Nice little reality check on lens quality

[Christoffer Glans]

I tend to agree with Nick's general philosophy about glass: We are after lenses that actually have some god damn character. For example, Lomo Superspeeds, Lomo Anamorphic Square Fronts, etc. Vintage glass is certainly a lot more interesting than Canon L glass and they help take the digital edge of the Red sensor, which is rather sharp.

I fully admit that my experience using high end modern cinema glass is limited, but I do think it's accurate to say that many modern high end options just don't look any different than dirt cheap Rokinons, etc. I would guess that most people would not be able to tell the difference between Master Primes and Canon L footage. They both look equally clinical and devoid of noticeable character. And I think that's what this YouTube video is essentially saying.

Take a look at this video by Shane Hurlbut, where he compares the Leica Summilux Cs to the Cooke S4s: https://vimeo.com/90168989

He seems to feel strongly that there is a clear night and day difference between the look of the lenses. Call me crazy but I'm just not seeing it. Yeah OK, the Cookes look a little less compressed, but so what? Maybe it's just becuase the internet compresses the shit out of video and makes any perceivable differences negligable, but I'd bet if he threw a Canon 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty into the mix it'd look the same.

I think people who spend $200k on a set of high end cinema lenses are crazy when there are MUCH more affordable vintage lens options out there that actually make your image look unique, chalk full of organic softness, interesting flares, colors, etc.

That's exactly it, if you want a specific set of glass you choose it for it's characteristics, not optical quality. If you need a clean, sharp, standard looking image it's hard to justify the cost of the super high end lenses. I would always use the high end lenses if there's a budget for it, no reason not to, but most work I do is low budget or mid budget and therefor I make do with what I have. The reactions to my work shows that people really can't tell the difference

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Just to add a little more fuel to the fire.... this is a lens comparison that has been on youtube for sometime between the Leica Summilux's, Master Primes and C.P2s. In my humble opinion the differences are minuscule and probably imperceptible to an audience. I showed it to a friend (who does not work in film) and he told me he could see no differences between the lenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2FmJXF_YS8

 

[Björn Benckert]

Just to add a little more fuel to the fire.... this is a lens comparison that has been on youtube for sometime between the Leica Summilux's, Master Primes and C.P2s. In my humble opinion the differences are minuscule and probably imperceptible to an audience. I showed it to a friend (who does not work in film) and he told me he could see no differences between the lenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2FmJXF_YS8

Possibly so, but all the 16 lenses in the MP's set and also the summilux-c set are super speeds, well matched, etc. How many lenses of the C.P2's are matching MP's in speed? Then also the build, close focus and so many other things differ. So one could argue that you need twice the amount of light to use CP'2... but then again wide open MP's is not really looking so good but it for sure saved a few night shoots that the C.P2's just could not cover, and in comparison to crew, lights, cast, things like post and marketing.... good glass is quite low cost.

But comparing EF to, for example, MP's is a bit complex, For EF the picture moves and shake around when you pull focus and they dont really work when working with filters and matteboxes simply because they are very sensitive for added weight or anything touching the lens while shooting, mostly because they are simply not robust enough and are made to pull focus electronic focus really fast to find the focus point and only hold it for a frame, not really what filming is about. But yes at a good stop and without any of the other distractions a EF lens can easily render results that out preforms the most costly cinema lenses on the market, especially on a sensor larger than S35.

Still, the expansive glass sure has it's use and in the end it's possible to shoot on what ever lens, down to a pinhole lens, so every one can make their choice which is good I think.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Bjorn... I agree with all the points you have just made... my only point was if we put aside all the issues you have made the quality per image is almost imperceptible to the untrained eye (a.k.a the audience).

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Bjorn... I agree with all the points you have just made... my only point was if we put aside all the issues you have made the quality per image is almost imperceptible to the untrained eye (a.k.a the audience).

We really are getting into the 'good enough' generation. My mother can't tell, nor would notice, if a film was presented in 16:9 or 4:3. The movie would end and you could ask her, "So was the screen rectangular or almost square?" and she'd not be able to tell you. You could ask her if the film was shot mainly on wide angle lenses, or if there were telephoto close ups, and she clearly wouldn't be able to tell you. You could ask her just about any question regarding the filmmaking process, and she'd be clueless to analyze it nor remember.

Does that mean everything was not worth doing if you can save money? I understand the logic above. And there are plenty of times when doing something (or not doing something) because the audience won't notice is worth it, such as classic cheats such as the 'planet-with-two-suns' gag or a 'french reverse.' I also sympathize with budget restraints. Are we talking about budget restraints? If so, I agree your money is better spent on locations and lighting than it is to get Cooke 5/i's over Cooke Mini's, or MP's over CP.2's.

