Leaderboard

Panasonic Lumix GX80.

Hi Andrew, I couldn't agree more with your article. As a former C300/1DC owner, I love Canon's color science (especially for skin tones). And I was eagerly looking forward to the C300 Mark II. But not at $16K or even $12K. I then hoped in vain that the 1DX Mark II would at least have Log. If this C300M2 rental slump continues, Canon may have to drop the price yet again to (hopefully) $9k or $8k. Today, it would have to approach the price of an FS7 to be as competitive and attract the same mass market interest for indie doc filmmakers that the C300 once did. I know that might sound strange considering that the C300 was once $16K for only 1080p, but times have changed and the competition is fierce.

Here are 2 videos I shot earlier this summer: The intro and performance were shot with the 4.6K on this one: I have 2 other videos done that I can't post yet but here are a couple of frame grabs:

Bringing this back to life, this time with a picture :

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time. And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively. They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there.

Money might be the only thing that will make Canon change anything. But there are still a lot of people praising and buying Canon for video - even DSLRs - and maybe things are starting to turn, but as long as there are people buying I don't see Canon caring.

Well yes, this information comes from the experience of speaking to the rental guys on a weekly basis. I recently asked for the C300 II for an event job (interviews and highlights) and they said "nobody wants the C300 II as everyone is using the FS7, so we don't have it. You can take the original C300 though." I'm sure this will be very different geographically, however I know for sure the FS7 is the UK's biggest seller and most rented camera of the year. I bet the C300 II is hot cakes in other parts of the world. I feel Canon just missed with the C300 II. If it had 4k 60p and better slow motion like the FS7.... it would have no problem being sold and rented everywhere. Most of the stuff I've seen online (not all of it) from the 1DXII looks like it's wrapped in a reflective sheet of plastic. It's how the standard profiles are managing exposure from shadows to highlights, it's really quite harsh and not appealing to lots of us. I'm still interested in the 1DX II til this day, however it's missing that elusive C-log feature that will correct my biggest reservation. I'm not spending that kind of money on a camera that doesn't have a log mode. Also the crippled HDMI port is very very silly. Do Canon have something against it's users for using an Atomos for a better codec? It's things like this which frustrate me about Canon, I can see why some people get so irritated by their conservatism.

Nope, Panasonic doesn't have Canon's knack or track record of such epic level let downs.

Oh I thought you wheren't disappointed on the 5d4 . You're going to hate when they come out with those specs at 1500-1600 dollars. Because you spent your money on Canon all over again.

Humanity has to revert back to it's origins in order to find it's own salvation. Made just for fun throughout Netherlands journey with the love of my life. Shot with Sony PXW-FS5 & Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS Slog3 & FilmConvert Pro

His dentistry friends who he tagged: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002625780591 https://www.facebook.com/ghader.moustafamanah https://www.facebook.com/Nism.nougat https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004619610557 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004469431009 Amused somewhat by his latest FB update: Oh FFS, he recently got a PS4: Yet cries he is too broke and poor to repay those who he robbed???

At the rental house where I work, the MK II definitely sat on the shelves for a long time while the FS7 worked all day, every day. Lately though, the MK II has been picking up steam, and we've invested in a few more as we start to replace our aging pile of C300 MK Is. But it still has a long way to go to catch up. That said, I can imagine that Canon has been feeling the squeeze, which is why they lowered the price drastically. And while it's still pricer than the FS7 despite the slightly inferior specs, it's not unreasonable considering that the build quality is far superior. The FS7 feels like cheap plastic crap and breaks often. The MK II (as well as the other C-series cameras) is a beast, and holds up to production rigors much better. And the color science is on another level entirely. The Canon RAW output approaches the Reds and Arris as far as color reproduction and dynamic range is concerned. I'm amazed every time I plug an Odyssey 7Q in. The original C300 is a legend, though, and I expect it to continue working for a long time. It's in the same league as the Arri 2C and Eclair NPR as far as its importance as a documentary and low budget filmmaking camera.

