kye

Looking at those stills close up they seem to have a nice noise structure which is actually quite filmic / organic.  You can definitely tell it's RAW and not sharpened in-camera.  
I had the same experience with my Canon 700D when I installed Magic Lantern.  Using the compressed modes was awful because the noise from the sensor (which was a lot) was awful when compressed, but in RAW it had a rather pleasing aesthetic.

Looks like ready for prime time:
 

Thank you, the smoothing is there, no doubt about it.

I've worked with a film director Chinese-Portuguese from Macau I simply find unique, even though to come to my mind another one from past also 'cause the way they work with female characters:
https://wolffianclassicmoviesdigest.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/george-cukors-way-with-women/
 
I invite everyone of you to pay attention to her career... here is her most recent motion picture released in China these days (September 28, 2023), more specifically Hong Kong production -- where she got her master's degree after graduated from Taiwan:
 
Her debut as director is this one:
https://www.cgiii.com/trailers/item/sisterhood

I would probably only use high resolutions (4K and up) for projects with a heavy amount of VFX which is where I would find the ability to scale and reframe useful. Or if I specifically want that super crispy look. In term of visual quality FHD and 2K are more than adequate for narrative films. Most movie theaters are only projecting 2K DCP. 35mm film prints were only about as sharp as 720p. I even kinda prefer a softer look, and I suspect a lot of others do considering how many people use high res raw shooting cinema cameras, and put vintage lenses and diffusion filters on them. Many of my favorite films are shot on 16mm, and I've always loved that soft, grainy look. 
I'm a big fan of/greatly respect David Fincher, who uses the highest resolution cameras he can for more flexibility. I personally don't like shooting this way. I prefer to have less flexibility in post. I get optional paralysis and would be too tempted to keep tinkering and tweaking endlessly when the options are limitless. It's easer to force my choices in production because the options and time are limited enough to allow me to make some snap decisions, or to force other decisions. I'd rather get the look I want in-camera.
I'm more interested in seeing how upscaling software will advance. The martial arts action film The Raid, which was shot on the Panasonic AF100 (remember that camera??) is being upscaled/remastered in 4K and the frame grab samples released by the director look good.
 

I've developed a more sophisticated "false sharpness" powergrade, but it was super tricky to get it to be sensitive enough to tell the difference between soft and sharp lenses (when no sharpening has been applied).
Here are some test shots of a resolution test pattern through two lenses - the Master Anamorphics which are gloriously sharp, and the Hawk Vintage '74 lenses which are modern versions of a vintage anamorphic.
ARRI ungraded with the false colour power-grade:

Note that I've added a sine-wave along the very bottom that gets smaller towards the right, and acts as a scale to show what the false sharpness grade does.
Here's the Hawk:

and the Zeiss one with a couple of blur nodes to try and match the Hawk:
 
Here's the same three again but without the false sharpness powergrade.
Zeiss ungraded:

Hawk ungraded:

Zeiss graded to match the Hawk (I also added some lens distortion too):

Interestingly, I had to add two different sized blurs at different opacities - a single one was either wrong with the fine detail or wrong on the larger details.  The combination of two blurs was better, but still not great.  I was wondering if a single blur would replicate the right shape for how various optical systems attenuate detail, and it seems that it doesn't.  This is why I was sort of wanting a more sophisticated analysis tool, but I haven't found one yet, and TBH this is probably a whole world unto itself, and also, it's probably too detailed to matter if I'm just trying to cure the chronic digitalis of the iPhone and other digital cameras.
....and just for fun, here's the same iPhone shot from previously with the power-grade:

If I apply the same blurs that I used to match the Zeiss to the Hawk, I get these:


It's far too "dreamy" a look for my own work, but the Hawk lenses are pretty soft and diffused:
 

I've developed a more sophisticated "false sharpness" powergrade, but it was super tricky to get it to be sensitive enough to tell the difference between soft and sharp lenses (when no sharpening has been applied).
Here are some test shots of a resolution test pattern through two lenses - the Master Anamorphics which are gloriously sharp, and the Hawk Vintage '74 lenses which are modern versions of a vintage anamorphic.
ARRI ungraded with the false colour power-grade:

Note that I've added a sine-wave along the very bottom that gets smaller towards the right, and acts as a scale to show what the false sharpness grade does.
Here's the Hawk:

and the Zeiss one with a couple of blur nodes to try and match the Hawk:
 
Here's the same three again but without the false sharpness powergrade.
Zeiss ungraded:

Hawk ungraded:

Zeiss graded to match the Hawk (I also added some lens distortion too):

Interestingly, I had to add two different sized blurs at different opacities - a single one was either wrong with the fine detail or wrong on the larger details.  The combination of two blurs was better, but still not great.  I was wondering if a single blur would replicate the right shape for how various optical systems attenuate detail, and it seems that it doesn't.  This is why I was sort of wanting a more sophisticated analysis tool, but I haven't found one yet, and TBH this is probably a whole world unto itself, and also, it's probably too detailed to matter if I'm just trying to cure the chronic digitalis of the iPhone and other digital cameras.
....and just for fun, here's the same iPhone shot from previously with the power-grade:

If I apply the same blurs that I used to match the Zeiss to the Hawk, I get these:


It's far too "dreamy" a look for my own work, but the Hawk lenses are pretty soft and diffused:
 

Clearly. There is a special handshake and everything and a solemn promise that what happens on YouTube, stays on YouTube.
They give it all up to get their $2 ad revenue return…
Just 10 years ago, the common folks paid these rawk stars a small fortune to go on one of their secret revealing workshops.
They have since mostly become charities for the short remaining time they have in the industry.
 

Stop giving the world our secrets huh?!
But that’s kind of the sum of it actually…

Learning to not give a damn... LOL Nice pick! @kye ;- )

Another one to match the above with a slightly better matching scene (still not hard light though - the pollution in India is no joke!).
Ref:

iPhone grade:

iPhone (ungraded):

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Another one, this time a shot from one of the Jason Bourne films, I think this was the second one, which was shot on Kodak Vision 3 and printed on Kodak 2383.
Reference image:

iPhone grade:

iPhone (ungraded):

I'm not so happy with that one, but the subject matter was a lot more different, with the reference shot being in full sun and the iPhone image being overcast and also containing a lot of different hues.  The road in the reference image is asphalt and is slightly blue in the image, whereas the "road" in the iPhone shot is actually tram tracks and concrete, not asphalt.  Still, there was something in the green/magenta/yellow hues that I couldn't quite nail.
Oh well.
That's those HDR images from the iPhone - you have no creative control over them.  If only Apple had given me a slider for saturation, sharpening, and other controls, those would have matched the look of S35mm film and Cooke lenses perfectly 😉 

Here are a set of four shots from my iPhone 12 Mini that I have graded very quickly in a few different ways to give a sense of what is possible, and what "film looks" might be able to be created.  
The first row has no grading applied, the second has my standard default iPhone input transform, the rest are more creative grades, just pushing it around to create various looks.  All these shots were shot on full-auto with the default iPhone app.
Every shot on the same row has the same grade, including exposure and WB and everything, despite being shot on three different continents.  All these use only effects that are available in Resolve - no third-party plugins or LUTs or other YT influencer bullshit.

You tell me - do I look like I am currently experiencing a complete lack of creative control over my images?  

A bit more playing around with what is possible from my HDR iPhone 12 images...
Reference image from the move Ava (2020):
iPhone grade:

iPhone (ungraded):

It's not perfect, but without having them next to each other it's not terrible.  I couldn't find what camera Ava was shot on, but I did find that it was shot with Panavision anamorphics.  No doubt that is a contributing factor to why my iPhone shot doesn't match the exact look of the movie lol.

Nice results
Does anyone know what the right combination of settings are in Resolve to get Dolby Vision HDR 4K footage from the older iPhones from 12 through 14 to display as HLG in Resolve without the Dolby Vision metadata, or tone mapping applied?
Just want to grade the HGL like S-LOG.
Everything I've tried so far doesn't work, including setting custom colour spaces in Resolve set to Rec 2100 and Hybrid Log Gamma.
 

Another one to match the above with a slightly better matching scene (still not hard light though - the pollution in India is no joke!).
Ref:

iPhone grade:

iPhone (ungraded):

Ok, I'll shut up now.

FYI - Nexto was acquired by TVLogic and this is their new backup storage product: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/09/28/clouzen-tainer-all-in-one-portable-backup-storage-review/

Am liking this new blog from a camera operatives perspective - some good breakdowns of well known films already and each week there's new material
https://www.theop.io/the-breakdown

I like a single prime around the "portrait" focal length.  For me, that's a fast MANUAL 50mm on a 4/3rds sensor. 
I'm near-sighted so using the cam's display is very easy for me.
That's about as simple as it gets. Camera. One lens.  You want a wide shot, move away from things.  Want  tight, move in.  The longer focal length almost always makes people look flattering and cinematic.
I also like footage where focus can drift and the shooter pulls it back into focus.  Feels real and organic to me.  I don't want perfect, I want something that's a deeper truth than that.  "Quiet" handheld is a technique I've practiced for years.
Finally, another technique I use is to "dirty the frame" to add to the aesthetic.
Overall that's kind of my jam anyway.  I'd suggest trying it; you might like it.  Less techy, more human.  It's a loosey-goosey way to shoot and, personally, I do find it low stress because gear is minimal, I don't fret about anything but the shot, and it's just fun.

