Wide DOF lenses

[Mike Harrington]

I'm planning a lens kit for my Red, going to go with 2 or 3 nikons, and purchase the Nikon mount option.

Now I know everyone is concerned with shallow DOF, as am I....but a good chunk of my work will also be live event stuff...then down converted.

So as well as some of the great Nikons that Evin has reviewed... I could also use a wider DOF lens that could fit the Nikon mount....in this case a zoom is a must, and breathing is irrelevant.

Any suggestions for a lens that may fit the bill?

[chuck colburn]

I'm planning a lens kit for my Red, going to go with 2 or 3 nikons, and purchase the Nikon mount option.

Now I know everyone is concerned with shallow DOF, as am I....but a good chunk of my work will also be live event stuff...then down converted.

So as well as some of the great Nikons that Evin has reviewed... I could also use a wider DOF lens that could fit the Nikon mount....in this case a zoom is a must, and breathing is irrelevant.

Any suggestions for a lens that may fit the bill?

Not quite sure what you mean. Are you looking for a shorter focal length (wider field of view) lens? Or a shallower depth of field (larger f stop) lens? Or a deeper depth of field (smaller f stop) lens which would be any lens stopped down?

[Mike Harrington]

I'm looking for a lens with a deeper depth of field.....


basically I am coming from a ENG background and 2/3 camera's, I have no real experience with 35mm lenses, the thought of shallow DOF while filming a live stage event, with talent running to and fro, sounds like a focusing nightmare...

I realize stopping down a lens will increase it's DOF, but at the same time a lot of these events would be low light conditions.....from my 2/3 experience...(I realize the Red will be significantly better.)

Hope that makes sense:clown2:

[Martin Drew]

The best option for this application has to be a B4 lens + adapter and shooting windowed. Alternatively you could find a second hand s16 lens, that would probably work out a lot cheaper. That way you will have the DOF approaching that of a 2/3" lens. You could of course use the same 35mm stills lenses and shoot windowed, effectively only using the centre of the frame, that will give the same effect as an S16 lens but with the luxury of being able to switch to 4K recording for some wide establishing shots maybe. Focusing may be an issue using stills lenses for this kind of very dynamic application though.

M

[Mike Harrington]

Thanks Martin...I was thinking along these lines. I would rather not go th B4 and adapter route if I can avoid it.

So your saying a 35mm shooting windowed will have a similar DOF to a 16mm?
That's a very useful fact.

How about a longer lens...say 300mm or bigger, does the focal length affect DOF as well?

[Martin Drew]

Thanks Martin...I was thinking along these lines. I would rather not go th B4 and adapter route if I can avoid it.

So your saying a 35mm shooting windowed will have a similar DOF to a 16mm?
That's a very useful fact.

How about a longer lens...say 300mm or bigger, does the focal length affect DOF as well?

Yes if you window the 35mm lens to shoot 2k you will being using the same area on the sensor as a s16 lens. You would then get twice the magnification that you would if you used the same focal length lens to shoot 4k (it would be like using a 2x extender). The neat thing would be that you could also switch the camera to 4k to get a wider FOV or where you were shooting more controlled material.

Yes. A longer lens will give you less DOF when shooting the same subject.

M

[Mike Harrington]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Pig]

mdharrington,
there was an Australian photographer who invented a lens that would be GREAT to have for the Red One.
If I recall correctly he basically took some lenses apart and fiddled with their elements until he came up with a "magic" combination that allowed everything to be in focus. He basically had ultimate deep DOF. From macro to infinity, it is all in focus.
It was an amazing feat.

I forgot the guy's name by now, but google helps in those cases: look for a Frazier Lens (named after Jim Frazier).
He signed a contract with Panavision, so they now hold the patent and rights to it.
http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=217&id=86&node=c0,c49,c50,c87,c90

It would be SWEET to see what a Red One could do with a Frazier lens !!!

Here's another link that explains Jim Frazier's "story":
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/case_studies/frazier.htm

And here's a nice quote from the man himself (Jim Frazier):
"I was doing my first research on the Frazier lens fifteen years ago.
He said that the extended depth of field I sought was an "optical impossibility ".
Not being an optics specialist, I went ahead and apparently achieved the impossible.
In science there are only temporary answers. We devise 'laws of nature' to comfort
our egos, and they need constant revision."

