Leaderboard

Do you even read the articles that you link to? Messerschmidt: We shot 6K 2:1 with a 5K center extraction. This method gave us tremendous freedom in post for stabilization and re-framing when necessary. The editors work with a lot of split screens, so having the extra room to reframe and adjust in the cut is very helpful in that process. also: In addition to giving Fincher another crack at getting the exact composition he wants, it allows for the elimination of imperfections in the operating of the camera. “If you are shooting an actor sitting up from a chair and the operator tilts up with him, you might do 10 takes of that and the operator might keep the headroom perfect for six of them, but if they chose for editorial a take where the operator clips the headroom it can be fixed in post,” said Messerschmidt. “Same thing for stabilization – rolling on a slightly bumpy floor or doing a crane move where the crane has a little wiggle in it or whatever, being able to take that out in post very much informs David’s aesthetic. It lets the show maintain that very ethereal, almost robotic look, letting the camera be anonymous in the storytelling process.” I was speaking of your average Joe, not necessarily you. Here you go again pitting one against the other. In your b&w mind one is either pro something or against the other. You cannot seem to fathom a person can value multiple aspects of IQ. Filmmaking is more complex than just resolution & color science you know. It’s not just one or the other. I shoot all types of resolutions, it depends on the project and the budget. I shoot all kinds of brands/codecs/sensor sizes etc. Whatever I feel fits the project. That how pros think and work. Enthusiasts come up with these dead-end theories and tend to clinch to one side. You seem quite obessesed with color science, especially from ARRI. You keep claiming nothing has improved in that department in over a decade “none” “zero”. Sorry but that’s just plain incorrect, you musn’t have been following much. Canon/Sony/BM keep updating their CS. Canon offers you classic eos cinema color matrix or neutral which is ARRI inspired. Sony has had Venice’s S-Cinetone trickle down to FX/Alpha range. BM are on Gen5 of their CS. Furthermore, the biggest improvement relative to CS in recent mirrorless tech is 10-bit Log & RAW. These types of codecs finally allow footage shot on hybrids to get proper color grading treatments, and potentially compete/match with big boy ARRI/RED footage. If your complaining about CS in 2022 on a latest gen Canon/Sony/Nikon/Panny/BMD you perhaps should start taking a look at your grading skills.

Kye just one question and please don’t take this personal. How much have you 1. Tried to actually create a specific ‘aesthetic’ (let’s focus on that for a second and ignore all other considerations to a production, some of which might be more important than that aesthetic) in a real world scenario by: - Conceiving a type of look you want up front, often in coordination with clients and collaborators that may have wishes or needs that differ slightly or massively from your own taste or initial instinct, - going about selecting the tools that you need for achieving this. Keep in mind that you will need to test this equipment because some ideas that you had up front that seemed great or that you’ve heard about as performing X might not actually create the effect that you thought they would in practice. Sometimes locations or the camera/lenses that you preferred will not be available due to whatever reason. You will still be expected to achieve the previously agreed upon look. Quitting because you couldn’t get an Alexa will never get you another job again. - actually creating the look on set and MAINTAINING it across different shots that may be shot days apart. Remember that you might have less time in the schedule than you thought or that conditions changed beyond your control, you will still be expected to come close to your initial idea otherwise your look won’t match. - gone into a grading suite with a colorist and perhaps even a client and graded a large project in a very limited amount of time. Keep in mind that you will not be able to try fifty different experiments just for giggles because you will get fired. vs. 2. Downloaded some clips off the internet and played around -however skillfully or elaborately- with the footage on your pc. Because everything I’ve seen from you around here -and I might be wrong- indicates to me that you fall squarely into the second category. There’s nothing wrong with that and I do not mean to gatekeep or to shit on the enthusiasm for the craft that you regularly display on here (which is AWESOME!), but I am a little astounded by the confidence and boldness at which you make some claims. Please reflect upon your skill and experience and consider displaying some humility (know what you DON’T know), especially when looking at your experience (enthusiastic amateur filming their family on vacation) versus that of Django (working professional that has actually used some of the equipment that you make such confident assertions about).

