FF35 Cine Glass: Get Ready

[Dave Blackham]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the increased focal length options, especially at the wide end, that come with FF35 sensor areas and the lenses. How about all the underwater shooters out there? On a FF35 sensor, a 15mm lens gives you about 90 degrees of horizontal coverage, whereas in a S35 design, it's only about 70 degrees. That's why extreme lenses like the Zeiss Superspeed 8mm had to be designed to achieve the same width than a 12mm lens would achieve on a FF35 sensor. I known not everybody needs to shoot underwater or in situations where wide angle shots are needed at all times, but to me, that's the main shortcoming of the S35 area as compared to FF35, since I come from a stills photography background where I had lots of amazing options for wide angle work and very limited ones when I finally got into film work.

Now the thing is, we don't need for companies like Zeiss or Cooke to make a whole new line of lenses from scratch, this is something they'll probably won't do, at least not for a long while, but I'm sure some intelligent, entrepreneurial companies or individuals will start rehousing still lenses for FF cine use on a large scale, which is what most IMAX productions have used for years, and despite all arguments between the quality difference of still vs. cine lenses, you just need look at any IMAX film on that giant screen and see how great rehoused still lenses can look. Those lenses will pave the way IMO, and though rehousing them won't be cheap, I'm sure they will still be A LOT cheaper than the equivalent Zeiss or Cooke options, which sell on the $30-40K range...Here I am, dreaming of shooting on the FF35 Epic with a nice, rehoused Nikon 17-35 zoom, or Jesus, Mary and Joseph, a 10-20mm zoom underwater, now that's worth waiting for!

This is a very good point. A good deal of our work is underwater and wide optics are difficult to come by so we would welcome FF35 for this reason alone. We have Canon L glass for some of our stills hire equipment but are considering using Leica R glass for the New red camera's both which would be usable in their own way.

There's been some discussion about rehoused Leica glass by Van Diemen which are reportedly excelent in PL mount. If it is possible to mount Leica R glass on Epic and Scarlet then if the mechanics are up to it then surely this is a very viable option for some projects. Leica stills lenses are very good mechanically with long throw focus and rotates cinewise so if equiped with external gears then it may be good option for FF35 and also S35 when the tighter angle of view is useful or can be accomodated. Im not a focus puller so would be interested in any practical views of using Leica lenses in this way ?

May be its stating the obvious but not all Red projects are for cinema distrubution and also not all shot in the Hollywood style of having large crews etc (no critisim intended) but for smaller documentary and feature shoots they may be well suited.

Dave

 

[David Mullen ASC]

May be its stating the obvious but not all Red projects are for cinema distrubution and also not all shot in the Hollywood style of having large crews etc (no critisim intended) but for smaller documentary and feature shoots they may be well suited.

Dave

Sure, I can see the advantages if you need super wide-angle lenses, which are not used that much in narrative cine shooting... but why would a smaller documentary or feature having an easier time dealing with less depth of field of a FF35 sensor over a S35 sensor? Often small shoots use smaller lights and thus lower light levels at times, making the issue more critical.

Documentaries often are better off the other way, with a 2/3" sensor and greater depth of field, than a FF35 sensor and much lower depth of field, since they are following around unrehearsed moving subjects with no second takes allowed. Of course, there are many types of documentaries and not all subjects are challenging, focus-wise.

But I question the notion that the FF35 format is going to be a friend to the low-budget filmmaker working faster, with smaller and less experienced crews. Or the documentary filmmaker running into an unknown situation as things are happening all around them. Or the wildlife filmmaker as some lion is charging the lens. The lower depth of field and the use of still camera lenses is only going to make more work for them, not make things easier, just as it would for the documentarian to shoot with a VistaVision camera, minus the size & weight issues.

I'm just questioning the implication in your post that cine lenses for some reason are made with big crews in mind. I've gone out and shot features with just one assistant using cine lenses with as tiny a crew as any doc or EPK.

Let's be clear, this is not a big crew vs. small crew issue, or a Hollywood vs. everyone else issue, it's simply an issue of manual follow-focusing using a focus puller and measurements & marks vs. other methods of follow-focusing, like operator eye-focusing. This doesn't have to be a big political issue, it's just a practical issue. And it's important to at least start thinking about the implications of the FF35 format in terms of how it affects focusing, especially for anyone used to shooting in 2/3" video, which in practical terms, has 4-stops more depth of field than FF35.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Sure, I can see the advantages if you need super wide-angle lenses, which are not used that much in narrative cine shooting... but why would a smaller documentary or feature having an easier time dealing with less depth of field of a FF35 sensor over a S35 sensor? Often small shoots use smaller lights and thus lower light levels at times, making the issue more critical.