Talking about sensor, there were an old rumour about that here : http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-new-panasonic-gh5-sensor-is-made-by-sony/ “Sony has an 18.9mm*13mm M43 sensor designed for Panasonic that could be used in GH5. Very high-end, 24 channel super fast readout speed that BIONZX could not keep up with. Only Panasonic can fully unleash the potential of this chip right now.”

Various sources have suggested that the C300 Mark II is having difficulties coping with the run-away success of the Sony FS7 on the rental market. Is it truly being left on the shelves? EOSHD analyses an unexpected situation... Read the full article

I'll try and get a photo of my setup, but I've got the Micro Cinema camera on my crane, necessitating the need of an external monitor(SmallHD DP4). I have a SmallHD articulating arm mounted to the bottom 1/4 20 thread in the handle and a 3ft slim Monoprice HDMI cable plugged into a right angle HDMI adapter into the Micro. To be honest, having come from using Glidecams and Steadicam stabilizers, it's not much different from looking down at a monitor on a sled. With a SLR Magic 12mm(1st gen) and a Fader vari-ND, in conjunction with the Smallrig cage, I'm a little over 1200g but it seems to have no problem with the weight nor having an HDMI dangling downwards. As Mattias mentioned earlier, having an HDMI cable running to an external monitor would prohibit the gimbal from panning 360 degrees, and going to inverted mode will require some adjustment to the noga arm and monitor, but it can be done.

What I love about Canon: The image. The color science, the ergonomics, the menus. What I hate about Canon: Everything else. Here are just a few of the top contenders on my hate list: Before I began using Canon's late last year I had alway heard about their glass and all the fantastic choices they offer. Maybe so, but not for video shooters who do a lot of hand held work. I have a C300 Mk II --a wonderful camera. But can I find a zoom lens that is at least 2.8 with IS? No sirreee Bob, it doesn't exist except in the EF-S version of the 17-55 2.8 and IS---works a treat on the humble 80 and 70D...with dual pixel and follow focus--the whole nine yards, and probably does the same on the C100 Mk II. But provides nothing but basic AF on the C300 Mk II. I have a Tamron 2.8 zoom with IS. Works on the 1dC--but the C300 Mk II won't even read it. WTF! Who the Hell does this kind of stuff to their customers?!? Now, I could see this if Canon was pushing you to buy a more expensive full frame option---but none is provided. I am positive a firmware update would provide those full focus features to the EF-S--which is a very sharp lens--for the C300 Mk II. Yes, it's noisy, but it would still be usable in many circumstances. But in lieu of that Canon offers: nothing, NADA, Nichts, zippo, zilch. Come on Canon. How about some 2016 lenses. The only concession Canon has made for run and gun shooters is the XC10. As good as it is, how about providing it in an APS-C sensor and a 2.8 constant f-stop? How about doing something innovative instead of leading from behind, making your customers wait for years, and then never giving the market what they ask for? Canon marketing and product planners--you suck. Stop cheating one product in a pathetic attempt to protect another. Think about your customers for a change---believe me you will sell more. Honest to God, if there was a mirrorless company that could provide wonderful color science, 4kDCI with reasonably substantial bit rates and a Log gamma, that offered IN CAMERA stabilization and lens flexibility like Sony does I'd never give Canon a second glance, and never buy another over-priced Canon product. And speaking of over-priced: what kind of company gouges their customers for their new models, and when they (and their distributors) don't get the sales numbers they hoped for (because the price was so absurdly out of line with the rest of the market), they stab those who were loyal to them by cutting the price by thousands--down to about what the product should have been in the first place. Here's what I learned in running my company: price a fine product fairly and reasonably and you will have robust sales out of the chute and sustained sales in the long run. How many people don't buy a Canon product at the outset, use what they have satisfactorily, and wait it out for the big gouge to end and save thousands? How many of those would buy earlier if the pricing was fair and reasonable for the quality? In my business experience a LOT would. What company repeatedly stabs their customers in the backs like Canon does? I mean these sorts of things can't be avoided 100% by any company, the one I own included. But with Canon it almost seems pathological--like a kind of revenge for WWII--oops, did I say that? Am I full of it, or does anyone else feel as frustrated as I am? Oh, Sony, if you only provided a decent image and DPAF and skin tones that don't make people look like shape shifting weirdos from another planet. Who provides a field camera that doesn't have to be tethered to a tripod, has a usable form factor, video features like peaking, waveform, and zebra; a camera that will give you a beautiful image from decent sized sensor, reasonably fast lenses, 2016 quality IS--and beautiful skin tones, and I don't have to mortgage my house to own it. Tell me and I'll buy it! Promise. I'm not asking for the moon here. Just a camera that incorporates common technologies that have been found in cameras of almost all price levels for several years now. Andrew once wrote in his article on forgotten older cameras: "We're being diddled with."--I think that's the quote. Indeed!

