Some More Video Thoughts (And Some Common Sense Maybe?)

I had settled on the BMPCC4k as my logical path forward, the prospect of a dedicated BM video camera with B-Raw and ProRes Raw, the potential of freeing up an existing hybrid cam for stills work and to be honest, the fun of exploring something new were all at play and for a little more than a BMVA 7” 12g alone, it made sense to wrap a camera around a new recorder.

Looking at my current kit however, I may pull the pin on that.

The logic was based on a recent experience as a sole operator, needing three cams at once to do a large concert. I only used two because that was all I and a friendly assistant could attend to.

The GH5s + 7”/12g as the usual static endurance cam, the G9II + 5”/12g as the mobile cam (using dual anamorphic lenses-another thing to address). The S5, my low light specialist was not used.

The main reason the S5 was not used was because I did not have anyone to watch it, so I simply did not take it. I actually did have a need, but with only two BMVA’s, 2 SSD’s and 2 anamorphic lenses in MFT mount how would I have managed it anyway?

Looking at the G9II, I have to admit, full V-LOG in ProRes HQ out to an SSD is not to be sneezed at. The bit rate is high (up to 237 MB/S max), processing should be easy on a Mac (ProRes is an Apple codec) and the clean usability of an unencumbered G9II with an optional light weight Portrays 5” screen may be ideal for its role as mobile cam.

I had some trouble handling the G9II with the BMVA 5” on it when moving and mounting-unmounting it from a tripod.

The elegant perfection that is the G9II, bare bones. With the BMVA 5” mounted, it is not as easy to run.

A ProRes HQ-shooting G9II would have to have white balance, sharpening etc baked in, but it would also be able to apply its full range of internal support settings and dynamic range. It would be the camera in hand, so getting these things right would be easy enough and it is my most capable video camera in many ways.

It may seem odd, but sometimes I have felt connecting it to a BMVA was a waste f its otherwise excellent capabilities, unlike the GH5s and S5 which both benefit from the upgrade.

I would always have the option of adding a BMVA with it if needed (2 cams is often plenty) and have to ask the question, how often would I actually need a third Raw capable camera?

Most interviews would be an A and B static cam, the floating third cam could be the G9II in ProRes. If I need a 4th cam, the S5II can only shoot V-Log and my 5th and 6th (G9Mk1’s) can only do Natural profile, so there is always a point of compromise.

I could also drop both ideas and swing a cage for the 7”, maybe a Sirui anamorphic for L-mount (making three overall) or the Vespid 40mm.

Getting the BMPCC4k camera would likely mean using the G9II without a VA anyway (the GH5s and S5 are best supported by the BMVA’s). The BMPCC4k would effectively mean I would have three static cams, the G9II still filling the role of movement cam, possibly with no B-Raw option. I could end up with a Panasonic doing nothing.

A third SSD, maybe an anamorphic lens and other bits are more important and I am finding the 7” a handful on it’s mount, so something a cage could help with.

*

So, adding a BMPCC4k would add another B-Raw capable camera, but not change the G9II’s role unless I want to do three MFT cams. Adding a third BMVA 12g may equalise the G9II with it’s mates, but would it loose it’s mobility, be a bulky load and do I need to spend $1000 for a rarely used extra?

By dropping a third B-Raw option (for now, always time later) and making the most of the G9II’s form factor and special capabilities, I could round out my anamorphic offer to three lenses that match my cameras with three different focal lengths* (2x 24mm’s on my 2x and 1.8x MFT crops cams and a 50mm on APS-C* or a 50/35 for MFT), then sort the third SSD I need regardless and a cage for the 7” monitor.

Cine glass is my Achilles heel, something that keeps calling me because it is not only practical, but fun. The Sirui is gone now, fallen away as just one too many options.

First thing tomorrow, I will test the ProRes HQ codec vs B-Raw on the G9II and see if it is a thing or not.

Ed. Test done (a set of streamers blown by a fan). The ProRes HQ and All-i V-Log files held up well, They did not have the colour depth of Raw, but were more than enough to get the job done. The B-Raw versions, 8:1 and Q5 were also plenty.

*(GH5s +24 ) 43/28 + (G9II +24) 48/32 + (S5 +50) 75/50 or (G9II +50) 100/66 ~ (GH5s +50) 90/60 or (G9II +35) 70/45 ~ (GH5s +35) 65/40 depending on MFT camera used. The main question is, do I want to use three cameras at one time or just support MFT?

A Third B-Raw Option?

A third B-Raw camera may seem extreme, but for a single shooter and one who likes to get all the angles in one go, it may be a must (see; “Holidays, With Some Tests To Be Done”)?*

I am a B-Raw convert, not simply for the quality and versatility, but the work flow in Resolve (same family, same genes). V-Log is also excellent, especially with All-i implementation, but B-Raw opens up a different mind set. The camera goes from “making the footage look good”, to “when making it look good, how else do I want it to look”.

Options;

I have three Panasonic cameras that can shoot out to a B-Raw recorder (GH5s, S5, G9II) and three that can shoot out to ProRes HQ (2x G9, S5II) into a Video Assist, but I only have 2 BMVA 12G’s**.

I did my research here and am satisfied the GH5s is the equal of the BMPCC4k in most respects, only differing in colour (that B-Raw mostly fixes), while providing a more naturally coloured and video-sharp file, the S5 is basically the equivalent to the 6k L-mount with benefits and the G9II is the next gen and far superior to a BMPCC4k in handling and other features.

The logical thing would be to add a second 5” video assist to fully enable all three of my Raw capable cameras. At about $900au, it is reasonably priced, but unexciting (may be a looming sale).

The G9II is possibly the best of the three based on (not much else I can find), the implementation of B-Raw in the other newer cameras (S5IIx is closest), but that cam is also probably my best All-i/V-Log shooter and if kept light for movement using AF, the BMVA becomes a “thing”.

Upgrading the S5II for $300au is an option, so a 12G and upgrade for $1200au, but still boring and my S5II is a decent stills hybrid using V-Log only.

If I were to get into a BM camera, there are two logical roads.

The 4k Pocket is only $1450au or so and may have a sale coming this season (nothing yet). Looking at that sideways it is a 5” BMVA 12G with a built in camera for another $500.

Even has the lens I would use.

The camera that cemented BM in the indie pro-am cinema world is not to be ignored. Is there another sub $1500au camera that can shoot ProRes and B-Raw internally with those lovely BM colours? With XLR sound input it is actually closer to a 7” video assist and only a little dearer.

A BMVA can also be used to record ProRes HQ as backup while providing a monitor, so either a third cam or a primary with a backup. I have 2 matching sets of M43 cine lenses and tons of stills glass to support these. It can be matched to the GH5s I have (that I originally chose over it). It would also allow me to shoot three M43 cams or two and a full frame and free up the G9II for other duties.

There are issues with the 4k, such as batteries, fixed screen, AF, storage, etc, which was why I went for the GH5s, but none that I do not have an answer for now.

This would effectively be a mess-less M43 Raw rig, I may not even need a cage.

The other is the Pyxis 6k for about $3500au.

There is a lot of fuss about the S1II at the moment, but the Pyxis has some advantages. It does not need an assist, just a monitor (optional), it has cinema grade connections, is native to B-Raw, full frame, a genuine cinema option and is cheaper than the S1II body alone.

Lovely.

I have all the battery, lens, storage and even monitors I need covered, so a body only and I am done. It can also shoot with a BMVA as backup/monitor. The S1II would be lovely, but I still need another recorder (+$900), so closer to $4500 au and still not a true BM camera.

At this point I am waitng to see what the sale season coughs up. A BMVA 5” or BMPCC4k for a couple of hundred under retail would be the way to go short term or just save up for a Pyxis.

After my testing, I may even find I don’t need anything.

*It may very well be that 2x B-Raw (GH5s, S5) and 2x V-Log cams (G9II, S5II) are more than enough if I can match their footage, I just need to test that. Maybe some more SSD’s and power packs are all I need.

