Why cine lenses?

[I am]

Hi folks,
Please excuse my ignorance but why should I buy expensive cine lenses instead of photo lenses? Even Hasselblad or Zeiss lenses are cheaper than any cine lens. If it' s about sensor size (why?) let' s talk about Scarlet. I can buy a couple of (photographic) Zeiss or Hasselblad prime lenses instead of 18-85 Red zoom, at the same price. And I think, there must be a mount adapter for them somewhere like Ebay. They are best lenses and cheaper than any "professional" solution. I think I' m missing something..:umm:

[Brandon Fraley]

both have their strengths and weaknesses. Generally, optical quality is often comparable on a $1000 still zoom and a $60,000 cine zoom, but the main difference is that the cine zoom is made for "motion" picture work. There are many minor annoyances you'll find when using still lenses that the manufacturers of the much more expensive cine glass have worked out. Also, the cine lenses are often more compatible with all the standard industry accessories. However, still lenses are often a fraction of the size and weight of cine lenses.

Even on a fully professional set, I feel they both have there place, but if you're like me and many others, you maybe can't afford to buy your own cine glass in which case the still glass will still give you very excellent images and at a fraction of the weight. :)

[Daniel Browning]

Some lenses just aren't made in still land. Like the 14mm f/1.2.

[Sidney L. Plaut]

number 1 reason in my opinion - is pulling focus... still lenses have a much shorter span between close- unlimited focus making pulling focus on moving actors/objects alot more difficult.

number 2 is the "breathing" if you pull a rack focus the lens will "zoom" a little bit - can be very visible... -BUT it can also be used as an effect so not only a bad thing:)

all this is even more obvious in zoom lenses as they are a lot more complicated mechanically.

So its basically a mechanical thing...

[Bal Deo]

The quality of glass may not differ much, however when it comes to the mechnical working of the cine & still it is a night & day difference. For example the still lenses have 'clicked' or fixed f-stops. Whereas cine lenses do not have this limitation. This is important if you are changing T-Stops through a scene. Not impossible, just more difficult.
The major issues can be pulling focus, the only sensible choice for me is cine-style lenses like the Zeiss super-speeds or Cooke S-4's (depending on your budget). The barrels on the cine lenses turn 270 degrees or more, this become fairly critical when you stopped down to T-2.
Also the focus pullers would go mad with still lenses, considering the focus pulling is reversed. There are number of other reason, including colour balance. I have a large collection of Nikon lenses and i find a slight drift in colour from my 50mm f/1.4 to my 105 f/2.0

[Pawel Achtel]

Some lenses just aren't made in still land. Like the 14mm f/1.2.

Yep. And what beautiful MP 14mm lens it is.

Basic differenences are:

1. Cine lenses have limited breathing

2. Cine zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

3. Cine lenses have small or no ramping

4. Generally modern cine lenses are sharper and have higher contrast than still picture lenses. A $30k Master Prime will outgun any still picture lens out there, no ifs or buts. I projected them and there is substantial difference.

5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

6. Cine lenses have much more solid build and are consistent in their performance. If Canon L lenses are an indication, every example is different and performance can vary dramatically.

7. Cine lenses have calibrated focus marks and long throw - for me a feature that disqualifies still lenses from professional use where critical focusing at wide apertures is essential.

8. Cine lenses have industry standard PL mount that does not require adapters, which often cause back focus calibration problems or void camera warranty.

9. Cine lenses have fixed and non-rotationg front element allowing usage of clip-on matte boxes.

10. Cine lenses have focus and aperture gears, which are smooth, accurate and precise.

11. Cine lenses do not have hard stops on aperture ring.

12. Cine lenses from the same manufacturer are colour matched. Still lenses aren't, in fact, their colour response is vastly different even within the same series.

13. Modern cine lenses tend to flare much less than still lenses.

14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

I bought a small set of three MPs and, after more than $100k, I could not be happier. As usual, you get what you pay for.

[Donald G]

You forgot NUMBER 16: We don't all have the Hundred Grand to spend on lenses........:gun:

[Pawel Achtel]

You forgot NUMBER 16: We don't all have the Hundred Grand to spend on lenses........:gun:

This may help, then:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20669&highlight=pinhole+lens

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/a...s_pinhole.html


Mind you, you still have to spend minimum $20k - $40k for fluid head, sticks, matte box, FF, filters, batts, charger, lighting, transport cases, storage, backup, rods, mounts, etc...

or, change your hobby before it is too late. :clown2:

[DeaneThrussell]

arri rent adopted stills camera lenses and a great deal of borne ultimatium was shot with a adopted still lens the nikon 70-280 re-housed very cleverly and the focus was reversed so it pulled the right way...so i think the glass it self is awesome

[Dave Neathery]

arri rent adopted stills camera lenses and a great deal of borne ultimatium was shot with a adopted still lens the nikon 70-280 re-housed very cleverly and the focus was reversed so it pulled the right way...so i think the glass it self is awesome

Yes, but as I understand it, the issue was weight. They need a smaller, lighter lens than the available cinnema lenses. So, they spent I think, about $10,000 per lens to modify those. My point is they weren't using still glass to save money, they had a special need. I have 2 reds with Nikon glass. In the studio, where I can run about F8, and where I can make sure people are exactly in place, and redo the shot if something goes wrong, they can be verry good. Of course, no one can move much, and you have to depend on multicam to make up for this.

In the field though, at live, one time events, they are a disaster so far.
Indoors, there is never enough light to open the zoom lenses at all, so you cannot get an infocus picture. I had one I tried with a focus puller and operator on each cam. 4 hours of shooting, 2 rehearsals later, there might have been 5 minutes of usuable footage from prime lens shots, nothing at all from zoom. I could not get enough light through the zoom for usuable exposure even by slowing the shutter below what I would have wanted.
Plus they couldn't possibly zoom while shooting as the zooms totally change focal length while zooming. The primes were F1.4 and used wide open they gave proper exposure, but they couldn't hit focus. Before the actual event, I had them practice for about 1 hour, following focus while someone walked around the stage holding a sheet of music. They did a lot better, but it was still pretty bad. On top of that, I was limited in where I could place the cameras and some scenes wound up getting wider than the field of the shot.
Fortunately, between the cameras, I was able to get a time line that people liked, but I was aware that it was not good and had to use a lot of shots from the safety cam.
In short, I would buy cinne lenses in a heart beat, if I had the money, even for in the studio. Live indoor events with still glass: Forget it. (Unless they let you light it, and can absolutely guarantee the positions and sequences.)
Dave

[Steve Sanacore]

I think the bottom line is that Cine lenses are needed for universal pro use with any film crew. Still lenses can be used to great results only in limited applications. It would be great if the popularity of the RED cameras creates a big enough market for optics that other still camera companies starts to make dedicated cine lenses at much lower prices, such as RED branded lenses may very well do.

I think it's a matter of experience. Once you use a set of good cine primes or a high end cine zoom, you will know why they are superior.

[Sam Roberts]

You might want to check out my thread from yesterday. It partly answers your question....kind of a live and learn thing for me.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20941

[David Wyatt]

arri rent adopted stills camera lenses and a great deal of borne ultimatium was shot with a adopted still lens the nikon 70-280 re-housed very cleverly and the focus was reversed so it pulled the right way...so i think the glass it self is awesome

Apparently they had a few aberration problems with these converted Nikon DSLR zooms - I'm not quite sure exactly what the problem was but I suppose it just goes to show how difficult a process it is to adapt stills lenses for cine work. From Arri's point of view I don't think they had very long to do the conversion...

[Matt Uhry]

You forgot NUMBER 16: We don't all have the Hundred Grand to spend on lenses........:gun:

On professional sets lots of money is at stake and it does not make sense to fiddle about with improvised or mechanically inferior lens systems.

Still lenses would be fine in many low pressure / low risk situations.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Pawel's post was excellent. I would only add the following:


On a still camera, the lens is never doing anything while the exposure is made. No focusing or zooming while the shutter is open. This simplifies construction and a lot of looseness and play can be tolerated.

Still lenses have to be designed to a price point, and with size and weight limits in mind.

All cine lenses are designed to be serviced and have a very long life expectancy (longer than cameras of the same age). Inexpensive still lenses are not designed to be serviced.

Because the cine lens selling price is higher, the manufacturing reject rate can be higher, and this means closer tolerances in manufacturing can be held. This in turn makes possible certain optical designs that depend on tight manufacturing tolerances in order to perform properly.

All professional cine lenses are assembled by hand. I've seen how this is done at Cooke Ltd. and at Carl Zeiss. The process is very labor intensive, especially at Cooke.

[Harry Clark]

HA!
Excellent and funny observation, Pawel.
There is a lot of noise here that always seems to center around "well, I've got my Red; why can't I rent it to a movie or commercial with my Sigma lens and Manfrotto tripod???" The word HOBBY is perhaps a bit crude, but funny...
Harry

Mind you, you still have to spend minimum $20k - $40k for fluid head, sticks, matte box, FF, filters, batts, charger, lighting, transport cases, storage, backup, rods, mounts, etc...

or, change your hobby before it is too late. :clown2:[/QUOTE]

[danbrazda]

Bottom line on this issue for me is that you can make STUNNING images using high quality still lenses on the Red and anything else that will take them. I had an old Arri IIC that I converted to accept Nikon lenses and am still blown away by the stuff that came out of that rig. Yes there are limitations, but once you are aware of them the workarounds are not that hard to adjust to.

Here's my set so far:

-Nikon 14mm 2.8
-Nikon 17-35 2.8
-Nikon 50mm 1.4
-Nikon 85mm 1.4
-Nikon 135mm 2.0
-Nikon 80-200 2.8

Looking for a good fisheye and something 400 or longer (suggestions?).

By the way- zooming is overrated :)

[Nick Gardner]

Bottom line on this issue for me is that you can make STUNNING images using high quality still lenses on the Red and anything else that will take them. I had an old Arri IIC that I converted to accept Nikon lenses and am still blown away by the stuff that came out of that rig. Yes there are limitations, but once you are aware of them the workarounds are not that hard to adjust to.[/QUOTE]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days. Anything that slows you down gets jettisoned. It's way cheaper to rent a set of ziess speeds, than to pay 45 people OT for 1 hour.

No I am not a producer, but they hire me and I know how they think ;-)

Nick

[John Redfern]

It's horses for courses.

I'm using 20 year old Olympus Zuico Macro lenses with bellows on Red for 1:1 macro work. Beautiful glass.

And in this case focusing is done by moving the lens on the slide - or more appropriately if you don't want to breathe - keeping the lens still and moving the camera

John

[Alberto Caprioglio]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images.

And on top of that, you can add the fact that usually images are the best side of it.
In my opinion, today this industry may do the world favour and convert itself into producing something else for a while, or ask a state help for nothing, if it's only about making days, with it's avarage production of low entertainment for kids and single stressed working women, and not pretend to be in the 7th art with that potatos.
If they produced bluejeans instead of films, it would be the same: making days. Making a living. If only people would buy them, at those prices. But it works, some one still go to the cinema, they make money, and have no regret, so it will never end, making low entertainment with top class tools.
cinema like a fast food. I'm surprised they don't make 3 minutes films and private police don't pull you out of the armchair to make room for the next chicken in line as soon as the show is over.
Yes, cine lens are a different story. Still lenses cannot sustitute them very succesfully except in some particular situations (like a sudden state of poverty)

[Sanjin Jukic]

Yep. And what beautiful MP 14mm lens it is.

Basic differenences are:

1. Cine lenses have limited breathing

2. Cine zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

4. Generally modern cine lenses are sharper and have higher contrast than still picture lenses. A $30k Master Prime will outgun any still picture lens out there, no ifs or buts. I projected them and there is substantial difference.

5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

13. Modern cine lenses tend to flare much less than still lenses.

14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

I bought a small set of three MPs and, after more than $100k, I could not be happier.

As usual, you get what you pay for.


Pawel,

we all know that you are not well and that you in a state of re-animation.

But what you've said about cine lenses vs. still lenses, I as one of the biggest hobbyists here, would take that with a huge reserve.

Even though it sounds pretty arrogant to flag here with Arri MP lenses that are one of the biggest compromises taken ever in overall history of lens design.

You've just jump yourself in Arri advertising trap and spent 100K then have wear a clothes of a big guy.

All sounds funny and ridiculous.

Back to the answers:

1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.

Example: Noctilux 50mm f/0.95>>Footage (http://www.jonasrejman.com/downloads/sanjin/Noctilux095_720p.mov)



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

Example: Angenieux 3x70 mm FD f/3.5 >>Footage (http://www.jonasrejman.com/downloads/sanjin/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocusH264.mov)



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.

Tell me with which still lenses you have your comparison and I will tell you the answer.

Letters in yellow are mine corrections.



5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

Ari MP set of lenses are made all at T-stop range from T1.3 to T22.

But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.

In between read this about the lens design and testing in general>>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page63.html)



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.

Example: Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/lenses/page88.html)



14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Show us and then we can talk about it and discuss.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.

Take your optical glasses and test the glass with your very eyes right now.



The Hobbist :clown2: .

[DeaneThrussell]

my feeling is good glass....is good glass. So if you take a great still lenses re-house so it's strong enough to take a kicking on set get the focus working so that it goes the correct way and has the correct teeth to work with a follow focus...lose the moving front element and you test it with in a inch of it's life so you it won't let you down on set....But by the time you've down that your probably find it cost the same money as buying a cine lens and doesn't hold it value in the same way...lenses are like cookes will always hold there value. Some stills lenses adopted may or may be what someone whats...As for picture i'm sure someone will go out with a set of stills lenses and shoot something that blows us all away!!!!

[danbrazda]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days. Anything that slows you down gets jettisoned. It's way cheaper to rent a set of ziess speeds, than to pay 45 people OT for 1 hour.

No I am not a producer, but they hire me and I know how they think ;-)

Nick[/QUOTE]

Ummm, wow dude... strung a bit tight there?

Not everyone on this thread is in the "film business" that you describe. I don't think I'm the only one who actually does think it's all about stunning images and storytelling. I guess we just have different realities in our craft. I just hope you still get excited about what you turn out at the end of the day rather than just relieved that the clients are happy.

[Eduardo Ruiz]

I know that this sounds crazy, but it's my subjective opinion: movies made with still lenses looks like 24 still pictures per second, movies made with cine lenses looks like film!

[Richard Goodwin]

I know that this sounds crazy, but it's my subjective opinion: movies made with still lenses looks like 24 still pictures per second, movies made with film lenses looks like film!

Do you have an example to back that up?

As a counter example how about the candle lit scenes in Barry Lyndon? How do those look "still"?

[Roberto B]

Pawel,

we all know that you are not well and that you in a state of re-animation.

But what you've said about cine lenses vs. still lenses, I as one of the biggest hobbyists here, would take that with a huge reserve.

Even though it sounds pretty arrogant to flag here with Arri MP lenses that are one of the biggest compromises taken ever in overall history of lens design.

You've just jump yourself in Arri advertising trap and spent 100K then have wear a clothes of a big guy.

All sounds funny and ridiculous.

Back to the answers:

1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.

