Why cine lenses?

[Stephen Williams]

That's great.

Today, a talented and charismatic cinematographer or a director has an opportunity with affordable tools like a RED to do experiments by himself, collect a knowledge and experience with use of a diverse still glass long before even any serious production starts.

Rodney Charters, ASC CSC is a right example.

Hi,

Kubrick's films often took over 12 months to shoot, I don't think there is anybody else that does that. Often shooting 100 to one on film, I could see Red could save money. Kubrick was a perfectionist using the best that was available, not the cheapest.

Stephen

 

[Joel Kaye]

No one is disputing that still lenses can be used to make beautiful films.

Actually there was at least one comment that said you wouldn't get the same production value from still lenses as PL lenses. My feeling is if you put a RED with an SLR lens on a multimillion dollar production set you'd end up with footage that looks like millions of bucks.

I'll have a fun opportunity coming up where we'll shoot 2 RED's - one with an Optimo zoom and a set of PL lenses (probably Ultras) and the other with SLR lenses. Hopefully there will be time for some direct comparisons as we go along. Certainly we'll find out how they intercut. Should be educational for me.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Actually there was at least one comment that said you wouldn't get the same production value from still lenses as PL lenses. My feeling is if you put a RED with an SLR lens on a multimillion dollar production set you'd end up with footage that looks like millions of bucks.

I'll have a fun opportunity coming up where we'll shoot 2 RED's - one with an Optimo zoom and a set of PL lenses (probably Ultras) and the other with SLR lenses. Hopefully there will be time for some direct comparisons as we go along. Certainly we'll find out how they intercut. Should be educational for me.

Joelnet,

looking forward to see some of those examples here at the forum.

Hi,

Kubrick's films often took over 12 months to shoot, I don't think there is anybody else that does that. Often shooting 100 to one on film, I could see Red could save money. Kubrick was a perfectionist using the best that was available, not the cheapest.

Stephen

Hi,

"Soon to ship"

- Leica Noctilux-M 50 mm f/0.95 Asph costs 7.995,00 €,

- Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph costs 4.995,00 €

or shipping lenses like

- Leica APO-Summicron-R 180mm f/2.0 costs 6.295,00 €

- Leica APO-Telyt-R 280mm f/2.8 costs 9.595,00 €

- Leica APO-Telyt-R 400mm f/2.8 costs 15.195,00 €

Very useful still glass also for a cine application (there are some Leica APO-Telyt-R to PL conversions available) and not cheap lenses at all.

 

[Yuri Kawana]

Hello All,

Imagine on a big screen, the picture 'rock and rolling across the screen', it will not be a nice experience in a dark environment (ie.Cinema). May get sea sick....

I am a pro-cinema lens guy, so there is a bit of bias here, I admit.

Stills lenses may be OK for smaller screen eg. internet, TV, etc....
But on a big screen, I don't think using non-cinematised stills lenses are right choice...

I haven't tested but, now a days so many people can afford very big TV, talking 50 inch above, so 'rock and rolling' might become obvious. I think I'll test it soon, and when I do, I will post the result here.

I'm not criticising stills lens users, but cinema lenses and stills lenses have their place in the 'picture/photograph' industry.

Best

YK

London,UK

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Stills lenses may be OK for smaller screen eg. internet, TV, etc....
But on a big screen, I don't think using non-cinematised stills lenses are right choice...

I haven't tested but, now a days so many people can afford very big TV, talking 50 inch above, so 'rock and rolling' might become obvious. I think I'll test it soon, and when I do, I will post the result here.

Huh? What you said really doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't see any difference in the final product except for things like CA and distortion-and that really depends one what lenses you do use. The difference is on set with the mechanics. Your focus puller will have a harder time, but that doesn't affect the optics.

Matthew

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

There are number of other reason

I think they have all been cited.
There aren't that many, although important.

, including colour balance.

Yes, but color can be compensated in minutes in the digital world. It is normal to do the color job on all shots anyway. But you are right: cine lenses are usually garanteed to be consistent, at least in the same set.
It really only depends on how much easier you want life to be, budget permitting.
But sure you can get extremely similar results by working harder.
It is not true that cine lenses necessarily cost a fortune, but they certainly do if you don't want to take higher risks in putting together older or less conventional cine lenses.
I think that any choice shoould be taken - and afterwards accepted, with a good amount of 1) knoledge, 2) relax.

In this last week the cine lens options are getting very interesting thanks to new offerings. This should help both those interested in new lenses and those interested in older lenses, because some ones will be probably changing their older sets in favour of new models.

 

[Roberto B]

Hi,

Kubrick's films often took over 12 months to shoot, I don't think there is anybody else that does that. Often shooting 100 to one on film, I could see Red could save money. Kubrick was a perfectionist using the best that was available, not the cheapest.

Stephen

which Kubrick's masterpieces are you talking about?.. when he became famous or those which guided there?