The case against Cine lenses...

[Roberto B]

OK, here's my unsolicited, inexperienced observation on using 35mm SLR lenses for indie feature films instead of Cine lenses from Cooke, Zeiss, or even *gasp* RED.

Pros of Cine lenses:
*Top-notch image quality (depending on lens)
*Solid build (no cheap plastics here)
*PL mount standard (fits directly into the RED ONE with no mount swapping)
*Easier to pull focus (due to barrel width and travel of focus ring)
*Accurate focus marks on lenses
*Minimal breathing on most modern cine lenses
*Color matched sets available
*Brand names trusted by clients
*RED and Cooke lenses use /i for recording lens metadata

Cons of Cine lenses:
*Very expensive (compared to SLR lenses)
*Bigger and heavier (typically)
*Motorized zoom, focus and aperture require (usually) expensive external motors
*Did I mention very expensive?

Now, with the introduction of the Birger electronic mount for Canon and Nikon lenses, the playing field becomes a lot more even (assuming it works as advertised). Let's look at the SLR lens situation.

Pros of SLR lenses with Birger electronic mount:
*Very inexpensive (compared to Cine lenses)
*Excellent image quality on SLR cameras (should look just as good on RED footage)
*Small, lightweight (typically)
*Electronic control of aperture and focus with no need for external, expensive motors (unless on the zoom)
*Programmable focus marks
*Lens metadata can be recorded (like /i Cooke lenses)

Cons of SLR lenses:
*Ergonomics for focusing not as good as Cine lenses (but the Birger mount can potentially negate this)
*Zoom lenses may not hold focus through entire zoom range (depending on lens)
*Focus marks on lens not very accurate
*More prone to breathing (depending on lens)
*Color cast may vary from one lens to the next
*Must purchase additional SLR mount to replace the standard PL mount on RED ONE
*Lens build quality varies greatly (some lenses made from flimsy plastic)
*Brand names not usually associated with good cinema (clients may not like that)


So, there it is. With the Birger mount being able to control the focusing and aperture of very inexpensive, high quality SLR lenses from Canon or Nikon, the cost of cine lenses (even RED's lenses) just seem too high for independent cinema. Let's look at actual prices.

RED 18-50 f2.8 CF zoom - $6,500
RED 50-150 f2.8 zoom - $8,500
TOTAL - $15,000

(I'm not even going to mention the prices of the Cooke or Zeiss prime lenses.)


Then we have Nikon or Canon lenses with the Birger mount:

Birger mount with wireless electronic follow focus and aperture and zoom control - $1,400 (if reserved before Sept. 11 2007)

plus

Canon 17-55 f2.8 zoom - $1,000
Canon 24-70 f2.8 zoom - $1,000
Canon 70-200 f2.8 zoom - $1,700
TOTAL - $5,100 (including Birger mount)

or

Nikon 17-55 f2.8 zoom - $1,300
Nikon 28-70 f2.8 zoom - $1,400
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 zoom - $900
TOTAL - $5,000 (including Birger mount)

So, for around $5000 you can get a set of brand-new SLR zooms in either Canon or Nikon mount, plus an electronic follow focus with aperture control, fully programmable. Apart the Birger's mount choice, there's also the Zeiss ZF prime set, which will look impressive to clients that recognize the brand name. You can also purchase used Nikon or Canon lenses for much less. Or you can spend $15,000 on RED cine lenses with no electronic programmable follow focus, zoom or aperture control. The image quality of the SLR lenses should be *extremely* good, so much so that most people would never know there's anything wrong or weird about the footage. The Birger mount (if it works as advertised) negates any focusing advantages of Cine lenses, plus gives you the ability to program focus and zoom shifts.

To me, unless you're working for Paramount, there's little reason to purchase cine lenses. The advantages simply don't justify the price anymore.

I know, I know... I can always RENT cine lenses. But at this point I'm purchasing a RED ONE, I want to be able to use it whenever, without having to rent anything. Therefore I want to own my lenses. And I can't think of any reason to buy cine lenses, now that the Birger mount is becoming a reality.

So, what do you all think?
(Flame-retardant suit on) :bleh: here's the same Jaime Vallés thread recovered.. i hope the lenses and mounts discuss may keep going and going.. evin is right..

edit
thanks evin.. this must be an open discussion.. not a silly pas de deux between two cinematographers :) one from the past and present and another one towards to the future.. stephen, if you'll have any personal insistence on any personal doubts and affairs, PMing.. i'll have all the pleasure to discuss with you all the differences between art film cinematography and mainstream craft (ehehehe) from our own different experiences.. :bleh:

[Evin Grant]

Electronic control of aperture, focus and zoom with no need for external, expensive motors.
Just to clarify, the zooms on SLR lenses are not motorised and will still require a zoom motor to become fully electronic controlled.

