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.

[kye]

Yesterday I played around with FLC and grading some clips from Korea and the GH7 and 14-140mm.  I plan to do a range of tests around settings for softening / sharpening / adding grain / other texture treatments in post, but YT compression is pretty diabolical so I'll need to do quite a number of upload tests to see what settings in Resolve get you what result on YT.  I also went much bolder with the colours too, thinking of Gawx.

This was a first attempt just to work out the ballpark of where to start.

Probably the immediate takeaway is how the grain is quite different per shot, despite it being applied evenly to all shots.

Here is a comparison between the timeline in Resolve, the 42Mbps h264 4K export, and the 12.6Mbps h265 4K YT download.

Shot 1 - Resolve:

Shot 1 - Export:

Shot 1 - YT stream:

Shot 2 - Resolve:

Shot 2 - Export:

Shot 2 - YT stream:

Shot 3 - Resolve:

Shot 3 - Export:

Shot 3 - YT stream:

Impressions:

I'm told that film grain is most noticeable in the mids and shadows, so the distribution is consistent with film, which partly explains why the first image has less noticeable grain as most of the image is quite bright or quite dark.

The sky shot seems to have lots of grain as it's a flat surface in the right luma range, but it seems that more grain is retained on the YT stream because there is less movement in the frame for the compression to cover.  Whereas on the street scene the grain is considerably reduced despite having similar darker flat surfaces.

I didn't apply any softening to this video, so the sharpness is direct from the 14-140mm -> GH7 5.7K to C4K downsample -> C4K 500Mbps Prores 422 -> 1080p timeline image path.  The 14-140mm isn't tack sharp but it's not too bad.  I've noticed in the past that grain can make images look sharper than they really are, but in this example the grain combined with the compression probably softens detail as a net result.  I will definitely be exploring this relationship more.  Film is known to have a sharpness of >1 at its maxima, so having some sharpening applied seems appropriate.

Overall it seems to do a pretty good job capturing the grain, here's the next frame from the YT download so you can compare what is grain and what is detail and texture in the scene.

[Django]

On 8/6/2025 at 4:47 AM, kye said:

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:

Totally get the love for the “celluloid look”: 24p, grain, soft image, widescreen bars. It hits a vibe. But these are aesthetic codes we’ve absorbed over time, not fixed rules. They signal “cinema” because of decades of conditioning, but it’s just one visual language.

Some of the most “video” looking content was shot on film. Sitcoms like Friends or Seinfeld used 35mm, but lit and cut for TV brightness and fluidity. Meanwhile, filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema. It’s not about format alone, but how it’s used.

Same with frame rates. 24p stuck around because of early sound sync limitations, and we grew to love its motion blur and softness. 60p feels more “real,” which works for news or sports, but often feels uncanny in narrative. The Hobbit in 48p was a bold move, but many rejected it because it broke the cinematic illusion we’ve grown used to.

New generations are wired differently. They grow up on 30p iPhone clips, 60p YouTube, 120Hz TikToks. What feels “cinematic” is shifting. Same with aspect ratios: 4:3, widescreen, vertical. Even black bars have become a kind of shorthand that says, “this is a movie.”

Resolution plays a role too. Some DPs shoot in 8K then soften or downscale to avoid the overly digital crispness. Others embrace every pixel. You’ve got people using 35mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, vintage lenses, weird sensors. There’s no single “cinematic” look. Just choices.

[kye]

18 hours ago, Django said:

Totally get the love for the “celluloid look”: 24p, grain, soft image, widescreen bars. It hits a vibe. But these are aesthetic codes we’ve absorbed over time, not fixed rules. They signal “cinema” because of decades of conditioning, but it’s just one visual language.

Some of the most “video” looking content was shot on film. Sitcoms like Friends or Seinfeld used 35mm, but lit and cut for TV brightness and fluidity. Meanwhile, filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema. It’s not about format alone, but how it’s used.

Same with frame rates. 24p stuck around because of early sound sync limitations, and we grew to love its motion blur and softness. 60p feels more “real,” which works for news or sports, but often feels uncanny in narrative. The Hobbit in 48p was a bold move, but many rejected it because it broke the cinematic illusion we’ve grown used to.

New generations are wired differently. They grow up on 30p iPhone clips, 60p YouTube, 120Hz TikToks. What feels “cinematic” is shifting. Same with aspect ratios: 4:3, widescreen, vertical. Even black bars have become a kind of shorthand that says, “this is a movie.”

Resolution plays a role too. Some DPs shoot in 8K then soften or downscale to avoid the overly digital crispness. Others embrace every pixel. You’ve got people using 35mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, vintage lenses, weird sensors. There’s no single “cinematic” look. Just choices.

Now we're getting into it!

