Panasonic Varicam Pure and Cooke lenses.

cyvideo

cyvideo

Veteran
I've just watched seasons #1 and #2 of "The Gilded Age". It just confirms for me that for programming material like this that S35 still delivers a very satisfactory image when used with a good choice of lenses and well though out and designed lighting and well planned camera moves. I was suitably impressed with the images from the Varicam Pure working with the Codex recorders. I cannot see how using a full-frame format could have added anything extra of note to the story telling of this amazing 1870-1900 period in New York. What I found interesting is the decision to use both spherical and anamorphic lens to reflect various aspects of the different socioeconomic backgrounds covered in the series. I enjoyed this series from both the story telling of the period and from the filmmakers' perspective of bringing this to screen.

Quote:

"Set in New York City in the 1880s, a period marked by the clash between old traditions and new paradigms, Julian Fellowes’ HBO original series The Gilded Age tells a story of two families from different socioeconomic backgrounds and the relationship between them as they are trying to navigate these times of immense change.

Vanja Cernjul ASC HFS used Cooke Optics spherical S7/i and Anamorphic/i to visually show the contrasts between these two groups."

Chris Young

https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/hbos-the-gilded-age-lensed-with-cooke-lenses/

and

https://www.motionpictures.org/2022...er-manuel-billeter-on-lighting-old-money-new/

and

https://www.filmmakingcameras.com/the-gilded-age-tv-series-details/

A good range of the images produced on display here:

 
So…. Reminds me of the demo material from Panasonic when the V35 was introduced 10 years ago. A lot of it looks and “feels” like video. Part of it seems to be the motion cadence. Part of it seems to be the lighting or how the camera sees the lighting. And maybe something else I just can’t quite put my finger on…. Some of the scenes I felt like I was watching a soap opera. It just looked and felt uninspiring and boring. There was no suspension of disbelief. I felt like I was watching people play dress-up while it was being recorded on a modern ‘video camera’.

Maybe I need to rewatch on an actual “TV”, as opposed to my iPad. But I doubt that’s what it was.
 
cyvideo said:
I I cannot see how using a full-frame format could have added anything extra of note to the story
Click to expand...

I feel that fullframe is a myth of a look. Its just front element size that really wmatters for letting light in! (note that some 2/3 lenses have the bigger front elements and thinner DOF! than a 6.3 FF zoom)

YES if you have a FF camera and want a look for under $2000 you can do that in a way you cannot with S35, manual 24/28. 50 1.4 85/2 are affordable from the stills back catalogue (nikon FD contax olympus)

BUT if you are playin on the big court then an S35/16mmT2 (for example) is yours and has been for ever.

So if you can afford the cine glass FF brings vey little.

Maybe at 6400ISO FF is the winner.

Having owned 645 for stills I fast realised that without a 50 1.4 or 85/2 I could get thinner DOF with a smaller sensor.

--

As for the look of this show (trailer) I didnt see anything bad.. (apart from the focus hunt on the bts) but im not sure I saw anything exceptional
 
Run&Gun said:
So…. Reminds me of the demo material from Panasonic when the V35 was introduced 10 years ago. A lot of it looks and “feels” like video. Part of it seems to be the motion cadence. Part of it seems to be the lighting or how the camera sees the lighting. And maybe something else I just can’t quite put my finger on…. Some of the scenes I felt like I was watching a soap opera. It just looked and felt uninspiring and boring. There was no suspension of disbelief. I felt like I was watching people play dress-up while it was being recorded on a modern ‘video camera’.

Maybe I need to rewatch on an actual “TV”, as opposed to my iPad. But I doubt that’s what it was.
Click to expand...

R&G. I really haven't experienced the results you have, probably because I was watching the show on a display that gets triggered into the correct image settings as set by the Filmmaker Mode. Everybody's experiences can be different, and how any production is viewed can have a large bearing on that viewing experience.

These days the most important setting I find to maintain the true cadence of film and to realize as closely as possible the director's intentions is to use "Filmmaker Mode" which is now available on a lot of later screens. That is, if the files or stream have the necessary data flag to trigger Filmmaker Mode. I was watching Gilded Age on an LG C1 OLED in 444 12-bit mode, and Filmmaker Mode was triggered by the files I was playing. If the correct data flag is in the stream or file being played, Filmmaker Mode will automatically cut in. This setting is incorporated to as closely as possible preserve the director’s original intent, Filmmaker Mode shuts off all the extra processing a TV might apply to movies and shows, including both standard (SDR) and high dynamic range (HDR) content on 4K TVs. This involves preserving the TV’s full contrast ratio, setting the correct aspect ratio, and switches the screen to the correct color space and frame rates as was determined by the director at the time of production. 23.976 in this case. Films look more like what you’d see in a theater. This tends to totally eliminate the Soap Opera effect.

