Difference between DSLR & Cine Lenses?

[morgan_moore]

On the resolution I would imagine that 2/3 demands a high lines per inch, because there are less inches in the sensor

Therefore while I think still glass may be the way forward for those on a budget for S35 chips it will be less appropriate for 2/3

It would be expected to have a lower LPI than lenses designed to cover 2/3 as would even the most expensive S35 cine primes

S

 

[Steve G]

Cine lenses are simply just a hype or bit a fame.

STILL GLASS MORE OR LESS STILL RULES and it will last forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That will be why Leica have spent a lot of time and money developing the summilux c lens set then. :yikes:

 

[Steve Gibby]

There are real differences between cine and still lenses in terms of how well they can follow focus continually, as opposed to be focused for a still shot. These are not imaginary or unimportant differences as anyone who pulls focus for a living can tell you. If you are going to follow focus using tape measurements, you want a long barrel rotation with more distance markings. A longer barrel rotation also makes focus racks smoother-looking. Focusing happens in real time in cinema, not in-between shots as in still photography. Note that no professional focus-puller is here on this site telling everyone that it's just as easy to follow-focus on a still lens as it is on a cine lens. But a number of still photographers seem more than willing to say that there is no difference even though they don't pull focus for movies regularly.

The difference between cine and still lenses is not really about sharpness.

Now whether these mechanical differences are worth the extra money for cine lenses, that's a personal decision everyone has to make. But let's not pretend that the differences don't exist -- it's only logical that they exist since they are serving different purposes: the needs for focusing a still image are not exactly the same as the needs for following focus continually during a moving image in real time.

I think your comments are accurate for cine style production, but they reflect a cine-centric assessment of the professional motion production industry. Red One has been, and is now used widely in a hybrid/non-hardlined EFP style of field production, using 35mm stills lenses, where shooters focus by eye, and focus is hand-racked by the shooter (no focus puller on the crew). Hybrid EFP shooters using 35mm still lenses get very quick and efficient at progressively using anticipatory focus, rather than reactionary focus. Granted, apertures generally are between 4 and 11, but with practice they can also progressively track focus effectively down to 2.8.

Looking forward, the new DSMC cameras from Red will be extremely modular, much smaller (thus more mobile), feature new Nikon, Canon, and Red Electronic “smart” mounts through which lenses can be controlled by the shooter for auto focus, plus the cameras themselves will feature focus tracking via the new LCDs. The Redmote can also control camera functions – especially useful maximizing the electronic capabilities for the new smart mounts and Red Electronic Lenses, Nikon lenses, and Canon lenses.

If someone want to use Red cameras in an all-manual, large crew, cine style environment, and load them up with cine lenses, MB, FF, etc, that’s one way to use them. But others who work in the multitude of non-narrative genres (action sports, nature, music, lifestyle, wildlife, travel, food, corporate, and many more) that are better suited to hybrid/non-hardlined EFP style of production, will naturally opt for 35mm stills lenses on Scarlet and Epic – because they fit the field workflow needs, mobility needs, budgets, crew sizes, and optical needs of their productions.

Setting motion capture aside, these are DSMC cameras, and as such they have the features to be switched quickly from motion capture to stills – something which is greatly valued by medium to small production companies seeking to dual-bid media projects for motion and still work. Even in straight motion productions the ability to quickly shoot production stills is a serious plus. A short barrel rotation is very desirable in the operator hand-racking, eye focusing environment of hybrid/non-hardlined EFP production.

Of the overall total motion media productions worldwide each year, cine style production is in the minority. The majority of productions are non-hardlined EFP style. This disparity of percentages will even increase with Epic and Scarlet, given their DSMC capabilities, increased utility in the cameras and mounts of the electronic features in 35mm still lenses.

Optically, the very top-quality 35mm still lenses can be comparable to cine lenses in sharpness, contrast, etc. As you’ve rightly mentioned, the key differences are in operational utility (barrel rotation, etc.). That said, the phrase “horses for courses” gets floated around here often. The choice of production style, and the logical camera setup, accessories, lenses, and field use techniques is definitely a “horses for courses” scenario. It brings a smile to my face when I regularly see young, impressionable newcomers to this industry loading their cameras up with big. heavy, expensive accessories and lenses - so they can look like a "real" cinematographer - then floundering in the field as they try to fit a round peg in a square hole by forcing the rig and style into a production scenario that more logically calls for lighter, hybrid style production. Again - horses for courses.

To be sure, there are some 35mm still lenses that breathe a lot and/or don’t hold focus throughout a zoom. However there are many, especially parfocal lenses, which do hold focus through a zoom, don't breathe excessively, and can be well adapted to a hybrid/non-hardlined EFP production scenario.

Again David, I think your comments were very accurate – for the cine style use of using Red One. But as I’ve summarized above, there are many other ways to use Red One, Epic, and Scarlet – and for those other ways, quite often 35mm still lenses are the best tool for the style and work at hand. People who work with 35mm still lenses on Red cameras just need to understand the lens strengths and weaknesses, and be sure those jive with the genres, styles, and budgets they work in.

BTW – good seeing you at Red Studios this past January! Like everyone here, I appreciate the time you take to give valuable insight to these forums. I’ve done likewise over the years. By choice many of us work in diverse genres and styles of the motion media industry. But we’re all still an overall family of professionals - and I respect everyone’s needs and approach to their work.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think the Focus Optics 14-24mm is a fine example of what can be done in terms of rehousing still FF35 glass for cine work. Did you guys get a chance to see that lens at NAB? I was extremely impressed.

I wonder if the new Nikon 24mm f/1.4 might be another good lens to rehouse?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You and both agree that the mechanical differences between cine and still lenses exist, that they are not imaginary. What I'm addressing is the mistaken notion that there is no logical or practical reason for these differences, that they merely exist to make lenses more expensive or to serve the egos of film crews, etc.

The need for cine lenses has been acknowledged for decades of moviemaking, it's nothing new and certainly isn't a post-1980 concept.

But obviously still camera lenses can be used to shoot motion pictures and other moving images -- this has also gone on since moving images were invented. But the fact that still camera lenses can be adapted for cine uses doesn't negate the value of lenses designed specifically for motion picture work.

My post was merely to counteract some of the nonsense that Sanjin was posting, not to suggest that still lenses don't have a place in moviemaking or other uses. I'm not being exclusive but inclusive -- that cine lenses have their place, I'm not suggesting that still lenses don't have a place. Cine lenses were designed for a specific market, and if you fall outside of that market, that's OK, but it's crazy to suggest that the market doesn't really exist or that the need for the product is imaginary.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Yes, we're in agreement on that David. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to setup, lens, and use a Red One camera (or Epic and Scarlet to come) - but merely a "right" or "wrong" way for each project at hand or portion thereof.

Cine lenses are precise, solid, big for their focal length, optically very good, and quite expensive. All those attributes lend themselves well to what the tool was designed for - solid budget, cine style production. Cine lenses have been around for decades, and will be for decades to come.

Top-level 35mm still lenses tend to be less precise, well built, small and light for their focal lengths, optically very good, and inexpensive. Those attributes lens themselves well to what they were designed for - 35mm still photography, but also now to hybrid/EFP motion work.

With media diversification and the progress of technology, there are many camera, lens, and accessory options available to those who need them - either by choice or by genre necessity.

I learned cine style production a long time ago, but at some point decided that I liked the more mobile EFP genres of production, thus I've specialized down into them. But to each their own. As you know, a wise worker is the one who sets his ego aside, and then pragmatically analyzes which tool and tool setup is best for each production they do - and then proceeds accordingly.

All these camera setups, accessory package profiles, lens choices, and usage techniques have their time and place - that's the beauty of this industry at present.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I think the Focus Optics 14-24mm is a fine example of what can be done in terms of rehousing still FF35 glass for cine work. Did you guys get a chance to see that lens at NAB? I was extremely impressed.

I wonder if the new Nikon 24mm f/1.4 might be another good lens to rehouse?

Focus Optics 14-24 = $15,000 (Ouch!)

Nikon 24mm f/1.4 = $2200 (More in my ballpark!)

:001_huh:

 

[Steve Gibby]

I think the Focus Optics 14-24mm is a fine example of what can be done in terms of rehousing still FF35 glass for cine work. Did you guys get a chance to see that lens at NAB? I was extremely impressed.

I wonder if the new Nikon 24mm f/1.4 might be another good lens to rehouse?