Example: Noctilux 50mm f/0.95>>Footage (http://www.jonasrejman.com/downloads/sanjin/Noctilux095_720p.mov)



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

Example: Angenieux 3x70 mm FD f/3.5 >>Footage (http://www.jonasrejman.com/downloads/sanjin/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocusH264.mov)



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.

Tell me with which still lenses you have your comparison and I will tell you the answer.

Letters in yellow are mine corrections.



5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

Ari MP set of lenses are made all at T-stop range from T1.3 to T22.

But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.

In between read this about the lens design and testing in general>>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page63.html)



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.

Example: Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/lenses/page88.html)



14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Show us and then we can talk about it and discuss.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.

Take your optical glasses and test the glass with your very eyes right now.



The Hobbist :clown2: .i will refrain myself of my recent usual no comment quote just for saying.. man.. this one was a great post!

the whole post.

[Frank Martin]

thanks for the primer Sanjin, very informative. If you put any of those lenses in pretty housings with big ,double sided witness marks
i think most would be hardpressed to tell the difference between many cine lenses out there. I must admit though the pristine
16-100 1.9 KERN vario-switar I have for my rex5 still blows me away every time we shoot 16mm..... just a lot of fun.

[Sanjin Jukic]

i will refrain myself of my recent usual no comment quote just for saying.. man.. this one was a great post!

the whole post.

To clarify I'm not against cine glass at all.

Its the same example like in fashion.

Haute Couture vs Pret-a-Porter.

Haute Couture = Cine lenses.

Pret-a-Porter = Photo still lenses.

But also in photo still glass industry there is Haute Couture or Leica.

The reason that Leica glass is extremly expensive is that each lens is hand made,

mechanical perfection, color matching, accurate markings, excellent optical design,

perfect and gorgeous pictures, longer durability, etc...

[Sanjin Jukic]

thanks for the primer Sanjin, very informative. If you put any of those lenses in pretty housings with big ,double sided witness marks
i think most would be hardpressed to tell the difference between many cine lenses out there. I must admit though the pristine
16-100 1.9 KERN vario-switar I have for my rex5 still blows me away every time we shoot 16mm..... just a lot of fun.

Panavision and Dalsa re-housed in cine shells already a lot of Leitz/Leica glass.

Before Arri MP entered in the game Panavision Primos L (based on Leitz/Leica still glass)

took legendary status in a movie history.

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel,

we all know that you are not well and that you in a state of re-animation.

But what you've said about cine lenses vs. still lenses, I as one of the biggest hobbyists here, would take that with a huge reserve.

Even though it sounds pretty arrogant to flag here with Arri MP lenses that are one of the biggest compromises taken ever in overall history of lens design.

You've just jump yourself in Arri advertising trap and spent 100K then have wear a clothes of a big guy.

All sounds funny and ridiculous.

Back to the answers:

1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.

Example: Noctilux 50mm f/0.95>>Footage (http://www.jonasrejman.com/downloads/sanjin/Noctilux095_720p.mov)



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

Example: Angenieux 3x70 mm FD f/3.5 >>Footage (http://www.jonasrejman.com/downloads/sanjin/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocusH264.mov)



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.

Tell me with which still lenses you have your comparison and I will tell you the answer.

Letters in yellow are mine corrections.



5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

Ari MP set of lenses are made all at T-stop range from T1.3 to T22.

But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.

In between read this about the lens design and testing in general>>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page63.html)



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.

Example: Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/lenses/page88.html)



14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Show us and then we can talk about it and discuss.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.

Take your optical glasses and test the glass with your very eyes right now.



The Hobbist :clown2: .

Sanjin, I will reply with a question:

Have you ever projected and used a Master Prime lens side-by-side to still lenses?

I spent many hours testing (projecting) all sorts of glass and those were my clear conclusions.

I had a sizable collection of Canon L gless and used them extensively on Canon 5D and 40D, so I have a little bit of "real life" comparision as well. Next to a MP lens, they're crap in every possible way you look at them.

Of course, if there was a cheaper/better way I would go for it in a heart beat as, you know, I don't buy marketing BS that is so common these days.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, I will reply with a question:

Have you ever projected and used a Master Prime lens side-by-side to still lenses?

I spent many hours testing (projecting) all sorts of glass and those were my clear conclusions.

I had a sizable collection of Canon L gless and used them extensively on Canon 5D and 40D, so I have a little bit of "real life" comparision as well. Next to a MP lens, they're crap in every possible way you look at them.

Of course, if there was a cheaper/better way I would go for it in a heart beat as, you know, I don't buy marketing BS that is so common these days.

Pawel,

no I did not.

But question is with what lenses you were comparing them(?).

BTW, New Canon EF glass is a bit inferior than old FD in some designs.

The link from the expert>>>LINK (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page61.html)

And also one more example that shows use of still glass at the production of box office of the year:

"The production (THE DARK KNIGHT) carried four medium-format Hasselblad lenses: 50mm, 80mm, 110mm and 150mm.

Pfister and Nolan favored the 50mm and, less often, the 80mm."

The Dark Knight shot by Wally Pfister, ASC,

combines 35mm and Imax 65mm to depict the Cape Crusader’s latest adventure. (http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/July2008/TheDarkKnight/page1.php)

That is just one of the latest examples.


And one more thing at the end:

The physical design of high speed lenses at wide open looks like one part of sine (sinusoid) wave.

In the case of Arri/Zeiss MP sharpness/resolution/center/corners/MTF measurements start with 14mm

that should be at the bottom of the sine wave and growing to 50mm that should be at the top of the wave

and then again falling down to 150mm.

The main reason that Zeiss made them all in T1.3 is that is easy to achieve the best lens performance

between 2.8-8 if you can start with a higher speed.

That mostly compromises lens performance at wide open for a certain focal lengths but who cares if you get

a bit better sweet spot then competitors that mostly starting the lens design at T2 or even T3(zooms).

[Eduardo Ruiz]

I've posted one of my first lens tests, I will post something from the "real world".

http://www.vimeo.com/2066114

50mm ZEISS T*1.3 MKIII
vintage 50mm Cooke Speed PanchroII bayo to PL adapter
vintage 25-250mm Angenieux T3.9 bayo to PL adapter
Angenieux Optimo 24-290 @ 50mm
50mm ZEISS T*1.3 MKIII (again)
18-50 RED ZOOM @ 50mm (rehoused still lens)

all wide open
Basic Color Correction (contrast) at REDCINE

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Eduardo.

Nice.

[Nick Gardner]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days. Anything that slows you down gets jettisoned. It's way cheaper to rent a set of ziess speeds, than to pay 45 people OT for 1 hour.

No I am not a producer, but they hire me and I know how they think ;-)

Nick

Ummm, wow dude... strung a bit tight there?
[/QUOTE]

I am all for making the best pictures I can in the time I have, but the fact of the matter is that it is a business, and there is a lot of money at stake. Making your days is a pretty important part of the job, and if using still lenses slows down production, then thats a bad thing. Thats all.

Cheers,

Nick

[Richard Goodwin]

Haute Couture vs Pret-a-Porter.

Haute Couture = Cine lenses.

Pret-a-Porter = Photo still lenses.

But also in photo still glass industry there is Haute Couture or Leica.


Should'nt there be a bit more focus on including real results in this discussion. (Not just lens tests)

Haute Couture

- Robert Capa (WWII photography), James Nachway, Weegee - Great Images - Def not Leica (canon, nikon, contax)
- Richard Avedon - always used the same Rollei ... Helmut Newton used Rollei as well = Are they not Haute Couture?

- "A Man and a Woman", and the most of the French New Wave - low budget everything
- Candle lit scenes in Barry Lyndon - yes Zeiss optics, but still lens
- Pretty much every movie before WWII (or really the 70s) used optics that could not hold a candle to todays optics (Citizen Kane, Gance's Napoleon, Film Noir

Pret a Porter:

- Pearl Harbor and many other recent big budget films with perfect focus and edge to edge definition
- Shampoo and razor commercials
...

All those use "perfect" optics but are pretty much generic in terms of their cinematography.

People who want to use still lenses are concerned about budget but are still driven to make movies. So, just dismissing still optics is not super useful. Because, a lot has been and will be shot on RED with still optics.

The question I think it would be better to answer is how can still lenses be used. What techniques can be employed to work around their issues? What original qualities do they have that can be leveraged to create unique images?

[Pawel Achtel]

Sanjin,

The MPs (from 14mm right up to 150mm) all resolved 120 lp/mm corner-to-corner with MTF of at least 15% (distinguishable) wide open at f/1.2. I am not aware of any wide angle still lens capable anywhere near that sort of performance.

The lenses around were Leica and Nikon, rehoused to PL. Also, there is plently of quantative data on still lenses at www.photozone.de and similar sites. Nothing that would encourage me to use them over good PL glass.

Of course, still picture glass is and will be used in motion picture, but more as specialty glass and certainly not for their optical or mechanical qualities.

The Leica Noctilux may be fast, but it is also rather soft wide open and its mechanics make it impossible to use it wide open for most motion picture applications. Again, if it is used in motion picture, it is as a specialty glass with inferior optical and mechanical properties.

I strongly encourage you to make an effort and make an appointment with Arri and ask them to project some of your favourite still lenses and compare them with Master Primes. It won't cost you anything. It is the best and cheapest education you can get. You will clearly see the results with your bare eyes and you can play with the projector yourself to your heart content. The differences are very obvious and clear, specially at wider angles.

For start, you will see how difficult it is to get a still lens to focus accurately and resolve anything beyond 80 lp/mm. The mechanics are simply not there for accurate focusing even on a testing bench.

Then, any 14mm still lens opened wide will make you running out the door to the nearest bank to loan you enough cash to make a deposit for a MP. Seriously.

[MadamImAdam]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days.

This may sound strange, but I don't care about making days. I care about making stunning images.

[Michele Gavazzeni]

To me the main problem is Focus.
When I'll see some footage taken with still lens with a nice push-in perfectly on focus...

Actually all the footage I've seen taken with still lenses are (probably for aestetical reason) full of out of focus shots...

[Evin Grant]

Horses for courses, but I recently did get a chance to see the new Nikon 14-24mm and 24-70mm N coat zooms projected at a very reputable LA area cine lens repairman and was blown away. They both totally out resolved the Optimos, even WFO. My guess is that they realy are entering MP territory. Of course the mechanics would still need to be rebuilt but it'd be worth it.

[Pawel Achtel]

Horses for courses, but I recently did get a chance to see the new Nikon 14-24mm and 24-70mm N coat zooms projected at a very reputable LA area cine lens repairman and was blown away. They both totally out resolved the Optimos, even WFO. My guess is that they realy are entering MP territory. Of course the mechanics would still need to be rebuilt but it'd be worth it.

I agree, the 14-24mm is a very sharp lens for a wide zoom, albeit you will see some softness just in the corners at f/2.8 at both wide and long end of the zoom. It would be about the same as UP open wide, but MP 14mm even at f/1.2 remains razor sharp in the corners.

Either way, I don't see a the Nikon lens being not sharp enough. The main problem is, as you say, the mechanics and I don't know if any optical workshop could convert this lens to have precise long throw focus and scales and manual aperture under $10k and, at this point, you may wonder if it is better to get an UP or MP or Cooke or wait for a Red Prime and get extra speed.

[Daniel Browning]

Hi Sanjin,

Thanks for the discussion. I'd like to point out a few areas where I disagree with you; hope you don't mind.



1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.


"Best" means something different to everyone. I agree that some still lenses have limited breathing, but many lenses are "best" for another reason, while still suffering from breathing.

For example, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is the best (for corner CA and MTF) super wide on Still35, but I don't know if it has limited breathing or not.



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom


Agreed. Most good lenses are parfocal (such as most, but not all, of the Canon L zooms).



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.


It many areas is certainly will; especially wide angle lenses. For one thing, none of the still lenses are fast (f/1.2) and wide (14mm) at the same time. You can get f/1.4 at 24mm, or f/2.8 at 14mm, but never the two shall meet. If you need f/1.2 for thin DOF or T/1.3 for low light shooting, cine lenses are the only choice.

There are other problem with wides, too. If you use a wide angle lens designed for Still35 on Super35 format, it will necessarily have more flare than one designed for Still35. The crop factor changes what you see in the viewfinder, but light striking the lens outside of that view will still affect the whole image.

However, if your needs are limited enough that all the focal lengths and focal ratios are already covered by still lenses, then such a comparison with a $30k MP would be meaningful. Pawel says he did the comparison and found the MP performance at f/1.2 to be better than still lenses, and I'm not surprised.



But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.


It doesn't matter what the performance is if no other equivalent lens even exists. Bicycles get better fuel economy than cars, but it's not a valid comparison because a car can do things a bicycle can't, just like the 14mm f/1.2 can do things a still lens can't.



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.


Again, using still35 lenses on Super35 means there is a greater intrinsic propensity for flare simply due to the fact that there is over twice as much glass that is not even being used, yet still contributes to flare.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.




All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.


Yes, but there is another, more important rule of lens design: aperture rules. It rules performance, and it rules manufacturing cost.

For example, lenses designed for camera phones have 75% MTF at 400 lp/mm! And the cost is almost nothing. The principle reason for this to be possible is that the aperture is very, very small. The incredible amount of R&D and volume manufacturing (more in one year than all still lenses ever made) are also important.

Similarly, digicam lenses have very high MTF at resolutions a DSLR lens can only dream of. And, like camera phone lenses, that much resolution is needed, because the resolution of the sensor on an area basis is so high (over 10 times greater than DSLR cameras). The manufacturing volumes and narrow aperture makes it possible for such a low price.

Unlike digicams, still 35 lenses don't *need* to be very high resolution. Still35 formats are relatively low resolution (36 sq. microns vs 3.6). If a still lens is just barely sharp enough for a 4K Still35 format, then it will be much duller on a Super35 format. That's good, because they need much wider apertures. Plus, there is a respectable manufacturing volume.

Super35 is more exacting. The performance of a lens at 6K in Still35 will be the same as its performance at 4K in Super35. 6K is about 24 MP. Many lenses perform well at 24 MP, so they will also do well at 4K.

APS-C still lenses can be made to a higher resolution than full frame still lenses for the same cost, assuming the same design and volume; however, restricting them to mount with the same flange focal length causes design constraints/compromises. For example, my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 runs circles around the Canon 17-40 f/4 L at half the cost, and holds up very well against the 24-70 f/2.8 L.

The point is this: if everything were equal, cine lenses would be cheaper, sharper, or wider (just like APS-C lenses). But because manufacturing volume and different design constraints, the reality is that many of them are more expensive for the same level of sharpness and focal ratio.



The main reason that Zeiss made them all in T1.3 is that is easy to achieve the best lens performance

between 2.8-8 if you can start with a higher speed.


That is wrong. It is far easier (and cheaper!) to build a T/2.8 and optimize the wide open performance than to build a T/1.3 with the same level of performance. That can't be the main reason Zeiss made them T/1.3.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is $70. Stopped down to f/2.8, it has more resolution than the $400 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 or the $1400 50mm f/1.2 L at f/2.8. Starting with a wider focal ratio didn't help those lenses.

