The Aesthetic (part 2)

[kye]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

It certainly is, thanks for doing that.

Much appreciated.

I brought these images into Resolve and had a play, as well as some others I shot but haven't posted.

It seems that the squeeze factor might be slightly more than 1.25x in some shots.  I de-squeezed by just scaling around 0.75-0.8 vertically, and scaled the shots in post to match framing and got 1.388 on one and 1.276 on another.  So even applying a large pinch of salt as it wasn't locked off, the squeeze factor seems to be variable.  I wonder if this is distance related as perhaps the adapter moves the lens plane forward so that optically the position the camera sees from is moved forward a touch, as this would explain why the squeeze factor seemed to be more than advertised.

It seems it's also a skill to get it rotated exactly vertically (although the adapter itself is easy to use in this regard).

[kye]

Testing the Sirui 1.25x adapter at various F-stops, including all the way down to F0.95.  I wanted to see how much the Sirui was compatible with faster apertures than F2.8, which is what the manual suggests you use.

Setup was with the GH7 shooting 5.7K and the Voigtländer 17.5mm F0.95 lens, which isn't so sharp wide open.  The below stills from a 5.7K timeline.  I matched exposure on the middle of the image, and used a fixed WB (the Voigt has colour shifts).

It seems like it does soften the image slightly, but it's pretty minor and I also can't be sure that I focused it 100% perfectly either (the Voigt goes a little past infinity and the GH7 only does 6x punch-in), so it's at least as sharp as these images.

I'll have to test flaring in a separate test, and also other focal lengths, but if you don't have bright lights in frame then it seems like you can go faster than F2.8, at least at around 17mm, which really opens up more possibilities I think.

I also randomly grabbed this shot last week with the 14-140mm and Sirui - no idea if I focused it properly but the vibe is pretty nice!

[kye]

On 8/2/2025 at 8:58 PM, Django said:

Like I said, that video won’t help you hit the celluloid film look you’re after.  But it does help with visual language. The cinema refs aren’t about lenses or LUTs.. they’re about framing, rhythm, tone, and storytelling. For me, it’s not just about tricking the eye into thinking it’s film. It’s about intent behind the image and everything working together. Too many people today slap on a grain layer and think that’s the sauce. 

This is a fascinating topic because for me it seems that I experience it differently.

For me, if it looks like video then it's video, regardless of how well the framing, rhythm, tone and storytelling is.  It's like this video comparing Gemini Man in 24p vs 60p:

To me, the 24p looks like a movie and the 60p looks like a video, a very high quality video at that, but the 24p looks like a movie and the 60p looks like an amateur videographer happened to have a nice camera and be shooting in a room with someone that happened to be Will Smith.  The lighting is the same, the framing, rhythm, tone, and storytelling are all the same, because they're literally the same takes, but the feeling is completely different.

For many, the 60p completely ruins the look, and many would say that 60p isn't even cinema at all.  It's like it's a matter of categorisation - video vs cinema.

For me, this special sauce that cinema and Gawx (and others) is like that - a prerequisite to even be in the right category.  Once there, I can consider the elements like framing, rhythm, tone, and storytelling, which are absolutely the difference between a good movie and a bad movie, but if it doesn't look like a movie then those are the difference between a good video and a bad video.

On 8/2/2025 at 8:58 PM, Django said:

You can shoot dreamy bokeh with a vintage anamorphic and add film emulation, but without a clear perspective or thread, it can still feel hollow. The Gawx stuff works because it’s curated. A lot of it incorporates visual language of cinema. Now all that said, if you are only chasing the look, I saw he uses Film Vision Pro which many consider it the best current film emulation pipeline.

Thanks, this is really helpful.  The showcase doesn't seem to be choc full of the secret sauce I am looking for, although the ones with less detail do seem to lean slightly more in that direction, so it seems it's not a case of just buying the tool, but how you use it.  Of course, this might be able to get the look I want and maybe other print emulation packages might not be able to, but I doubt that will turn out to be the case.

I did a bit of searching, firstly to find the price, which is pretty eye-watering, and also to read a bit more about it.  

As far as reddit is concerned it's pretty good and amongst the other usual suspects, like Filmbox, Dehancer, and FilmUnlimited, which is interesting because I have the 2393 power grades which are a watered down version of FilmUnlimited and I'd forgotten about them, but should revisit them and see how they go with the GH7.

My current theory is that I have the tools required to get the look I want, but I just have to work out what it is that is making the difference for me, and to work that out I just need to put in the work.  

This is sort-of what this thread is in a way, me doing the work and sharing it along the way for those that can't or won't do their own tests.  I've really benefited along the way from watching other peoples tests, and am constantly surprised at how much can be learned from them and yet despite this there are so few tests online.

On 8/2/2025 at 8:58 PM, Django said:

Exactly, it works only because it’s a full on tribute to Fallen Angels. He’s borrowing the whole visual language: ultra wide handheld, pacing, colors, even the music. Sure, it’s a watered down version, but that’s kind of the point. You have to know the reference to really appreciate what’s going on otherwise it just looks like “cinematic” vibes.

I'd be very happy with "cinematic vibes" as sadly almost all videos on YT are "video with film emulation vibes" that only remind me of cinema to the extent that they definitely aren't cinema.  Sort of like when people shoot oversharpened 4K h264 on ultra-sharp lenses and then put a PFE LUT on it and think that it now looks like film - the PFE is necessary but not sufficient.

Like this, I've identified a lot of things I like, but until I've found everything that is required it won't be sufficient.  Once I've managed to get a constellation of things that work I can try removing things and see which elements are required and which aren't.