Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Best cinematic lenses for Scarlet X

Sorry, Michael, but DOF changes if the smaller sensor has the same number of photocells, since the CoC is enlarged.
 
Guys from what i found in Carl Zeiss site, the Depth of Field is changing with different size sensors and same lens. The Compact Primes CP.2 lenses have interchangeable mount (PL, EF, F, E and MFT) and can retain the same focal length with different cameras.

check the Depth of Field Tables in Meter pdf on pages 4, 38 and 68 for example:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12575690045D1...rimesmeter/$File/DOF_Compact_Primes_Meter.pdf
 
Uli Plank said:
Sorry, Michael, but DOF changes if the smaller sensor has the same number of photocells, since the CoC is enlarged.
Click to expand...

You know what Uli: DoF also changes when you are in a black hole. Sorry to be sarcastic, but I was giving some general information to a Reduser newbie who apparently has just heard of the term DoF. I really don't appreciate being swiped at for not responding with a full college-level discourse on optics theory and physics.
 
Greg M said:
Behavior implies other attributes.
Click to expand...

Except that I couched the word behavior in terms of being limited to the framing effects (in an apparently failed attempt to avoid the very confusion you are experiencing). And, this clarification came after my initial post where I used the very term you want to emphasize: crop factor. Glad that we have come full circle.

DoF, distortion vs focal length, etc these are all advanced optics topics. The OP was asking a basic question about lens choices and I was simply pointing out a potential misconception in the mind of a newbie when using a lens designed for one format on a camera with a different format.
 
Personally I've never met a well behaved 64mm lens. Who makes that? Can I get it in Macro? APO or Aspherical? Does it breath too much? Can I pull focus? Will anyone notice?

But seriously guys, 50mm is 50mm. I wish we could get the writers to start some type of plot and character fetishes. If writers spent as much time obsessing over story and character as people seem to be spending discussing equipment, then we'd have some interesting stories to tell.

Yesterday I ran across an interesting thread about a BBC photographer who shot a short piece on a Sony consumer camera. I looked okay on Vimeo in HD, but the BBC chose to compress the hell out of it and, in the end, it really didn't matter which camera he had used. Any lens or camera would probably have look equally mediocre.

Take a deep breath and step back from obsessing about specs and resolving power and "Cinematic Lenses" whatever that means. Go out and light, block, focus and frame great images. In the end, the qualities of lenses that people spend endless hours discussing are a very small part of a much bigger picture...

Al
 
Al Hill said:
Personally I've never met a well behaved 64mm lens. Who makes that? Can I get it in Macro? APO or Aspherical? Does it breath too much? Can I pull focus? Will anyone notice?

But seriously guys, 50mm is 50mm. I wish we could get the writers to start some type of plot and character fetishes. If writers spent as much time obsessing over story and character as people seem to be spending discussing equipment, then we'd have some interesting stories to tell.

Yesterday I ran across an interesting thread about a BBC photographer who shot a short piece on a Sony consumer camera. I looked okay on Vimeo in HD, but the BBC chose to compress the hell out of it and, in the end, it really didn't matter which camera he had used. Any lens or camera would probably have look equally mediocre.

Take a deep breath and step back from obsessing about specs and resolving power and "Cinematic Lenses" whatever that means. Go out and light, block, focus and frame great images. In the end, the qualities of lenses that people spend endless hours discussing are a very small part of a much bigger picture...

Al
Click to expand...

Sorry Al but you are 100% wrong. A 50mm lens is not 50mm when you are using it on a different size sensor. Frame is different, depth of field is different. (check the Depth of Field Tables in Meter pdf on pages 4, 38 and 68 for example:
http://www.zeiss.com/C12575690045D10...imes_Meter.pdf ) This forum is for cameras, lenses and equipment, not for script writers. So people discus for technical issues. If you want light, block, focus and frame great images you will need a cinema camera. If you want to tell a story you don't need a camera at all. You can do that with graphic animation etc. Lets all give a break to Michael Panfeld. He was trying to help. And after all he is right in all he said.
 
Alexandros Tsoupras said:
Sorry Al but you are 100% wrong. A 50mm lens is not 50mm when you are using it on a different size sensor. Frame is different, depth of field is different. (check the Depth of Field Tables in Meter pdf on pages 4, 38 and 68 for example:
http://www.zeiss.com/C12575690045D10...imes_Meter.pdf ) This forum is for cameras, lenses and equipment, not for script writers. So people discus for technical issues. If you want light, block, focus and frame great images you will need a cinema camera. If you want to tell a story you don't need a camera at all. You can do that with graphic animation etc. Lets all give a break to Michael Panfeld. He was trying to help. And after all he is right in all he said.
Click to expand...

It's still a 50mm lens, it's just cropped.
 
