Why cine lenses?

[Ramesh Jai]

Something wrong with 'picture'? Should I have written 'Image'? Or are you just saying 'NO'?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Better picture quality? Picture? Of course, not.

Hi,

I would disagree, if I need an 18mm 1.4 lens & my still lens only opens to 2.8 or 4 I would be 2 or 3 stops underexposed, if the focus puller cant hold focus & it's soft perhaps it's good enough for you, my clients might disagree.

FWIW the look of a Cooke S4 is totally different to a Zeiss Ultraprime, I know about those differences and choose lenses accordingly. A Superspeed also looks different to a Standard which is different to a Nikon. Perhaps because film has a greater color palate over digital it's less of an issue with Red, however the best images Red demonstrated at IBC were shot with top Cine Glass.


Stephen

 

[Steve Gibby]

I'm not saying that there is something "wrong" with using still camera lenses, I'm just pointing out -- along with other people with experience -- the reasons why traditional narrative cinema focus-pulling is easier with cine lenses designed with that style of shooting in mind. And even though it is easier, it is still hard work to pull focus with 35mm depth of field for a high-resolution digital camera.

This has been a busy year for me -- three features back to back with no breaks followed by a TV series that I'm in the middle of. I'm in the equivalent of Day 140-ish of shooting. And the last three projects have all been digital -- two RED movies and now a Genesis TV series -- and so I've been watching focus-pulling on a big HD monitor every working day since June. So I see focus mistakes all day along, month after month, with some of the best crews around town.

Today, my AC was surprised when I told him he was misfocused by about three inches on a medium waist-up shot made on a 35mm lens at T/4. But I could see that on an HD monitor. The other day, I spotted another medium shot that was off by a few inches and it turned out that the back-focus on the lens had gone out. But the AC was shocked that I could spot that on a monitor because it was not a close-up.

Even when we are correctly in focus, I can tell which side of the eyeball the focus is on in a close-up.

This is what I've been dealing with month after month, so excuse me if focus is much on my mind lately -- that's the curse of staring at a large HD monitor all the time and seeing every focus mistake! I'm writing this after wrapping a 14-hour day, and recalling one of the last set-ups, a 75mm shot of someone leaping into a swimming pool and coming up from the water into a close-up, at T/2.8. I'm surprised that most of the takes were sharp about 80% of the time in that one considering the odds. But some days I spend a lot of time on the walkie-talkie from the DIT tent telling an AC to pull forward or back by one inch as I stare at a 24" HD monitor... Like I said, my life for the past several months.

It's not "elitist" to accurately view the pros and cons of various pieces of equipment available -- that's basically part of my job, to gauge the effectiveness of a piece of gear, to know its strengths and weaknesses. And occasionally, though some may be shocked to hear this... the more expensive version of some gear IS the better-made, better-built, better-designed option. Sometimes it isn't. Most of the time, it's more a question of picking the right tool for the right job within your budget constraints.

I don't have a problem with still camera lenses being used to shoot movies. I just have a problem when the focus-pulling issues involved with such a technique are white-washed or ignored rather than addressed head-on and dealt with.

In my mind, the real elitists here are the ones who don't want to look at the issue objectively, dryly and technically... but want to make it a political issue. There are real design differences between still and cine lenses that affect how you work with them, and those differences have to be recognized and addressed.

Well said Dave. If you analyze my Post #63 on this thread, we essentially agree on the issues you raised in your post. When me and my crews shoot cine style we face the exact issues you raised. But when we shoot hybrid cine/EFP style using 35mm stills lenses, or pure EFP style using B4 lenses, using small mobile non-union crews, we sight focus RED One. We've been using 2:1 magnification effectively in sight focusing at medium to stopped down apertures, but now RED's distribution yesterday of Build 17 v3.4.1 which includes 1:1 image magnification greatly enhances a sight focusing workflow for those genres and shot situations where that style of focusing is the logical choice.

