You're not zoomed in far enough at all. Z70 is like not even zoomed into the GG.
That really is some dirty edge fall-off, though.
Last edited:
Edge to Edge Sharpness on LE
- Thread starter Tim Naylor
- Start date
You're not zoomed in far enough at all. Z70 is like not even zoomed into the GG.
That really is some dirty edge fall-off, though.
disjecta
Lucky Duck
Frankly, I think it absurd that there is such concern over edge to edge sharpness given what has already been proven with the Extreme. For those who are worrying, don't. I shoot more with the adapter on than off these days and my eye is never distracted by lack of edge sharpening. There is a little fall off on the very edges to be sure but it's so insignificant and so not part of the general viewing area, it's not worth worrying about. Whether your movie will be seen on TV or projection, there is almost always a little clipping around the edges of your frame, thus eliminating any tiny amount of softness.
Here's a still I just pulled from something I shot recently. If you sit down and put your eyeball to the screen, sure, you can find imperfections but to be able to get pictures like this with an adapter is nothing short of a miracle to me.
This is shot with a Canon XHA1 and Extreme combo zoomed in to about 76, using a 24mm Nikon f2.8 lens, fully open. Keep in mind that I captured this from Windows Media Player and there is additional jpeg compression so the overall sharpness of the frame is way better in the original:
Here's a still I just pulled from something I shot recently. If you sit down and put your eyeball to the screen, sure, you can find imperfections but to be able to get pictures like this with an adapter is nothing short of a miracle to me.
This is shot with a Canon XHA1 and Extreme combo zoomed in to about 76, using a 24mm Nikon f2.8 lens, fully open. Keep in mind that I captured this from Windows Media Player and there is additional jpeg compression so the overall sharpness of the frame is way better in the original:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Disjecta's pic pretty much illustrates the issue I have with my Nikon 24mm. I usually set the Zoom to 76. Unlike Disjecta, I find this edge softening too much.
The picture he featured with the soft pine trees to the left and right is fine for landscapes, but with blocking and performances or other dramatically vital info in the left/right fifth, I find it too soft, especially on a large screen TV. If you don't frame performances to the outside or just shoot landscapes and urban docs, it may be fine.
This softness is even more impractical when someone is in a full shot. At least in a closeup, more than half of the face is sharp. In a FS their whole body can be soft. Folks may think I'm making too big an issue of it. But it wasn't me who orginally pointed this out. It was the director. That's bad when the director and the script supervisor notice it (and put it in their notes).
So to say this "nitpicking" is absurd is denying certain realities that some people (clients) find unacceptable. As it is right now, I can't in good faith use my LE on a drama (that uses wide lenses - meaning virtually all) until I can resolve this edge to edge issue.
The picture he featured with the soft pine trees to the left and right is fine for landscapes, but with blocking and performances or other dramatically vital info in the left/right fifth, I find it too soft, especially on a large screen TV. If you don't frame performances to the outside or just shoot landscapes and urban docs, it may be fine.
This softness is even more impractical when someone is in a full shot. At least in a closeup, more than half of the face is sharp. In a FS their whole body can be soft. Folks may think I'm making too big an issue of it. But it wasn't me who orginally pointed this out. It was the director. That's bad when the director and the script supervisor notice it (and put it in their notes).
So to say this "nitpicking" is absurd is denying certain realities that some people (clients) find unacceptable. As it is right now, I can't in good faith use my LE on a drama (that uses wide lenses - meaning virtually all) until I can resolve this edge to edge issue.
disjecta
Lucky Duck
I still think it's absurd but that's just my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 
I have not seen a single shot out there where you are doing medium or closeup framing with softening being a distraction or even seen. I would challenge you to post a frame to demonstrate what you mean.
Tim, this is all subjective, as you say. I think you are looking for too much for the price. If you want a 35mm look that has edge to edge sharpness, then buy a Red One but I just don't think what you are looking for in this price range is realistic. Again, just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Also, keep in mind that Nikon lenses were not designed for this purpose so there are flaws that become apparent that are not inherent in still photography. These lenses are not perfect by a long shot. A better test of what the adapter can do would be to use Cooke cinema lenses
I have not seen a single shot out there where you are doing medium or closeup framing with softening being a distraction or even seen. I would challenge you to post a frame to demonstrate what you mean.