Every cinematographer is different, and this is an art form after all, with no right or wrongs... But from my point of view it's a slippery slope to start pulling the Jenga blocks from the tower because the audience won't notice. The audience probably won't consciously notice the vast majority of things. But I argue that like any piece of art, the audience will be struck hard subconsciously. In fact, isn't that we mostly strive to do? Every department on set strives to simply strengthen the story by the means of visuals, most often meant to be subconsciously perceived. The wardrobe tries to say something about the characters or their situation. The lighting suggests mood, emotion or characterization. The camera angles suggest frame of mind, emotional state, or something otherwise. The lenses we choose, the foley sounds we insert, the music, the art department, everything.

All of these things are likely details, that if changed or payed-no-attention, would go relatively unnoticed by the audience. But all of these things add tremendous value to the story and when presented in concert, likely drive a highly effective subconscious experience for those who do not know about filmmaking.

I understand the point, but as someone who considers cinematography an art, and the cinematographer as having the responsibility to deliver said images, I simply want to state that it is a slippery slope to start not doing things because the audience won't consciously notice.

my .02.

Simple enough, get the best lenses you can afford that gives you the look you want and can help production / your camera team move faster and with greater ease/ precision. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

That was fantastically well put Ryan.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Ryan I agree. There are other reasons to use expensive lenses. Audience perception does not have to be at the top, or bottom, of that list.

I think the term "best" is extremely subjective though. Master Primes or Summilux C's may not necessarily be the "best" lenses. Sometimes the expensive lenses may be too sharp, too coated, or too heavy for the application needed.

Lets not forget there is also a certain amount of propaganda in our industry... manufacturers constantly market and advertise to our egos. When we get caught in the "hype," the myth of the gear then becomes self propagating.

I think someone made the point on REDUSER that after a certain point we pay a lot for marginal gains.

I definitely agree that any artist should strive for the best in every area.... whether it be the best camera for the story, the best lenses, the best script or the best crew/talent.

You have made a very strong point... just because the audience does not notice it should not be a reason not to use "the best."

Also not all benefits of using "the best" may be immediately evident.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Just because you're not cognisant of something, doesn't mean it's not having an effect on you. Part of the qualification of an artist or craftsperson is their awareness of the effects of various details - details beyond the perception of the untrained eye. It's the old 'unknown unknown' scenario. It's funny and sad how us humans overestimate our power of perception. There's a term for it in psychology, the 'what you see is all there is' fallacy, which is our tendency to take our appreciation of a subject as complete at first glance.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

If that is true anamorphic (and vintage spherical lenses for that matter, Baltars, Cooke s2,3)would be a complete fiasco. It is soft, distorted and just plain piss poor image quality. Oh yeah and they all breathe like crazy which never bothered the great film makers that used them ;-) Every aspiring cinematographer wants to shoot anamorphic just because it looks different. The lenses(prices) are through the roof. Every major lens manufacturer is working on a (anamorphic) set. Zeiss super speeds are crap and a nice set goes for $50k (I've projected dozens of sets over the years: 25, 35, 50 are total sh*t by today standards). Face it guys: this industry is as much about trends and elitism as it is about quality product. It has very little to do with the audience and their perceptions. All DPs need to do is sell the pitch to the producers and when you say you shoot Cooke (a brand only the "in the know " know and revel) it sounds a lot better(than saying you shoot Canon DSLR lenses that every high schooler owns ;-) to the producers because that makes them part of the "club". All that talk about image shift, limited focus range is from the past- it has been resolved. These lenses are used on(still) cameras that can make tack sharp human size prints, 30, 40, 50Mpix. 6k wide screen is nowhere near that, especially with the strong OLFPs an the blur. I realize that owner operators sometimes spend their entire life time savings on a set of lenses or get in debt and stress out about their ROI. While I sympathize with that with all my heart spinning it as a technical issues is just plain silly....

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

In reality several issues are at play here...I will attempt to list and categorise a few (there may be several other issues not here... please feel free to contribute)

QUALITY ISSUES:
1. The actual sharpness of the lens
2. Its ability to maintain a uniform look through the range (colour matching)
3. The actual mechanics/precision of the lens (its usability on the set)
4. Durability / build quality
5. Breathing
6. Other aesthetical particularities of a particular lens set

PERCEPTION ISSUES
A. The difference between lenses audiences can actually perceive.
B. The difference between lenses professionals perceive (these can be real -based on actual tests-, imagined or artistic)
C. How we perceive lens quality online, on a TV or in the cinema.
D. Brand recognition and its effect: Crews may invest more into a shoot if the quality of the equipment (lenses in this case) is in line with what is used by the industry leaders (Hollywood).

COMMERCIAL ISSUES
I. The impact of lens manufacturers on professionals (advertising, trade shows, 1:1 marketing)
II. The need for manufacturers to expand their costumer base, and improve profits (by "improving" and increasing product lines)
III. The need for professionals to impress clients on set (perception is important)
IV. The need to have the newest to highlight as a selling point. Even if it makes no addition to the narrative or image quality.


My intention is not to agree or disagree with any individual perspective but to highlight some of the things at play in lens choice.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

I was also quite surprised to read in American Cinematographer that Ben Davis (BSC) used the Canon CNEs on Age of Ultron