About lenses in cinema/ not technically. [Archive]

Marc Berger

01-06-2008, 09:37 AM

Hi

I´m following the discussion about red since 2004. I loved the idea from the first moment on, I love the product and I´m more then happy Jim and the red team followed this visionary path with patience, energy and a lot of great ideas. The feedback in this forum helped me a lot and there are great threads: Thank you Brook Willard, David Mullen, Matt Uhry and many, many others!
I placed my order a bit late, last year. The good thing about it: there is some time to think about the lenses. First, I placed my order for the 18-50-mm, then like many others, I planned to use my SLR Lenses (Canon EF. Maybe I still do). But, and this means a big "but", I was downloading the sample pictures from Matt Uhry...Thank you, Matt Uhry, I think you posed with this test picture a couple of very important questions, beside sharpness, fringing etc., I´m specially thinking about the look, the feel, the expression of a lens. Because we all talk about moving pictures here, isn´t it ? I agree, in still photography it sucks having fringing, specially if you make large prints, but is it the same in a movie? I guess, if you work with green screen, and a lot of special effects, okay, you may want the sharpest lens to avoid unwanted effects in a single picture. But what counts finally, when you have to decide which lens is the best? I suppose it´s the aestethic of a picture, not only the measured quality. Because I´m very interested in this, here is my request:
It would be fantastic if the guys who already work with the red one could post there experiences about the different lenses, and how they react with the sensor in a aestethical way.

Thank you!
Marcb (Not native English speaker)

David Mullen ASC

01-06-2008, 10:04 AM

The big differences between still photography and motion picture photography, other than the fact that a motion picture image can end up enlarged to incredible proportions (so many artifacts become visible), are that movie images are in motion (and some lens artifacts only show up in real-time as focus is changed, the lens is zoomed, etc. on camera) and that a movie is made up of a series of shots edited together.

So you have to consider how different lenses look when used in adjoining shots in the same sequence at least (a major sequence change can justify a change in look). You don't want the lens characteristics to look obviously different on one person's close-ups than another person's, for example. Again, as shot sizes and views change enough, the lens characteristic can change a little and get away with the mismatch, but you have to be careful. Also, our eyes tend to want to see more fine detail in a wide shot than in a close-up, where we don't necessarily want to be distracted by seeing every pore in the skin.

But this is one reason why people want to find a matching set of prime lenses. It also can be annoying when different lenses used in a sequence have different color biases and contrast because you'll have to spend more time in post balancing that out.

Marc Berger

01-06-2008, 11:02 AM

Does this mean that its not so important which lens you use- let´s say: a set of Cooke prime or a set of Zeiss prime- as long they match. The look in digital capture is mainly postproduction?
What is your experience with zoom lenses, such as the Cooke 25-250mm? In Matt Uhrys test shots it looks like the change of focal length also changes the color. (I would love to see test shots from the Cooke 20-100mm).
marcb

David Mullen ASC

01-06-2008, 11:25 AM

If the movie has a consistent look by using a matching set of lenses, the viewer is less likely to notice the softness difference between a Cooke and a Zeiss since they are not being provided with a comparison on screen.

Zooms are a tricky problem because many of them are visibly softer than primes and have other problems, but sometimes you need to use a zoom.

So you could shoot the whole movie on a zoom and let it suffer technically (maybe) but be consistent (as long as you were also consistent in other aspects like f-stop used), or you could soften your primes in some way to match the zoom, or you could live with the mismatch... or at least shoot most of a scene on the same lens or lenses so the scene itself is consistent, but let some scenes be sharper than other scenes (which is a common approach.)

There is no right or wrong answer but it is one reason why people look so hard for sharp zooms so they won't feel they are making a big compromise technically when they put it on the camera. Most of the old 25-250mm type zooms are not so great, by the way -- I personally avoid them like the plague.

Modern zooms can be pretty good, to the point where some cinematographers prefer shooting as much of the movie on the zooms, for the conveniences, because they don't think their sharpness is a problem.

David Didato

01-06-2008, 12:23 PM

Thanks, David as always for your professional guidance.

I'm considering a Cooke 18-100 T3, because I've been reading here and elsewhere that its quite good, and better than the RED 18-50. For around $10K this is more affordable to me for the moment, than a set a Cooke primes.

Do you think the newer 18-100's should also be avoided? What do you think of the RED zooms?

David Didato

01-06-2008, 12:33 PM

Matt Uhry

01-06-2008, 12:34 PM

Hi Marc, great first post.

