Nice little reality check on lens quality

[Christoffer Glans]

Came across this which shows quite nicely how the quality of a lens in an actual film is pretty hard to spot.

 

[Phil Holland]

Start here Christoffer:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94289-SALT-III-High-Speed-Lens-Shootout-quot-WFO-quot-Results

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yeah, I just thought it was a funny video on the subject :smiley:

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Complete non-sense. This guy doesn't know anything about optics or why cinema lenses are important in the correct environment... cinema style productions.

He's funny yes, but he's pushing an agenda that is completely incorrect.

This guy is certainly a talented youtube video creator and visual effects artist... however he decides to act as a knowledgeable authority and push an agenda with little concern for due diligence or research. As someone who tries to run an online film school, I would expect a little bit more educational information over comedic entertainment with no value. He is certainly funny, but it is done with disrespect to cinematographers. I could literally go on for days regarding how he fails at this attempt to discredit one of the most important tools we use. He is part of the 'good enough' youtube generation. His misinformation is the reason we have to fight producers for the gear we need to do our jobs with greater success, speed and ease. The overall result is a better image, a faster shooting pace, and less mistakes from the camera department. As a producer, how can you not invest in that?

Next week, he is going to compare a $10 bottle of wine to a $1,000 bottle of wine, but the tasters have to eat a spoonful of garlic before each taste. See?!?! They can't tell the difference!
I don't dispute some of his points, in fact I agree with some of them, but the test is not designed well and the context of when and why we should use expensive or inexpensive lenses is strangely absent. This results in very misleading conclusions which further the agenda of his test.

 

[Elsie N]

Complete non-sense. This guy doesn't know anything about optics or why cinema lenses are important in the correct environment... cinema style productions.

He's funny yes, but he's pushing an agenda that is completely incorrect.

This guy is certainly a talented youtube video creator and visual effects artist... however he decides to act as a knowledgeable authority and push an agenda with little concern for due diligence or research. As someone who tries to run an online film school, I would expect a little bit more educational information over comedic entertainment with no value. He is certainly funny, but it is done with disrespect to cinematographers. I could literally go on for days regarding how he fails at this attempt to discredit one of the most important tools we use. He is part of the 'good enough' youtube generation. His misinformation is the reason we have to fight producers for the gear we need to do our jobs with greater success, speed and ease. The overall result is a better image, a faster shooting pace, and less mistakes from the camera department. As a producer, how can you not invest in that?

Next week, he is going to compare a $10 bottle of wine to a $1,000 bottle of wine, but the tasters have to eat a spoonful of garlic before each taste. See?!?! They can't tell the difference!
I don't dispute some of his points, in fact I agree with some of them, but the test is not designed well and the context of when and why we should use expensive or inexpensive lenses is strangely absent. This results in very misleading conclusions which further the agenda of his test.

Interestingly, that test has already been done. A few years ago, China held a wine tasting comparing wines with a high reputation with some young wines that had been treated with an electrical current. The young wines did very well in the judging.

The Chinese weren't the first to do this... IIRC the French were the first to experiment with this process. But of course they wouldn't allow the procedure to compete with their own wine-making tradition. Since the Chinese have no western style wine-making tradition, it may have found favor in China. (I don't drink wine so do not keep up with who's doing what.)

Machines are getting very good at making things of very good quality inexpensively.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Complete non-sense. This guy doesn't know anything about optics or why cinema lenses are important in the correct environment... cinema style productions.

He's funny yes, but he's pushing an agenda that is completely incorrect.

This guy is certainly a talented youtube video creator and visual effects artist... however he decides to act as a knowledgeable authority and push an agenda with little concern for due diligence or research. As someone who tries to run an online film school, I would expect a little bit more educational information over comedic entertainment with no value. He is certainly funny, but it is done with disrespect to cinematographers. I could literally go on for days regarding how he fails at this attempt to discredit one of the most important tools we use. He is part of the 'good enough' youtube generation. His misinformation is the reason we have to fight producers for the gear we need to do our jobs with greater success, speed and ease. The overall result is a better image, a faster shooting pace, and less mistakes from the camera department. As a producer, how can you not invest in that?

