movies shot on film, so I've perhaps paid too much attention to sharpness and grain and not enough on other aspects of the image.  The fact that I haven't seen anything above about 2K projected until very very recently probably also plays into it.

Recently I've sourced some higher quality reference materials and have found examples that contain the look but are also higher resolution.  These are all 4K so be sure to open the full resolution file, not just viewing the highly-compressed preview image the forum shows.  

I will be studying these as my next area of focus.

At the very least, I'm eliminating things that it isn't, and that's progress of a sort.

My anamorphic adapter has finally left China so I think that'll be the next round of tests.  Now I've eliminated the camera body as the source of the look I can venture out and hopefully capture some footage with people in it, but it's very wet here right now so we'll have to see.

[EduPortas]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

At the very least, I'm eliminating things that it isn't, and that's progress of a sort.

Well, that's something.

It's clear that key and fill lights are the main differences between all the high-quality movies you mentioned and your samples. Hours upon hours go into the cinema aestehtic so it will be very hard to replicate via YT without the proper means. Add some very good actors and the bar stands incredibly high.

Ever shot with older tape-based digital cams? Maybe you'll get some better results with a different media altogether. Newer sensors are just too clean.