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.

[kye]

I guess to get the cinema look you have to do everything that feature films do, because if things didn't contribute to it somehow then they wouldn't be doing those things, so that makes sense.

Whatever part of the look I'm chasing doesn't seem to require lights or even diffusion though, as demonstrated with the below video from Gawx:

and to a slightly lesser extent, this one:

Even this one still doesn't trigger my "amateur video" gag-reflex despite having many ultra-wide hand-held moving shots:

They all seem to have this incredible texture and feel to them.

In other news....

[kye]

Sirui first light....

I'm not 100% sure I've done everything correctly, so take these with a pinch of salt.  Also, the Sirui has a vND on it but the normal shots don't, so that might account for the WB and polarisation differences.

The advice I heard was to set the taking lens to infinity and then focus with the adapter (single focus setup) but the AF on the taking lens seems to work just fine and Uncle ChatGPT says that setting the taking lens to infinity is more likely to be an optimal setting rather than the only setting that will work.

Here's a shot where I set the adapter to minimum focus and then focused closer with the taking lens..  I don't think it's properly focused though, and the bokeh isn't squished much at all, so this is probably quite far from optimal settings, but also possible.

Obviously I have a lot of testing to do, but if I can still use the AF to fine-tune the focus then that's even better as I can sort-of zone-focus with the adapter and then shoot quickly with AF like I normally do!

Overall though, a very promising start..  despite it being so big and heavy!!

[kye]

Then, to go from the ridiculous to the absurd...

But it's like that saying, all's well that ends well.. and Chopin seems to like it.

[Django]

There’s a whole language baked into those Hollywood classics frames: actors, wardrobe, blocking, lighting, set design… every element supports the tone. Even a single still says so much because it’s built around subject, not just color and grain.

Also checked the Mexico & Tokyo Gawx videos. What’s cool there is how different the tools are (one shot on Fuji, one literally on an iPhone), yet both look super filmic. That’s not just the grade in DaVinci, it’s how he shoots. The variety of angles, the rhythm of edits, the way shots alternate between wide/symmetrical and close/intimate. There’s a real visual language there, and the music choices help carry the mood. Kinda Wes Anderson meets lo-fi travel doc.

All of which kind of reinforces the point that gear and grading matters, but what you point it at and how you frame/cut it matters a whole lot more. Vintage lenses and power grades are dope, but the film look really comes alive when there’s composition, movement, and some intention behind the shots.

As someone else mentioned above, it’s hard to judge when youre shooting plants or the kitchen. Nothing wrong with testing gear but cinema’s called motion pictures for a reason. If nothing’s moving, not the subject or the camera,  it starts to feel more like still photography with a film LUT on top. You don’t need actors either, just find something with a bit of energy or make the camera do the work.

For further inspiration, there’s a young travel filmmaker on YouTube whose shorts are very cinematic (albeit clean digital, not in any retro lofi aesthetic). I found him as I was looking for Canon R5ii 4K SRAW footage. This probably won't help you in the chased 35mm film anamorphic look aesthetic but in the end  what really stood out is how mature his visual language and storytelling is, and his last video breaks down his inspirations and techniques: