DUDE.

This the best piece I've ever read about someone making their first feature on a barebones budget and apparently with no crew most of the time. Capitvating read, and it's incredible what you did to get what you wanted.

Then I looked the movie up, watched the trailer, and I'm utterly blown away. And you have a 90% on Rottentomatoes!!

You should be INCREDIBLY PROUD. This is an achievement that, frankly, maybe a handful of people achieve every decade. You are an inspiration.

And I'll bet my life that you are going on to do great things. There's no way you won't be making big budget A24 films or something soon.

I would really love to chat sometime over email, if you'd be open to it. I'm in pre-prod on my first feature - after working as a cinematographer for a decade. And I'd just love to know more about all that you did. If you're amendable, shoot me an email at pixelpreaching@gmail.com!

Again, this blew me way. I can't wait to watch the movie ASAP, like tomorrow.

You're going places, sir. Congrats on all the insanely hard work.

Me reading most of this: ok this is neat, not for me, I'll stick with my Blackmagics, but it sounds cool in several ways (I especially love that it's a 4:3 active sensor area)

Me getting to the end and seeing the price: F*** OFF

Actually I'm pretty sure this is a Canon sensor, isn't it? From what I recall, its resolution is identical to what a Super 35 cutout of Canon's 120MP APS-H sensor would be.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a Sony sensor.

Really not a fan of all these videos comparing sharpness. Sharpness, sharpness, sharpness. Look, I'm a photographer and filmmaker, and I'm *extremely* demanding when it comes to my photographic lenses and how well they resolve fine structural details across the frame, but video is a different kettle of fish. Comparing sharpness of cinema cameras is just silly, imo.

The advantage of these 6k/8k/12k sensors has nothing to do with sharpness. The Ursa 12K essentially allows you to punch in to a super 16 equivalent and *still* retain 4K resolution. It gives you a multitude of possible focal lengths (EFFECTIVE focal length, I should say), the ability to reframe/zoom/etc etc.

To me, those have always been the advantages of >4K cinema cameras. Not sharpness. No one watches a movie or a short film or a commercial and says "wow, look how sharp it is" - if anything, it's widely considered a negative.

It's even sillier when 99.99% of people don't have screens to even view these at full res.

I'd rather see more videos focused solely on color, DR, highlight rolloff, how it handles under/overexposure, etc. etc.

It can produce the *appearance* of less noise due to downsampling, but on the pixel level, the higher resolution will be noisier.

There's a lot more to it than that (sensor architecture and design, pixel pitch, etc.) but in general that's not a totally wrong statement.

It sounds like Cameron doesn't care for 48fps in standard cinema, but feels it is valuable (and I assume therefore more visually pleasing) for 3D. Which makes sense to me, as 3D seems to exaggerate the jitter of 24fps when doing quick pans or dollies or whatever it may be.