Emanuel Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Let's talk about sharpness? A simple example from Sony 11mm f/1.8 against Rokinon 12mm f/2.0: SOC source A sharper angle on reality but how everyone expect it should be? Or a dreamy perspective on the world but how someone can see life is? What take would yours be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 minutes ago, Emanuel said: What take would yours be? One where the viewer does not consider either. If I am viewing and immediately think, “that looks sharp”, or “this looks soft”, it has already been overcooked. Something that REALLY bothers me in any movie or TV show, is if I can see the production. Bad acting and poor dialogue are one thing, but I notice more and more these days, anything where I can see what’s going on behind the scenes. I watched Nomadland for the first time yesterday evening and my overall thoughts were: I enjoyed it and thought it a good movie. The filmmaking process did not jar. There was probably a little too much overuse of sunsets in too many scenes. The use of non-actors in most of the roles was a bit too obvious and some of the characters as a result were less ‘real’ because of that…but this and it’s ’worthiness’ is probably why it won 3 Oscars. But whether it was soft or sharp or both or neither, at times or not, I could not tell you. If I had noticed either it would have been a distraction. Fortunately, it had zero slow motion, or anamorphic bending of the edges, or blue flares. Thankfuckfully. PannySVHS and Emanuel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Modern "cinematic" videos cut my eyeballs, but actual cinema doesn't. Please don't cut my eyeballs. Emanuel, PannySVHS and John Matthews 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlfan Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 I think good olpf makes the look better than just soft, just like leica lenses, soft gel like but high res. Emanuel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 25 minutes ago, kye said: Modern "cinematic" videos cut my eyeballs, but actual cinema doesn't. Please don't cut my eyeballs. I stand what you say. A cinematic property is not a cinematic outcome made of a lot of this ; ) Worse is when what people call cinematic is not even cinematic! LOL :- ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 8 minutes ago, Emanuel said: I stand what you say. A cinematic property is not a cinematic outcome made of a lot of this ; ) Worse is when what people call cinematic is not even cinematic! LOL :- ) People that make cinematic videos on YT that cut my eyes have clearly never been to the cinema. The difference might as well be iPhone 4 and Alexa. If you can't see that your jagged harsh digital and clinical cinematic video has nothing in common with cinema, then the level of blindness is almost complete. The deeper into this I go, the more I realise that not only are most answers online wrong, but the questions don't even make sense. Asking "what is the resolution of film?" makes little more sense than asking "how many bananas are in sadness?"... and the discussion is nonsensical right from the start. Emanuel and Davide DB 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 Digital world opens a new frontier of ignorance spread as a biblical resonance chamber of nothing. But this doesn't mean the truth is not there, just not the way they see it. Take a look on that video up there. The guy is focused on what he sees as some scientific dogma. We live in times of fake prophets ;- ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 hour ago, kye said: "how many bananas are in sadness?" Now if you'd asked "how many bananas encased in pastry?" I could have answered because it's 3.14 PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 17 minutes ago, MrSMW said: Now if you'd asked "how many bananas encased in pastry?" I could have answered because it's 3.14 See - the question was wrong from the start! PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ac6000cw Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 After allowing for the 11mm vs 12mm FOV difference and slightly different overall brightness of the two, both images look much the same to me. The Samyang 12mm image is a little bit softer (and has a blue lens flare in the middle of it), so I'd probably lean towards the Sony 11mm due to better contrast and sharpness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatstoomuchjam Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 This poll needs an option (c): "Nope." PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 I just watched Inland Empire. Now what? PannySVHS and Emanuel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide DB Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Returning to the term 'cinematic'... My wife is watching a TV series on Sky "Belgravia". Definitely a big Anglo-American production and yet watching only a few minutes the look is purely television. Great settings, impeccable costumes and yet... it looks to me like the look of a classic South American telenovela. I cusrioused on the internet and find it was shot with Sony venice and Zeiss Supreme Primes lenses. What makes it so televisual and uncinematic to my poor illiterate eyes? https://www.dalemccready.com/belgravia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide DB Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, Davide DB said: Returning to the term 'cinematic'... My wife is watching a TV series on Sky "Belgravia". Definitely a big Anglo-American production and yet watching only a few minutes the look is purely television. Great settings, impeccable costumes and yet... it looks to me like the look of a classic South American telenovela. I cusrioused on the internet and find it was shot with Sony venice and Zeiss Supreme Primes lenses. What makes it so televisual and uncinematic to my poor illiterate eyes? https://www.dalemccready.com/belgravia BTW the YT trailer looks way more filmic than the original on TV (my TV is perfectly set to avoid the soap opera effect...