Notes from "American Cinematographer"

[Nick Morrison]

I've been meaning to post some compelling "notes" I've been jotting down from recent issues of American Cinematographer. Here goes:

ON THE EPIC BEING MUCH CLEANER THAN FILM - From The Amazing Spiderman

"The imagery was incredibly clean, with almost no noise," says [Visual Effects Supervisor Jerome Chen]. "Normally, when CG elements are combined with filmed images, we add grain in the composite to dirty it up and help integrate it, but the Epic images presented a different set of challenges. In many cases, our CG images had more noise than the footage! Imageworks renderer, Arnold, makes beautiful, realistic images, but they can be noisy. We increased the quality settings in the software to combat the noise, but that can have an exponential effect on how long it takes to render an image."

Let that sink in for a second. The Epic was SO CLEAN they had to completely RE-RENDER all the effects to match. Whereas before, film was so textured they would DIRTY UP the FX to match! So a complete 180 in terms of noise when using EPIC.


ON THE CONTINUED USE OF "STILLS" LENSES ON MAJOR MOTION PICTURES - From The Master

Panavision optical engineer Dan Sasaki also provided them with a T2.8 300mm medium format lens built from a Hasselblad telephoto lens with Zeiss optics, which Malamaire calls "a great clos-up lens". The crew dubbed this "The Doris Lens", naming it for Quell's hometown sweetheart (played by Madisen Beaty), the subject of some of The Master's most striking portraiture.

They also decided to shoot some of the movie on 35mm spherical 1:85:1. The lenses they used for this work were inspired by one Malamaire owned. He explains, "I'm crazy about old still photography cameras, and I had a 6x6 medium format camera from the 1960's that had the sharpest lens I've ever seen: an 85mm Zeiss Jena. I brought that lens to Dan Sasaki, and he Panavised it. We used it to shoot some of the 35mm tests, and it cut really well with the 65mm material. The depth of field is different, but the sharpness is very close. Dan tracked down a whole set of 35mm Zeiss Jena lenses that Panavision had already rehoused." These lenses, called "The T2 set", became part of the show's package, which also included a Panaflex Millennium Xl and a set of Zeiss Ultra Speed MK IIs

"Cutting from 35mm to 65mm felt smoother because of the sharp Jena glass, which yields a look similar to [that of] the 65mm lenses. There is a sense that something is different, but it's a small difference. I think it's mainly in the camera work."

So, one of The Master's main portrait lenses was a Hasselblad. Most of the 35mm footage was shot on Panavised Jena stills lenses. And we should assume (like on Dark Knight) that most of the 65mm Panavision lenses are also derived from medium format stills lenses. So...most of this acclaimed movie was shot on stills glass, in one way or other.

Obviously, getting the glass "Panavized" makes these stills optics a 1000 times easier to work with. But to all the snobs out there hating on stills glass, this is another major motion picture that should give you pause to think.

In fact, the film makers go out of their way to PRAISE how sharp the stills glass is. Even on 35mm.

My takeaway form this...if you can get great stills glass...and cinemod it properly so it works for you...you can do some sick shit with it.


ROGER DEAKINS MAY HATE RED, BUT HE CLEARLY LOVES RAW - From Skyfall

The uncompressed ArriRaw format was also a new development for the Alexa since In Time. Deakins notes, "We were told Skyfall would get an Imax release, so how our images would look on that giant screen was a big consideration. I shot tests comparing Uncompressed HD, which I used on In Time, and ArriRaw, and we blew those images up and watched them on an Imax screen at Swiss Cottage. It was quite startling; both images looked pretty damned good, but the ArriRaw had a definite advantage."

All I can say is...Mr Deakins...if you loved how good the 2.5k ArriRaw looked...imagine how good 5K Epic Raw would have been! But you are a genius so...you get a pass.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

Lol the last statement was great. good post nick. i always love hearing feedback of new RED shooters, moving from film.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I've been meaning to post some compelling "notes" I've been jotting down from recent issues of American Cinematographer. Here goes:

So, one of The Master's main portrait lenses was a Hasselblad. Most of the 35mm footage was shot on Panavised Jena stills lenses. And we should assume (like on Dark Knight) that most of the 65mm Panavision lenses are also derived from medium format stills lenses. So...most of this acclaimed movie was shot on stills glass, in one way or other.

Obviously, getting the glass "Panavized" makes these stills optics a 1000 times easier to work with. But to all the snobs out there hating on stills glass, this is another major motion picture that should give you pause to think.

In fact, the film makers go out of their way to PRAISE how sharp the stills glass is. Even on 35mm.

My takeaway form this...if you can get great stills glass...and cinemod it properly so it works for you...you can do some sick shit with it..

