I've read that it's a common issue for directors coming into film from stage production, where, of course, there is no camera to have movement with.
Often the whole point of vintage lenses is to have a slightly lower contrast. Carl Zeiss Jena and the Soviets, the Helioses, Jupiters and Industars.
What do you mean? That there seems to be less relevant film making articles?
Would it have helped to have had an image that had white balance corrected in post so that we could see what the "true" colour was?
Contax Zeiss. Super Takumar. Minolta. Possibly Canon FD.
Aperture. Bigger numbers mean less light. I can live with that. But...
I use a full frame film lens (ie a Helios 44 or suchlike) on a crop sensor camera. It says F2 so I must be shooting at F2, the focal length has changed due to crop factor.
I then swap my adaptor for a focal reducer. I lose the crop factor and gain an extra stop in aperture by squeezing all the full frame light onto my crop sensor. So my F2 lens is now F1.4. That's what the Internet tells me. Is it? Or was I at an apparent F2.8 to begin with? Or F stops only have a very relative effect in similar circumstances?