Vista Vision vs Academy 35mm

[MalcolmOng]

Hey guys,

When using a 35mm adaptor, whats the difference between using the Vista Vision frame size as opposed to the Academy 35mm one? How would it affect the actual quality of the footage as well? The only thing i can figure out is that it just offers a wider field of view...but is there anything else that's affected by choosing to use either one of the formats?

 

[Barry_Green]

The field of view is wider on the VistaVision frame, which means that you'd need a more telephoto lens to get the same composition as you would from an Academy frame (assuming the camera is at the same position). Which means shallower DOF.

Alternately, you could just move closer with the VistaVision unit and keep the focal length the same, but again that'll result in shallower DOF and may involve a bit of perspective distortion depending on how close you have to get and how wide your wide-angle lens is.

There are benefits to using the larger frame size, including zooming out makes our maximum iris on your lens wider, allowing for more light to enter the camera if your camera's wide open. And smaller grain texture on the ground glass. There could be drawbacks, depending on how the adapter is designed -- most adapters have better uniformity and edge sharpness the more you're zoomed in. Zooming out can bring in vignetting and soft corners, but it really depends on how the adapter is designed.

Obviously the ultimate is to have both options -- the ability to zoom out wider when you want, or zoom in closer to match the field of view and depth of field characteristics of 35mm movies. I don't know how many adapters offer this flexibility; at least the L35 Extreme and the Cinevate Brevis offer it.

 

[marco0782]

For me one of the neat things about a wider format is that you can use a short telephoto (85) lens where you previously would use a normal (50). An 85mm lens naturally flattens perspective, so it's a completely different look.

Another neat thing is that I can make my wide angle lenses even wider.

I have not noticed any quality issues in doing this with my Brevis. Like Barry said, you get smaller train texture and more light comes through the lens so that's an advantage. If the adapter or achromat haven't been designed to do this the edges might be darker and softer.

 

[PappasArts]

at least the L35 Extreme and the Cinevate Brevis offer it..

Barry does the Letus Extreme offers the vista frame like the brevis? Am I reading that correctly?



My biggest concern with these are first Grain from the GG. NO grain is an absolute requirement. I hate to see it.

NO Vignetting is also an absolute requirement. I mainly want to use 28mm to 85 primes.
Mostly I would have the Nikon 50mm 1.4 on. I was set on the brevis.
Then Barlow told me about the extreme the other night on the phone. Now back to the evaluation stage.....


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry does the Letus Extreme offers the vista frame like the brevis? Am I reading that correctly?

Yep.

 

[Dennis Wood]

One of the major benefits of having interchangeable imaging elements is that we can guarantee full frame performane with virtually every camera and lens combination out there. An f3.5 28-100 zoom is completely usable, as is a 20mm f2.8, as is a 500mm f4. This is true when using an HV20, and true when using a JVC HD100. Getting to this point has been a very expensive proposition, but in time as product reviews are done, the differences will become apparent. Greater usable FOV is just one of the benefits.

Our optical flip module will be in the retail stream in 3-4 weeks. What many don't realize is that the HD bundle will not be required for exclusive use with the flip module. This will place the Brevis with a very high quality optical flip (including SA compensating optics), micro-collimating lens mounts, full PL and OCT19 support, and interchangeable imaging elements at the $1300 range. This with a system that you will be able to remove the flip unit from! From what I've seen of the tests so far, we're still nearly a full stop more efficient from anything on the market. Add in our carbon rails system which is already fully integrated to the flip module, follow focus, etc. and I'm confident that current or future Brevis users will be very happy with their decision Our warranty has alway been 1 year, and includes overnight replacement/repair once a unit has been received.

The unit has alway been modular, meaning virtually every user out there who want's their unit brought to the latest REV2-MC specs, can do so with a $140 part. The consideration factors heavily into every change on every system related to the adapter.

 

[Lenilenapi]

I made a number of comments about this on another thread last night, but to summarize, as Barry said there are pros and cons to each frame size.

1. Vistavision inherently produces less DOF which can be great or can create hosts of problems if its too little.

2. For practical purposes :
-if you're shooting a feature in small rooms the vistavision could be a lifesaver. Likewise if you want wide shots for any purpose.

-If you want the forced perspective of long lenses say for interviews or just because you want to shoot in that style, then Academy is an advantage.
(With the Redrock in Vistavision mode I often used an 80-200 all the way out at 200 for close-up interview shots. They looked beautiful, but i was surprised to see recently that I could get similar look with a lower light 135 prime in the minipro's Academy mode. I would have had less DOF with the Redrock 200mm in principal, but that would be offset by the ability to shoot at a lower fstop with the Zeiss prime.

3. Various adapters may be optimized to focus best on Academy or Vistavision. It might be hard to make an achromat that works equally well for both, but I am only guessing here and could be completely wrong.

4. I had an interesting discussion about this last year with Brian from Redrock, asking if the Zeiss lenses were much of an improvement on the Redrock. He said that although the Zeiss glass was certainly better especially at open f-stops, that this advantage was offset by what he saw as the disadvantages of zooming in on the adapter and its diffusing screen. He made an analogy to blowing up a photo from a smaller negative .
Don't know if this is true but its sure interesting.

5. Barry has suggested that if you truly want to emulate the look of 35mm features you should shoot with the aspect ratio of a typical feature - Academy. Of course one could ask: what if I want my HVX to look like Lawrence of Arabia (Was that shot in Vistavision?).

6. What I'm starting to call "Apparent DOF" in these adapters is not simply based on the usual criterias of lens length, image size, f-stop etc. but also by the diffusing characteristics of the diffusion screen itself.
This is mighty mysterious, but its an observable fact and it throws a monkey wrench into some of the other assumptions about Vistavision vs Academy.
For example the Brevis CF1L screen has more DOF than say a Redrock, SGPro or other Brevis screens. This means that psychologically you might have DOF closer to an Academy feature yet be shooting in the Brevis Vistavison format while say getting wider shots indoors.

Really the complexities of all this are pretty mind boggling, and measuring light loss is also very messy indeed unless you carefully control the variables.

Lenny Levy

 

[PappasArts]

Dennis I have few questions.

What does this mean you will not need the HD bundle?

What do you mean it replaces the brevis?

Is the flip a whole new unit/product, replacing the current brevis design?

Do we hook the lenses to the flip now and not to the brevis tube?

So is the acromat no longer needed if you use the flip module like how the HV20 etc must have the achromat currently?

Is there a reason why anyone would not just use the flip system 100% of time on a camera?

Is the image performance better with the flip vs Brevis tube?

Is the GG now in the flip system?


Sorry for all the questions.................... There is just not a lot known about your coming up Flip, or atleast I have been blind to finding the data....

Thanks Dennis.

 

[PappasArts]

1. Vistavision inherently produces less DOF which can be great or can create hosts of problems if its too little.

No, Same DOF or lack of. Just different FOV.

 

[Andreas]

Does the SGPro offers also a VistaVision Frame ?

Andreas

 

[Dennis Wood]

What does this mean you will not need the HD bundle?

A Brevis unit purchase with a flip module will not need the 72mm HD achromat that is part of the HD bundle...so the adapter itself drops $200 in cost.

What do you mean it replaces the brevis?

The Brevis as we know it, won't change.

Is the flip a whole new unit/product, replacing the current brevis design?

No, which means past, present and future owners will have the flip option if they want it.

Do we hook the lenses to the flip now and not to the brevis tube?

The flip module goes between the Brevis unit and the camera.

So is the acromat no longer needed if you use the flip module like how the HV20 etc must have the achromat currently?

Correct, but if you wish to use the Brevis as a standalone (non-flipped) unit, you would need to use the usual 72mm achromat.

Is there a reason why anyone would not just use the flip system 100% of time on a camera?

Yes. Many users have (or will have shortly) HD external monitors to help with focus, and are quite happy to flip in post. These users would normally not use the flip. Many cams will likely follow the JVC HD250 lead, and incorporate flip into the LCD. These users will likely prefer using the Brevis with the upcoming B4 relay module, and no flip.

Is the image performance better with the flip vs Brevis tube?

Technically yes, but you'll need a production monitor and res charts to tell the difference. The biggest improvement in image quality came with CF1L and that series of imaging elements for use the larger cams. We'll be making an announcement in a week or so about the latest developments with regard to CF1L

Is the GG now in the flip system?

No, the interchangeable imaging element system stays the same

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Basically, normally one would have 35mm lens --> Brevis unit --> Achromat --> camera.

