kye Posted March 6, 2020 Author Share Posted March 6, 2020 5 hours ago, eleison said: Thank you for your informational reply. I'm still digesting the information. I will not be able to fully reply to a lot of your assertions and to be honest, some of it is probably over my head :-). In my opinion, lens sharpness wasn't a big deal because historically, directors and editors rarely cropped FILM. I think the general consensus is that 2k is good enough for theater presentation (regular theaters not IMAX, etc.) (https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yedlin-camera-resolution-myths). Because of this, these classical cinema lenses that were used on film were more than sharp enough even if film stock had more fidelity. These older/cinema lenses only need to resolve up to 2k images. I guess I can understand the irony that photographers look for sharpness, only to obliterate it later w/ makeup, soft lighting, etc.. however, that is basically only for one use case: images of people. However, if you look at at subjects (cars, buildings, etc), photographers will keep the resolution. I'm also confused when you say that there are not many lenses that exceed 30mp resolution? With many high resolution cameras (a7rIV, 5dr, d850, etc.) out in the market place, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it's folly to buy these cameras because few lens would have enough sharpness for these cameras. However, this article disagrees with this statement: https://www.martijnkort-photography.com/what-lenses-to-use-on-sony-a7riv/ There are other articles saying the same thing. It is my belief that video is only a series of images therefore if these lenses are able to resolve high resolution images of aprox 30MP, they should be fine for 8k video which is aprox 30MP imagines. Granted 10 years ago, there were very few lens that could resolve that high of a megapixel count -- but back then you don't have high megapixel cameras. Now you do and manufactures are creating sharper glass -- gm lenses, sigma art, etc. That is one of the things I hear about photography lens -- they are too sharp. They don't have character like cinema lenses, etc... But times are a changing. As more and more movies do special affects like green screen, it's gets more important to have high resolution imagines that are created by sharp lenses to get better keying. Not to mention, the previous discussed advantages like re-framing. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat. If people don't want to shot on larger sensors. That's fine. There are people still taking photographs using film stock, and listening to vinyl. Good for them. I'm not going to be part of that group though. Technology waits for no man. You can use technology to help you, or you don't. I appreciate that this is part of a much larger subject, but I think you're still not getting this. There is a perspective that many people take, which assumes that higher resolution is better, and that back in the day people chose the highest resolution lenses that they could and it was just the tech that limited that. This is where you (and others) are fundamentally disconnected from the high-end of cinema - the point of me showing you the article on netting is that people are actively going out of their way to reduce the sharpness of fine detail - which is a more technically accurate way of saying that people are reducing resolution. Deliberately. They're actually taking what is on offer currently and paying to soften it. They even used to do that in the days of film too, back when the technology had lower resolution. Even those older lenses were too sharp! This is a fundamental lack of understanding - when people say "I want my video to be cinematic" and then they say "I can't do X because it's not sharp enough" they are arguing against themselves. Part of the cinematic look is the lower resolution. If you're still unconvinced this is a real thing, then here's an article talking about Knives Out and Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how some/all of these were shot on digital but were processed (including halation, which is a particular type of softening of fine detail) on purpose. https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography You cannot possibly think that they didn't have enough budget to do whatever they wanted, and could have shot it in RAW 8K with $100k lenses, so I hope this demonstrates that this is a serious thing that Hollywood actually does. The people who are talking about resolution and sharpness are in a different world than this, looking in lustfully at the images and then insisting on doing things that will take them further away from the look they want rather than closer to it. But they don't know, because they're only talking to the stills photographers online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.