[Gbabymogul]

Maybe Mr. Mullen or Evin can answer this but with still lenses, the major reason i'm not convinced 100% is due to the fact the lenses weren't designed for moving shots - when doing follow focus there won't be that gentle roll on a longer shot following actors (not to mention the zoom range) - and when shown on the big screen ? noticeable. IMO, stills could be a great alternative, though if you don't need those type of shots.

Let me reiterate, i WANT to buy the still solutions that everyone is excited by, but this more important than cost is being able to get those "I am Cuba" long takes...maybe Jim will have the RED zoom at the L.A test ? That may answer some of the questions regarding if with 500 ASA, the RED zoom will be fast enough - got a rez in for it.

So those are two of the things i'm a watchin ', the speed of the RED zoom for night ext. is it good eenough? and the still lens option, will it work?

It would save me a lot of lettuce if i could go with still lenses. :biggrin:

btw, we're all here to make this camera the revolution that it's promised to be. You say 'banana' i say 'daiquri', it's all love baybbee.

[PaulClements]

Well Gbabymogul, still lens glass has been good enough for cine lens conversions for many years and Nikkor Zooms (See other recent thread) have been used in films as recent as The Bourne Ultimatum. So the issues with still lenses are not with the actual glass inside the lens.

The main problems are of course with handling the focus and aperture on the lens. With the Birger mounts the follow focus unit is removed from physically interacting with the focus/aperture on the barrel so it could possibly overcome the problems inherent with using still lenses in a cine environment.

Watch out for still lenses breathing and collimation otherwise they could be capable of excellent results.

[Gbabymogul]

Paul, those have been modified and rehoused. It's not the glass but the mechanics. If you notice when using focus on still lens that often there is the jump from focus to focus and not the gentle roll because they weren't designed for moving objects. IMO, they're more multi-focal lenses, which can be fine depending on the shot, and the mounts being designed can give you more play, but the lens is the lens , so you should get the same effect albeit less frequently, IMO. If they were rehoused with that in mind as many lenses are then it would be a different ballgame.

[Desert Rune]

Thanks to those who took the original thread off-topic. :gun:

original thread

[PaulClements]

Paul, those have been modified and rehoused. It's not the glass but the mechanics. If you notice when using focus on still lens that often there is the jump from focus to focus and not the gentle roll because they weren't designed for moving objects. IMO, they're more multi-focal lenses, which can be fine depending on the shot, and the mounts being designed can give you more play, but the lens is the lens , so you should get the same effect albeit less frequently, IMO. If they were rehoused with that in mind as many lenses are then it would be a different ballgame.

The reason the lenses are rehoused to be used as cine lenses is a mechanical one. But because the birger mount will use the motor inside the lens there is every possibility that it could be as smooth to pull focus because you are not interacting with the grips on the barrel. It remains to be seen of course. Perhaps I'm missing your point, it is late lol :)

[Gbabymogul]

The reason the lenses are rehoused to be used as cine lenses is a mechanical one. I know. That's my point ;) Whether it's electronics moving the lenses or manually the barrel moving them the mechanics of the lens movement or focus is the same (within lens). It doesn't change unless the lenses are rehoused and modified. Yes, you will have more play and it will be smoother (ostensibly) but the relationship between the mechanics involved and the movement of the lens are the same unless they are rehoused and modified. Maybe i'm not explaining it. Too many lagers , heh :biggrin:

Hopefully, testing will show that the lens mount and stills are really close to the gentle focus of other well known lenses. Certainly, i'm not a snob about it at all. I'd use 'em ... :beer:

:biggrin:

[Evin Grant]

By gentle do you mean breathing? Or are you talking ablut the ability to have a proportional focus relationship so that when you pull the distance on the lens stays more or less proportional to the follow focus knob?

Erik from Birger has stated that the mount and controller have 4096 focus steps. In theory these could be mapped any way you like.

[Gbabymogul]

Hey Evin.

In summary. Nope.

When having a long focus (following focus for example) there's some mechanics involved of the movement of the lenses, regardless of electronic or manual control, that the focus jumps from focal point to focal point. I don't have a lot of experience with stills so i don't know how better to describe it. But when using an Arri prime for example, it doesn't jump, but smoothly transitions...

Maybe i should email Mr. Mullen to put it more technically. :biggrin:

It's the housing and the way the lenses are moved compared to a cine prime, and not the characteristics of the lens itself, or the electronic/manual focus. Hope that made sense, mate.

I think the work you're doing is fantastic, and i'll be chuffed not to spend money on expensive lenses if i can get away with it.

[Roberto B]

Just to clarify, the zooms on SLR lenses are not motorised and will still require a zoom motor to become fully electronic controlled.

sure.. but we can use them as variable focus length lens right?

[Roberto B]

When having a long focus (following focus for example) there's some mechanics involved of the movement of the lenses, regardless of electronic or manual control, that the focus jumps from focal point to focal point. I don't have a lot of experience with stills so i don't know how better to describe it. But when using an Arri prime for example, it doesn't jump, but smoothly transitions...

doesn't the birger's mount allow variable choices on the lens barrel movement_s for more or less smoothly transitions?..

