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 :)

What films were shot on Master Primes?

G

Gary Ploj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
262
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi,

I heard a lot of comments of the Zeiss Master Primes lenses...but I'm curious what films were shot on those so I can see why they are so good? I have yet to use them so I'm just very curious as they are referred as the "best" lenses on the market as some of you here stated.

I know of one film: Mr. Brooks was shot on M.P. I used to belong to A.S.C. magazine subscription for many years but I don't get it anymore...and they listed featured stories on shoots of what camera, and lenses and all those great details of the featured D.O.P's used during their production.

If you know of some...let me know.

Thanks.
 
Why not rent a set of MP, UP, etc. and actually see the difference for yourself. Glass is selected for a multitude of reasons. I don't think anyone can say with certainty which is the best. It's just the opinion of who is being asked.

Yes, some lenses are better than others, hands down, no questions asked.

Personally, I like the Cooke S4 line the best. Just my preference.
 
Okay...good point. I heard the Cooke S4 are great. Just wanted to see some films shot with M.P lenses...that's all.

I will eventually do a test of various lenses when I get a chance but for now. I just wanted to know some films shot of those.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
"No Country for Old Men" would be a good film to look at for Master Prime work.
Click to expand...

To expose what is implicit in DM good recommendation (He'll correct me if I'm wrong):

There are some wide open shots in that film which would have been quite different without MPs.

RD work is good to look at because it is mostly clean of filtration

You can buy another of his other modern Coen B's films and see S4's.

Best to buy the film on BlueRay.

regards

Michael L
 
It's good to compare "No Country for Old Men", shot on Zeiss Master Primes, to "Assassination of Jesse James", shot by Deakins just before that on Cooke S4's (ignoring the special soft focus shots in the movie.)

All these modern lenses, including Panavision Primos and Zeiss Ultra Primes, are quite sharp, I wouldn't cry if I had to use any of them.

So other than the extra speed of the Master Primes, which can be quite useful, you're mainly just going to see some subtle personality differences.

For example, I've always noticed a brassy-reddish edge to hot reflections like with sunlight glinting off of chrome metal with Cooke S4's, whereas that edge tends to be more neutral in color in other lenses. So for me, when a car drives by in the scene (like in "Casino Royale"), I sometimes can tell that Cooke S4's are being used.

There is generally a more "rounded" quality to the Cooke S4 image with less edge contrast and less sharp fall-off in focus compared to the Zeiss Master Primes, which have a fairly "clear" look. When I put a Zeiss Master Prime on a lens finder, I often have the impression I'm looking through nothing at all. Some people find that a bit antiseptic.

Cooke S4's can seem more flattering to faces. Now whether that means the lens is actually softer or not, or just that the lower contrast gives some impression of softness, that's sort of a personal taste thing.

Though I mostly shoot on Panavision Primo lenses, I've often thought that Cooke S4's would be good for period movies when you wanted sharpness but not too much contrast and modern snappiness. On the other hand, if you add enough contrast to the image in lighting and color-correction, a Cooke S4 image would seem plenty modern -- look at "Die Hard 4", which was shot on Cooke S4's. And if the lighting is fairly soft, a Zeiss Master Prime can seem fairly "period" -- look at "Revolutionary Road".

So as long as you are using top lenses, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference which you use -- unless you need a really sharp T/1.3 lens.
 
Peter Jacksons - King Kong Video Diary

day_62.jpg

Link 2>>>

day_66.jpg

Link 2>>>

Andrew Lesnie ACS was shooting King Kong using ARRICAM, ARRIFLEX 435

and ARRIFLEX 235 cameras mostly with Master Primes and Angenieux Optimo zooms.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The Primo lens elements are made by Leitz and assembled by Panavision -- that's not exactly the same thing as saying they are rehoused Leica's.
Click to expand...

Hi,

They are made to Panavisions specification, similar specification still lenses do not exist so there is no question of just rehousing.

Stephen
 
BTW, if somebody could answer:

What it is written on Panavision Primo L lenses:

Made in USA or Made in Canada?

Or

Lens designed in ELCAN (Ernst Leitz Canada), Midland, Ontario, Canada.

Assembled in Panavision, WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA, USA.
 
MP & Primos

MP & Primos

"Defiance" was shot on MP lenses. As stated Primo lenses were made to Panavision specification and assembled in Los Angeles as Elcan could not meet the same quality control Panavision required.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
It's good to compare "No Country for Old Men", shot on Zeiss Master Primes, to "Assassination of Jesse James", shot by Deakins just before that on Cooke S4's (ignoring the special soft focus shots in the movie.)

All these modern lenses, including Panavision Primos and Zeiss Ultra Primes, are quite sharp, I wouldn't cry if I had to use any of them.

So other than the extra speed of the Master Primes, which can be quite useful, you're mainly just going to see some subtle personality differences.

For example, I've always noticed a brassy-reddish edge to hot reflections like with sunlight glinting off of chrome metal with Cooke S4's, whereas that edge tends to be more neutral in color in other lenses. So for me, when a car drives by in the scene (like in "Casino Royale"), I sometimes can tell that Cooke S4's are being used.

