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 :)

Real PL lens advantage

Shawn Booth said:
There's also a lot of talk here on REDUSER about using the proper tools to get the job done. Broken down simply:

Stills glass is used for... Stills.
Cinema (motion) glass is used for... Cinema (motion).

Take this along with most of the responses and decide for yourself.

However, Matt's response actually transcends the discussion:
Click to expand...

No offense (you make lots of great posts on thsi forum that I do agree with), but I find this attitude mindless.

"Stills glass is for stills" shows a rigid unwillingness to think outside the box and use tools in an unforeseen, creative manner. Yes stills glass has limitations, but when you are trying to make a 30K music video look like 100K you have to make compromises somewhere.

What woudl you say to this? that a 30k music video should only look like 30K, that a 40 year old actress should not be made to look 30 - how far does the rigid, vertical thinking thinking go?
 
If you are taking advice from somebody who propagates a certain point of view, also look at their reel or credits and ask yourself if you would be excited to have those credits or to have shot those projects.

I want to be Roger Deakens, Chris Doyle, Chivo, or Wally Pfister ( not all at once of course ). I know all those guys and for the most part they would not say shit about tools or technique, get the art right and don't worry so much about the technique, it's important to equipment vendors but not to cinematographers. Sure good tools are nice, and it's the easiest aspect of cinematography to talk about but if people get preachy about it they are trying to sell you something.

OK you can probably tell that I'm completely f---ed from jetlag right now and not being politic.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Rob Ruffo said:
No offense (you make lots of great posts on thsi forum that I do agree with), but I find this attitude mindless.

"Stills glass is for stills" shows a rigid unwillingness to think outside the box and use tools in an unforeseen, creative manner. Yes stills glass has limitations, but when you are trying to make a 30K music video look like 100K you have to make compromises somewhere.

What woudl you say to this? that a 30k music video should only look like 30K, that a 40 year old actress should not be made to look 30 - how far does the rigid, vertical thinking thinking go?
Click to expand...

None taken. And thank you. You are absolutely correct, I'm rigid in my views towards glass. I am.

But there are plenty of other ways to make a $30K video look like any amount AND make an actress look younger...

I do understand what you are saying.
 
Erich's point that there is certainly some kind of difference between the OOF look on different lenses is almost self-evident.

However, my point was that even in a single manufacturer's still lens line there are numerous grades of lenses. I suspect that on the better lenses the designers are also searching for more pleasing bokeh/OOF characteristics even if they aren't specifically targeting the dynamics for motion pictures and the "creamy" or whatever it is look they are searching for is similar in both stills and motion.

And as far as capability, Canon for example, is also one of the worlds premiere manufacturers of motion picture lenses (although mostly 2/3 inch or smaller, not much concentration on large sensor film/PL mount type lenses in a while - but that may be changing) so they certainly have some expertise.

As Jacek said, many have never heard this "compression" discussed before and if it were something substantial and specific to these expensive cine lenses one would think that Zeiss or Cooke would promote it more.?

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I suspect it is available on some stills lenses as well.
 
Shawn Booth said:
None taken. And thank you. You are absolutely correct, I'm rigid in my views towards glass. I am.

But there are plenty of other ways to make a $30K video look like any amount AND make an actress look younger...

I do understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

This is fair enough. To be honest I am rigid about my own lists of things, like I won't shoot DSLR, that I get a lot of flack over.
 
You get a lot of flack for refusing to shoot motion with DSLRs? you should be getting kudos.
 
I shoot with ZFs, I shoot with Master Primes. I love shooting with both and get amazing results with both. I intercut between the two with no problems.

I have better things to do than worry about details or stigmas. They both capture incredible images and I have no problems.

Yes, Master Primes cost about 15 x as much for each lens, and there are good reasons for that.

But I'll say it again, I shoot motion with both and love both.

End of line.
 
"There are good reasons for that"

But I was hoping this thread would reveal new insights what those reasons are... (It did)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top