[Evin Grant]

you may wonder if it is better to get an UP or MP or Cooke or wait for a Red Prime and get extra speed.

I don't think the focus throw could be improved much but the other mechanical factors could be. As far as comparisons the 15mm Red prime has been stated as f2.8, but it will be cheaper (Assuming $10-15K rehouse) and a UP would be fantastic but it's a prime and the 14-24 is a short zoom, perfect for crane/steadi-cam/handheld. It's real competition would come from the 16-42 Optimo Rouge. But 14mm is as 14mm does :)

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin,

The MPs (from 14mm right up to 150mm) all resolved 120 lp/mm corner-to-corner with MTF of at least 15% (distinguishable) wide open at f/1.2. I am not aware of any wide angle still lens capable anywhere near that sort of performance.

The lenses around were Leica and Nikon, rehoused to PL. Also, there is plently of quantative data on still lenses at www.photozone.de and similar sites. Nothing that would encourage me to use them over good PL glass.

Of course, still picture glass is and will be used in motion picture, but more as specialty glass and certainly not for their optical or mechanical qualities.

The Leica Noctilux may be fast, but it is also rather soft wide open and its mechanics make it impossible to use it wide open for most motion picture applications. Again, if it is used in motion picture, it is as a specialty glass with inferior optical and mechanical properties.

I strongly encourage you to make an effort and make an appointment with Arri and ask them to project some of your favourite still lenses and compare them with Master Primes. It won't cost you anything. It is the best and cheapest education you can get. You will clearly see the results with your bare eyes and you can play with the projector yourself to your heart content. The differences are very obvious and clear, specially at wider angles.

For start, you will see how difficult it is to get a still lens to focus accurately and resolve anything beyond 80 lp/mm. The mechanics are simply not there for accurate focusing even on a testing bench.

Then, any 14mm still lens opened wide will make you running out the door to the nearest bank to loan you enough cash to make a deposit for a MP. Seriously.

Pawel,

where did you find that Arri/Zeiss MP 14 mm to 150 mm T*1.3 have 120 lp/mm.

Nothing like that is published at Arri or Zeiss site at all.

Then I should again call the lens expert for a help:

"Leica furnishes MTF diagrams for 5,
10, 20 and 40 line pairs or periods (10,
20, 40, 80 light/dark stripes). The more
stripes per millimeter, the finer the details
that can be reproduced.

One often wonders why the finest
structures are limited to these 40 lp/
mm. There have been articles in the
press citing lenses that can record 200
or more lines per millimeter. But now it
has become clear that the number of
lines per mm is interesting only when
stated in conjunction with the respective
contrast. At 200 lines per mm the
contrast is so low that it is virtually impossible
to distinguish anything at all.
The 40 periods used by Leica as a sensible
lower limit result in a dot size of
1/80 mm or 0.0125 mm. It is difficult to
imagine how small that dot is on a 35
mm negative! Take a negative and a
ruler calibrated in millimeters. Then subdivide
the width of one millimeter into
80 tiny individual units. That gives you
an idea of the performance capability of
today’s lenses. Once we have established
an understanding of how narrow
such a unit is, then it becomes obvious
that the smallest vibration can spoil the
entire picture. And a small amount of
unsharpness from inaccurate focusing
has a disturbingly large effect when
such small image details are important"


Quote from>>> MTF diagrams: those seductive curves!" from
"Leica-M lenses: Their soul and secrets" (http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1768.pdf)

by Erwin Puts

page 16

BTW, Leica always had published MTF diagrams.


Also I do not need to go in Arri Wien because I am aware of a good and a bad from still lenses.

Anyway in German speaking countries nothing is for free.

If you want to perform a certain test using Arri equipment you have to pay of course.

About banks I do not want to talk about it because they are all in big

troubles now or even flying through the black hole on the road to nowhere :clown2: .

[FMG battery]

it is better to get an UP or MP or Cooke or wait for a Red Prime and get extra speed.how can you be so assertive about something you know nothing about?

this red fanboyism is so boooooooring..

[Matthew Duclos]

how can you be so assertive about something you know nothing about?

Me thinks everyone will be pleasantly surprised with the quality of the RED primes. Just a feeling. Not a fanboy...

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel,

where did you find that Arri/Zeiss MP 14 mm to 150 mm T*1.3 have 120 lp/mm.


On a projector, Sanjin.


Me thinks everyone will be pleasantly surprised with the quality of the RED primes. Just a feeling. Not a fanboy...

Thanks, Mathew. :biggrin:

[Sanjin Jukic]

On a projector, Sanjin.



Pawel,

I'm just curious how did you count that

according to the quote I gave you above.

"There have been articles in the
press citing lenses that can record 200
or more lines per millimeter. But now it
has become clear that the number of
lines per mm is interesting only when
stated in conjunction with the respective
contrast. At 200 lines per mm the
contrast is so low that it is virtually impossible
to distinguish anything at all."

Quote from>>> MTF diagrams: those seductive curves!" from
"Leica-M lenses: Their soul and secrets"

LINK>>> (http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1768.pdf)

And now for all of us a little bit to get educated about resolution test projecting:

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/resolution_test1.jpg
From "Practical Cinematography" By Paul Wheeler

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/resolution_test2.jpg
From "Applied Photographic Optics" By Sidney F. Ray


7. Cine lenses have calibrated focus marks and long throw - for me

a feature that disqualifies still lenses from professional use where critical focusing at wide apertures is essential.

To get critical focus at wide apertures with cine lenses is difficult to achieve even for a caliber cinematographer like

a two times Academy Awarded Robert Richardson in Shine a Light (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0893382/),

live concert movie about The Rolling Stones by Martin Scorsese.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/jagger01.jpg
Mick Jagger in Shine a Light.
In a live shot is easy to get out of the focus even for experienced cinematographer with the best cine lenses.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/jagger2.jpg
Mick Jagger in Shine a Light.
In a live shot is easy to get out of the focus even for experienced cinematographer with the best cine lenses.

[David Mullen ASC]

In a live shot is easy to get out of the focus even for experienced cinematographer with the best cine lenses.

Absolutely... which is why you don't want to make it any harder for yourself if you don't have to.

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel,

I'm just curious how did you count that

according to the quote I gave you above.

"There have been articles in the
press citing lenses that can record 200
or more lines per millimeter. But now it
has become clear that the number of
lines per mm is interesting only when
stated in conjunction with the respective
contrast. At 200 lines per mm the
contrast is so low that it is virtually impossible
to distinguish anything at all."


You do it by eye. If you can just distinguish individual lines, the MTF is around 10-15% (before they blur) and this is what I could clearly see at the edges on all MPs open wide. No other wide angle lenses there could match that or even come close.

With longer lenses (over 25mm) there was no visible difference betwen UP and MP. The only practical difference was speed.

You can see 200 lp/mm in the centre of MPs "quite clearly" (with slightly more than 10% MTF) if you stop down a bit from fully opened. The biggest difficulty is to focus the damn thing to such level of detail. I can't see focusing to such small CoC in practice (and usefulness of 8k in S35 format for that matter).

Here is a good article on lens testing and MTF:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html

You can see the appearance of 10% MTF and 50% MTF to give you an idea what you are looking for.

[Sanjin Jukic]

David,

in a race is not that only and always winning the fastest car.

At the end a driver rules.

If you cannot get it with the beggar's tools you would not get with the emperor's either.


Pawel,

thanks for the link.

[David Mullen ASC]

That comment has very little to do with the practical reality of shooting day after day worldwide.

Practical reality is that professionals want to use the right tools for the job that both supply the right look while being efficient to use. They will often trade one for another if and when necessary, but I don't buy the notion that practical considerations like ease of focus-pulling are not valid concerns for when choosing gear.

It's one thing to say that a good AC should be able to pull focus on any lens, and it's another thing to say that it doesn't matter what they pull focus on if they are "good enough" as focus pullers. That's nonsense. Even the best focus-pullers in the world will want to use gear that is optimized for their work.

[John Brawley]

David,

in a race is not that only and always winning the fastest car.

At the end a driver rules.

If you cannot get it with the beggar's tools you would not get with the emperor's either.




Why on earth do you keep insisting on trying to prove everyone wrong ? Several people have stated that professional expectations exceed what stills lenses can deliver most of the tme and you still want to argue the point ?

Now if you are less than a professional or commercial crew and the stakes are less demanding then sure you can use different gear to get the same result. No one's holding you ransom.

Right now I'm just about to start working on a film shooting RED. Now, i looked aroud for a while to find a rental camera. This is a low budget film and the producer's and PM kept sending me different packages with owner op's using various nikon and canon lenses.

I'm not interested in using a kit like that when I only have 18 days to shoot.

So now I'm shooting with a MORE expensive kit with ultra primes from a rental company.

I am NOT INTERESTED in using these lenses. Unless you're doing plate shots or maybe second unit and even then I woul still argue that it's not worth the trouble. Sure you can use them, but why would you want to make it harder on your crew than it already is.

I think the real difference here is that there are many owner operators that don't understand that working professionals have certain expectations. Which is fine, ebcause they put a kit together that has limitations that *they* are happy to live with. But if they expect to then rent the kit out, you can't trash your clients by saying we're film snobs wanting to shoot cine glass. Well sorry, but we're the customers and generally the way it works is you give the customers what they want and they pay accordingly.

Money is not always as important as delivery or performance. As a DP renting gear, it's my right to choose my options according to the budget I have to use and what i need to achieve for the story.

Now, I'd much rather spend more and get gear that my crew are used to working with and don't have to *work around* because it's going to make ME look bad when it's taking longer or I'm loosing performance because the gear is getting in the way of covering the shot.

There's nothing worse than having to look up from the viewfinder to say we have to go again because of the technology.

jb

[Nick Gardner]

yeah, what he said ;-) that pretty much sums it up.

Cheers,
Nick

[jimhare]

Well said John. Let me know if you need a backup body or any additional gear for your shoot.

Jim

[Pawel Achtel]

John and David, I think you nailed the essence of it. I couldn't agree more.

I would also add that in a small crew, like I am used to shoot, this is even more important. I remember my shoot at a remote reef where there was action happening all over the place. We scrambled to get the action on camera. My AC and I worked like a well-oiled machine from sunrise to sunset and using the best toys and accessories we needed for the job, just to barely pull it off. And still, a few shots missed the focus slightly despite double check with laser distance meter. I can't see how we could possibly accomplish what we needed with still camera lenses. A day of my shoot costs approximately $8k. You tell me what lenses you would use.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't have a problem if someone is passionate about a particular set of still camera lenses and feels that they will give him the look he wants, and is willing to work around any mechanical or logistical issues. I just have a problem when someone dismisses the problems of such an approach as irrelevant or insignificant. They are real issues to address, ease of focus-pulling on live-action.

[John Brawley]

Well said John. Let me know if you need a backup body or any additional gear for your shoot.

Jim

Cheers.

I should tell you though it's a long way to go...Im shooting in LA...

jb

[jimhare]

Cheers.

I should tell you though it's a long way to go...Im shooting in LA...

jb

Heh. that's okay, I'll be in Egypt!

[Steve Sherrick]

Perhaps I can add a bit of reality to the situation as I've operated my Red with my set of Nikon still lenses but also had the pleasure of using the camera with Cine lenses. If the question is whether still lenses can be used to shoot a wide variety of content with the Red, my answer is yes. I have done it. A lot of times by myself, in situations where most would not have chose to put these lenses, even with a focus puller. But I have done it mostly out of necessity. If given the choice, I would opt for cine lenses almost every time. It's hard to deny the mechanical advantages they have over their still counterparts. I'd say the optical part can be subjective, but mechanically it's not so much.

The important thing for people who are on the fence about what kind of glass to get for their camera is to understand the situations you will be putting the camera into. If you plan to rent out to commercial or feature production with experienced crews, you can not expect they will rent your set of still lenses. Do you have to buy a set of cine lenses to get these jobs? No. In some cases, the production will rent the lenses they want, or you can rent them and package the whole deal. Owning the glass can be a nice revenue stream though and that's why you see many DPs who own their own glass. They also can have confidence in it because they own it and use it all the time.

If you will be shooting your own productions and can work within the limitations of the still lenses, they are an affordable option. You can have them modified to get a bit closer to cine style mechanics by removing aperture click stops, adding cine style gear rings, etc. They still won't have the focus range, and some of the other features of cine lenses, but it makes them more practical.

At the end of the day, the audience doesn't care what lenses were used. They care about the story being told, whether it looks good (the aesthetics, not the technical reasons why it looks good), and whether it leaves a lasting impression with them. This can be accomplished with either still lenses or cine lenses. But not understanding when to use one or the other could present problems. The last thing you'd want to do is put still lenses on a shoot where the AC is not at all comfortable with them and it affects their performance to the point where you can no longer tell a good story, the movie doesn't look good, and the only impression it leaves on the audience is that this was done by people who didn't know what they were doing.

I've been a big fan of still lenses with the Red and I stand by that because it has allowed me to work with the camera when I don't have the luxury of having cine glass. I can shoot stock footage anytime I want, I can do tests anytime I want, and I can also shoot a short film, music video, or anything else anytime I want. But when a production comes to me and wants to shoot something with a lot of complexity and a professional crew used to doing things a certain way, I have to be ready to deliver what they expect. I can't try to force my still lenses on them.

The great thing is we have options with the Red.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Steve.

Well said.

To make it clear for some posters here that I'm not against cine glass at all and that would be insane.

It was more about to be CREATIVE in a certain shooting situation.

And that sort of situation makes a great cinematographer.

Just to remind you how Janusz Kamiński, A.S.C. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001405/) used Lens Baby in film Le Scaphandre et le papillon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401383/) by Julian Schnabel.

I think Rodney Charters, ASC, CSC perfectly nailed to the professionals use of still glass on his RED (KIWI).

"Travels with RED" (http://www.reel-show.tv/index.html?vidId=00074) by Rodney Charters.

And of course I knew that I couldn't explain it better then Rodney.

[Sarah C.]

Here.. let me throw some fuel on the fire...

Lenses for feature/short form

I have a BA in Photography and have shot a huge range of stll lenses(Canon/Nikon/Mamiya/Hasselblad/Sinar,etc...) simply because manuacturers gave us gear to play with in school--didn't have to rent or buy them. Before photog. school I shot EFP/ENG with $30,000+ lenses. Now I just spent 4 months on a $100+mil feature taking notes on hundreds of setups with the best cine lenses available(I was not camera dept, was VFX).

My $0.02? I'm in agreement with everyone in this regard: use the lens that best suits the image you need. However, if I were a producer/investor of a feature-length film I would INSIST on cine lenses(such as PV or similar) to take the bulk of the work. O.K. for still lenses to do some of the shots, especially if there is some special effect that a cine lens cannot deliver for some reason (one is not coming to mind just yet.. but I'll give still lenses the benefit of the doubt).

Why do I have this thinking?

- Cine lenses are made for the rigors of filmmaking
- Cine lenses are not made in bulk(by the 100's of thousands) and have better quality control, are engineered with much finer tolerances(has anyone brought up the difference between an F-Stop and a T-Stop yet?)
- The glass... the glass... We use lenses for the glass...
- Summary: a cine lens is more likely to produce the same color, exposure reliability and sharpness throughout a film production(a long one) than a still lens.