With the flip module, everything would remain the same except the flip module would replace the achromat. That is my understanding anyways.

The Brevis unit doesn't change at all. One is just replacing the achromat with the flip module. Everything else remains the same. Think of it as an add-on. Not a modification, or a new unit.

----

My question for Barry, Dennis, or anyone who might know:

Say I am using a 50mm lens as a standard... What is the field of view at x distance that I should be measuring to know how far zoomed in I have to be to acheive Vista Vision, 35mm, etc, etc.

Or, however I would do it... how can one measure how far zoomed in they would need to be to have whatever desired frame size they wish to use?

Thanks,
Jason

 

[Dennis Wood]

Jason, there's a framing guide in our owner's forum that is specific to the Brevis which shows all the format frames overlaid. That said, if you zoom in approx 10% past the limiting right and left edges, you're at the the standard FOV for both Vistavision and SLR frame...in other words exactly what you'd see on film. However, with fast lenses, you can zoom out to increase your FOV beyond what you'd see on film!

Something rarely discussed is how zooming in on the camera affects light loss figures for an adapter. The less you zoom in, the higher the effective camera aperture remains, meaning better light efficiency. It's another major reason for the R&D efforts we've sustained for full-frame performance on all camera platforms.

 

[marco0782]

1. Vistavision inherently produces less DOF which can be great or can create hosts of problems if its too little.

You only get less depth of field if you are using a greater focal length or getting closer to your subject in order to achieve the same composition. But I don't see what problems this creates since you can just stop down your lens.

-If you want the forced perspective of long lenses say for interviews or just because you want to shoot in that style, then Academy is an advantage.
(With the Redrock in Vistavision mode I often used an 80-200 all the way out at 200 for close-up interview shots. They looked beautiful, but i was surprised to see recently that I could get similar look with a lower light 135 prime in the minipro's Academy mode. I would have had less DOF with the Redrock 200mm in principal, but that would be offset by the ability to shoot at a lower fstop with the Zeiss prime.

Yes, but the difference is that a 200mm will produce a flatter image. The longer the focal length the more compressed the foreground, middleground and background will be. This can be used for specific effect, and why I pointed out that I was using an 85mm as my 50mm with VistaVision and therefore able to achieve a wide shot that looks 2D whereas wide shots typically look 3D.

5. Barry has suggested that if you truly want to emulate the look of 35mm features you should shoot with the aspect ratio of a typical feature - Academy. Of course one could ask: what if I want my HVX to look like Lawrence of Arabia (Was that shot in Vistavision?).

Well we should call it Super 35 because Academy is 4:3 ratio. Lawrence of Arabia was shot in 70mm which is slightly larger than VistaVision but The Ten Commandments was shot in VistaVision.

6. What I'm starting to call "Apparent DOF" in these adapters is not simply based on the usual criterias of lens length, image size, f-stop etc. but also by the diffusing characteristics of the diffusion screen itself.
This is mighty mysterious, but its an observable fact and it throws a monkey wrench into some of the other assumptions about Vistavision vs Academy.
For example the Brevis CF1L screen has more DOF than say a Redrock, SGPro or other Brevis screens. This means that psychologically you might have DOF closer to an Academy feature yet be shooting in the Brevis Vistavison format while say getting wider shots indoors.

Absolutely, I never have too little depth of field with my Brevis.

 

[Barry_Green]

But I don't see what problems this creates since you can just stop down your lens.

Er, outdoors? The iris is dictated by the prevailing light level, you can't just arbitrarily decide to use a smaller iris (unless you're willing to compensate by opening up the shutter, etc).

Well we should call it Super 35 because Academy is 4:3 ratio.

Academy and Super35 are both basically 4:3. Academy is a little tighter because it's squeezed in to make room for the soundtrack. Super35 is full aperture.

All film formats (except Super16) are 4:3 ratio; anything else is accomplished by masking/letterboxing, or by anamorphic lenses.

And what I meant was, roughly 99% of all movies made in Hollywood nowadays are shot on 35mm movie film, so if you want to emulate the look of the extraordinarily vast majority of Hollywood movies, you should match the framing size they use. Of course if you want to match Lawrence of Arabia, that's a case of where you'd use a larger frame size, obviously.

Lawrence of Arabia was shot in 70mm which is slightly larger than VistaVision but The Ten Commandments was shot in VistaVision.