This Filmmaker Mode preset has been widely praised by a host of well-known directors, including J.J. Abrams, Paul Thomas Anderson, James Cameron, Patty Jenkins, Rian Johnson, Christopher Nolan, Jordan Peele, and Martin Scorsese, as well as actors such as Tom Cruise. I can understand why it is pushed by the above because for me, it is the closest I've ever seen an electronic display to emulate a projected cinema image.

As I said. I enjoyed the images. Sure the content is a bit on the soap opera side but no amount of electronic settings will change that. :)

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
I totally get that a lot of (most) people watch TV “wrong”, because their TV’s aren’t set-up properly(usually with some type of motion interpolation on), but other 24 frame content looks fine on the same display and I noticed the same thing from the 3rd gen Vari 10 years prior. Maybe when I get a chance I’ll try to stream it on my LG projector and OLED and see if it still has the same look to me.

I actually usually really like period shows like that. I was a fan of Downton Abbey.
 
Run&Gun said:
I totally get that a lot of (most) people watch TV “wrong”, because their TV’s aren’t set-up properly(usually with some type of motion interpolation on), but other 24 frame content looks fine on the same display and I noticed the same thing from the 3rd gen Vari 10 years prior. Maybe when I get a chance I’ll try to stream it on my LG projector and OLED and see if it still has the same look to me.

I actually usually really like period shows like that. I was a fan of Downton Abbey.
Click to expand...

R&G, if you are not familiar with Filmmaker Mode, it's worth checking out. For my viewing pleasure, it has been a decent jump forward in being able to watch material close to the way the director hoped it would be viewed.

Chris Young

https://filmmakermode.com/

 
cyvideo said:
R&G, if you are not familiar with Filmmaker Mode, it's worth checking out. For my viewing pleasure, it has been a decent jump forward in being able to watch material close to the way the director hoped it would be viewed.

Chris Young

https://filmmakermode.com/

Click to expand...

Chris, I'm familiar with it(and love the idea) in so much as I remember when it was being talked about several years ago, what it's "about" and then when it was introduced, but I do not have a set with it. My current LG OLED and projector both pre-date its release.
 
I don't believe Filmmaker Mode activates any custom settings in a given display that can't be attained through the regular settings. It's essentially turning off any motion smoothing, sharpening and noise redutction, plus pre-calibrated color and contrast. Which, one would hope, everyone here has already done...?! ;)
 
I have shot plenty of Varicam footage, much of which I've discussed here at DVXuser. Early on I did comparative tests against Alexa to see how it looked with skin tones and the like, and was quite pleased with it. I had no previous allegiance to Panasonic--back in the day I preferred the F900 to the original Varicam, and while I owned a DVX100 hence my joining this site, I honestly wasn't that much of a fan of it compared to my Canon XL1's I had prior. So it was a big swing to become a "Varicam guy", but that high ISO capability was enough to keep me coming back. Now that my LT has devalued to the point where it's not worth selling, guess I'm stuck with it...
 
CharlesPapert said:
I don't believe Filmmaker Mode activates any custom settings in a given display that can't be attained through the regular settings. It's essentially turning off any motion smoothing, sharpening and noise redutction, plus pre-calibrated color and contrast. Which, one would hope, everyone here has already done...?! ;)
Click to expand...

Correct, Charles. Fully agree.

Filmmaker doesn't activate any settings that aren't available manually. It just saves having to dig your way though the multitude of menus to get to the same end result. Which is what I have done for 23.976/24p material that doesn't have the data flag to trigger Filmmaker mode and all its associated settings. The only drawback with the manual setting approach is if you want to use that input to watch a normal set-top box cable feed is that you have to reset the settings back to 50/60 or whatever the set-top box is putting out. Manually selecting Filmmaker mode does not set all the settings that the auto data flag sets. When doing it manually, you have to select Filmmaker mode then wade through a number of additional menus to set the other parameters that get set automatically when flagged by the Filmmaker mode data flag.