Thanks for the support!
I did one single test run last night, of trying to get the B roll but also filmed aspect of everything I do in a single nights astrometry planning.
Big notes.
1. Need a smaller tripod. Found a giant tandem leg tripod w a Manfrotto head on it in a closet and it's way too massive for this project. By a factor of like 3. For my budget, Im thinking the iFootage Gazelle to replace the legs and use the fluid head I found.
2. Low light lens. This one is obvious, but also the most difficult. The 17-70 2.8 is great, but a 24-105 F4 equivalent isn't gunna cut it when I'm filming with zero artificial light, often out in fields or at night in the observatory. Also, I believe I have also dashed my own hopes of using a manual focus cinema lens for this. I just can't see myself having a good time doing that. And im doing all of this... for fun.
3. Audio. In running these tests, the Rode Video Mic Pro R set to +20 and the XT4 set to -20dB was extremely clean, and useable for nearly every shot I threw at it. The only time I felt limited was when we had some kids riding down the road at full volume, which it picked up quite clearly as well! May consider a WirelessGOII for more personal VO things and such. Worries have calmed on the audio side.
4. Video Monitor. Here's my major wrestling point! I love the idea and concept of using a monitor. But my main concerns are bulk, balance, and batteries. Is that worth it? I dont think I can answer that yet. My Tamron NAILED focus during the test runs, but framing was a big concern because there were shots that I genuinely couldn't see the screen to ensure good framing. Where I used to work, we used large bright Atomos monitors, and that sadly isn't in the budget. Shinobi sounds fun, but if something is cheaper I will look at it.
 
Any thoughts are welcome!
 
 
 
 

Man, if NASA is paramount (no complaints, how could I? ; )) then, let me show off a little bit now LOL as well disclose only a fraction my NDA : ) and let you all know I have some exclusive NASA's original footage to work in the next months to come! :- )

There is an optimum resolution and sharpness.  More is not always better.  
This is why movies aren't all shot with the highest MTF lenses currently available - DoPs choose the optimal lenses and apertures for the scene / project.
However, I shoot with cheap cameras (iPhone, GX85, GH5, etc) which are far too sharp, and look video-ish.  Luckily, we can reduce this in post.
This thread is me trying to work out:
What the range of optimal resolution / sharpnesses are actually out there (from serious professionals, not moronic camera YouTubers or internet forum pedants) What might be a good point to aim for How I might treat iPhone / GX85 / other cheap shitty video-looking footage so it looks the least video it can be These techniques will likely apply to all semi-decent consumer cameras, and should be able to be adjusted to taste.
I'm still at the beginning of this journey, and am still working out how to even tackle it, but I thought I'd start with some examples of what we're talking about.
Reference stills from the Atlas Lens Co demos from their official YT channel, shot on Komodo and uploaded 6 months ago:
(You have to click on these images to expand them, otherwise you're just looking at the forum compression...)


Reference stills from the Cooke SP3 demos from the official Cooke YT channel, uploaded 11 days ago:


I've deliberately chosen frames that have fine detail (especially fly-away hair lit with a significant contrast to what is behind it), in perfect focus, with zero motion blur.  I think this is the most revealing as it tends to be the thing that is right at the limits of the optical system.
So, what are we seeing here?
We're seeing things in focus, with reasonable fine detail.  It doesn't look SHARP, it doesn't look BLURRED, it doesn't look VINTAGE, it doesn't overly look MODERN (to me at least) and doesn't look UNNATURAL.  It looks nice, and it definitely looks high quality and makes me want to own the camera/lens combo (!) but it basically looks neutral.
But, that's not always the case.  This is also from the same Cooke SP3 promo video:

The fine detail is gone, despite there being lots of it in the scene.  Is this the lens?  Is this the post-pipeline?  We don't know, but it's a desirable enough image for Cooke (one of the premier cinema lens manufacturers in the world) to put it in their 2.5 minute demo reel on their official main page.  It also has a bit more feel than the previous images.
Contrast that with these SOOC shots from my iPhone 12 Mini:

I mean....  seriously!  
(If you're not basically dry-wrenching then you haven't opened the image up to view it full-screen.. the compressed in-line images are very tastefully smoothed over by the compression)
More:



and my X3000 action camera also has this problem:

Those with long memories will recall I've been down this road before, but I feel like I have gained enough knowledge to be able to have a decent stab at it this time.  We'll see anyway.
Follow along if you're open to the idea that more isn't better...

As is the entire YT channel of WanderingDP, a real life working pro breaking down commercials.  Not only does he break down the composition and lighting, and also shooting logistics like when you'd schedule different shots at different times of day, but also advice on how to be more efficient on set etc, plus he's hugely sarcastic and his videos are often hilarious...
https://www.youtube.com/@wanderingdp/videos
 

Right on the spot ; )
 
I guess it should work in every recording mode but we never know if it is actually restricted to internal capture or not... No iPhone user over here yet ; ) Any iPhone 15 early adopters who can confirm it, please?

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense.  BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount.  Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose?
EF mount
They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount
Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount
Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts
Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount
No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount
Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony
A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.