**There is also one that can shoot ProRes HQ to an SSD (G9II), which means in ProRes HQ I have 3 cams.

Holidays, With Some Tests To Be Done

I have had a some wins in video this year and even my misses have been within my scope of understanding to an extent.

Unlike stills, which I do almost by instinct now, mixing camera “X” with lens “Y” for an anticipated result, video and all its combinations (far to many as it goes) is still cursed by tentative growth.

I need to know more, I need to accelerate the process.

These summer holidays, summer being a loose term this year it seems as the weather refuses to break through, I will be testing a lot of things, defining processes and generally just getting on top of what works best.

First, I need to define my goals. What am I looking for, what style, quality base and work flow is ideal and flexible enough for my needs?

There is a fashion at the moment for silky and brilliant, the “soft digital” look, but also a need for flexible and timeless results at the core. My tastes run more towards naturalistic and clean, but my clients will want what they want.

Question 1

Shoot 4k or 1080 for 1080 output?

Nobody I shoot for needs or wants more than 1080 as a rule as almost everything is going on line, but is it still better to capture and process in 4k (or higher) for lower output and have bigger in reserve. Also, can I really see the difference anyway and is there a sweet spot that I am not aware of (more on this below).

Question 2

V-Log, Flat or B-Raw and then, in what compression?

I have had some lovely results with V-Log this year, even Flat profile for very controlled and low stress shoots and the work flow of an OOC format is as simple as it gets, but B-Raw is a revelation and can even run small enough to make little difference to my storage and work flow.

This was a V-log file I shot recently (S5, 28-70 Sigma). It was fine, but the five I shot for the project were all in very different light and locations so matching them was harder than it would have been with B-Raw.

The big issue is one of choice, or to be more precise, so many choices. The common consensus is Q5 (constant quality) or 8:1 (constant bit rate) are enough for most professional projects, Q3 or 5:1 reserved for higher quality jobs. These qualities are considered “TV broadcast capable” according to Black Magic.

12:1 compression is too small for quality work (detail gets lost in movement and shadows).

Q0 and 3:1 are over kill for most uses and I have recent experience with exactly that*.

The quality was lovely, but too much for a small screen.

Constant quality or “Q” settings are better for subjects with a mix of movement and detail as they keep files smaller if there is little to record, but can go higher if needed. The catch is, Q5 in particular can drop to such a low bit-rate for static scenes, it causes problems of its own.

For example 4k/12:1 runs at 34 MB/s, while Q5 ranges from as low as 21 to 58 MB/s, while 8:1 sits on 51 MB/s, so always near the top of Q5, but never lower than that set rate.

So, 5:1 is roughly the average of Q3, 8:1 is roughly the average of Q5, which all make sense, the thing to be aware of is a Q setting will “go to sleep” a little when bored and may spike above the write rate of your media when stressed.

Given that, I will hypothesise it would be best to use Q3 over 5:1 for mixed situations (Q3 can be as little as half the load of 5:1), but probably 8:1 over Q5 because the bottom of the Q5 offer is less than 12:1, although for busy scenes, Q5 is probably still ideal.

We will see.

The constant bit rate formats also tell you accurately how much recording time you have, which may be safer for some jobs like long performances.

In the first two questions I hope to find out things like; if I limit a job to on average say 35 MB/s but still want decent resolution and detail, am I better off using 2k/3:1 or Q0 or 4k/12:1 or for better quality at say 50 MB/s should I use 2k/Q0 or 4k/8:1?

Question 3

Which camera and lens combinations sing and which ones disappoint?

This is something I usually find out as I go with stills, but with video there are fewer times to find out, a lower threshold for error and only a relatively small safe “core” to fall back on.

My best results so far seem to be from the Sirui anamorphic (but I have not compared my now matching two for consistency), the S-Prime Panasonics, Hope 25 and the Sigma 28-70, the latter two pressed into “hybrid” service, so seeing more action.

The 50 Hope, 12 Vision, Spectrum lenses and the IRIX have taken some lovely stills and test footage, but I have not used them “in anger” for serious work. I need to know if there is any real benefit head to head to using them over more convenient lenses.

So, do I need better lenses, do filters make a difference, are some combos easier to use than others (noticed this with the Nightwalker and Hope test, sold the NW), what other qualities do I need to know about (flare, distortions etc), things that often rear their head when in use?

Something that I have also found difficult to find on the web is B-Raw performance from the G9II. In theory it is equal to the S5IIx (same generation cameras), but it is hard to find concrete evidence. Comparing it to the S5 and GH5s will be interesting and will likely determine if I need to upgrade the S5II, go with a BM camera, a S5IIx or S1II (which is the same price as a Pyxis 6k!).

A third Video assist is on the cards if the G9II cuts it.

Still a favourite shoot, this one failed to make it into anything useful, partly because I was concentrating on stills, so there was no coherent plan and partly because I left it too late.

Question 4

How can I speed up my processing and turn around, which in some part comes down to all of the above and my understanding of Resolve.

Question 5

Based on the above, what three rigs should I move forward with?

My ideal and how I am set up now would be the GH5s in the RigidPro rig and BMVA 12g 7”, the G9.2 in All-i V-Log and a light 5” Portkeys monitor for mobile run-n-gun and the S5.1 and BMVA 5” for B-cam support to both. All three can be run for over 2 hours with decent power supply options.

I am open for this change however, which is the point of testing. It may be that the GH5s or S5 have the best V-Log results with their older and less hyper-sharpened sensors, the G9.2 the best B-Raw-out with it’s newer implementation and the Raw can soften it’s output or do I need to upgrade the S5II to Raw-out (or get an S5.2X, BS1H or S1.2).

Finally, should I get a third BMVA 12g (5” for the G9.2)?

Question 6

Does it work as intended?

Do I have my rigging, mounts, attachments, power, sound, lighting and storage needs covered and fix what falls short? Do my three specialised kits all do what they should?

The process.

This will require a pain staking set of tests with all the relevant lenses on all possible camera mounts in all the core formats because each camera may well perform better in different codecs. I am fully expecting some to be the champions of V-Log, others to be the better B-Raw-out supports and some, like the older G9’s to have a place also.

I need to be organised, methodical and comprehensive.

The first step is a test location (my storage garage down stairs) with movement, spaced objects lights, etc.

I need a flare point, some depth for Bokeh tests, some busy and fine movement (a fan and something that it pushes), enough contrast to test noise and DR and details for sharpness.

If I do this, I will go into next year with more confidence in my video processes.

*Shooting a one hour concert recently in 4k 3:1 on one camera (GH5s static) and 5.6k Q5 on the other (G9.2 moving), which netted me 600gb+ of footage. The G9-Q5 combo actually produced the bigger files. I did this to make sure the video was as good as I could produce within my storage limit, but went too far due to uncertainty.

I Shoot Wide Open, But I Do Not Often Like Super Shallow Depth Of Field

A bit of a contradiction, but it is true and one of the realities of M43 format, one that I only recently realised is nearly perfect for my shooting style.

Micro Four Thirds format renders deeper depth of field than larger formats at the same relative magnification, because it uses smaller/shorter lenses to reach these magnifications.

A wide angle 25mm lens on a full frame camera is a normal lens in M43. This is physics, it is neither good nor bad, just a reality.

On the flip side, M43 with its smaller sensor has a faster quality drop-off at extreme ISO settings.

Because of these two factors, more often than not, I find myself shooting with my lenses wide open. I use fast primes for low light, fast zooms and slower primes in intermediate light and slower zooms in good light.

This look right to me, wide open on the 75mm in M43 format.

M43 lenses almost without exception perform well wide open or near it and generally they render their Bokeh (out of focus areas) well enough also. This balance of (ff equivalent) f2.8-4 depth is just about perfect if you want natural looking files.

When I purchased full frame for video, I feared the inevitable slide back into all things big, cumbersome and expensive, but something interesting happened. It turns out I really have little practical use for the super shallow depth of field of a fast full frame lens.

This is the other extreme, a full frame 150mm up close and wide open at f2.8. Lovely, but limited in practical application (I used it to show how even the ugliest stand of pest grass beside a building can be beautiful).