*****

The benefit of using gear that the crew is familiar with may far out weigh being "creative" with the list of gear: I'd put my money on the people.

*****

Shooting something relatively short and not needing reliability and repeatability? Then by all means.. go crazy with "unique eyes". Shoot with a pinhole, binoculars, your prized 400mm F2.8 with a 2x, $1 flea market lens, even a $0.05 Holga lens! Still lenses would be plenty fine.

~Sarah

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Sarah,

also very nice post.

[Steve Gibby]

Some questions to ask yourself when choosing lenses for use on RED, with some advice added:


What genres of production will I be doing?
RED can, has been, and is used in a diverse array of of cine, hybrid, and EFP genres and sub-genres of production, all of which can be viable revenue generation vehicles for RED One owners and renters. Keeping an open mind, choose lenses that best fit the field workflow, shooting style, crew size, optical needs, ergonomics, mobility (or lack thereof), and budget.

Should I own or rent?
Own what you can afford and can keep busy - and rent the rest on a per project basis.

Do me and my crews plan to focus traditionally using an AC/focus puller, or do I/we sight focus?
Optically, good 35mm stills lenses can generate images on RED One that are comparable to images generated by cine lenses, but as many on this thread have pointed out, one of the main drawbacks of using 35mm stills lenses in traditional focus pulling is the mechanics of the stills lenses require workarounds that frustrate your AC/focus puller. But, if a significant amount of your production with RED One is in the multiple non-narrative genres RED One is used for, and your usual shots are not wide open, but rather stopped down to maybe f/4 to f11, and your productions are mid-budget to low budget using small crews, then sight focusing with RED, and using 35mm stills lenses for 4k, 3k, or 2k acquisition, or B4 HD lenses for a 2k production, are very viable options - in fact, for those types of productions using cine lenses and equipment (MB, FF, etc.) and traditional focusing may be the least logical choice of equipment and workflow. (EDIT: Update 10-28-08, with RED One firmware Build 17, v3.4.1 we now have the long-awaited 1:1 image magnification capability, straight off the sensor. In all previous camera builds, when sight focusing, image magnification was 2:1. When sight focusing RED One, 1:1 magnification will make it significantly easier to sight focus. This is great news for those who sight focus RED One. Cine traditionalists will probably continue to focus RED One in their traditional way, but if you choose to use it, an alternative approach to focusing just became a lot easier with 1:1 image magnification)

If I do a mix of indie productions in multiple cine, hybrid, and EFP genres, should I strictly use cine lenses and equipment and shooting style?
Horses for courses, within the considerations I've listed above.

Can significant revenue be generated with RED One using 35mm stills lenses and B4 HD lenses?
Absolutely - if you have the skill sets to use 35mm stills and B4 HD lenses effectively - and use an open mind in marketing your services.

End notes
Keeping the limitations and considerations I've listed above in mind, the scalability and utility of RED One is amazingly broad. There is no single right way to use RED One - just perhaps a better way (or ways) for each production you do. I own multiple RED One cameras. A Nikon mount stays on one and PL mounts on the others. For them I own a nice kit of cine, 35mm stills (some Nikon mount, some PL mount), and B4 HD EFP zoom lenses - because me and my crews regularly shoot cine-style, hybrid EFP/cine style, and EFP style with my REDs. Each lens type has their good points and bad points - but if you really analyze them, keep an open mind, and work in the broad array of genres that RED One enables, you'll realize there is no "right" or "wrong" lens to use on RED One, just better or worse ones for each individual production you are doing, within the considerations I've listed above. If a cine lens is the best choice, I use one. If a 35mm stills lens is the best choice, I use one. If a B4 HD zoom is the best choice, I use one.

I pull the best arrow out of my quiver for each hunt - and then use it in the best technique to make a kill

[Thomas Dobbie]

What A fascinating thread this is.
I agree with much that has been said from both points of view.
I've been fortunate to own and use some of the finest still lenses made,in formats from 10x8 to 35mm. In general I've found the offerings from Zeiss,Leitz,Schneider,Cooke and Rodenstock,to be superb,certainly the Leica lenses are optically and mechanically equal to any lens made.
However in my very limited experience with the Red One,I have already come up against the mechanical shortcomings of still lenses,compared to the cine lenses,which I have just started to use,and that's only just testing the camera. I can see that on a shoot when your under pressure,you would certainly want to use lenses that are designed for the job.
I had hoped to be able to get away with using my extensive collection of still lenses,optically some are superb,although whether they will be suitable for use on the Red will have to be tested,but it's the ergonomics which has led me to decide to buy cine glass,believe me I don't want to have to spend 15000/20000 GBP on each lens.
As has been said by many,still lenses will always have their place,but I feel that as a working professional I wouldn't want to totally rely on them.
Tom.

[M Hsu]

Here's my 2 cents. If you have money for cine lenses, buy them, they are great.

If you don't have money for master primes, you can buy RED lenses, which is great.

If you don't have that kind of money you can rent cine glass or buy still lenses for a fraction of the price. Also great!!

everyone wins.

[Matthew Duclos]

Once again I will resort to the automotive metaphor.
Take this as you may... Two groups:

A) Nikon/Canon = Toyota/Nissan
B) Zeiss/Angenieux = Porsche/Ferrari

All the benefits and drawbacks are the same.
Seriously... Just think about it for a minute.

Group A) Are cheap and readily available and perform well enough.
Cheap to repair or even replace. Sure you can buy upgrades to make them perform similar to group B.
But in the end, it's still a group A product with it's limitations.

Group B) Are exotic, handcrafted and costly to purchase and just as expensive to maintain.
But loads of potential if used right.
Extremely high quality materials are used to produce fine products,
but you can count on problems cropping up eventually.

It all comes down to which group you are cast into.
Obviously one group is more desirable, but hey...
We can't all have a Ferrari in the garage.

Edit: Just to add a little wisdom.. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Zeiss ZF lenses = Cosina Co. Ltd.
Ferrari F430 = Fiat Group
Sorry to make things more confusing...

[FMG battery]

sj (sanjin) represents the best this community has made for this project.. several thousands of customers..

and you david mullen or john brawley and your elitist way of doing filmmaking?.. what are you doing among the crowd?

[Sarah C.]

Ha! Beyond everyone else here? Dare you suggest that someone seeking the best means to an end for their situation is an "elitist"? LMAO. Dude.. go get some food, sleep? You are not making any sense. You'll have to throw me and many others in with these guys.. I agree with them 100%.

~Sarah



and you david mullen or john brawley and your elitist way of doing filmmaking?.. what are you doing among the crowd?

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I like to work with top focus pullers, they would just walk away and the quality of my work would suffer.

YMMV

Stephen

[FMG battery]

Ha! Beyond everyone else here? Dare you suggest that someone seeking the best means to an end for their situation is an "elitist"? LMAO. Dude.. go get some food, sleep? You are not making any sense. You'll have to throw me and many others in with these guys.. I agree with them 100%.

~Sarahyour in your own.. "How about we not make it personal ?" :umm: this reminds me something.. :watsup:

just another viewpoint dearest Sarah... do we all have the right?

their vested interest on this represents the worst this vast community may inherit.

just my opinion.. may i?

[M Hsu]

actually fmg, david mullen has gone out of his way to share freely on this forum with his considerable experience. I wouldn't call him an elitist at all.

[FMG battery]

the truth is not black and white.. there are a lot of mid tones.. not even just 64 gray tones.. this applies all along the way.. in every aspects of it.

[Matthew Duclos]

Oh look.. There goes another kitty.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Some questions to ask yourself when choosing lenses for use on RED, with some advice added:


What genres of production will I be doing?
RED can, has been, and is used in a diverse array of of cine, hybrid, and EFP genres and sub-genres of production, all of which can be viable revenue generation vehicles for RED One owners and renters. Keeping an open mind, choose lenses that best fit the field workflow, shooting style, crew size, optical needs, ergonomics, mobility (or lack thereof), and budget.

Should I own or rent?
Own what you can afford and can keep busy - and rent the rest on a per project basis.

Do me and my crews plan to focus traditionally using an AC/focus puller, or do I/we sight focus?
Optically, good 35mm stills lenses can generate images on RED One that are comparable to images generated by cine lenses, but as many on this thread have pointed out, one of the main drawbacks of using 35mm stills lenses in traditional focus pulling is the mechanics of the stills lenses require workarounds that frustrate your AC/focus puller. But, if a significant amount of your production with RED One is in the multiple non-narrative genres RED One is used for, and your usual shots are not wide open, but rather stopped down to maybe f/4 to f11, and your productions are mid-budget to low budget using small crews, then sight focusing with RED, and using 35mm stills lenses for 4k, 3k, or 2k acquisition, or B4 HD lenses for a 2k production, are a very viable options - in fact, for those types of productions using cine lenses and equipment (MB, FF, etc.) and traditional focusing may be the least logical choice of equipment and workflow.

If I do a mix of indie productions in multiple cine, hybrid, and EFP genres, should I strictly use cine lenses and equipment and shooting style?
Horses for courses, within the considerations I've listed above.

Can significant revenue be generated with RED One using 35mm stills lenses and B4 HD lenses?
Absolutely - if you have the skill sets to use 35mm stills and B4 HD lenses effectively - and use an open mind in marketing your services.

End notes
Keeping the limitations and considerations I've listed above in mind, the scalability and utility of RED One is amazingly broad. There is no single right way to use RED One - just perhaps a better way (or ways) for each production you do. I own multiple RED One cameras. A Nikon mount stays on one and PL mounts on the others. For them I own a nice kit of cine, 35mm stills (some Nikon mount, some PL mount), and B4 HD EFP zoom lenses - because me and my crews regularly shoot cine-style, hybrid EFP/cine style, and EFP style with my REDs. Each lens type has their good points and bad points - but if you really analyze them, keep an open mind, and work in the broad array of genres that RED One enables, you'll realize there is no "right" or "wrong" lens to use on RED One, just better or worse ones for each individual production you are doing, within the considerations I've listed above. If a cine lens is the best choice, I use one. If a 35mm stills lens is the best choice, I use one. If a B4 HD zoom is the best choice, I use one.

I pull the best arrow out of my quiver for each hunt - and then use it in the best technique to make a kill

Thanks Gibby,

this was yours one of the greatest posts ever.

You've been my favorite from the beginning here at the forum.


Once again I will resort to the automotive metaphor.
Take this as you may... Two groups:

A) Nikon/Canon = Toyota/Nissan
B) Zeiss/Angenieux = Porsche/Ferrari

All the benefits and drawbacks are the same.
Seriously... Just think about it for a minute.

Group A) Are cheap and readily available and perform well enough.
Cheap to repair or even replace. Sure you can buy upgrades to make them perform similar to group B.
But in the end, it's still a group A product with it's limitations.

Group B) Are exotic, handcrafted and costly to purchase and just as expensive to maintain.
But loads of potential if used right.
Extremely high quality materials are used to produce fine products,
but you can count on problems cropping up eventually.

It all comes down to which group you are cast into.
Obviously one group is more desirable, but hey...
We can't all have a Ferrari in the garage.

Edit: Just to add a little wisdom.. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Zeiss ZF lenses = Cosina Co. Ltd.
Ferrari F430 = Fiat Group
Sorry to make things more confusing...

Matthew Duclos,

I owe all that brands in still glass.

To more specify I've got rid of Cosina Zeiss glass and kept only some Voigthleander Cosina Leica 39/M stuff.

I'm still have exclusive option here in Vienna (very sorry for sort of local Zinners here :) ) to get Zeiss Jena glass

from 50s and 60s mostly Carl Zeiss Olympia stuff like 180mm Sonnar T, 300mm Sonnnar T and 500mm Fernobjektiv.

Extraordinary lenses.

Leica should be a sort of Lamborghini, all hand made and perfect mechanics and optics.

Also owe the best still zooms from Angenieux.

Amazing glass.

And about so called cine lens VIPs here at the forum.

I'm working in fashion, art, cinema and literature for more than 30 years

and know well psychology and behavior of that sort of people.

For me there are no secerts, doubts or unknown things about them and even more.

So VIP cine lens guys I keep eye on you, don't get crazy, I respect you well but also

in a sort of exchange expecting that you somehow respect other part of this world too.

[Sarah C.]

LOL. Frankly, I don't judge a man by his lens. :clown2:

~Sarah

[Sanjin Jukic]

LOL. Frankly, I don't judge a man by his lens. :clown2:

~Sarah

Sarah,

come over here in Vienna.

We have also other things like... that you can trust a man :clown2: .

[Roberto B]

all up in your guts.. ehehehehehe.. yes, sir.. you're the man sj. :turned:

[Steve Sherrick]

I don't think any of the people who are proponents of cine glass are elitists. They are experienced in the rigors of filmmaking. I suspect they have all had their backs up against the wall as they try to get a cranky piece of gear to work under enormous pressure and their jobs on the line. This kind of experience makes you appreciate having the appropriate gear that performs as expected most of the time. Pulling focus is an incredible skill and just as you wouldn't give someone a set of watercolors to do an oil painting, you wouldn't want to give a focus puller lenses they can't operate at the best of their ability.

Again, still lenses have their place. In fact, they have their place alongside me at all times with my Red. But I do believe the folks who have commented about cine lenses being the right choice for professional shoots with a lot of pressure and a lot of money on the line are correct in their statements. It's not elitist. It's simply fact. I haven't heard anyone say to stay clear altogether of still lenses. That statement would also be erroneous. They can work quite well when applied in the proper situation, so no one should be told not to use them.

And not to try an pretend to be a moderator here, because I am far from it, but I think it's fair to ask that when expressing opinions always give the person on the receiving end of your opinions respect. David Mullen has been incredibly generous to this community, and although you do not have to agree with him, it makes little sense to throw him to the side. If I misread the tone of the previous posts directed towards him, I apologize. But I have learned a lot from his posts and respect his presence here.

[Dave Blackham]

Surely the beauty of RED and one of the reasons we are all here is the flexibility of the camera and ability to use the glass of choice of the operator, be it the very best PL or very best stills glass. At times through economic or other reasons you may be in a situation where the best isn't available but the camera it self is still accessible and usable to or many people where other camera options may unworkable or unaffordable. There nothing wrong with either approach is there ?

Dave
UK

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I can't believe there's 78 posts if you should use cine glass or not hahahaha. I haven't bothered to read the thread, but it's funny that it's an actual debate about it.

It's like asking a race driver if he should use a race car or not.

Common guys are you not getting tired? Cine glass is made for the purpose of motion photography so it's clear that if you can afford it, you should use it. Now if you can't afford it, use what you can afford and make beautiful images out of that. There's also times when you want to be artistic and use different glass, well use that when you feel like it.

and now I posted a post in this thread...damn

[Matthew Duclos]

Cake... Pie... Cake... Pie...

[Nick Gardner]

This is how we do pie in Baltimore

http://www.dangerouspies.com/

The one on the left is the cine pie, the right is the still pie.

