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 :)

FF35 Cine Glass: Get Ready

Fully agree with you, David.

Let's see what lenses we can get and then decide on the format. At this stage I don't see better lenses than UPs and MPs (if you like primes). They perform superbly wide open, they are plenty sharp and the mechanics make the job repeatable and efficient. Give me an equivalent set of lenses for FF35 image size and I will have a compeling reason to shoot FF35 or even 645.

Knowing how expensive and difficult it is to make good cine lenses, I am skeptical that we will see anything as good as Zeiss cine lenses covering full FF35 or 645 frame. Until we have a good selection of such lenses, shooting format larger than S35 will remain more of a specialty, in my opinion.
 
Well, in a sense, the larger the format, with more resolution, the lower the MTF of the lens can be because the format itself naturally can capture more fine details. Hence why large format movie cameras can get away with fairly ordinary optics sometimes and still deliver lots of fine detail.

My issue is more the mechanics of manual focus-pulling, barrel rotation, focus marks, etc., all the things needed to make the job of the focus-puller easier.
 
If I was an industrialist, I would start rehousing still FF35 lenses for cinema use.
 
For me, the larger sensor doesn't offer much, except possibly better dynamic range. Certainly there have been large format features in the past, like Dark Knight, Patton, Far and Away, 2001, etc. and those that have dealt with microscopic depth of field, like Barry Lyndon, but after seeing the 4k show at the RED booth, it's hard to justify all the trouble that using the large sensor would entail. I'm actually more intrigued by the 2/3" Scarlet offerings. But of course, someone could come up with a script that cries out for the larger sensor - I just can't think of what it would be right now.

Scope was thought up as a way to maximize the negative area and provide a widescreen experience to combat television. Stocks were slower and grainier then, and Scope offered increased quality over simply cropping the Academy area to 1.85. The larger gate in the projector also mean the image was brighter on the screen. But as stocks became less grainy and faster, it became Scope's visual artifacts that kept it alive as a format that says "big movie experience" to the audience. One might argue that choosing Scope means going 2.40 vs 1.85, but in my experience, both Scope and flat pictures are screened 2:1 in most all cinemas - they chop the sides off of Scope pictures, and the tops off of flat pictures so they can use just one screen with fixed masking in each theater. Only special theaters change their masking when switching formats - how many times have you been to a theater lately and seen the curtains move before the show? Kubrick was so distressed by seeing the sides cut off 2001 that he never shot a wide movie after that. And now with Scope, as David says, you have many of the same challenges as you would with FF35 - larger lenses, shallower depth of field, so that you try to get to T4 for interiors. With a fast FF35 sensor, this could be workable, but if it comes out as, say, ASA 320, then you will have to pour a lot more light onto the set to make that stop, which is more work. How would you shoot Zodiac this way? You have all those night scenes, and at F4 you'd lose the lights off the city. Here, the 2/3 sensor of the Viper makes sense.

Just some ramblings.
 
As usual, David is correct.
I'll chime in that I can tell you for sure there is a difference in perceived DOF between digital cinema and 35mm. We did a film vs. Red vs. D-21 test and the falloff looked steeper on the digital formats. Perhaps the thickness of film emulsion graduates the falloff? Or maybe the MTF in digital is higher by nature?
Regarding FF35...
I'll just say that if there is an incredible, perceivable difference on the big screen (which there could very well be) then many people will likely make use of the FF35 format. The ability to reposition will be useful, and plate work is a no-brainer. Cropping and using anamorphics is an interesting idea too. But David's points regarding the challenges of focus-pulling are well-founded. It's hard enough to get it right in S35. And it ALL shows up on the big screen. AND there is usually not a second, or third chance to get it right on a movie. A few soft shots and the AC is fired. It happens every day. Professional moviemaking is a warlike, ruthless business, and the AC is the point man. Having to light to a higher stop, or relying on the latitude of the sensor to underexpose may not be ideal for many DPs. Spending more money on lights means DPs will have fewer choices somewhere else down the line in the budget. And underexposure might negate some of the DR advantages of the larger sensor.
Also, DPs will want to know that a pro solution exists for optics, because if the day slows down due to focus issues, it's on their head too. If there is a large enough market, I'm sure Zeiss, Cooke, and Angeniuex will all step in. I'm also sure that Jim & Co. have something up their sleeve here. It would represent, for them, a better opportunity in the lens business than the current 35mm design where so many great solutions already exist.
Who knows? Maybe Arri and Panavision already have 65mm sized sensor cameras in the works, with quiet co-development in place with Cooke, Zeiss, Angeniuex, or Leica. And finally, Doug is right to point out that 2/3" is still a viable format that can produce stunning images and allow for very fast shooting, especially in episodic, where speed is essential. The choices could get very confusing soon.
But FF35 will certainly have its place.
My hedge is to get the S35 Epic-X trade in, and add a Scarlet FF35 for the plate work and the DR advantage, when necessary. I'll have it all in one case as "one camera". The interchangeable modules make this a very workable solution.
And we will all have to wait and see, as it's all speculation now...
Cheers,
Harry
 
Douglas Underdahl said:
One might argue that choosing Scope means going 2.40 vs 1.85, but in my experience, both Scope and flat pictures are screened 2:1 in most all cinemas - they chop the sides off of Scope pictures, and the tops off of flat pictures so they can use just one screen with fixed masking in each theater. Only special theaters change their masking when switching formats - how many times have you been to a theater lately and seen the curtains move before the show? Kubrick was so distressed by seeing the sides cut off 2001 that he never shot a wide movie after that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what theaters your going to but I know for a fact that modern theaters change the masking and aperture plates between 1.85 and 2.35. If its some hole in the wall theater that's be around forever run by mom and pop, then yes I would believe that everything is shown in a 2:1 aspect ratio. The very first theater I worked at did this and it was a hole in the wall. But all multiplexes and all of the single screens I've ever worked at or seen a movie at change their masking to fit the aperture of the show. Of course they change lenses as well, I just didn't put that in the original list because its a given.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
What lenses does the 4K Phantom 65 use, by the way? Mitch? That sensor is 51mm x 30mm, bigger than FF35, and essentially a 2X magnification factor to deal with, not 1.5X.
Click to expand...

David,
Phantom 65 is using lenses in Mamiya 645 standard,
and Super PL.
Resolution of sensor is 4096x2440.

Regards
 
Well, sure, they change the mask (aperture plate) at the projector, Andrew, but do they change the shape of the SCREEN by moving curtains, or flipping black panels up or down? I've only seen this happen a few times, most notably at the Zigfeld in NYC.
 
Douglas Underdahl said:
One might argue that choosing Scope means going 2.40 vs 1.85, but in my experience, both Scope and flat pictures are screened 2:1 in most all cinemas - they chop the sides off of Scope pictures, and the tops off of flat pictures so they can use just one screen with fixed masking in each theater. Only special theaters change their masking when switching formats - how many times have you been to a theater lately and seen the curtains move before the show?
Click to expand...

I don't think they crop 2.35:1 to 2:1. Even in little theatres in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa (where tickets cost $2) I was used to either the screen matting changing mechanically, or the curtains opening wider for the 2.35 stuff.

RE: FF vs S35... personally I'm betting the increase in surface area will mean A LOT, eg:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/iso-3200-comparison.htm

For example... say you are shooting some night wide angles. Focus pulling not critical.

Quite likely a 14-24mm Nikon at 2.8 recorded FF will yield a superior image to a set of T1.3 Master Primes recorded S35?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
One mistake that people make is thinking that digital cinema is somehow immune from the same laws as digital stills photography. The guys at c.com constantly seem to be arguing that cinema has nothing to do with digital stills -- that for whatever reason, cinema cameras are "special" and will be immune from the same laws as stills camera. I always scratch my head at that.

Sure, there are legacy issues where cinema companies and rental houses are really accustomed to cinema 35, but it's really only lenses and some capabilities of focus-pullers that are legacy. Most of the techniques and dollies and lights and accessories would be the same if you moved up to FF35. Distribution is heading toward all digital in a hurry. The only issue is glass, and as many have said, where there is a need, the market will oblige.

My question is: Why NOT shoot FF35?

We assume ASA/ISO ratings will increase, so DOF can be controlled. Would any serious stills shooter choose a Canon XTi over a 5D with its full frame? No way. So why would cinema shooters be any different? The image quality gain of FF35 Monstro over S35 should be significant.

Even if you want to shoot MPs, many of them nearly cover the whole FF35 anyway.
 
Most of the theaters in L.A. that I see movies at properly show 1.85 and 2.39 with adjustable screen masking. I've only run into a couple of smaller screens in older multiplexes that went for that "everything at 2:1" compromise. Once was at a cheap second-run theater in the Valley and the other time was at a shoebox screening room at the old AMC14 Century City, which doesn't exist anymore. Otherwise, most theaters show the proper difference between the two projection formats, though not all do it properly, i.e. widening out for the scope print. Some smaller spaces will lower a mask top & bottom for scope, and some split the difference, which isn't too bad either -- they open up the sides a little and close down the top & bottom a little for scope prints.
 
My experience with theaters that aren't in LA is just the opposite. I've been in theaters in Rotterdam, Avignon, NYC, NJ, PA, and Houston over the last few years and I often see a good percent of the the image projected onto the black sides and bottom masking. Theaters get close with standard, off the shelf projector lens focal lengths and projector gates, then make up for keystoning and different projection sizes with black masking at the screen. I remember seeing Who Framed Roger Rabbit and there was considerable business happening at the bottom of the screen that just disappeared. Also saw Road Warrior at the St Marks in NY (no longer exists) and they would flip a bottom mask up or down manually to go between Scope and flat. Spielberg also gave up on Scope, partly for this reason too, but went back to it for the last Indiana Jones because the first three were Scope and he wanted to keep the look.

Of course, what may be worse is poor focus, and the worst of all: turning down the voltage on the bulbs to save money on electricity. Boy, I've seen some dim movies, even at newer, big chain theaters.
 
Bruce Allen said:
Quite likely a 14-24mm Nikon at 2.8 recorded FF will yield a superior image to a set of T1.3 Master Primes recorded S35?
Click to expand...
Why do you think so?
 
I'm spoiled here in L.A. and love going out to see a movie, so I could never understand people who would rather watch it at home on DVD.

Then I did a movie in New Mexico, in Santa Fe, and while I was living there for three months, had to put up with some abysmal projection, constantly. It got very depressing. Tried to see "The Brothers Grimm" at the time, and the theater couldn't hold the film flat in the projector gate, so one half of the image was completely soft and telling them to check the focus didn't help.
 
Tom said:
Because 6K shot with Monstro FF35 on a Nikon 14-24G will probably compete with S35 Mysterium-X shot on MPs.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 14-24 is 2.5 stops slower. Assuming it covers 43mm image circle wide open, this results in sensor area of 1385mm2. Master Prime covers 31mm with the area 754mm2. Clearly, MP will provide better light sensitivity than the Nikon.

It will also provide higher range of DOF before diffraction limit. So, your control of DOF range is far greater with a MP than with Nikon. The Nikon won't be as shallow and won't be as deep as MP will let you.

Both lenses are very sharp, although from what I have seen MP seems to have an edge.

Not sure about flaring. The Nikkon, being a zoom, should flare significantly more than the MP.

Breathing? MPs do not breathe.

But, the main difference will boild down to how accurately you can focus them, and I have some prediction to the expected result here.

I'd love to use FF35 lenses when FF35 Epic becomes available. It is just I can't see any good candidates to replace MPs at this time.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'm spoiled here in L.A. and love going out to see a movie, so I could never understand people who would rather watch it at home on DVD.

Then I did a movie in New Mexico, in Santa Fe, and while I was living there for three months, had to put up with some abysmal projection, constantly. It got very depressing. Tried to see "The Brothers Grimm" at the time, and the theater couldn't hold the film flat in the projector gate, so one half of the image was completely soft and telling them to check the focus didn't help.
Click to expand...

Might have been an alignment problem with the lamp housing. Odd as it sounds I ran into this problem with the projectors at Melnitz Hall (UCLA Film School). Optically you would think a soft focus would be only due to an error in the gate or a problem with lens alignment to the the gate, but alignment of the xenon lamp to the gate is critical to sharp focus on the screen.
 
Wide Angle Options

Wide Angle Options

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