Obviously RED One isn't just used in narrative cinema scenarios with wide open shooting, AC's, and cine accessories. It is also used in a myriad of other genres, crew situations, mobile environments, etc., by professionals experienced in sight focusing - where sight focusing is usually the most effective choice for them - and 1:1 magnification just made that workflow easier than it has been with 2:1.

35mm stills lenses have great utility on RED One across a broad range of genres - but obviously not in large crew, union, narrative cinema environments, where repeatability, reliability, and familiarity are essential elements.

We're friends, and I certainly don't consider you to have an elitist attitude in your approach to others in the industry. In my mind you are very progressive. That said, there are obviously others in the narrative cinema industry who regularly display elitist attitudes to those who work in the other genres of the motion media industry. With the transition to digital, and the convergence of DSLR and television technology into the workplace many of them resent the different ideas and technologies that non-traditional professionals are bringing to the workplace. As a professional who works in cine-style, hybrid cine/EFP, EFP, and DSLR workflows I think that the less infighting, jealousy, and closed-mindedness we have, the better for the progress of the overall motion media industry. Respect is a 2-way street.

I use cine equipment when it is the best choice for a project and/or shot sequence, but I don't hesitate to use 35mm stills or B4 HD equipment when it is the best choice for a project and/or shot sequence. Some of the best images I've generated with RED One have been with 35mm stills lenses carefully used in the right environments. Then again, others of my best RED One images have been with cine lenses. The trick is in choosing the right arrow to make each particular kill.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Gibby

for this nice post.

You were always here my favorite.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

DO CINE LENS OFFER BETTER PICTURE QUALITY THEN STILL LENS? Is it possible to give a simple YES or NO answer?

No it isn't. Sorry. Not everything in life is simple!

Also depends on how you define "better". There are more factors to lenses than sharpness, and even a sharp lens can be soft at some f-stops. And sometimes you don't even want the sharpest lens.

"Better" at one point, for a particular shot, may mean a lighter lens or a lens that focuses closer, or a lens that is flattering to your lead actress. Some people may even prefer the curvature of an older 9.8mm Kinoptic to a less distorted 10mm Primo for a Steadicam move ala Kubrick (how used the 9.8mm Kinoptic a lot for some famous shots.) "Better" may mean a lens that produces a particularly beautiful lens flare or makes an out-of-focus background look a certain way, or it may mean a lens that hardly flares at all. "Better" may mean a high-contrast lens or a low-contrast lens, it may mean a "warm" lens versus a "cold" lens.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

David,

thanks again.

You are also my favorite RED user.

 

[Gordon Prince]

Something wrong with 'picture'? Should I have written 'Image'?

What's the difference?

 

[Ramesh Jai]

What's the difference?

Ask Don King. Somewhere in this thread he seems to imply that..

 

[Sarah C.]

((sits back and thinks to self: there is another way to look at this... ))

Ya know, I'd probably just go with whatever lenses I felt like using on the day...


~Sarah :red_bandana: :gun:

 

[Roberto B]

In my mind, the real elitists here are the ones who.. want to make it a political issue.

no comment.

There are real design differences between still and cine lenses that affect how you work with them, and those differences have to be recognized and addressed.

on that.. we both agree.. on both sides.. ehehehehehe

 

[Bob Gruen]

Couple things to consider...

Who are you asking? Most on this board are DoPs, and they are going to be perfectionists who want the best tools to make the best product. A few lurking around here might be low budget producers who just want it done. Producers must balance cost/risk/reward with every decision they make, and they may go for a still lens package if the DoP can demonstrate that he/she can make the tools work properly.

Still zoom lenses: why? Most of us agree that the cine lenses are purpose built for what we want to do with our Red cameras, so if you are going for the less expensive still lens option (I am) why in the world would you compromise further with still zoom lenses? You should be able to get a full set of primes for ~$6,000. The only shot I can think of that would require a zoom that holds focus would be a 'vertigo' shot, and I think I'd want a cine lens for that.

Finally, the application of still lenses is still evolving. For example, the Birger mount for Canon lenses gives an API for driving the lens by computer. I have a prototype handheld computer that can be set up to drive the lens using three different programs (snap, dolly, limit). Rumor is that Birger is working on an autofocus module. When products like these start to hit the market it may actually simplify the focus pulling process.