Sure, in really low light, a fast lens and large sensor are a genuine benefit and they are effortlessly beautiful in rendering, but I have to be careful how I use it, both creatively and practically. The reality is, most professional photographers will use super shallow depth of field sensibly, even sparingly. Some may not use it at all.

They want and need to make images that have depth, that tell a story, that place the viewer in the frame as an observer, not just an observer of a technical phenomenon.

Shot wide open on a 15mm lens (acting like a semi wide in M43), I have enough depth to avoid a tell tale drop off point on the subject, but a subtle shift away from the candle to avoid it being the central focus. It 1.8 on a full frame 35mm, I would have a sharp face only, so I would stop down to f2.8 or 4, to emulate the M43 physics.

This is not a revelation to me, but it did go unnoticed until I got some full frame gear again and it really hit home with video.

It seems I have an aversion to unnaturally shallow depth of field in video or stills, This super shallow look is in fashion, but I prefer f4 in full frame (f1.8-2 in M43, 2.8 in Super-35) for a more natural depth transition, more like our eyes actually see. The thing is, in M43 that is wide open, so win-win.

This depth allows focus transitions and visual clarity to be obvious and malleable, without making shallow depth the only thing you see, it also lets a lens be at its sharpest and cleanest, helps manual focus, reduces breathing etc.

This is f4 on the 7Art Spectrum full frame 50mm, just about the perfect balance of depth to de-focus and very natural to the eye (at this distance)

This extra depth of course means good blocking, decent story quality and acting and properly setting the scene, heaven forbid.

Favourite combinations in my kit are;

The S5 Mk1 with 50mm Spectrum at T4.

The S5 Mk2 with 35 S-Prime at f2.8 (and AF) in auto focus.

The GH5s or G9 Mk1 (limited codecs) with 25 and 50mm Hope wide open at T2.1.

G9 Mk2 with 9mm (stabe crop is handled well)

For stills the Olympus 12-40/40-150 at f2.8 or 17/25/45/75 at f1.8, Sigma 30 at f1.4, Leica 9/15 at f1.7 and so on. This is even ok in AF mode with the 9mm.

If I use full frame I rarely set wider than f2.8-4. Just because we can, does not mean we must.

I have never been a conformist, it seems to be anathema to me, but in some things I will happily conform to what makes sense, what is right and what works and fight newer trends, no matter how cool they are.

The “modern” look of super silky smooth, artificially perfect lighting and CGI baked in is repelling me these days. I just want reality, not fake reality and over time these things fade anyway. When you look a little deeper, the best at this trade, the biggest names and ones we try to emulate are also resisting it.

Fashion is its own nemesis by definition.

Being true to your self is never fashionable.

Trying To Get My Head Around Cinema Quality And The Real World

So, what is the difference between high end video and cinema grade footage?

I can tell when I am looking at one or the other, but have had a hard time working it out.

The main difference is the realistic look film or film-like cinema footage has, but how is that achieved?

This is what I see (or often don’t).

A three dimensional fullness, enough depth of field to look like the eye sees, a perception of lots of sharpness even if it is disguised by other factors and micro sharpness is missing and no flatness in tones or subject rendering. In other words realistic and beautiful.

Really shallow depth has its place, but it needs to have natural looking fall-off, not forced razors edge stuff, which is a video tell tale. Few pro cinematographers use unnatural looking shallow depth, because it looks like a lens trick. F4 in full frame (f2.8 in Super35 or f2 in M43) is far more commonly used than f1.4 and if 1.4 is used, it is often in context with distance, so the effect is less obvious.

This scene from Barry Linden was shot with a super fast lens to emulate genuine low light interiors from the period, but greater working distance and the lens has rendered the subjects naturally to the eye. If really shallow depth of field, with unnatural flatness are used, they need to true to the eye. In this shot we feel like we are looking from across a room.

This shot from The Bear is beautiful, but it pushes reality. The perspective, compression and depth of field are an obvious technical manipulation that we accept in context, but are aware of because this is something our eyes cannot do. Unlike the shot above, we struggle to put ourselves in this space naturally, but accept that it is a part of modern cinematography.

This depth is dreamy to match the need of the shot, but it is not how we see naturally with too much compression and far too shallow rendering of depth of field at this viewing distance.

This is even less natural, showing strong lens compression and magnification and less than natural to the eye Bokeh.

It needs to be sharp like reality, but not bitingly sharp like video perfection. It has invisible roll-off and no tell tale sharp/soft point, which is part of the previous point, the look of clarity over visible sharpness.

I guess another way to say all that is sharpness needs to be invisible, or the effect of it at least. It needs to look like reality, not hyper-reality.

This image is sharp and has shallow depth of field, but the right amount to look natural and the colour, a product of the film tech of the period is also acceptable representing dust, sun and the arrid landscape.

This scene is shot with a wide angle lens and a fast aperture, giving us the feeling of being too close, while also being too shallow in depth rendering. It is hyper sharp, then softened by filtering and the colouring is warm to match the sun shine, but unnaturally so (teal sky?). It looks cinematic, but only because we have been conditioned to accept it as that.

A lot of current shooters using top end digital cine cameras and lenses use filtering to remove the hard-sharp digital look, but this is less appealing than film and has become a look unto itself. The reality is the age of technology reaching a point of perfection that surpasses reality is here.

Ok, funny thing happening here.

I started writing this to try to articulate what made a “film” level image, but seem now to be comparing the old and the new styles of doing that.

The irony is, all of the quality available to film makers these days is often squandered, meaning they could have used almost anything to make it. Super sharp becomes deliberately dreamy, huge exposure range becomes murky, infinite depth of field becomes a slice of un-reality and perfect lenses are flared.

The experience of the movie or TV show has become the experience in itself, more than the attempt to tell a story that has to stand on its own merits.

A rare case from 1917 of something looking “right” using the best gear available, by limiting the shoot to eye-normal lenses and deep depth of field. This is how we see, choosing what top look at in a scene, not having the majority of it taken away from us with tech.

It is up to the director and DP to draw our eye to the important elements using light, blocking, acting and writing, rather than relying on tricky focus and shallow depth of field to do it.

Paul Thomas Anderson, Roger Deakins, Kurasawa, Hitchcock, the Cohen brothers, Wes Anderson, Tarantino and Spielberg all know this, so we should remember it also.

The process is taking over the story.

The irony of course is, artificially created scenes often adhere to realistic needs to help fool us, while real scenes are manipulated to look unrealistic.

This probably explains this better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwPKBXEOKE

ed. The new Coke add, heavily slammed by the majority, is a sign of what is coming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PfWzHpT_Kw

The trend of a $100k ARRI with a $25k lens in front being softened by a $300 filter is responding to the look and feeling we have lost from the film era clumsily re-captured. When digital and photoshop arrived, the push was to make it “realistic like film”, the same with the CD after the record, all new things that fully failed to replace the old, needing to find their own space to be useful.

AI will have its uses, but the things that matter, things that people make for people consume will survive because otherwise, what is the point of any of it? A manufactured work of drab perfection in a self destructive creative death spiral will run out of steam sooner rather than later, it always does.

We are constantly looking for ways of winding back the clock and rediscover that special something we have lost. We also need to stay relevant.

Lenses, The Eternal Torment

Lenses are a thing that constantly distract me, cinema lenses most recently, affordable cinema lenses in particular.

They make a difference in many ways, visually, mechanically, mentally, but which ones and probably more importantly why?

In L-Mount I have a small set of Panasonic S-Primes (35, 50, 85), a pair of 7Art Spectrum (35, 50), an IRIX 150, Sigma 28-70 and a Panasonic 20-60 kit. Bit of a mess I know, but there is some form to this chaos, even if it took a while to see it. All of the above have either 67mm filter thread or require a mat box.

The S-Primes all share the same handling, filter size and overall rendering, but are slightly different in colour (the 50 is warmer). The look they have is clean and smooth. They are sharp, but not hard-sharp, with good, but not obsessively controlled CA, distortion and focus breathing. They are true hybrid lenses and provide a safe place to start most projects.

