Why cine lenses?

[Sanjin Jukic]

Yep. And what beautiful MP 14mm lens it is.

Basic differenences are:

1. Cine lenses have limited breathing

2. Cine zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

4. Generally modern cine lenses are sharper and have higher contrast than still picture lenses. A $30k Master Prime will outgun any still picture lens out there, no ifs or buts. I projected them and there is substantial difference.

5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

13. Modern cine lenses tend to flare much less than still lenses.

14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

I bought a small set of three MPs and, after more than $100k, I could not be happier.

As usual, you get what you pay for.

Pawel,

we all know that you are not well and that you in a state of re-animation.

But what you've said about cine lenses vs. still lenses, I as one of the biggest hobbyists here, would take that with a huge reserve.

Even though it sounds pretty arrogant to flag here with Arri MP lenses that are one of the biggest compromises taken ever in overall history of lens design.

You've just jump yourself in Arri advertising trap and spent 100K then have wear a clothes of a big guy.

All sounds funny and ridiculous.

Back to the answers:

1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.

Example: Noctilux 50mm f/0.95>>Footage



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

Example: Angenieux 3x70 mm FD f/3.5 >>Footage



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.

Tell me with which still lenses you have your comparison and I will tell you the answer.

Letters in yellow are mine corrections.



5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

Ari MP set of lenses are made all at T-stop range from T1.3 to T22.

But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.

In between read this about the lens design and testing in general>>>LINK



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.

Example: Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH>>LINK



14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Show us and then we can talk about it and discuss.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.

Take your optical glasses and test the glass with your very eyes right now.



The Hobbist :clown2: .

 

[DeaneThrussell]

my feeling is good glass....is good glass. So if you take a great still lenses re-house so it's strong enough to take a kicking on set get the focus working so that it goes the correct way and has the correct teeth to work with a follow focus...lose the moving front element and you test it with in a inch of it's life so you it won't let you down on set....But by the time you've down that your probably find it cost the same money as buying a cine lens and doesn't hold it value in the same way...lenses are like cookes will always hold there value. Some stills lenses adopted may or may be what someone whats...As for picture i'm sure someone will go out with a set of stills lenses and shoot something that blows us all away!!!!

 

[danbrazda]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days. Anything that slows you down gets jettisoned. It's way cheaper to rent a set of ziess speeds, than to pay 45 people OT for 1 hour.

No I am not a producer, but they hire me and I know how they think ;-)

Nick[/QUOTE]

Ummm, wow dude... strung a bit tight there?

Not everyone on this thread is in the "film business" that you describe. I don't think I'm the only one who actually does think it's all about stunning images and storytelling. I guess we just have different realities in our craft. I just hope you still get excited about what you turn out at the end of the day rather than just relieved that the clients are happy.

 

[Eduardo Ruiz]

I know that this sounds crazy, but it's my subjective opinion: movies made with still lenses looks like 24 still pictures per second, movies made with cine lenses looks like film!

 

[Richard Goodwin]

I know that this sounds crazy, but it's my subjective opinion: movies made with still lenses looks like 24 still pictures per second, movies made with film lenses looks like film!

Do you have an example to back that up?

As a counter example how about the candle lit scenes in Barry Lyndon? How do those look "still"?

 

[Roberto B]

Pawel,

we all know that you are not well and that you in a state of re-animation.

But what you've said about cine lenses vs. still lenses, I as one of the biggest hobbyists here, would take that with a huge reserve.

Even though it sounds pretty arrogant to flag here with Arri MP lenses that are one of the biggest compromises taken ever in overall history of lens design.

You've just jump yourself in Arri advertising trap and spent 100K then have wear a clothes of a big guy.

All sounds funny and ridiculous.

Back to the answers:

1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.

Example: Noctilux 50mm f/0.95>>Footage



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

Example: Angenieux 3x70 mm FD f/3.5 >>Footage



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.

Tell me with which still lenses you have your comparison and I will tell you the answer.

Letters in yellow are mine corrections.



5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

Ari MP set of lenses are made all at T-stop range from T1.3 to T22.

But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.

In between read this about the lens design and testing in general>>>LINK



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.

Example: Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH>>LINK



14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Show us and then we can talk about it and discuss.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.

Take your optical glasses and test the glass with your very eyes right now.



The Hobbist :clown2: .

i will refrain myself of my recent usual no comment quote just for saying.. man.. this one was a great post!

the whole post.

 

[Frank Martin]

thanks for the primer Sanjin, very informative. If you put any of those lenses in pretty housings with big ,double sided witness marks
i think most would be hardpressed to tell the difference between many cine lenses out there. I must admit though the pristine
16-100 1.9 KERN vario-switar I have for my rex5 still blows me away every time we shoot 16mm..... just a lot of fun.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

i will refrain myself of my recent usual no comment quote just for saying.. man.. this one was a great post!

the whole post.

To clarify I'm not against cine glass at all.

Its the same example like in fashion.

Haute Couture vs Pret-a-Porter.

Haute Couture = Cine lenses.

Pret-a-Porter = Photo still lenses.

But also in photo still glass industry there is Haute Couture or Leica.