Next week, he is going to compare a $10 bottle of wine to a $1,000 bottle of wine, but the tasters have to eat a spoonful of garlic before each taste. See?!?! They can't tell the difference!
I don't dispute some of his points, in fact I agree with some of them, but the test is not designed well and the context of when and why we should use expensive or inexpensive lenses is strangely absent. This results in very misleading conclusions which further the agenda of his test.

I happen to disagree. Of course I have a horse in this race but the advantages of lighter, faster, stabilized lenses are undeniable for a lot of genres. Some scenarios like unmanned areal are not achievable with cine lenses no matter how much money you throw at it. They are just too bulky and heavy and require tons of motors, cables, power etc. etc. There goes your setup speed.
Maybe not for theatrical features but what percentage is that? 2%, 5% tops
BTW have you noticed the trend in camera design- always lighter, smaller. Still lenses are a natural companion that makes common sense. And common sense always prevails in the end....

 

[Phil Holland]

I happen to disagree. Of course I have a horse in this race but the advantages of lighter, faster, stablilized lenses are undeniable for a lot of genres. Sone scenarios like unmanned areal are not achievable with cine lenses no matter how much money you throw at it. They ar ejust too bulky and heavy and require tons of motors, cables, power etc. etc. There goes your setup speed.
Maybe not for theatrical features but what percentage is that? 2%, 5% tops

There is a place for both, but there is a reason that motion picture lenses exist. And I have and use a good amount of both still and motion glass.

So many electronic autofocus still lenses slip focus, exhibit image shift, have "horrid" astigmatism correction, aren't color matched, have massive notably color/copy variation, etc.....

We live in tremendous times where we can use nearly every lens to make a motion picture. However. Ignoring the faults, features, and characteristics (not to mention just day to day production needs) of both "ideals" is just silly.

I'm on Ryan's side with this. And in reality. Image first. In these times of larger screens, 4K-8K production, and discerning clients/studios/productions it's important to remember what you're actually doing.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Unfortunately the (most expensive) cine lenses don't cut the "image first" rule because other than the lowly CPs and Xenons they CLIP badly your precious 6K and 8K "productions" haha...
And no- you don't need an "expert" to see that....

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I happen to disagree. Of course I have a horse in this race but the advantages of lighter, faster, stabilized lenses are undeniable for a lot of genres. Some scenarios like unmanned areal are not achievable with cine lenses no matter how much money you throw at it. They are just too bulky and heavy and require tons of motors, cables, power etc. etc. There goes your setup speed.
Maybe not for theatrical features but what percentage is that? 2%, 5% tops
BTW have you noticed the trend in camera design- always lighter, smaller. Still lenses are a natural companion that makes common sense. And common sense always prevails in the end....

There is a reason all types of lenses are made. There is an appropriate time to use cinema lenses and there are certainly inappropriate time to use cinema lenses. I own cinema lenses, but don't think if I were taking photos on vacation in Europe, I'd bring them along. They wouldn't be the right choice. This goes for all the videographer/ wedding shooter types that drool over these lenses with envy. It's like wanting to drive a F1 car when in reality you work in a rally car world. I'm not saying F1 is better than Rally, I'm just saying there are two different car types for two different races.

For one, please refrain from making absolute statements like unmanned aerial is not possible with cinema lenses. I've done it several times. It requires a larger drone than say a Phantom or DJI Inspire, but it's completely possible. We fly Red Epics/Dragons or c300's with cinema lenses all the time. Of course there are larger cinema lenses which you might be right about, but DP's will pick lenses that fit the payload requirements.


Cinema lenses are by far the fastest and most reliable way to work on typical filmmaking set. It's because they are optimized for it. Photography lenses are great for photography and some forms of videography because they are optimal for that kind of work. The failure here is to paint all lenses with the same brush and make these incorrect conclusions.

There are amazing photography lenses out there, that is for sure. Zeiss ZF's, Leica M's, etc, etc. But there are considerations not incorporated in these lenses that a camera assistant or DP would want or expect to have. You can make a film with photography lenses, and you can take photographs with cinema lenses.... but should you?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?273326-Article-Why-We-Need-Cinema-Lenses

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

This reminds me of the film/digital discussion few years ago. And the still/motion debate before 5D2. One can certainly cling on to the old ways- just don't be surprised when one is left behind. Kodak comes to mind. Film stock went. Expensive cameras- gone. Now It's time for expensive lenses to go. Just the matter of time...