Terminology isn't our friend in these discussions, but it doesn't mean we can't make some headway.

What I want to achieve is a look that I have only seen in moving images made for cinema and high-end moving images made for TV (e.g. GoT etc).  I call this "cinematic" or "cinema" because everything I have ever seen in the cinema had this look (except for that one 3D movie I watched - yuck).

What I don't want is something that looks different to what I've seen in the cinema.  I call this "video" for want of a better word.  I've seen plenty of things made for cinema / high-end TV and plenty of home video and in my perception there is a very clear distinction between them, and everything that doesn't look like cinema looks like video to me.

My logic is that some things are required (you can't get the look without them) and others are deal-breakers (you can't get the look with them).

So far my testing has shown that:

• 24p/25p are required, 30p/60p are deal-breakers
• 180-shutter, but acknowledging that this can vary if there's a reason for it (e.g. Saving Private Ryan)
• Harsh clipping is a deal-breaker

Also, some things aren't absolutely required (because I've seen the look without them):

• Actors and dialogue aren't required because Koyaanisqatsi didn't have them and still had the look
• Artificial lighting or modifiers aren't required because I've seen examples were they weren't present (e.g. LINK)
• Anamorphic lenses
• Shallow DOF

But, those aren't enough.  So, some other things I think might be in the mix:

• Film or authentic film emulation isn't required because not all films have it (most do but not all), however all films either have film or a professional colourist who has done lots of stuff so there might be something they're doing that is required
• Black-levels are on my radar too.
• Camera shake / drift may be a deal-breaker despite being used for some parts of movies
• Widescreen.  I suspect this isn't required, but maybe it helps.  Not sure.
• Resolution probably doesn't matter unless it's above a certain threshold.
• Sharpness probably matters a lot as having too much breaks the illusion.
• Grain isn't required as modern films won't have any, but it might impact sharpness and it is probably required to manage banding in low-bitrate streams

I've also seen people like Gawx pull off the look shooting the kinds of things I shoot, so I know it's possible.

My challenge is that I can follow all the rules I have identified and it's still not enough, so I know there are other ingredients that matter than I haven't identified.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is that we see the world differently.

You say that filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema, but it just didn't look right to me.  Maybe you're referencing something I haven't seen, but the things I have seen looked like smartphone videos, so I suspect it's a case of them either not having something that is required for me, or that they had something that's a deal-breaker for me (e.g. 30p).

Unsane by Soderbergh looked absolutely terrible, Tangerine looked like it was shot on an early smartphone (because it was) and Behold by Ridley Scott looked absolutely terrible at 30p.  Even when I slow it down to 24p (which gives it the advantage of being in slow motion) some shots still look like smartphone video, which is a type of video look that is a looooong way from looking like cinema.

When I first started shooting video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p, now I can't stand 60p or 30p.  When TV was introduced to Britain people looked at their tiny little B&W TV's and said "It's like they're here in the room with us".  Maybe no-one else here is seeing what I am seeing, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't mean I don't want it and doesn't mean I don't know it when I see it.

I don't really care about what "cinema" is, but there's a look that high-end productions consistently have that I am trying to achieve, and so far I haven't worked out what all the required pieces are.

[BTM_Pix]

36 minutes ago, kye said:

When TV was introduced to Britain people looked at their tiny little B&W TV's and said "It's like they're here in the room with us".

And now due to the overreach of the online safety bill in the UK, the government are determined that they will be in the room with us.

With regard to the look, have you got anywhere local to you that has featured in a programme/film that you like ?

Might be an idea to take a screen grab, put it on your phone as reference for framing and basic time of day and see if you can take some footage to get anywhere close to emulating it.

[Django]

On 8/8/2025 at 10:34 AM, kye said:

Now we're getting into it!

Terminology isn't our friend in these discussions, but it doesn't mean we can't make some headway.

What I want to achieve is a look that I have only seen in moving images made for cinema and high-end moving images made for TV (e.g. GoT etc).  I call this "cinematic" or "cinema" because everything I have ever seen in the cinema had this look (except for that one 3D movie I watched - yuck).

What I don't want is something that looks different to what I've seen in the cinema.  I call this "video" for want of a better word.  I've seen plenty of things made for cinema / high-end TV and plenty of home video and in my perception there is a very clear distinction between them, and everything that doesn't look like cinema looks like video to me.

My logic is that some things are required (you can't get the look without them) and others are deal-breakers (you can't get the look with them).

