Still vs Cine

[Michael Hahn]

Does anyone know if it would look bad on say, a huge movie theater screen, if you shot using stills lenses instead of the lenses intended for the camera? I'm getting a Red One soon, but I can't afford the Red lenses right now. Lots of helpful posts here on Nikon, so I've been thinking about going the Nikon way, specifically this one:

AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2159/AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f/3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

But I want to make sure that I still have a shot at a quality look. What's the difference between your movie lens and the less-costly lens you clip onto your SLR? I've heard a lot of opinions on it, but no real science to say one will distort your image, or limit your focus, or give you coma... any help? At the end of the day, can you really tell which kind of lens someone used to make their film?

Thanks for any advice!

[Shawn Bannon]

A. Yes you can tell the difference
B. The nikon 18-200mm is fun to use on the Red, hard to focus and gets darker as you zoom in
C.You can correct distortion in after effects if it really bothers you.
D.The 18-200mm is a very slow lens but good for exteriors / Documentary style shooting.

[Andrew Martin]

Hey Michael. I had this very decision back in May when i ordered my Red. It took me a while (and my bank manger a while too) to decide but i am happy with the route i chose.

I have attached stills from my short Scarlet Bitch i shot last week can anyone tell what lenses they were shot with? PM me Michael if you want to know the answer before i reveal here.

What ever i am happy with the result.

Andi.

[Kyle Mallory]

Assuming similar/comparable lenses (50mm T2 Cine Prime, vs a 50mm T2 Still Prime), a trained eye could probably tell the differences between brands. But so long as you have quality lenses, and are aware of each lenses limitations, you should be able to produce images that look as 'similar' as any other similar lens, based on the average movie-goer's untrained eye, regardless of still vs cine, so long as they have a similar characteristics of aparture, frame coverage, focal length, etc. In most cases, you could play any differences to artistic decision.

Remember, a lens is just a tool. It's what you do with that tool that matters.

[Jason Sinclair]

Hey Michael. I had this very decision back in May when i ordered my Red. It took me a while (and my bank manger a while too) to decide but i am happy with the route i chose.

I have attached stills from my short Scarlet Bitch i shot last week can anyone tell what lenses they were shot with? PM me Michael if you want to know the answer before i reveal here.

What ever i am happy with the result.

Andi.

Tokina wide zoom as a guess.

[Matt Uhry]

Hey Michael. I had this very decision back in May when i ordered my Red. It took me a while (and my bank manger a while too) to decide but i am happy with the route i chose.

I have attached stills from my short Scarlet Bitch i shot last week can anyone tell what lenses they were shot with? PM me Michael if you want to know the answer before i reveal here.

What ever i am happy with the result.

Andi.

I would guess Nikon 17-35... the shots look good no doubt you have skills.

The problems with still lenses are more likely to reveal themselves in motion shots. Worst things being image shift, either a little jump when you touch the focus, or a crab like motion as you rack from lenses that are not properly aligned.

With stills glass it's quit a bit harder to nail focus, I'm not talking about cherry picking a good frame here and there, but to nail focus throughout the entire movie, on shots that are difficult. The actor that like to rock back and forth a bit when he talks on a 85mm at T2, that kind of thing.

If you can figure out workarounds to these problems or want to adjust your cinematic style so you avoid it, or are too punk rock to give a F., save your money. Otherwise cine lenses are probably the better choice for cine work.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Paul Leeming]

Birger mount with remote electronic follow focus will alter the game in this respect for ever.... :)

[Stephen Williams]

Birger mount with remote electronic follow focus will alter the game in this respect for ever.... :)

Hi,

As still lenses 'bump' when they change direction, I do not agree. It will be good enough for many as was the HVX 200.

Stephen

[Dylan Macleod, CSC]

I used Cooke S4's exclusively for a number of years. A job came up that required some "night for night" shooting, so out of necessity I used high speed Zeiss primes. I was a little freaked out for the entire shoot because I could never seem to get things looking "sharp". Then I realized it was because I had been accustomed to the sharpness of the S4's.

The spot that was shot with the Zeiss lenses is on my reel and looks great, so these differences don't make it a "show stopper". But I would suggest you do comparison's and buy the best you can afford.

The physical limitations described by most here of stills glass is a big consideration though.

[Mark K.]

I would say that more so than any specific issues with image quality, the real differences between the two are mechanical and operational ones. Primarily focus-throw.

I used to count "breathing" as well, but I recently saw a test that compared some Zeiss Superspeeds to some Zeiss ZF still lenses, and the still lenses breathed less than the cine ones, so I think that issue is more dependent upon the specific lenses you use.

