Are you looking for a sharpie reality out there? Really?

[kye]

8 hours ago, Davide DB said:

On TV is tack sharp and looks very digital. 

I am wondering if sharpness might have something to do with it for me.

As a reference, what do you think about this?

 

[PannySVHS]

It looks like pretty neutral 709 to me due to post. Ultra high end tv news look.:) I would be curious how a Canon L 16-35 compares optically.

[zlfan]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I am wondering if sharpness might have something to do with it for me.

As a reference, what do you think about this?

 

this is about people, probably cooke or Leica lenses are more suitable. 

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

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.

Very true : ) However, thers's a solid difference between them, enough to advise me I won't want to replace the MFT lens I already have and no AF will be able to deviate myself from the purchase of a MFT -> E mount adapter instead, go figure why LOL ;- )

[Emanuel]

5 hours ago, kye said:

I am wondering if sharpness might have something to do with it for me.

As a reference, what do you think about this?

 

To me, sharp glass looks like all the same :- )

[zlfan]

lens plays a critical role in the sharpness of the final image. 

I just checked my previous footage using em5 and shg 7-14. it looks punchy and colorful. I edited it in the lightsight free version, so the output is just 720p, but looks sharper than my c300 og 1080p c log footage. shg 7-14 plays a critical role here. em5's video modes are not good at all according to current criteria. definitely not as high res as c300 og.  interesting findings. never thought about this. 

[Emanuel]

LOL : ) Thanks! I told you perception is half way... I think it's high time already to add my vote then. Done ;- )

[zlfan]

7 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

LOL : ) Thanks! I told you perception is half way... I think it's high time already to add my vote then. Done ;- )

I cannot vote this, because I think both have their applications. for example, at the beginning of the story, typically there are some shots on whole view of the scene, I think it is better to be sharp. but for close up shots of actresses, dreamy look is much more forgiving and pleasant. 

ideally, the former ones will use red helium 8k with Zeiss master prime, the latter ones use Alexa with cooke or Leica c lenses. 

[Emanuel]

1 minute ago, zlfan said:

I cannot vote this, because I think both have their applications. for example, at the beginning of the story, typically there are some shots on whole view of the scene, I think it is better to be sharp. but for close up shots of actresses, dreamy look is much more forgiving and pleasant. 

ideally, the former ones will use red helium 8k with Zeiss master prime, the latter ones use Alexa with cooke or Leica c lenses. 

And you are fairly right! : ) No vote still applies ; ) I've just added it, as said in Europa/Zentropa (1991) 'cause the truth resides with those who take sides, so I can't help myself and I am actually sick of some fallacy the geek inside us hints our inner side to believe : D

[BTM_Pix]

16 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Lighting, grading and everything is top notch but maybe lacks that "film grain". On TV is tack sharp and looks very digital. 

I've just had a skip through a couple of episodes and the only really jarring shots to me are when they've gone with very wide aperture on longer lenses in bright interiors. 

Because of the sharpness - particularly when characters are sat on furniture with detailed fabrics - it lacks the smoothness of the other shots, particularly the lower light ones, as the focus just falls off a cliff.

A lot of the exteriors suffer from it too to a certain extent with shorter lenses with narrower apertures.

I say "suffer from" but the whole thing still looks pretty damn good.

[Andrew Reid]

One of the best uses of a clinical sharp image recently has been Zone of Interest.

It's truly chilling.

The clinical, clean, 'psychopathic' deep depth of field extenuates the banality of evil, and there is something very Nazi-ish about hyper crisp detail that really suits the mood.

But then I never expect anything less than genius from Jonathan Glazer.

Oscar was well deserved.

Just proves that even anti-cinematic cinematography has a place... Sometimes.

[Davide DB]

12 hours ago, kye said:

I am wondering if sharpness might have something to do with it for me.

As a reference, what do you think about this?

 

 

Too clinical to me. Not something I expect from a narrative feature.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

One of the best uses of a clinical sharp image recently has been Zone of Interest.

It's truly chilling.

The clinical, clean, 'psychopathic' deep depth of field extenuates the banality of evil, and there is something very Nazi-ish about hyper crisp detail that really suits the mood.

But then I never expect anything less than genius from Jonathan Glazer.

Oscar was well deserved.

Just proves that even anti-cinematic cinematography has a place... Sometimes.

Good article about the shooting process here 

https://www.leitz-cine.com/interview/lukasz-zal-psc

As with 'Belgravia' it was shot on a Venice.

Although, going the Shane Meadows route, they had ten of them rolling simultaneously.

 

[Emanuel]

For sure @Andrew Reid, great post and insight with such an example where anti-cinematic as you've called it and it is, becomes the most cinematic answer and as also written, "sometimes"... That's the OP's point, there's taste (where poll fits BTW) and world beyond ;- )

[Emanuel]

Imperfections, flaws are not necessarily unaesthetic but the opposite when they can be creatively worked into the aesthetic object and serve the subject included.

- EAG

[Davide DB]

45 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Imperfections, flaws are not necessarily unaesthetic but the opposite when they can be creatively worked into the aesthetic object and serve the subject included.

- EAG

For sure.

The work of Robbie Ryan on Poor Things...

Here two different approaches 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Matthews]

I no longer shoot 4k or higher video for people, unless the whole point of the shot is detail in the skin and eyes. Sure, I could add a blur mask or something, but I'm quite happy with the 1080p resolution. For anything not people or wide shots, 4k makes more sense IMO.

[kye]

11 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Too clinical to me. Not something I expect from a narrative feature.

I'm continually amazed at how much energy goes into pixel peeing at 4K or higher, and yet the high-end productions deliberately blur un-sharpen the footage.

Compare that video with the reference footage from real projects and the difference is obvious.

 

The visibility of 1080p vs 4K vs 6K is a debate that won't ever die, but the visibility of 6K 4:4:4 vs 6K 4:2:0 will be absolutely zero once it's been put onto a 4K timeline, un-sharpened to an aesthetically pleasing amount, exported and uploaded to a streaming service, and then heavily processed and brutally compressed before streaming to the end user.

Unless people are literally doing green-screen work or VFX, putting money into lens sharpness or 6K+ resolutions is just paying to look less high-end, not more.

[zlfan]

13 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm continually amazed at how much energy goes into pixel peeing at 4K or higher, and yet the high-end productions deliberately blur un-sharpen the footage.

Compare that video with the reference footage from real projects and the difference is obvious.

 

The visibility of 1080p vs 4K vs 6K is a debate that won't ever die, but the visibility of 6K 4:4:4 vs 6K 4:2:0 will be absolutely zero once it's been put onto a 4K timeline, un-sharpened to an aesthetically pleasing amount, exported and uploaded to a streaming service, and then heavily processed and brutally compressed before streaming to the end user.

Unless people are literally doing green-screen work or VFX, putting money into lens sharpness or 6K+ resolutions is just paying to look less high-end, not more.

444 vs 420, mostly is for post grading. I see clearly that 10 bit has more room than 8 bit, 444 more flexible than 420. my impression is that 8 bit 420 can easily generate color artifacts if I use color boost in resolve, whereas 10 bit 422 is much easier to apply color boost but there is still color spilling, whereas raw (basically 444) has no such issues at all. 

[Davide DB]

I've just seen it on theatre and it's simply stunning.

Extreme depth of field in all desert shots gives you the impression to be there.