Thread: The Queen’s Gambit - Steven Meizler FDTimes Interview

Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97
  1. #61  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    So in this particular case, Meizler shooting on Monstro allowed for more shallow depth of field, and less distortion.
    Shallow focus, yes, that is pretty much correct. As far as distortion goes, no, distortion is not reduced with larger formats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    2. you can use speed booster to get the very same lens work the very same way on S35 sensor

    The S35 equiva-lens of FF is not T0.8- it is T1 for accuracy sake....
    Good catch on both of those points - although obviously speed boosters will not guarantee the preservation of optical quality.

    It's worth repeating that a lot of people who use the Leica 50mm Summicron M say that it has more pop at f/4 than wide-open. That's not a prescription - it's just some food for thought. I came across a thread many years ago about this. If I find it I'll share it.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Unsplash | Pinterest | Flickr | Instagram | 1961 (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #62  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    1. Unless one uses the Otus FF lenses are not great performers at1.4 either
    2. you can use speed booster to get the very same lens work the very same way on S35 sensor
    3. I'm sorry but it seems like the concept of smaller pixels affecting the DOF calculation (as in monstro vs helium)was not clear to some...
    4. it is very rare that anyone would use T1.4 FF lenses wide open for obvious reasons (hence ARRI, Zeiss or Leica do not offer such lenses in proper cine livery)and this is literally the only scenario that may present a challenge to duplicate with S35 sensor.
    The S35 equiva-lens of FF is not T0.8- it is T1 for accuracy sake....
    1. No lens performs perfect wide open, but that also means that if you have a set of lenses were you stop down to achieve better sharpness and get rid of CA and stuff, you still run into the problem of matching wide lenses to longer focal lengths. If I close down a lens that starts at T1.4 to instead T2.0, because T1.4 doesn't look good on these lenses, I will still not be able to match a 50mm on FF to a 35mm on s35 since the s35 needs to be at T1.4. So I need to go even higher and then I'm losing the wide-open feel.

    2. A focal reducer affect the image as well, it can lose sharpness or it gets flaring that's not wanted. Even the Canon 0.71 which works great for me and definitely has better glass quality than others, does introduce some artifacts that neither of my lenses has. And if I had the budget to shoot Monstro or Alexa LF with LF lenses I would not consider using a focal reducer with an s35 sensor as equal at all compared to getting those FF lenses clean onto the FF sensor. It would be a real waste to put expensive and superb FF cine glass on a focal reducer if there's an FF sensor around.

    3. Then make it clear then? The coal plane depth size is the DOF I'm speaking of and it is changed by the aperture in relation to the focal length size. A longer focal length like 50mm at T1.4 on FF does not look like 35mm at T1.4 on s35, the focal plane is narrower in depth size, regardless of FOV being matched between the two.

    4. It's not rare at all. I hear about people shooting wide open all the time and only increasing aperture up until sharpness gets better and CA and other problems get mitigated for that lens set, which basically puts a baseline where the aperture should not go under and therefore makes it impossible to go under without introducing those problems again if matching a wider lens on s35 using a lower T-stop.

    this is literally the only scenario that may present a challenge to duplicate with S35 sensor.
    The S35 equiva-lens of FF is not T0.8- it is T1 for accuracy sake....
    But it is a scenario. To say that FF sensors is just marketing BS and there's no difference when there is just shows what I meant, that it isn't clear cut like that. It's not the way creative people work. You can mathematically and with specific super sharp and clean lenses, match in some cases so that you get almost an exact image between s35 and FF using different focal lenghts and apertures, but no one works like that. You choose a set of lenses because of their lens quality, how they look. If the look of a specific series of lenses look good on an FF sensor it will not match with another set of lenses on an s35 sensor. And if using the same set of lenses on s35, but opening them up more might introduce lens artifacts or you cannot open them up more, you cannot use the same lineup of lenses for the same look.
    Ignoring the actual differences that are there between FF and s35 sensors, just the creative process of choosing sensor and lenses for a project makes it impossible for duplicating between the two. But adding the premise that the set baseline of aperture for a project, be it by choice or by being wide open, makes it physically impossible to go faster to match on an s35 sensor, while also including the fact you get a larger photosite pitch without losing resolution due to the larger image compared to the same sensor on s35, the differences are there and absolutely relevant. Anything else is just grasping at straws to prove FFs "irrelevance".
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #63  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    Shallow focus, yes, that is pretty much correct. As far as distortion goes, no, distortion is not reduced with larger formats.
    Would you say that longer focal lengths reduce distortion compared to their wider counterparts in the same series of lenses? Due to how much complicated it is to manufacture wider lenses compared to more normal length lenses?

