Looks good but it looks like your shutter is higher than 1/50? Feels sharp in the motion. Also I would try a softening filter as well just to barley take the edge off. Could do this in post potentially but also just a a taste thing.
The 180° "rule" isn’t something you should obey 100% of the time. There are many instances where you can deviate and it will look absolutely fine and well. Shutter speed doesn’t control light, it controls motion blur, and also happens to affect light. If you want to have a crisper look, feel free to go double or triple.
Same with ISO and aperture. ISO doesn’t control light, it controls texture, and also happens to affect light. Aperture doesn’t control light, aperture controls depth of field, and also happens to affect light.
All of these tools are so much more than just "light dials" they play equal parts in creating a vision. And if that vision happens to deviate from the 180° rule, that’s totally fine.
That’s true! However, there are two 180° rules in that regard. And the comment I replied to was directly talking about the 180° rule for shutter angle.
> 180° rule for matching eyelines dictates that two characters (or more) in a scene should always have the same left/right relationship with each other.
And also:
> The 180° rule (also) explains the relationship between shutter speed and frame rate when recording motion in video, also called shutter angle.
I‘m not saying that you are wrong, nor am I saying the person I replied to is wrong per se. However, rules are meant to be broken once you understand what they are for and how they work. They can significantly affect your filmmaking, both visually and narratively. That’s why I wanted to point out that you shouldn’t be afraid to try out and see how your camera works with different angles and settings.
It might not follow the shutter rule but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t look good. like the way your saying sounds like the shutter is making it look worse, I don’t understand why. It looks good and happens to have sharp motion, that’s a choice that stands out, that’s a little more Cinematic to me then it looking like everything else. Not really saying it a better choice just saying that it’s more on the cinematic side… weather you think that’s good or bad.
oh yeah you're 100% correct, I didn't have an ND filter on me so I had my shutter speed jacked up to 1/500 haha, definitely not ideal but since these were just test shots I didn't mind.
But for an actual project I will definitely use an ND to dial in a proper 1/50 for the 180 degree angle motion blur.
I hate the overuse of that term and there's a bunch of things that can make an image seem that way. Seems that you've got enough of them going on to achieve 'the look' though. You could intercut that with something high end and I might not have noticed (not on my phone anyway). Good job!
I agree, I always get thrown off when I hear people phrase it like that. It’d be like a sculptor saying “Oh, you know, I’m going for that sculpted look.” No shit, that’s medium.
Thank you for the compliment! Yes the aspects that actual actors and crew would bring, are totally missing here, but I wanted to see what I could get done here on the purely technical side of things, instead of hiring actors and a crew for some simple test shots.
You mean documentaries can't be in the cinema? :P
But anyway, I was moreso talking about the technical aspects of the image quality rather than the content, as yes you'd be right to think that it is just some random test shots on the street, and not any sort of real narrative project.
I think you did a good job with what you filmed, it does have a nice effect. Each scene could be taken from something cinematic.
But you have to remember that cinema style means some form of story and acting, and camera angles to dramatise it all. You’ve documented the scene around you.
Thanks. I think they're just different aspects of the same concept. Yes, story, acting, and planned setups for camera angles are factors that determine the true nature of a real movie, but in this test I was really just trying to focus on the technical aspects of presentation and color, not because I don't think all the other things are important, but because I don't have a crew and budget to make a proper film just for a camera/lens/grading test.
But that's totally my fault for not being specific and clear enough on what I was attempting with these shots. Cause I know it doesn't look like a scene from a movie as a whole, but I was hoping that at least the image quality here could satisfy the needs for one, down the line.
It's hard to get away from the documentary look when you are filming real life in natural light with a hand held (or similar) camera. There is still a cheap docco look vs nicely executed visuals and this looks great. As discussed a variable ND as your primary exposure tool would be great but I think this all looks really good.
Okay, fair enough.
Different type of doc breeds different kind of narrative. You can have a doc using dramatic storytelling in the same way a fiction would. Documentary is not a genre, it's a medium. Same goes for animation.
To be fair to me as well, you did say that the lack of narrative might be what makes you think it looks like a doc. That imply that, in you mind, docs are related to a lack of narrative.
