My video work flow fits in with client needs.
1080p/16:9, enabled with 422/10bit/50p capture in Flat profile, basic grading. Flat is easier and more neutral to work with than Cine-D, well for me anyway.
I am exploring V-Log, but to be honest, I will likely just stick to Flat for most jobs unless dynamic range is a real issue, when V-Log may give me a stop or two more.
I use either Panasonic S or G series lenses or various cinema lenses, depending on what I nee to get the job done or sometimes a specific look.
DaVinci is my ride, even with the steep learning curve, mainly because it is free, but also because it is an industry standard, lack of ProRes conversion not withstanding.
Formats?
Anamorphic keeps raising its head, appealing more to the frustrated cinematographer in me than anything because the reality is, if I shoot in anamorphic for me, I may well create useless footage for most others.
Open gate or 4:3 ratio, handily the native format for M43 cameras.
Another option would be to shoot C4k or Open Gate, then crop as needed, still exceeding my 1080 standard. This looses the streaks (I have filters and don’t always love the look personally), the odd Bokeh balls (same, not a thing for me) and the standard-that-is-wide perspective anomaly*.
16:9 standard video format, minimum hassles, handy height for moving subjects.
C4k is a slightly wider format, hardly anything, but by maximising my capture, I can then crop slightly and get a genuinely wide 2:1 or wider aspect ratio.
Cinema 4k. Hardly noticeable, but still adds some problems, one of which is cropping back in to 16:9 to match other footage.
Cinemascope 2.35:1, or about what the 24mm Sirui anamorphic would render, except that the magnification to perspective ratio would change. Too wide for most uses?
Advantages are being able to crop as I want as with stills, sometimes finding looks that surprise, having the “normal” aspect to fall back on or even other ratios not previuosly used.
The “reel” roughly.
Other stuff.
The 24mm Sirui anamorphic is on paper the perfect lens. It gives me my staple focal length (50mm) on a M43 camera as well as my other main squeeze, (35mm) in width.
Streaks are well controlled, minimum focus is excellent by anamorphic standards (but still average) and the oddly shaped Bokeh balls are fairly tame thanks to the wider focal length. It has effectively no focus breathing, is sharp and reasonably priced at $799au (on sale). As I said, nearly perfect on paper.
Detractors and I am going with actual users here, not theorists, usually site a lack of anamorphic tricks, saying it is too tame, a lens you need to feed correctly for some stronger effects (good thing) and a few have said it is tricky to focus accurately. Peaking on some cameras (Fuji mentioned as well as a Sony) can be misleading.
If I got it, I would basically be buying a hobby lens. The real world uses would be limited and for clients, I have tended to use Panasonic lenses (S primes, S Kit and G/Leica) as much for consistency as the now handy auto-focussing. I have “hobby” lenses, the 7Artisans, Sirui Nightwalker etc, some legacy and the IRIX macro, that sits between these two camps.
If the lens was used for a whole project, or maybe as the primary lens with something like the Sirui Nightwalker 24 used as a cropped portrait lens, then it could work, but again, the format does not suit all (many) projects.
Rodger Deakins is a well awarded cinematographer and an example of someone who does not play here. He shoots spherical lenses and crops. Sure he is using Arri cameras and top end lenses, but cropping actually helps here. Less than perfect corners are hidden, distortions also.
The “cinematic look” when it is relevant, comes down to many, many factors, few of which are down to a simple format or lens choice. Format in particular probably comes down to client driven practicalities as much as anything.
If you subscribe to the 28mm on S35 (roughly a 40mm on a full frame) being the “perfect” focal length for video and stills;
https://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/
then the Sirui is technically straddling both sides of that at once (48 < 40 > 36). More width, more magnification = perfect middle ground, but is regular spherical lens, a 40mm (20mm in M43) actually better?
I am drawn mostly to anamorphic lenses for their contradictory width to height rendering, not much else, so I need to think on this for a while. Does it matter, is the lack of consistency more of a hindrance than a help, is a $800au lens worth it just for mucking around with or would it actually give me something powerful and interesting. The Sirui 16mm tempt, but again, I am tending to use my modern stills lenses more.
*Assuming the 24mm on M43 which is a 48mm full frame equivalnet in image height, but a 36mm in width. Is this the perfect lens?