Love the timelapse in the OP. It is on my bucket list to view and maybe film the earth from that height one day. Reminded me a little of my favorite ever Vimeo video (not a timelapse):

I have been waiting for the GH5 for months, and there is no way I will get a M43 for $2,500, I'll pick up a Sony A6300, a GX85 or a canon XC10, the price should stay around $1,500 or going other route, and I am sure many will do the same

There might be some truth to this. Recently I've been looking at a ton of Sony footage and actually prefer the colors. All this talk about the awful Sony colors and skin tones, I no longer agree. I don't know if Sony has improved or I've just been conditioned to accept it.

You know what I think is happening? What I think is happening is that... people are slowly adopting the Sony cams, simply for its features... once they get it they don't like the colors or skin tones. But they've still adopted it and said "screw it..." getting used to those colors. I see a major shift coming... such that people start getting used to Sony colors and saying... thats what I want. Here is to hoping that Canon fails... and starts saying "what the fuck did we do?" Starts downsizing and starts firing that whole marketing and research department.

Hahahahahahahaha. See, even the GH4 seriously outsold Panasonic's expected numbers, and thus production had to be seriously ramped up. If Canon makes $100 on the C100 in net profits, then probably Panasonic makes $500 on GH4 (these numbers were obviously Very different, initially). But the GH4 probably sold like 50-100 times as much as he C100. So, in the end the pricing isn't governed by anything except net profits. That is why field monitors cost so much more than Smartphones, despite the kind of features and technology found on each device. At $2500 the GH5 can make a killing for a 4k 4-2-2 device, if it can attract a certain minimum numbers of people, who will primarily use it for stills. The DSLR/DSLM filmmaking community is still a very small proportion of the DSLR/DSLM buyers, and therefore its photography features would be a huge governing factor for its sales figures.

It's about time we saw a reduction in these prices - still too expensive though. I'm enjoying the X5R so far (wouldn't say I love it yet) - it's got me using Resolve a lot more than before.

Switch from PAL to NTSC.

Yeah people are the worst, listening to a full time pro that shoots all over the world 365 days a year, how dare they. They definitely should ask the folks online that spend most their time online and haven't touched their camera in years. Their the once that know the specs. Their the once that have all the charts, numbers and statistics. All far more important than experience when giving advice or sharing an opinion. Any who, I started watching Veep this weekend. Funny show. And I totally lost it when this scene came on. Very fun, true and current

Panasonic have to stay relevant in a FF/S35 world. This means new features for a good price. Someone will break the 8bit limit... Panasonic might see this as a way to bring more to the m43 system.

Just look at the prices for an adapter to control aperture for Canon EF vs Nikon F, heaps more! In fact for Sony FZ mount it is prohibitively expensive on a budget. For RED One MX and Samsung NX it is nonexistent. But for all it is cheap and easy to use my Nikon F mount lenses on them.

