WARNING: NON CINEMA LENSES BREATHE!

[Mark Toia]

All lenses breathe Brandon. Maybe the MPs less than others. I heard that Cooke mini S4s don't breathe much . That's why they so big and slow they had to make them telecentric to minimize the breathing so they could not open the aperture more. Big Optimos don't breathe much.
The precious Super speeds breath like mother f....s. Cooke zooms breathe, Angies before Optimos breathe, UPs breathe S4s breathe. DPs make it work to their advantage all the time, even photogs don't care and they are composition obsessed. It will be much easier (and cheaper) to learn to use it than trying to look for optics that will not breathe....

1000% agree.

I have lenses for 20 years now.. with breathing issues. Not once have they annoyed me or compromised a shot.
And even if they did, I'd just take the breathing out in post with a small ZOOM effect. Which will take me about 2 seconds to do.

Have fun, stop stressing

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

1000% agree.

I have lenses for 20 years now.. with breathing issues. Not once have they annoyed me or compromised a shot.
And even if they did, I'd just take the breathing out in post with a small ZOOM effect. Which will take me about 2 seconds to do.

Have fun, stop stressing

Your work is extraordinary, so I feel better reading your wise council.
Thanks, Mark!

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

I think there's some confusion here (maybe this was already discussed earlier in the thread). I hear it every day: someone says that their lens breathes and they don't like it. Half the time they are talking about the apparent change in field of view caused by focusing a lens. A visual "breathing" of sorts. And the other half are referring to the physical size or shape of the lens changing as they rack focus or zoom. "Breathing" in the world of cinema optics is the former, when the apparent field of view increases and decreases in accordance to focus distance. It's an optical mechanical flaw that most modern cinema lens designs take into consideration and correct for. The latter, when the front of the lens moves in and out when you rack focus, is what we refer to as non-constant-volume. It's a simple mechanical design flaw. For example, the older Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 not only changes volume or "telescopes" when you rack focus, but the front barrel also rotates along with focus. Not a deal breaker but certainly a bummer like the OP notes. IN contrast, the Angenieux 25-250mm HR T3.5 has a VERY similar design but has an extra housing at the very front that encapsulates the portion that moves and rotates with a stationary housing. So to sum up, "breathing" is an optical characteristic, not the "telescoping" mentioned here. While the Contax lenses originally mentioned do breathe, it's not the breathing that was the killer for the OP.

My suggestion, if the telescoping fronts are unusable in your particular scenario, is to try different setups. If the lenses were well maintained and in good condition, the lubrication should provide a clean, smooth focus pull without a matte box. If you need a matte box, consider mounting it to a set of rods and using a bellows or (nuns nickers for the Brits) that spans the gap between the lens and matte box. This takes all the weight and stress off of the front of the lens and allows the barrel to telescope freely and easily.

Your expertise and advice is very appreciated, Matt!

 

[Mike Smith]

Hi Brandon,

I read through this whole thread and it's not clear if your original complaint was about breathing or telescoping, although the description in post #1 sounds more like telescoping and mechanical issues were the problem. Can you clarify?

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Hey Mike,

Telescoping is not the problem, just a reality with these lenses.

Breathing is the problem I was asking about originally and am so grateful for the response and the education!

 

[Stephen Williams]

even Master Primes breathes...its unevitable
afaik only Angenieux zooms dont breathe

The new Leica C primes do NOT breathe at all, everything else does to some extent. Ultra Primes & everything older are pretty bad.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hey Brandon, so sorry you've had these problems. We just did an LA studio today with our Contax's and they were fine. Contax's breathe a little, but it's never been a huge issue for us. We're also not doing huge fashion rack focusing like you were. I would advise not using a clip on Matte Box, as Contax lenses certainly can't handle the weight. And yes they do telescope, so having a stills lens friendly setup with the right mattebox and nuns knickers as Mr.Duclos says is def advised.

I'll PM you now; I'd like to be of more help.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

DANG!!!

I invested in a set of CONTAX ZEISS primes and had them cinevised to PL mount and they look amazing!

The glass is incredible and they look stellar on the RED One and EPIC...BUT

THEY BREATHE!!!!!!

We threw them on for a beauty shoot today with a follow-focus rig and they were UNUSABLE.

Even the slightest focus pull moved our matte box forward, looked bumpy and changed the frame line in a very visably unappealing way.

So, here's my question...

Are all the guys on here who sing the praises of non-cinema lenses actually pulling focus at all?

Do the ROKINON cinema lenses breathe too?

I dont even want to say how many tens of thousands of dollars we invested in this set..and now they seem pointless.

Your expertise and guidance is very appreciated.