[martinnoweck]

This is how we do pie in Baltimore

http://www.dangerouspies.com/

The one on the left is the cine pie, the right is the still pie.

reminds me of manny's cheesecake in upstate new york - the best cheesecake i ever had ;-)

[jon erwin]

Buy still lenses and rent cine lenses when you need them. That's what we did and it's working out great!

[John Brawley]

sj (sanjin) represents the best this community has made for this project.. several thousands of customers..

and you david mullen or john brawley and your elitist way of doing filmmaking?.. what are you doing among the crowd?

errr...

Making films...What are you doing ??

jb

[Joel Kaye]

Buy still lenses and rent cine lenses when you need them. That's what we did and it's working out great!

Good plan. That was my plan too. I've been so happy with how SLR lenses worked out for me I haven't bother renting PL lenses yet. I did finally do a day with an Optimo and a set of Ultra Primes (because someone else required them). Nice, I guess... but my best still lenses are very good mechanically and don't breath. Once I get a programmable follow focus so I can set the throw as I see fit for each lens I'll be content. Focus is workable now, but that should be better.

I sorta hope thread's like this scare low budget people away from RED because PL is out of reach for them. Less competition is good for all of us already in the club - well played gentlemen. :alien:

[John Brawley]

The Op asked a pretty simple question, which i think was pretty comprehensively answered. Then it seems like people with agendas want to start justifying a stance.

It's great that you can use these lenses on RED. But to argue that it's elitist to simple choose one lens over another is ridiculous.

Yes sanjin i too own a lens baby and am not afraid to use it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/471878983/in/set-72157600093842073/

But it's unlikely you'd shoot a whole film with it ! It's a bit of a desperate stretch i think to somehow infer this as proof for the supposition that many seem to back, namely that cine lenses aren't worth the buck.

It seems to be the owners that back this position while the renters seem to feel differently about it.

You use the lens you can afford to use and that best suits.

jb

[Steve Sherrick]

Nice reel John!

[Simon Smith]

It's great that you can use these lenses on RED. But to argue that it's elitist to simple choose one lens over another is ridiculous.I think this was not the meaning.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not saying that there is something "wrong" with using still camera lenses, I'm just pointing out -- along with other people with experience -- the reasons why traditional narrative cinema focus-pulling is easier with cine lenses designed with that style of shooting in mind. And even though it is easier, it is still hard work to pull focus with 35mm depth of field for a high-resolution digital camera.

This has been a busy year for me -- three features back to back with no breaks followed by a TV series that I'm in the middle of. I'm in the equivalent of Day 140-ish of shooting. And the last three projects have all been digital -- two RED movies and now a Genesis TV series -- and so I've been watching focus-pulling on a big HD monitor every working day since June. So I see focus mistakes all day along, month after month, with some of the best crews around town.

Today, my AC was surprised when I told him he was misfocused by about three inches on a medium waist-up shot made on a 35mm lens at T/4. But I could see that on an HD monitor. The other day, I spotted another medium shot that was off by a few inches and it turned out that the back-focus on the lens had gone out. But the AC was shocked that I could spot that on a monitor because it was not a close-up.

Even when we are correctly in focus, I can tell which side of the eyeball the focus is on in a close-up.

This is what I've been dealing with month after month, so excuse me if focus is much on my mind lately -- that's the curse of staring at a large HD monitor all the time and seeing every focus mistake! I'm writing this after wrapping a 14-hour day, and recalling one of the last set-ups, a 75mm shot of someone leaping into a swimming pool and coming up from the water into a close-up, at T/2.8. I'm surprised that most of the takes were sharp about 80% of the time in that one considering the odds. But some days I spend a lot of time on the walkie-talkie from the DIT tent telling an AC to pull forward or back by one inch as I stare at a 24" HD monitor... Like I said, my life for the past several months.

It's not "elitist" to accurately view the pros and cons of various pieces of equipment available -- that's basically part of my job, to gauge the effectiveness of a piece of gear, to know its strengths and weaknesses. And occasionally, though some may be shocked to hear this... the more expensive version of some gear IS the better-made, better-built, better-designed option. Sometimes it isn't. Most of the time, it's more a question of picking the right tool for the right job within your budget constraints.

I don't have a problem with still camera lenses being used to shoot movies. I just have a problem when the focus-pulling issues involved with such a technique are white-washed or ignored rather than addressed head-on and dealt with.

In my mind, the real elitists here are the ones who don't want to look at the issue objectively, dryly and technically... but want to make it a political issue. There are real design differences between still and cine lenses that affect how you work with them, and those differences have to be recognized and addressed.

[Sanjin Jukic]

David,

Thanks for your nice reply.

I only can say that you are absolutely right.

And of course that with an ordinary sport car you could buy in any shop around

you cannot enter in the races like a Nascar, 24 Hours of Le Mans,...

It would not be allowed and even possible because your car is not made for this type of racing.

Simply your consumer "sport car" doesn't reach a professional racing requirements.

You would need a special and professional custom made car for that type of race.

But also it doesn't mean that with your "sport car" you cannot have a sort of "sport drive".

For sure you could get a "feeling" but it would never be like in a real race.

Even if you could buy $1 Million Dollar Lamborghini Reventon.

It's not a car made for professional racing.

Also if I could remember well there were made some films about it in Hollywood and Europe too...


A Plot: One handsome rebellion driver entering in the race with his inferior car, experiencing many up(s) and down(s)

with a lot of tension, before and after the race is having a bit of romance with one beauty blonde (or brunette, or black hair)

and he is of course a winning at the (happy) end... taking both a beautiful woman and a racing trophy.


So still photo lenses are not made for cine professional shooting.

But it doesn't mean that with digital tools like RED camera you cannot get a "feeling" about cine shots using still photo glass.

Many things you could not be able to control and perform with it but somehow you could skill privately

with affordable digital camera like RED a couple of motion picture shooting basics for a fraction of the price.

The same for a sport car racing with the Chevrolet Corvette, Audi A8 or Lamborghini Reventon.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't disagree with anything you just said. There are lots of reasons why one would use still camera lenses for a cine shoot -- cost, size, weight, special features, a unique look, etc. You just have to deal with certain focusing issues involved with those lenses, that's all. It can be done, and it has been done. Look at Kubrick and how he adapted many still lenses for his movies. But he also knew what he was getting into when he did it, and he had his reasons -- it wasn't just because he felt there wasn't any real differences between cine lenses and still lenses. Look at "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining" -- even after adapting the f/0.7 Zeiss lens to fit onto his Mitchell camera for "Barry Lyndon", he shot most of "The Shining" on Zeiss Super-Speeds. He used still camera lenses when he couldn't find a cine lens to do the job, but when there was a cine lens available that did what he needed, he used that.

I think the high cost of cine lenses is the main reason why some people feel it is "elitist" to use them or prefer them instead of an adapted (cheaper) still camera lens. But I'm not viewing this from the issue of cost, even though that's a completely valid reason, I'm talking about other things like design, construction, etc. and how it relates to day-to-day filmmaking chores.

Even your average Hollywood production has some percentage of shots made on adapted still camera lenses, particularly telephoto shots. Look at the rental catalog of any company like Panavision -- anything over 200mm is usually a Nikon or Canon. Same goes for many super wide-angle lenses, macro lenses, lightweight zooms, etc.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I don't disagree with anything you just said. There are lots of reasons why one would use still camera lenses for a cine shoot -- cost, size, weight, special features, a unique look, etc. You just have to deal with certain focusing issues involved with those lenses, that's all. It can be done, and it has been done. Look at Kubrick and how he adapted many still lenses for his movies. But he also knew what he was getting into when he did it, and he had his reasons -- it wasn't just because he felt there wasn't any real differences between cine lenses and still lenses. Look at "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining" -- even after adapting the f/0.7 Zeiss lens to fit onto his Mitchell camera for "Barry Lyndon", he shot most of "The Shining" on Zeiss Super-Speeds. He used still camera lenses when he couldn't find a cine lens to do the job, but when there was a cine lens available that did what he needed, he used that.

I think the high cost of cine lenses is the main reason why some people feel it is "elitist" to use them or prefer them instead of an adapted (cheaper) still camera lens. But I'm not viewing this from the issue of cost, even though that's a completely valid reason, I'm talking about other things like design, construction, etc. and how it relates to day-to-day filmmaking chores.

Even your average Hollywood production has some percentage of shots made on adapted still camera lenses, particularly telephoto shots. Look at the rental catalog of any company like Panavision -- anything over 200mm is usually a Nikon or Canon. Same goes for many super wide-angle lenses, macro lenses, lightweight zooms, etc.

David,

you rock again.

Thanks for the excellent post.

All the best.

[Pawel Achtel]

When we talk about the issue of cost, remember that lens represents maybe 1% of the film budget, maybe less. Yet, accurate and repeatable focus is absolutely critical to the efficiency that more often than not accounts for far greater percentage of the overall cost. I am not a big studio and I also need to borrow money to get all the equipment that I need. Yet simple economy dictates me that I use good quality cine lenses. It saves money in the long run.

If and when I need a still lens for particular shot, I would use one, but certainly not for cost reasons as it is likely to cost me more in time and effort.

[Simon Smith]

David,

you rock again.

Thanks for the excellent post.

All the best.:) :)

He said so


I don't disagree with anything you just said.

He suddenly entered into your heart. :sorcerer: :biggrin:

[Caesar]

When we talk about the issue of cost, remember that lens represents maybe 1% of the film budget, maybe less. Some people here are strange. Some seem to think your standards are standards.

[Cristina S]

Some people here are strange. Some seem to think your standards are standards.Yes, a few posters should think their standards are for everyone else.

[Ramesh Jai]

DO CINE LENS OFFER BETTER PICTURE QUALITY THEN STILL LENS? Is it possible to give a simple YES or NO answer?

[Don King]

Better picture quality? Picture? Of course, not.

[LondonCameras]

Hi Folks
I thought I would let you all know of the sale of various cine style (and video) lenses which would work smashingly with your Red camera.

Have a look at our site: http://www.aimimage.com/kit_forsale_film.php and then drop me a line.

atif@aimimage.com

[Ramesh Jai]

Something wrong with 'picture'? Should I have written 'Image'? Or are you just saying 'NO'?

[Stephen Williams]

Better picture quality? Picture? Of course, not.

Hi,

I would disagree, if I need an 18mm 1.4 lens & my still lens only opens to 2.8 or 4 I would be 2 or 3 stops underexposed, if the focus puller cant hold focus & it's soft perhaps it's good enough for you, my clients might disagree.

FWIW the look of a Cooke S4 is totally different to a Zeiss Ultraprime, I know about those differences and choose lenses accordingly. A Superspeed also looks different to a Standard which is different to a Nikon. Perhaps because film has a greater color palate over digital it's less of an issue with Red, however the best images Red demonstrated at IBC were shot with top Cine Glass.


Stephen

[Steve Gibby]

I'm not saying that there is something "wrong" with using still camera lenses, I'm just pointing out -- along with other people with experience -- the reasons why traditional narrative cinema focus-pulling is easier with cine lenses designed with that style of shooting in mind. And even though it is easier, it is still hard work to pull focus with 35mm depth of field for a high-resolution digital camera.

This has been a busy year for me -- three features back to back with no breaks followed by a TV series that I'm in the middle of. I'm in the equivalent of Day 140-ish of shooting. And the last three projects have all been digital -- two RED movies and now a Genesis TV series -- and so I've been watching focus-pulling on a big HD monitor every working day since June. So I see focus mistakes all day along, month after month, with some of the best crews around town.

Today, my AC was surprised when I told him he was misfocused by about three inches on a medium waist-up shot made on a 35mm lens at T/4. But I could see that on an HD monitor. The other day, I spotted another medium shot that was off by a few inches and it turned out that the back-focus on the lens had gone out. But the AC was shocked that I could spot that on a monitor because it was not a close-up.

Even when we are correctly in focus, I can tell which side of the eyeball the focus is on in a close-up.

This is what I've been dealing with month after month, so excuse me if focus is much on my mind lately -- that's the curse of staring at a large HD monitor all the time and seeing every focus mistake! I'm writing this after wrapping a 14-hour day, and recalling one of the last set-ups, a 75mm shot of someone leaping into a swimming pool and coming up from the water into a close-up, at T/2.8. I'm surprised that most of the takes were sharp about 80% of the time in that one considering the odds. But some days I spend a lot of time on the walkie-talkie from the DIT tent telling an AC to pull forward or back by one inch as I stare at a 24" HD monitor... Like I said, my life for the past several months.

It's not "elitist" to accurately view the pros and cons of various pieces of equipment available -- that's basically part of my job, to gauge the effectiveness of a piece of gear, to know its strengths and weaknesses. And occasionally, though some may be shocked to hear this... the more expensive version of some gear IS the better-made, better-built, better-designed option. Sometimes it isn't. Most of the time, it's more a question of picking the right tool for the right job within your budget constraints.

I don't have a problem with still camera lenses being used to shoot movies. I just have a problem when the focus-pulling issues involved with such a technique are white-washed or ignored rather than addressed head-on and dealt with.

In my mind, the real elitists here are the ones who don't want to look at the issue objectively, dryly and technically... but want to make it a political issue. There are real design differences between still and cine lenses that affect how you work with them, and those differences have to be recognized and addressed.

Well said Dave. If you analyze my Post #63 on this thread, we essentially agree on the issues you raised in your post. When me and my crews shoot cine style we face the exact issues you raised. But when we shoot hybrid cine/EFP style using 35mm stills lenses, or pure EFP style using B4 lenses, using small mobile non-union crews, we sight focus RED One. We've been using 2:1 magnification effectively in sight focusing at medium to stopped down apertures, but now RED's distribution yesterday of Build 17 v3.4.1 which includes 1:1 image magnification greatly enhances a sight focusing workflow for those genres and shot situations where that style of focusing is the logical choice.

Obviously RED One isn't just used in narrative cinema scenarios with wide open shooting, AC's, and cine accessories. It is also used in a myriad of other genres, crew situations, mobile environments, etc., by professionals experienced in sight focusing - where sight focusing is usually the most effective choice for them - and 1:1 magnification just made that workflow easier than it has been with 2:1.

35mm stills lenses have great utility on RED One across a broad range of genres - but obviously not in large crew, union, narrative cinema environments, where repeatability, reliability, and familiarity are essential elements.

We're friends, and I certainly don't consider you to have an elitist attitude in your approach to others in the industry. In my mind you are very progressive. That said, there are obviously others in the narrative cinema industry who regularly display elitist attitudes to those who work in the other genres of the motion media industry. With the transition to digital, and the convergence of DSLR and television technology into the workplace many of them resent the different ideas and technologies that non-traditional professionals are bringing to the workplace. As a professional who works in cine-style, hybrid cine/EFP, EFP, and DSLR workflows I think that the less infighting, jealousy, and closed-mindedness we have, the better for the progress of the overall motion media industry. Respect is a 2-way street.

I use cine equipment when it is the best choice for a project and/or shot sequence, but I don't hesitate to use 35mm stills or B4 HD equipment when it is the best choice for a project and/or shot sequence. Some of the best images I've generated with RED One have been with 35mm stills lenses carefully used in the right environments. Then again, others of my best RED One images have been with cine lenses. The trick is in choosing the right arrow to make each particular kill.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Gibby

for this nice post.