The 20-60 kit which is comparable and provides a decent wide angle (with the M43 options below). My need for a wide is infrequent enough that I did not bother with the 18 or 24mm primes.

The 7Art Spectrum lenses are more cinematic in look and handling** with matching focus rings and filter thread and are similar in weight (double the S-Primes). They are sharp enough and add some character and cine-funk.

They are far from a perfect set however, the 35 is so much warmer than the 50, it is almost in a “class” of it’s own.

The IRIX is a clean budget cine/macro lens. This is my macro go-to for anything serious and it is genuinely good, but as a cine lens it is too long, very clean and sharp. Colour is neutral and the rendering is close to the 50 Spectrum or S-Primes.

The little 28-70 Sigma has been a surprise. It is just a super little all-rounder with only a slight caveat. The lens AF is good enough on the S5.2, but on the S5 it is unreliable. Colour is neutral.

In M43, the choices are easier but fewer.

I have a matched pair* of Sirui 24mm Anamorphic lenses. These obviously match each other as they are the same. I did have a 24mm Night Walker I intended to use as a letterbox cropped faux-anamorphic tele to match, but sold it recently.

The Hope 25 and 50 are both excellent optically and mechanically, tight and true. The 25 is a bit warmer (matches the Sirui anamorphics), but not by much and these match the GH5s and G9.2’s colour difference (GH5 + 25/G9.2 + 50). I had hoped to add a 16 to the set, but my first one was a poor copy, so I have decided to cut my losses.

They have a decently matching 7Art 12mm Vision, probably a better match here than in the hodgepodge that is the Vision range. This is far from a tight mount fit, but is light and smooth in focus, so it works well enough and actually matches the ring placement of the Hope’s reasonably well.

The stills lenses I have for M43 tend to lean towards the more organic 17, 12-40 and 45 Olympus lenses, or sometimes the Panasonic 8-18 and 9 for AF-hand held. None of these excel in handling with the 9mm coming closest to decent.

Filters for these are all over the place from 46mm to Mat-box only.

A set?

The working kit in order of common use;

GH5s (RigidPro rig) as the primary static camera

• 25 Hope (matches well with the 50, 35 Pana or Spectrum 50)

• 12-40 Oly for general purpose

• 24 Sirui if anamorphic is wanted

• 12 Vision wide angle

S5 as the low light or B-Cam

• 35 S-Prime (crops to 50)

• 50 Spectrum in B-Cam role to GH5s and Hope (crops to 75)

• IRIX 150 for macro and super shallow depth (crops to 225)

G9.2 as the M43 as movement cam

• 9 Pana-Leica (fast, small and light and crops well in stabe mode)

• 8-18 Pan-Leica (same as above but slower and more versatile)

G9.2 as B-Cam to GH5s

• 50 Hope as the B-Cam to the GH5s

• 24 Sirui as anamorphic movement and B-cam to above

S5.2 (Log only) as the hybrid run-n-gun full frame option (usually in stills day bag)

• 28-70 Sigma mounted by default.

• 50 or 85 S-Prime as B-Cam to S5 (in V-Log)

The extreme ends, both capable macro lenses.

My GH5s and S5 are the core of my video kit, both running cool-ish sensors out to B-Raw unless the G9.2 is used as a movement cam. I am keen on adding a third 5” BMVA 12g***, so I can run three B-Raw cams and reduce rig changes. These cams all share a similar look, so the lenses chosen are key.

The 35 Spectrum is overly warm, loose on the mount (common in the range, but my 50 is tight) and tighter to focus (-the 50 is smooth and loose), making it less pleasant to use and grade than the 50. There is little point in trying to use it as part of a set. This lens will hang around for now and may get used for specific jobs, but not as part of a working set.

Below; top row Spectrum 35 and 50, bottom row S-Prime 35 and 50. The two 50’s I can live with as a nearly matched pair, the Pana 35 also as they all render a more or less blue wall, but the green tinge of the Spectrum defeats me (the light outside was changing constantly so the bright patch in the Pana 35 shot is an inconsistency).

As an aside these were all shot at “cinematic F4” on the same camera then cropped to match to see if they render differently. My favourite is the Spectrum 50 for it’s cinematic Bokeh, the S-Prime 35 for clarity.

The Panasonic 50 is also warmer than its mates, but not by much and is a good match to the Spectrum 50. I do not use it much, preferring to mount the 35 and crop to 50 as needed. The look is obviously consistent (same lens), there is little quality loss cropping and on the S5 using B-Raw out 5.9k is full frame, 4K is a forced APS-C crop, so a forced choice anyway.

The Pana 35 and Spectrum 50 are not perfectly colour matched, but neither are my cameras, the subtle differences in the four when combined well are pretty close to perfect (S5 + P35/S5.2 + S50). I guess really, the Panasonic lenses are a sweet matched set, the Spectrum 50 manages to fit in with them, the 35 does not.

So, what lenses still call to me?

DZO Vespid 40mm is the perfect focal length for a one lens L-mount (PL adapted), 40mm full frame, 60mm cropped and with another adapter to M43 an 80mm. It is now an “older” semi-pro cine lens from the period that helped bridge the cheap-pro gap (with Nisi, IRIX etc), but the Mk2 set is better still and according the Ed Prosser after close examination https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7WGG0drXJ0 , more of a light weight version of the more expensive Arles range. The mk2 range does not have a 40mm which just sucks.

The IRIX cine 45mm possibly in PL mount again so I can use it on any cam as a 45/65/90 lens, or native L would match my 150. This is also available in a Dragonfly non-cine version for less, but no L-Mount. The temptation of getting the 30mm in M43 mount is there, but too limiting (not sure why they even do M43 in these as the widest only just make it into wide territory).

Typoch Simera-C are like the Vespids in compact form (pattern spotted Cimera-C > Vespid, Vespid Mk2 > Arles), but around here they are not super cheap or easy to find. They also only make a 35 or 50 option, no 40mm.

The 7Art Infinity range are interesting, but too new to be front runners and again, no 40.

The Arles 40 T1.4 is the pinnacle, but too expensive, complicated and massive.

The aging Panasonic Leica 24-70 f2.8 has a special something as well as being a premium stills lens. I bought the Sigma as a light weight stills hybrid more to reduce weight in my bag than anything, but the Leica does have an X-factor that is hard to beat and has swung some back away from the better value Sigma Art lenses. If I wanted a top end video-hybrid lens, this would probably be it.

The smaller and cheaper 24-60 S series is also interesting, but the Sigma fills that role. It is the “special” looking Leica or nothing else here.

The 50 f1.4 Pana-Leica S-Pro is probably the top of the hybrid range, but prohibitively expensive, large and limited (another 50!).

The 1.7 Pana-Leica zooms for M43 are also in the mix, but less so now I have a mixed kit. If I had stayed with M43, these would likely have solved most of my issues.

I think that as things stand, I will probably wait and see what happens with the Vespid II’s, IRIX and the aged Leica 24-70 or just hang tight. The S-Primes are solid, my budget cine lenses a mixed bag, but some genuinely good ones and at the end of the day, nobody else cares.

No matter how unlikely, my kit feels balanced at the moment, which is not nothing. Any thoughts of spectacular lens upgrades, always a diminishing return, need to be weighed against my realistic capture scenarios (B-Raw, mid to low res, 1080 output).

*Not perfectly matched as the two cams I use have 1.8x and 2x crop sensors, so a 45 and 48mm equivalent pairing, which is good.

**lower contrast, smoother and less “perfect”.

***or possibly a BMPCC4k for a little more.

A Humbling And Satisfying Experience

The school’s year 10 photography camp, completed a few weeks ago went well enough.

We learned a lot, all of us, me especially when it came to how to interest 15 year olds in what was often their “soft” choice (the only camp that paid the loosest attention to the camping bit) and also how to deliver it in a form that holds their tenuous interest.

The girls in the group were invested early, the boys, with one exception took a while to get interested, video and sport photography sparking something.