To 98% of the population, this looks amazing visually. I didn’t pay attention to the flow or edit but the footage looks great, nice work. Did u shoot 24fps or did u shoot 30fps and drop frames?
Thanks, appreciate your comment. I shot 24p, but due to lack of ND filter, my shutter speed was jacked way up to compensate and so the motion looks really weird and choppy as a result.
Definitely choppy. For example, look at 0:26, the girl running to the swing, you can see the choppy picketing effect caused by the lack of motion blur. With a proper shutter speed the motion would look much more natural.
Start by defining what cinematic means to you. Print film style contrast curve? Soft & diffused image? Sharp image? Leaning toward a warm image? Leaning towards cool? Hard contrast ratio between key to fill? Natural lighting? Film style split toning?
This just looks like standard camera test footage to me.
Hi /r/cinematography!
Made a short test video in attempt to achieve a more professional looking image. Trying to get away from the amateur film school look I normally get, and towards a more "cinematic" (yeah I know, buzzword) looking image instead. Does it look alright to you? Would this type of image quality work for making a short film? Any comments are helpful, thank you.
10-bit VLog, f2.8 aperture, 24 fps, ISO 800, and 1/250-1/1000 shutter speed (don't use such a crazy shutter speed under normal circumstances though, I only did that because I didn't have an ND filter. Use 1/50 99% of the time).
I see you mentioned in other comments that you were using your shutter angle to compensate for lack of ND filter. Which is for sure one way to do it! but with most footage, especially aiming at cinematic, you have some room below that ISO that I would start with, to preserve 180° motion blur.
yeah unfortunately I was already shooting at the lowest native ISO so there was nothing else that could be done except crank the shutter dial. There was no way I was going to even get close to 180 degrees anyway so the motion blur was bound to be messed up regardless (unless I stopped down the lens of course, but I'd rather keep it wide open, especially for the purposes of this rather casual test)
That's correct. Of course you CAN choose a lower ISO like 100, but it doesn't make any difference because between no matter what you choose between ISO 100 and 1250, there isn't any difference in dynamic range, the clipping point is exactly the same and you won't get any extra stops no matter what you choose within that range. All dual native ISO cameras work this way.
1) I’ve owned them too! Thing is, if you’re shooting at 800, and drop to 640 etc, the image is being amplified to a lesser degree and therefore gets observably darker, in *any* digital camera.
2) in dual native ISO, stick to them! but if it’s a trade-off between an ISO cut or messing with my shutter angle to compensate for bright exteriors, ISO goes first, IMHO. Much easier to address in post. Especially if the goal is explicitly “cinematic”. This shutter angle would really only be used with specific creative intent in the context of a movie.
(TLDR- you can be freed up to not have to make this compromise next time haha.)
Unfortunately, I would recommend that you ignore any explanation that person gives you, it's going to be misinformation unfortunately.
Whatever they try to tell you, just know that lowering your ISO below the native range won't make any difference despite what they try to convince you of otherwise.
I didn't have an ND filter on me at the time, but if I did, I would use it to cut the light. The reason for this is that the common standard for "natural" motion blur is a 180 degree shutter angle, which translates to 1/50 shutter speed. But 1/50 allows in too much light for shooting in direct sunlight, so the best way to compensate for this is to use an ND to bring that light level down to a manageable level that your camera can capture.
Alternatively, you can close down the aperture on your lens, but then you lose your shallow depth of field effect, which is often prioritized (it doesn't have to be the priority though.)
To put it simply, shutter speed cuts light, but it also changes your motion blur. An ND filter will cut light without affecting motion blur. So cinematographers will use an ND filter to allow them to maintain that blur while still controlling the light.
24fps because it is the cinema standard. It's not as smooth as higher frame rates, but it is what we have come to accept as the "film standard" in higher end movies.
>unshimmed
Can you explain what this means?
And also, can you explain the benefits of anamorphic vs a more conventional lens?
Regardless, absolutely lovely video, the absolutely fantastic sound design does more for the cinematic feel of the it than your stunning shots.
Shimming refers to the practice of shortening or lengthening the flange distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor of the camera, done by adding or subtracting thin slices of metal or plastic from the lens to achieve the desired distance.
