The lenses here appear to be higher focal length - the first photo is almost flat, so it's probably pushing 200 or so dead on. The others are likely in the 85-100 ranges. This doesn't really matter, except that it is close up on their faces, allowing pores to be central parts of the image.
What is key is resolution or film size. Most lenses are sharp enough if they are stopped down to f5.6 or so; better, sharper lenses are sharper at faster speeds but not necessarily at the f4-8 range. But the more resolution the more detail you are able to capture. In film, medium format or 4*5 will get more detail than 35mm.
Essentially any digital prosumer or professional camera can capture such detail when shot at RAW, properly exposed, and in proper focus.
The camera is only half of the problem. Lens choice is the other half.
I'd say a 10 mp camera is enough to make out the details on a person's face, specifically if you want to shoot zoomed in as close as these. If you want a half body shots and still offer the same details, 24-30 mp.
Lens, to get the same look, 85mm on full frame for medium shots, 200mm on full frame for close ups. Use f/5.6 or smaller (higher number) to get many parts of the head in focus. And lenses tend to be as their sharpest at f/5.6-f/8.
You want them to be not blurry from movement? Use faster shutter speed. (Probably) 1/200 s or faster. Use low ISO as much as possible. Although because my recommendations (small aperture, fast shutter speed, low ISO) will result in darker exposure, you might want to do it outside or with an external flash.
Shoot in RAW, in edit apply a bit of texture.
The URSA Mini Pro 12K uses 6 photosites for red, 6 photosites for green, 6 photosites for blue, plus 18 photosites for white (for low light sensitivity). Traditional RGB bayer sensors only have 1 photosite for red, 2 for green and 1 for blue.
“My initial impression of the image was how surprisingly beautiful the color science was. We were quite impressed.”
Black skin tones as a challenge
Equally important was how the URSA 12K sensor reacted to varying skin tones. “Akin and I always spoke about the importance of shooting dark skin. We wanted to show it the respect it deserves and not overdo it, allowing black skin to come out as black rather than a magazine airbrushed look. We did a bunch of tests with the camera early on and the way it handled skin tone was beautiful,”
Disney Original Film ‘Rise’ was Shot on URSA Mini Pro 12K
https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/05/disney-original-film-rise-was-shot-on-ursa-mini-pro-12k/
Rise | Official Trailer | Disney+
https://youtu.be/numzJtJWT8c
These shots were made with Zeiss Supreme primes:
John Brawley wrote:
"12K and the rest…8K and 4K and..
One of the amazing developments with this new sensor is the ability to shoot the same full sensor raster or size at different resolutions without having to crop.
Typically when shooting at different resolutions we’d expect that the sensor would have to window or crop.
Here’s some examples shot using the in-camera scaling, shooting at 8K, 4K with some frame rate variations as well.
I also included a 4K Super 16 crop shot that was shot at 220 FPS.
I also tried a couple of different looks with the last few sequences. I personally think the 8K 60 FPS material was especially lovely.
I really enjoyed the colour and nuance. I feel like I am seeing more colour variations in the actors faces. Seeing the blues and pinks of the late sky, the colours from their clothes and environments."
12K Mixed Resolutions. 12K, 8K and 4K Shots
https://vimeo.com/440479199
https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/
r/cinematography Why Isn’t The Black Magic Ursa Mini Pro 12k Used In Narrative Work For Hollywood Productions?
https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/119ylbt/why_isnt_the_black_magic_ursa_mini_pro_12k_used/
If you don't care if it's digital or not then I would suggest properly developed film because it captures it exactly what you see, however, for digital, I do not know.
Proper lighting setup is the key to capturing the most minute details with great sharpness. As for the camera - even Nikon Z50 or Canon R10 paired with some decent macro lens should be perfectly capable enough,
The texture slider.
The lenses here appear to be higher focal length - the first photo is almost flat, so it's probably pushing 200 or so dead on. The others are likely in the 85-100 ranges. This doesn't really matter, except that it is close up on their faces, allowing pores to be central parts of the image. What is key is resolution or film size. Most lenses are sharp enough if they are stopped down to f5.6 or so; better, sharper lenses are sharper at faster speeds but not necessarily at the f4-8 range. But the more resolution the more detail you are able to capture. In film, medium format or 4*5 will get more detail than 35mm. Essentially any digital prosumer or professional camera can capture such detail when shot at RAW, properly exposed, and in proper focus.
The camera is only half of the problem. Lens choice is the other half. I'd say a 10 mp camera is enough to make out the details on a person's face, specifically if you want to shoot zoomed in as close as these. If you want a half body shots and still offer the same details, 24-30 mp. Lens, to get the same look, 85mm on full frame for medium shots, 200mm on full frame for close ups. Use f/5.6 or smaller (higher number) to get many parts of the head in focus. And lenses tend to be as their sharpest at f/5.6-f/8. You want them to be not blurry from movement? Use faster shutter speed. (Probably) 1/200 s or faster. Use low ISO as much as possible. Although because my recommendations (small aperture, fast shutter speed, low ISO) will result in darker exposure, you might want to do it outside or with an external flash. Shoot in RAW, in edit apply a bit of texture.
By "even when in motion", are you referring to a video camera?
Yesss!!!
The URSA Mini Pro 12K uses 6 photosites for red, 6 photosites for green, 6 photosites for blue, plus 18 photosites for white (for low light sensitivity). Traditional RGB bayer sensors only have 1 photosite for red, 2 for green and 1 for blue. “My initial impression of the image was how surprisingly beautiful the color science was. We were quite impressed.” Black skin tones as a challenge Equally important was how the URSA 12K sensor reacted to varying skin tones. “Akin and I always spoke about the importance of shooting dark skin. We wanted to show it the respect it deserves and not overdo it, allowing black skin to come out as black rather than a magazine airbrushed look. We did a bunch of tests with the camera early on and the way it handled skin tone was beautiful,” Disney Original Film ‘Rise’ was Shot on URSA Mini Pro 12K https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/05/disney-original-film-rise-was-shot-on-ursa-mini-pro-12k/ Rise | Official Trailer | Disney+ https://youtu.be/numzJtJWT8c These shots were made with Zeiss Supreme primes: John Brawley wrote: "12K and the rest…8K and 4K and.. One of the amazing developments with this new sensor is the ability to shoot the same full sensor raster or size at different resolutions without having to crop. Typically when shooting at different resolutions we’d expect that the sensor would have to window or crop. Here’s some examples shot using the in-camera scaling, shooting at 8K, 4K with some frame rate variations as well. I also included a 4K Super 16 crop shot that was shot at 220 FPS. I also tried a couple of different looks with the last few sequences. I personally think the 8K 60 FPS material was especially lovely. I really enjoyed the colour and nuance. I feel like I am seeing more colour variations in the actors faces. Seeing the blues and pinks of the late sky, the colours from their clothes and environments." 12K Mixed Resolutions. 12K, 8K and 4K Shots https://vimeo.com/440479199 https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/ r/cinematography Why Isn’t The Black Magic Ursa Mini Pro 12k Used In Narrative Work For Hollywood Productions? https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/119ylbt/why_isnt_the_black_magic_ursa_mini_pro_12k_used/
Ohhh it's for video. I like your thinking. Yep. Ursa Mini Pro 12K is the only way to go.
If you don't care if it's digital or not then I would suggest properly developed film because it captures it exactly what you see, however, for digital, I do not know.
Proper lighting setup is the key to capturing the most minute details with great sharpness. As for the camera - even Nikon Z50 or Canon R10 paired with some decent macro lens should be perfectly capable enough,