Hd without good lenses looks like bad video
 

I think there should be a different name for HD shot with the panavision lens and other HD, kindaa like DV and min35DV, Hd is good but without the right lense just seems to me like digibeta with the sharpness turned up, it seems the film look is more reliant on the lens than anything else,just look at those agus35 on single chip cameras, they make it go from looking like average dv video, to wicked super 8.

B.Sundry

A format is a format. Ultimately what matters most is the quality of the content far more so than the quality of the image.

Re: Hd without good lenses looks like bad video
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Brendan Sundry : just look at those agus35 on single chip cameras -->>>

I really haven't kept up with the alternative imaging forums, but isn't the agus 35 dependent on the single chip camera's lens to focus on the ground glass?

Right. The systems that utilize a groundglass affect DoF as well as contrast, color and various other aspects of the image, such as adding a bit of simulated grain via the groundglass.

Simply switching out a lens with cameras that allow for such a thing will have a minor effect (sometimes barely noticeable on the color and contrast and sharpness, but it won't affect DoF or graininess.

I shot an HD feature with the celebrated Zeiss Digiprimes and a more conventional cine-style Canon zoom. Many feel that the Digiprimes are the best lenses available for the 2/3" format; you don't hear too many people excited about that zoom. However, I doubt anyone will be able to pick out which scenes were shot with which style lenses.

A successful film look has a limited amount to do with the lenses, in my estimation.

I believe that a cinematographer who knows how to set his lights properly, set his camera and choose the right focal length (wheter a set lens or a zoom) will achieve magic in any format!