[Matt Uhry]

This is kind of like arguing about whether a jeep is better or a sports car. What are you going to use it for ?

Still lenses will be great if you are working alone as they are lightweight cheap, make good images, but will integrate poorly into a crewed high pressure/risk/cost production environment.

All images of your movie need to pass through that lens, it's not the first place to go cheapo.

Birger mount / AF lenses, sounds way cool in theory.

One big bummer about still lenses is the lack of fast wide lenses... Is there anything wider than a 24mm that's faster than a f2.8 ? In still land I guess there has been the assumption that photographers would just use a longer shutter speed, that does not work for cinematography.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[David Mullen ASC]

You're probably referring to the fact that cine lenses are designed to need two complete rotations of the barrel to go from minimum to infinity, so focus marks are not only farther apart, but focusing during a scene tends to roll more gently rather than the quicker snap from having a shorter barrel rotation. Of course, to some degree, I guess a follow-focus gear can be set to compensate (I'm not a camera assistant so I don't know the intricasies of follow-focus equipment.)

All zoom lenses are some form of compromise -- the best ones optically and mechanically, that are fast, breathe less, focus close, etc. tend to be huge and expensive, which is a trade-off. The small & light ones made from still camera zooms tend to have other problems but are cheaper and lighter. There is no right or wrong answer here, just which zoom lens suits what type of shooting you are doing -- and your budget. If you want to shoot handheld with a zoom on the camera, then it had better be lightweight. And if you're on a tight budget, then obviously it had better be affordable.

Jaime's list pretty much sums everything up.

[Gbabymogul]

You're probably referring to the fact that cine lenses are designed to need two complete rotations of the barrel to go from minimum to infinity, so focus marks are not only farther apart, but focusing during a scene tends to roll more gently rather than the quicker snap from having a shorter barrel rotation. Of course, to some degree, I guess a follow-focus gear can be set to compensate (I'm not a camera assistant so I don't know the intricasies of follow-focus equipment.)

All zoom lenses are some form of compromise -- the best ones optically and mechanically, that are fast, breathe less, focus close, etc. tend to be huge and expensive, which is a trade-off. The small & light ones made from still camera zooms tend to have other problems but are cheaper and lighter. There is no right or wrong answer here, just which zoom lens suits what type of shooting you are doing -- and your budget. If you want to shoot handheld with a zoom on the camera, then it had better be lightweight. And if you're on a tight budget, then obviously it had better be affordable.

Jaime's list pretty much sums everything up.Cool. Thanks for responding so quickly :-)

I guess i'm not understanding how a focus gear and an electronic control could compensate for the larger barrel and lens distance when attempting certain shots. Technically, i get it, but if it's the same as rehousing a lens and modifying it then why spend the money ? :huh:

And since the camera seems to be rated at 500 ASA, then maybe RED zooms speed may be not as much as a concern for ext. night shots ?

I don't know what to buy, or why cine lenses are so attractive then...I thought i did. :whistling:

[Jaime Vallés]

Just to clarify, the zooms on SLR lenses are not motorised and will still require a zoom motor to become fully electronic controlled.
Oops! My mistake. The Birger mount controls aperture and focus, not zoom. I would edit that from the original post, but I don't have the capacity to change it since it was re-posted here by someone else.

Regardless, the Birger mount evens the playing field a lot, when impressing clients or producers isn't a priority. For big project, renting "real" cine lenses is always the best option. Your DP and crew don't need unfamiliar equipment; they have enough to worry about as is.

I'm talking about owning lenses. The same goes for owning the RED ONE. I can, and always could, rent an Arri 35mm film camera with Cooke lenses if I choose. But the price of a RED ONE means I can OWN it, and still get that top-notch image. For my purposes, owning SLR lenses is the only way to go. I can conceivably get 90% of the image quality of a Cooke or Zeiss zoom at a fraction of the cost. If I need cine lenses, I'll rent them. Choice is a beautiful thing.

I just wanted to put this out there, since so many people on these forums are into indie filmmaking. And by "indie" I mean "paying for the production using your credit cards". :tongue:

[Roberto B]

Oops! My mistake. The Birger mount controls aperture and focus, not zoom. I would edit that from the original post, but I don't have the capacity to change it since it was re-posted here by someone else.

done.. is it okay for you (as original poster/author) now?

[Jaime Vallés]

done.. is it okay for you (as original poster/author) now?
That looks perfect. Thanks!

Actually, somebody else mentioned that the Zeiss ZF prime lenses were completely manual, therefore the Birger mount cannot control the aperture or focus on those. Does anyone know if that is correct? If the Birger mount can't control them, then they probably should be taken off the list as well, if possible.

[Evin Grant]

Correct, the Zeiss ZF primes are basically AIS Nikkors. they do not have any electronic control. But it's not such an issue becasue they can still mount and can be contolled manually.