Yes, Stuart did a nice job with the Ruby 14-24, which is a re-house of the Nikon 14-24. I've owned a stock Nikon 14-24 for some time now, and have used it extensively on my Red cameras. The results have been excellent...love that lens. That's one of the Nikon lenses I'll undoubtedly use often with Epic and Scarlet. All 22 of my Nikon lenses I own, and me and my crews regularly use on Red One, are stock lenses - that keeps them mobile and lightweight on Red setups. We also use no matte boxes (use screw-on filters), and no follow focus units (we eye focus and rack lens barrels) - thus our rigs are as light and mobile as possible. The one Canon lens I use on Red, a 150-600 f5.6L, is stock except for a Century PL mount conversion - again comparatively light and mobile compared to the fully re-housed versions of the 150-600.

Rehoused and cinevised 35mm still lenses are fine for those who want/need to shoot cine style, but for all those others who would be better suited shooting genres which call for hybrid/EFP style, I'd suggest using stock lenses to retain low weight (and thus mobility) on the camera setups - and save some serious funds in the process. My stock Nikon 14-24 only cost me $1,700 from B&H. Optically stock 35mm still lenses, and fully re-housed versions of those same 35mm still lenses, will produce basically the same quality of images - so I guess its just a question for each buyer of if they are willing to pay the steep increases in cost for the operational advantages afforded. If someone shoots in a mobile hybrid/EFP style, IMO buying fully re-housed 35mm still lenses is throwing money into the wind. If they shoot cine style, then obviously the re-housed lenses are attractive.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I was only pointing out the Ruby as a compromise between still and cine, per David's points. But yeah, for non-cine use, you can typically get away with stock still lenses, depending on what is being shot. A whole generation of new shooters is learning to focus on these FF35 DSLRs. I was planning to shoot my film with Canon lenses before all the Birger nonsense derailed my plans.

David, you might see if Stuart could loan you a Ruby for a shoot in LA, to test it out. It's really nice!

Terry, 15K might seem pricey, but how much is a Master Prime? The Ruby 14-24 will also cover the forthcoming FF35 Red camera, which makes it a nice long-term investment, IMO. Only drawback vs MP is the loss of stops and maybe some flaring.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...

Terry, 15K might seem pricey, but how much is a Master Prime? The Ruby 14-24 will also cover the forthcoming FF35 Red camera, which makes it a nice long-term investment, IMO. Only drawback vs MP is the loss of stops and maybe some flaring.

Yeah, I have only in the last couple of years started to look at the prices of cine lenses. Sort of takes your breath away when you thought a few thousand for a good still lens was getting pricey! Don't get me wrong, I wish I could afford (and justify) that route. Maybe some day... :001_tongue:

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

winds of change

winds of change

While I've been intimately and very actively involved with cine optics for 25years and can appreciate the finesse I agree with Steve. Times are changing and quite rapidly at that with regards to motion picture optics. The still glass is just too good and represents too much bang per buck to pass.
Optically I think we all agree that if a lens is good for 20Mpix stills it will work fine on 10Mpix motion cam. Mechanically we know the story but there are work arounds. I think that the (technologically) amazing features such as autofocus and image stabilization are making their way into motion aquisition and I don't see how these could be easily implemented for traditional cine packaging. I've been designing glass packaging mainly for cine lenses for many years and the still mechanics are a completely different beast.
When I designed Nikon ProLock mount I decided that I would not alter the original lens in any way. That will allow me to implement autofocus, image stabilization, encoder feedback, etc. when the time comes. I think that flies well with the "future proof" product philosophy that this very site represents:thumbsup:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Another good example of a lens designed for a specific market is the ENG zoom lens, a lightweight zoom with a built-on zoom control, auto-iris, plus teleconverter and macro built-in. It would be ridiculous to say that the need for such a device doesn't exist. Sure you can adapt other types of lenses, still zooms and cine zooms, but that's not exactly the same thing as an ENG zoom.

But ENG zooms can be used on narrative cine-style work too, just as still zooms can be. All these lenses -- still, cine, ENG -- can be adapted for use in each other's market, but that isn't the same thing as saying that they are interchangeable, or that they don't come with some advantages and disadvantages unique to their designs, and that these design differences (and overall sales volumes) don't impact manufacturing costs.

And personally, I agree with Steve about the value of leaving some still lenses alone and taking advantage of their size & weight even if it makes other things more challenging. Having just dealt with using a Red inside a moving car during chase scenes for a TV pilot and the director wanting long handholdable zooms on the camera, I wish I had some smaller zooms on the package for those shots -- something like an 18-100mm Cooke but one-third of the size & weight. I had a 15-40mm Ang. lightweight cine zoom, but the range wasn't long enough for the director.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

My post was merely to counteract some of the nonsense that Sanjin was posting, not to suggest that still lenses don't have a place in moviemaking or other uses. I'm not being exclusive but inclusive -- that cine lenses have their place, I'm not suggesting that still lenses don't have a place. Cine lenses were designed for a specific market, and if you fall outside of that market, that's OK, but it's crazy to suggest that the market doesn't really exist or that the need for the product is imaginary.

