Leaderboard

Not even in 4K! It's like they've never watched a single YT tutorial on how to make their footage cinematic.

Part of the reason they could make these film was the introduction of Kodak Eastmann Super XX film after WW2.It was rated at around 160-200 ASA which was over 2 stops faster than film of the 1930s.It also was known for its ability to be pushed (underexposing and overdeveloping)It was regularly pushed one stop to 320AS and sometimes two stops to 640ASA like on Citizen Kane.

If so, I'd strongly consider the 50/1.2L or the Sigma 50/1.4 Art. The Sigmas are, generally speaking, too clinical for me, but lots of people like them - it really depends on how clean you wanna go. The 50/1.2L has been around for a long time now. I got mine pretty close to when they released it - it might be old enough to vote, at this point. That's to say that it's been out long enough that you could probably find a copy with clean glass and some external dings for not too much money. Bokeh is completely a matter of taste thing, but I hated the bokeh on the EF 50/1.4. I remember it was ugly/busy enough that even non-photographers noticed it on some photos. Maybe I just had a bad copy? I liked the EF 50/1.8 more, even. There's also Otus, of course, but used prices on them have stayed surprisingly high. I think there was also a Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 which is probably more affordable. I never tried it. It's probably very good. If considering the Sigma f/1.8 zooms, you might want to double-check how the coverage is with the 0.64x SB. I remember the 18-35 had a pretty small image circle - the 50-100 is probably a bit better, being more telephoto.

In the interview he says they are not shooting in 17K ( at 3.4 mins) its about the sensor size and focal length and resulting look.

Do I need to use a VPN and a private tab to Google ‘Hardcore Henry’?