They produced some great work on the most part and several students even discovered a latent talent.

One student in particular, Will an identical twin, the junior one I guess as he seems to differ to his brother often, but in a show of personal growth, he attended this camp on his own, a first and I feel part of a larger thing as he matures and moves away from co-dependence.

Will was a teachers dream. Attentive, keen and compliant to the needs of the course. Enthusiasm is great, but skill does not always follow.

There were signs of macro and possibly longer lens interest shown by some, so with little gear available (mine basically), some effort was made show those keen enough a taste of the birder or bee-chaser experience.

No high expectations were held as time and opportunities were limited.

On the last morning Will and I took the arduous track to the boat shed on the campus dam (all of about 50 metres from the main building!), where I had discovered two fledgeling swallows on the first day.

I was pretty happy with my grab that day, especially considering bird photography is not something I practice.

We set up in a pretty obvious spot in the middle of the road, no camouflage available, the 300mm and an EM1x on a tripod at standing height about 10m from the little dock where the nest is located.

Will took a few shots, we chatted about process for a while. The conversation got pretty involved in potential and technical stuff, the birds largely ignored. We were about to pack up when Will and I noticed some action developing as the two fledgelings started to play fight.

He was closest to the camera and went for it by reflex.

He responded to my “did you get it?”, with “I think so?” and a look of wonder on his face, which slowly became a smile.

Yes, he did get it, “it” being a series of shots, all but one in perfect focus.

Happy to be trumped by a young enthusiast, especially when he commented later “I think I have found my thing”, we headed back.

The heart breaker (there is always a heart breaker), was image two, inexplicably slightly out of focus in a tight sequence (no sequential shutter mode, single fires in sequence).

Probably the most dramatic and the tightest composition, but three out of four ain’t bad.

If that one moment is significant enough to justify the camp, I will take it.

Black Friday, Old Cameras, New Cameras And G.A.S.

Here we are again, the time purchasers love and retailers love to hate (they make no money people!).

This years buying dynamic started with a couple of real needs.

A tripod, my fifth as it goes, is an identified need because I have had call for 5 video cameras at once on more than one occasion (limited by realistic camera options) and I just ran a school course where I supplied 80% of the tripods and could have done with more.

A lesser need is a video specific model with more height.

The 73” Smallrig 3751 AD-01 was chosen at a decent price ($160au with about 30% off). So something sorted, universally useful and different to what I have already.

Probably the Elephant in the room is storage, but that is boring.

My wife and I are still sitting well under the $800 per head national average for BF sales, so I thought I would playfully float the idea of a Pyxis 6k, going at the moment for an astonishing $3500au.

That failed to launch for all the right reasons, but it got me thinking.

Here I am again, same questions, same worries and plenty of hours and dollars put into dealing with both, resulting in well chosen fixes that I seem determined to undermine.

Yes, the P6k is a scary nice entry level cinema camera, but it produces much the same results as the BMPCC6k that needs fewer accessories, which in turn is comparable to a S5/S5II shooting B-Raw into a BMVA 12g and these have the benefits of AF, stabe, better battery life etc, which in turn are not streets ahead of a BMPCC4k (recently upgraded yet again), which after weeks of exhaustive comparison tests is roughly equal to a GH5s shooting B-Raw and so on**.

Degrees of difference, all under the umbrella of “good enough to do most projects and even fool some in-the-know viewers if used well, but not the equal of big dollar cine cams”. Any cam these days has tons of quality, the end product more often than not coming down to so many other things.

Looks like a Pyxis (Video Assist to be added) and actually acts like one as well, apart from the bonus of second articulated screen, AF, decent battery life, articulating main screen, the option to use it as a stills camera, V-Log or Flat as lighter options etc. Basically, this is the sensible option for a hybrid shooter with a thin attachment to video.

It’s a bit like comparing models of family car if the core question is only “will they get me and three friends where we need to go safely, comfortably and on time” while acknowledging that each will do some things better or worse than others and the user/driver is the main variable.

Sales can be hard to restist. The “but it will cost my X% more if I miss out” logic can be troubling and force us to re-hash old thought processes. My answer to this is what you are reading now. If I commit my thoughts to a post, it tends to cool my desires with logic. I hope.

If I were to commit to something right now?

A third BMVA 12g, probably a 7” simply because of the sound options it adds and silent fan* for so little, or maybe a 5” if cheap enough, but the normal $200 saving is pointless if losing the better pre-amps, quiet fan, bigger screen etc. A BMPCC4k is also not out of the question for a little more (3 = 1 sale P6k!).

I have three cams that can take a BMVA (possibly 6 or more if ProRes RAW is available), which is sometimes useful. I am often limited to either 3 V-Log cams for a 2 static/1 floating, interview camera setup (all I can handle on my own), or mixing Log with RAW footage.

The other option could be the BS1H box cam, available for as little as $2300au new. This is on the Netflix list, is a S1H without the bulk and eminently rig-able. It would effectively free up a S5 for stills, so double benefit.

A Pyxis, or anything native Black Magic would be….. a complication to be honest, possibly leading to another for consistency and so it grows again.

I committed to upgrading Panasonic hybrid cams to B-Raw for several reasons;

1. I can reverse the process and use any/all as stills cams, even the GH5s with only four BM video specific items to sell off (BMVA 12g 5” & 7”, speed editor and micro panel).

2. I can change cams and upgrade them with off-board recorders, including box cams as needed.

3. The overall cost is therefore lower (replacing one or the other as needed).

4. They come with varying levels of stabiliser, better battery life, AF and other luxuries.

5. Accessories tend to be fewer, are more consistent, sometimes shared and cheaper or not needed at all (come with built in view finders, grips, articulated monitors, etc).

There, itch scratched……. again ;).

*The 5” has an audible fan, the 7” does not seem to.

**Some of the research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_r3qiGXTlo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_qAfdYppZE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl3GagDc-Jw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVWhIRgqxpE

Some Basketball Thoughts

Basketball has mostly been video for me lately, so it was nice to be shooting stills.

A good game, a high level U22 mens off season filler comp final.

Process.

One EM1x with the 75mm f1.8 (manual mode, 1.8, ISO 3200, 1/750-1000th WB 4400), another one with a 25 f1.8 (same settings), each on a long strap worn opposite sides so there is no chance of them “clashing”- in the medieval sense.

The 75 (150mm equivalent) is almost ideal for the far end (if standing under the basket at the other) and the approach. I say almost because it is a little short for the long end, needing 50% cropping, but maybe a little long for the approach (a 50-100 f1.7 zoom would be ideal).

Quality is still there no issue.

Up until about the half way mark, the 75 is perfect. I can shoot horizontally, but still crop vertically if needed.

Sometimes, when I have plenty in the bag, I will hold with this lens past the point of sensible and see what happens.

This is the angle across court from the opposite corner of the same end. Too tight when under the basket, it can be fun to push this hard.

For under the basket, I have found the 25mm (50mm eq) is about right, although my nifty 50mm is actually closer to a 45mm equivalent. I used to use wider and include ceiling lights, but found the crops were a little much.

In vertical orientation, it offers plenty of height from feet to basket. At f1.8 in MFT, lenses act like f2.8’s for depth of field which I find is ideal for subject cut-out, but still with some context.

There is no doubt this is the safest place for contested action shots, but after a quarter or two, it gets pretty repetitive.

You can also shoot horizontally, but may need a little room to back away when things get weird.

Once you have enough shots to feel safe, it is time to try a new angle.

Taken from the top of the seating with the 75, this file adds variety and another dimension as well as avoiding the shadows on face that overhead lighting is prone to. From the same spot centre court, the 75 handles both ends well, but the angles can be frustrating.

All images were taken in single shot mode, using a stack of three focus points mid frame aligned to both vertical and horizontal orientations. This allows me to pick out a single player in a group and crop later for off-centre compositions.

Three By Three Of A Kind

The Triptych is back in triplicate

Another form.

Images taken at Evercreech forrest Fingal valley.