I was looking at some box office stat's on still lens vs cinema lenses ... i was assuming the still lens movies would not be on the chart ... but was very surprised to see how much still lenses are used. I think the conversion to still's is well under way, is amazingly brilliant that RED had the foresight to do a DSMC ( Digital STILL & MOTION camera). Is hard to predict the curve based on minimal data, but my bet is that by 2015 about 50% of movie's will be on still lenses.

 

[Kwan Khan]

Nice thread

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Although there may be exceptions, I believe the arguments that have taken place here on Reduser and on other forums in terms of stills glass has usually been about the mechanical issues. I do recall some discussions where people made the point about cine lenses falling off more smoothly than still lenses. And quality control issues have also been brought up. Generally though, it's the mechanical stuff that people criticize and I have to agree with them on. Although there are a lot of examples of still lenses that have adequate mechanics, especially when combined with a cinemod and a follow focus that can adjust the throw a bit, many still lenses fall very short in terms of complex focus pulling and of course breathing issues.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, all my own stuff is shot on Nikon lenses. PL cine lenses for the jobs where it is requested. So I'm certainly open to using them.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Calling panavision rehoused medium format lenses "stills glass" is rather simplistic and silly. As Steve said, it's the mechanics, not the optics (although there are some optically terrible stills lenses out there) that are the issue.

Nick

 

[Nick Morrison]

Just so you know where I'm coming from, all my own stuff is shot on Nikon lenses. PL cine lenses for the jobs where it is requested. So I'm certainly open to using them.

I'm in a similar boat. Most of our stuff is doc work. Interviews, b-roll, timelapse, etc. Situations where cine-modded stills glass are MORE than adequate. Not a lot of focus pulling during a sedentary interview. However, on a big budget feature, I get it...

I've actually used stills glass on a bunch of multi-cam comedy, where the guys just sit around and "hang out", and there again...totally adequate.

But then on a recent steady-cam sequence, my friend's Leica R's had to be taped out for accurate focus marks. I'm SURE the AC would have way preferred Ultra Primes or Cookes....

 

[Nick Morrison]

Calling panavision rehoused medium format lenses "stills glass" is rather simplistic and silly. As Steve said, it's the mechanics, not the optics (although there are some optically terrible stills lenses out there) that are the issue.

Nick

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. Of course mechanics are what separate Cine glass from stills. And of course...as its also a pro-sumer market, it's a GIVEN you are gong to have SHITTY STILLS lenses. But people also like to crap all over stills lenses as if they OPTICALLY can't hold up. Movies like The Dark Knight Rises and The Master say otherwise. The fact that RED sells cameras with a Canon mount says otherwise.

I also think the fact The Master used PAVANISED/CINEMODDED old Zeiss 35mm stills lenses is a BIG DEAL. That's something we can all relate to. Think ZE, ZE, Leica R, Nikkors, etc...Duclos...

Whereas shooting on Panavised medium format lenses...is NOT for mortal men.

 

[Jeff Unay]

Hi Steve,
I'm putting together a collection of Nikon glass and was curious to know about your set.

So far I have the 55mm 1.2, 28mm 2.8 & 35 1.8. I'm eyeing the 85 1.4 ais next. I'm in the same mindset - owning Nikon glass for casual shoots and renting PL glass when the project calls for it. But after reading this article, it's beginning to change my thinking.

Cheers,
-Jeff

 

[Nick Gardner]

I don't think anybody craps all over stills lenses. Well maybe they do, I don't have conversations about them. Frankly, I think the only people who have an opinion about stills lenses are people trying to claim they are just as good as masterprimes. I own the duclos 11-16, stills lens. Fanfuckingtstic lens. Changed the way wide lenses are used in production in my opinion. I own a Ziess Jenna 180mm medium format lens. I love it. In fact I liked the way it looks so much that I considered getting a whole set. Granted, mine has a PL mount and real focus gears. My 300mm is a canon 2.8 with a century PL conversion. As far as I know, that has been the go to 300mm for almost my whole career (going on 20+ years at this point). Good stills glass can be great. I forget what movie it was, maybe the Bourne thing, where they used a still lens 17-35 or something, and all the amateurs, and 5d guys screamed, "See! stills lenses are just as good as anything else!". Except it was a $20k rehoused lens from century. Just because some stills lenses are great doesn't mean that others don't suck. I have a client that I had to shoot a whole tv series with their c300 and canon lenses. The canon zooms that I had to use, the 16-24 ish, 24-70is, and 70-200ish, whatever they were, are so god awful miserable in every way that a lens can suck, that once I figured out my eos to PL dapter worked on that camera, I brought my own lenses at no cost just so I wouldn't have to fuck with those turds.