yeah my ears are burning bc of the 'clay' skin tones comment i agreed with that 100%, like i said, and now im not doubling down, im tripling down~! • 5d mark 2 color was amazing, less realistic, more green and magenta (im not a scientist lol dont ask me), vs... • 5d 3 color which was amazing, warmer and prolly more accurate, but then • 5d4 came out and their color went to shit. 'flat' skin tones? yes, it looks like the men are wearing foundation but mind you, im ONLY TALKING ABOUT SKIN TONES, and crazy as it may sound, for my artistic purposes ~im happy to grade the heck out of everything else in the image~ neon grass/etc was common back in the day for canon, but id gladly wrangle the rest of the image for skintones which show blood and skin translucency better. its a huge way that we show emotion~! *no one actually cares what color a tree is* – you can make it teal. but if a persons face is teal they look sick (not sick cool but sick ill lol) i will power window the entire shot around the skintones. is that a practical workflow? no, its far from ideal, its time consuming. and ofc im speaking about creative 'artistic' filmmaking, not a product shoot where you need color accuracy and immediate turnaround. clearly. i get all that im just saying that there IS a difference in canon color from the 5d4 on, and i dont think that its an improvement. idk if its better at shooting a color chart, i respect the need, i just personally dont care... so am i imagining all this? maybe its a dream

Well ARRI already have the 4.5K LF & the 6K Alexa65. So to me that statement was already made a while ago. Well technically they all needed to be above 4K as their Netflix original content minimum requirements. This is why so many Netflix DPs dropped the Alexa for RED/Venice. Changed the whole game. There are real benefits to higher resolution too. Now wether or not this matters to you the end user watching a show on your 7" iPad is a different story. You're always trying to pigeonhole people in two categories it seems. Very black & white logic. Higher resolution is simply an inevitable reality. Tech moves forward. So do requirements. That doesn't mean you are directly concerned or that non +4K footage has become obsolete. Cinema is still 2K, terrestrial FHD and everything goes on the internet..

We're all talking about aesthetics. We're talking about aesthetics when we talk about the "look", but we're talking about it when we talk about specifications too. A debate rages about what is "enough" resolution, "enough" sharpness, "nicer" bokeh... what is "cinematic"... what is "visible"... what is "practical". This thread is a reality check against the warped concepts that stills photographers and their camera-club specifications-obsessions have given us. Because, for the most part, better objective measurements are mostly worse subjectively. It's our imperfections that creates our humanity, and it's analog imperfection that creates emotional images. Baseline First, let's establish a baseline. Here are some test images from ARRI that are designed to showcase the technology, not a creative aesthetic. Note the super-clean image, lack of almost all lens-distortions (except wide angle distortion on the wide lens, which is actually super-wide at 12mm). If you were there, this might be what it actually looked like. Those were grabs from a 4K YouTube upload, but lots of trailers aren't uploaded in 4K, so here is a still from 1080p Youtube video that ARRI uploaded in 2010. Now, without further ado.... The Aesthetic - The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina These are obviously very distorted, and I chose frames that were especially so. This should instantly disavow you of the idea that somehow Netflix demands "pristine" images - these are filthy as hell, but this is appropriate to the subject matter, which is about witchcraft, the occult, demons, and literally, hell. Whenever I hear someone say "oh I can't believe how terrible that lens is - look at the edge softness" I just laugh. The person may as well be saying "not only don't I have a clue about film-making, but my eyes also don't work either.. please ignore everything else I say from now on". The Aesthetic - Sex Education A show with a deliberately vintage vibe, the look is suitably vintage, with some pretty wicked CA. One thing that's interesting is the last shot, which was either a drone with a vintage lens on it, or it was doctored in post, because it has pretty severe CA - look at the bottom right of the frame above the Netflix logo. Also note how nothing looks sharp - the first image should have had something in-focus, but softness of this level is deliberate because once again, the last shot is a deep-focus shot with a stopped-down aperture and should be super-sharp but isn't. The Aesthetic - No Time To Die Some shots are softer than others, but note the amazing barrel distortion and edge softness on the middle two shots. In case you missed it, here's the star of this $400M movie in a pivotal scene from the movie: Are there lenses that could have made this shot more "accurate"? Sure - just scroll up to the ARRI shots which look pristine (and they're ZOOMS!). This was deliberate and is consistent with the emotion and narrative. The Aesthetic. The Aesthetic - The Witcher Sharp when it wants to be, oversharp too - see the second image, but with anamorphic bokeh for the look. Ironically, a fantasy story of witchcraft and monsters, using cleaner more modern looking glass. The complete opposite approach of Sabrina. Note on the second-last image the vertical anamorphic bokeh, and then look at the last image and note the "swirl" in the bokeh. I doubt this was accidental. The Aesthetic - You Sharp and clean when it wants to be, and other times, really not. Appropriate for the subject matter. The Aesthetic - Squid Game Clean, sharp but not too sharp, neutral colour palette, but note the vertical lines on the edges of the frame aren't straight? Subtle, and perhaps not deliberate, but picture it in your mind if they didn't flare out.. it makes a difference, deliberate or not. The Aesthetic - Bridgerton Clean, spherical, basically distortion free, but sharp? No. Go look at that Witcher closeup again for some contrast. The Aesthetic - The Crown Clean and relatively distortion free, but lots of diffusion, haze, and low-contrast when required. The Crown is a masterpiece of the visuals matching the emotional narrative of the story, which is made extra difficult as the story is set in reality, and the emotional tone is so muted that had lesser people been involved in making it any subtleties may well have simply been bland rather than subtle but deep. The Aesthetic - Mindhunter Perhaps the most interesting example here. After looking at the previous images the above might seem completely unremarkable, except that this look was created in post. and I mean, completely in post: More here: https://filmmakermagazine.com/103768-dp-erik-messerschmidt-on-shooting-netflixs-mindhunter-with-a-custom-red-xenograph/#.YftoaC8RrOQ and here: https://thefincheranalyst.com/tag/red-xenomorph/ (there's a great video outlining the lens emulations in post in this one). That's enough for now. Hopefully now you can appreciate that "perfectly clean" optically is actually only perfect for "perfectly clean" moments in your videos. Sure, if you're out there doing corporate day in and day out then it might seem like "clean" is the right way, or if you're in advertising or travel where neutral reigns, but when it comes to emotion, it's about choosing the best imperfections to suit the desired aesthetic.