My throwing of some "nonsense" here is to say that even Carl Zeiss today "rehousing" its FF35mm still lenses for cine use.

What does it mean "rehousing" still lens basically to become cine lens after?

It means to "please" AC to work better or more accurate for getting focus in cine work or simply just becoming an expensive toy for AC...

But that cost you a "fortune"!!!

Also it can mean that still lenses optically are pretty good alternative solution for any of cine shooting.

That will be why Leica have spent a lot of time and money developing the summilux c lens set then. :yikes:

What happened with Leica Summilux is that Leica "accommodate" its best Summilux aspherical design of 50mm to many other

focal lengths of S35mm circle size just moving that design of Summilux 50mm ASPH along the axis back and forth.

Of course it not that simple as I "described" here but that could be basically what was done there.

Or an accommodation of already done still lens design to S35mm cine lens.

Roger Deakins reported that he tested those lenses and mentioned the set had a certain small issue that can be solved fast.

I'm 100% sure it was kind of mechanical issue with the new Leica Cine set, but not optical because Roger mentioned the sharpens of Leicas.

At the end is to conclude that mechanical design of cine lens is something that mainly have to "please" AC but simply that cost you a lot.

So if you don't need AC to focus or maybe you do have another idea how it can be shot using still lenses then this option

maybe could fulfill all demands of what you need optically and mechanically.

Just save the money for other parts of your movie production.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Focus is the wrong place to try and save money for a movie production...

Making an AC's job easier is not trivial thing because focus-pulling in narrative cinema is a real challenge. I just finished a job where most of the coverage on actors was shot tight at 290mm and even at f/8 or higher, there is no real depth of field to rely on in a close-up. And despite getting measurements AND using HD monitors zoomed in to judge focus, we had problems following the actors as they bobbed around the screen in their close-ups -- there was a lot of "focus chasing" the actors, having them make a sudden move, go soft, and then the focus catch-up with them a beat later, the problem with using a monitor for eye-focusing. And sometimes just as the AC was finding focus, the actor moved again so the focusing was out-of-sync with their movements. And at 290mm, the far end of the Optimo zoom, the actors are some 15 feet or so away from the camera, their marks obscured by furniture. And despite being a cine lens, the Optimo is not well-marked for subtle distances once you start talking about the 15-20' range.

Whenever I could, I gave the AC's as deep a stop as I could get away with -- thank god I could rate the Red at 1000 ASA. Outdoors, I routinely shot at f/16 and even then, the backgrounds were a complete blur in the close-ups. But for the night exteriors, I could only give them an f/2.8.

So absolutely anything and everything that makes focus-pulling easier for AC's is worth it. Remember that on most narrative jobs, the operator is not pulling his own focus, the AC is not looking through the viewfinder and only has his measurements, his marks on the lens, and his monitor, plus his Cinetape and other tools. He uses anything and everything to do his job.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Another good example of a lens designed for a specific market is the ENG zoom lens, a lightweight zoom with a built-on zoom control, auto-iris, plus teleconverter and macro built-in. It would be ridiculous to say that the need for such a device doesn't exist. Sure you can adapt other types of lenses, still zooms and cine zooms, but that's not exactly the same thing as an ENG zoom.

But ENG zooms can be used on narrative cine-style work too, just as still zooms can be. All these lenses -- still, cine, ENG -- can be adapted for use in each other's market, but that isn't the same thing as saying that they are interchangeable, or that they don't come with some advantages and disadvantages unique to their designs, and that these design differences (and overall sales volumes) don't impact manufacturing costs.

Yes, EFP/ENG zooms are primarily designed for mobile non-hardlined EFP production, along with some hardlined EFP production -but they have also sometimes been used for cine style work. As such they have the EFP/ENG features you mentioned. For over four years now on Red User and other forums I’ve been detailing the need for a new breed of 35mm zooms to be developed for the gigantic non-hardlined EFP production industry. The features I’ve consistently recommended for four years now are:

Full frame 35mm lens based on a combination of FF35mm still lens technology and EFP/ENG technology, the form factor of a EFP/ENG zoom, detachable servozoom unit, auto-iris capability (but full manual selectable), threaded barrel for screw-on filter capability, option for a built in 2x extender, wide to long focal length range, and option for macro capability.