[Roberto B]

so jaime.. yes or no?..


If the Birger mount can't control them, then they probably should be taken off the list as well, if possible.

[jaadgy akanni]

The Birger mount controls aperture and focus, not zoom. For big project, renting "real" cine lenses is always the best option. Your DP and crew don't need unfamiliar equipment; they have enough to worry about as is.
For my purposes, owning SLR lenses is the only way to go. I can conceivably get 90% of the image quality of a Cooke or Zeiss zoom at a fraction of the cost. If I need cine lenses, I'll rent them.

Guys, I wonder at what point we're all gonna realize that the difference between the image quality from an SLR (on a Red One) and the image quality of a so called "real cine" lens (on a Red One) is totally negligible. What exactly does 90% of the image quality mean? How so? The way I see it, either an image is usable, workable, or just plain rubbish.
Now, none of us knows the specifics of how the SLR and the Cine lens images will compare, but I'm sure they'll both be excellent in their own way...and that's all I need to know. I won't be one of those suffering from acute "SLR lens" inferiority complex. If I, as an artist, am happy with the image quality I get from SLR's, that's what the world will get from me-what the world will eat up. In terms of image "quality," SLR's are not children of a lesser god-they can perform with excellence, especially now that BirgerEngineer and CVB are bridging that "features" gap that used to exist between SLR's and Cine lenses. Knowing that my cinematic vision is achievable with SLR lenses, I wouldn't spend my money on "cine" lenses, even if I could afford them many times over.

[Jaime Vallés]

Knowing that my cinematic vision is achievable with SLR lenses, I wouldn't spend my money on "cine" lenses, even if I could afford them many times over.
Well said. My thoughts exactly.


so jaime.. yes or no?..

Sure. I think we should probably remove the Zeiss lenses from the list, because the Birger mount won't control them. Even though you can still use them as manual lenses on the mount, we'd be back to the whole "short focus throw" issues presented by RED's $500 Nikon mount. So, yeah, if you would take them off the list, that'd be great. Thanks!

[Roberto B]

Sure. I think we should probably remove the Zeiss lenses from the list, because the Birger mount won't control them. Even though you can still use them as manual lenses on the mount, we'd be back to the whole "short focus throw" issues presented by RED's $500 Nikon mount. So, yeah, if you would take them off the list, that'd be great. Thanks!

understood and done (part2)
i was just waiting for your okay since i'm used to respect any sort of authoring.. :)

edit
following the same spirit, i've also felt free to introduce an introductory add-on: "Apart the Birger's mount choice, there's also the Zeiss ZF prime set.."

[PaulClements]

I posted about the Zeiss lenses in the other thread, it's a pity about them. If they were automatic and could use the Birger mount I would probably buy a set since they appear to share many characteristics of their cine counterparts at a fraction of the cost.

One of the points that I think should be made about the cine and still lens comparisons is their market, I know it's obvious but it's still worth adding to the argument:

Still lenses are significantly cheaper because their are more people who can buy and use them, not because they are significantly inferior quality.

Cine lenses are significantly more expensive because their are fewer people who will use them. They are a cottage industry and the prices reflect this.

N.B. There are some manufacturing aspects that increase the price of cine lenses but these are not reflective of the varitation in price, a direct comparison of both manufacturing techniques, looking at time, materials and equipment, would not account for the discrepancies in cost of the same length lens.

[Stephen Williams]

One of the points that I think should be made about the cine and still lens comparisons is their market, I know it's obvious but it's still worth adding to the argument:

Still lenses are significantly cheaper because their are more people who can buy and use them, not because they are significantly inferior quality.

Cine lenses are significantly more expensive because their are fewer people who will use them. They are a cottage industry and the prices reflect this.

N.B. There are some manufacturing aspects that increase the price of cine lenses but these are not reflective of the varitation in price, a direct comparison of both manufacturing techniques, looking at time, materials and equipment, would not account for the discrepancies in cost of the same length lens.

Hi Paul,

I think you will find there is more profit made from selling still lenses, if cine lenses were so profitable then many people would have entered the market before now.

I think the biggest point people are missing is the 'look', B&L lenses/Cooke SII/III/Cooke S4's/Zeiss Ultra primes have very different looks, not better. For motion picture use you use the lenses that will best suit the project.

Stephen

Stephen

[Martin Drew]

Come on Stephen. Sure there is more profit in still lenses, but only because of the manufacturing volume, that was Paul's point.

[PaulClements]

I realise there are different looks Stephen, that's a given. It's the same reason a photographer chooses a leica lens over a nikon, or a zeiss over a canon or whatever. But still lens glass has been proven to hold up in a cine environment with lenses that have been adapted and have a look and feel suitable to the shooter. Most of the modification is to the mechanics surrounding the glass, not the glass itself.