I believe the point OP is trying to make is: "A part of the people who are shooting video have specific ideas about what a good image is but I think they are wrong. These people often have their origin in photography more so then cinematography which would explain their preference for specific visual attributes. Cinematographers however have very different criteria to judge an image and should not take their cues from these people." I do think that photography and cinema do each have their own language. Being a good photographer doesn't make you a good cinematographer or vice versa. An image which works as a photo might not work as part of a narrative sequence and a great scene from a movie might very well fall flat as a still. However I think this distinction has nothing to do with a particular aesthetic. A good photographer may just as well "dirty-up" the image as part of his work. The significant distinction is intent. Professional photographers and cinematographers first think about what they want to achieve with their images and then use anything in their toolbox to achieve that, be it softening, sharpening, fish-eye distortion, rectilinear (distortion), vintage aberrations etc. The not so professional doesn't think it through that much and uses what he has, or simply uses what he saw others using because it worked really well or looked cool without thinking about how appropriate it is for what he is trying to do. The starting point should be intent, why do I shoot this image? Everything else should follow from that. And then there is the distinction between those who want to lock a look in camera (so it becomes harder to mess with your intent during post-production) and those who prefer to capture it all as neutral and pristine as possible to allow for maximum flexibility in post (so you can change your intent I guess?).

now I am scared 😅

Has Arri confirmed it's 4K or "4K+"? I remember the EVA1 is 5.6k or the Alexa is 2.8k because that's around 4K or 2K after debayering. So it could be more. I used to hate on Netflix and their 4K requirement, but I had the chance to work with some footage that I then saw projected in 2K in a theater and the truth is I'm pretty sure you need more resolution for YouTube (maybe because of compression, maybe because you're so close to the screen) than you do for theatrical films (or tv) So I guess I get the Netflix requirement. But yeah I think bigger photo sites means more highlight dynamic range. So Arri will need some new tricks up its sleeve to match the OG Alexa's highlight detail – but I am sure they will. The Alexa also has a "soft" feel to it. Rumor is from the OLPF. Will be interesting to see if they maintain that. I always felt my t2i had the best colors, the C100 was a close second, Alexa third.

I had nearly the same reaction with the newer Canon T2i and Fuji X-T3 compared to my older Fuji S1 Pro, concerning skin tones. In every other way the new cameras blow it away, but of all the cameras I’ve used the S1 Pro still has the most amazing skin tones. I still look at 8X10’s framed on the wall and marvel at the color in my kid’s portraits, shot with only 3MP resolution that look perfectly sharp. The S1 Pro always had a slight green cast to the image, and we know that that is also common in Arri cameras. But just adding green in the X-T3 does not match it. Some people say it is due to the unique CCD chip that Fuji had developed. I have no idea. I would rate the Canon and X-T3 skin tones as excellent, the S1 Pro as excellent+. https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/slrs/fuji_s1/specifications

True however ARRI had no choice but to make the LF 4.5k and the LF 6k. They use the same sensor in every camera and that was the only way to do that. Their new S35 camera is a brand new sensor and they chose to go 4k over 6k or 8k. That to me is a statement and I don't think anyone will question it. Of course they might now put out a full frame 6k and large format 8k camera. That will be interesting to see.