So far my testing has shown that:

• 24p/25p are required, 30p/60p are deal-breakers
• 180-shutter, but acknowledging that this can vary if there's a reason for it (e.g. Saving Private Ryan)
• Harsh clipping is a deal-breaker

Also, some things aren't absolutely required (because I've seen the look without them):

• Actors and dialogue aren't required because Koyaanisqatsi didn't have them and still had the look
• Artificial lighting or modifiers aren't required because I've seen examples were they weren't present (e.g. LINK)
• Anamorphic lenses
• Shallow DOF

But, those aren't enough.  So, some other things I think might be in the mix:

• Film or authentic film emulation isn't required because not all films have it (most do but not all), however all films either have film or a professional colourist who has done lots of stuff so there might be something they're doing that is required
• Black-levels are on my radar too.
• Camera shake / drift may be a deal-breaker despite being used for some parts of movies
• Widescreen.  I suspect this isn't required, but maybe it helps.  Not sure.
• Resolution probably doesn't matter unless it's above a certain threshold.
• Sharpness probably matters a lot as having too much breaks the illusion.
• Grain isn't required as modern films won't have any, but it might impact sharpness and it is probably required to manage banding in low-bitrate streams

I've also seen people like Gawx pull off the look shooting the kinds of things I shoot, so I know it's possible.

My challenge is that I can follow all the rules I have identified and it's still not enough, so I know there are other ingredients that matter than I haven't identified.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is that we see the world differently.

You say that filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema, but it just didn't look right to me.  Maybe you're referencing something I haven't seen, but the things I have seen looked like smartphone videos, so I suspect it's a case of them either not having something that is required for me, or that they had something that's a deal-breaker for me (e.g. 30p).

Unsane by Soderbergh looked absolutely terrible, Tangerine looked like it was shot on an early smartphone (because it was) and Behold by Ridley Scott looked absolutely terrible at 30p.  Even when I slow it down to 24p (which gives it the advantage of being in slow motion) some shots still look like smartphone video, which is a type of video look that is a looooong way from looking like cinema.

When I first started shooting video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p, now I can't stand 60p or 30p.  When TV was introduced to Britain people looked at their tiny little B&W TV's and said "It's like they're here in the room with us".  Maybe no-one else here is seeing what I am seeing, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't mean I don't want it and doesn't mean I don't know it when I see it.

I don't really care about what "cinema" is, but there's a look that high-end productions consistently have that I am trying to achieve, and so far I haven't worked out what all the required pieces are.

Your checklist is a good start however everyone has their own perception of what defines "cinema". People have been chasing cinematic vibes long before DSLRs and mirrorless cameras were a thing. This forum has been part of that journey, evolving alongside gear and trends.

Online, “cinematic” usually means widescreen bars, shallow depth of field, slow-mo coffee shots, and the latest LUT everyone’s hyped about. Anamorphic lenses are popping right now, which probably explains why a lot of camera bros are jumping ship to Lumix to chase that look.

My point I guess is that there’s no single “cinema look.” Real cinema is about intention and personal choices. It’s the lighting/exposure that sets the mood, the colors that tell the story, natural dynamic range, and framing that pulls you in. The texture your gear adds, your lens choice, and how you pace things.. that’s what really gives something its look.

That’s why directors like Lynch, Soderbergh, and Baker sometimes break code and ditch the big rigs for DV, iPhones, or 35mm. Not because they can’t get a polished image, but because they want immediacy, rawness, and the happy accidents you just don’t get with giant setups. Baker’s Anora used 35mm not for nostalgia, but for the discipline and energy it forces, kind of like his iPhone stuff on the reverse end of the spectrum. Whether those projects click with you visually is personal, but that doesn’t make them any less cinema.

Sure, high-end productions lean on ARRI, RED, or Venice with top glass. But smaller cameras get their day too. The FX3 showed up in The Creator, F1 & Severance because of its low-light chops, portability, and multi-cam flexibility. When matched up right, it can hang with the big boys.

Chasing the cinematic look is totally valid, especially if it fires up your creativity. Again, your checklist is legit, but remember it’s always evolving and should serve what you want to say. Sometimes the weird or unexpected choices end up making something fresh and your own.

[EduPortas]

On 8/8/2025 at 2:34 AM, kye said:

Now we're getting into it!

As the poster above said, the cinema look is hand-crafted.

I would add dramatic lighting to your list. Think of the great Italian chiaroscuro painters from the XVII century.

By nailing that artistic expression you're 99% into cinematic. Lots of light makes things uninteresting, didactic.

[kye]

Shot a quick test with the Tokina RMC 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 zoom wide open with the wide-angle adapter.  Combined with Resolve Film Look Creator it's super super analog, and maybe a bit too analog for what I would find uses for.  Still, interesting reference.

GH7 shooting C4K Prores 422 >> M42-M43 SB >> Tokina 28-70mm >> cheap wide-angle adapter >> cheap vND
Resolve with 1080p timeline: CST to DWG >> exposure / WB >> slight sharpening >> FLC >> export

Personally I am not really a fan of the hard-edged bubble-bokeh and the flaring with strong light-sources in frame is too much for most of what I shoot (mostly exterior locations and uncontrolled lighting) but it's great to know that looks with this level of texture are possible.