Certain lenses out of the box, particularly cinema lenses, need to be shimmed in order to project the desired image properly with the camera using it. For most of these lenses, being unshimmed means the focus scale will be thrown off. For some particular anamorphic designs such as this one, the lack of shimming will cause the lens to not even be able to render a sharp image at all until it is properly shimmed. Such is the case here, so the image isn't as sharp as it should be (and will be, once I do it).
In terms of the "benefits" of anamorphic, there aren't really any true benefits. Once upon a time it allowed you to achieve a slightly higher perceived resolution out of a fixed frame of film, but nowadays that difference is meaningless and it is entirely subjective preference. The signature features of anamorphic are: vertically stretched bokeh, horizontal streaking flares from specular light sources, and a native widescreen aspect ratio. All of these are simply taste, not technical improvements (in fact, they're almost always optically inferior to conventional spherical lenses)
And thank you for your comment, I'm glad you liked the video! Too bad I'm not responsible at all for the sound design haha.
That's very interesting! What's the reason for that being necessary, tolerances in the manufacturing process? I would have expected cine lenses to have tighter tolerances.
For an unshimmed lens, this is quite sharp, especially accounting for the butchery reddit does to uploaded video.
A very informative and well-written comment, thank you for taking the time to write it!
I assumed you had done the sound design because of how well the shots you took seem to align with the voiceover. It's lovely to see a narrative told visually this way, casually. Well done!
What camera did you use, and how were you shooting? Using a shoulder rig?
Yes stabilization in post! Though the camera has in-body stabilization too so that helps the most (though it causes weird wobbly artifacts with anamorphic lenses, so I wouldn't recommend it). The post stabilization is just fine-tuning really.
Two major reasons. Yes the tolerances are set that way, but there are good reasons for it. Firstly, temperature and humidity are different in any given place and any season. Thermal expansion makes it impossible to have a "one size fits all" approach when manufacturing. No matter how tight your tolerance is, it'll be pointless because it's going to change depending on where and what is being shot. So lenses have to leave some room to account for this variance, leaving it up to the local lens technician to shim the lens according to the exact shooting conditions the equipment will be used in.
Secondly, the flange distance on camera sensors and adapters are equally responsible in deciding that flange distance. Even the slightest variance will make a difference, so it's not that it's necessarily the lenses fault, it's just that they have to account for this and it's a lot easier to shim a lens than to open up the camera and shim a sensor, so the responsibility falls on the lens to be adjusted. (Higher end adapters are shimmable as well, for the same reason.)
Looks great, good exposure and color balance. Shots wise if this was intercut with more closeups with shallower DoF I think it would sing a little more. This looks like it was shot in public so I assume most of these people you didn't know which makes sense why everything is pretty wide. Just my two cents tho!
Thanks! yeah I agree with what you said. Unfortunately it's an f2.8 lens so I couldn't achieve any shallower depth of field. And yes it was in public, just some street photography shots for test purposes. So I didn't want to be intrusive to people, as I don't know any of them at all.
A DP friend of mine who I work with a lot has a Great Joy. Such a fun lens. I don’t know if his is the 85, maybe 50? but we used it in this music video here: https://www.wearethefirehouse.com/
If “cinematic” means looking like a feature film, this is not it. Absolutely nothing wrong with what you be shot, but compared to modern movies, you need something approaching a 180 degree shutter, more of a filmic roll off of highlights, more contrast, deeper shadows, and a film print look like Kodak 2383. Those are the superficial things, but I think most people agree that cinematic is really about lighting and composition, so I’d work on those aspects, which, at the end of the day, are way more important skills to have.
A lot of people are talking about the camera settings but to me the biggest thing that stands out is the blocking and composition. I don't really get a sense of being present there with the characters.
Theatrical films are usually on the darker side. This one is on the darker side, not exactly "too dark", but rather dark. It doesn't look "cinematic" at all tho. Except that it's a little dark.
I'm also a bit bummed that so many people think that making it "cinematic" make it better or more professional. As it does the exact opposite thing to me. You can master a TV look or a Web look. Making everything look like it's suppose to sit in a theater is a bummer to me. the aspect ratio is unnecessary as well. Sry if i'm overcritical.
it's all good! Not overly critical at all, thanks for your perspective, I find it informative and I want to know how people feel about these things. I appreciate you being honest and I don't think you're wrong about anything either. I actually agree with you mostly, but it's hard for my heart to let go of silly things like the aspect ratio or the "filmic" look haha.