Sadly, my Olympus E-P7 had to go back for repair due to some IBIS problems. I couldn't take a photo at anything under 1/15s. This was unacceptable as I could do it no problem without IBIS, hence the faulty IBIS system. They assured me it was a one-off problem and wanted to replace my black and silver one with a white one (no available spare parts an no black and silver ones left). I refused. In the end, they gave me the E-M5 iii which is also a very capable small camera. I will have to say they treated me VERY well and made EVERY effort to make me happy. I will be taking my business to them for the foreseeable future. I don't know what Olympus was like before OMDS, but I cannot imagine a drop-off in after sales service. Kudos to them. I never really had a chance to get super cinematic video from the E-P7, but I can assure you, in the right hands, it's decent. With normally great IBIS and the ability to change the saturation of 12 individual colors, this tool seems like a creative in-camera powerhouse- and at only 337g. I'm eagerly waiting to see what's to come from the OMDS engineering team as they have a real opportunity to make gains with many content creators as they don't have other products lines to protect. Some day, I'll get another E-P7.

I shoot travel, run and gun, guerrilla style, in available light, no re-takes, for personal projects, but within that context, I've done both. I have a target aesthetic that I want to achieve with my work and I know it mostly up-front, although the location does influence it. The quality of the light is one thing I try to capture and emphasise in post, for example. I own all my own equipment, but am pushing it to the limits and sometimes beyond. I'm consistently trying new equipment, techniques, and balancing various trade-offs. For example, with my GH5, I traded auto-focus capability for 10-bit internal files. This means I am manually focusing live in unpredictable environments. I have ordered a couple of lenses even this week to trial, and will sell a few pieces of gear once I've fully tested them. I have no control over what I shoot, but absolutely want to create continuity in the edit between days and locations. In addition to this, I mix footage from three types of cameras across 3 different brands, and shoot in different frame rates which have different codecs. These all have to match in the edit and are sometimes intercut. I haven't been in a colour suite in a professional sense as I do everything and am the client as well as entire production team, but I can colour grade fast. I've taught myself to colour grade by essentially making myself study. A senior colourist told me years ago that there is no shortcut, and that "it takes 10 years to get a decade of experience". I took that to heart. One exercise I did, which is relevant to your question, was I pulled in about 200 random shots (representing a ~10 minute edit) across all the footage I have, including over a dozen cameras and dozens of locations, and then graded it under a time constraint, perhaps equating to something like 30s per shot. I did this exercise many times. The first "set" of times I did this, I did the entire grade using only a single tool. I did the whole thing using only the LGG wheels, then only the contrast/pivot/offset controls, then only curves. I can't remember if there were others - I can't think of any 🙂 Then I looked at the footage and studied what I liked about each look. How well the footage matched, how easy they were to use, etc. Then I did the exercise again, using whatever tools I wanted. I studied the results again. Then I did it again, this time with a target look. I did warm, dreamy, vintage, modern, etc etc. Studied the footage again. That really covers both 1 and 2, because I've graded as many different types of footage as I can get my hands on, including my own footage as well as downloaded footage, both from the manufacturers themselves, as well as independent cinematographers uploading source footage for people to play with. I don't post much of my own work here because its of my family and friends who mostly don't want to be shared publicly online to people they don't know. I do make de-personalised versions of the edits sometimes, but TBH the last thing I want to do once I've finished an edit is to pull out the shots featuring the people I know and then re-cut the whole thing again. I've posted 35 videos to YT since Jan 2021, but almost all are private. They are a mixture of finished projects, equipment tests and colour grading tests. But just for fun, here's one I quite like: No actually, someone else said it, another person agreed, and I mentioned it. My comments were reserved to Canons compressed codecs, not their RAW files. Obviously colour is a matter of perception, taste, but it's also a matter of culture. Colour grading in other countries is often done quite differently, if you're not aware of this then do a bit of searching - it's quite an interesting topic. I could say the same line back to you - if you're not seeing the difference between Canon colour science and ARRI colour science then "That statement alone kind of disqualifies you from any serious color science debate"!!!! Of course, this kind of "I hereby declare that your opinion isn't valid because it isn't the same as mine" is the challenge with these conversations, and sadly, its normally the fanatics that want to cancel you because you have a more nuanced opinion. "You don't think Canon is perfect? Well, you obviously failed second grade math and were locked out of home by your parents - be gone heathen!" "You think we don't need 24K? Well, you obviously don't understand film-making, and progress is progress so get out of the way, and don't you know that there was once a situation where that came in handy, and don't you know that your computer will be able to handle those files in the year 2048 anyway... so, how about that new lens that is so optically perfect the factory keeps muddling up the lens housings for the finished lenses lol lol lol". At the end of the day, I just see that the equation doesn't add up... people are watching 2K masters shot on vintage lenses in cinemas, but if you question why the average Canon user needs 8K then somehow "it's the future" is meant to mean something, but I look at the average image and resolution above 4K is about as relevant to creating them as the colour of the tripod was on set.