Documentaries often are better off the other way, with a 2/3" sensor and greater depth of field, than a FF35 sensor and much lower depth of field, since they are following around unrehearsed moving subjects with no second takes allowed. Of course, there are many types of documentaries and not all subjects are challenging, focus-wise.

But I question the notion that the FF35 format is going to be a friend to the low-budget filmmaker working faster, with smaller and less experienced crews. The lower depth of field and the use of still camera lenses is only going to make more work for them, not make things easier.

I'm just questioning the implication in your post that cine lenses for some reason are made with big crews in mind. I've gone out and shot features with just one assistant using cine lenses with as tiny a crew as any doc or EPK.

Let's be clear, this is not a big crew vs. small crew issue, or a Hollywood vs. everyone else issue, it's simply an issue of manual follow-focusing using a focus puller and measurements & marks vs. other methods of follow-focusing, like operator eye-focusing. This doesn't have to be a big political issue, it's just a practical issue.

David, thanks for the comments they are very helpful in trying to understand the problems here. My point was really just trying to locate glass that was able to cover FF35 that may be optically good but less costly than Cine glass and has suitable mechanics. It may be that stills glass just isn't an option even if it does cover an FF35 frame due to the added practical challenges of the larger sensor. Also as you say the larger sensor adds to the challenge. One thing for sure is less experienced crews are always slower to work that experienced ones what ever the equipment. Thanks again for your view,

Dave

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you've hit on the real issue, which is cost.

Still camera lenses are cheaper, and thus a lot of people want to find a way of making them work for motion picture shooting. I can understand that, and personally, if I bought an FF35 EPIC, I'd probably outfit it with more affordable still camera lenses and just rent cine lenses when needed.

 

[Dave Blackham]

This might not be the right threat to raise this but here goes anyway. I just called a couple of friends who work with a major broadcasters and are evaluating Red for Drama and feature use. They say their interim view which is still being formed is that 3k (and associated windowing of the sensor) might be their preferred capture resolution/sensor size with Red One as the focus issues are challenging when compared to 2/3 cameras and 2k isn't thought to be up to the job, it seems 2k its yielding approximately a similar resolution to 720 capture. In other words 3k/windowed may be a good compromise for HD television work. So this issue of lenses emerges again.

With Red and other camera manufacturers creating larger sensors FF35, 645 and so on and broadcasters thinking smaller may be preferred there seems no common agreement here for TV work at least....

 

[Tom Lowe]

Are you thinking about buying a DSMC camera, David?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I would consider it if I had another couple of good years of income and it made sense for my work, business-wise.

When shooting features, I've often had a problem getting certain establishing shots or lyrical transition shots, sunsets, landscapes, wildlife, etc. because of time constraints, but if I owed an EPIC, let's say, I could go out and get them on my own during post and give them to the editor.

This would be more likely than me outfitting a complete production package for a feature for use as an A-camera, which would require a lot more money just to meet my typical requirements on a studio picture.

 

[Robert Horwell]

Hi Dave,
the Van Deimen leica conversions only use the glass elements.To the best of my knowledge none of the leica mechanics are used. Van Deiemn used a patented focusing mechanism using variable pitch wireform,one of the reasons they are so unique. They are unfortunately no longer made.
The quality of the sets varied a little,all extremely high quality,but the VFG sets are generally regarded as being the finest,with matched glass sourced directly from Leitz.
I believe only six of these sets were made,I have one,I'm not sure where the others are.
Mr Tony Covell who posts on these boards was the man responsible for originally commissioning these VFG lenses.
These lenses would be extremely expensive if they were made again today,they are certainly not what you expect from converted stills glass.
I'm quite happy with S35 for my current needs.
Tom.

I've got a set of the VFG thomas, yes the are awesome lenses.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

... you just need look at any IMAX film on that giant screen and see how great rehoused still lenses can look. Those lenses will pave the way IMO...

Rudi, with all due respect, which particular IMAX underwater film you are referring to? The sharpest once I have seen were shot on 2/3" HDCAM camera! I am yet to see an underwater IMAX shot on 70mm that would resolve more than 1k underwater. The reason is very simple: curvature of field. The larger the image plane, the bigger out of focus corners. I encourage you to see Coral Reef Advanture, for example, and honestly say whether it is the scenery and Howard's camera work that you like or whether it is the image quality. In my view the image quality is shocking. I've seen sharper images shot on HDV (mainly because of smaller sensor size and therefore smaller effect of field curvature). I still liked the film, though.