The reason that Leica glass is extremly expensive is that each lens is hand made,

mechanical perfection, color matching, accurate markings, excellent optical design,

perfect and gorgeous pictures, longer durability, etc...

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

thanks for the primer Sanjin, very informative. If you put any of those lenses in pretty housings with big ,double sided witness marks
i think most would be hardpressed to tell the difference between many cine lenses out there. I must admit though the pristine
16-100 1.9 KERN vario-switar I have for my rex5 still blows me away every time we shoot 16mm..... just a lot of fun.

Panavision and Dalsa re-housed in cine shells already a lot of Leitz/Leica glass.

Before Arri MP entered in the game Panavision Primos L (based on Leitz/Leica still glass)

took legendary status in a movie history.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel,

we all know that you are not well and that you in a state of re-animation.

But what you've said about cine lenses vs. still lenses, I as one of the biggest hobbyists here, would take that with a huge reserve.

Even though it sounds pretty arrogant to flag here with Arri MP lenses that are one of the biggest compromises taken ever in overall history of lens design.

You've just jump yourself in Arri advertising trap and spent 100K then have wear a clothes of a big guy.

All sounds funny and ridiculous.

Back to the answers:

1. The best still lenses have limited breathing.

Example: Noctilux 50mm f/0.95>>Footage



2. The best still zoom lenses hold focus through zoom

Example: Angenieux 3x70 mm FD f/3.5 >>Footage



4. Generally modern cine lenses are NOT sharper and DO NOT have higher contrast than still picture lenses.

A $30k Master Prime will NOT outgun any still picture lens out there.

Tell me with which still lenses you have your comparison and I will tell you the answer.

Letters in yellow are mine corrections.



5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.

Ari MP set of lenses are made all at T-stop range from T1.3 to T22.

But this doesn't mean that all are good in wide apertures and at all focal lengths.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Then we can talk about it and discuss.

In between read this about the lens design and testing in general>>>LINK



13. Modern still lenses tend to flare much less than cine lenses.

Example: Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH>>LINK



14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.

You have MP 14 mm,... and when you get better please sent as here 4K Tiff file with 14mm,... @T1.3.

Show us and then we can talk about it and discuss.



15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.

All lenses are always better in center then in corners, cine or still.

Then stiil lenses can get advantge because of a crop factor from full photo still frame of 35mm to cine S35mm.

That's one of a main rules in the lens design.

Take your optical glasses and test the glass with your very eyes right now.



The Hobbist :clown2: .

Sanjin, I will reply with a question:

Have you ever projected and used a Master Prime lens side-by-side to still lenses?

I spent many hours testing (projecting) all sorts of glass and those were my clear conclusions.

I had a sizable collection of Canon L gless and used them extensively on Canon 5D and 40D, so I have a little bit of "real life" comparision as well. Next to a MP lens, they're crap in every possible way you look at them.

Of course, if there was a cheaper/better way I would go for it in a heart beat as, you know, I don't buy marketing BS that is so common these days.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, I will reply with a question:

Have you ever projected and used a Master Prime lens side-by-side to still lenses?

I spent many hours testing (projecting) all sorts of glass and those were my clear conclusions.

I had a sizable collection of Canon L gless and used them extensively on Canon 5D and 40D, so I have a little bit of "real life" comparision as well. Next to a MP lens, they're crap in every possible way you look at them.

Of course, if there was a cheaper/better way I would go for it in a heart beat as, you know, I don't buy marketing BS that is so common these days.

Pawel,

no I did not.

But question is with what lenses you were comparing them(?).

BTW, New Canon EF glass is a bit inferior than old FD in some designs.

The link from the expert>>>LINK

And also one more example that shows use of still glass at the production of box office of the year:

"The production (THE DARK KNIGHT) carried four medium-format Hasselblad lenses: 50mm, 80mm, 110mm and 150mm.

Pfister and Nolan favored the 50mm and, less often, the 80mm."

The Dark Knight shot by Wally Pfister, ASC,

combines 35mm and Imax 65mm to depict the Cape Crusader’s latest adventure.

That is just one of the latest examples.


And one more thing at the end:

The physical design of high speed lenses at wide open looks like one part of sine (sinusoid) wave.

In the case of Arri/Zeiss MP sharpness/resolution/center/corners/MTF measurements start with 14mm

that should be at the bottom of the sine wave and growing to 50mm that should be at the top of the wave

and then again falling down to 150mm.

The main reason that Zeiss made them all in T1.3 is that is easy to achieve the best lens performance

between 2.8-8 if you can start with a higher speed.

That mostly compromises lens performance at wide open for a certain focal lengths but who cares if you get

a bit better sweet spot then competitors that mostly starting the lens design at T2 or even T3(zooms).

 

[Eduardo Ruiz]

I've posted one of my first lens tests, I will post something from the "real world".

http://www.vimeo.com/2066114

50mm ZEISS T*1.3 MKIII
vintage 50mm Cooke Speed PanchroII bayo to PL adapter
vintage 25-250mm Angenieux T3.9 bayo to PL adapter
Angenieux Optimo 24-290 @ 50mm
50mm ZEISS T*1.3 MKIII (again)
18-50 RED ZOOM @ 50mm (rehoused still lens)

all wide open
Basic Color Correction (contrast) at REDCINE

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Eduardo.