Alexandros Tsoupras said:
Sorry Al but you are 100% wrong. A 50mm lens is not 50mm when you are using it on a different size sensor. Frame is different, depth of field is different. (check the Depth of Field Tables in Meter pdf on pages 4, 38 and 68 for example:
http://www.zeiss.com/C12575690045D10...imes_Meter.pdf ) This forum is for cameras, lenses and equipment, not for script writers. So people discus for technical issues. If you want light, block, focus and frame great images you will need a cinema camera. If you want to tell a story you don't need a camera at all. You can do that with graphic animation etc. Lets all give a break to Michael Panfeld. He was trying to help. And after all he is right in all he said.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say "100% right"
 
This was from a different thread, but I thought the pix were illustrative.

Sulekh Suman said:
Hi Les,

Thank you. I will look into Redrock microgear. I haven't used 'Corner Fix". I will try it once I shoot some stuff with Voigtlander Ultra wide 12mm. Apart from the color shift, I am equally concerned about edge to edge sharpness. I did a quick test to measure the impact of dialing sensor resolution down to 2K on effective angle of view using a Canon 50mm f1.8. It's an awful terrible lens especially when looking into direct sunlight/ lightsource.

http://sulekhsuman.com/2012/01/14/scarlet-sensor-windowing-across-resolution/

5K(5120×2700) 1.3X Canon 50mm Effective angle of view 65mm
5k-canon-50mm.jpg


4K(4096×2160) 1.5X Canon 50mm Effective angle of view 75mm
4k-canon-50mm.jpg


3K(3072×1620) 2.0X Canon 50mm Effective angle of view 100mm
3k-canon-50mm.jpg


2K(2048×1080) 3.24X Canon 50mm Effective angle of view 162mm
2k-canon-50mm.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Bérenger Brillante said:
a 50mm is a 50mm. Its depth of field doesn't change with the sensor. It's a lens thing.
Click to expand...

Actually that is not correct. DoF is contigent on four things: focal length of the lens, aperture, distance from camera to subject, and the circle of confusion.

In turn, circle of confusion is absolutely related to film format (or sensor size). Here is a quote from a wiki article: "Using the “Zeiss formula”, the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). "

And here is a chart show the change in CoC for various sensor sizes:

Circle of confusion diameter limit based on d/1500Image Format Frame size[1] CoC
Small Format
Nikon 1 series 8.8 mm × 13.2 mm 0.011 mm
Four Thirds System 13.5 mm × 18 mm 0.015 mm
APS-C[2] 15.0 mm × 22.5 mm 0.018 mm
APS-C Canon 14.8 mm × 22.2 mm 0.018 mm
APS-C Nikon/Pentax/Sony 15.7 mm × 23.6 mm 0.019 mm
APS-H Canon 19.0 mm × 28.7 mm 0.023 mm
35 mm 24 mm × 36 mm 0.029 mm
Medium Format
645 (6×4.5) 56 mm × 42 mm 0.047 mm
6×6 56 mm × 56 mm 0.053 mm
6×7 56 mm × 69 mm 0.059 mm
6×9 56 mm × 84 mm 0.067 mm
6×12 56 mm × 112 mm 0.083 mm
6×17 56 mm × 168 mm 0.12 mm
Large Format
4×5 102 mm × 127 mm 0.11 mm
5×7 127 mm × 178 mm 0.15 mm
8×10 203 mm × 254 mm 0.22 mm

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
 
And here is yet another explanation of how a change in format (sensor size) affects DoF:

"Cropping an image and enlarging to the same size final image as an uncropped image taken under the same conditions is equivalent to using a smaller format; the cropped image requires greater enlargement and consequently has a smaller circle of confusion. The cropped image has less DOF than the uncropped image."

From this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
 
Yes. And except for objects at the infinity level, you can even simplify the DoF factors to 3 by combining [focal length] and [distance from camera to subject] into -> [magnification grade]. A lot of people do not understand this and will claim that a long lens has "more shallow DoF" than a wide, which is just not true (again, note the exception for background objects super far away, in which case it is sort of true).

E.g., a medium shot, where the frame is filled by somebody's waist to head, will have the same DoF whether shot with an 11mm lens really close or a 500mm far away.

I guess a lot of folks are lazy and keep the camera at pretty much the same distance, in which case the focal length will certainly determine both magnification grade and thus DoF...

Cheers!
 
Robert L. Mickles said:
Canon L and Zeiss ZE are not cinematic lenses, they're still lenses. But for the sub $2k price thats the best you're going to get. They are awesome lenses but of course you are going to get a better image out of true cinema glass like RED Pro, Zeiss Master Primes, Ultra Primes, or Super Speeds. But for true Cinematic lenses the cheapest are going to be old lenses on eBay or RED Pro, but you're still looking at at least $3K-$4K+. and remember the compact primes are great but they are just rehoused ZEs.
Click to expand...

I doubt superspeeds would produce a better image than a ZE. I own a set of Zeiss ZFs and Standard Speeds, I know which are higher resolution .. can't wait to use the Zf's/ZE's on a full frame sensor frankly..So I can use the other 50% of the glass!
 
Michael, Thanks for the links and photos.
 
For those interested, this video was shot with the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Macro. I also own the 21mm and 85mm.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top