I sincerely think both standpoints have their own merit and it's useless each side to take the other angle otherwise. May business ethics play a role but not everyone cares about it, though. I believe past should count much more than people today are willing to. Take a look on the general elections in my native country last weekend... Scandal after scandal didn't take the political party in power away from a majority in the national Parliament.

guys theyre low key marketing this $4500 thing as a vlogging camera its a frankenstein cam but i bet the mark iii will be p good 😎 this is why i would want IBIS on a camera like this too sorry i meant UAPs ☺️

@kye You’re the guy who wrote that the “new” canons have “clay like skin”? That statement alone kind of disqualifies you from any serious color science debate, no matter how many lengthy posts you write with images from high end productions shot on high res (lol) pro cinema cameras.

AF I can live without, but I rely heavily on IBIS for the situations I shoot in because I use unstabilised manual primes, often vintage. The Komodo is absolutely a better image, no doubt. I really wish it worked for how I shoot, despite being used-car prices, I'd be super interested. I can't say I'm that enamoured with the cropping it does for higher frame rates though. GH5 battery life is fine. In a sense, I'm looking for: Colour science on the level of BM 2012 (sadly still limited to BM 2012 and pro-level cinema cameras) The IBIS, practicality and reliability of GH5 2017 An EVF with decent focus-peaking Prores downsampled from full sensor resolution I wouldn't say no to dual-gain ISO either, but I get by with fast primes so it's not a deal breaker. Essentially it's a GH5 with the colour science and codec from BM 2012.

Komodo stripped to the bones would give you better AF, better image, better battery life than a GH5. No IBIS though. But neither does your BM camera. They would continue to be unknown flying objects and a great campfire beer story. This is the only competition to me that is intriguing but it would be nice to have more video focused tools for video. I'm no expert on N-Log but from initial testing from other people it looks like it may need updated to allow for more DR as it only allows maximum of 12 stops–that limits 4K footage at the moment. In 8K RAW we don't know the specifies on the bitrates yet. It would seem, based on some charts from Angelbird, that the RAW bitrates could be quite high. Hopefully they have more compressed options. 10:1 would be great. I would love to see Nikon succeed in the video space. I honestly think they have to to stay relevant. I'm looking to perhaps pick up an R5C as well. Will probably skip the C70 and wait for a FF, DGO, internal ND camera from Canon (or from another company!) if and when that comes. Seems like we are getting close.

Z9 sounds great.. if you can afford it.. own Nikon glass.. and manage to get a hold of one before hell freezes over! The best thing about RF mount.. is adapting EF glass lol. Added benefit if you use the Vari-ND adapter or speed booster on C70. Also 10-bit codec & 8K RAW plays very nice in Resolve on M1 Macs. That said I totally get feeling burned with Canon, especially R5. I do own an R6 that also technically overheats but I manage to work around it and it cost me less than half an R5. It was always a stopgap and now thinking of replacing it with R5C & maybe C70 down the line. My other main system is Sony but none of the latest alpha/FX cameras interest me at all enough to upgrade.

what about ufos tho

Tough crowd to please that's for sure! I think some of us need to just recognize we’re a diverse group of people here with different requirements/priorities and invested in different camera systems. If creativity is in limitations, fine. But then let's not complain about lack of IBIS. When there's a will there's a way right? Bottom line is that pros get the job done, with the best tools they can afford. It’s often more enthusiast that obsess with comparing specs, charts, pixel peeping footage etc. If anything 10-bit 4:2:2 & RAW allow much greater creativity in post. I never see those codecs as crutches for poor exposure or WB. 8K nobody is forcing it on you. Camera also does 6K/4K/3K. It can certainly have its uses though, from cropping, reframing to extracting stills. Does that make one lazy? I don’t think so, just opens up more alleys in post.