With S35 cameras like Red One, and the future arrival of S35 and FF35 cameras like Epic and Scarlet, and with non-hardlined EFP being the single largest market in the motion media industry, there is a deep need for the zoom I described above.

A while back I believe I coined the name “3-Way Zoom” for such a lens. The 3-Way designation refers to the lens easily being able to be used in three ways – as an EFP lens, as a cine lens, and as a 35mm still lens. In EFP configuration the lens would have the servozoom attached for either shoulder held or tripod use, no matte box (screw on filters), and no follow focus. For manual cine use, the servozoom would be removed, exposing the lens gears, then a matte box and follow focus would be added. For still photography use the lens would be controlled electronically (or manually as desired), just as you would with a lens on a DSLR. Such a lens would really unlock the flexibility and utility of a DSMC camera. Incorporating a combination of EFP/ENG technology and 35mm still technology, such a lens would not have to be giant, could have a fairly broad focal length range, and would not have to be overly expensive. I believe there is a huge demand for such a lens, it can be cost-effective to make and market, and it will inevitable be built - the sooner the better. Whoever builds it will sell tens of thousands of them. Its my hope that many of the new Red Electronic Lenses will be 3-Way Zooms as described above.

And personally, I agree with Steve about the value of leaving some still lenses alone and taking advantage of their size & weight even if it makes other things more challenging. Having just dealt with using a Red inside a moving car during chase scenes for a TV pilot and the director wanting long handholdable zooms on the camera, I wish I had some smaller zooms on the package for those shots -- something like an 18-100mm Cooke but one-third of the size & weight. I had a 15-40mm Ang. lightweight cine zoom, but the range wasn't long enough for the director.

Definitely…

Being an experimenter by nature, I've put together some real Frankenstein/McGiver rigs with Red One over the years to solve some of those problems. Here are some quick case studies on that:

Clear back in 2007 I cannibalized a Fujinon servozoom unit from an old EFP/ENG zoom of mine, and experimented using it on Red with a custom support bracket, on some of my Nikon zooms equipped with snap-on gears. A tap on a battery powered the servozom. The results were very encouraging. I could shoulder hold the rig in regular EFP/ENG style, using just the shoulder pad of an ET Mantis, right hand controlling the servozoom, and left hand racking focus on the lens barrel.

A more recent example was the 7 Red camera production last month in Seattle, of the band Heart in concert. I was a DP and one of the stage front cameras for that. The venue was small, and we needed extreme mobility for both of the stage front cameras – thus heavy, limited focal length range cine lenses with MB and FF simply weren’t practical. The solution for those stage front cameras? On one we had the shooter (Blair Paulsen) use an ET Mantis, a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 zoom with snap on gears, and a FIZ to power the lens. On the other side of the stage I shot with the other DPs Red camera (Champe Barton), which sported an ET Mantis, a prototype Red Bomb EVF, a Red-approved Birger Canon mount, a Canon 24-70 f2.8L zoom with snap on gears, powered by a Fujinon EFP/ENG servozoom pirated from an old lens, tapped into a battery tap on the back of the rig. It worked extremely well, gave me smooth power zooming, was lightweight, balanced, and optically the results were spot on. BTW - for some of the medium distance cameras we used Nikon still lenses, but we also used cine lenses and setups on several of the back of venue cameras - Optimo 12, etc. Horses for courses...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Just to be clear... I'm not saying that you can't go out and shoot a feature with only still camera lenses on the Red. It's already been done by many folks here, not to mention the previous movies shot on 1/3" cameras with 35mm adaptors. It's certainly doable, and for the person on a tiny budget, it may be the only option anyway.

Just don't trivialize the challenges of a focus-puller dealing with 35mm depth of field, following moving actors in tight close-ups. Hire the best focus-pullers you can afford and give them what they feel they need to get the shot, or else, live with their mistakes or learn to cut around them. Or just hope you get lucky...