You were always here my favorite.

[David Mullen ASC]

DO CINE LENS OFFER BETTER PICTURE QUALITY THEN STILL LENS? Is it possible to give a simple YES or NO answer?

No it isn't. Sorry. Not everything in life is simple!

Also depends on how you define "better". There are more factors to lenses than sharpness, and even a sharp lens can be soft at some f-stops. And sometimes you don't even want the sharpest lens.

"Better" at one point, for a particular shot, may mean a lighter lens or a lens that focuses closer, or a lens that is flattering to your lead actress. Some people may even prefer the curvature of an older 9.8mm Kinoptic to a less distorted 10mm Primo for a Steadicam move ala Kubrick (how used the 9.8mm Kinoptic a lot for some famous shots.) "Better" may mean a lens that produces a particularly beautiful lens flare or makes an out-of-focus background look a certain way, or it may mean a lens that hardly flares at all. "Better" may mean a high-contrast lens or a low-contrast lens, it may mean a "warm" lens versus a "cold" lens.

[Sanjin Jukic]

David,

thanks again.

You are also my favorite RED user.

[Gordon Prince]

Something wrong with 'picture'? Should I have written 'Image'? What's the difference?

[Ramesh Jai]

What's the difference?
Ask Don King. Somewhere in this thread he seems to imply that..

[Sarah C.]

((sits back and thinks to self: there is another way to look at this... ))

Ya know, I'd probably just go with whatever lenses I felt like using on the day...


~Sarah :red_bandana: :gun:

[Roberto B]

In my mind, the real elitists here are the ones who.. want to make it a political issue.
no comment.



There are real design differences between still and cine lenses that affect how you work with them, and those differences have to be recognized and addressed.on that.. we both agree.. on both sides.. ehehehehehe

[Bob Gruen]

Couple things to consider...

Who are you asking? Most on this board are DoPs, and they are going to be perfectionists who want the best tools to make the best product. A few lurking around here might be low budget producers who just want it done. Producers must balance cost/risk/reward with every decision they make, and they may go for a still lens package if the DoP can demonstrate that he/she can make the tools work properly.

Still zoom lenses: why? Most of us agree that the cine lenses are purpose built for what we want to do with our Red cameras, so if you are going for the less expensive still lens option (I am) why in the world would you compromise further with still zoom lenses? You should be able to get a full set of primes for ~$6,000. The only shot I can think of that would require a zoom that holds focus would be a 'vertigo' shot, and I think I'd want a cine lens for that.

Finally, the application of still lenses is still evolving. For example, the Birger mount for Canon lenses gives an API for driving the lens by computer. I have a prototype handheld computer that can be set up to drive the lens using three different programs (snap, dolly, limit). Rumor is that Birger is working on an autofocus module. When products like these start to hit the market it may actually simplify the focus pulling process.

Bob

[Steve Sherrick]

still zooms have their place. Tokina 11-16 and Nikkor 17-35 have both come in very handy. As variable prime, not to zoom. But the Nikkor primes with the RP mods have been very nice.

[Steve Gibby]

Still zoom lenses: why? Most of us agree that the cine lenses are purpose built for what we want to do with our Red cameras, so if you are going for the less expensive still lens option (I am) why in the world would you compromise further with still zoom lenses? You should be able to get a full set of primes for ~$6,000. The only shot I can think of that would require a zoom that holds focus would be a 'vertigo' shot, and I think I'd want a cine lens for that.

For narrative genre applications, primes often make the best sense. But narrative is just one genre among a broad array of genres that RED One has been, is now, and will continue to be used in. Mobility needs and dangerous subject factors of some of those genres and sub-genres, most notably wildlife, sports, adventure travel, certain commercials, certain documentaries, etc., usually determine that a zoom is much more desirable than a prime. In those genres the subject matter is constantly moving closer and farther away from the camera, and the possibility of picking up your camera system and walking to the framing of a prime is simply not feasible – or many time it is unsafe to do so. In those genres, when using a zoom, it is used as a variable prime, to continually re-frame and re-frame without having to pick up a heavy rig and walk to a new framing.

Why stills zooms for those genres and their shot needs? Again mobility, but also focal length. Stills zooms give you good optics with a very low weight to focal length ratio – they usually don’t weigh a lot (thus increasing mobility) and they have long focal lengths compared to cine zooms. Cine zooms have a very high weight to focal length ratio – they’re heavy and have relatively short focal lengths – especially for their weight and size. Here’s an example: on a recent sports production of mine we rented an Optimo 12x, which weighs 25 pounds, plus needs a big heavy matte box and follow focus. Sure the optics are superb, but the longest focal length of the lens is 290mm, so we ended up with a big, heavy (immobile) lens that didn’t have the focal length to reach our subject matter very well. Since then, for use on my REDs, I’ve bought a 19-year-old Canon FD 150-600 stills zoom, with a Century PL mount, and for those same types of nature and sports productions I get over twice the focal length of the Optimo 12x, and it weighs just 9 pounds, compared to 25 pounds for the Optimo. And the images from my 150-600 are stellar. We have regularly projected those images in 4k on a 24’ screen at my associate’s studio and they’ve been consistently outstanding.

For a pic of the 150-600 on one of my REDs click on my RED Connector link in my signature block below this post.

Nikon zooms I use on RED for the genres mentioned above include: 50-300 AIS, 80-200 ED, and 17-35 - all with excellent results.

Rodney Charters ASC also mentioned recently that he uses 35mm stills zooms for certain types of shots with RED. He obviously uses 35mm stills primes also.

Good zooms can give you images almost as good as a prime, and even in a few cases as good as a prime at certain focal lengths.

All the above said, I still own lots of cine and 35mm stills primes and use them when they are the best choice for a particular genre or shot sequence. I simply use the appropriate arrow to make the kill. I explained that further in my Post #103 of this thread.

Primes vs zooms? In my mind they are both viable tools to be used when one or the other is the best choice for a particular shot.



Rumor is that Birger is working on an autofocus module. When products like these start to hit the market it may actually simplify the focus pulling process.

A large portion of RED One users have been sight focusing the camera all along for certain genres they work in – no AC or focus puller – but rather racking focus themselves. At apertures from f4 and further stopped down, using 2:1 image magnification and edge highlight you can sight focus RED One with practice, or if you’re already experienced at sight focusing. With the recent addition of 1:1 image magnification sight focusing RED One has become much easier. Over 14 months of owning and shooting with my REDs all around the world, me and my crews have sight focused RED at least 85% of the time (yes, even in 4k), with the remaining 15% being in genres, crew situations,and shooting styles that simply called for traditional cine style focus pulling using an AC. IMO the most appropriate focusing style simply needs to be chosen for each individual production and/or shot sequence.

[Cristina S]

This charming chap rocks. :love:

- Cristina S.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's funny because as a feature DP, I've always poo-pooed the notion of auto-focus and even today, it's very problematic for shooting a dramatic scene where one bad focus decision in a shot will trigger another take. So the worry that an actor will suddenly lean out of the shot and the auto-focus will rack to the far background, or the actor will pick up a newspaper for a moment and the focus will rack forward, or someone passes the camera momentarily, etc.

And the truth is that after the first take of a dramatic scene with a lot of focus shifts, there is a lot of creative discussion over where the focus should be and even how fast or slow to rack the focus. "Wait until after she says this line and the roll, not jump, the focus to his response in the background... but I think let her next line be soft because he has a quick response, but then try staying on her for the rest of the scene..."

Focusing can be just as much an emotional artistic act as a technical one. A good AC has a feeling for the dramatics of the moment.

But a few years ago, I shot a test of the new (then) DVX100 with Noah Kadner and he brought a tiny mini-job arm with him to shoot a high angle of someone sitting at a table, the camera rising up. And I was stymied by the fact that in 24P mode, the auto-focus was disabled because I couldn't reach the lens barrel once the camera started rising on the jib. So I found myself wishing for auto-focus!

Nowadays I'm shooting a TV series on the Genesis camera, but our main character does these little video diaries with a cheap DV camera, and it's very useful to just let the auto-focus work as she leans in and away from the DV camera lens in her diary - and even any mistakes in auto-focus as nice as part of the look.

So there are many,many ways to focus a scene and at some point, you will want or need to use every trick in the book to do it! Auto-focus included...

[Sanjin Jukic]

I'm very happy with my mobile and lightweight set choice of still lenses for RED:

- Nikon 17-35 mm f/2.8 zoom

- Angenieux FD 35-70 mm f/2.5-3.3 zoom

- Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom

- Canon FD L 50mm f/1.2 prime (available light shots)

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/IMS_Nikon17-35mm_02.jpg
Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Nikon 17-35 mm f/2.8 zoom.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/IMS_Angenieux2x35mm_01.jpg
Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux FD 35-70 mm f/2.5-3.3 zoom

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/IMS_Angenieux3x70mm_01.jpg
Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/IMS_CanonFDL50mm_01.jpg
Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Canon FD L 50mm f/1.2 prime (available light shot) @wide open f/1.2.

Auto focus is not easy even with DSLR.

Try to shoot wild cats movement for example in zoo, it's not working.

With movie camera it would be a disaster shot.

Also that some still zooms hold focus throughout the entire zoom range

have a look at this example footage

Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom holds focus (http://www.jonasrejman.com/webpage_purplepurgatory/_downloads/lenstests/Angenieux_70-210mm_720p_H264.mov)

[Joel Kaye]

Also that some still zooms hold focus throughout the entire zoom range

have a look at this example footage

Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom holds focus (http://www.jonasrejman.com/webpage_purplepurgatory/_downloads/lenstests/Angenieux_70-210mm_720p_H264.mov)

Sanjin, I've read enough posts from PL lovers that SLR zooms can't hold focus... so clearly this is some cheap cinema trick. :clown2:

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, I've read enough posts from PL lovers that SLR zooms can't hold focus... so clearly this is some cheap cinema trick. :clown2:


Don't trust to that posts :clown2: at all.

Also don't forget that Angenieux 70-210 FD f/3.5 is a high end French optical standard zoom lens.

Download and see that shot

Angenieux70-210 FD f/3.5 zoom holds focus (http://www.jonasrejman.com/webpage_purplepurgatory/_downloads/lenstests/Angenieux_70-210mm_720p_H264.mov)

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocus.jpg
Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux 70-210 FD f/3.5 zoom

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocus2.jpg
Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux 70-210 FD f/3.5 zoom

[Pawel Achtel]

... so clearly this is some cheap cinema trick. :clown2:

Yeah, f/16 and static subject usually do the trick. http://achtel.com/smiles/rofl.gif

[Sanjin Jukic]

Yeah, f/16 and static subject usually do the trick. http://achtel.com/smiles/rofl.gif

Pawel,

not so sure what are you talking about???!!!

Here are the facts:

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocus.jpg
210 mm, Shot on RED1 with IMS on RED. Lens: Angenieux 70-210 mm f/3.5 FD holds focus throughout the zoom, wide open f/3.5, distance to object in focus 238 cm, no filters.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Angenieux70-210zoomholdsfocus2.jpg
70 mm, Shot on RED1 with IMS on RED. Lens: Angenieux 70-210 mm f/3.5 FD holds focus throughout the zoom, wide open f/3.5, distance to object in focus 238 cm, no filters.

Footage 720p>>> (http://www.jonasrejman.com/webpage_purplepurgatory/_downloads/lenstests/Angenieux_70-210mm_720p_H264.mov)


Taken from the original tread at

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=303543#post303543

[Pawel Achtel]

not so sure what are you talking about???!!!


I'm talking about a static subject, Sanjin. http://achtel.com/smiles/clown.gif LOL

[Steve Sherrick]

Static or not, Sanjin's point is that it holds focus throughout. And it's not stopped down to F/16.

And although I agree this is impressive based on this lens, more often than not, still zooms don't hold focus throughout, so it is a legitimate issue, but if you know your zoom does, then you don't really care because you know that going in to a shoot.

This has been a fun thread, but it really has been addressed in my opinion. Choose your tools based on need, plain and simple. Can't afford PL or waiting for a particular lens mount, by all means throw a still lens dumb mount on the camera and get some affordable lenses and shoot with it. I couldn't believe I read some threads where people discussed the camera was sitting on a shelf while they waited for certain lens mounts to be delivered. I had trouble keeping the camera in the box for 5 minutes, let alone several months. :-)

David's post about autofocus is brilliant because it really gets to the hear of the matter. Anyone who makes moving pictures of any type is faced with all kinds of scenarios on a daily basis. You will need different tools to get through them all. What might be inappropriate for one shoot might be perfect for the next.

[Simon Smith]

I'm talking about a static subject, Sanjin. http://achtel.com/smiles/clown.gif LOLBe careful, Pawel. Or Sanjin can become mad and call his http://achtel.com/smiles/clown.gif lawyer. http://achtel.com/smiles/rofl.gif

[Simon Smith]

???!!!

[Tony Covell]

YES!!!
Remember that stills lenses have been built to take one shot, 50th/sec. only at one time, whereas the Cine lenses are built to take 25 shots per second. Get a still lens and look at the mechanics and you soon will realise that a loose scroll matters little as a still one shot lens, BUT when pulling focus at 25fps Then watch the picture rock and roll across the screen.
You pay for not only the selected glass and the selected blooming but also the quality engineering and metals surrounding it.
Many will give you a bigger reason but after ALL my years this is what it comes down to. You get what you pay for and Quality is and never has been cheap.
Kindest.
Tony Covell.

[David Mullen ASC]

I remember someone telling me once that the last 10% of quality in a lens accounts for well over 50% of the extra cost (or something like that, I'm paraphrasing...) -- in other words, still camera and cine lenses can be very similar in the quality of glass, in resolution, etc. but getting the last bit of extra quality in lens mechanics to eliminate problems only seen in moving images like when rack-focusing, zooming, etc., not to mention improving focusing by providing a longer barrel rotation, bigger rings & markings, etc. are partly responsible for the big increase in cost when combined with the fact that the cine lens market is so much smaller than the still lens market that the economies of scale come into play in determining price.

But from a purely optical resolution issue, I'm not surprised when RED frame grabs show many still camera lenses to be similar in quality to cine lenses, or that many older cine lenses are not much worse than the newest cine lenses either.

I think all the high-end cine lenses are rather similar and I certainly feel just as lucky to shoot a movie on any of the options out there, but on the other hand, you do start to feel that certain lenses have personalities that may seem more aesthetically pleasing than others, not to mention that some lenses may have a better combinations of features that suit what what you are shooting. I love the Zeiss Master Primes, for example, but I wish they were as light as the Zeiss Ultra Primes.

[Pawel Achtel]

David, as usual, you hit the nail in the head. http://achtel.com/smiles/clap.gif

[Sanjin Jukic]

Pawel,

below is a link to the short example of hold focus throughout the entire zoom range

from 35 to 70 mm on a moving object that shot on RED1 with IMS for RED

using Angenieux FD 35-70mm f/2.5-3.3 @ f/5.6, ND 0.6+CircPola.