Tim, this is all subjective, as you say. I think you are looking for too much for the price. If you want a 35mm look that has edge to edge sharpness, then buy a Red One but I just don't think what you are looking for in this price range is realistic. Again, just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Also, keep in mind that Nikon lenses were not designed for this purpose so there are flaws that become apparent that are not inherent in still photography. These lenses are not perfect by a long shot. A better test of what the adapter can do would be to use Cooke cinema lenses
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Focus is not an opinion. It's just soft. Regarding subjectivity, everyone from my director, scripty, gaffer, and AC noticed it. What I'm looking for I found in this price range in my SGPro. The only issue I had with it was its lack of a flip. THough I am just worried its new flip module may exhibit the same problem (waiting on a part to test it). I'm beginning to think the SG's long tube has something to do with its great edge to edge sharpness.
Tim Naylor
Veteran
How soon will the the SG flip be ready to test?
I still think it's absurd but that's just my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I have not seen a single shot out there where you are doing medium or closeup framing with softening being a distraction or even seen. I would challenge you to post a frame to demonstrate what you mean.
Tim, this is all subjective, as you say. I think you are looking for too much for the price. If you want a 35mm look that has edge to edge sharpness, then buy a Red One but I just don't think what you are looking for in this price range is realistic. Again, just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Also, keep in mind that Nikon lenses were not designed for this purpose so there are flaws that become apparent that are not inherent in still photography. These lenses are not perfect by a long shot. A better test of what the adapter can do would be to use Cooke cinema lenses
Actually, it's not just Nikons doing this. It's also Zeiss glass but I think I know why. I'm on both sides of the fence at once, or standin' on it whichever analogy you wanna use. I don't see ANYTHING distracting about Disjecta's work...
But yesterday, there was a lot of time spent on set figuring out wtf was wrong with the wides. I was VERY sad to see this happen, but it has barely anything to do with the adapters and more to do with the glass.
I'll challenge anyone to do an E-To-E comparison with the same lenses, same zoom settings on their adapters and you'll find similar if not exact results.
That includes an SGpro
Tim, I DEFINITELY understand what you're saying. I had to look at it all day on set yesterday and it was pretty gross, but it had to do with what we're using these lenses on in general; not just the LetusEX. I have pics from yesterday's set with the EX strapped on and the M2, and with the same set of Zeiss primes the Wides did the same exact thing: major softness at the edges.
I do invite you to show me the same pictures using the same lenses zoomed into the same frame between the SGpro and LetusEX. Can anyone do that and prove it's more the Letus than the actual lens?
whenever it shows up we will begin testing...... the part is a gift from Hien. so its at his leisure....
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Kholi;1164541 don't see ANYTHING distracting about Disjecta's work... o[/QUOTE said:
I zoom in further than that. And that's about right for proper FOV and DOF.
I'm not making that judgment based on stills, but based on his posted works. There's nothing distracting about the edge softness in what he does and it's not as drastic as I experienced yesterday.
Leads me to believe he's been zoomed in to the proper place since he's had his unit.
Let's not turn it into another text-based bloodbath: I see what you see. I didn't see it before and my theory is in the taking lens. While the adapter causes some of it, I still invite you to do similar tests between the SGpro and Letus using the same lens. Show us the results. Same Focal lengths, etc.
Not to challenge, but to see if it IS the same in fact, and it's more of a Lens deal than anything else. Just because we have access to the best glass doesn't mean it's going to work how we expect it to. Like I said, my 35mm Vivitar POS doesn't exhibit this same softness, while the 32mm Zeiss Standard PL almost made me hurl.
I'd also like to go to bat for all of the Adapter manufacturers (doing so in the other thread I started) and the fact that they can't test every single lens on earth. That goes for Wood, Kinney, the Le brothers and Valente's Redrock crew.
If the theory is accurate (it's probably not, cause I'm hairbrained) then the only thing they can do is try to compensate for it in updates. The problem is definitely noted by now, not just by the Le brothers but I'm sure by Dennis Wood and the rest of the guys and one of those smart fellas are going to figure out how to get around it, or if you can at all.
I have two 28mm lenses, two 35mm lenses, and two 50mm lenses that I'm going to test, and I'll post up the footage from the Letus + PL mount (Which I'll be reiterating that Backfocus is accurate and so are the marks -- as reported from the AC yesterday. I'm not sure if it's for all lenses, should be? But she said her marks were right.).
If the theory is accurate (it's probably not, cause I'm hairbrained) then the only thing they can do is try to compensate for it in updates. The problem is definitely noted by now, not just by the Le brothers but I'm sure by Dennis Wood and the rest of the guys and one of those smart fellas are going to figure out how to get around it, or if you can at all.
I have two 28mm lenses, two 35mm lenses, and two 50mm lenses that I'm going to test, and I'll post up the footage from the Letus + PL mount (Which I'll be reiterating that Backfocus is accurate and so are the marks -- as reported from the AC yesterday. I'm not sure if it's for all lenses, should be? But she said her marks were right.).