Bob

 

[Steve Sherrick]

still zooms have their place. Tokina 11-16 and Nikkor 17-35 have both come in very handy. As variable prime, not to zoom. But the Nikkor primes with the RP mods have been very nice.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Still zoom lenses: why? Most of us agree that the cine lenses are purpose built for what we want to do with our Red cameras, so if you are going for the less expensive still lens option (I am) why in the world would you compromise further with still zoom lenses? You should be able to get a full set of primes for ~$6,000. The only shot I can think of that would require a zoom that holds focus would be a 'vertigo' shot, and I think I'd want a cine lens for that.

For narrative genre applications, primes often make the best sense. But narrative is just one genre among a broad array of genres that RED One has been, is now, and will continue to be used in. Mobility needs and dangerous subject factors of some of those genres and sub-genres, most notably wildlife, sports, adventure travel, certain commercials, certain documentaries, etc., usually determine that a zoom is much more desirable than a prime. In those genres the subject matter is constantly moving closer and farther away from the camera, and the possibility of picking up your camera system and walking to the framing of a prime is simply not feasible – or many time it is unsafe to do so. In those genres, when using a zoom, it is used as a variable prime, to continually re-frame and re-frame without having to pick up a heavy rig and walk to a new framing.

Why stills zooms for those genres and their shot needs? Again mobility, but also focal length. Stills zooms give you good optics with a very low weight to focal length ratio – they usually don’t weigh a lot (thus increasing mobility) and they have long focal lengths compared to cine zooms. Cine zooms have a very high weight to focal length ratio – they’re heavy and have relatively short focal lengths – especially for their weight and size. Here’s an example: on a recent sports production of mine we rented an Optimo 12x, which weighs 25 pounds, plus needs a big heavy matte box and follow focus. Sure the optics are superb, but the longest focal length of the lens is 290mm, so we ended up with a big, heavy (immobile) lens that didn’t have the focal length to reach our subject matter very well. Since then, for use on my REDs, I’ve bought a 19-year-old Canon FD 150-600 stills zoom, with a Century PL mount, and for those same types of nature and sports productions I get over twice the focal length of the Optimo 12x, and it weighs just 9 pounds, compared to 25 pounds for the Optimo. And the images from my 150-600 are stellar. We have regularly projected those images in 4k on a 24’ screen at my associate’s studio and they’ve been consistently outstanding.

For a pic of the 150-600 on one of my REDs click on my RED Connector link in my signature block below this post.

Nikon zooms I use on RED for the genres mentioned above include: 50-300 AIS, 80-200 ED, and 17-35 - all with excellent results.

Rodney Charters ASC also mentioned recently that he uses 35mm stills zooms for certain types of shots with RED. He obviously uses 35mm stills primes also.

Good zooms can give you images almost as good as a prime, and even in a few cases as good as a prime at certain focal lengths.

All the above said, I still own lots of cine and 35mm stills primes and use them when they are the best choice for a particular genre or shot sequence. I simply use the appropriate arrow to make the kill. I explained that further in my Post #103 of this thread.

Primes vs zooms? In my mind they are both viable tools to be used when one or the other is the best choice for a particular shot.

Rumor is that Birger is working on an autofocus module. When products like these start to hit the market it may actually simplify the focus pulling process.

A large portion of RED One users have been sight focusing the camera all along for certain genres they work in – no AC or focus puller – but rather racking focus themselves. At apertures from f4 and further stopped down, using 2:1 image magnification and edge highlight you can sight focus RED One with practice, or if you’re already experienced at sight focusing. With the recent addition of 1:1 image magnification sight focusing RED One has become much easier. Over 14 months of owning and shooting with my REDs all around the world, me and my crews have sight focused RED at least 85% of the time (yes, even in 4k), with the remaining 15% being in genres, crew situations,and shooting styles that simply called for traditional cine style focus pulling using an AC. IMO the most appropriate focusing style simply needs to be chosen for each individual production and/or shot sequence.