[Ryan Patch]

I would say that more so than any specific issues with image quality, the real differences between the two are mechanical and operational ones. Primarily focus-throw.

I used to count "breathing" as well, but I recently saw a test that compared some Zeiss Superspeeds to some Zeiss ZF still lenses, and the still lenses breathed less than the cine ones, so I think that issue is more dependent upon the specific lenses you use.

This is very true. I've been using a set of nice Nikon primes with my RED, and I really don't think you can tell the difference to any great extent. Pro DPs have shot with my set and been happy. Although, lenses that cost 10% of Cine glass are going to compromise somewhere.

See attached still, taken off a music video shot with a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 prime. Take my advice with a grain of salt, though, as I am more of a director and care more about the stuff/story in front of the camera. An example of what you can do with cine lenses is attached... at approx half res, JPEG compressed...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/6096_1230014539.jpg

That being said, however, I don't think that a mid-range zoom lens is going to come close to giving cine lenses a run for their money. I would go with a prime set. I put a 5-lens set together for about $1200 plus getting them geared that I am very happy with. Let me know if you want some direction on doing that.

[Niko Pueringer]

Hi Ryan,

I would be interested in hearing the breakdown of lenses that you use!

[Jason Sinclair]

The thing that really excites me about still lenses is the new kinds of stories that will evolve. Mostly their size and the verite/dogma schools. Also that many directors who wouldn't traditionally fall into the studio game, have more of an opportunity to tell stories that aren't worthy of general audiences and the megaplex values. It excites me beyond comprehension actually which is wierd... For me it is the most exciting outcome of the red. Hollywood still has a place but maybe i'm getting old but each time i go to see a movie, it becomes overtly predictable. Almost like some kind of ego stroking fantasy or rush, fast moving visual roller coaster. The movies that have really moved me in the past few years have all been fairly independent such as "As it is in Heaven" and any films by Ken Loach... There's an amazing realness and human value that is expressed in a well thought out indie; The kind of acting which just can't be performed on a crowded set with stressed out madmen running around everywhere or the real street scene which is not overtly lit to perfection and has in it a sense of absolute control to the point where you know you are in the story. One of my favorite Aussie films (excluding MadMax aka The Road Warrior) is "The Finished People" shot on the xl1 using non professional actors and screenwriters. This excites me, listening to stories that come from real people in real circumstances. Many a time as a child Hollywood saved me from the boredom of childhood (thankyou star wars and ET) but the formulae is wearing thin on me now. Maybe that's what comes with the study of scriptwriting?
For me still lenses do two important things. #1 obviously is the cost, which translates on multi dimensions. #2 is the size and versatility. For these in a story for me, and i realize i am an unusual being, create a dynamic that is more valuable than the extra 10% clarity, sharpness, Chromatic aberrations, and definite focus pull etc... But, it would be a fool who states that one is over the other as they have different markets and different story telling outcomes. Hollywood will always have an audience and the kinds of budgets we are talking about will not deter the producer, just as they will readily borrow an indie idea if it becomes cult (and then mess it up in the sequel). Im sure a lot of studio orientated future film makers will be going digital for the varied reasons... Either way, a revolution is in our midsts and it's looking good for everyone.

[CK Olsen]

If you can afford it, buy/borrow the fastest still lenses you can get... preferably F2.9's or better. You can find some nice and fast zooms, but in general, primes (fixed length, like a 28mm, or 50mm) are your best speed bet, and you can find nice older used ones for pretty cheap... Hit up your local camera shop and see what they have before buying new. Or ask around at local colleges and older photogrpaher's studios... there's a lot of nice older still gear that is sitting on shelves gathering dust with the advent of digital photography, which makes great dollar sense. Just my three cents...

[Andrew Martin]

I would guess Nikon 17-35... the shots look good no doubt you have skills.

Bingo - 17 - 35mm Nikon zoom and a 50mm 1.4 were used on the short. Those stills are just a preliminary grade in Red Alert i'm still editing the thing right now so the actual grade will be different (and i wont be doing it so it will be lol)

We had Arri Ultra Primes for Padded Cell so i have used both on the Red - ive attached some stills from that so you can see the difference. I love the Ultra Primes but they are out of my price range to purchase at the moment and i would go with those if i had the choice - but the Nikons are a good alternative for me at the moment. Im treating them as a stop gap really till i can afford the Ultras - yes the focus throw on the Nikkors isnt a big as id prefer but its still obtainable - i have a FF that i have built that is reversed to be able to cope with the stills rotation.

At the end of the day im happy with the Nikons and when im directing/operating I concentrate to try and get the best out of my actors and the style of the piece im shooting - if im working on something special I rent what I need.