For example, if not knowing how to select the correct settings for 24Hz content, it ends up being displayed with 3:2 pulldown to allow it to be displayed on a 60Hz screen. This causes one of the 24Hz source frames to be displayed for two display frames, and the next to be displayed for three. This in turn causes judder where you notice uneven motion due to different frame hold times for each frame of the 24Hz source material.

Most modern OLEDs are 120Hz displays, so need a 5:5 pulldown setting to display each frame 5 times on 24Hz material to eliminate judder. This is easy to miss when setting things up manually. If you know this, then you know how to set the display up for 5:5 pulldown correctly for 24Hz material.

I've had people say, "That picture looks great, I wish mine would look like that!" I then tell them that if their set supports Filmmaker mode, then yes, your picture can look like that, or very close. Most people I have spoken to have no idea what their TVs can deliver and when asked if they have read the set's manual I would suggest around 90% answer "No, not really, it's all a bit complicated." Well, really there is no answer to that. You can't help those who won't help themselves. :)

Chris Young
 
If someone simply turns off Motion Flow and any other related frame-rate settings, that will get them 90% of the way to the best picture possible. The other 10% is kind of up to personal preference anyway. I don't really care how the filmmaker intended it to look if I have the power to make it look closer to the way that I want it to look.
 
I can't argue with that, Doug. If the way you want it to look is your driving parameter. At the cinema, you watch it the way the filmmaker intended to be seen. Which I appreciate as that is part of the filmmaker's vision. Like I remember when TV networks wanted to edge crop the original The Color Purple back in '85 and Spielberg said no way. If it's being shown on television, it will be shown letterboxed, otherwise it won't be shown. So I can understand why Directors have a desire for their work to be viewed as intended. So I guess on your rationalization you have no issues with anyone modifying any of your productions, such as regrading one?

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
So I guess on your rationalization you have no issues with anyone modifying any of your productions, such as regrading one?
Click to expand...

I have no control over how my work is displayed, so I do not let it concern me. This is how it is been for 40 years. Nothing new here.
 
cyvideo said:
At the cinema, you watch it the way the filmmaker intended to be seen. Which I appreciate as that is part of the filmmaker's vision.
Click to expand...

I rarely go to the cinema anymore because there are very few theatrical releases that appeal to me, and for those that do look good, I can wait for streaming or Blu-ray, or HBO, or whatever. But mostly I avoid the movie theaters because I can have a far better viewing experience in my own home.

BTW, I went to see "The Hateful Eight" on 70mm film when it came out, as Tarantino had intended it to be shown, and it looked absolutely awful. It looks 1000% better streaming on Netflix with my own 4K TV.

BTW, can you make "The Whale" look better on your TV? Ha, ha. Impossible, right? The ugliest turd of a movie to come along in years. But that was the filmmakers vision. So, I'll pass.
 
Im sure the V35 is as good or better than any of the other manual focus lump cine cameras!

Dress any of them with cine glass, a pro first a/c, an ocon 2575 and a big steadicam and make movies.

The question might be.. when is a manual focus lump the correct tool?
 
morgan_moore said:
I feel that fullframe is a myth of a look. Its just front element size that really wmatters for letting light in! (note that some 2/3 lenses have the bigger front elements and thinner DOF! than a 6.3 FF zoom)

YES if you have a FF camera and want a look for under $2000 you can do that in a way you cannot with S35, manual 24/28. 50 1.4 85/2 are affordable from the stills back catalogue (nikon FD contax olympus)

BUT if you are playin on the big court then an S35/16mmT2 (for example) is yours and has been for ever.

So if you can afford the cine glass FF brings vey little.

Maybe at 6400ISO FF is the winner.

Having owned 645 for stills I fast realised that without a 50 1.4 or 85/2 I could get thinner DOF with a smaller sensor.

--

As for the look of this show (trailer) I didnt see anything bad.. (apart from the focus hunt on the bts) but im not sure I saw anything exceptional
Click to expand...

Having looked at charts, I think that you get superior MTF, especially at the edges, on medium format vs full frame at matching DOF. I assume the same is true of full frame vs S35.

Considering lens availability, usually the shallowest DOF is available on full frame lenses sporting f/1.2 or 1.4.

Of course, there are many considerations of lens manufacture and performance. Stills full frame lenses will get trounced by good cine lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top