I agree with what David said -

It's difficult to talk about the aesthetic differences of lenses beyond what can be measured - some look flat to me some look more dimensional, some are crisp egdy and hard, some more even and smooth. Its hard to qualify these things beyond just trying them out and seeing what works for you.

Theres one thing I've discovered about the Lenses and the Red that is particular to it: When you look at resolution targets there is a great deal of sameness between different brands of lenses. However in other respects different lenses can look quite different... Some of the differences are slight and can be easily controlled in post, some exhibit flaws that you may like and I may hate - you have to test and find out.

The sameness in the resolution tests may be due to the way the LPF and Sensor work together- since the sensor is a fixed pattern, as opposed to film grain that randomly refreshes over time, there is a maximum usable resolution and no change beyond that.

Don't get me wrong, "better" lenses will most likely result in "better" shots. If "better" means to you high contrast and high resolution, it makes sense to start with lenses that can provide that.

Instead of "sharpness" or the combination of resolution / contrast, I think it would be more realistic to be concerned with having a lens or lens set that is calibrated, well marked and mechanically repeatable. Focus in cinematography is a dynamic thing, the subject and the camera move - It's very hard to do well. High resolution lenses if focused on the wrong point in space will still yield undesirable results.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

GLEN TRACY

01-06-2008, 01:05 PM

David, Matt, anyone.

I like the images I've seen from the S4/i 15-40mm CXX Zoom lens that Cooke is including their "RED Set". Does anyone have experience working with this lens and can you comment here.

David Mullen ASC

01-06-2008, 01:36 PM

Sorry to ask some questions I see you've already answered in other threads, David. I just read where you said the RED zoom was "fine in terms of sharpness and color... very good for the price." I guess I still would like to know how think the Cooke 18-100 T3 compares?

I could only make guesses, having not really done direct comparisons. The 18-100 is still only a 5.5:1 zoom, not a 10:1 zoom, so it's not so bad in terms of the number of elements.

My guess is that you'd find the RED zoom and the Cooke 18-100mm similar in terms of sharpness, but that mechanically the Cooke zoom is better-built, more solid, better-marked, and breathes less. But it's also a lot bigger and heavier, which may be a deciding factor. And it's more expensive, another deciding factor.

Gregory Leno

01-06-2008, 02:26 PM

LEON

01-06-2008, 03:23 PM

David,

I would be interested in your thoughts about going the still lens route if the birger mount proves to be all that it aspires to.
I understand that a good pl mount lens system is optimal. But if a person was to stay with fixed still lenses and the birger turns out to be reliable, what are your thoughts of this as a lower cost alternative?

Greg
Sorry, I am not David but I hope he will agree !
First there are no laws but your eyes and taste!
And these are related to a particular project, not good for all !

But if you use the Birger mount you will find yourself stuck
if you look for fixed focal wide angles lenses.
And every time you change lens you take the risk of dust.

So the alternative with a Birger mount would be to use a zoom made for half frame
like Canon 17-55 F2,8 + a 70-200 f2,8 or f4.

I would advise Canon 24,35,50mm f1,4 when you REALLY cannot use light.
I did not yet have the chance to try these lenses on the RED but on a Canon 30D they do match nicely.
Good luck.

David Mullen ASC

01-06-2008, 08:33 PM

I don't have an opinion on still camera lenses -- my main concern would be focus-pulling more than anything else, so I'd talk to an AC about it. Efx cameras like in the VistaVision format have often used Nikon still camera lenses, but they traditionally aren't doing a lot of complex live focus-following on actors. "The Black Stallion" shot a lot of the beautiful island footage on Carol Ballard's personal Cameflex CM3 with still camera lenses (Nikons I think), so they can't be that bad...

Evin Grant

01-06-2008, 09:56 PM

Gregory Leno

01-06-2008, 10:37 PM

But if you use the Birger mount you will find yourself stuck if you look for fixed focal wide angles lenses. And every time you change lens you take the risk of dust.

My intrest in fixed vs zoom has to do with a couple of things.
One , I tend to get a little lazy with a zoom and don't really find the best focal length for a given situation.
And Two, has to do with the idea that Finner has talked about here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=126239#post126239 Scroll up to post #13

I don't have an opinion on still camera lenses -- my main concern would be focus-pulling more than anything else, so I'd talk to an AC about it.

Well, yes, that is the problem isn't it. I am hoping that the Birger mount and focus wheel make this a workable option.

In many ways I think my Nikons just feel right. Unfortunately I won't be able to find out for sure for a little while still.