There is no 70mm camera format. Lawrence of Arabia was shot in 65mm. The projection format is 70mm, but the camera format is 65mm.

65mm film produces a frame size of 52.5 x 23mm. VistaVision used 35mm movie film run sideways through the camera, for a frame size of about 38mm x 25mm. So 65mm is about 27% larger than VistaVision.

 

[Lenilenapi]

Well the Lawrence of Arabia remark was just kind of a joke to make the point that there is more than one way to shoot a feature and larger frame sizes have been used. How about Cinemascope - that's another bag entirely.

They all look like movies to me once you get above the smaller formats of 16mm and 2/3" video, but I will probably become more sensitive to the differences format makes after this conversation.

Re: Vistavision - Look in practice shooting Vistavision implies lower DOF for any given composition. Marco, I think too little DOF can be a big problem and "just stopping down the lens" is not always an option. I'm just trying to lay out the issues - positive and negative.

Lenny Levy

 

[PappasArts]

Dennis,
What is the light difference with the

72mm achromat and Brevis

VS

Flip module and Brevis combination?

Is the setup with the Flip/Brevis the same in simplicity as
the Brevis/Acromat combination are?

Will the run gun abilities not change with a flip combi for docs etc?


<<<<<Dennis Wood wrote: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:04 pm
The optics system is the first of it's kind in this industry, and will accomodate an image size much larger than standard SLR frames! It's also great news for HVX200 and HV20 users with their often off-center image capture.>>>>>>

So how much larger did the image go with the flip system vs the non flip Brevis?


Dennis Wood wrote: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:04 pm
<<<we'll see about .5 stops or so light loss, the upside is that the optics requirements change. This will improve edge sharpness even more, as well as improve light distribution across the imaging element>>>>

So edge sharpness is better with flip than non flip. Correct?


Lastly, how's the HV20 performing with the flip system?


Thanks Dennis.....

 

[marco0782]

Er, outdoors? The iris is dictated by the prevailing light level, you can't just arbitrarily decide to use a smaller iris (unless you're willing to compensate by opening up the shutter, etc).

I agree, you will need to compensate by slowing the shutter speed, removing an ND filter, bumping up the ambient light level, etc. But I disagree that iris is necessarily dictated by the prevailing light level. Iris isn't dictated by the prevailing light level unless you don't care about shallow vs. deep focus.

When I shoot I pick an f-stop and shutter speed FIRST, based on what I want the look to be. If I want shallow focus and strobing motion, I will shoot near wide open and with a shutter angle of 130 degrees. THEN I figure out how to either get more light or reduce the light.

This is so much easier with a digital camera and 35mm adapter because you can use the camera's iris as a buffer. If my prime is set to f/1.4 and I want it set to f/8.0, I can open up the HVX's iris. The consideration to keep in mind is how the HVX's iris affects sharpness at different apertures.

All film formats (except Super16) are 4:3 ratio; anything else is accomplished by masking/letterboxing, or by anamorphic lenses.

True, I just think of the frequently used term "Academy Ratio" which connotes 4:3 whereas "Super 35" always connotes (to me, at least) 2.40:1. If you are talking about 3-perf Super 35mm, it is most definitely always 2.40:1.

There is no 70mm camera format. Lawrence of Arabia was shot in 65mm. The projection format is 70mm, but the camera format is 65mm.

Yeah, I get confused because it's called Panavision 70. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Dennis Wood]

Our initial testing shows very minimal light loss. Rather than saying none, we need to wait until the retail enclosure is finished as the engineering boxes (the large square behemoths) are not optically decoupled, and the SA compensating optics are not here yet. In other words, the retail version will be more efficient than what we're testing with right now, and cut nearly 20mm from the optical path.

 

[marco0782]

Look in practice shooting Vistavision implies lower DOF for any given composition. Marco, I think too little DOF can be a big problem and "just stopping down the lens" is not always an option. I'm just trying to lay out the issues - positive and negative.

Thanks Lenny. I shouldn't have generalized, but what I meant is that in this particular feature film with 117 different scenes I never found myself in a situation where I had too little depth of field and wasn't able to stop down. Pulling focus can be much more difficult wide open but we were very careful. In the 2-3 instances that it would be too challenging, stopping down to f/4.0 was always sufficient.