Thanks

you wanna sell these? PM me

 

[Nick Morrison]

Even the slightest focus pull moved our matte box forward

Brandon, "moving your Matte Box forward" is def the telescoping you are seeing. And certainly, the more these lenses telescope "out"...the harder it will be for these small stills lenses to bear the WEIGHT of your Matte Box. It wouldn't surprise me if these lenses are almost buckling as you focus out, which would explain your symptoms below:

...looked bumpy and changed the frame line in a very visably unappealing way.

My guess is that these lenses are straining under the weight of the clip on, and you may be seeing a sort of "image shift" as they buckle.

I just did a test right now of all our lenses from our shoot today, and there was mild breathing, but none of the symptoms you're describing. Unfortunately, I'm in a hotel room w/out a red-station, otherwise I'd post a quicktime. The lenses I tested are the 28 f2, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 60 2.8, 85 1.4 and 100 f2, all modded by Duclos.

I will post my quicktime for you later this week, so you can see what our lenses do. Maybe just the comparison can help?

Also, do a test of your lenses W/OUT the clip on. I'm curious how they perform w/out the added weight.

If you and I do similar tests, perhaps we can ascertain if your re-housing is adding anything to the situation.

Sound like a plan?

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Brandon, "moving your Matte Box forward" is def the telescoping you are seeing. And certainly, the more these lenses telescope "out"...the harder it will be for these small stills lenses to bear the WEIGHT of your Matte Box. It wouldn't surprise me if these lenses are almost buckling as you focus out, which would explain your symptoms below:



My guess is that these lenses are straining under the weight of the clip on, and you may be seeing a sort of "image shift" as they buckle.

I just did a test right now of all our lenses from our shoot today, and there was mild breathing, but none of the symptoms you're describing. Unfortunately, I'm in a hotel room w/out a red-station, otherwise I'd post a quicktime. The lenses I tested are the 28 f2, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 60 2.8, 85 1.4 and 100 f2, all modded by Duclos.

I will post my quicktime for you later this week, so you can see what our lenses do. Maybe just the comparison can help?

Also, do a test of your lenses W/OUT the clip on. I'm curious how they perform w/out the added weight.

If you and I do similar tests, perhaps we can ascertain if your re-housing is adding anything to the situation.

Sound like a plan?

HECK YEAH!!!!

THanks, Nick, please check your PM.

 

[Uli Plank]

Please make the results public as a service to the whole community.
Maybe my first answer was too short, but my suspicion was aiming in the same direction: de-centering. Either by sloppy re-housing or by weight as Nick suspects.

BTW, one can tell that Tarantino used early Superspeeds from the triangular bokeh, and boy, do they breathe!

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Please make the results public as a service to the whole community.
Maybe my first answer was too short, but my suspicion was aiming in the same direction: de-centering. Either by sloppy re-housing or by weight as Nick suspects.

BTW, one can tell that Tarantino used early Superspeeds from the triangular bokeh, and boy, do they breathe!

Hey Uli,

Armed with the feedback you all gave me and because of the ongoing work that the lens tech is doing now, I will be working with him to assess the problems with the lenses and get back to you.

Lets see how he does in making the situation better before we say anything more and ruin his business and reputation.

Figure 2 months.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Hey fellow Redusers!

Thanks again for being so cool..much appreciated.

Here's the lens test some of you had asked to see.

https://vimeo.com/58489933

Sorry about the nasty noise, but in our haste, we output in 444 and then compressed to 422.


(The green noise is NOT on the original files.)


The mattebox seemed to be causing a great deal of our problems yesterday...lesson learned..thanks for the advice!

Can you see the bumpiness as the follow focus is turned?

Trying to figure out how to stop that from happening.

Any advice is so helpful!!

Cheers,

Brandon

 

[Domenic Barbero]

Yea the bumpiness is the part that wigs me out? any idea what that is from?

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Nick Morrison was so cool and really talked me through a trouble-shooting session by phone earlier.

Here's what we determined:

1) DONT USE A CLAMP-ON MATTEBOX - The weight can make the lens unstable.

2) CHECK YOUR MOUNT- A loose mount can cause the lens to move during focus pulling, creating a bounce.

3) LENS FOCUS GEARS SHOULD MOVE SMOOTHLY- We determined that the 85mm and 100mm lenses will need to be returned to have the modification checked for grit or unstable engineering of the focus gear.

4) LENS MODIFICATION/REHOUSING IS AN ART- Sometimes it works better than others, so really research your lens tech before you decide to spend $$$$$ on rehousing.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick Morrison was so cool and really talked me through a trouble-shooting session by phone earlier.

No prob Brandon, glad to help.

From your breathing test, I'd say the lenses did ok! At least nothing out of the ordinary, and certainly behaved as to be expected from still lenses. So it does seam that once the Matte Box was removed, they behaved much better (as your test shows; thanks for doing that!).

Which leads us to:

1) DONT USE A CLAMP-ON MATTEBOX - The weight can make the lens unstable.

Yeah, these are small tiny stills lenses, not designed to bear weight. Even with a re-housing, unless it's designed to incredible high tolerances, stills lenses should be babied and not be given additional weight. The stress of the extra weight certainly could start to cause unwanted, unusual behaviour if elements start to get squeezed and pressed.

2) CHECK YOUR MOUNT- A loose mount can cause the lens to move during focus pulling, creating a bounce.

Yes we've def noticed that if you rely on cheap adapters, the sloppyness can create that type of "bounce" in image...the lens literally begins to move and shift in the mount because the adapter isn't made to tight tolerance. Once you have a HARD mount like a LEITAX or A-MOUNT (or a great adapter), this rock solid connection removes this issue. It's the reality of adapters. Get good ones, or you will start to see this type of anomaly.

3) LENS FOCUS GEARS SHOULD MOVE SMOOTHLY- We determined that the 85mm and 100mm lenses will need to be returned to have the modification checked for grit or unstable engineering of the focus gear.

Yeah you can def see in Brandon's tests that the 85mm and 100mm have a kind of image "bounce". At first we wondered if it was the PL mount, maybe it wasn't fitting tight enough in the camera mount, and creating the same type of "sloppyness" of a bad adapter....but...Brandon said that he could feel some grit and "lumpiness" in the barrel of the lens even as he rotated it in his hands...ie when the lens wasn't even attached to the camera...

So, we think that perhaps there is some grit or grease or something in the barrel of the housing of the 85mm and 100mm...that maybe is causing some of the elements to possibly strain and move about as they get pinched and squeezed by this foreign debris in the barrel. It could just be some dust clumped with grease. Who knows. But it looks like this could be what is going on. Either way I think Brandon is doing the prudent thing and sending these two back to the original re-housing techs to have them evaluate.

4) LENS MODIFICATION/REHOUSING IS AN ART- Sometimes it works better than others, so really research your lens tech before you decide to spend $$$$$ on rehousing.

True enough. For now it seems like your other rehousings are ok (phew!). Lets see what happens with the 85 and 100. Hopefully those come back right as rain!

Good luck! Keep us posted!

 

[Björn Benckert]

They where quite bumpy but you should not be all that miserable...

My few cents...

A FF usually bumps more than a smooth "hands on twist" on still glass, I know yours are modifed but I doubt that he modified the interior of the lens, a still lens is usually not as solid inside (see the lens as a little package inside the housing) the package inside might be internally loose / moving not perfectly centered within itself. That will make movement when focusing, something the rehousing guy can not do much about.

But the breathing of your lenses is not bad (the in out action) is less than many cine lenses especially zooms.

Also consider that you pull focus now with nothing moving in the shot and with a lot of things in depth cue, so basically the setup tested is a bad as it will ever get. If you have a girls face there and even if she's basically totally still the movement of the lens will drown in her movements...

So, basically what you show is what I would expect from rehoused still lenses, maybe it could be better done. But there is a reason why even poor cinema lenses are heavy and costly, more costly than most rehoused still lenses... But your glass have a lot of other qualities, a good rehousing maybe could be a bit better, but it's hard to tell, it might also be your FF that builds up pressure against the lens, pushing it in a bad way.

AndI used considered very good cine glass that had greater issues with "frame movment# than what you are showing.

So do not be to sad.

Little side story, We did moco takes for a scene, some forward runs and some in reverse... And we could not figure out why the two where not identical when doing a mixed overlay, we spend quite some time figuring it out... In the end we realized it was the focus motor that pushed on the focus gear in one way when we moved forward, and of course in the other direction when going in reverse... the two different push directions made the lens we used, slightly "tilt shifted" in seperate ways for the different takes.. so when doing the move without focus pull the plates matched... then we kind of released that we needed a precision macro lens and stop using clamp on matbox and diopter...

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Nick and Bjorn-

Your continued generosity of wisdom and time are extraordinary and I thank you!

We will be sending back the 85mm and 100mm and see what can be done with them to make them less bumpy.

Please stay tuned and thanks again.

 

[Erik Naso]

I would love to see what these lenses look like rehoused. Could you share a pic or two?

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

I would love to see what these lenses look like rehoused. Could you share a pic or two?

sure!

whats ur email?