 

[Cristina S]

This charming chap rocks.

- Cristina S.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's funny because as a feature DP, I've always poo-pooed the notion of auto-focus and even today, it's very problematic for shooting a dramatic scene where one bad focus decision in a shot will trigger another take. So the worry that an actor will suddenly lean out of the shot and the auto-focus will rack to the far background, or the actor will pick up a newspaper for a moment and the focus will rack forward, or someone passes the camera momentarily, etc.

And the truth is that after the first take of a dramatic scene with a lot of focus shifts, there is a lot of creative discussion over where the focus should be and even how fast or slow to rack the focus. "Wait until after she says this line and the roll, not jump, the focus to his response in the background... but I think let her next line be soft because he has a quick response, but then try staying on her for the rest of the scene..."

Focusing can be just as much an emotional artistic act as a technical one. A good AC has a feeling for the dramatics of the moment.

But a few years ago, I shot a test of the new (then) DVX100 with Noah Kadner and he brought a tiny mini-job arm with him to shoot a high angle of someone sitting at a table, the camera rising up. And I was stymied by the fact that in 24P mode, the auto-focus was disabled because I couldn't reach the lens barrel once the camera started rising on the jib. So I found myself wishing for auto-focus!

Nowadays I'm shooting a TV series on the Genesis camera, but our main character does these little video diaries with a cheap DV camera, and it's very useful to just let the auto-focus work as she leans in and away from the DV camera lens in her diary - and even any mistakes in auto-focus as nice as part of the look.

So there are many,many ways to focus a scene and at some point, you will want or need to use every trick in the book to do it! Auto-focus included...

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I'm very happy with my mobile and lightweight set choice of still lenses for RED:

- Nikon 17-35 mm f/2.8 zoom

- Angenieux FD 35-70 mm f/2.5-3.3 zoom

- Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom

- Canon FD L 50mm f/1.2 prime (available light shots)

Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Nikon 17-35 mm f/2.8 zoom.

Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux FD 35-70 mm f/2.5-3.3 zoom

Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom.

Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Canon FD L 50mm f/1.2 prime (available light shot) @wide open f/1.2.

Auto focus is not easy even with DSLR.

Try to shoot wild cats movement for example in zoo, it's not working.

With movie camera it would be a disaster shot.

Also that some still zooms hold focus throughout the entire zoom range

have a look at this example footage

Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom holds focus

 

[Joel Kaye]

Also that some still zooms hold focus throughout the entire zoom range

have a look at this example footage

Angenieux FD 70-210 mm f/3.5 zoom holds focus

Sanjin, I've read enough posts from PL lovers that SLR zooms can't hold focus... so clearly this is some cheap cinema trick. :clown2:

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, I've read enough posts from PL lovers that SLR zooms can't hold focus... so clearly this is some cheap cinema trick. :clown2:

Don't trust to that posts :clown2: at all.

Also don't forget that Angenieux 70-210 FD f/3.5 is a high end French optical standard zoom lens.

Download and see that shot

Angenieux70-210 FD f/3.5 zoom holds focus

Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux 70-210 FD f/3.5 zoom

Shot on RED with IMS for RED, Angenieux 70-210 FD f/3.5 zoom

 

[Pawel Achtel]

... so clearly this is some cheap cinema trick. :clown2:

Yeah, f/16 and static subject usually do the trick.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Yeah, f/16 and static subject usually do the trick.

Pawel,

not so sure what are you talking about???!!!

Here are the facts:

210 mm, Shot on RED1 with IMS on RED. Lens: Angenieux 70-210 mm f/3.5 FD holds focus throughout the zoom, wide open f/3.5, distance to object in focus 238 cm, no filters.

70 mm, Shot on RED1 with IMS on RED. Lens: Angenieux 70-210 mm f/3.5 FD holds focus throughout the zoom, wide open f/3.5, distance to object in focus 238 cm, no filters.

Footage 720p>>>


Taken from the original tread at

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=303543#post303543