I like that Nikon F mount lenses are more easy / cheaper to adapt than anything else. Venus Imaging is bringing out a 17mm f4 TS for Nikon very soon.

love: raw stills color/ml raw color. it needs some wrangling (neon greens?) but it makes people look AHmazing. incredibly lifelike and also very flattering hate: they still havent made an affordable slr that shoots awesome 1080p... still.

I'm lifting this thread. Here is my version of the Space Timelapse featuring new sequences. Took me a lot of work to achieve because the photo were only available in JPEG and the astronauts love to shoot in AWB and weird expo settings (f/1.4, ISO2000, 1/4000...). I don't blame the guys, they have plenty of stuff to do and this is already great to get this resource from NASA. For the fun fact, NASA is big on Nikon. 90% of these are taken with a D3S and a few D4 and D2x as well. Apparently the D5 didn't make it to space yet (or the pic are not available). Enjoy And if you like Timelapse. That's what I do. Cheers

Any of these cameras, if handled properly with a modicum of lighting and color correction expertise, will produce a feature film-quality image, 4K or HD, 8-bit or RAW, full frame or micro 4/3. Stop complaining and shoot something. Back in the day, I used to drop what my C100 cost on film and processing for a single project. Now I can shoot many projects. With an 8-bit 4:2:0 image that'll hold up on any screen. And I can play back my dailies instantly. Seriously, as time has gone on, people have been getting more and more disgruntled, despite the fact that the wealth of technology at our fingertips is simply staggering. I don't get it.

do you want a camera that's basically the d5500, just with some more video features and ease of use? willing to pay a bit to get it? or are you just looking at other affordable cameras that could compete with some differences and trade-offs? I'm not sure what the options are with an external recorder or monitor on the d5500, that could be interesting, you'd need to research that, but I think it could be ideal for you a c100ii looks like a really similar camera, with more features - and for more money of course. the image and files could still feel like home the a6300's 60p might be comparable to the d5500.. has gotten badmouthed some, but the d5500 is lacking a little in detail, so might not be too much of a loss, if you're still good with the nikon. I'm also not sure of the status of the overheating now. might have improved some recently, but if not, that could be a bummer.

7D with ML raw is shit. 5Dmk3 with ML raw is great. I'd also suggest BMMCC or secondhand BMPCC. Or maybe even BMCC MFT if you don't care about the weight. FS5 / KineMINI / Terra / UM4.6K / FS700 / etc are all good as well if your budget stretches up that high.

Kinemini?

Anything cheaper and you will have to give up something on your list.

I like it... Good work. This is what it's really about.

Sony FS5, not sure what you consider affordable.

Consider the Panasonic GX85. It's far and away the best of the cheaper cameras in 2016. I have the D5500 and the image is nice, closest to A7R II Super 35mm you can get if all you need is 1080p and want to put stuff on Vimeo. Only if you're pixel peeping the image will you find it different in terms of detail. The colours, codec and dynamic range are VERY similar looking. Yet the D5500 is much cheaper than an A7R II. It doesn't have any moire or aliasing problems to any meaningful degree and is a very clean image. However the GX85 just takes things to a whole new level for a similar price. In-body stabilisation, more flexible lens mount, Speed Booster, 4K, proper video shooting aids, EVF, the list goes on... You are getting a LOT more for your money with it.

What I love: Deliver what they promise. Hate: Electronic aperture. Im waiting on the prices of 5Dmkiii to come down even more. Meanwhile I bought an even earlier model of the line. It was 100% new and unused, didn't cost much and delivers just as it should. Even features like "look to focus" which I would bet all my money wouldn't work on such an old camera, if it had not been a Canikon (both are solid as rocks imo). And a few good old fashioned "Pet Tests" (B&W was Fomapan200 in Neofin. Color was Ektar dev in room temperature)

Definitely not. First of all they're only designed to cover a cropped sensor circle, so even if it were possible they'd vignette like crazy, but that's besides the point anyway seeing as they're specifically designed for the mirrorless NX mount and flange distance, meaning there's no way you could shove a piece of glass in there and expect it to be focuseable.

