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 :)

Canon 16-35 2.8 on EPIC

Breathing while zooming.

Anybody up to writing an algorithm to control the back-focus while the lens breathes through the zoom?
Anybody up to making a servo system that will sync the back-focus to the zoom?

I didn't think so.
Hair splitting.
 
Burke, in answer to your question, had you considered contacting the Berger mount guys. They make a very good canon mount mount for the Red one. Who knows maybe they might have a stop-gap solution for you to work with canon lenses on your epic before the Red canon mount arrives.
 
Some Canons breathe more than others - the 24-70 does not breathe at all and the 24 and 35 1.4 L hardly - same for 50 1.2 - truly minimal.

85 a bit more, 135 hardly at all again.

You can fix this in post but its' tricky because the zoom effect is non-linear and on set you have to give yourself enough framing room. Count maybe 30 minutes per correction to get it just right.

It is also a myth that cine lenses do not breathe - only the best ones do not breathe - some breathe even more than Canons, like the cheapest of the Zeiss PL line of primes.
 
Brett Clements said:
Excuse my ignorance. What's breathing?
Click to expand...

Someone else can give a technical explanation, but in general terms, its when the lens has a slight "zoom" effect upon changing focus. In other words, you rack focus from a person in the foreground to one in the background, and although you didn't technically zoom it "feels" like you did. Its usually a very small amount (depending on the lens) like going from a focal length of 20mm to 22mm.

From my experience the most unsettling occurrences are on wide lenses with great depth of field. If you're on a longer lens the shift in focus will lead the viewers eye to the new focal plane and somewhat distract from the breathing. However, on wide lenses, because the depth of field is so large, it may not be clear to the viewer that a focus change has happened and instead it just feels like the operator nudged the zoom. This is especially true if you're finishing in SD or web resolution, because in those cases on a wide lens nearly earthing will "seem" in focus.
 
Canon 16-35 f2.8 II was a work of art when I used it with a prototype Epic EOS mount last month.

Didn't use any autofocus. Hand focusing it was a breeze, and the breathing was not bad at all (at least on my very organic handheld shoot)

Will be able to post and share footage from this shoot soon.

Don't know about 16-35 series one. FOV at 16mm on epic FF5K is a sight to behold though. Not much distortion for a zoom lens either.
 
Jannard said:
Jarred and I both have EPICs with a Canon mount (we also have PL mount EPICs). The primary difference we can see to image quality is breathing.

Jim
Click to expand...
And lens (glass) quality? Doesnt that make a differnce? I cant imagine that an L-series would look the same as un Ultra Prime or a Master Prime..
 
I've been shooting the Epic with the Canon mount today in NY. I'm on a little getaway with my wife and kids. Today all I had was an Epic X body, Canon mount, out rigger handle, side handle, LCD and a strap around my neck. I was acting like a tourist taking it everywhere through all kinds of security ( the same way the 5D guys do ). I was a breeze to just fire up and shoot hand held, often slo mo. Side handle button A is programmed for 1:1 punch in, so checking focus is a breeze. I've been shooting the Canon 17-40L and the 24 1.4 L, It was a whole new experience using the Epic this way, loved it. The 24 is amazing at night.
 
Mohamed Younis said:
And lens (glass) quality? Doesnt that make a differnce? I cant imagine that an L-series would look the same as un Ultra Prime or a Master Prime..
Click to expand...

Breathing and mechanics aside, some of the Canon glass is really good. The difference is 1.4 on a MP is better than 1.4 on most of the SLR lenses. The Canon 35 1.4L is pretty good though. At 2.8 or more Many of the Canon L lense compare really well. I really love the 600 4L, sharp as heck, and my 100 2.8L Macro is awesome. It these specialty lenses and their special uses (did I mention the TS glass) are what really make the Canon mount indispensable. Would you shoot a feature with an SLR lens set, no way, at least I wouldn't. But I wouldn't go backpacking or trekking alone ( no assistants ) through Costa Rica with a set of MPs.
 
Mark Andersen said:
Breathing and mechanics aside, some of the Canon glass is really good. The difference is 1.4 on a MP is better than 1.4 on most of the SLR lenses. The Canon 35 1.4L is pretty good though. At 2.8 or more Many of the Canon L lense compare really well. I really love the 600 4L, sharp as heck, and my 100 2.8L Macro is awesome. It these specialty lenses and their special uses (did I mention the TS glass) are what really make the Canon mount indispensable. Would you shoot a feature with an SLR lens set, no way, at least I wouldn't. But I wouldn't go backpacking or trekking alone ( no assistants ) through Costa Rica with a set of MPs.
Click to expand...

I have a 24 1.4, a 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and a 70-200 2.8 ll usm. All L. I used them with my 5Ds. I have Ultra primes, red primes, and arri standard primes that i used with my Red one and now i use with my Epic. Is it worth it getting a Canon Mount?
 
I guess it depends on how you shoot. For me the Canon lens is best for keeping the weight down, I often shoot while I travel and I like to travel light with either one assistant or no assistant (which I'm doing at the moment)

The second and better reason to get the mount is to open up your options and lenses choices. Is great to be able to use 600s, macros, TS glass, etc. if you don't have these lenses and only have Canon primes that are similar in focal length to your cine primes then I guess you may not need it.
 
I think, in theory, breathing could be fixed in post using something like Adobe Warp Stabilizer, using Scale stabilization.

As I said earlier, there is no doubt that the 16-35 II is sharp enough for Epic. It's not nearly as sharp as an Master Prime or Leica, but it's sharper than most older cine primes, I would bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top