    When it comes to Meizler's comment, we must also know what he means by distortion. Because distortion can also be about how ultra-wide lenses have build imperfections that are easier to get rid of on longer lenses, especially when lenses get super-fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post

    It's worth repeating that a lot of people who use the Leica 50mm Summicron M say that it has more pop at f/4 than wide-open. That's not a prescription - it's just some food for thought. I came across a thread many years ago about this. If I find it I'll share it.
    Any lens has. It's common practice in still photography to close down until you get things super sharp. This is why studio flash photography rarely has a short DOF, because the entire thing is built around shooting at around f8.0 photography where many lenses get super clean (a myth though, most lenses get their optimal quality between 5.6 and 8.0 but whatever)

    But with cine lenses, there are those lenses that are used wide open because they're built to achieve good results like that as well. On s35 it's the Master Primes really. They're godlike in that regard and many have used those lenses shoot wide open. But all of this also means that if you stop down to achieve the pop, you cannot match that with s35 sensors since you need to go under that pop.

    As I mentioned, if you set a baseline aperture where you are happy with the image with a set of lenses, you cannot go under that without losing that image quality. So you can't match between sensors like that.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #64  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    1. Unless one uses the Otus FF lenses are not great performers at1.4 either
    2. you can use speed booster to get the very same lens work the very same way on S35 sensor
    3. I'm sorry but it seems like the concept of smaller pixels affecting the DOF calculation (as in monstro vs helium)was not clear to some...
    4. it is very rare that anyone would use T1.4 FF lenses wide open for obvious reasons (hence ARRI, Zeiss or Leica do not offer such lenses in proper cine livery)and this is literally the only scenario that may present a challenge to duplicate with S35 sensor.
    The S35 equiva-lens of FF is not T0.8- it is T1 for accuracy sake....
    In practice, not exactly if you're interested in matching the out of focus bokeh.

    I produced this demonstration image over three years ago now. In terms of matching the exact look to the best of this particular lens' ability, you'll notice it's 1 and 2/3rds of a stop to get there between these formats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Given that VistaVision in this case was shot at T6.9, if I started at T1.5 on VV you'd end up at T0.8 for S35 and Super 16 is out of the question. I do have exactly 2 faster than T1 lenses here, but they are for from ideal for general shooting and have different enough character that there wouldn't be a match unfortunately.

    And though it used to not be common, even avoided due to how optics "used to be", things have changed much in this industry. There's far more people shooting wide open to even one stop stopped down due to the increased performance wide open performance comparative to some of yesteryear's lenses. The mindset has broadened up even more as some even shoot wide open with the vintage glass as well.

    Speedboosters/focal reducers get you somewhat there, but the added optics add chaos in the performance category. Particularly in field, edges, and corners as well as enhanced vignetting and such. Even more interesting is though they work well for most general focal lengths, ultrawides and super telephotos have even more pronounced issues. Ideally you'd design a reducer on a per lenses basis and some have even. But given what's out there today, even the subtle change to contrast and impact on lens flare occasionally is a notable difference.

    I can moderately expand on even more of the variations if need be.

    Somewhere between the war against other formats and the love of specific formats, we got "here". Hard facts and closer inspection reveal the exact differences and similar concepts working with different formats.

    It's been ground down to comparisons, side by sides, etc. Most often leading to "there's a way to make these looks the similar", with terminology like "makes no meaningful difference" being somewhat abstract and often correct given a produced result, but exact? No. There are indeed differences and that's much of my frustration of presentation. For DPs who have a good deal of experience with multiple formats, it's not really much of a question about these things, but there are others presenting all of this in the face of highly considered creative and technical choices.

    I like a lot of formats, mostly fond of Super 16mm and larger ones from there. Some critical things lost in the war against cinematographer's as well as photographer's format choices is tied to actually how the lenses work with each of these formats and the resultanting look. Stuff that's often overlooked is magnification of the optics themselves as well as magnified presence of artifacts. Potential design and optical look variations between something like an 18mm and 35mm lens in relationship to matching a frame. Gets more complicated for those looking deeper even still. I have several sets of primes, the lens flare is different on each focal length in the set, which is a result of the optical design itself and that would manifest in me using a different one of those lenses to match FOV and with that you'd have a different lens flare. Yet another subtle, but relevant consideration.