Furthermore, whether people like or dislike the impurity of the art, post production is eating away at the "look" of a lens. How many films in the cinema do you see that you could actually say are shot with a Cooke, an angenieux, Zeiss or other (without already knowing)?

I'm not saying Cine lenses are more or less profitable than stills. I'm saying there is such a small market for them, that in order to sustain profitability and remain in business they have to price their product to reflect demand. That's what a cottage industry is; They offer a specialist product to a small market at a premium. By contrast the slr market is huge, with millions of individuals and businesses around the world in need of high quality yet affordable optics.

A simple matter of supply and demand - not higher and lower quality.

[Matt Uhry]

I posted about the Zeiss lenses in the other thread, it's a pity about them. If they were automatic and could use the Birger mount I would probably buy a set since they appear to share many characteristics of their cine counterparts at a fraction of the cost.



ZF lenses are made in Japan by Cosina, not that there is anything particularly wrong with that.

Auto Focus lenses need to be a bit loose in their focus mechanisms so as not to strain the motors, this can cause a bit of image shift which is when the image jumps around a bit when the lens is focused. It's quite bad on my Nikon 18-70 but probably a bit better on AF primes and higher end zoom lenses. It might be pretty ugly on the big screen.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Mr. Paul White]

One big bummer about still lenses is the lack of fast wide lenses... Is there anything wider than a 24mm that's faster than a f2.8 ? In still land I guess there has been the assumption that photographers would just use a longer shutter speed, that does not work for cinematography.Right. But isn't f2.8 at 1/48 or 1/50 enough to provide shallow DOF?

[Evin Grant]

I would argue that a modern pro AFS/USM zoom from Nikon or Canon is significantly more sophisticated than a Master prime or Cooke S4. The optical formula might not be as optimised for wide open shooting but the mechanics are far more complex. These lenses are designed to focus and resolve on 12-16MP sensors bang on every day for years. At least if you're using the internal lens motors. Paul is right to a degree, it's volume that makes them affordable but it's also what makes them great. I think with these lenses and a Birger you can probably out perform an S4 or Master prime for accuracy becasue you can taylor the focus range to only what you need if you like. At least this is my understanding.

[Lauri Kettunen]

This is slightly off-topic, but does anybody know why in film industry there is another guy, the focus puller, whose job is to focus the camera?

The reason to ask is, reading the discussion on the collimation thread and the comments here made me to wonder, whether at some point in the history it wasn't possible to focus film cameras by the eye. And if so, consequently, lenses had to be designed and collimated to enable focusing relying on distance measurements and on the marks on the lenses. The other way around, is there still nowadays a technical reason why the focus puller, and all those special requirements of cine lenses is a must?

Having a background in wildlife photography and videography I've quite never understood why focusing is said to be that difficult. I would consider myself bit clumsy compared to those having fine motorics of small muscles, but still have learnt to focus a still camera or my XL H1 HD videocamcorder by eye without difficulties. Furthermore, if Canon or Nikon lenses yield wonderful images on the CMOS sensors of digital SLR's, and many people around the world make their living on such images, why wouldn't those very same lenses be just great with RED? Is there any grounds for reasonable doubts? If you can operate manually with those lenses without any difficulties with a digital SLR or with a videocamcorder, such as XL H1, is there any reason to believe it would be difficult with RED?

Still, would like to emphasize, I have no experience on film cameras, so I'm just asking.

[Stephen Williams]

How many films in the cinema do you see that you could actually say are shot with a Cooke, an angenieux, Zeiss or other (without already knowing)?


Hi,

It's quite obvious in the cinema on a large screen, if you have used those same lenses you will know.

I own a Cooke Zoom & Zeiss Superspeeds like S.K. used in 'The Shining' It's very obvious even on DVD to me what lenses are being used.

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

This is slightly off-topic, but does anybody know why in film industry there is another guy, the focus puller, whose job is to focus the camera?
.

Hi Lauri,

Welcome to 35mm depth of field. Often you will have just a few inches in focus, when the camera & object is moving there are times that the operator has no chance. On a static shot the focus can be made through the eyepiece like a still photographer does. If you only need 1 or 2 seconds of perfect focus then you will probably be OK running hand held, don't expect the whole shot to be sharp.

Stephen

[Michael Hastings]

It's a completely reasonable question.

I think the answer has to do with what's going on as far as movement, and just as importantly, the stakes. In other words you have creative issues like shifting focus from one actor to the other at a particular point in the script, plus the dolly, crane, pan, etc. moves that the camera op is expected to make, so it is a lot easier to split the jobs into cam op and focus puller.

And then there are the stakes. I get really annoyed when I screw up a shot of a shark, dolphin, or whatever (and that action may be completely unique) but the shark doesn't scream at me or storm off to its trailer. With major motion pictures you have dozens of people trying to work in concert to pull off a particular motion; lighting effect; special effects; a $200K/day actor hitting a mark while saying the line with just the right expression, etc. If you screw it up because the focus is off, a whole lot of things have to come together just right again.


