RED lenses coverage: S35 vs. 35 mm (pros & cons)

RED lenses coverage: S35 vs. 35 mm (pros & cons)

  • Total voters
    27
Status
Not open for further replies.
Antoine_Fabi said:
Is there a big difference in true resolving sharpness between the Cookes, the Zeiss, and ...say a top quality 35mm still Nikon lense ?
Click to expand...
Glass quality? No. It says who knows it. I'm just quoting what other people like Stephen Williams (among others) taught me. Besides, as you could already find, the SLR lenses cover a larger negative format. On breathing and other focusing hassles, you'll have a little bit efforts in order to handle with it. But as Miguel (macgregor over these boards) said: it's not anything you can't deal. Specially if the lens offers more than 180º (degrees) from the infinite to the closest point @the_focus_ring. He's used to shoot with such lenses. An efficient follow focus can help too.
 
Cookes and Zeiss cine lenses are designed for cine use. Focus and breathing are the two main benefits, plus speed; cine lenses are usually quite a bit faster than their still-lens counterparts. (and horrifically more expensive!)

With that said, Nikon glass gets used in movies frequently; whenever someone has to set up a "crash cam" they dig out the old Eyemos, retrofit 'em with Nikon lens mounts, and put Nikon lenses on there.

I don't know if anyone has done a comparative test between Nikon and Cooke glass; I would expect the Cookes to resolve more specifically because they're designed to service a smaller target image, but frankly when you're talking about 4K resolution, it's likely going to be operator focus errors that cause a much more dramatic effect on the picture than the difference in the sharpness of the glass!
 
Emanuel said:
Glass quality? No. It says who knows it. I'm just quoting what other people like Stephen Williams (among others) taught me. Besides, as you could already find, the SLR lenses cover a larger negative format. On breathing and other focusing hassles, you'll have a little bit efforts in order to handle with it. But as Miguel (macgregor over these boards) said: it's not anything you can't deal. Specially if the lens offers more than 180º (degrees) from the infinite to the closest point @the_focus_ring. He's used to shoot with such lenses. An efficient follow focus can help too.
Click to expand...

Hi Emanuel,

To be fair to Cooke & Zeiss their lenses (costing 20 times plus) will out resolve Nikon in a back to back test. On their own you won't see a problem.

Once I tested my Nikon 105mm v my 30 Year old Cooke 20-100 @ 100mm. The slate for the test was written on paper with faint lines on the paper. The Nikon lens did not resolve those faint lines, I was suprised!

The newest Zeiss + Cooke lenses are way better still, but you need a good budget to use them!

Stephen
 
That's what i read in some litterature...

Some people say that S16 lenses resolve more info per square inch than 35mm lenses because they're made for smaller target image.

...but is it true ? hmmm....

...so if this is true, why would not a manufacturer give equivalent glass quality for 35mm ? better is better ? 35mm or 16mm or whatever the target...
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
That's what i read in some litterature...

Some people say that S16 lenses resolve more info per square inch than 35mm lenses because they're made for smaller target image.

...but is it true ? hmmm....

...so if this is true, why would not a manufacturer give euquivalent glass quality for 35mm ? better is better ? 35mm or 16mm or whatever the target...
Click to expand...

Hi Antoine,

That is true, and the reason that S16 lenses (& HD lenses) are so expensive. A S16 lens has to resolve more than twice the amount of a 35mm lens shooting 35mm to have equal performance on a big screen.

That is the reason I own 35mm equipment & not 16mm, I can't afford to own top S16 lenses!

The very latest glass from Zeiss is probably as good as it will get, both 35mm + HD.

Stephen
 
Hi Stephen,

It's very intersting. It makes sense, but what about if they made 35mm lenses with the same quality as S16 lenses ?

Would we see any difference for 35mm, or would it be "too good" for the resolving power of 35mm ? ( i mean film resolving per square inch)
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
Hi Stephen,

It's very intersting. It makes sense, but what about if they made 35mm lenses with the same quality as S16 lenses ?