Kubrick liked to use still lenses and this passage from the American Cinematographer article on Cinema Products adapting the f/0.7 Zeiss shows that Kubrick was aware of the issues:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
A lens as fast as this has an extremely shallow depth of field when shooting wide open, so Kubrick understandably wanted to have as broad a band spread on the scale as possible. To do this we used an extremely fine thread for the focusing barrel and this resulted in a scale which required two complete revolutions to go from infinity down to approximately 5 feet. We had to stop at 5 feet or it would have taken several more revolutions to bring it to the near focus point. Kubrick agreed that this was as close a focus as he would require, and that stopping at two revolutions would make the scale less ambiguous.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/bl/page1.htm
This Zeiss lens was like no other lens in a way, because when you look through any normal type of lens, like the Panavision T/1.1 or the Angenieux f/0.95, you are looking through the optical system and by just altering the focus you can tell whether it's in or out of focus. But when you looked through this lens it appeared to have a fantastic range of focus, quite unbelievable. However, when you did a photographic test you discovered that it had no depth of field at all - which one expected anyway. So we literally had to scale this lens by doing hand tests from about 200 feet down to about 4 feet, marking every distance that would lead up to the 10-foot range. We had to literally get it down to inches on the actual scaling.

QUESTION: What about the depth of field problem?

ALCOTT: As I suggested before, that was indeed a problem. The point of focus was so critical and there was hardly any depth of field with that f/0.7 lens. My focus operator, Doug Milsome, used a closed-circuit video camera as the only way to keep track of the distances with any degree of accuracy. The video camera was placed at a 90-degree angle to the film camera position and was monitored by means of a TV screen mounted above the camera lens scale. A grid was placed over the TV screen and by taping the various artists' positions, the distances could be transferred to the TV grid to allow the artists a certain flexibility of movement, while keeping them in focus.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Let me add a couple of things more:

Stanley Kubrick used a lot of times in his movies lightweight Arri 35II that had a tiny S35mm lenses made by Zeiss and Schneider-Kreuznach.

Those old S35mm lenses where so small that can be compared with the sizes of Leica M rangefinder still lenses.

Also they have the similar kind of focus button that you can follow focus with just using one finger.

I'm asking myself who pulled focus for Kubrick in the shot like this?

Probably Stanley Kubrick by himself.

Kubrick shooting the famous "Singing in the Rain" scene in A Clockwork Orange with a 35IIC in 1970.

Then I took my "A Clockwork Orange" BRD and have looked to those shots again

to find out what happened there in terms of focus pulling:

"Singing in the Rain" scene in A Clockwork Orange:
This is exactly the scene showed at the above documentary BW photo.

"Singing in the Rain" scene in A Clockwork Orange:
This is a close up detail exactly what Kubrick shot according to the above documentary BW photo.

 

[Kevin Olsen]

Kubrick liked to use still lenses and this passage from the American Cinematographer article on Cinema Products adapting the f/0.7 Zeiss shows that Kubrick was aware of the issues:

Just to add on to what David mentioned just above, here is a great video regarding this specific application for Barry Lyndon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqkBzaFqcuE

KO

 

[Kevin Olsen]

Sanjin, I appreciate your post regarding the scene from Clockwork Orange but I think it's probably not going to fly here in the forums, or at least it must be marked NSFW.

I can appreciate the artist value of the scene and the purpose of the post, but I think most people will stumble onto it, probably at the wrong place and time...

KO

 

[Rick Burnett]

I'd say that the BIG picture here is that there are multiple levels of production coming together on this forum and because of that, where to make trade-offs due to budget concerns is going to drive a lot of these decisions. People in major motion picture or full commercial work are going to get whatever makes their job the easiest. People in the independent scene (me) are going to try to make a balance between all the things they need. It's either that or not make a movie.

I cannot afford cine lens nor an Epic. I will hopefully make enough with my Fixed to pull together the funds to afford the S35 brain to add to my system when it becomes available. Spending $20k or $30k on a set of lenses just isn't going to happen. I could get one or two lenses, but I don't want to restrict myself there either.

I'm going to use Still lens that have as little breathing as possible and constant focus through the zoom range. I am also using still primes. Spending 10x at my level makes no sense.

With the electronic interfacing to Nikon and Canon, it's clear even RED recognizes the power of all these other lenses. I think a lot of lens manufacturers are going to really have to make some decisions when the S35 hits the market and there are more people out there looking for lenses.

And an interesting thought, just because a lens has a short throw, what really matters is the speed at which the focusing motor can work. If you can go slow enough, using the electronic rack focus in the brain, the distance really doesn't matter as you should be able to set the speed of the focus movement relative to how far you spin the wheel.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the differences between cine and still lenses and they are VERY VALID differences in terms of functionality. No question there. Does it justify the price? That's really an answer only each person with their budgets or plans can answer.

I expect A LOT of change coming in the lens market.