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 hour ago, Davide DB said: Returning to the term 'cinematic'... My wife is watching a TV series on Sky "Belgravia". Definitely a big Anglo-American production and yet watching only a few minutes the look is purely television. Great settings, impeccable costumes and yet... it looks to me like the look of a classic South American telenovela. I cusrioused on the internet and find it was shot with Sony venice and Zeiss Supreme Primes lenses. What makes it so televisual and uncinematic to my poor illiterate eyes? https://www.dalemccready.com/belgravia Same impression for me during the opening few scenes in Trigger Warning which is new on Netflix. The VFX shots were very budget, but the footage had a real video look to them. It was shot on real equipment so I'm also not sure what it was. Also, the trailer on YT looks much better than the early parts of the film. I had noticed this "ingredient X" appearing on random things previously, and tried to ignore it because once you learn to see something you can't un-see it, and I was pretty sure that my preferred cameras wouldn't look good in this regard, but now I've seen it to the degree I can't ignore it, so I've reluctantly started investigating. Davide DB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted June 24 Super Members Share Posted June 24 This is from a BTS about the series. Nothing looks off in the camera settings. Has the look changed from season to season ? I think that is from season 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide DB Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 27 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said: This is from a BTS about the series. Nothing looks off in the camera settings. Has the look changed from season to season ? I think that is from season 1. Yes I was lurking an episode from season #1. Lighting, grading and everything is top notch but maybe lacks that "film grain". On TV is tack sharp and looks very digital. I guess the YT encoding added some imperfection and look better 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 5 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said: This poll needs an option (c): "Nope." LOL You already have it, you can add no vote... ; ) My case as matter of fact, so far : ) Even though, on the contrary of our nice fellow @ac6000cw who has been the only one to kindly post his impression and feelings, I'd rather give up to buy the Sony 11mm lens for now to succeed a new camera acquisition I have in hands because I'd much take the Samyang I already have as matter of fact but MFT mount. I don't like clinical glass at all. Wanna listen something I have to say? I was Sony customer for a decade a quarter of century ago when have changed to Canon/Panasonic & RED/Blackmagic. I've changed my mind for the efforts Sony has made on their sensor technology and camera offer. A certain Sony Europe VP told me once (during the 90s) I could never find anything really interesting to me at this price range from their part. I see now he was wrong on his prediction. I want to see now the way they've approached the user interface. I believe not on pair with Blackmagic OS but I will give them a chance coupled to non-proprietary glass, I bet. What really puzzles me is the fact people want cinematic outcome with sharp stuff which doesn't mean to give us the best, more often the opposite. It's like to go after a sexy girl at the convent... : D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatstoomuchjam Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Judging by "show results," everybody has chosen not to vote so far. 🙂 You'll get no objection from me that there's a happy medium between "coke bottle" and "counting the atoms in bricks 100 meters away." With this poll, the problem is at least partly that the example photos are a weird angle and of an uninteresting subject. Whatever lens was used, I don't care much for them. ac6000cw, PannySVHS and MrSMW 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PannySVHS Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 The whole pipeline counts. Production design, lighting, lens, filters, sensor, codec, post contribute to that. I've had awesome results with walimex lenses and gruesome ones. The reason for that were production design and lighting. I screwed up skintones with a golden reflector before and I messed up atmosphere with shooting at 3200K at tungsten, shot with a Cinecam. A sterile lens didn't help neither. 10 hours ago, fuzzynormal said: I just watched Inland Empire. Now what? Perfect point, because David Lynch can paint with any brush, I guess. Best option to just hire him for our projects.:) All problems solved. And Dune becomes actually something fun and engaging to watch!😊 Emanuel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.