after week long extensive tests, I finally come to conclusion that I'd use Gamma DR standard with -15 sharpness and MB15 for a uniform and flat skintone look, this look is good when the actor has no makeup but for more gritty look I use gamma C which gives more color depth especially on cheeks are more red than the rest of the face however I recommend makeup to smooth the face "BB CREAM" works nicely. I didn't like -4 sat and -3 contrast nor -4 contrast and 0 sat because no matter what you do you can't return the pure black back on, if you adjust black level or contrast it affects the entire image, that's why GammaC is very good for darker tones, like horror, thriller, mystery but Gamma DR is good for comedy, romance. For nature, outdoor, buildings I prefer Gamma C, this is because it has much less macroblocking in the blue channels "sky basically" unless your sky is cloudy maybe you want Gamma DR. with Gamma C you want to expose to 0 this is because its blacks are darker, for Gamma DR I underexpose to -3. remember we are using 8bit color, professionals use 16bit color for flat profile because they have the headroom to do the grading, our cameras have to be adjusted as close as possible to your final look otherwise it will start breaking up especially walls, skys and flat surfaces where repetition of pixels occur. I also ordered a lens filter glass "Tiffen Black Satin 1" this is so I can smooth out the face's blemishes, because the camera is too sharp in order to reduce macroblockings which occur when there is too much details in sky, flat surfaces ect..you cant fix this in post it has to be fixed before the image hits the censor. Also thanks to this forum for my research, I tried all your settings, without them I wouldn't have come to my personal conclusion

Agree with all of this, but image beats all for me so I can't see myself ever switching to Sony or Panasonic. Not only have I always found Canon's color science to be dramatically better, but the quality of the image itself just looks more filmic to my eyes. Not sure how to explain it exactly, but Sony has more of a "modern" feel to it whereas Canon is classically cinematic.

As if the crop factor wasn't bad enough news, here comes rolling shutter results...

Over at BMCuser, someone posted that they dropped their Mini 4.6k, it landed on the handle & cracked the casing, causing damage to the mother board inside - BM wouldn't repair it! However, it does produce lovely images, if used by someone who knows what they're doing... I personally think that they'll keep going, but will revert to smaller packages (box like cams) - if they can figure out how to heat sink in a smaller package (the same user took his Mini apart & the majority of the camera is dedicated to the heat sink module). You've got to remember that BM cameras are budget cameras & they will have to cut corners in quality/build to keep the prices competative & low. You've got to admit that the images coming from these cameras can be awesome & I hope that they struggle through, just like RED did at the beginning. I believe that in another 10yrs time, we'll be talking about BM cameras in the same breath as RED & maybe ARRI. The biggest problem that they have at the moment is lack of user knowledge & this is due to the low price of some of their cameras - for every great user, there are at least 10 numpties whose lack of filming knowledge gets exposed as soon as they pick one up. They are not DSLRs & shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence, let alone compared to them. If you don't get this, then DO NOT buy one, because you're probably the type of person that hasn't the time or patience to learn how to use them. Just look at all the [stupid BS] hate aimed at the Pocket camera: poor battery life, bad screen etc... 45mins time limit for battery & SD card whilst filming PR. The screen is by a country mile not the worst i've ever used & I seem to manage very well nailing focus - I wear glasses, which adds an extra dimension of difficulty to the whole thing. And these same people talk about wanting to replicate a filmic image, just imagine them using a film camera that has a max filming time of 12mins - people with no skill or patience to learn will complain about anything if you let them, it's how they cover up for their short comings. It's a crying shame, but it's their loss........

Display units in stores are always broken and man handled in my experience. No matter what brand. No, I think they will stay on for a while still. On the still side its another story. Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax.... This won't last. There aren't enough customers. Samsung is not the last to go.

Couple of super quick samples with the Rectilux CoreDNA.