Angenieux FD 35-70 mm f/2.5-3.3 @ f/5.6 >>> (http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Angenieux_35-70mmFD_1K.mov)


Mr. Orange,

did you finally get a point that your rhetoric towards me has no place and any sense here at the forum,

it is particularly disturbing and actually was more targeted to the RED user forum audience.

If you have something personally against me just sent PM and we should discuss it there.

[Pawel Achtel]

Sanjin, I didn't mean holding focus through zoom, I meant being able to rack focus as the subject moves with shallow DOF.

The clip you included has DOF enough to get entire 747-400 in focus. Try tracking focus with DOF that is less than an inch or two. In 4k the DOF of the frames below is just a few cm and you have to rack focus even if the animal turns the head around. How would you do that with a still lens? You can't because the throw is just way too sensitive.

BTW, the frames below are from the first ever footage of Australian sea lion birth. I wasn't going to post them, but since you insisted...:sarcasm:

[Simon Smith]

Mr. Orange,

did you finally get a point that your rhetoric towards me has no place and any sense here at the forum,

it is particularly disturbing and actually was more targeted to the RED user forum audience.http://achtel.com/smiles/clap.gif (don't call a lawyer, Pawel, pleeeease!) Towards who Sanjin?


If you have something personally against me just sent PM and we should discuss it there.Go ahead. Still waiting. :)

You're unique. :clown2:

I don't know if Zinner is with you on this your last battle. I'm with you though. Sanjin! Sanjin!

[Sanjin Jukic]

http://achtel.com/smiles/clap.gif (don't call a lawyer, Pawel, pleeeease!) Towards who Sanjin?

Go ahead. Still waiting. :)

You're unique. :clown2:

I don't know if Zinner is with you on this your last battle. I'm with you though. Sanjin! Sanjin!

Mr Orange,

O.K., let's say you like me in a way and that's good .

Zinner probably not but that's part of a local mentality where I really cannot help :clown2: .

Pawel,

you are right, it's very sensitive but somehow with a good skills you can do it.

[Pawel Achtel]

you are right, it's very sensitive but somehow with a good skills you can do it.

Not sure how, it is hard enough with MP or Red 300mm. We missed a few shots. With still lens we would have missed a lot. A birth scene is so rare that I would prefer not miss a shot when it is happening. You may need another few years or hundreds of thousands of dollars to get another chance...

[Sanjin Jukic]

Pawel,

I know that you are "hooked" in that holy-arri-grail-equipment.

No help :)

Then I will make some tests in a zoo very soon and report here what happened with my set of still zooms there.

Also will take one older ARRIFLEX 35 standard prime 85 mm f/2 PL adopted that makes a gorgeous pictures on RED and by the mechanics looks almost identical like a still lens.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/zeiss85mmf2_paradise_bird.jpg

[Meryem Ersoz]

Too much emphasis in this discussion on focus and sharpness.

The big difference that I see between the stills posted using still lenses and cine lenses is the bokeh. The bokeh looks like crap on still lenses, it doesn't roll off nicely, lots of smear and bad blur. The bokeh on high-quality cine lenses is dreamy.

I don't really know why this is - the still lens, used on a DSLR, does not have this problem, the bokeh looks great in the application for which it was originally intended. It doesn't necessarily translate once motion is applied. I see lots of still posted on reduser where the problem isn't the focus or the sharpness - it's the bad bokeh. Which is the real difference between a pretty shot and one that just doesn't quite measure up.

Master Primes have dreamy, creamy bokeh. I have not seen the still lens that can match it (once motion is added).

I own a lot of still lenses, and the only still lens that approaches the Master Primes is the Canon 200mm 1.8 for beautiful bokeh, and I'm not certain that even that legendary lens would hold up once motion is added. If a Canon mount that is backed by great customer service, is ever released, I guess I will have the opportunity to compare.

I see many stills posted here that focus on "look how well my still lens can focus" and the bokeh looks quite poor, and the person posting has no clue. They see a shot in focus and conclude that it is therefore a good shot. But that is not the only element that comprises a good shot.

I'm not trying to slag still lenses - in fact, I very much hoped that my Canon collection would live on RED. And I would very much like to get my 300-800mm on my camera. I'm sure that I will be able to get images that I can't get with cine lenses...my still lenses will give me some better opportunities, especially on the long end. But better quality? No.

[Matt Uhry]

Sanjin,

You are totally punk rock about your lenses and I admire that. Also that you blazed a trail with the IMS despite warranty BS and that's totally cool. And you post lots of pictures and clips to support your thoughts and opinions. I don't agree with you sometimes, but I still am going to declare today "Sanjin Day."

I will celebrate with some rouladen or maybe a schnitzel and a viewing of Carol Reed's classic - you know the one. Cheers !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Matt.

Prost und Mahlzeit!!!

I'm coming from DV/HDV world and for me mobility and lightweight is kit is very important.

Then suddenly with RED 4K I found out that still lenses are not so far inferior to cine 35mm glass.

Sometimes happening that a still lens is even superior like with a speed of Noctilux-M f/0.95 ASPH.

-------------------------------

Meryem Ersoz,

you behave here as a funny doctor "bokeh" telling us about ugly bokeh of still glass and beauty of MP bokeh :usd: .

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Noctilux095_720p.jpg
A beautiful woman and bokeh, shot on RED with IMS for RED, Leica Noctilux-M f/0.95 ASPH @ wide open f/0.95, ASA 320, K 3200, processed in RA, RED Space based, no CC.

[Meryem Ersoz]

Sanjin - I didn't address you directly, but have you ever heard the phrase "you can't see your own eyeballs?"

Didn't think so....

If you had, you might have been able to respond intelligently to the comment instead of ad hominem. Preferably with a shot that's in focus....

[Stephen Williams]

If you had, you might have been able to respond intelligently to the comment instead of ad hominem. Preferably with a shot that's in focus....

Hi,

I think that goes to show focusing with still lenses is not so easy! Where the viewfinder does not have the resoloution & a tape measure is also useless, the lenses do not have enough focus throw or accurate enough markings.

Stephen

[Sanjin Jukic]

Hi,

I think that goes to show focusing with still lenses is not so easy! Where the viewfinder does not have the resoloution & a tape measure is also useless, the lenses do not have enough focus throw or accurate enough markings.

Stephen

Stephen,

that's true.

But also there is not so big help from an expensive cine glass that I showed with examples of

Mick Jagger's running out of focus in "Shine a Light" (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=309363&postcount=47) film by Martin Scorsese, Academy Award Winnner director

and shot live by Robert Richardson, ASC also double Academy Award Winner cinematographer.

And you never know how many meters of film is thrown away in the movie that were not useful shots just because of a bad focus.

I think Marthy was struggling to edit material shot live with multiple ARRI 35mm cameras and a lot of MP lenses.

At the end it was for sure a difficult to choose between less focus clean shots.

You can have this impression watching the film.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Primos, Master Primes, Ultra Primes & Cooke S4's have better markings than most older cine glass, as DOP's wanted to work at shallow T stops lens mechanics has to improve.

It's the focus puller that screwed up, not the Cinematographer! Sometimes one intentially looses focus, it can add confusion to the situation.

An editor will usually take a soft shot if the performance is good, however it's often impossible to judge focus in offline so this has been more of an issue since the introduction of NLE.

Stephen


Stephen,

that's true.

But also there is not so big help from an expensive cine glass that I showed with examples of

Mick Jagger's running out of focus in "Shine a Light" (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=309363&postcount=47) film by Martin Scorsese, Academy Award Winnner director

and shot live by Robert Richardson, ASC also double Academy Award Winner cinematographer.

And you never know how many meters of film is thrown away in that movie that were not useful shots just because of a bad focus.

[Meryem Ersoz]

Focusing is always a challenge, no matter what kind of lenses you're using. No one ever said focusing was easy, and everyone blows shots. The 1:1 mag in Build 17 is a great addition for all of us.

But posting an out of focus shot as proof for your arguments shows a particularly unrefined understanding of the elements of a good shot.

But since "the doctor" is apparently in, here is the difference between a shot that is in focus and a shot that is out of focus. These are approximately the same size, both 2x magged in Photoshop. The difference should be obvious.

The one that is in focus was shot with a RED 18-50mm lens, not even a Master Prime. It's just what I happen to have on my desktop.

Evaluating the quality of bokeh requires that the shot in question be in focus in the first place.

[Sanjin Jukic]

To continue this discussion above I would like to add some bad example of

that still lens getting out of the focus because DP plays with lens as a bad boy focus puller.

The situation:

There is a couple walking about 100 m up to Belvedere Museum Upper Building.

RED camera with me as DP is in front of Museums doors on the right.

Lens Canon EF 75-300mm @ f/5.6 set on Canon 40D before.

Mount: IMS for RED with Canon EOS mount (dumb).

Distance to the couple at the beginning of the shot is about 100m and at the end is about 6-7m.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Couple_Canon75-300mm_1K.jpg
A couple, a casual passer-buys with an unknown identity.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Couple_route.jpg
The couple route and the position of RED camera.

1K footage>>>> (http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/IMS_Canon75-30mm_1K.mov)

So again to mention that I was accordingly pulling a couple out of the focus because I was performing a test of the particular lens.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Focusing is always a challenge, no matter what kind of lenses you're using. No one ever said focusing was easy, and everyone blows shots. The 1:1 mag in Build 17 is a great addition for all of us.

But posting an out of focus shot as proof for your arguments shows a particularly unrefined understanding of the elements of a good shot.

But since "the doctor" is apparently in, here is the difference between a shot that is in focus and a shot that is out of focus. These are approximately the same size, both 2x magged in Photoshop. The difference should be obvious.

The one that is in focus was shot with a RED 18-50mm lens, not even a Master Prime. It's just what I happen to have on my desktop.

Evaluating the quality of bokeh requires that the shot in question be in focus in the first place.

Meryem,

My sample is a handheld RED shot and with totally different lighting (partly from the celling and partly from the computer or available light).

Probably your RED shot was with fixed camera on tripod and chosen lighting for the lens that is not fast enough for available light shootings.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Gil_01.jpg
What about this latest shot from a couple days ago with Canon FD L 50 mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2, available light is an ordinary neon tube form celling,>>>out of focus, ugly bokeh ???

[Meryem Ersoz]

Don't assume you know the conditions under which I was shooting...that was a completely run and gun documentary shot, under outdoor daylight conditions. You can make all the excuses that you want for your shooting conditions, but you're the one who posted an out of focus shot as proof of the quality of the bokeh, not me, I'm not responsible for your shot selection or discernment.

I did not anywhere state that *every* still lens shot displays this quality. I was just stating my personal observations that not all still lenses seem to handle bokeh in a motion environment as well as they reproduce it in a still environment.

Even the images from good still lenses seem to break down, somewhat, when motion is applied. This may or may not be true, and I'm sure it is not true in every situation. It's a hypothesis. As an owner of many fine still lenses, this is merely an object of curiosity to me, worthy of investigation, and not an ideological stance.

That said, having worked with Master Primes as well, I can certainly vouch for their "wow" factor - some friends and I did a quick test of a 50mm MP against the RED 50-150mm at 50mm. I like the RED lenses very much myself, and think they are often wrongly criticized. They are a screaming bargain, for the price/quality. But those MPs are noticeably better in a side-by-side comparison. It's not just a reputation thing -- the imaging is superior, hands-down.

There is nothing "elitist" about the truth....

[Roberto B]

as someone already said.. we all love you sj.. you're our hero!

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks FM gang,

I would like to finish my participation in this tread that has gone in many (also some wrong)

directions and digressions with the following fact sheet about telephoto lenses that includes

a lot of still lenses and it is from Panavision.

Maybe somebody could explain how you can effectively pull a focus with a still telephoto glass

that is on Panavision camera lens list (digital or analog) (!?).

Also don't count on so called Panavised lenses and just count on non-Panavised lenses.


http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Panavision_telephoto_lenses.jpg

Taken from "Panavision Camera Catalogue" Quote/page 53 link>>> (http://www.panavision.com/media/Panavision_Camera.pdf)

Also more still lenses you can find on other pages of this extensive Panavision catalog.

[FMG battery]

seems the elitist quote has left so much talk.. uncomfortable cine-style talk..

what sj has demonstrated is that red is truly a revolution.. the use of still lenses is.. as someone already said.. an "inconvenient truth" about red revolution.. no matter the grade of its limitations.. give me a simple example where there are no limitations.

[David Mullen ASC]

People are acting as if the use of still camera lenses on a cine camera is a new thing, a revolution, when it has been going on for decades -- look at "The Black Stallion", most of the famous island sequence was shot on an Eclair Cameflex with Nikon lenses. Haskell Wexler was adapting still camera lenses for his cameras in the 1970's, as was Kubrick. The same advantages and disadvantages, the same problems, existed back then as now. This is an old topic.

Using still camera lenses on a movie camera may be convenient or financially advantageous or creatively appropriate, but the fact that the RED can be adapted to use other lens mounts hardly crosses the line into becoming "revolutionary", or if it is, then companies like Eclair or Aaton or Cinema Products were equally revolutionary thirty years ago...

[Joel Kaye]

This is an old topic.


Good to know.

Though I think the addition of low cost programmable follow focus units will be a modern twist that might impact the usability part of the argument.

Certainly RED's 1:1 image magnifaction really allows someone to perfectly set a mark.

[FMG battery]

People are acting as if the use of still camera lenses on a cine camera is a new thing, a revolution, when it has been going on for decades -- look at "The Black Stallion", most of the famous island sequence was shot on an Eclair Cameflex with Nikon lenses. Haskell Wexler was adapting still camera lenses for his cameras in the 1970's, as was Kubrick. The same advantages and disadvantages, the same problems, existed back then as now. This is an old topic.

Using still camera lenses on a movie camera may be convenient or financially advantageous or creatively appropriate, but the fact that the RED can be adapted to use other lens mounts hardly crosses the line into becoming "revolutionary", or if it is, then companies like Eclair or Aaton or Cinema Products were equally revolutionary thirty years ago...but several thousands of 35mm digital cinema cameras in the hands of many.. having the possibility of using still lenses.. are a revolution correct? :wink:

[Sarah C.]

I asked an AC only a few months ago about putting a still lens on a crash camera... laughably he said, "Why would you want to do that? The Panavision lenses are so much better."

And here this PV lens is in a crash box, behind plexiglass... :)

I'm thinking, that by reading this thread: no one has changed their opinion of the kind of glass they use or plan to use. Circumstance is going to dictate any DP's choice.. whether it be budget, the look or both! Maybe the real "arguement" at hand is if a given lens has delivered as expected?

~Sarah

[Pawel Achtel]

but several thousands of 35mm digital cinema cameras in the hands of many.. having the possibility of using still lenses.. are a revolution correct? :wink:

or tragic, it all depends what the end result is going to be.

The bottom line is that because it is possible to use still lenses it does not make them useful or desired for most of cinema applications. Yes, you can use a your grandma's 1970 Volvo wagon on a race track, but you would be fooling yourself you could get the same result as the Ferrari.

Cine lenses are specifically designed for their intended purpose and the fact that you can use inferior substitutes does not make it a revolution....unless you belong to Proletariat, of course :bleh: LOL

[Sanjin Jukic]

Of course that is an old topic when you can find still lenses listed even on Panavision Camera Catalog.

