Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cine-mod vs. Cine-lens

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Round aperture is nice but I personally find odd-numbered polygonal pleasant too. For some reason not even-numbered polygonal though...

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by cpc View Post
      As always, Ryan has done a great job describing why cine glass can be an overkill for solo operators.
      I will add that you can easily have the benefit of common fronts with a set of still lenses. A lot of sets of still lenses can be standardized over a single front diameter, either native or with step-up rings: Nikon AI at 52mm, Leica R at 55mm or 67mm, Contax at 55mm or 67mm, Canon at 77mm, etc.

      And you can do a lot of things with a minimal package. With a set of still lenses you can skip the matte box and use screw filters, if you decide so (generally you can't do that with cine glass, because there is no front filter thread, or if there is one, it is very large). You may even be able to skip the follow focus and the rods support depending on what you shoot.

      But it is hard to give specific suggestions on what to spend without specifics on what you are going to shoot. As a general thought, I believe audio is often more important than picture. Great audio can save mediocre image; the other way around - not so much. You can invest in a good rig, if you need one. And obviously everything Ryan mentioned applies: prod design, lighting & grip, acting, etc.
      Yeah I've definitely heard the same thing you guys are saying; there are many factors to making a film good, and sound is one of the most important ones. I've actually picked up a good audio arsenal over the past year (shotgun mics, portable recorder, boom pole, etc.) so I've pretty much got that covered.

      My intentions are to make short and independent films with my equipment. (fictional narrative)

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Ryan Patrick O'Hara View Post
        Are you equating cheap lenses with polygonal apertures?


        YES , correct me if im wrong.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Baddgsx View Post
          YES , correct me if im wrong.
          A set of Leica Summicron-C cinema lenses is $100k+. They have 8 blades. So do the Cooke s4's. And some zooms in the $50k-100k price range.
          And the Samyang "cine" lenses, which are around $2.5k the set. Incidentally, you can buy still lenses on ebay with 16 aperture blades for around $150-200 a piece.
          Shutter Angle: The science and magic of shooting moving pictures

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Baddgsx View Post
            YES , correct me if im wrong.
            Originally posted by cpc View Post
            A set of Leica Summicron-C cinema lenses is $100k+. They have 8 blades. So do the Cooke s4's. And some zooms in the $50k-100k price range.
            And the Samyang "cine" lenses, which are around $2.5k the set. Incidentally, you can buy still lenses on ebay with 16 aperture blades for around $150-200 a piece.

            Yup!

            Aperture shape in bokeh is a technical and subjective aesthetic matter. Round does not necessarily equal better and outside of aesthetics, super-round does not seem to be the choice of top-end optical designers. Some lens manufacturers have taken it to the extreme, such as the 14 bladed CP.2's or 18 bladed Schneider Xenons. In my limited knowledge of how optics work, it has been a semi-misleading and subjective selling point of many lens manufacturers to boast round-bokeh as if it were better.

            I don't know the physics behind lens apertures. I will assume both kinds offer pro's and con's and likely hinge on the specific optical design of the lens being designed. Maybe the round ones sacrifice something in order to deliver round bokeh at closed stops, while the others don't? Who knows. I'm currently investigating the science behind aperture shapes and why they vary and differ so much, as I have heard rumors about why certain apertures, like Cookes, are used. However I've yet to get this verified as truth, so I'll refrain from spreading information that may be false.

            Blade design also varies, so we have yet another variable. Some blades are straight edged, some are curved and some, like cookes, have angular bends. So you could very well have a 6 bladed iris that is more round than an 8 bladed, and etc. But if we have been taught anything, it seems more blades in the aperture does not seem to always mean a better image. I would like to assume the folks who make Master Primes, Cookes, Summicrons and other lenses would have chosen these apertures designs in order to improve their performance, not hinder it.



            Cooke MiniS4/i's: 8 bladed
            Cooke S4/i's: 8 bladed
            Cooke 5/i's: 7 bladed
            Leica Summicron C's: 8 bladed (number varies actually by design, but this is the main number)
            Master Primes: 9
            Ultra Primes: 9
            Super Speeds mk2/3: 7
            Standard Speeds: 6
            Red Pro Primes (can't recall, but it's like 7-8)


            These are the professional sets of lenses I can think of that have under 10 blades. Most will have a rather polygonal shape when stopped down from wide open, while others not so much... again, depending on design. Bokeh qualities are not *just* deturmined by aperture blade count alone. Many factors including aperture blade shape are also to be taken into account.
            Last edited by Ryan Patrick O'Hara; 06-13-2014, 09:18 AM.

            If cinematography wasn't infinite, I'm sure I would have found the end by now.

            Comment

            Working...
            X