Great film! But why...
This is a perfect example of a script so strong nothing can hurt it. None of the weaker elements (some OK acting and music issues, few other things) could bring it down. IN FACT if shot on a c100 - same exact reslult! Same emotional response from audience - same movie. Extra lines of resolution I would suggest would have no aesthetic impact on the final product.
The honors here go to the writer R. Scott Shields not Canon.
That said I can imagine a wild life film where the extra lines may have an aesthetic impact. All depends on the integration of the parts and their effect or lack there of, on each other.
I hope I make a film this good one day. Great Job all around.
Oh my. I realize there would be the very very rare instance in which someone's vision would be specific to these extremely narrow aesthetic and it would be wondrous. But for those of us who had to transition between the painful, arduous and outrageously expense 16mm and super 8mm world of the ninnies. This is utterly ridiculous and a hideous testament to the power of misguided nostalgia.
This has bothered me for awhile because something seems off in this claim.
Sure enough I did a test today RAW C300 MXF compared to the same MXF compressed in Media Encoder at 25 Mbps. There virtually indistinguishable and there is certainly not anywhere near the compression seen above. BTW this was done on a PC. Not sure if that makes a difference. At 5Mbps I DO see the compression as noted above.
4K imaging of really low cell phone latitude.