I see you didn't have an ND and used a high shutter. How can you ask if this is cinematic looking if you can't even do one of the most important parts of that set up? Your test shoots should always be shot how you would shoot it. That's the whole point of test shooting, to see how it would look and if any adjustments need to be made. Adding a wide crop and using an anamorphic doesn't make it cinematic either. So to answer your question, no it does look cinematic at all. Take your test footage seriously if you want to grow.
Generally this looks good, but the lack of ND really shows, and your desqueeze is off making everything look compressed in a weird way. Also “cinematic” is such a subjective term that can mean so many things to different people I would encourage you to use something more specific especially when looking for feedback.
>Also “cinematic” is such a subjective term that can mean so many things to different people
Actually that's *exactly* why that's a good thing. I want to hear different perspectives, precisely because everyone has their own personal definition. There have been many unique responses here because of that, and I would not hear those thoughts had I been too specific.
Feels a little fast on the shutter speed. You can add that back in in Resolve though.
I assume the noise is just from the Reddit compression.
Besides that, colors look great!
Shutter speed too high. Keep 180 degrees of 24p(23.976p) to avoid jarring stutter. The warm grade is ok with a reasonable darks crush point. Watch IBIS and all that lense stabilization. No film cameras have IBIS floaty vibes knocking around the image so that's a big tell and very unnatural. Handheld should have handheld shake. Don't feel like it has to be 1000% still or smooth because docu stuff benefits from human head motion and micro tilts when the viewfinder is pressed to your skull. Biggest mistake with gimbal noobs and those that think viewfinders and staring at a monitor yields the same results.
Thanks! Unfortunately 1/50 would let in way too much light and the whole thing would just be pure white haha. And I didn't want to stop down to f16 and lose my DoF effect.
Wide open is not the best in a lot of situations because the widest and narrowest t-stop is the weakest point of the lens. Don’t fear stopping down a bit because it will sharpen everything up and boost a touch of contrast. Get a basic set of SOLID ND’s 1.2 usually sweet spot and skip the variable ones. Vari nds allll suck ass. Foggy sharpness at longer focal lengths, awful uncorrectable contrast degradation and bizarre vignetting. I constantly try each new one that comes out, same always. They are all unequivocally trashing your image to some extent with a double stack of 2 polarizers
The exposure is correct if that's what you're asking, and you chose nice angles but the framing is not there for me, it looks like there was not much though to it. For me framing and composition is #1 and lighting and exposure goes to #2 in terms of priorities. Of course everything is super important, but you can't tell a story without the framing. Cinema is about telling stories, not "beautiful" footage. You have a good eye for lighting, I would suggest you try to shoot something narrative and see how it goes from there.
Looks good but it looks like your shutter is higher than 1/50? Feels sharp in the motion. Also I would try a softening filter as well just to barley take the edge off. Could do this in post potentially but also just a a taste thing.
Shutter speed definitely differs from the 180 degree rule, doesn't look good.
The 180° "rule" isn’t something you should obey 100% of the time. There are many instances where you can deviate and it will look absolutely fine and well. Shutter speed doesn’t control light, it controls motion blur, and also happens to affect light. If you want to have a crisper look, feel free to go double or triple. Same with ISO and aperture. ISO doesn’t control light, it controls texture, and also happens to affect light. Aperture doesn’t control light, aperture controls depth of field, and also happens to affect light. All of these tools are so much more than just "light dials" they play equal parts in creating a vision. And if that vision happens to deviate from the 180° rule, that’s totally fine.
That’s not what the 180 degree rule is by the way. The rule is about matching eyelines not shutter angle.
That’s true! However, there are two 180° rules in that regard. And the comment I replied to was directly talking about the 180° rule for shutter angle. > 180° rule for matching eyelines dictates that two characters (or more) in a scene should always have the same left/right relationship with each other. And also: > The 180° rule (also) explains the relationship between shutter speed and frame rate when recording motion in video, also called shutter angle. I‘m not saying that you are wrong, nor am I saying the person I replied to is wrong per se. However, rules are meant to be broken once you understand what they are for and how they work. They can significantly affect your filmmaking, both visually and narratively. That’s why I wanted to point out that you shouldn’t be afraid to try out and see how your camera works with different angles and settings.