    Back on topic, I think one of the more interesting decisions Meizler made was the specific rather strong strength of a Black Satin 1 filter. I think that was a pretty bold choice and well suited for the series.

    It's beautifully shot with lots of considerations. Love the balance of how they lit to how they exposed. I'd say depth without distractions.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies, 1X RED Komodo, and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #65  
    Senior Member Jacek Zakowicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    If You can prove that the DOF formula has an error that's a big deal. You should let the optical designers know. This formula has been used in lens design for a long time so correcting it would make a difference how they make their calculations...
    Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek-dot-org, jacek2@optitek.org
    Professional Broadcast and Digital Cinema Equipment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #66  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    If You can prove that the DOF formula has an error that's a big deal. You should let the optical designers know. This formula has been used in lens design for a long time so correcting it would make a difference how they make their calculations...
    What formula? We are constantly explaining the logic behind all of this and Phil is much better than me at doing so. But you keep countering all the premises without explaining how it relates to the things we have explained.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #67  
    Senior Member Jacek Zakowicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Multiply the f number by the filmback ratio. i.e 1.4x (31/44)=0.986
    Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek-dot-org, jacek2@optitek.org
    Professional Broadcast and Digital Cinema Equipment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #68  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,972
    Just gunna answer these quickly one by one. Not trying to be argumentative Jacek, but just want to correct some stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    1. Unless one uses the Otus FF lenses are not great performers at1.4 either
    This isn't accurate anymore. Otus lenses represent a new generation of high quality, fast FF primes. Zeiss Supremes, Tokina Vista, and Sigmas are all FF 1.4 cine lenses that are all also excellent wide open.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    2. you can use speed booster to get the very same lens work the very same way on S35 sensor
    As someone who works in optics, surely you know the limitations of speedboosters. They are convenient, yes, but also add optical imperfections. Not sure they have a place here as we compare S35 and Vista.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    3. I'm sorry but it seems like the concept of smaller pixels affecting the DOF calculation (as in monstro vs helium)was not clear to some...
    To be fair, many of us understand the difference. Nothing changes the fact that at the same aperture, a large sensor with a longer lens (to match framing to S35) will have a shallower, more compressed DOF, often with less distorion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    4. it is very rare that anyone would use T1.4 FF lenses wide open for obvious reasons (hence ARRI, Zeiss or Leica do not offer such lenses in proper cine livery)and this is literally the only scenario that may present a challenge to duplicate with S35 sensor.
    If you read the article we're all referenceing, the DP literally says he shot all his interiors wide open at 1.4 on FF glass, on Monstro - for most of the series.

    Also Zeiss does indeed make cine-specific 1.4 FF glass. They are called Supremes:
    https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-produ...me-lenses.html

    Also as mentioned, Sigma and Tokina also have excellent 1.4 FF cine glass. And more is on it's way too. Leica are coming out with T1.8s:
    https://www.leitz-cine.com/product/leitz-prime
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #69  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    Shallow focus, yes, that is pretty much correct. As far as distortion goes, no, distortion is not reduced with larger formats.
    Yes formats have nothing todo with distortion. But focal length does.

    An 18mm prime at S35 has more distortion than a 35mm prime on Vista. It's just optics. It's one of the advantges of working on large format sensors, you tend to use longer lenses that by their design have less distortion. Most lenses from 35mm on up on Vista have very little distortion, if any at all.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #70  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    Multiply the f number by the filmback ratio. i.e 1.4x (31/44)=0.986
    But what does that have to do with the point we're making? If our numbers are off in pure accuracy, that's not really related to the issue we talk about. The point is what FF sensors enable you to do that s35 cannot. The point is that no, you cannot match up lenses between sensor sizes and get the same image between them, except when you deliberately film with the intention of doing so. Mostly by negating much of what FF sensors enable you to do in order for it to just be comparable. The point that Yedlin is making is to show some of the misconceptions, but the reality, as I've mentioned before, is not that clear-cut. If you consistently film at T5.6 on FF and that's your thing, sure, many of the points in this discussion can become moot. But I rarely see this in the creative space. People shoot wide open all the time and when they don't, they usually position the aperture at a level where it is as fast as possible but removes any artifacts the lenses introduce more opened up. So people usually keep themselves at a constant baseline when choosing apertures for a project or scene and having a smaller sensor would break that baseline in order to match the field of view and focus plane size.

    The point is that there absolutely is a difference between FF and s35 and the idea that it is irrelevant to go FF and that you can get the same look on both sensors is just not true except when the intention is to match them up. Being able to match them does not mean them being equal in all ways.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts