Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Why cine lenses?

The Third Man said:
not so sure what are you talking about???!!!
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a static subject, Sanjin.
clown.gif
LOL
 
Static or not, Sanjin's point is that it holds focus throughout. And it's not stopped down to F/16.

And although I agree this is impressive based on this lens, more often than not, still zooms don't hold focus throughout, so it is a legitimate issue, but if you know your zoom does, then you don't really care because you know that going in to a shoot.

This has been a fun thread, but it really has been addressed in my opinion. Choose your tools based on need, plain and simple. Can't afford PL or waiting for a particular lens mount, by all means throw a still lens dumb mount on the camera and get some affordable lenses and shoot with it. I couldn't believe I read some threads where people discussed the camera was sitting on a shelf while they waited for certain lens mounts to be delivered. I had trouble keeping the camera in the box for 5 minutes, let alone several months. :-)

David's post about autofocus is brilliant because it really gets to the hear of the matter. Anyone who makes moving pictures of any type is faced with all kinds of scenarios on a daily basis. You will need different tools to get through them all. What might be inappropriate for one shoot might be perfect for the next.
 
YES!!!
Remember that stills lenses have been built to take one shot, 50th/sec. only at one time, whereas the Cine lenses are built to take 25 shots per second. Get a still lens and look at the mechanics and you soon will realise that a loose scroll matters little as a still one shot lens, BUT when pulling focus at 25fps Then watch the picture rock and roll across the screen.
You pay for not only the selected glass and the selected blooming but also the quality engineering and metals surrounding it.
Many will give you a bigger reason but after ALL my years this is what it comes down to. You get what you pay for and Quality is and never has been cheap.
Kindest.
Tony Covell.
 
I remember someone telling me once that the last 10% of quality in a lens accounts for well over 50% of the extra cost (or something like that, I'm paraphrasing...) -- in other words, still camera and cine lenses can be very similar in the quality of glass, in resolution, etc. but getting the last bit of extra quality in lens mechanics to eliminate problems only seen in moving images like when rack-focusing, zooming, etc., not to mention improving focusing by providing a longer barrel rotation, bigger rings & markings, etc. are partly responsible for the big increase in cost when combined with the fact that the cine lens market is so much smaller than the still lens market that the economies of scale come into play in determining price.

But from a purely optical resolution issue, I'm not surprised when RED frame grabs show many still camera lenses to be similar in quality to cine lenses, or that many older cine lenses are not much worse than the newest cine lenses either.

I think all the high-end cine lenses are rather similar and I certainly feel just as lucky to shoot a movie on any of the options out there, but on the other hand, you do start to feel that certain lenses have personalities that may seem more aesthetically pleasing than others, not to mention that some lenses may have a better combinations of features that suit what what you are shooting. I love the Zeiss Master Primes, for example, but I wish they were as light as the Zeiss Ultra Primes.
 
Pawel,

below is a link to the short example of hold focus throughout the entire zoom range

from 35 to 70 mm on a moving object that shot on RED1 with IMS for RED

using Angenieux FD 35-70mm f/2.5-3.3 @ f/5.6, ND 0.6+CircPola.

Angenieux FD 35-70 mm f/2.5-3.3 @ f/5.6 >>>


Mr. Orange,

did you finally get a point that your rhetoric towards me has no place and any sense here at the forum,

it is particularly disturbing and actually was more targeted to the RED user forum audience.

If you have something personally against me just sent PM and we should discuss it there.
 
Sanjin, I didn't mean holding focus through zoom, I meant being able to rack focus as the subject moves with shallow DOF.

The clip you included has DOF enough to get entire 747-400 in focus. Try tracking focus with DOF that is less than an inch or two. In 4k the DOF of the frames below is just a few cm and you have to rack focus even if the animal turns the head around. How would you do that with a still lens? You can't because the throw is just way too sensitive.

BTW, the frames below are from the first ever footage of Australian sea lion birth. I wasn't going to post them, but since you insisted...:sarcasm:
 
The Third Man said:
Mr. Orange,

did you finally get a point that your rhetoric towards me has no place and any sense here at the forum,

it is particularly disturbing and actually was more targeted to the RED user forum audience.
Click to expand...
clap.gif
(don't call a lawyer, Pawel, pleeeease!) Towards who Sanjin?

The Third Man said:
If you have something personally against me just sent PM and we should discuss it there.
Click to expand...
Go ahead. Still waiting. :)

You're unique. :clown2:

I don't know if Zinner is with you on this your last battle. I'm with you though. Sanjin! Sanjin!
 
Mr. Orange said:
clap.gif
(don't call a lawyer, Pawel, pleeeease!) Towards who Sanjin?

Go ahead. Still waiting. :)

You're unique. :clown2:

I don't know if Zinner is with you on this your last battle. I'm with you though. Sanjin! Sanjin!
Click to expand...

Mr Orange,

O.K., let's say you like me in a way and that's good .

Zinner probably not but that's part of a local mentality where I really cannot help :clown2: .

Pawel,

you are right, it's very sensitive but somehow with a good skills you can do it.
 
The Third Man said:
you are right, it's very sensitive but somehow with a good skills you can do it.
Click to expand...

Not sure how, it is hard enough with MP or Red 300mm. We missed a few shots. With still lens we would have missed a lot. A birth scene is so rare that I would prefer not miss a shot when it is happening. You may need another few years or hundreds of thousands of dollars to get another chance...
 
Pawel,

I know that you are "hooked" in that holy-arri-grail-equipment.

No help :)

Then I will make some tests in a zoo very soon and report here what happened with my set of still zooms there.

Also will take one older ARRIFLEX 35 standard prime 85 mm f/2 PL adopted that makes a gorgeous pictures on RED and by the mechanics looks almost identical like a still lens.

zeiss85mmf2_paradise_bird.jpg
 
Too much emphasis in this discussion on focus and sharpness.

The big difference that I see between the stills posted using still lenses and cine lenses is the bokeh. The bokeh looks like crap on still lenses, it doesn't roll off nicely, lots of smear and bad blur. The bokeh on high-quality cine lenses is dreamy.

I don't really know why this is - the still lens, used on a DSLR, does not have this problem, the bokeh looks great in the application for which it was originally intended. It doesn't necessarily translate once motion is applied. I see lots of still posted on reduser where the problem isn't the focus or the sharpness - it's the bad bokeh. Which is the real difference between a pretty shot and one that just doesn't quite measure up.

Master Primes have dreamy, creamy bokeh. I have not seen the still lens that can match it (once motion is added).

I own a lot of still lenses, and the only still lens that approaches the Master Primes is the Canon 200mm 1.8 for beautiful bokeh, and I'm not certain that even that legendary lens would hold up once motion is added. If a Canon mount that is backed by great customer service, is ever released, I guess I will have the opportunity to compare.

I see many stills posted here that focus on "look how well my still lens can focus" and the bokeh looks quite poor, and the person posting has no clue. They see a shot in focus and conclude that it is therefore a good shot. But that is not the only element that comprises a good shot.

I'm not trying to slag still lenses - in fact, I very much hoped that my Canon collection would live on RED. And I would very much like to get my 300-800mm on my camera. I'm sure that I will be able to get images that I can't get with cine lenses...my still lenses will give me some better opportunities, especially on the long end. But better quality? No.
 
Sanjin,

You are totally punk rock about your lenses and I admire that. Also that you blazed a trail with the IMS despite warranty BS and that's totally cool. And you post lots of pictures and clips to support your thoughts and opinions. I don't agree with you sometimes, but I still am going to declare today "Sanjin Day."

I will celebrate with some rouladen or maybe a schnitzel and a viewing of Carol Reed's classic - you know the one. Cheers !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Thanks Matt.

Prost und Mahlzeit!!!

I'm coming from DV/HDV world and for me mobility and lightweight is kit is very important.

Then suddenly with RED 4K I found out that still lenses are not so far inferior to cine 35mm glass.

Sometimes happening that a still lens is even superior like with a speed of Noctilux-M f/0.95 ASPH.

-------------------------------

Meryem Ersoz,

you behave here as a funny doctor "bokeh" telling us about ugly bokeh of still glass and beauty of MP bokeh :usd: .

Noctilux095_720p.jpg

A beautiful woman and bokeh, shot on RED with IMS for RED, Leica Noctilux-M f/0.95 ASPH @ wide open f/0.95, ASA 320, K 3200, processed in RA, RED Space based, no CC.
 
Sanjin - I didn't address you directly, but have you ever heard the phrase "you can't see your own eyeballs?"

Didn't think so....

If you had, you might have been able to respond intelligently to the comment instead of ad hominem. Preferably with a shot that's in focus....
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
If you had, you might have been able to respond intelligently to the comment instead of ad hominem. Preferably with a shot that's in focus....
Click to expand...

Hi,

I think that goes to show focusing with still lenses is not so easy! Where the viewfinder does not have the resoloution & a tape measure is also useless, the lenses do not have enough focus throw or accurate enough markings.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

I think that goes to show focusing with still lenses is not so easy! Where the viewfinder does not have the resoloution & a tape measure is also useless, the lenses do not have enough focus throw or accurate enough markings.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Stephen,

that's true.

But also there is not so big help from an expensive cine glass that I showed with examples of

Mick Jagger's running out of focus in "Shine a Light" film by Martin Scorsese, Academy Award Winnner director

and shot live by Robert Richardson, ASC also double Academy Award Winner cinematographer.

And you never know how many meters of film is thrown away in the movie that were not useful shots just because of a bad focus.

I think Marthy was struggling to edit material shot live with multiple ARRI 35mm cameras and a lot of MP lenses.

At the end it was for sure a difficult to choose between less focus clean shots.

You can have this impression watching the film.
 
Hi,

Primos, Master Primes, Ultra Primes & Cooke S4's have better markings than most older cine glass, as DOP's wanted to work at shallow T stops lens mechanics has to improve.

It's the focus puller that screwed up, not the Cinematographer! Sometimes one intentially looses focus, it can add confusion to the situation.

An editor will usually take a soft shot if the performance is good, however it's often impossible to judge focus in offline so this has been more of an issue since the introduction of NLE.

Stephen

The Third Man said:
Stephen,

that's true.

But also there is not so big help from an expensive cine glass that I showed with examples of

Mick Jagger's running out of focus in "Shine a Light" film by Martin Scorsese, Academy Award Winnner director

and shot live by Robert Richardson, ASC also double Academy Award Winner cinematographer.

And you never know how many meters of film is thrown away in that movie that were not useful shots just because of a bad focus.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top