Evin, I hope you will let us know your thoughts when you can actually work with this kind of set up.

Greg

Marc Berger

01-07-2008, 07:52 AM

Wow, a lot of great input! Thank you David and Matt.
In the beginning of DSLR still photography I heard very often "and with the size of the smaller sensor you will use only the best part of the lens". Well, we all know this is only part of the story. A lens designer explained me once how it is important to find the balance of all facts that influence the final quality of a photographic lens. So, maybe he accepts a little bit more distortion to avoid colour aberration... In the end his looking for a lens with the best compromises. The best compromise means always: according to the format. So, maybe we get the sharpest part in the middle of a lens, but also the biggest distortion. Full size DSLR cameras (like the Eos D1sMk2) gave the photographer one important tool back: the use of the prime lenses with their basic lens design. If somebody worked for example with a Canon Ef 28mm 1.8 on a 30D and on a 1Ds Mk2, then he knows what I´m talking about. Yes, on the full frame sensor you will also see the weak side of the lens, but the all over impression is right.
According to my experience the personal choice will be: a lens, which is designed for the size of the sensor. I´d rather go for a "old, but cheap" Cooke 20-100mm then for a set of still primes. With this solution there is also a bigger chance to match the lens with rented S4 ones.
Please feel free to correct me. I´m maybe on an afoul path. So every opinion would be appreciated!
Marc

Sanjin Jukic

01-07-2008, 08:27 AM

I've said this before but Tim Burton's corpse bride and almost all other stop motion animation movies have been shot on Nikon glass for many years.

I really like my Zeiss Standard speed set but I'm not in love with the character. In many ways I think my Nikons just feel right. Unfortunately I won't be able to find out for sure for a little while still.

Evin you are right.>>>

After experimenting with a dozen different models, Kozachik opted for a basic digital still camera, the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, an off-the-shelf model that was outfitted with adapters to allow the use of Nikon prime lenses (14mm-105mm). "One reason I went with this particular camera is that its image chip is just about the same size as Super 35 film negative,
so we could use Nikon lenses and treat them like regular 35mm cine lenses and get the same effect — the same depth of field and angle of coverage. I knew that we were going to be fighting to make this look like a 'real' movie because we weren't shooting on film, so I wanted to at least have the optics look like movie optics."

Marrying Stop Motion and CGI for "The Corpse Bride" by Matt Hurwitz>>>LINK>>> (http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/vfxpro/article_14097.shtml)

If RED cannot make Nikon F mount soon or if Birger fails we still have

IMS (Interchangeable Mount System option from P+S Technik GmbH München>>>LINK (http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-ims.php)

Also there are may other still lens brands that could make you movie to look like a Hollywood made

Leica M & R series, Zeiss Contax and Hasselblad, Canon L, etc...

Matt Uhry

01-07-2008, 08:27 PM

Evin you are right.>>>

After experimenting with a dozen different models, Kozachik opted for a basic digital still camera, the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, an off-the-shelf model that was outfitted with adapters to allow the use of Nikon prime lenses (14mm-105mm). "One reason I went with this particular camera is that its image chip is just about the same size as Super 35 film negative,
so we could use Nikon lenses and treat them like regular 35mm cine lenses and get the same effect — the same depth of field and angle of coverage. I knew that we were going to be fighting to make this look like a 'real' movie because we weren't shooting on film, so I wanted to at least have the optics look like movie optics."

Marrying Stop Motion and CGI for "The Corpse Bride" by Matt Hurwitz>>>LINK>>> (http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/vfxpro/article_14097.shtml)

If RED cannot make Nikon F mount soon or if Birger fails we still have

IMS (Interchangeable Mount System option from P+S Technik GmbH München>>>LINK (http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-ims.php)

Also there are may other still lens brands that could make you movie to look like a Hollywood made

Leica M & R series, Zeiss Contax and Hasselblad, Canon L, etc...

Sanjin,

I'm not sure if using a stop motion film as an example helps reinforce the viability of still lenses being used for motion picture work. Was that your point ?

Still lenses are designed for ________ .

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Mike Prevette

01-07-2008, 08:49 PM

I've said this before but Tim Burton's corpse bride and almost all other stop motion animation movies have been shot on Nikon glass for many years.

The reason for this had more to do with the manual apertures than the lenses themselves. They had problems with the Canon lenses landing at the "exact" same aperture every time. a common problem with electromagnetically controlled aperture. I wish I could dig up the Cinefex article on it.