Would we see any difference for 35mm, or would it be "too good" for the resolving power of 35mm ? ( i mean film resolving per square inch)
Click to expand...

Hi Antoine,

The latest Zeiss 35mm Motion picture lenses will (probably) out resolve film when wide open, older lenses needed to be stoped down a couple of stops for that to happen. Films have also improved and will (probably) continue to do so!

In the end a lens has to be made for a price that the manufacture can sell it for at a profit!

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi Barry,

Many people shoot 3 perf for 1:1.85, this will almost always be S35 as will almost any production that will use a DI.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Just a quick question:

My understanding was that 3-perf and S35 were completely separate standards - is it common to refer to 3-perf as "S35" as the horizontal coverage (and therefore necessary lens coverage) is the same, even though the gate is different?

Just wanting to check my jargon database is debugged!
 
S35 typically refers to the width of the frame -- as in, does it extend fully from perf to perf, or is there some space reserved for the optical soundtrack?

3-perf refers to the height of the frame. Since moving to the 1.85:1 standard, at least 25% of the film used is completely wasted. So 3-perf does away with the wasted "letterbox" areas of the film.

3-perf can be done on normal or S35 apertures, but not in 4:3. S35 is typically used as a substitute for anamorphic, so the wider image area is combined with about 2.5 perfs of height to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

There's also 2-perf, which is actually 2.66:1. Used to be called TechniScope, and was used to shoot lots of 70's widescreen movies like American Graffiti and Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. 2-perf uses half the film stock (and obviously half the developing costs) of normal 4-perf (whether 1.85 or anamorphic).
 
Barry_Green said:
3-perf can be done on normal or S35 apertures, but not in 4:3. S35 is typically used as a substitute for anamorphic, so the wider image area is combined with about 2.5 perfs of height to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

There's also 2-perf, which is actually 2.66:1. Used to be called TechniScope, and was used to shoot lots of 70's widescreen movies like American Graffiti and Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. 2-perf uses half the film stock (and obviously half the developing costs) of normal 4-perf (whether 1.85 or anamorphic).
Click to expand...

Hi Barry,

3 perf was originally used for US TV with a Big TV ground glass so it has been used 4:3.

With Modern cameras 3 perf would be S35 as standard, for older cameras recentering the lens can be an issue so 3 perf N35 can exist.

With 2 perf there is no advantage (other than reframing) for going S35 as the final release is 2.35:1 Anamorphic

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Antoine_Fabi said:
That's what i read in some litterature...

Some people say that S16 lenses resolve more info per square inch than 35mm lenses because they're made for smaller target image.

...but is it true ? hmmm....

...so if this is true, why would not a manufacturer give equivalent glass quality for 35mm ? better is better ? 35mm or 16mm or whatever the target...
Click to expand...
Hi Antoine,

That is true, and the reason that S16 lenses (& HD lenses) are so expensive. A S16 lens has to resolve more than twice the amount of a 35mm lens shooting 35mm to have equal performance on a big screen.

That is the reason I own 35mm equipment & not 16mm, I can't afford to own top S16 lenses!

The very latest glass from Zeiss is probably as good as it will get, both 35mm + HD.

Stephen
Click to expand...
So, can we infer any N35mm movie lens can perform better than any 35mm still lens? (considering the larger format of the latter one?)
 
Emanuel said:
So, can we infer any N35mm movie lens can perform better than any 35mm still lens? (considering the larger format of the latter one?)
Click to expand...

Hi Emanuel,

They probably will. Without a back to back test I can't prove it, the differences may be small.

Still lenses are often much sharper in the middle, with motion picture lenses the area of greatest sharpness tends to be a larger area around the centre where the most important part of the image will fall.

Stephen
 
Most modern still lenses have been developed for digital cameras as well so they have some distinct advantages over 80s or 90s era cinema glass. Of course focusing and iris control will be harder though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top