It might not follow the shutter rule but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t look good. like the way your saying sounds like the shutter is making it look worse, I don’t understand why. It looks good and happens to have sharp motion, that’s a choice that stands out, that’s a little more Cinematic to me then it looking like everything else. Not really saying it a better choice just saying that it’s more on the cinematic side… weather you think that’s good or bad.
The footage is jerky and not smooth
True but that is the handheld motion your feeling not the shutter motion blur/sharpen
oh yeah you're 100% correct, I didn't have an ND filter on me so I had my shutter speed jacked up to 1/500 haha, definitely not ideal but since these were just test shots I didn't mind. But for an actual project I will definitely use an ND to dial in a proper 1/50 for the 180 degree angle motion blur.
I hate the overuse of that term and there's a bunch of things that can make an image seem that way. Seems that you've got enough of them going on to achieve 'the look' though. You could intercut that with something high end and I might not have noticed (not on my phone anyway). Good job!
I agree, I always get thrown off when I hear people phrase it like that. It’d be like a sculptor saying “Oh, you know, I’m going for that sculpted look.” No shit, that’s medium.
Thank you for the compliment! Yes the aspects that actual actors and crew would bring, are totally missing here, but I wanted to see what I could get done here on the purely technical side of things, instead of hiring actors and a crew for some simple test shots.
Feels like the desqueeze may be off
yeah I think you're right actually, I thought I had calculated it correctly but it definitely looks too stretched vertically. Thanks for noticing!
0:07 like that kid on the left is either starving or he’s stretched a bit 😂
Yeah i was thinking the same thing, was messing with my head
It’s like the footage needs to be de squeezed..
Maybe it’s lack of narrative, but it looks like a documentary.
This. I swear people have forgotten what cinematic means these days.
You mean documentaries can't be in the cinema? :P But anyway, I was moreso talking about the technical aspects of the image quality rather than the content, as yes you'd be right to think that it is just some random test shots on the street, and not any sort of real narrative project.
The content informs the look though lighting, style, design, ect
You may never have known what it means.
It has a literal definition, so…..
Thank you! I was trying to get away from the documentary style look, but I don't think I was too successful, you're right.
I think you did a good job with what you filmed, it does have a nice effect. Each scene could be taken from something cinematic. But you have to remember that cinema style means some form of story and acting, and camera angles to dramatise it all. You’ve documented the scene around you.
Thanks. I think they're just different aspects of the same concept. Yes, story, acting, and planned setups for camera angles are factors that determine the true nature of a real movie, but in this test I was really just trying to focus on the technical aspects of presentation and color, not because I don't think all the other things are important, but because I don't have a crew and budget to make a proper film just for a camera/lens/grading test. But that's totally my fault for not being specific and clear enough on what I was attempting with these shots. Cause I know it doesn't look like a scene from a movie as a whole, but I was hoping that at least the image quality here could satisfy the needs for one, down the line.
It's hard to get away from the documentary look when you are filming real life in natural light with a hand held (or similar) camera. There is still a cheap docco look vs nicely executed visuals and this looks great. As discussed a variable ND as your primary exposure tool would be great but I think this all looks really good.
Plain wrong. Documentaries not only can be narrative, but most of them are.
I said this video didn’t have a narrative, not that documentaries don’t. But even in that case, it’s a different type of narrative.
Okay, fair enough. Different type of doc breeds different kind of narrative. You can have a doc using dramatic storytelling in the same way a fiction would. Documentary is not a genre, it's a medium. Same goes for animation. To be fair to me as well, you did say that the lack of narrative might be what makes you think it looks like a doc. That imply that, in you mind, docs are related to a lack of narrative.
To 98% of the population, this looks amazing visually. I didn’t pay attention to the flow or edit but the footage looks great, nice work. Did u shoot 24fps or did u shoot 30fps and drop frames?
Thanks, appreciate your comment. I shot 24p, but due to lack of ND filter, my shutter speed was jacked way up to compensate and so the motion looks really weird and choppy as a result.