 

[Scot Yount]

When this lens test first appeared, I was tempted to start a thread on it here on RU, but thought.....naw. HaHa. It is a good subject. He is funny, but that isn't really helpful. I know this has been said before, but somebody much more creative than I once said "Cameras don't make pictures, lenses do. Cameras just record them."

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Complete non-sense. This guy doesn't know anything about optics or why cinema lenses are important in the correct environment... cinema style productions.

He's funny yes, but he's pushing an agenda that is completely incorrect.

This guy is certainly a talented youtube video creator and visual effects artist... however he decides to act as a knowledgeable authority and push an agenda with little concern for due diligence or research. As someone who tries to run an online film school, I would expect a little bit more educational information over comedic entertainment with no value. He is certainly funny, but it is done with disrespect to cinematographers. I could literally go on for days regarding how he fails at this attempt to discredit one of the most important tools we use. He is part of the 'good enough' youtube generation. His misinformation is the reason we have to fight producers for the gear we need to do our jobs with greater success, speed and ease. The overall result is a better image, a faster shooting pace, and less mistakes from the camera department. As a producer, how can you not invest in that?

Next week, he is going to compare a $10 bottle of wine to a $1,000 bottle of wine, but the tasters have to eat a spoonful of garlic before each taste. See?!?! They can't tell the difference!
I don't dispute some of his points, in fact I agree with some of them, but the test is not designed well and the context of when and why we should use expensive or inexpensive lenses is strangely absent. This results in very misleading conclusions which further the agenda of his test.

I think the points are already made in that video that the benefits of the cine lenses are primarily how they handle during a shoot, like pulling focus and being correct etc. etc.
But the point I think is the most valid is that it's about how these lenses look when people watch movies on a screen after color grading and finishing. Especially comparing the Ultra primes to the $5000 in which both are cine-lenses but the difference in price is almost absurd.

It's about budget. If you have a big budget then why the hell not, but if you don't there are too many "testers" who choose to show just that, focus charts, which aren't really valid if you want to keep a low budget but still reach a certain level of quality.
If you don't need super high speed lenses then there's no reason to use the Ultra primes, there are far better options that free up money for other aspects of the production.

As for discrediting cinematographers I don't think you watched the whole video. The points are made why cine-lenses are valid for productions and I don't think he is wrong in criticizing the nitpicking of details when talking about lenses among cinematographers.
Also he is not a successful youtuber, but one of the most successful ones and he has made productions outside youtube as well. I think we are past the time when youtube is considered amateur-hour. There are productions made for youtube that far surpass most shit I've seen in "respected cinema".

The bottom line he is making is that when it all comes down to the final result, there are very few who can actually spot the difference between the lenses. Of course there's a place for cine-lenses and their reason to exist, but the optical result of the final image is very close to each other in real world images, without focus charts.

If there was a very obvious difference optically between them then why can't cinematographers spot what lenses that were used when watching a film? So often I hear questions about "what lenses did they use?", why does it matter? I could say that we used master primes on a shoot shot on cheap canon glass and you would probably believe that I did.

What this creates is an elitist society of cinematographers who can brag about lens choices instead of sharing why they reach the level of quality that they reach. If it was all because of the lens, then why bother having a cinematographer? I have worked with both cheap lenses up to lenses like the ultra primes and while I of course want cine-lenses for a professional production I haven't really found that much of a difference between the cine lenses I've used based on pure optical quality.

If I can create similar looking images with still lenses worth $3000 to that of the ultra primes and if I were able to have a focus puller on my set who could handle the still lenses short focus throw and all other problems of them in a pure practical way then I garantuee you I could fool most trained eyes that we used super expensive glass.

I would actually say that as long as you use good glass, not the super cheap ones, but like the L-series from Canon or the Art-series of Sigma, the lenses are one of less important tools of a cinematographer. It may seem controversial, but I think the most important tools today is a good sensor technology and what type of lights you use. The lights are far more important than anything else, the lights are more important then even having a camera. If you light a scene really good you can actually shoot with your mobile phone and get images better than some achieve with a Red Epic. What defines a good cinematographer is composition and lights, not camera or lenses.

 

[Vance Colvig]

All tools have limitations. A skilled operator knows what they are and acts accordingly.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

All tools have limitations. A skilled operator knows what they are and acts accordingly.

Exactly and a skilled operator can use lesser tools with better precision, not all productions can afford the super high end lenses.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

It's about budget. If you have a big budget then why the hell not, but if you don't there are too many "testers" who choose to show just that, focus charts, which aren't really valid if you want to keep a low budget but still reach a certain level of quality.
If you don't need super high speed lenses then there's no reason to use the Ultra primes, there are far better options that free up money for other aspects of the production.

I own a nice set of well maintained Super Speeds. But when I shoot a TVC I rent mainly Masters and lose by choice the rental money my Super Speed set would make. There is a distinct difference between theses lenses which does in deed matter. There is a certain standard in TVC land and there is a reason why most of TVCs are shot on Alexa and Dragon and not with DSLRs. Same applies for lenses. The clip is funny though. But the massage is totally wrong and uneducated.

Hans

 

[Phil Holland]

Similar relevance.

Also a decent video on how to slate.

 

[Alan Peterson]

Exactly and a skilled operator can use lesser tools with better precision, not all productions can afford the super high end lenses.

True. It's when you have a bunch of money sunk into cast and crew when it becomes super important to nail focus on every take and come away with footage that looks superb across the whole frame in all shooting conditions. Good cine lenses are a must for high-end productions, but it's a real waste not to be able to work proficiently with the multitude of much cheaper (and often great-looking) still lenses out there.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I own a nice set of well maintained Super Speeds. But when I shoot a TVC I rent mainly Masters and lose by choice the rental money my Super Speed set would make. There is a distinct difference between theses lenses which does in deed matter. There is a certain standard in TVC land and there is a reason why most of TVCs are shot on Alexa and Dragon and not with DSLRs. Same applies for lenses. The clip is funny though. But the massage is totally wrong and uneducated.

Hans

I don't think a lot of people would see that difference though. If you put finished scenes back to back with two sets of glass you are probably not going to notice the difference, even if you are experienced. I think that is really the point of what he tries to show, that us professionals might see some details and differences between different types of glass but in the end, when you show it to an audience or the public, no one will probably see the difference. It's a very strange kind of choice to choose between similar looking glass and not choosing the less expensive set. I mean, as a cinematographer wouldn't you be interested in having better set design, make up, props and lightning? Some of those might benefit the extra bump in budget if you loose it on the expensive glass. It might even be a better investment to get that bump to improve makeup, get an extra pair of lights etc.

Then of course there's lenses like the HAWK Anamorphic that are made with imperfections to give a certain look, but that's not the thing we are talking about here. This is about quality lenses that reduce imperfections and that some inexpensive lenses look similar or the same as super expensive ones.

As for what camera they use, that's another discussion, this is only about lights. There's of course a big difference between cameras and even if you get them to look similar in the end, it's also about what camera gives the best capabilities for post.

True. It's when you have a bunch of money sunk into cast and crew when it becomes super important to nail focus on every take and come away with footage that looks superb across the whole frame in all shooting conditions. Good cine lenses are a must for high-end productions, but it's a real waste not to be able to work proficiently with the multitude of much cheaper (and often great-looking) still lenses out there.

Absolutely, I'm not really disputing this and I don't think he is disputing that either. He is only stating that the image quality is almost the same across them all. But speaking about only cine-glass, it's obvious that the differences between the $5000 cine lenses and the $15000 is academic and not really that relevant to a real production. As long as you have cine-glass housing to nail your focus correctly then I don't think there's much reason for using the super expensive ones.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Though, I'm a bit of a devils advocate in this because I really love the Leica Summilux-C series. If you are going to shoot a lot of fine details and wide open there might be a point to use fast lenses with little to no CA which is the best thing about the Summilux-C series. But for most gigs I don't own a set of cines because I came from still photography before using Canon lenses so the best lens in my own possession is the 24-70mm 2.8L. A music video I directed recently was mistaken for using either Cooke or Master primes, so I'm quite happy that my zoom can fool even experienced cinematographers. :smiley:

Here's some shots from that:

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

Chritsopher, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point a little bit by posting stills. I think we all agree that the glass in pretty much any lens these days is good enough to capture a still image under perfect conditions. It's during motion, both subjects moving and lens elements moving in a rack focus, and imperfect scenarios, that the cheaper lenses fall apart. Can you post the video that these stills were pulled from so we can see these shots in motion?