DallasZhen
Member
To: Tim
Looks like the macro len's problem to me. Its not a good quality. with good macro len you can get much better sharp image on center. also because see your image, there is color shifting as well.
However, whatever you do the fact the close up len alway has corner soft problem.
Looks like the macro len's problem to me. Its not a good quality. with good macro len you can get much better sharp image on center. also because see your image, there is color shifting as well.
However, whatever you do the fact the close up len alway has corner soft problem.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Since we know the LEX has a much larger internal FOV than academy or other conventional standards (see my previous post in this thread for the relevant quote about this from Letus's site), I wonder if someone could try something out while I await the arrival of my own LEX (or point me to another place if someone's already done it).
According to Barry's book, a bare HVX shoots the 35mm still camera equivalent focal length of 50.8mm at a zoom setting of Z25 (or 6.6mm on the HVX's mm scale readout). He's got a wide range of lens lengths and equivalencies mapped out in the book, but since most users have at least a 50mm lens, and it's more or less a "neutral" focal length, it seemed like a good test subject.
The procedure would go like this:
1) Set up a focus chart or other similarly large, finely detailed image, and with the HVX's zoom set to 25 (or 6.6mm), position the camera so the screen is filled with the chart, focus for the center, and shoot.
2) Then, without moving the camera (except to accomodate whatever the difference is between the locations of the imaging planes with and without the adapter), add the LEX (or any adapter, for that matter) and a 50mm SLR lens. After setting it up normally, zoom the HVX to match the FOV as in case #1, and shoot again.
The question is, what HVX zoom setting is the result in case #2?
If it's significantly more zoomed in than what's necessary to eliminate vignetting, then we may have some useful information on minimizing edge focus problems. Presumably, more zoomed in should mean less edge-related issues of all kinds, right?
Furthermore, since we've established a bare HVX vs adapter-equipped focal length equivalency, then we know we're not over-zooming to get that advantage. We've eliminated the adapter's effect on FOV from the equation.
Of course, users could still zoom the HVX in less if they wanted to and didn't mind whatever the effect on the image quality was, but at least we'd know what setting could be regarded as focal length-neutral.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give this a shot.
According to Barry's book, a bare HVX shoots the 35mm still camera equivalent focal length of 50.8mm at a zoom setting of Z25 (or 6.6mm on the HVX's mm scale readout). He's got a wide range of lens lengths and equivalencies mapped out in the book, but since most users have at least a 50mm lens, and it's more or less a "neutral" focal length, it seemed like a good test subject.
The procedure would go like this:
1) Set up a focus chart or other similarly large, finely detailed image, and with the HVX's zoom set to 25 (or 6.6mm), position the camera so the screen is filled with the chart, focus for the center, and shoot.
2) Then, without moving the camera (except to accomodate whatever the difference is between the locations of the imaging planes with and without the adapter), add the LEX (or any adapter, for that matter) and a 50mm SLR lens. After setting it up normally, zoom the HVX to match the FOV as in case #1, and shoot again.
The question is, what HVX zoom setting is the result in case #2?
If it's significantly more zoomed in than what's necessary to eliminate vignetting, then we may have some useful information on minimizing edge focus problems. Presumably, more zoomed in should mean less edge-related issues of all kinds, right?
Furthermore, since we've established a bare HVX vs adapter-equipped focal length equivalency, then we know we're not over-zooming to get that advantage. We've eliminated the adapter's effect on FOV from the equation.
Of course, users could still zoom the HVX in less if they wanted to and didn't mind whatever the effect on the image quality was, but at least we'd know what setting could be regarded as focal length-neutral.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give this a shot.
Last edited:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
How far do you zoom in to emulate 35 cine FOV on the LE?
Regarding edge softness. I was going through some old SG footage just to see how far to the edge I place critical things, and well, it's pretty far to the point where it would be in the soft zone on the LE.
Testing the SG today on a set of charts (duplicating what I shot with the LE last night). Will post soon.
I have to recalculate. I am thinking that it's somewhere around 27.3 but I have a feeling it might be an incorrect calculation.
Also, when using Cine glass the frame is like 24 x 16 or somethin'. So that zoomed in even further.
I appreciate you doin' your testing. I want to see if there's a major different between the SGpro and Letus at the same zoom settings and on the same lenses. If there is, then I'm sure the Le brothers can make adjustments in the future. I do honestly think they'll be the same.
I might try to get Matty_G up here to try out some stuff on the lenses as well. He's got an SGpro non-flipped version.