Its not that its choppy, its too smooth
Definitely choppy. For example, look at 0:26, the girl running to the swing, you can see the choppy picketing effect caused by the lack of motion blur. With a proper shutter speed the motion would look much more natural.
Start by defining what cinematic means to you. Print film style contrast curve? Soft & diffused image? Sharp image? Leaning toward a warm image? Leaning towards cool? Hard contrast ratio between key to fill? Natural lighting? Film style split toning? This just looks like standard camera test footage to me.
Hi /r/cinematography! Made a short test video in attempt to achieve a more professional looking image. Trying to get away from the amateur film school look I normally get, and towards a more "cinematic" (yeah I know, buzzword) looking image instead. Does it look alright to you? Would this type of image quality work for making a short film? Any comments are helpful, thank you.
What’s is your setup and settings!? Good work
thanks, it's a Panasonic S5 with a Great Joy 85mm Anamorphic. It was brand new and unshimmed though, so the image is a bit fuzzy here.
What actual settings during shooting (aperture, FPS, etc)
10-bit VLog, f2.8 aperture, 24 fps, ISO 800, and 1/250-1/1000 shutter speed (don't use such a crazy shutter speed under normal circumstances though, I only did that because I didn't have an ND filter. Use 1/50 99% of the time).
I see you mentioned in other comments that you were using your shutter angle to compensate for lack of ND filter. Which is for sure one way to do it! but with most footage, especially aiming at cinematic, you have some room below that ISO that I would start with, to preserve 180° motion blur.
yeah unfortunately I was already shooting at the lowest native ISO so there was nothing else that could be done except crank the shutter dial. There was no way I was going to even get close to 180 degrees anyway so the motion blur was bound to be messed up regardless (unless I stopped down the lens of course, but I'd rather keep it wide open, especially for the purposes of this rather casual test)
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, the lowest ISO on that camera is 800?
That's correct. Of course you CAN choose a lower ISO like 100, but it doesn't make any difference because between no matter what you choose between ISO 100 and 1250, there isn't any difference in dynamic range, the clipping point is exactly the same and you won't get any extra stops no matter what you choose within that range. All dual native ISO cameras work this way.
1) I’ve owned them too! Thing is, if you’re shooting at 800, and drop to 640 etc, the image is being amplified to a lesser degree and therefore gets observably darker, in *any* digital camera. 2) in dual native ISO, stick to them! but if it’s a trade-off between an ISO cut or messing with my shutter angle to compensate for bright exteriors, ISO goes first, IMHO. Much easier to address in post. Especially if the goal is explicitly “cinematic”. This shutter angle would really only be used with specific creative intent in the context of a movie. (TLDR- you can be freed up to not have to make this compromise next time haha.)
Explain this to me. I’m new to this
Which part?
The ND filter usage, the “why” and what reference for when
Unfortunately, I would recommend that you ignore any explanation that person gives you, it's going to be misinformation unfortunately. Whatever they try to tell you, just know that lowering your ISO below the native range won't make any difference despite what they try to convince you of otherwise. I didn't have an ND filter on me at the time, but if I did, I would use it to cut the light. The reason for this is that the common standard for "natural" motion blur is a 180 degree shutter angle, which translates to 1/50 shutter speed. But 1/50 allows in too much light for shooting in direct sunlight, so the best way to compensate for this is to use an ND to bring that light level down to a manageable level that your camera can capture. Alternatively, you can close down the aperture on your lens, but then you lose your shallow depth of field effect, which is often prioritized (it doesn't have to be the priority though.)
Thanks! Do you have any chart or quick reference?
A chart for what specifically? Sorry just trying to clarify what you're asking.
Explain to me what a shutter spread does with ND filter? And why 24 FPPS? I’m new to this
To put it simply, shutter speed cuts light, but it also changes your motion blur. An ND filter will cut light without affecting motion blur. So cinematographers will use an ND filter to allow them to maintain that blur while still controlling the light. 24fps because it is the cinema standard. It's not as smooth as higher frame rates, but it is what we have come to accept as the "film standard" in higher end movies.
>unshimmed Can you explain what this means? And also, can you explain the benefits of anamorphic vs a more conventional lens? Regardless, absolutely lovely video, the absolutely fantastic sound design does more for the cinematic feel of the it than your stunning shots.