Garth Homestead, A Sobering Experience

We visited one of the most haunted places in the state, Garth Homestead and we went at night!

The idea was to do some light painting, some astro and explore these tragic, but beautiful ruins. The homestead has a history of tragedy, which I guess many early colonial places would as times as they say, were tough, but Garth has had more than its share.

A suicide, death by fire, a fall in a well, all tragic, all supposedly leading to regular sightings after. To me it just felt sad and graceful, like a series of stories left unfinished.

My role for the night was setting up a dozen cams for the students, so my photography was limited to some hand held grabs in available gloom. The S5II with the kit lens got a run and it showed its muscles.

A better indication of the actual light (we were light painting in true darkness fifteen minutes later).

Off To The Beach

One of the great things (and there are many) about Tasmania is, you are never more than two hours drive from a coastline or the mountains. Our base is one hour from either.

A lucky 1/10th hand held shot, not lucky with the time so much as the look as the fast moving water managed nice smoothness.

I think I actually prefer this one for some reason, maybe the textures.

A Walk In The Bush

Across the river from the school outdoor ed campus there is a dry creek bed used by early gold miners for run-off. Chances of finding gold are wishful, seemingly anything really, but the thing about the Australian bush is, you just never know.

Details are the thing, small and delightful

Maybe small and not so delightful. This little one may only be 4” long (we have already seen a 4’ adult), but apparently that makes no difference, so a little safety room was applied. The whole class walked past it luckily, I only noticed it because thinking we were all gone it moved when I went past last.

Macro has a way of producing little wonders.

Smaller than it looks.

The quartz base creek reflected light in interesting ways.

Back light works wonders.

School Photo Camp And Early Successes

Arriving about an hour early to the school photography camp, I grabbed a long lens (300 f4) and went for a wander.

Within a few minutes I found a pair of young swallows learning the ropes. The wind was strong and I admire their resilience (one was actually knocked over at one point), but for a few minutes, not much happened.

Then the plucky (and plump) one took flight. I missed it on the way out, but within seconds it was curling back.

Inspired by its sibling, the more cautious one gave it a go and I was ready this time. Looks like it’s sibling is giving instructions?

Within ten minutes of arriving, I had one of my best bird images of the year. It’s not something I do a lot, mostly just grab what presents around sports grounds etc, but even so, a win by any measure.

Looking a little further, I came across some bees having a productive time (same lens, which doubles as a super macro insect chaser).

The system seems simple. They dive in, get fully “loaded”.

Then they “do their hair” by pushing the pollen back to their hind legs. Looks messy, but seems to work.

This one was actually shot on the S5 and IRIX 150 macro the next day, but good for illustrating their “swimming”.

This seems to be bee-universal.

Twenty minutes and I am looking at some of my better insect chasing shots for the year (again not a thing with me often, but I do get the bug….. sometimes).

Camp is gooood.

Why I Will Never Use AI*, And Why I Will Never Need To

*Well, first things first. Of course I use AI every day, but the sort that is part of any digital work flow, the mostly invisible type, the type that has always been creeping into everything we do on a computer and is only obvious if you have been paying attention. Here we are talking about overt, deliberate and invasive AI, AI that replaces the need for people like me.

“AI slop” is a term that I feel the desperate are clinging to as a justification of their organic way of existing, but the reality is, it will get better and better until it is almost “AI-nvisible”.

I say almost?

No matter how good AI generation gets, it is always retrospective.

It can show us three people crossing a finish line in the right order, wearing the right unifom, numbers etc, but it cannot pretend to actually have been there well enough yet (not enough information), and anyway, even if it could, it is not what actually happened, only a facsimile.

We do not yet have a hint of the sci-fi level “future generated”, the level of AI that would be needed to replace authenticity, other wise known as time travel (or a lot more information).

The information required for future generation comes from real sources now, so for a long, long time, actually being there still rules.

Authenticity is the need to be there, the real place with the real people doing the real thing in real time. The invested will accept no replacement.

AI in it’s current form is the enemy of authenticity, the Yin to it’s Yang. After an event has been recorded authentically it is liable for AI recruitment, but not before or even during (maybe a yet, on that last one).

If you only need an approximation, then AI is ideal.

I guess a marketer could “enhance” this as they need, but if I put up a genuine counterfeit, it would end me as a working photographer.

My remit is to capture authenticity. The onus is on me to be able to prove authenticity when required or my role becomes pointless, deceitful even. Not much point in putting up an image that the people who were actually there would contest.

I will use more AI as I go, that is guaranteed as tools improve across the board (DaVinci Smoth Cut seems to have gone up a level), but I will not ever need or want to use generative AI, just the normal digital enhancement tools that do help me enhance my captured authenticity.

Where does this line blur? Time will tell, but for me if it looks better after some work, it still needs to look right, I guess the danger is in my own perceptions shifting. I guess I resisted 20+ years of photoshop manipulations, so this is just an adjustment of that bar.

There is some push back against AI and there always will be, because people want to stay relevant. The danger seems to be the creeping shift in habits, that in hind-sight may shock even the younger generations. I am reminded of often comical (sometimes not) predictions of semi-brain dead humanity hurtling into the future, leaving most of the heavy lifting to computers until it lets us down, but in our immediate future the real battle will be in the details.

I am forced to stay true to my way of working. Nothing can change, so nothing will. What is done with my files after the fact is another persons concern, but at the pointy end, only real, being real matters.

AI is used generally to exemplify an idea, but without the need to be accurate to any source. Some things are perfect in a way they can only be if authentic. “Kids in a field” might produce a similar image, but not this image.

The only other realm safe from AI in theory, but it may come down to output and speed, is art. Artists use what ever medium is at hand and the movement to regress into harder forms over more convenient ones is part in parcel of the artistic mantra of “process over results”. AI if anything, will simply add another “convenience for the masses to avoid” for many as the facsimile print is anathema to the painter.

Art is ideas realised in form, so the result is irrelevant if the idea is hijacked by a process.

Oh look, we are back to authenticity again.

The future is always a mystery, mystery fuels fear and anticipation equally, but people will always fight to stay relevant, often despite themselves.

A Matter Of Trust

Trust is a funny thing. It needs to be earned, but allowing it to be earned means taking a chance on someone or something to see if, yes, they can be trusted.

Sound for video for me is a constant battle.

I have options, lots of options, but sometimes I just do not have the answer.

The hole in my game as a lone shooter, is when I need two reliable sound recordings (to guarantee one) with a moving or distant subject. I have to control video, lighting and sound, so doubling my sound streams at the camera end is just too much to juggle.

A shotgun mic needs proximity and direction, which limits shooting options. If it is the sync track it’s no big deal, but if it is to be the “A” track and the subject drifts or turns away, you a left with massive level variance, or nothing usable at all.

I have two wireless LAV options, the Hollyland M1 (white) and M2 (black) mics, but they are consumer grade and I have been caught out once or twice (wind, clarity, volume, range-possibly interference) and sometimes their placement, which is convenient, but not very stealthy, is problematic.

They also need watching and have limited and vague controls (3 sound levels, one using a simple -/+ button with no indicator). These are excellent, simple and effective for interviews in controlled environments, or as the reserve, with shotguns as the primary.

So, control, quality and reliability (range and signal) without on-the-go attention required.

32 bit Float fixes control.

With 32 bit float anything that can be heard can be picked up from a shout to a whisper, without distortion or degradation (within reason-everything gets recorded), especially wind clipping. Indeed many 32 bit float units lack a volume control at all as levels at the recording end are effectively irrelevant.

This also means that one mic can be used to cover two or more people in an intimate conversation, such as exchanging vows, a conversation in a car etc, or I could even use it sat in front of a load speaker to record an event and sync later with on camera sound.

To get truly reliable wireless LAV transmitters would require the Sony or Sennheisser units that are relatively bulky thanks to their antenna, still have to be plugged into something at the receiving end and are usually not 32 bit. Not to be ignored is the over $1000au cost per unit or the fact they are still range limited.

The easiest fix is a 32 bit float, body worn LAV recorder.