Revolutionary is that RED camera costs 17.000 USD, then it sold in about 5000 units till end of 2008 and also can adopt all types of lens mounts for cine or even most of still lenses.

Revolution mainly means:

1. Complete change from one constitution to another
2. Modification of an existing constitution.

LINK>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution)

RED is definitely changing or modifying a constitution of high end digital cinema acquisition market.

For example Dalsa Corporation sold Dalsa Cinema to ARRI just because Dalsa Cinema lost money during RED rising on the market.

Some people would like to oppose to those facts and some people would like to accept those facts.

Also massive potential and use of different types of still lenses is a main part or RED sale success.

[FMG battery]

or tragic, it all depends what the end result is going to be.so maybe because of that the elitist quote shall not be so off topic after all :mail1:

[Meryem Ersoz]

but several thousands of 35mm digital cinema cameras in the hands of many.. having the possibility of using still lenses.. are a revolution correct? :wink:

doesn't that depend on what you do with it...? besides argue about the image quality, for instance...

[Pawel Achtel]

so maybe because of that the elitist quote shall not be so off topic after all :mail1:

I'm flattered. http://achtel.com/smiles/rofl.gif

[FMG battery]

Cine lenses are specifically designed for their intended purpose and the fact that you can use inferior substitutes does not make it a revolution....unless you belong to Proletariat, of course :bleh: LOLgotcha :innocent:

[Sarah C.]

I bet it was an "elitist" who once said:

"I do NOT need to eat raw food, I can cook it."

"I do NOT need to be cold, I can wear clothes."

..but then we still have sushi and those big guys who jump in lakes in the middle of winter... lol.

~Sarah

[Gordon Prince]

It depends.. I never eat or have eaten sushi before and I survive. :gun:

[Matthew Duclos]

Mmmm.. Sushi.

[David W. Jones]

In simple terms, it's nothing more than choosing the right hammer for the job at hand.
In my tool box I have a couple of hammers that I use for most around the house work.
I don't own a jackhammer, but I can always rent one when needed.

[Ramesh Jai]

I wonder if there's a writer's forum somewhere discussing whether one needs the latest computer to write a bestseller.:mellow:

[Steve Gibby]

To me the bottom lines for lens choice on RED One are:


1) RED One, though termed a “digital cinema” camera, derives the majority of its technology pedigree from the DSLR industry, followed by a moderate amount of technology from the video industry, and least amount of technology from the film industry.

2) RED One, though termed a “digital cinema” camera, as per RED’s and Jannard’s own statements over the past three years, was also designed to be used in multiple other non-cinema genres and applications, most notably the myriad of hybrid cine/EFP and pure EFP industries. From the beginning, scalability, utility, and flexibility of RED One were RED’s stated goals for the camera. (I did the first published magazine interview with Jim Jannard clear back in early 2006, and I’ve been around RED since the very beginning, so my statement on this is perfectly accurate).

3) Though stills lenses have occasionally been adapted to the cinema industry over the years, in the case of stills lenses on RED One, it is workers in the non-narrative cinema and non-cinema industries and genres of hybrid cine/EFP and EFP who are the largest percentage of users of 35mm stills lenses on RED One.

4) RED has manufactured a 35mm stills lens mount for RED One, which is a very clear indication that the camera was alternately intended to be used with 35mm stills lenses, should an owner or user desire to do so.

5) Everyone using RED can’t afford cine lenses, thus the more affordable option of 35mm stills lenses is a viable alternative. Those users can then rent cine lenses on a per-project basis.

6) If RED One productions are not destined for the big screen, but rather for television, business media use, etc., with their commensurately lower production budgets, then the optical and aesthetic results of 35mm stills and B4 lenses are more than satisfactory for the intended presentation medium.

7) Depending on the production values needed for a project, cine lenses, 35mm stills lenses, and even B4 lenses are viable choices for use on RED One. There is no “best” lens choice for RED One – just a “best lens choice for each particular production or shot sequence”.

8) With very few exceptions, cine lenses are the best choice for large budget, large crew, union, narrative cinema productions.

9) 35mm stills lenses are very often the best choice for low to low/moderate budget independent productions where a high degree of mobility is needed and crew sizes are small.


I could go on and on to list maybe fifty other good scenarios or reasons for certain productions to consider using 35mm stills lenses.

I love cine lenses! They are solid, the optics are usually superb, and they are the best choice for certain ample budget productions, aesthetic needs, ergonomic needs, and crew compositions. But I also love 35mm stills lenses for their affordability, their high cost to performance ratio, their high focal length/low weight capabilities, their single operator capabilities, and on and on. Again – though cine lenses obviously have the best materials and durability, in the production world there is no across the board “best” lens choice, but rather “the best lens for each production or shot sequence”.

With the convergence of the formerly-separate industries of film, television, video, and still photography, and flexible cameras like RED One (and Epic, Scarlet, DSMC) serving its needs, we all need to respect each others knowledge, experience, genre choices, and resulting equipment choices. I think its time to stop bickering and start collaborating!

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Gibby.

Well said again.

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks Gibby.

Well said again.

My pleasure...and thank you for your passion for 35mm stills lenses Sanjin. I definitely share that passion. But I'm also passionate about using cine lenses or B4 lenses when they are the right choice for a production I'm working on. What is amazingly cool to me is that we have all those options with RED One - that is very, very, very cool!

[Meryem Ersoz]

I just find it amusing that anyone who can afford a RED camera and expensive still lenses is willing to play class politics...this is a $20,000 camera we're talking about -- without any lenses attached at all, cine, still, or lensbaby.

Why are phrases like elitist and proletariat even in play? It's somewhat ridiculous. Marx and Engels should be rolling in their respective graves....Thorstein Veblen may be the more appropriate theorist for underpinning this discussion....

[Steve Gibby]

Thorstein Veblen may be the more appropriate theorist for underpinning this discussion....

Or Pavlov...:biggrin:

[Meryem Ersoz]

heh...that's good.:shifty:

[Roberto B]

I wonder if there's a writer's forum somewhere discussing whether one needs the latest computer to write a bestseller.:mellow:thread's quote.. no.. reduser's quote http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/grinning-smiley-004.gif

[Sanjin Jukic]

My pleasure...and thank you for your passion for 35mm stills lenses Sanjin. I definitely share that passion. But I'm also passionate about using cine lenses or B4 lenses when they are the right choice for a production I'm working on. What is amazingly cool to me is that we have all those options with RED One - that is very, very, very cool!

Thanks to you too Gibby again.

Of course that a low price, diversity of production type, diversity in optical choice from cine, via EFP to still lenses and gorgeous pictures that RED camera makes are already a choice of many thousands RED Users worldwide.

Also I'm very big fun of cine glass from all those great makers/renters like Panavision, Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, Hawk Anamorphic, Optica Elite, Schneider-Century Optics and RED.

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks to you too Gibby again.

Of course that a low price, diversity of production type, diversity in optical choice from cine, via EFP to still lenses and gorgeous pictures that RED camera makes are already a choice of many thousands RED Users worldwide.

Also I'm very big fun of cine glass from all those great makers/renters like Panavision, Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, Hawk Anamorphic, Optica Elite, Schneider-Century Optics and RED.

Yes, everyone of us here are "lensaholics" (addicted to lenses) - and I think that's great!

Light passing through glass is the starting point for how we all make our living...I'd call that common ground...

[FMG battery]

with the due respect "charming chap".. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/grinning-smiley-004.gif

but me prefers to be "screenaholic" or "screenplayaholic" instead.. ehehehehehe

[Pawel Achtel]

I wonder if there's a writer's forum somewhere discussing whether one needs the latest computer to write a bestseller.:mellow:

No, and you don't need RED One to create a good film either.

However, people should not be fooling themselves that typical high production values resulting from multi-million dollar feature film budgets can be achieved with a few hundred dollar still lens and your flat mate pulling the focus, just because they have Red One. It may be good option to have for some, but horses for courses. Still lenses are not an equivalet substitute for proper cine glass.

http://achtel.com/smiles/beatdeadhorse.gif

[Sanjin Jukic]

No, and you don't need RED One to create a good film either.

However, people should not be fooling themselves that typical high production values resulting from multi-million dollar feature film budgets can be achieved with a few hundred dollar still lens and your flat mate pulling the focus, just because they have Red One. It may be good option to have for some, but horses for courses. Still lenses are not an equivalet substitute for proper cine glass.

http://achtel.com/smiles/beatdeadhorse.gif

If you are creative guy then you can search, test and improvise.

If you are not so creative in that way supposed to be that you are sort of "label guy" and your creativity and your confidence is strictly related to "owe" or to "deal" with a certain famous labels and brands. If not you are lost.

Report from one multi-million dollar production:
"Two Special Lenses for Barry Lyndon" (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm) article from American Cinematographer (http://www.theasc.com/).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Barry_Lyndon_screenshot.JPG
Kubrick's use of wide angle to telephoto zoom lenses in many shots flattened perspective, allowing him to present his 18th century settings in a way that nearly replicates paintings of the period.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Kubrick worked as an Indie, he could spend days on a single shot. Large productions don't have the same time available.

Stephen

[Sanjin Jukic]

Hi,

Kubrick worked as an Indie, he could spend days on a single shot. Large productions don't have the same time available.

Stephen

That's great.

Today, a talented and charismatic cinematographer or a director has an opportunity with affordable tools like a RED to do experiments by himself, collect a knowledge and experience with use of a diverse still glass long before even any serious production starts.

Rodney Charters, ASC CSC is a right example.

[Meryem Ersoz]

Rodney Charters shot travel video with Canon still lenses and stated outright:

"this is a much better price point, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend these for solid drama"

http://www.reel-show.tv/index.html?vidId=00074

see 8:40

Kubrick was looking for extreme high speed and low-light capabilities not available on any existing cine lens and also hard to find in the still world.

He was innovating for a very specific application, not scoffing at industry standards.

[Roberto B]

Hi,

Kubrick worked as an Indie, he could spend days on a single shot. Large productions don't have the same time available.

Stephenfinally.. a post you can be proud of. :wink:

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I just don't understand where the argument is?

No one is disputing that still lenses can be used to make beautiful films. Only thing that's said is that something created with the purpose for what it's used for will have the advantage of being specialized for it's purpose. Now I don't understand what the argument against that actually is?

[Meryem Ersoz]

oh, we're all just passing time until November 13th...

[Stephen Williams]

That's great.

Today, a talented and charismatic cinematographer or a director has an opportunity with affordable tools like a RED to do experiments by himself, collect a knowledge and experience with use of a diverse still glass long before even any serious production starts.

Rodney Charters, ASC CSC is a right example.

Hi,

Kubrick's films often took over 12 months to shoot, I don't think there is anybody else that does that. Often shooting 100 to one on film, I could see Red could save money. Kubrick was a perfectionist using the best that was available, not the cheapest.

Stephen

[Joel Kaye]

No one is disputing that still lenses can be used to make beautiful films.

Actually there was at least one comment that said you wouldn't get the same production value from still lenses as PL lenses. My feeling is if you put a RED with an SLR lens on a multimillion dollar production set you'd end up with footage that looks like millions of bucks.

I'll have a fun opportunity coming up where we'll shoot 2 RED's - one with an Optimo zoom and a set of PL lenses (probably Ultras) and the other with SLR lenses. Hopefully there will be time for some direct comparisons as we go along. Certainly we'll find out how they intercut. Should be educational for me.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Actually there was at least one comment that said you wouldn't get the same production value from still lenses as PL lenses. My feeling is if you put a RED with an SLR lens on a multimillion dollar production set you'd end up with footage that looks like millions of bucks.

I'll have a fun opportunity coming up where we'll shoot 2 RED's - one with an Optimo zoom and a set of PL lenses (probably Ultras) and the other with SLR lenses. Hopefully there will be time for some direct comparisons as we go along. Certainly we'll find out how they intercut. Should be educational for me.

Joelnet,

looking forward to see some of those examples here at the forum.


Hi,

Kubrick's films often took over 12 months to shoot, I don't think there is anybody else that does that. Often shooting 100 to one on film, I could see Red could save money. Kubrick was a perfectionist using the best that was available, not the cheapest.

Stephen

Hi,

"Soon to ship"

- Leica Noctilux-M 50 mm f/0.95 Asph costs 7.995,00 €,

- Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph costs 4.995,00 €

or shipping lenses like

- Leica APO-Summicron-R 180mm f/2.0 costs 6.295,00 €

- Leica APO-Telyt-R 280mm f/2.8 costs 9.595,00 €

- Leica APO-Telyt-R 400mm f/2.8 costs 15.195,00 €

Very useful still glass also for a cine application (there are some Leica APO-Telyt-R to PL conversions available) and not cheap lenses at all.

[Yuri Kawana]

Hello All,

Imagine on a big screen, the picture 'rock and rolling across the screen', it will not be a nice experience in a dark environment (ie.Cinema). May get sea sick....

I am a pro-cinema lens guy, so there is a bit of bias here, I admit.

Stills lenses may be OK for smaller screen eg. internet, TV, etc....
But on a big screen, I don't think using non-cinematised stills lenses are right choice...

I haven't tested but, now a days so many people can afford very big TV, talking 50 inch above, so 'rock and rolling' might become obvious. I think I'll test it soon, and when I do, I will post the result here.

I'm not criticising stills lens users, but cinema lenses and stills lenses have their place in the 'picture/photograph' industry.

Best

YK

London,UK

[Matthew Rogers]

Stills lenses may be OK for smaller screen eg. internet, TV, etc....
But on a big screen, I don't think using non-cinematised stills lenses are right choice...

I haven't tested but, now a days so many people can afford very big TV, talking 50 inch above, so 'rock and rolling' might become obvious. I think I'll test it soon, and when I do, I will post the result here.

Huh? What you said really doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't see any difference in the final product except for things like CA and distortion-and that really depends one what lenses you do use. The difference is on set with the mechanics. Your focus puller will have a harder time, but that doesn't affect the optics.

Matthew

[Alberto Caprioglio]

There are number of other reason

I think they have all been cited.
There aren't that many, although important.


, including colour balance.

Yes, but color can be compensated in minutes in the digital world. It is normal to do the color job on all shots anyway. But you are right: cine lenses are usually garanteed to be consistent, at least in the same set.
It really only depends on how much easier you want life to be, budget permitting.
But sure you can get extremely similar results by working harder.
It is not true that cine lenses necessarily cost a fortune, but they certainly do if you don't want to take higher risks in putting together older or less conventional cine lenses.
I think that any choice shoould be taken - and afterwards accepted, with a good amount of 1) knoledge, 2) relax.

In this last week the cine lens options are getting very interesting thanks to new offerings. This should help both those interested in new lenses and those interested in older lenses, because some ones will be probably changing their older sets in favour of new models.

[Roberto B]

Hi,

Kubrick's films often took over 12 months to shoot, I don't think there is anybody else that does that. Often shooting 100 to one on film, I could see Red could save money. Kubrick was a perfectionist using the best that was available, not the cheapest.

Stephenwhich Kubrick's masterpieces are you talking about?.. when he became famous or those which guided there?