Andi


(I know there are blown or close to blowing highlights on the stills but that's the look we were going for honest lol)

[Michael Hahn]

Thanks everyone for your replies. This is very enlightening. It seems like for me and the specific project I'm working on, I'll want to go with a stills lens. I don't know yet exactly what I want to shop for, but I found this and am wondering if it will get along with Red.

AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2159/AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f/3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

The sight says that it's designed exclusively for use with Nikon’s DX-format, so does that mean it's a no-go for Red? I'm shooting in a desert during the day and I really want a one-lens solution, if possible. Primes are of course great, too, but I'd be happier not swapping out lenses all the time for this particular shoot.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

it really comes down to this...

if you could afford cine lenses then the question wouldnt even arise.

If you KNOW 100% you can make your money back and it wont hurt your wallet, then the cine lenses are a given. No "REAL" production is going to rent your zeiss zf lenses (I wouldnt even suggest my set.. unless I was DPing and had alot more control on the production)

if your planning on renting to make money.. cine set
if you are doing it for your own work, and want to be smart.. go with zeiss zf or good nikon set.

[Pawel Achtel]

Birger mount with remote electronic follow focus will alter the game in this respect for ever.... :)

Maybe, but not until "next week" when it ships :sarcasm:

Sorry, couldn't resist :wink:

This subject (cine vs. still) has been discussed to death here, so just google...Best advice: hire different lenses, shoot, test and see what works for you.

My personal choice are cine lenses, even if not as sharp. The main reasons are ergonomics, long focus throw, accurate scales, etc... These features are hard to measure and therefore very subjective. Makes for a heated debate too :biggrin: At the end of the day go with what you like best.

[Vance Colvig]

Maybe mentioned before, the 18-200 Nikon and other Nikon 'G' lenses need to have an external iris control, such as the modification by Doug Underdahl to the mount. Go to longvalley.com for a view. The older non-'G' lenses need no such modification to the mount.

[Bob Gruen]

Does anyone know if it would look bad on say, a huge movie theater screen, if you shot using stills lenses instead of the lenses intended for the camera? I'm getting a Red One soon, but I can't afford the Red lenses right now. Lots of helpful posts here on Nikon, so I've been thinking about going the Nikon way, specifically this one:

AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

---clip---

Thanks for any advice!

First, if you are going to save money by going the still lens route then go with primes first and fast, short range zooms second. Keep in mind that the Red One has a 1.6 magnification effect, and for most narrative feature film making you need to go wide much more than you need to go long (especially if interior, on location in a house).

As an example, the Canon lens lineup I am building consists of:

10-22mm F/3.5-4.5
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L (<--bread and butter lens)
85mm f/1.8
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO (maybe)

Second, printing a 100 minute movie starts at ~$50,000, and you have to print it to take it to a festival to find a distributer. You'll find that breaking down even the simplest of scripts will probably run you at least $100K (if you own the camera and can get actors for free, and can do post yourself). If you can buy a bare bones, handheld RED setup @ $32K (including a RedRock Mattebox and a follow focus), then spending at least 5K for lenses makes sense when risking $100K on a film project. If you are not going to print it and only plan to go to DVD, then you would probably be better off renting a HVX / 35mm Adapter / operator for your 'film'. DVXUser can help you there.

Although Ken Rockwell loves the lens you're looking at for stills (he has a 50 page writeup on it) one of the first things he points out is that the lens has poor brokeh (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-bokeh.htm). If you are doing anything where you want to obliterate a busy background, this is a killer.


Hi,

As still lenses 'bump' when they change direction, I do not agree. It will be good enough for many as was the HVX 200.

Stephen

The only one that I've found in the Canon lineup that 'bumps' is the 50mm 1.4. Although it's a relatively easy thing to fix in post, I've opted for the more expensive L lens as the 50mm is a heavily used lens.

Finally as has been stated over and over about cameras and lenses is that they are tools, and it is up to the producer to evaluate them and determine which is 'good enough' for a given project. There is a cost / benefit analysis for just about every decision a producer makes (that's the job).

Bob

[Hans von Sonntag]

10-22mm F/3.5-4.5
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L (<--bread and butter lens)
85mm f/1.8
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO (maybe)



Hi Bob,

IMHO, in S35 world the 35mm is the "bread and butter lens" if such a lens exists.

Hans

[Bob Gruen]

Hans,

I'd put it the 35mm a close second (which is why that's also an L lens). The 85mm x 1.6 is getting a bit telephoto for tight on-location spaces which is why I've opted to spend the $ on the wider L lenses and stick with a $400 85mm (which is still a great lens BTW).

The rumor behind the 10-22mm is that it is L series glass without the L series weatherproofing and badge, the idea being that the L series should be limited to full frame 35mm cameras.

Bob