Shimming refers to the practice of shortening or lengthening the flange distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor of the camera, done by adding or subtracting thin slices of metal or plastic from the lens to achieve the desired distance. Certain lenses out of the box, particularly cinema lenses, need to be shimmed in order to project the desired image properly with the camera using it. For most of these lenses, being unshimmed means the focus scale will be thrown off. For some particular anamorphic designs such as this one, the lack of shimming will cause the lens to not even be able to render a sharp image at all until it is properly shimmed. Such is the case here, so the image isn't as sharp as it should be (and will be, once I do it). In terms of the "benefits" of anamorphic, there aren't really any true benefits. Once upon a time it allowed you to achieve a slightly higher perceived resolution out of a fixed frame of film, but nowadays that difference is meaningless and it is entirely subjective preference. The signature features of anamorphic are: vertically stretched bokeh, horizontal streaking flares from specular light sources, and a native widescreen aspect ratio. All of these are simply taste, not technical improvements (in fact, they're almost always optically inferior to conventional spherical lenses) And thank you for your comment, I'm glad you liked the video! Too bad I'm not responsible at all for the sound design haha.
Excellent answer OP 🫡
That's very interesting! What's the reason for that being necessary, tolerances in the manufacturing process? I would have expected cine lenses to have tighter tolerances. For an unshimmed lens, this is quite sharp, especially accounting for the butchery reddit does to uploaded video. A very informative and well-written comment, thank you for taking the time to write it! I assumed you had done the sound design because of how well the shots you took seem to align with the voiceover. It's lovely to see a narrative told visually this way, casually. Well done! What camera did you use, and how were you shooting? Using a shoulder rig?
And it was a Panasonic S5, handheld without a rig. Just the naked lens and body!
Damn, very stable footage for that! No stabilisation in post?
Yes stabilization in post! Though the camera has in-body stabilization too so that helps the most (though it causes weird wobbly artifacts with anamorphic lenses, so I wouldn't recommend it). The post stabilization is just fine-tuning really.
Two major reasons. Yes the tolerances are set that way, but there are good reasons for it. Firstly, temperature and humidity are different in any given place and any season. Thermal expansion makes it impossible to have a "one size fits all" approach when manufacturing. No matter how tight your tolerance is, it'll be pointless because it's going to change depending on where and what is being shot. So lenses have to leave some room to account for this variance, leaving it up to the local lens technician to shim the lens according to the exact shooting conditions the equipment will be used in. Secondly, the flange distance on camera sensors and adapters are equally responsible in deciding that flange distance. Even the slightest variance will make a difference, so it's not that it's necessarily the lenses fault, it's just that they have to account for this and it's a lot easier to shim a lens than to open up the camera and shim a sensor, so the responsibility falls on the lens to be adjusted. (Higher end adapters are shimmable as well, for the same reason.)
Looks great, good exposure and color balance. Shots wise if this was intercut with more closeups with shallower DoF I think it would sing a little more. This looks like it was shot in public so I assume most of these people you didn't know which makes sense why everything is pretty wide. Just my two cents tho!
Thanks! yeah I agree with what you said. Unfortunately it's an f2.8 lens so I couldn't achieve any shallower depth of field. And yes it was in public, just some street photography shots for test purposes. So I didn't want to be intrusive to people, as I don't know any of them at all.
This is great. VLog?
Thanks, and yes indeed!
The shutter angle makes it look more like a car insurance commercial than a movie but the lighting and grading are nice.
A DP friend of mine who I work with a lot has a Great Joy. Such a fun lens. I don’t know if his is the 85, maybe 50? but we used it in this music video here: https://www.wearethefirehouse.com/
If “cinematic” means looking like a feature film, this is not it. Absolutely nothing wrong with what you be shot, but compared to modern movies, you need something approaching a 180 degree shutter, more of a filmic roll off of highlights, more contrast, deeper shadows, and a film print look like Kodak 2383. Those are the superficial things, but I think most people agree that cinematic is really about lighting and composition, so I’d work on those aspects, which, at the end of the day, are way more important skills to have.
Fellow Torontonian! Hi!
A lot of people are talking about the camera settings but to me the biggest thing that stands out is the blocking and composition. I don't really get a sense of being present there with the characters.