It's a well known artifact with sony cameras. Referred to mostly as 'highlight aliasing'. Google 'highlight aliasing' and you will find many hits. It is a lot more egregious in HD than it is in 4k but its clearly still there. Aparently It was even apparent on the f5 and f55 but was addressed and removed on those cameras. On other cameras like the fs700 it wasn't addressed. However, people observed with the fs700 that it could be bypassed with Raw recording. Go and look at videos shot with sony cameras. Now that you have seen it you will notice it everywhere! Even in cases were you can't see it obviously it still alters the overal look of the image as a whole, making it seem over sharp and less organic. Its a big contributor to sonys reputation as giving a video look. The good news for you is that it is smaller in 4k and in most cases people wont notice it.

If Canon is able to put a 24-100mm equivalent f1.8-2.8 in the G7x which is tiny compared to the XC10, surely they can provide an even better lens with a similar focal length for the XC15. I know the slow lens tended to be the first thing most people complained about.

Log modes are always darker. For instance, Slog2 is much darker than Cine4 on the A7S. The information is shared more across the curve.

GammaDR gives the most natural look and you can add contrast to it if you need. I have been shooting close to 100 hours this summer and when using normal or GammaC it's hard to manage scenes that are partly sun partly shade. I tried ricardos settings, but the colors were ultimately too fake and blend. It's not really fun to look image that is so gray. In stills it seems nice, but watching even 2 minute video with it is just exhausting.

I can tell you the pros and cons between the Core DNA and SRL Magic Rangefinder. I don't own the 3FF The Rangefinder and Rectilux each have there strengths. Rangefinder : Pros - Is built better then Rectilux. Feels more solid and does not make any noise when rotating. Rotating gear is much smoother. You could get it with distance marks. 82mm is easily to mange then 86mm via diopters. 77mm is very nice when connecting to anamorphic verses 75mm but I was lucky it fit my Redstan Baby Hypergonar jacket perfect! Half the price of Core DNA. Rectilux Core DNA : Image quality is better, sharper and does not tint the image on the warm side. The Core DNA is tac sharp at 1.2 and the Rangefinder needs 2.8 or higher. I'm not a big fan of Rangefinder blue flare blobs. The Core has a non rotating front, which is important to me for a circular polarizer and ND filters being I love shooting nature. For me it was well worth the extra cash. A short video I shot with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zS1pw5p7yc&list=PLIEXyH1Xyq4ToDcZ0ZVCl6bVk060hc_O-&index=3 Here is a list of extras I have compiled to take the Core DNA to the next level. I would highly recommend getting these extras to make the Core DNA ready for use. 1. M3/M4 Stainless Steel Nylon Head Grub Screw Plastic Brake Buffer Bolt Screws Hex This is so you don’t scratch up the coating of your anamorphic lens or housing. http://www.ebay.com/itm/281858121964?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&var=580836260280&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT 2. 86mm UV filter to protect the front of the Core DNA glass. 3. Metal back cap for whatever size you end up using for your coupler if bigger then 75mm. 4. A custom coupler made from this lens hood fits perfectly. “FOTGA Screw Mount 67mm Standard Metal Lens Hood for Canon Nikon Pentax Sony Olympus” http://www.amazon.com/FOTGA-Screw-Standard-Pentax-Olympus/dp/B009GFY858 Then a step down ring or step up ring for whatever the size of your front anamorphic thread is. I’m doing 77mm because this is what most of my front clamps are. I’m making a custom 75mm to 77mm coupler for Kowa 1.5x and Kowa 1.75x. 5. 86mm Fixed Spacer Ring http://srb-photographic.co.uk/86mm-fixed-spacer-ring-5713-p.asp You want a uv filter to protect the glass but having it on you can’t completely go to infinity. Lucky, even with the uv filter on and not being able to turn the Core DNA to infinity, I’m sharp for over 100 feet. This spacer is for clearing the full range of the focus and using filters. 6. You want to get some 86mm or higher diopters. You need them if you want to get sharp and close.