Unless you have a dedicated U/W wide angle lens, like Nikonos 15mm f/2.8, I am not aware of any optics that are able to adapt terrestial rectiliner beyond 90 degrees FOV and resolve more than 1k on the edges. Sure, you can design large and heavy achromatic doublet, like Phenom, but the loss of contrast and edge resolution are substantial and often negate any advantages. And, this is much easier thing to do with a small image sensor. A nightmare with a large one.

Your sensor resolution accounts for nothing underwater. You can shoot 28k, if you like, and the final result will be limited to the optics which, I can assure you, won't resolve more than 1k beyond 100 degree FOV.

I certainly see no benefit of FF35 for underwater unless you somehow adapt the Nikonos 15mm f/2.8 or design your own.

 

[Andrew Walker]

On the subject of projection and frame size I think some people are getting a little confused as to what happens with a projector and how many things need to be setup for a good show. If the image on the screen appears to be too low as in framing of the shot or to high then its a framing problem inside the gate. Most projection booths don't run the alinement film that they should, (RP-40). So you have a shot on the screen that can sometimes show you things that you weren't suppose to see, like boom mics and stuff like that. 1.85 or Flat films have way more room for this type of error as most filmmakers don't option for a 1.85 matte being put on the film. So many projectionist think the movie looks fine when in fact its framed up to high or to low.

If your seeing an image on the masking it could be a number of things. Either the masking wasn't adjusted right in the presents for that format or someone hit the projector with something moving it slightly out of alinement. It could also be that the aperture plate isn't in all the way. Someone said that they had a projector that had loose film in the gate causing the film to be out of focus. That could be the problem but most of the time you just get a lot of movement on the screen. If the film seems to go in and out of focus in only certain locations on screen then the theater there might have their lamp adjusted up way too high. This literally cooks the film warping it. So when its in the projector gate the film buckles back and forth.

In the LA area projection isn't always perfect. I frequently have to go and tell someone that something is wrong and watch them try and fix what I am seeing. But most of the time these people have no real training and its like watching a monkey trying to F%$# a football.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Canon 24mm f/1.4 MKII

Canon 24mm f/1.4 MKII

Tom,

You will be interested in the early test of the new Canon 24mm f/1.4 II. The news is not good, unfortunately. The lens is not even as good as the MK I, according to quite detailed and methodical tests:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This sort of defeats the purpose of the 21 Megapixels fo the 5D, although, it does get better around f/4....who cares?

This is a real bummer. I was hoping 5D II + 24mm f/1.4 II would be the ultimate combo for night time lapses, but from the test results it seems this lens is not in the same ball park as MP 14mm unless you stop it down to f/4-f/5.6. There does not seem to be any fast and sharp FF35 lens available, I'm afraid. :waaa:

I am going ahead with butchering EOS 50D to accept PL lenses before Red ships DSMC, I think :devil:

 

[Charles Angus]

I am going ahead with butchering EOS 50D to accept PL lenses before Red ships DSMC, I think :devil:

Sounds fun...

 

[Tom Lowe]

Pawel, have you considered chopping an old 5D instead of 50D, or do you have a reason for choosing the 50D?

 

[Daniel Browning]

You will be interested in the early test of the new Canon 24mm f/1.4 II. The news is not good, unfortunately. The lens is not even as good as the MK I, according to quite detailed and methodical tests...

Yeah, hopefully Bryan's unit is just out of tolerance.

This sort of defeats the purpose of the 21 Megapixels fo the 5D, although, it does get better around f/4....who cares?

I'm not sure I agree here. Bryan's site doesn't have a comparison between the 1ds3 and 5d using this lens, but I can assure you from personal experience (and Bryan himself, actually, since I asked him before I bought the 5d2) that the 24mm benefits significantly from the additional resolution. The MTF is low, sure, but there is a lot more low contrast detail to pull out even in the extreme corners wide open.

I am going ahead with butchering EOS 50D to accept PL lenses before Red ships DSMC, I think :devil:

That would be really neat.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I wonder how FF35 and windowed S35 would cut together? Could we do that? Perhaps make the switch from scene to scene and carefully pick the lenses being used? Especially when only outputting 2k or 1080p... does that sound dumb?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure it could be done, especially if everything will end up at a lower resolution like 2K or 1080P for mastering.

It may make a D.I. session a little more complicated with different format sizes, that's all, but that's not a big deal. I've done 2K D.I.'s with 1080P material slipped in there, for example.

I was thinking along the same lines, that perhaps you could use cine lenses on the 6K FF35 camera and end up roughly in a 5K-ish windowed mode, and then use a still camera lens for when you wanted to shoot 6K full-frame, like for a wide shot or an efx plate.

Of course, if you are going to switch between PL-mount cine lenses and still camera lenses, it would be easier if they all had the same mount rather than switch the camera's mount.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Rudi, with all due respect, which particular IMAX underwater film you are referring to?