[chuck colburn]

WOW!

That's interesting. They sure aren't telling you much about it on the Panny web site, but judging by the physical constrution it reminda me of a trick that can be done with view cameras. It envolves using the front standard rise and I think the rear shift or swing or both (not sure though) which would result in an increased depth of field no matter what the taking lens was. It had a name, something like the "Schluminflager Rule" lol or something like that. Any of you large format types know what I'm talking about?

Chuck

[Ralph Oshiro]

Yes, it's the "Scheimpflug Rule." You basically tilt/swing the film plane and the lens plane (on a view camera) to effect a "shift" in the plane of focus. For example, you could tilt the film and lens planes so that the entire surface of a road, from a few inches to infinity, is in focus. But the same depth-of-field characteristics still apply--just in a different, "shifted" plane. Like the asphalt would all be sharp, but a truck ten feet above the asphalt would be out of focus. Or something ten feet deep in a ditch in the road, similarly would be out of focus. So your depth-of-field doesn't increase, the plane of focus is just in a different orientation using this technique.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Wow! According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, this "Frazier" lens is full of "magic!"

"The benefits to the film industry are huge. Quite apart from the unique abilities of the lens itself, it has dramatically lowered production costs. What used to be a three day shoot now takes only one day because Frazier's lens has done away with the need for teams of people to rig up complicated setups every time the director wants a new angle. It's as simple as adjusting the swivel tip."

[Mike the beginner]

Wow! According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, this "Frazier" lens is full of "magic!"

"The benefits to the film industry are huge. Quite apart from the unique abilities of the lens itself, it has dramatically lowered production costs. What used to be a three day shoot now takes only one day because Frazier's lens has done away with the need for teams of people to rig up complicated setups every time the director wants a new angle. It's as simple as adjusting the swivel tip."


Me thinks i might need one of them lenses:blush:

Mike the beginner

[Martin Drew]

I seem to remember reading recently that it had been exposed as a con and the was nothing special about the Frazier lens at all. I will see if I can find the link.

M

[Pig]

I seem to remember reading recently that it had been exposed as a con and the was nothing special about the Frazier lens at all. I will see if I can find the link.

M

LOL, that's funny.
I'm sure there will be [or have been] articles that state the Red camera is a con too. There's always naysayers....always.
I've seen the effect of the Frazier lens, and it's quite remarkable, at least that's what I thought back 15-20 years ago, when I first saw it. It is true, that it has its most effect at a higher F stop, but the difference between a "normal" lens and a Frazier lens is quite remarkable.

[Martin Drew]

Found it. http://www.hd24.com/frazier_case.htm (http://www.hd24.com/frazier_case.htm) Sounds like it was a case of the emperors new clothes...

M

[Martin Drew]

"The Emperors new clothes" comment wasn't aimed at you Pig. I hadn't seen your post until after I clicked submit

M

[Martin Drew]

Fraziers lawyer has appealed. It is interesting to read the appeal (http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1060.pdf) because it gives a bit of background about how the lens works. As far as I can tell there is indeed a huge depth of field effect, but it is really an optical trick. The lens allows you to focus on 2 things independently and superimpose the 2 images within the lens. So it isn't a huge depth of field in reality rather 2 depth of fields. Also there was some deception in the original patent defence case (which was where this all came from in the first place) which Fraziers councel had admitted.

I have only quickly scanned through the appeal so I might have got the wrong end of the stick, if I have please put me straight. I've got to do some work now so I can't give it a really good read

M

[Pig]

Hey, no worries, Martin, it's all very interesting for sure.

Here's more links:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/13/1052591785954.html
and
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Hcm
This last one shows an example of the "two-focus-planes" as you indicated, although I still don't believe this.
heck this lens has been used on COUNTLESS top movies with top DOPs and CamOps; I just can't believe that they all were so "keen" on a simple two plane lens.