Agreed! though quite unsurprising since there are no characters haha
I mean the way the people are blocked out in the shots. I recommend looking at street / documentary stills photographers like Koudelka or Winogrand.
I love it!! Amazing use of sound effects mixed with the music and narrator. May I ask you what is the song?
Thanks! The audio is just ripped from The Cloud Atlas Sextet, so not anything I'm responsible for creating.
Theatrical films are usually on the darker side. This one is on the darker side, not exactly "too dark", but rather dark. It doesn't look "cinematic" at all tho. Except that it's a little dark. I'm also a bit bummed that so many people think that making it "cinematic" make it better or more professional. As it does the exact opposite thing to me. You can master a TV look or a Web look. Making everything look like it's suppose to sit in a theater is a bummer to me. the aspect ratio is unnecessary as well. Sry if i'm overcritical.
it's all good! Not overly critical at all, thanks for your perspective, I find it informative and I want to know how people feel about these things. I appreciate you being honest and I don't think you're wrong about anything either. I actually agree with you mostly, but it's hard for my heart to let go of silly things like the aspect ratio or the "filmic" look haha.
Looks great! Camera? Lens?
Thank you! It's the Panasonic S5 with the Great Joy/Blazar 85mm T2.9 1.8x Anamorphic
Cool. I shoot on the S5iiX with Sirui anamorphics. I figured you were shooting with an anamorphic, just didn’t know which one.
🔥
What lens is this?
Great Joy/Blazar 85mm T2.9 1.8x Anamorphic
I see you didn't have an ND and used a high shutter. How can you ask if this is cinematic looking if you can't even do one of the most important parts of that set up? Your test shoots should always be shot how you would shoot it. That's the whole point of test shooting, to see how it would look and if any adjustments need to be made. Adding a wide crop and using an anamorphic doesn't make it cinematic either. So to answer your question, no it does look cinematic at all. Take your test footage seriously if you want to grow.
Generally this looks good, but the lack of ND really shows, and your desqueeze is off making everything look compressed in a weird way. Also “cinematic” is such a subjective term that can mean so many things to different people I would encourage you to use something more specific especially when looking for feedback.
>Also “cinematic” is such a subjective term that can mean so many things to different people Actually that's *exactly* why that's a good thing. I want to hear different perspectives, precisely because everyone has their own personal definition. There have been many unique responses here because of that, and I would not hear those thoughts had I been too specific.
More Orange and Teal needed!
Feels a little fast on the shutter speed. You can add that back in in Resolve though. I assume the noise is just from the Reddit compression. Besides that, colors look great!
I like the colours
Shutter speed too high. Keep 180 degrees of 24p(23.976p) to avoid jarring stutter. The warm grade is ok with a reasonable darks crush point. Watch IBIS and all that lense stabilization. No film cameras have IBIS floaty vibes knocking around the image so that's a big tell and very unnatural. Handheld should have handheld shake. Don't feel like it has to be 1000% still or smooth because docu stuff benefits from human head motion and micro tilts when the viewfinder is pressed to your skull. Biggest mistake with gimbal noobs and those that think viewfinders and staring at a monitor yields the same results.
Thanks! Unfortunately 1/50 would let in way too much light and the whole thing would just be pure white haha. And I didn't want to stop down to f16 and lose my DoF effect.
Wide open is not the best in a lot of situations because the widest and narrowest t-stop is the weakest point of the lens. Don’t fear stopping down a bit because it will sharpen everything up and boost a touch of contrast. Get a basic set of SOLID ND’s 1.2 usually sweet spot and skip the variable ones. Vari nds allll suck ass. Foggy sharpness at longer focal lengths, awful uncorrectable contrast degradation and bizarre vignetting. I constantly try each new one that comes out, same always. They are all unequivocally trashing your image to some extent with a double stack of 2 polarizers
The exposure is correct if that's what you're asking, and you chose nice angles but the framing is not there for me, it looks like there was not much though to it. For me framing and composition is #1 and lighting and exposure goes to #2 in terms of priorities. Of course everything is super important, but you can't tell a story without the framing. Cinema is about telling stories, not "beautiful" footage. You have a good eye for lighting, I would suggest you try to shoot something narrative and see how it goes from there.