This is slightly off-topic, but does anybody know why in film industry there is another guy, the focus puller, whose job is to focus the camera?

The reason to ask is, reading the discussion on the collimation thread and the comments here made me to wonder, whether at some point in the history it wasn't possible to focus film cameras by the eye. And if so, consequently, lenses had to be designed and collimated to enable focusing relying on distance measurements and on the marks on the lenses. The other way around, is there still nowadays a technical reason why the focus puller, and all those special requirements of cine lenses is a must?

Having a background in wildlife photography and videography I've quite never understood why focusing is said to be that difficult. I would consider myself bit clumsy compared to those having fine motorics of small muscles, but still have learnt to focus a still camera or my XL H1 HD videocamcorder by eye without difficulties. Furthermore, if Canon or Nikon lenses yield wonderful images on the CMOS sensors of digital SLR's, and many people around the world make their living on such images, why wouldn't those very same lenses be just great with RED? Is there any grounds for reasonable doubts? If you can operate manually with those lenses without any difficulties with a digital SLR or with a videocamcorder, such as XL H1, is there any reason to believe it would be difficult with RED?

Still, would like to emphasize, I have no experience on film cameras, so I'm just asking.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Welcome to 35mm depth of field. Often you will have just a few inches in focus, when the camera & object is moving there are times that the operator has no chance.

Stephen, thank you for your answer. Yes, this is clear: there is definitely a difference between still photography and film/video. But did have a bit more profound point in mind.

To explain the background, let me tell that I've been shooting wildlife documents for fifteen years. Camera always with no exception on tripod or on fluid head, focus set to manual, image stabilizer off. Typically it's not possible to say in which direction the bird or animal is going to move -and they do fly or run quickly. And now, if there were an assistant, I think focusing would be even more difficult to the focus puller, for the assistant needed to know which way I'm going to move the camera.

In my case the only chance has been to learn to frame and shoot moving objects relying on the visual perception. Even if the camera is on the top of the crane, in my sincere opinion it's not that difficult to move the crane, remote contorl the camera tilt, and pan and focus simultaneously. Of course, there has been some learning curve on that. However, focusing a 100mm macro lens in the XL H1 -causing about a 7x multiplier compared to 35mm SLR- on a moving ladybird is in my experience, next to impossibility.

I do also understand the DOF-effect on the 35mm sensor is not the same as on the smaller sensors of videocamcorders, so focusing is going to be more difficult. But my point was, is the assistant/focus puller a tradition which perhaps started because there was no other way to cope with focusing at the first place? And perhaps, those used to this tradition tend to overestimate the issue of focusing. Or is it, that they have really tried to learn to focus and frame simultaneously.

I'm wondering about the same effect when some adults try some videogame and say its really difficult. Then when the kids come in and don't know about this learn to master the very same game in couple weeks.

[PaulClements]

Hi,

It's quite obvious in the cinema on a large screen, if you have used those same lenses you will know.

I own a Cooke Zoom & Zeiss Superspeeds like S.K. used in 'The Shining' It's very obvious even on DVD to me what lenses are being used.

Stephen

Certainly older films like 'The Shining' show it a lot more. Some of the more recent ilk have a lot of the feel of the lens removed in post imho though.

[PaulClements]

ZF lenses are made in Japan by Cosina, not that there is anything particularly wrong with that.


Yes but allegedly ZF lenses incorporate technical advances from the Zeiss Ultra Prime, Master Prime and DigiPrime lenses.

[Lauri Kettunen]

I think the answer has to do with what's going on as far as movement, and just as importantly, the stakes.

Thanks a lot for the reply. This is an interesting view which implies the pros and cons and the choice between cine or canon/nikon lenses depends very much on what one is going to do with RED.

[jaadgy akanni]

[QUOTE=PaulClements;68644]I posted about the Zeiss lenses in the other thread, it's a pity about them. If they were automatic and could use the Birger mount I would probably buy a set since they appear to share many characteristics of their cine counterparts at a fraction of the cost.


Wow, suddenly everyone's in the mindset that if it ain't with the Birger mount (with automatic this, and automatic that) they'd rather not shoot anything. Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'm still gonna get the manual Nikon mount offered by RED 'cause I have a gang of nice Nikkor primes I intend to make intensive use of. Am I the only one who'll sometimes be shooting without the need for a Birger mount?

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hi Lauri,

good thoughts on that.

Sure you can do the focus by yourself. There are very skilled cameraman who are used to do focus pulling by them selfs (documentarians especially). But - imagine you do not want to worry about focus. You might want to have a closer look on the actors play, the movement, the framing, the light. Isn't it handy to have some one who cares about focus? This is where the focus puller comes in to play - making the life of the cameraman a lot easier and creating room for other vital things like lighting for instance or complex moves... Shooting handheld with moving actors in a night exterior on f2 is very complex. Not to handle in a satisfactory way without a focuspuller.