Float fixes the control issue, body worn removes wireless range and signal reliability concerns and effectively make range irrelevant (you could shoot a person inside a car or building, on the far side of a noisy group or even at maximum visual range).

This means I only need consider battery life, secure screw in mic connectors, a locking mechanism and something easily worn/hidden.

The Zoom F2 recorder has always been on my radar, but the cost of a single unit has usually been prohibitive ($350au per unit, dear enough to look at top end cordless units). I just picked one up new (in white) for $175au and it is the Blue Tooth version that I would probably not otherwise have bothered with.

The provided LAV mic is fine, not spectacular, but that can be fixed later with a (Diety W.Lav Pro or Sanken Cos-11). I also have a matching black mic from my F1 kit.

Not the Blue Tooth version shown above, which I probably would not have bothered with, except it was free.

The main things, control and reliability are now sorted, quality is workable and size, well it is smaller than some camera batteries.

I have the Zoom F1 already that could also be used as a worn LAV recorder, but annoyingly the battery door is broken and my fix, a magnetic power pack*, is not wearable and it is already twice the size of the F2 . It is also not 32 bit float, so I would be nervous until the results were “in the can”.

It is however one of my best shotgun options as it can record internally, it has an analogue volume control, the excellent SSH-6 mid/side shotgun capsule, small footprint and excellent shock mount, so it is probably best applied that way anyway.

My second LAV option, probably worn by an interviewer, a more clued-in wearer, is my H1n or I guess any “H” series depending on space.

This is the missing link, the reliable and easily used LAV I have been waiting for to support my already strong on-or-to camera mic range.

*The problematic F1 will be fixed properly by running a C-type cable from my V-Mount battery on the big rig, but I cannot run that to the camera because there is loop feedback, so it becomes the backup to a plugged-in to camera mic. I could get a cable from the RigidPro to the F1, but don’t really need to.

Swords With Two Edges, The Puzzling World Of Budget Cinema Lenses.

A cheap cinema lens is a little like a cheap sword.

A cheap sword can hurt, even kill, it just sometimes lacks finesse.

Equally, a masterwork blade in the wrong hands is more likely to hurt the wielder than the intended target.

A cheap cinema lens is not a weapon, but the comparison stands.

They look the goods, do the job more or less, but what are the pitfalls, what are the catches.

I own a few, quite a few.

I have some 7Artisans Hope, Spectrum and Vision, Sirui anamorphic and Nightwalker lenses and a lone IRIX tele-macro. All were carefully chosen from many offerings to better match each other than even their actual set-mates often do, which is part of the reason for this post.

It has not all been perfectly smooth sailing, but a fun voyage.

I have returned one Hope lens due to poor mechanical and optical performance, which can happen to any lens offer and as I have said above, another reality of buying cheap lenses.

So, what are they in reality and how do they hold up compared to dearer glass?

The premise is, cine glass is allowed some “character”, does not need modern mechanical refinements like AF or complicated zoom construction, does not need to be light or compact and super fast lens speed is often considered excessive.

Mechanical consistency is important and these have that potential by design, but it is often more than just intent that is needed.

I have found that they are not reliably consistent in focus or aperture ring resistance nor mount tightness.

Some a delight, genuinely, some have issues enough that I need to be aware of what they will not do for me.

These are my favourites to focus pull without a speed focus attached.

The 35 Spectrum is quite tight compared to the very nice 50, the 50 Hope is slightly heavier to pull than the near perfect 25, the IRIX is professionally damped-near perfect (a little tighter than the Hope 25) as I will assume all of their lenses are, the Sirui anamorphic is slightly heavier than the Hope 25 similar, the 12mm Vision a little lighter, the Sirui Nightwalker so light it almost feels broken.

I guess I should also include the Lumix S-Primes in this group, a set of semi-matched lenses with stills/cine features. Mechanically, they are excellent, but need to be on a Lumix cam to give you long throw.

Lens mounts have on the whole been good, with only a few exceptions. I can handle a slightly loose mount as long as the lens is light in other respects. The Hope 16mm failed here, tight to focus, but loose on the mount, making it genuinely compromised. The thing actually made a slight clunking sound and shifted when used, not ideal for a video lens.

My Vision 12mm, Sirui anamorphic and Spectrum 35 are loose on some mounts (S5II, G9II). The 12mm is the loosest, but it is so light to focus pull and so wide, I rarely care.

The rest are more or less tight depending on the camera (my S5 and GH5s have tight mounts).

In comparison my stills lenses that are most often used for video, (L-mounts, 12-60, 9mm Leica), lack longer natural focus throw, manual apertures and take a follow focus without attaching a separate ring, but on average are about as consistent mechanically (the 20-60 and 28-70 are also slightly loose on the S5II’s mount).

Optics.

This is difficult to clearly measure.

Cinema lenses are usually extraordinary in some ways, but also often quite poor in others. They have character, which can also be labeled “workable flaws”, especially anamorphic and legacy glass. These obvious flaws are embraced, but have to (1) fit in with the creators vision and (2) not stand in the way of that creation.

Below are a some test images recently taken with my Hope 25, an example of a “heart breaker” budget offering. this lens is a pleasure to use and could easily slip into my stills kit.

Flare is acceptable until it is not, distortions also. Sharpness needs to be “transparent”, so the lens does not show itself as the hero of the shot. Soft edges can be accepted even sought after as can distortion, chromatic aberration and flare. Contrast and colour is often flatter to allow for wider dynamic range capture, more can be added later.

The stills lens paradigms of razor sharp, super high contrast, super saturated, super smooth Bokeh, perfectly corrected and flare free need to be ignored in favour of a smooth rendering, predictable flaws and a more natural look.

Distortion? Sure, we have plenty and for top end directors like Wes Anderson, they become signature, taking a short coming and making it part of the process.

Some top end cine lenses are actually near perfect, because sometimes that is wanted, but even then, they are capable of rendering moving stock differently to highly corrected stills lenses.

This image taken with my Sirui Nightwalker at minimum distance and wide open at T1.2 is beautiful, but falls short of being usable in most situations.

They have that special something.

This is the key to it really, a cine lens needs to add beauty in some form without distraction, or if it adds distraction, it needs to be intended and still beautiful. Cinematographers often chase a distinctive look, but that look needs to be transcendent, spectacular, not just crude gimmick.

The reality is, to get the very best, the cutting edge control of aberrations and clarity, but also some magic, the best lenses are needed. I recently googled the lens used by the makers of The Bear and was stunned, but not surprised by the $38,000u.s. price tag. I guess if you want both quality and character, it costs.

Probably the thing that stands out with cheaper cine glass, even the IRIX, is a lack of a mature confidence, that feeling that “you will know it when you see it” quality. They are often good at some things, but fall short somewhere.

My Hope and IRIX glass is reliable, clean and well controlled. They are surprisingly well corrected, sharp, clean, smooth rendering and relatively problem free, but they are not adding that signature look, just reliable quality. They are the start of the road, but it is long.

The IRIX 150 is a favourite lens for any use.

My Spectrum and Nightwalker lenses are more character heavy, with some more obvious short comings, the Sirui anamorphic is also a good performer, ironically in a class of lenses renown for their fickle attributes.

At the level of of the IRIX ($2000au) each, there are lenses gaining a reputation for true cinema magic, like the Thypoch Simera-C and their stable mates the DZO Vespids, but the IRIX range leans more towards well corrected, slightly boring purity and lenses at this level still fall foul of the optical consistency gods. They are stills grade, but not yet perfect cine grade.

For more character, you can go super cheap, like legacy glass such as the Helios 44-2 or the TTArt 35 f1.4 for under $100au. It has bags of character, looking for all the world like an anamorphic lens without the wide frame, but is only really an option for art projects.

Super sharp in the centre, but obvious distortion, swirly Bokeh, soft edges, just like an antique anamorphic, all for chump change. It even gets “better” is you use it on a full frame and split the difference in cropping. Its tiny form factor gets it zero marks in the handling department.

Seriously, this is from a major Marvel production, complete with edge weirdness, CA and distortions galore.