I'm keen to compare it to the setup but without the wide-angle adapter.  That would be less degraded but maybe in the right kind of way.

[EduPortas]

Nice! The contrasty light makes this images much more interesting than the previous flat ones.

[QuickHitRecord]

To me, these are my favorite images yet -- by a long shot. I may need to reconsider my position on vintage zooms!

[kye]

13 hours ago, EduPortas said:

Nice! The contrasty light makes this images much more interesting than the previous flat ones.

Thanks.  If you like contrasty light, my next batch of images should please you!

8 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

To me, these are my favorite images yet -- by a long shot. I may need to reconsider my position on vintage zooms!

What is it about them you like?  Is it how imperfect / degraded they are?  They certainly have an incredible amount of feel, that's for sure.

This zoom is the Tokina RMC 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 and I understand these were held in reasonably high regard back in the day, so it's potentially not a disaster, although I'm not sure that it's the sharpest / cleanest vintage zoom in the world.

Looking back at the initial set of images I posted in my first post, this seems to have gotten the closest with the softness of the OOF areas and the CA / colour fringing etc.

[kye]

Today I tested the Voigtlander 42.5mm and Helios 58mm F2.0 lenses with the Sirui 1.25x adapter.

GH7 >> Voigtlander 42.5mm >> Sirui 1.25x adapter..

Wide open at F0.95:

...and more stopped down (I didn't have enough vND for this much light):

GH7 >> M42-M43 Speedbooster >> Helios 58mm F2.0 >> Sirui 1.25x adapter

There's a certain look to the Helios, but it's hard to separate it from the changing lighting conditions, and I wonder how much of the differences could be simulated in post too..  reducing contrast by applying halation / bloom, softening the edges, etc.

In pure mechanical terms the Voigts go much better with the Sirui, and the extra speed is really handy, so that will probably be my preference over the Helios.

[QuickHitRecord]

4 hours ago, kye said:

What is it about them you like?  Is it how imperfect / degraded they are?  They certainly have an incredible amount of feel, that's for sure.

All of the above. I think that the lessening of detail forces my brain to "fill in the blanks", making it more of an interactive set for me. And I have an emotional response to an espresso machine, which I usually wouldn't.

4 hours ago, kye said:

This zoom is the Tokina RMC 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 and I understand these were held in reasonably high regard back in the day, so it's potentially not a disaster, although I'm not sure that it's the sharpest / cleanest vintage zoom in the world.

Curious, does the front element rotate when focusing on this?

On 8/21/2025 at 8:30 PM, kye said:

Personally I am not really a fan of the hard-edged bubble-bokeh and the flaring with strong light-sources in frame is too much for most of what I shoot (mostly exterior locations and uncontrolled lighting) but it's great to know that looks with this level of texture are possible.

I've held the same position for years but lately I've been learning to like it. Hard-edged bokeh is one of the big differentiators between modern and vintage glass.

[kye]

10 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

All of the above. I think that the lessening of detail forces my brain to "fill in the blanks", making it more of an interactive set for me. And I have an emotional response to an espresso machine, which I usually wouldn't.

Curious, does the front element rotate when focusing on this?

I've held the same position for years but lately I've been learning to like it. Hard-edged bokeh is one of the big differentiators between modern and vintage glass.

Yes, it has an emotional component doesn't it - that's a good way of putting it.

There are lots of parallels between cinema and dreaming or memories, so in some ways the more realistic the image is the less aligned it is with all the other things about it that are dreamlike or like a memory (e.g. we can teleport, jump time, speed up and slow things down, we can see something happening without being there, we can fly, etc).  Considering that memories are formed more readily at points of heightened emotion, I think there's a link between a slightly surreal image and something feeling emotional.

Unfortunately the front element rotates with focus on this lens.  I had it in my head that means I can't use it with the anamorphic adapter but just realised that's not true as the taking lens should stay at infinity...  I'll have to try that next!

I'm not sure about hard-edged bokeh..  maybe I'll come around but not sure.  Our attention is directed by a number of things, one of which is sharpness, and so focusing the lens is the act of deliberately directing the viewers attention by adjusting the focal plane to be on the subject of the image.  When the out-of-focus areas have hard edges, this takes the viewers attention and pulls it towards things that have not been chosen as important in that image, so it sort of undermines the creative direction of the image in a way that you can't really counter.

[EduPortas]

Def getting there. As you said, bokek is better when it's not distracting, like in most of your recent images.

That and the very contrasty-darker frames make the image better.  I think that's it. You'd just have to add a couple of actors that move within the frame to fill the last piece of the visual puzzle.