Nice.

 

[Nick Gardner]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days. Anything that slows you down gets jettisoned. It's way cheaper to rent a set of ziess speeds, than to pay 45 people OT for 1 hour.

No I am not a producer, but they hire me and I know how they think ;-)

Nick

Ummm, wow dude... strung a bit tight there?
[/QUOTE]

I am all for making the best pictures I can in the time I have, but the fact of the matter is that it is a business, and there is a lot of money at stake. Making your days is a pretty important part of the job, and if using still lenses slows down production, then thats a bad thing. Thats all.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[Richard Goodwin]

Haute Couture vs Pret-a-Porter.

Haute Couture = Cine lenses.

Pret-a-Porter = Photo still lenses.

But also in photo still glass industry there is Haute Couture or Leica.

Should'nt there be a bit more focus on including real results in this discussion. (Not just lens tests)

Haute Couture

- Robert Capa (WWII photography), James Nachway, Weegee - Great Images - Def not Leica (canon, nikon, contax)
- Richard Avedon - always used the same Rollei ... Helmut Newton used Rollei as well = Are they not Haute Couture?

- "A Man and a Woman", and the most of the French New Wave - low budget everything
- Candle lit scenes in Barry Lyndon - yes Zeiss optics, but still lens
- Pretty much every movie before WWII (or really the 70s) used optics that could not hold a candle to todays optics (Citizen Kane, Gance's Napoleon, Film Noir

Pret a Porter:

- Pearl Harbor and many other recent big budget films with perfect focus and edge to edge definition
- Shampoo and razor commercials
...

All those use "perfect" optics but are pretty much generic in terms of their cinematography.

People who want to use still lenses are concerned about budget but are still driven to make movies. So, just dismissing still optics is not super useful. Because, a lot has been and will be shot on RED with still optics.

The question I think it would be better to answer is how can still lenses be used. What techniques can be employed to work around their issues? What original qualities do they have that can be leveraged to create unique images?

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Sanjin,

The MPs (from 14mm right up to 150mm) all resolved 120 lp/mm corner-to-corner with MTF of at least 15% (distinguishable) wide open at f/1.2. I am not aware of any wide angle still lens capable anywhere near that sort of performance.

The lenses around were Leica and Nikon, rehoused to PL. Also, there is plently of quantative data on still lenses at www.photozone.de and similar sites. Nothing that would encourage me to use them over good PL glass.

Of course, still picture glass is and will be used in motion picture, but more as specialty glass and certainly not for their optical or mechanical qualities.

The Leica Noctilux may be fast, but it is also rather soft wide open and its mechanics make it impossible to use it wide open for most motion picture applications. Again, if it is used in motion picture, it is as a specialty glass with inferior optical and mechanical properties.

I strongly encourage you to make an effort and make an appointment with Arri and ask them to project some of your favourite still lenses and compare them with Master Primes. It won't cost you anything. It is the best and cheapest education you can get. You will clearly see the results with your bare eyes and you can play with the projector yourself to your heart content. The differences are very obvious and clear, specially at wider angles.

For start, you will see how difficult it is to get a still lens to focus accurately and resolve anything beyond 80 lp/mm. The mechanics are simply not there for accurate focusing even on a testing bench.

Then, any 14mm still lens opened wide will make you running out the door to the nearest bank to loan you enough cash to make a deposit for a MP. Seriously.

 

[MadamImAdam]

This may sound strange, but the film business is not about making stunning images. It is about making days.

This may sound strange, but I don't care about making days. I care about making stunning images.

 

[Michele Gavazzeni]

To me the main problem is Focus.
When I'll see some footage taken with still lens with a nice push-in perfectly on focus...

Actually all the footage I've seen taken with still lenses are (probably for aestetical reason) full of out of focus shots...

 

[Evin Grant]

Horses for courses, but I recently did get a chance to see the new Nikon 14-24mm and 24-70mm N coat zooms projected at a very reputable LA area cine lens repairman and was blown away. They both totally out resolved the Optimos, even WFO. My guess is that they realy are entering MP territory. Of course the mechanics would still need to be rebuilt but it'd be worth it.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Horses for courses, but I recently did get a chance to see the new Nikon 14-24mm and 24-70mm N coat zooms projected at a very reputable LA area cine lens repairman and was blown away. They both totally out resolved the Optimos, even WFO. My guess is that they realy are entering MP territory. Of course the mechanics would still need to be rebuilt but it'd be worth it.

I agree, the 14-24mm is a very sharp lens for a wide zoom, albeit you will see some softness just in the corners at f/2.8 at both wide and long end of the zoom. It would be about the same as UP open wide, but MP 14mm even at f/1.2 remains razor sharp in the corners.

Either way, I don't see a the Nikon lens being not sharp enough. The main problem is, as you say, the mechanics and I don't know if any optical workshop could convert this lens to have precise long throw focus and scales and manual aperture under $10k and, at this point, you may wonder if it is better to get an UP or MP or Cooke or wait for a Red Prime and get extra speed.