I have faith in my cine lenses for their reasonable consistency across both M43 and FF*. They are solid, look great (i.e. impress clients) and work as indicated. I do not feel they are a compromise optically compared to my stills glass, sometimes they even have more pleasant Bokeh and a better video image overall (I am keen to try the Hope lenses in the studio), some even have effectively no focus breathing, but I also realise there are very special lenses out there with long and proven pedigrees and eye watering price tags to match.

Mechanically they vex me slightly, but it seems the bar is set quite high there.

In a nutshell, they do act like cine lenses and can produce professional looking results, just don’t be too picky when comparing one lens to another.

The IRIX macro is a mid range cine lens, my dearest by a wide margin, but still not in the top tier.

So, mechanically less than perfectly consistent and optically strong but boring or just ok, with character?

Even some mid range glass can be accused of the same, so still great value.

Subjectively measuring and comparing top end with budget lenses is largely pointless. Even if they cost ten times more, it is still possible a budget lens can beat them in some way.

The fact they often only come in mounts to suit the very top cameras, is always going to give them precedence. Hard to compare Arri Alexa footage on lens “X” to FX-3 footage on lens “Y”, when they cannot be or are just not ever directly compared.

As for the many AF super stills lenses around?

The trade off of using “best practice” manual focus and aperture selection has to be weighed against the advantages of touch screen AF. They both have their place.

On the plus side, the whole collection of 8 lenses, often bought on sale has cost me sub $4000au or to put it another way, about the same as a single mid-tier cine lens**.

If I went again, I would likely have bought the IRIX 150, 30 and something in between (65) at the insane sale price I found the 150 ($1100au), but in E-F mount and used them on all my cams with an adapter. The 30mm could then be a 30, 45 or 60 depending on the format used.

Of course lens selection is only one part of a complicated and inter-dependent web of factors, but it is no less important for that and if you ask a cinematographer, the matching of the right lenses to the right camera is the foundation point of the process.

My current process is;

Use the GH5s and S5’s (using B-Raw) which have the less reliable AF with cine glass and support rigs (various) for static and more serious work, especially personal projects.

I then use the G9II and S5II as “B” cams with the same or as my movement cams, relying on touch screen AF and in camera V-Log to keep the rigs small, I use stills-hybrid lenses.

If the G9II and S5II are used as “B” cams with their format mates, I will match lenses.

My most used lenses for a variety of reasons are the Hope 25 and 50, Sirui anamorphic 24, the 35, 50 and 85 S-Primes, 12-40 Oly and Leica 9mm in AF and increasingly for hybrid run and gun, the Sigma L-Mount 28-70.

*The Vision and Spectrum series are mostly consistent in ring placement, but vary wildly in rendering, wide open performance and colour temperature within their own sets, so I have “cherry picked” from these. The Hopes are closer, but still vary slightly in temp. The two Sirui lenses are both warm and similar in rendering even though they are different by design, closer than their own stable-mates.

**If I had my time over I would have simply gone the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 Pana zooms in M43 (only) and/or the full set of Lumix S-Primes for full frame, but then I may have missed out on some fun glass.

Spring Has Sprung, IRIX Time.

The IRIX 150 macro has become a stills macro lens even more than it is a cine lens. My other desire with it is to try portraiture, but not yet, more macro for now.

Bokeh time!

The 150 macro struggles to get deep depth when used as designed. This is a macro thing. You get this close to stuff and your f5.6 depth goes from meters to millimeters.

Is the IRIX sharp?

Yep, at macro and normal distances.

The Bokeh and colour depth are truly beautiful.

It is also a great portrait lens, if a little hard to use.

The IRIX is a clinical lens, but it has a lovely clean and vibrant look.

Sirui-ously?

I gave the little Sirui 24mm Night Walker a run today. Similar circumstances, bright, low wind, same subjects.

I had high hopes, because this lens has been used before to good effect, but I struggled to get excited.

Sharpness.

Not convinced in comparison with the Hope 25 or 50.

At f2, with clear focus confirmation, this is the best of four attempts.

Extreme manual close focus accuracy, hand held is always problematic, but this was doable yesterday with both Hope lenses.

I backed off a little and used a friendlier angle. Nice Bokeh and colours.

Still not convincing up close. It is likely the lens is not happy this close.

A more normal range.

Better at slight distance, nicely “cinematic” as they say. This is much the same as the lack-lustre 16mm Hope I sent back, that feeling of being near, but never on target until you realise you have been trying too hard for too long and other lenses just get there.

This from the Hope 50 is sobering. The light is slightly better, but still, the Sirui is not a macro champion.

Handling.

This lens has very, very light in focus and aperture rings. It is the only lens I have that requires a focus pull rig to help give it some resistance!

The aperture ring is so light, I do not trust it for fast application. The combination of the super fast aperture (T1.2 of f1.1) and no ability to turn your back on it (it seems to shift on its own some times), means it is only really good for calculated work, not run-n-gun. Taping it down at f2 or 2.8 is an option I may need to apply.

The lens is otherwise light and tight and pleasant to have on the camera. I really want to like it and nearly bought the 16mm when the Hope failed based on that feeling, but I am glad I held off (and there were none around) and went with the anamorphic.

Bokeh.

Blurring is gorgeous, but that has to weighted against sharpness.

It has more “character” than the Hope lenses, for better or worse. There is a feeling of excitement, but not one of control.

For video, where smoothness, contrast and good transition trump sheer sharpness, it is pleasant enough.

Wide open it gets “impressionistic”, which is cinematographer code for mostly useless.

3D pop.

There is lovely separation and a feeling of snappiness at normal distances, although the Bokeh is a little Ni-Sen (cross-eyed) looking in the branches.

For video and even stills, this is great visually, which I guess is all that really matters.

Flare.

Like the two Hope lenses, it handles flare well.

Hello Sun, my old friend.

Nice control of this hellish situation. No clue why the leaves top right corner are sharper than most of the rest of the out of focus frame?

I think a fair test needs to be at distance as this lens performs poorly in close, but seeing as it will be used as a letter-boxed pseudo-anamorphic portrait lens (roughly 48mm width and 70mm height) to compliment the true Sirui anamorphic, it may be fine.

The Hope pair are seriously good lenses, reliable, resistant to issues and pleasant to use.

The Night Walker is less so all around, it is more of a character lens, reliable within limits, but it will have a place in my kit, especially when whimsical uber-Bokeh is wanted.

Why Anamorphic Is Different

Anamorphic lenses are becoming better known and more widely applied by people other than top tier movie and TV producers.

They have become quite affordable and the support from cameras and software also more common.

They have several characteristics that are often actually perceptual evolutions of forced compromises, such as oval shaped Bokeh balls, horizontal highlight streaks and other odd optical behaviours, but they exist for a reason and that reason is wide screen.

A recent cast interview of the school version of The Cursed Child shows the full potential of anamorphic lenses (it looks a little flat after screen shot-ing). Oval Bokeh is largely absent, there is only a hint of a streak on the right side and there is a little bowing on the edges, but none of these are so extreme they preclude me using the lens for real world jobs.

To be honest, when I bought the 24mm anamorphic, I was expecting to use it rarely and only for my own projects. It turns out, the lens is a lot more useful and empowering than that.

The shot above was taken with the 24mm Sirui on the GH5s, my “A” cam. The focal length is equivalent to a full frame 45mm in height, so a very natural perspective, but almost 30mm in width, meaning that with little effort, I managed to get the entire stage area of the theatre in from half way down the aisle while keeping the perspective and magnification natural.

This is the key take away. It is not extra width you are chasing, any wide angle can do that, it is width without the side effects which are stretched perspective, ever shrinking backgrounds and unwanted distortions.

The 24mm specifically was chosen because it is a normal lens in M43, but also because it is a well controlled anamorphic. Streaks, oval Bokeh and other oddness is kept within relatively normal bounds, or can be exaggerated when wanted. It is a “clean” lens by anamorphic standards.

Will I use anamorphic lenses a lot?

Probably not and I need two to do dual cam shots.