There are good lenses, and bad lenses. Both stills, and motion. I personally hated the canon 8-64, it had shitty contrast and lousy flare characteristics. All the old Ang. lenses for the most part sucked, with a few exceptions. Hell, lets talk 2/3 HD lenses. Jesus, they were miserable. The whole prism thing, magenta highlights, terrible breathing - ug. I had a ridiculously expensive Fujinon HD lens that truly sucked, that I basically gave away with a camera.

As far as look goes, use what you want. Make pictures the way you want them to look. I love shooting through an old Samcine low angle prism because of the blooming highlights for some things. I just like the way it looks. I have shitty old Lomo anamorphics that I love because of the way they look. I shot a commercial a month or so ago where the director wanted to rent Master primes. I said, "OK". He was really excited. On set, he said, "you don't seem to be excited about the master primes." I said, "they are lenses, they do all the things lenses do very well, but I think they lack character." At the end of the day, he said, "I see why you weren't excited, They weren't really any different than the lenses we use most of the time". Use what you want, make the images you want.

Now that being said, use lenses that let your AC do a good job. If you are spending a fortune on talent, locations and crew, use lenses that work with all of your AKS easily. Not some ghetto rigged bullshit goofball deal.

Frankly, all of this lens snobbery is mostly crap. Give me a lens that is reasonably sharp, can handle a bright thing in the frame with out totally going to shit contrast wise, holds focus, has decent marks, and me and my AC are happy. I can shoot anything you need with that lens. And there are a lot of them that fit those criteria. Notice I didn't mention price in there at all. I don't make pictures based on how much they cost, I do it on how they look.

Just my opinion.

Nick

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Hi Steve,
I'm putting together a collection of Nikon glass and was curious to know about your set.

So far I have the 55mm 1.2, 28mm 2.8 & 35 1.8. I'm eyeing the 85 1.4 ais next. I'm in the same mindset - owning Nikon glass for casual shoots and renting PL glass when the project calls for it. But after reading this article, it's beginning to change my thinking.

Cheers,
-Jeff

I have:
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 16-50
Nikon 24 F2
Nikon 35 F2
Nikon 50 F1.4
Nikon 50 F1.2
Nikon 85 F2
Nikon 105 F2.5
Nikon 200 F4
Nikon 35-70 F3.5
Nikon 80-200 F4.5
Nikon 28-80 F3.5/5.6

Looking to add the 135 DC F2 at some point. I love the 135mm focal length for some reason.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Finding what lens works for the image you want to achieve is a combination of both science and art. And sometimes it's not just the lens but the combination of lens/filters/lighting that adds up to the secret sauce. At least that has been my experience watching DPs work. Master prime can suddenly go from sharp/neutral/perfect (however you want to describe it) to beautiful in a heartbeat.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Totally agree with the above statement. Worked on a movie last month where the dp had the set of master primes netted, and then had the nets torn and screwed up ;-) Not my cup of tea, but it's what he wanted.

Nick

 

[Dan Frenkel]

Finding what lens works for the image you want to achieve is a combination of both science and art. And sometimes it's not just the lens but the combination of lens/filters/lighting that adds up to the secret sauce. At least that has been my experience watching DPs work. Master prime can suddenly go from sharp/neutral/perfect (however you want to describe it) to beautiful in a heartbeat.

VERY TRUE!! STEVE

 

[Jeff Unay]

Thx for sharing. This thread has been super useful.

-Jeff

I have:
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 16-50
Nikon 24 F2
Nikon 35 F2
Nikon 50 F1.4
Nikon 50 F1.2
Nikon 85 F2
Nikon 105 F2.5
Nikon 200 F4
Nikon 35-70 F3.5
Nikon 80-200 F4.5
Nikon 28-80 F3.5/5.6

Looking to add the 135 DC F2 at some point. I love the 135mm focal length for some reason.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Finding what lens works for the image you want to achieve is a combination of both science and art. And sometimes it's not just the lens but the combination of lens/filters/lighting that adds up to the secret sauce. At least that has been my experience watching DPs work. Master prime can suddenly go from sharp/neutral/perfect (however you want to describe it) to beautiful in a heartbeat.

Yup.

That is pretty much it!

 

[Rob Castiglione]

The Nikon 135m AI/S F2 is also a beautiful lens... and i agree it is a nice focal length.

 

[Michael AvMen]

I use Nikon.
70-210 f4
7-210 f4/5.6
24 f2.8
50 f1.8
135 f2.8
105 f2.5
200-400 f5.6

also,
Ef-S lenses
tokina 11-16 f2.8
tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc
sigma 10mm fisheye f 2.8
canon 50 f.14, 28-135 f 3.5/5.6

 

[Nick Morrison]

The Nikon 135m AI/S F2 is also a beautiful lens... and i agree it is a nice focal length.

I second that, 135's are one of my favorite focal lengths. Under appreciated.

 

[Bob Gundu]

My 135mm 2.8 Leica always gets a little action.