Depends all on the job and the goal you want to achieve.

Hans

PS: I like the part about video games kids and adults. It's always clever to question common ways of doing things...

[PaulClements]

Wow, suddenly everyone's in the mindset that if it ain't with the Birger mount (with automatic this, and automatic that) they'd rather not shoot anything. Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'm still gonna get the manual Nikon mount offered by RED 'cause I have a gang of nice Nikkor primes I intend to make intensive use of. Am I the only one who'll sometimes be shooting without the need for a Birger mount?

Sorry, that wasn't my point. What I was meaning was, if they had the automatic ability so that I could use them on the Birger mount then they would most likely be my first choice of still lens to use, since they share some characteristics with the Zeiss cine lenses. I might look into them still, but if I bought them I wouldn't purchase the Birger mount, I'd probably buy RedMotors instead.

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, thank you for your answer. Yes, this is clear: there is definitely a difference between still photography and film/video. But did have a bit more profound point in mind.



Hi Lauri,

For your application you won't need focus puller. With the camera is on sticks I often shoot on my own 35mm "B" roll run & Gun. I have even used Nikon lenses on a home made Nikon mount. David Samuelson was a news cameraman shooting using a 35mm Mitchell, he never had an assistant.

Stephen

[Roberto B]

Stephen, thank you for your answer. Yes, this is clear: there is definitely a difference between still photography and film/video. But did have a bit more profound point in mind.

To explain the background, let me tell that I've been shooting wildlife documents for fifteen years. Camera always with no exception on tripod or on fluid head, focus set to manual, image stabilizer off. Typically it's not possible to say in which direction the bird or animal is going to move -and they do fly or run quickly. And now, if there were an assistant, I think focusing would be even more difficult to the focus puller, for the assistant needed to know which way I'm going to move the camera.

In my case the only chance has been to learn to frame and shoot moving objects relying on the visual perception. Even if the camera is on the top of the crane, in my sincere opinion it's not that difficult to move the crane, remote contorl the camera tilt, and pan and focus simultaneously. Of course, there has been some learning curve on that. However, focusing a 100mm macro lens in the XL H1 -causing about a 7x multiplier compared to 35mm SLR- on a moving ladybird is in my experience, next to impossibility.

I do also understand the DOF-effect on the 35mm sensor is not the same as on the smaller sensors of videocamcorders, so focusing is going to be more difficult. But my point was, is the assistant/focus puller a tradition which perhaps started because there was no other way to cope with focusing at the first place? And perhaps, those used to this tradition tend to overestimate the issue of focusing. Or is it, that they have really tried to learn to focus and frame simultaneously.

I'm wondering about the same effect when some adults try some videogame and say its really difficult. Then when the kids come in and don't know about this learn to master the very same game in couple weeks.

be welcome!

and thx for the pleasure you're giving to me.. quoting your full post..

[Mr. Paul White]

I'm also thinking that the digital acquisition with all these options on automatic or programmable modes as the Birger mount is a finest example, they will bring a totally new ballpark on the trial and error method. Impossible till now.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Stephen, Hans and others, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Summing up, what you say seem to confirm what I surmised; The question is not about cine versus still camera lenses, but instead about what one is going to do with RED, and it is wise to chose the lenses accordingly. Even better, if the needs change with time, it's going to be easy to swap between the lens types.

[Roberto B]

it's going to be easy to swap between the lens types.

you're there.. :)

[planet e]

Hi Lauri,

Welcome to 35mm depth of field. Often you will have just a few inches in focus, when the camera & object is moving there are times that the operator has no chance. On a static shot the focus can be made through the eyepiece like a still photographer does. If you only need 1 or 2 seconds of perfect focus then you will probably be OK running hand held, don't expect the whole shot to be sharp.

Stephen

yeep. lauri is a extremely talented shooter, who already shoots with 35mm glass for some of the biggest wildlife doc producers in the world, and is being very modest in this line of questioning. there's a lot of anxiety expressed over getting the focus right using 35mm lenses. but when you are adept at shooting a 200mm prime mounted on an XL H1 with a 7.6x mag factor, all alone in a swamp, i think you will have no problem managing a lens with a conventional 1:1 ratio between image and object (i think the crop factor will be 1.6x, actually, similar to the Rebel, still quite workable compared to 7.6x). even though everyone is talking about how hard focusing is going to be, it is going to be relatively easy, if you already have these experiences under your belt. you're already used to working with an razor-thin depth of field and getting the focus right.

people who are already using XL/XH series cams with 35mm telephoto glass successfully will have no problems adjusting to RED. just imagine shooting at 300m *without* the crop factor of an H1. what a breeze that is going to be! compared to chasing down birds on the wing with a 70-200mm x 7.6 crop factor....with the birger mount, i'm gonna put my sigma 300-800mm still lens on RED and have a peek at the moon in 4K. i can hardly wait. just hope i can get close enough to the little birdies. i am going to have to work on my stalking technique a lot more than my focusing technique....