8K can be useful. Using a blanket statement of questioning "who needs 8K?" because you don't need it for cinema is a bit myopic in my opinion. It's not like 8K is the only format this camera can output. It's not like the only use for video is cinema or production story telling. Having 8K in my pocket seems pretty useful if I'm at a location and can capture some 8K RAW stock footage and make a few bucks on my vacation or on the side of a work project. The hate and abuse is unwarranted and regrettable. I am glad you and others investigated this issue and it informed my buying decision even though I eventually did buy an R5 after weighing the pros and cons of such a camera. Generally, people seem to have to be upset about something. Before there was outrage about the R5 overheating. Now its sucks because who needs 8K and I need an external battery source to shoot the 8K I don't want at 60p! Outrageous! If Canon had released both of these cameras at the same time that would have made more sense but it wouldn't have made business sense in a market that is struggling. Oh well. The monkeys in marketing always seem to win. I'm just glad there is now a camera with cinema tools in this size of a body that is more reliable. Having to wait 8 seconds to switch from full cinema OS to Photo OS is the least of my problems and worth it for what I get. If someone shoots like this then they aren't very good at what they are doing with any camera.

Always feared it, but proper dry cabinets are extermely expensive here. Gone to found some cheaper solution. First, tried convert an old cabinet as a dry one. Dry cabinets are sealed(ish) cabinets with some kind of Peltier cooler in reverse - it condenses the humidity and send the water to the outside. My home solution was to buy a small home dehumidifier, put inside a sealed(ish) cabinet with a humidor-controlled relay to turn on and off the dehumidifier (as stated in the Zeiss article, if the humidity drops below 30% it is bad for the lenses - greases start to solidify). Kinda worked, but was not reliable. The final solution was much more simple: - Bought a bunch of sealed plastic food containers (kinda like this one - the important parts are the rubber seal and latches on the lid); - Cheap digital higrometers, one for each box; - A huge bag of silica gel (don't know if it is urban legend or not, but bought the orange colored ones - the blue ones have cobalt, and some say that when heated, to remove the humidity when saturated, releases carcinogen fumes); - A set of little organza bags. Put the cameras / lenses in one box, an organza bag filled with silica gel and an hygrometer inside the box, and close it. The hygrometer goes to around 40-45% of humidity, and if you don't open the box very often, stays under 60% for months. When it reaches 60%, change the silica of the organza bag (the silica could be heated and retores to the original state). For me, have worked VERY well - never a single case of fungus, and very little maintenence (and cost).

It's not so much a question of accuracy but 10 bit vs. 8 bit and the desire to bypass the operating system, which is the point of using those Ultrastudio monitors. There is a separate question, of course, of whether this is overkill but much depends on the destination(s) for these videos. If it's just youtube I'm not sure it's worth the effort; for broadcast or cinema where you have to meet standards then obviously it is. There are examples of successful corporate and youtube videographers who just use their laptops or an uncalibrated monitor and are happy enough with the result, but everyone's priorities and standards are different.

Ironically almost none of those examples were shot on ARRI cameras: Sabrina - RED Helium Sex Education - Sony Venice Witcher - RED Monstro / Alexa LF Squid Game - RED Monstro Bridgerton - Sony Venice The Crown - Sony Venice Mindhunter - RED Helium All high above 4K resolution cameras. So perhaps we can conclude 6K/8K high resolution capture does not necessarily equate to over sharp/clean footage. And that great IQ results can be achieved outside of the ARRI CS realm. Maybe the key to that million-dollar budget Netflix show aesthetics evoked here isn't about ARRI color science at all but rather the incredible top budget cine glass from Cooke, Zeiss, Panavision, Arri, Leica, Angenieux etc. Without even getting into staging/lighting and post/grading skills. Just some food for thought..

Imperfection doesn't necessarily mean less... EAG :- )

After reading a facebook post in the vintage lens group, where a member asked about polishing a lens with damaged coatings on the front element, and where the responses were basically, "throw it in the garbage", I decided to make a quick comparison video of 2 moller 32/2 lenses I have. One is in perfect condition. The other was one I picked up for cheap. When it arrived, the front lens cleaning marks were so excessive, it was truly unusable. So I decided to try polishing it. I used diamond polishing compound 14000 grit, and a dremel with a polishing tool. Look at the video and tell me which one of these lenses is unusable, and should be thrown in the garbage.

More comparison footage of the polished and unpolished Moller 32/2. Along with a flair test of the polished moller at the end,

Wanted to say thanks again man! It seems to be working well and it's so much fun to use!!!