Pawel,

Interestingly, I wasn't referring to underwater IMAX films, I haven't seen one of those in a long time as I find them insufferable for the most part, with the cheesy music, the worn out visual references and the overall feel good approach, which I understand is somewhat of a neccessity for a medium that relies on attracting families to its theathers, but still, great but no thanks for me. I, of course, could be wrong when it come to Howard Hall or others, but I haven't found the overwhelming need to go see things titled "Coral Reef Adventures" or the like in a long time. My last underwater IMAX film was "Ocean Men", and that's just because I worked as a consultant on it as the subject matter is very close to me. It was shot by Bob Talbot (don't know what optics were used) and it looked, for the most part, really good, even the scenes in very deep water.

My comments were aimed more at the POSSIBLE solutions based on still lenses being rehoused, something rare but not uncommon and which could experience a jolt of a kick start once the FF Epic is released. Those lenses could potentially fill a not so small niche and be sold for reasonably cheaper prices than something developed by Zeiss, Cooke and the like.

Now, in terms of underwater use specifics, I can relate to your pursuit of perfection in lenses, having been like that myself, but I will say that I started producing better images and films once I stopped (ok, maybe not stopped, but decreased) worrying about resolution and sharpness and concentrated more on getting the best possible shots to serve the story I was trying to tell. I also started enjoying music again a few years ago when I stopped obsessing about the fidelity of the my never-ending do it yourself system and started listening to MP3's on an Ipod Now, for what is worth, resolution is not as important to me as angle of coverage, so if forced to shoot between a lens that will produce stunningly sharp images edge to edge but won't allow me to fit everything I need to fit into the frame at a given distance from the subject and another lens that will indeed give me the image I'm looking for but not look so sharp, although acceptably so for 99% of viewers, especially for TV bound projects, then I will choose the latter without a hint of hesitation. But to each his own. I just plainly refuse to go underwater with a maximum filed of vision of 70 degrees or so. But again, to each his own.

And as for the adored Nikonos 15mm lens, to add to what I already said about it in another thread somewhere, I will say that that type of technology can be replicated by a capable company or technician nowadays WITHOUT A DOUBT, and better yet, starting with much more modern, better still optics than the original Nikon 20mm upon which the Nikonos 15mm is based. So, I for one, I'm looking forward to all the wide angle possibilities that no doubt will become available, even if slowly at first, once the FF Epic is out there.

My two devaluated pennies,

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Then you get to shoot FF35 when you need the added FOV and shoot windowed S35 the rest of the time which is a bit less resolution, though that may also be a good thing, and you use the sweet spot of the lenses. Interesting stuff.

Have a lot of you guys considered the Zeiss ZF lenses? I remember reading about them compared to Super Speeds and they actually performed slightly better or equal in sharpness... also the focus ring is supposed to be quite spectacular for still lenses... plus RPlenses removes the steps in the aperture and fits them with permanent gears and hoods... sure they won't fly with certain customers but something to consider given their cost and performance, right?

 

[richard peterson]

the pictures from the D3x (24mp) and nikons 14-24mm F/2.8 are incredible.

The 14-24 extreme edge sharpness is through the roof even wide open.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...4-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1

Rumor is nikon has had the D3x on the drawing board for sometime and their new lenses seem to resolve really nice with the 24mp sensor (perfect fit); Its like the knew this would be an issue and got it right.

I thank the new nikon zooms and zeiss zf primes are the way to go if you want the most out of the FF35. But only time will tell... Plus they are cheap

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel, have you considered chopping an old 5D instead of 50D, or do you have a reason for choosing the 50D?

5D will be the next patient in the queue. :devil:

I wonder how FF35 and windowed S35 would cut together? Could we do that? Perhaps make the switch from scene to scene and carefully pick the lenses being used? Especially when only outputting 2k or 1080p... does that sound dumb?

I've done it here:

http://achtel.com/production/Grace under Pressure 1152x480 25fps 7Mbps.mov

The time lapse sequences are FF35, the topside is S35 (Red One) and underwater is 2/3" HDCAM. As David mentioned, a little bit more work in post, but overall gives you more creative flexibility, depending on the best format for the shot.

Have a lot of you guys considered the Zeiss ZF lenses?

I'd use ZFs or, C/Y Zeiss for some shots. They not very fast compared to modern cine glass. But having two different mounts is not workable for me. I would need two separate cameras and the shoots I mostly do don't lend themselves for two separate rigs. Changing mounts in the field is out of question. Having universal mount, like IMS introduces all sorts of variables in FFD. I need one single mount and perfectly collimated set of lenses and, if I have a choice, it is the PL.