Lens Baby versus After Effects

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hi there. . .

I took #791 to a camera store today and tried out the Lens Baby Composer. While working with it, getting some fairly cool effects, I couldn't help but wonder if it might not be able to get the exact same effects, with the benefit of even better control and glass using After Effects? Not having After Effects, I'm not sure.

Is this line of thinking nonsense? Or is it reality?

Thanks!

Stephen

 

[ericyoung]

You can probably get very similar looking effects in AE, but Lens Baby will be fast and organic - AE will be a lot of work to make it look organic.

 

[D Fuller]

Hi there. . .

I took #791 to a camera store today and tried out the Lens Baby Composer. While working with it, getting some fairly cool effects, I couldn't help but wonder if it might not be able to get the exact same effects, with the benefit of even better control and glass using After Effects? Not having After Effects, I'm not sure.

Is this line of thinking nonsense? Or is it reality?

Thanks!

Stephen

Like most things, the fake is not the same as the real thing. The thing that you can do with lenses that shift the focal plane out of parallel is change what's sharp, not just change what's blurry. Blurry is easy. Sharpness that passes through the frame in a non-paralel way is something different. And while you can blur things in AE, you can't make them sharp if they're not in focus to begin with.

See how the middle of this frame is sharp from right in front of the camera back to the frond door of the house? This is shot at f:4.0 with a 45mm Hartblei Super-Rotator (better glass, but the same idea as a lensbaby).

You can also use it to keep things sharp where there's not enough depth-of-field to do the job. In the frame below, there wasn't nearly enough depth of field to keep all three of the pieces sharp. Swinging the focal plane fixed that. This was probably at f:4 using an 80mm Super-Rotator.

Also, if you don't own AE, it's not a quick learn. If you want to fake the blur effects, there's an easy preset in Red Giant's Magic Bullet Looks that might get you by for a lot less time and money.

 

[Jake Bastian]

Like most things, the fake is not the same as the real thing. The thing that you can do with lenses that shift the focal plane out of parallel is change what's sharp, not just change what's blurry. Blurry is easy. Sharpness that passes through the frame in a non-paralel way is something different. And while you can blur things in AE, you can't make them sharp if they're not in focus to begin with.

...

Also, if you don't own AE, it's not a quick learn. If you want to fake the blur effects, there's an easy preset in Red Giant's Magic Bullet Looks that might get you by for a lot less time and money.

The other thing to consider is the cost of the lens baby, or even renting a tilt shift lens may be very little compared to the amount of time you'll spend in after effects trying to animate something that looks organic, but will never quite achieve the same look as the real thing.

If you know in advance that you're going to need the extra depth of field or the tilt shift look you may as well save the time (money) and bring one on set.

 

[D Fuller]

The other thing to consider is the cost of the lens baby, or even renting a tilt shift lens may be very little compared to the amount of time you'll spend in after effects trying to animate something that looks organic, but will never quite achieve the same look as the real thing.

If you know in advance that you're going to need the extra depth of field or the tilt shift look you may as well save the time (money) and bring one on set.

Jake is right here. If you do think about renting, try to find the Clairmont set. I love those lenses. The whole system is adapted from view camera mechanics (or at least it operates like it was) and the moves it can provide are just beautiful. There's a range of lenses from about 16mm up to 135mm, I think, and they are all good medium-format glass.

And with a tilt-shift system, you can operate the shifts during the shot. It gets really addicting.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Okay. . . I need to be real. . . cool enough. I love being real!

Now, I'm using Canon glass with the Birger mount and just love the look and system. The question is this: Is the Lens Baby capable of getting cinema-quality results?

Thanks much.

Stephen

 

[Matt W.]

I tried to do this in AE and it's not just a matter of emulating tilt/shift. The lensbaby has a uniquely weird effect that distorts the image from like a 3d-projection standpoint, and the shape of the bokeh changes pretty dramatically across the frame. To do this believably takes a LOT of work AND you have to shoot deep focus in the first place. I spent days on roto alone to generate depth maps for seconds of footage.

The video I did this for is real a piece of shit (I would know; I directed it), but for reference only:

http://vimeo.com/19445097

The POV shots between 1:35 and 1:50 were done in AE (I did a lot more that aren't in that video, too, but they look similar). The stuff immediately after (in the bathroom) is real lensbaby footage, excepting the one shot of the hand on the toilet seat, which is really half-assed AE.

All that said, if what you want is a tilt/shift effect...doing it in post might be worth it. Fincher did it in post to amazing effect in Social Network. Generating basic depth maps and stuff for miniature effects is generally really easy, much easier than trying to composite into footage shot with tilt/shift.

Optically, the lensbaby is a piece of shit, btw. It's $400 for a magnifying glass glued onto a bellows and a lens mount. Is the resulting footage "cinema quality?" Janusz Kaminski thought so. It has poor resolution and contrast, but that's the point. The sharp parts are clear enough to read as sharp, but the lens has every aberration known to science and I'd be afraid to see one pointed at a test chart. It's for crazy distorted, totally out there effects with just a tiny bit of the frame clear and sharp. If image quality from a technical perspective enters the equation, nix the lensbaby. I think it's cool, though, if gimmicky by now.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Thanks much, Matt. . . I am now thinking I just need a nice TS lens. Too bad they are so dang expensive!!!

Stephen

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Okay. . . I need to be real. . . cool enough. I love being real!

Now, I'm using Canon glass with the Birger mount and just love the look and system. The question is this: Is the Lens Baby capable of getting cinema-quality results?

Thanks much.

Stephen[/QUOTE

No Lens baby is prosumer at best and not really a tilt shift.

 

[paulherrin]

I would definitely go with the tilt-shift. I do visual effects compositing, and there are limitations, even with unlimited time, as to what's practical to do in post. You can never get the same creativity as what happens on location with a tilt-shift, and you can't really duplicate the organic things that happen. In any case, after effects would not be my first choice to do it with. But really, it's just a real pain from my perspective, which really means a lot of time and a lot of $$. And you don't even get that much out of it at the end. My mantra is if it can be shot... shoot it. Obviously there are exceptions... this isn't really one of them. An exception for this technique MIGHT be an already planned vfx shot to intercut. in which case, i would shoot both ways to be safe, and to get reference/creative control. It is much more practical on almost all levels to shoot with a tilt-shift when going for that effect just as a general rule of thumb.

For most visual effects shots, you would probably want another camera rolling with deep focus, or else take some additional clean plates or takes with a normal lens, still deep focus. You will probably want to shoot charts as well for each shot/setup, at least a lens distortion chart. If it's a visual effects driven film, I would do a lot of testing with someone who knows what they're doing and see what you want to do, a lot will depend on what kind of stuff you are doing. If you're just adding things into the image, I would mostly say shoot it with the TS. If you're completely changing a good portion of the image, doing set extensions, things like that, then I would not. Otherwise, for regular cinematography, you just don't want to fool with all that unnecessary post work and lose that much control over the look and feel of the project.

The Lens Baby may be okay for DSLR's, I'm not sure how it would hold up on RED. Depends on what you want, you need to test it. It is possible to modify a lens on your own for tilt/shift purposes. Otherwise, I would rent and/or save up for a decent one, or just go ahead and grab the Lens Baby for now, because I think those are pretty darn cheap, if it will work for you, and then upgrade when you can, its better than nothing and not much lost. Do make sure you're happy with it and able to use it for your purposes, whatever you get.

 

[Matt W.]

I agree 100% with everything Paul is saying, excepting the idea that the lensbaby is "good enough" for dSLRs, but not red. It was used in an Oscar-nominated (for cinematography) feature shot on 35mm; it's fine for what it does on any medium. It produces a technically abysmal image. That's the point. It's like saying a variety of diffusion isn't good for a high-end camera because it softens the image and lowers resolution. But that's the point; it's meant to. I've used the lensbaby on red and it works just great, btw. The sharp part is sharp enough to read. But it gives a rather gimmicky look and is in an entirely different category from tilt/shift. The idea that items like this are either "professional" or "consumer" is laughable; if you're getting paid to use it, it's a piece of professional gear. If you're paying, it's consumer gear. Your movie will be "professional" once it makes you a profit, it doesn't matter if you shoot on iPhone or IMAX.

I'm not sure I see the value of tilt/shift for cinema as much as I do for stills. When I use tilt, shift, rise, fall, etc. it's almost entirely to increase apparent depth of field (Scheimpflug principle) and correct for perspective. In order to correct perspective, the camera has to be aimed at the horizon. I mean you could do this for a couple shots to get a flat look but movies are different from photography in that perspective distortion is natural to the medium and not an unpleasant artifact (I'm sorry dSLR-shooters, but I am not impressed with your hdr, ultra-wides, and lack of regard for tilt/shift lenses). So tilt/shift can be used for a psychological cue (optically in A Serious Man; in post so as to facilitate compositing in crowds in Social Network) or if you need to do a split diopter shot a little more seamlessly, but it's a rental item for occasional use. For architectural photography you need tilt/shift on every shot...for movies, I don't see it so much. I can't imagine a tilt/shift lens being useful for more than a couple trick shots or scenes.

 

[paulherrin]

have you seen the assassination of jesse james? there's some very sweet lens effects in there, i know they put some gels and things on the lens, and i'm pretty sure i remember some tilt/shift, but that could have been the gels.

as far as the lensbaby system, i've never used it, so i can't really recommend it either way from experience. from the specs, if you're looking for a high quality lens, that's obviously not it. for tilt/shift, you may want a higher quality lens. for other effects, or even for that, you may not. that's up to you, but i would test it out and see. and the lensbaby does look like it's at least worth what it costs, not much of a risky buy even if you don't really like it.

 

[Brandon J. Garcia]

Like most things, the fake is not the same as the real thing. The thing that you can do with lenses that shift the focal plane out of parallel is change what's sharp, not just change what's blurry. Blurry is easy. Sharpness that passes through the frame in a non-paralel way is something different. And while you can blur things in AE, you can't make them sharp if they're not in focus to begin with.

See how the middle of this frame is sharp from right in front of the camera back to the frond door of the house? This is shot at f:4.0 with a 45mm Hartblei Super-Rotator (better glass, but the same idea as a lensbaby).

You can also use it to keep things sharp where there's not enough depth-of-field to do the job. In the frame below, there wasn't nearly enough depth of field to keep all three of the pieces sharp. Swinging the focal plane fixed that. This was probably at f:4 using an 80mm Super-Rotator.

Also, if you don't own AE, it's not a quick learn. If you want to fake the blur effects, there's an easy preset in Red Giant's Magic Bullet Looks that might get you by for a lot less time and money.

MAGIC BULLET, BOO!!!