And also, although a LONG time ago, I do remember an example on Beyond 2000 (now Beyond Tomorrow) where it was CLEAR that macro and far away stuff (and everything inbetween, at least I think so now) was in focus.

Would be intersting to find out for sure what gives...

[Stephen Williams]

A longer lens will give you less DOF when shooting the same subject.

M

Hi Martin,

Probably best described as an opinion rather than fact.

Stephen

[chuck colburn]

If anybody has a frame grab of a shot done with the "Magic" lens I would love to see it. Remember years ago when Century Precision Cine Optics use to offer split diopters? They were fun if you could find a way to hide the fuzzy area in the middle of the frame.

[Pig]

Yeah, something tells me that the Frazier lens might do "a little" more than a $3.25 split field filter:
http://cgi.ebay.com/58mm-Vivitar-Split-Field-Lens-Filter_W0QQitemZ220092536549QQcategoryZ30045QQssPa geNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

:)

[Martin Drew]

Hi Martin,

Probably best described as an opinion rather than fact.

Stephen

In the context of:


How about a longer lens...say 300mm or bigger, does the focal length affect DOF as well?


Yes. A longer lens will give you less DOF when shooting the same subject.

I think you are being a bit overly pedantic Stephen... Just my opinion of course!

M

[Pig]

Fraziers lawyer has appealed.

Interesting; well, looks like he (Frazier) made a couple of different lenses, and they only sought the patent for one; but the video showcasing the lens that they were seeking a patent for did not exclusively include footage shot with said lens that they were seeking a patent for, although Frazier claims that that wasn't a deceiptful tactic as the lens that he was [they were] seeking a patent for could actually produce the same results as the other lens that he wasn't seeking a patent for, with which the court somewhat disagreed, as there was conflicting testimony.

[Martin Drew]

It would be interesting to read the ruling from the Judge on the original case, but I haven't been able to find it. I will maybe have a look when I get home tonight.

M

[chuck colburn]

Yes, it's the "Scheimpflug Rule." You basically tilt/swing the film plane and the lens plane (on a view camera) to effect a "shift" in the plane of focus. For example, you could tilt the film and lens planes so that the entire surface of a road, from a few inches to infinity, is in focus. But the same depth-of-field characteristics still apply--just in a different, "shifted" plane. Like the asphalt would all be sharp, but a truck ten feet above the asphalt would be out of focus. Or something ten feet deep in a ditch in the road, similarly would be out of focus. So your depth-of-field doesn't increase, the plane of focus is just in a different orientation using this technique.

Ralph,

Yeah that's it.
So if we motorized the tilt and the swing of the RED sensor and ripped the bellows and front standard off of a Linhof we are on our way! Looks like it would be good for shooting those wide vista establishing shots (think Sir David Lean). lol

Thanks,

Chuck

Oh, and Steven please stay away from discusions on DOF....remember what the doctor said about your heart.

[Michael Brennan]

mdharrington,
If I recall correctly he basically took some lenses apart and fiddled with their elements until he came up with a "magic" combination that allowed everything to be in focus. He basically had ultimate deep DOF. From macro to infinity, it is all in focus.
It was an amazing feat.
......And here's a nice quote from the man himself (Jim Frazier):
"I was doing my first research on the Frazier lens fifteen years ago.
He said that the extended depth of field I sought was an "optical impossibility ".
Not being an optics specialist, I went ahead and apparently achieved the impossible.
In science there are only temporary answers. We devise 'laws of nature' to comfort
our egos, and they need constant revision."

Dont cinfuse this with the Frasier lens thought. Great lens but it doesn't have more depth of field than other snorkel lenses.
Panavision were taken to court and Technical Oscar Frasier won was given back after Panavison lost the case and the patent was made void.
Also consider a periscope lens from Abekus (initially called the Optex Excellence). It is one of the sharpest lenses I have used.

Frasiers AI (Aerial Image) lens has fantastic depth of field by placing subject within intermediate image within the lens and this got mixed up in the application of the patent of his snorkel lens.

Link here to read the appeal judgement.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:jmAKODTmuoAJ:fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1060.pdf+frasier+patent+fees&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari

Mike