There is generally a more "rounded" quality to the Cooke S4 image with less edge contrast and less sharp fall-off in focus compared to the Zeiss Master Primes, which have a fairly "clear" look. When I put a Zeiss Master Prime on a lens finder, I often have the impression I'm looking through nothing at all. Some people find that a bit antiseptic.

Cooke S4's can seem more flattering to faces. Now whether that means the lens is actually softer or not, or just that the lower contrast gives some impression of softness, that's sort of a personal taste thing.

Though I mostly shoot on Panavision Primo lenses, I've often thought that Cooke S4's would be good for period movies when you wanted sharpness but not too much contrast and modern snappiness. On the other hand, if you add enough contrast to the image in lighting and color-correction, a Cooke S4 image would seem plenty modern -- look at "Die Hard 4", which was shot on Cooke S4's. And if the lighting is fairly soft, a Zeiss Master Prime can seem fairly "period" -- look at "Revolutionary Road".

So as long as you are using top lenses, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference which you use -- unless you need a really sharp T/1.3 lens.
Click to expand...

Things make so much sense when they are explained by someone that really understand them. Thank you David. And please, don't feel like I am blowing smoke. Your posts are very helpful.

Coming from the position that you might have a movie that requires equal amounts of soft and sharp looks. Is there a middle of the road lens set that you might feel gives you a more schedule friendly starting point?

And what about MPs with softening filters? Is there any filter that can have enough of an effect on contrast without too pronounced of a resolution loss?
 
I'm generally of the belief that it's better to start out with a sharp lens and soften it if you need to, unless you are absolutely committed to the look of the softer lens. But that's partly just because I have fun using filters.

The truth is that deciding what lens to use is more complicated than simply choosing the sharpest or softest one. You may have to consider its speed, or its size and weight, its cost (a big one!), how it intercuts with your zooms, etc. And the cost may affect how many lenses total you can get, or other accessories for the camera.

It's not an easy decision. On the other hand, if your choices are between the top lenses out there, there isn't really a wrong decision either. No one is going to suffer because they had to use a Cooke S4 when they wanted to use a Zeiss Master Prime, unless they were doing super low-light scenes ala "Barry Lyndon" and really needed a T/1.4 lens (and now Cooke makes one too).

I'd also add that if you like a bit of a filtered look, like the bloom from a light ProMist, then starting out with a contrastier prime lens can help you retain more sharpness while still getting that bit of halation you like.

In the abstract, I'd probably use the Zeiss Master Primes most of the time because I like that snappy Zeiss look and can modify it with filters if necessary -- on the other hand, they are bigger and heavier than most other primes and that may be a problem in certain situations. If I had to operate the whole movie myself handheld, suddenly a smaller, lighter prime would look very tempting...
 
Ive just finished a pilot we shot on master primes - and one 135mm Ultra prime. This was the first time I shot with MP's. And I like it!... They are sharp sharp sharp. but BIG in size and weight.

I have recently also shot with s4's and even old Nikons. I agree with David the differences are very subtle. (the nikon I shot wide open 2.8 and it is softer than a MP, for certain - that said I have an old 135mm nikon ais and I love the look it produces. .

Out of focus ; How highlights look out of focus - round/ "octagon-ish" - is very different between the lenses. - but then again only film people care what out of focus looks like.:)
 
David, having used RPPs only so much thus far, would you say you'd feel comfortable cutting in a few 18mm wide open MkIII Super Speed shots in there for night exterior? The cost difference between one MkIII 18mm and a 14mm MP's isn't horrible if you can get single lenses. Sure it isn't free, or cheap, but how do you like the look of the MkIII's wide open after adding contrast, saturation (?), an touch of sharpening in post?

Do think MP's wide open would cut very well with RPP's wide open? Is that the best case scenario?
 
I only shoot Super-Speeds wide-open in an emergency, when I have no choice. If the shot is contrasty enough, that may compensate enough for their mushiness wide-open.

This is really something to test -- I haven't shot a sequence wide-open on Super-Speeds in about eight years. I just remember all the focus problems I had because I was shooting handheld at T/1.3 in a nightclub under mostly available light (and pushing the old Kodak 800T stock one-stop as well.)

But the RPP's and MP's both hold their sharpness fine when shot wide-open. They should intercut fine.

But I always recommend testing before a show to know for sure.
 
I will definitely test as much as possible.

It would in fact be a very contrasty scene, with snow on the ground. I see what you mean even better now, or I see what you mean about contrasty lenses from a much more practical point of view. And I would most likely find myself wanting to lower contrast in post and in-camera (HVX and 7D), as I already have in scouting footage and stills and everything else I've shot up there in the snow. I guess the other scenario with contrasty lenses would be to ask someone like you to drop in a magic piece of glass to achieve 50% in camera. Though it might be more than the 50-50% rule here since we are talking about exposure ratios and achieving a fat negative, or a well spread out RAW.

Same situation would happen in sunny daytime though, but not knowing if it will be overcast you would certainly want to have a more contrasty lens as your base, making RPPs or MPs still the overwhelmingly preferred lenses if you also like their look.

I apologize David if so much of my posts are rambling, but this way I can internalize, and expose in hopes misconceptions will be corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top