[Stephen Williams]

just imagine shooting at 300m *without* the crop factor of an H1. what a breeze that is going to be! compared to chasing down birds on the wing with a 70-200mm x 7.6 crop factor....

Hi,

With all due respect shooting with a 300mm lens on a Red, the bird will be smaller in frame but the DOF is identical.

Stephen

[Lauri Kettunen]

DOF is identical.

There was recently a discussion on this on a local forum at this end, and I spent some time processing on why there is an ongoing debate on what is meant precisely by the DoF.

Brook Willard wrote about DOF on this forum

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487&page=2

so let's start from what he says: DOF depends on

1. focusing distance,
2. lens length,
3. the F stop employed.

What Brook does not say is: the DOF is a relative notion which depends on what is considered as a constant. Instead, Brook talks about DOF in a kind of absolute sense. In my opinion this means, everything Brook says is, of course, correct, but still the explanation does not the yield further clarity and thus leaves space for the confusion to go on. This article

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

suffers in my view for the same symptoms.

The key point and a justification to my argumentation is easily found as soon as one realizes that Brook and the guy who wrote the other article do not talk of one and the same image in the examples they give. In other words, Brook keeps the size of the guy's face constant (on the sensor) and in the other article the size of doll on the top of the stick is fixed. Consequently, the final images whose DOFs are studied are not the same.

This is a bit technical approach, and also a source of confusion. For, in filming or in photographing one definitely has a certain composition in mind. So, a more natural strategy is to set the final image (or more precisely, what is shown on the boundary of the final image) as a constant and examine DOF with respect to this choice. If so, one finds the old experimental DOF-wisdom is just ok for practical needs. The other way around, cropping in post or on the sensor level corresponds to selecting a longer lens, and to compensate that, one has to move backwards to gain the same final image. But there's also a whorm hole here; if one moves backwards and still focuses on the same subject the focusing distance also changes. This means the first parameter is changed and implying a risk of comparing DOF-apples to DOF-oranges. Thus, reading the results of DOF comparisons may get rather tricky and lead to hasty conclusions.

In my understanding the moral is, everybody experienced cameraman knows how things work in practice. It's another matter of fact whether technical studies really helps anybody to shoot better images as it's a multivariable issue.

Please, do not read this comment as a final word, but rather as a contribution to the discussion. When better arguments are given my view is also subject to change any moment.

[Stephen Williams]

Please, do not read this comment as a final word, but rather as a contribution to the discussion. When better arguments are given my view is also subject to change any moment.

Hi Lauri,

If the bird is full frame in both formats, at the same F stop (regardless of lens focal length) there will be less DOF with the larger sensor, or indeed a 10 x 8 plate camera!

Stephen

[Lauri Kettunen]

If the bird is full frame in both formats, at the same F stop (regardless of lens focal length) there will be less DOF with the larger sensor, or indeed a 10 x 8 plate camera!

Yes we do agree, and my apologize if you felt I was pointing to your comment. Rather the DOF-issue has been recently in my mind and your reply inspired me just to write my thougts down to hear what other people have in mind.

[planet e]

Hi,

With all due respect shooting with a 300mm lens on a Red, the bird will be smaller in frame but the DOF is identical.

Stephen

try telling the bird that! actually using extreme telephoto is much like shooting extreme macro, the image fills with the frame, unlike shooting at a distance and with a fast lens, the DOF is so narrow that the decision often comes down to what part of the animal do you want in focus. the useable focus field may consist of the area between the beak in the front of the frame and the tail in the rear of the frame, or some spot in between (depending on what the tail is doing...). and you're making this decision while tracking motion. i shoot 35mm stills and 35mm still lenses on video, and shooting 35mm lenses on video is much, much harder.

my point being that if you can make these split-second decisions and get a good focus from 35mm lenses, it should not be a problem to follow focus with the eye. it's very tough, and you generate a lot of bad takes before you get the money shot, but it is not as impossible as it is being made out to be. just something that takes lots of practice.

[Stephen Williams]

try telling the bird that! actually using extreme telephoto is much like shooting extreme macro, the image fills with the frame, unlike shooting at a distance and with a fast lens, the DOF is so narrow .

Hi,

I shoot a lot of macro, fairly wide open I know what you mean!

Stephen

[Jack Wester]

i shoot 35mm stills and 35mm still lenses on video, and shooting 35mm lenses on video is much, much harder.
Just out of curiousity, for the kind of shooting you are talking about, how many manhours of experience would someone, spoilt by autofocus, need to gain the experience to actually prefer manual focus over autofocus with no focus puller? 100 hours? 1000 hours? 10000 hours? Never? And if never, how strongly would you whish you had autofocus?

/ Jack

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I dont find it that hard.. 35mm still lens on video that is..
but then again.. i have been using manual lenses forever.. even on my
nikon dslr