Crews.TV Stills - Now available uncompressed

[Homunculus]

Not even. How many megapixels is a 5DmkII photograph? If the Canon L lenses are sharp enough for that sensor (in stills mode) then they're already overkill for the RED ONE at 4K.

actually a top national geographic photographer debunked this in a recently posted article someone posted here on dvx (you can try to find it).

He put Canon L glass head to head with Zeiss and proved that Canon L is not even capable of taking in the full resolution of 5Dmkii and the L glass was completely blown away by the Zeiss primes in image quality

 

[Homunculus]

but you have the right mindset I think, bcause 4k is technically around 12 megapixels isn't it? And Canon 5dmkii shoots 22 or 23 megapixels to my knowledge. so in theory glass made for a canon 5dmkii should be even optically more precise than that made for Red One or cinema

 

[Jaime Valles]

however let me ad an addendum, this doesn't mean cheap quality crap still lenses compare to top quality cine lenses. I'm sure you guys are merely saying top QUALITY still lenses are optically equal to cine lenses.

and top quality STILL lenses are still expensive and can cost as much as lower end cine lenses

Of course. Top quality still lenses can be expensive, but still nowhere near cine lens prices. Even then, I'd bet one could make spectacular looking footage using that $120 Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens alone. Probably better looking footage than with an old Zeiss Standard Speed prime lens.

 

[Jaime Valles]

but you have the right mindset I think, bcause 4k is technically around 12 megapixels isn't it? And Canon 5dmkii shoots 22 or 23 megapixels to my knowledge. so in theory glass made for a canon 5dmkii should be even optically more precise than that made for Red One or cinema

Bingo.

 

[Homunculus]

Of course. Top quality still lenses can be expensive, but still nowhere near cine lens prices. Even then, I'd bet one could make spectacular looking footage using that $120 Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens alone. Probably better looking footage than with an old Zeiss Standard Speed prime lens.

i may very well be in agreement with you dear sir

 

[Ticheli]

Yeah, I'm thinking at HD resolution you would not see the full effect of such sharp glass.

Cine lenses are not necessarily sharper than high quality still lenses! In fact, they may be less sharp. Sharpness is just one of many factors that affect the "quality" of the image a lens produces, and some attributes come down to a matter of personal preference; do you want a "hard" look? Do you want a warmer look? Factors like these are important, but somewhat less so with the increased power of post production tools.

There are very good reasons for using cine lenses, which I do, but "sharpness" is not one of the them. In fact, it's not their optical quality at all; it's the mechanics, the ability to follow focus without excessive breathing.

A good set of cine lenses has all the necessary gears and the same front diameter so you're not changing the rings on the matte box every time you change a lens. The T-stops are dead on as are the focus marks.

As long as it's optically sufficient, the glass has virtually no effect on the beauty of the picture; as always it's the lighting, composition, movement, color pallet, etc.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Homunculus]

Of course. Top quality still lenses can be expensive, but still nowhere near cine lens prices. Even then, I'd bet one could make spectacular looking footage using that $120 Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens alone. Probably better looking footage than with an old Zeiss Standard Speed prime lens.

yes top stills lenses a few thousand bucks. top cinema lenses as much as $60,000 per lens and 200,000-300,000 for a set

 

[Jaime Valles]

As long as it's optically sufficient, the glass has virtually no effect on the beauty of the picture; as always it's the lighting, composition, movement, color pallet, etc.

Yes, yes, yes!

 

[Homunculus]

well now that I know my $35 Canon FD is better than a Zeiss Ultra Primes and my Pancake is better than Cooke S4, I feel much better thanks guys

 

[Barry_Green]

Will this myth persist longer than Big Foot and Atlantis? Expensive cine lenses are very, very good, but they may not be optically superior to less expensive still camera lenses. Cine lenses are mechanically designed for motion picture use, with greater rotation of focus, very accurate T-stops and focus marks. They are also optically designed to reduce breathing on focusing, but they don't necessarily produce better picture quality. I don't believe anyone can differentiate cine from still glass unless they are looking at the pictures side by side and examining very closely.

So why invest in cine lenses? Because they are superior for making moving pictures, primarily for follow-focusing and when the marks say 6', the lens is perfectly focused at precisely that.

Exactly exactly exactly. Those are the exact reasons that I just bought a set of Zeiss Compact Primes, even though I already had a full set of Zeiss ZF lenses -- and they're the same glass! But the mechanicals are worth the difference to me, even if the image they produce is exactly the same. (and it won't be EXACTLY the same, because the CPs have been optimized to reduce breathing and have a 14-blade iris).

Usability is highly important to me, as end results are.

 

[Jaime Valles]

well now that I know my $35 Canon FD is better than a Zeiss Ultra Primes and my Pancake is better than Cooke S4, I feel much better thanks guys

Of course, it's not quite as simple as that, but generally speaking, you can rest assured that you have glass capable of producing very lovely images.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, I'm thinking at HD resolution you would not see the full effect of such sharp glass.

Definitely correct.

You will see the difference in color and contrast that better glass offers, and differences such as edge-to-edge sharpness and portholing and vignetting and whatnot. But unless you're using a real coke-bottle piece-o'-crap, you won't be seeing a difference in overall sharpness.

 

[Barry_Green]

at what resolution then would you see the effect? 4k?

4K is 12 megapixels. Most decent SLR glass can resolve a 4K image.

 

[Jaime Valles]

Exactly exactly exactly. Those are the exact reasons that I just bought a set of Zeiss Compact Primes, even though I already had a full set of Zeiss ZF lenses -- and they're the same glass! But the mechanicals are worth the difference to me, even if the image they produce is exactly the same. (and it won't be EXACTLY the same, because the CPs have been optimized to reduce breathing and have a 14-blade iris).

Usability is highly important to me, as end results are.

Right. If you're on a paid professional gig with a crew getting paid by the hour, you'd better have proper cine lenses available to not waste time adjusting the mattebox for every lens, or having to do another take because the focus wheel on your SLR lens is finicky. Usability in those scenarios is much more important than saving money on lens costs, because ultimately the cheaper lens will cost you more money on crew overtime payments.

If you're shooting your indie film at home, with a crew of 4 and nobody is getting paid except with pizza and beer, then save the dough and go with SLR lenses. Do however many takes you need to get the focus right, and enjoy the fact that you shot the movie on less than $500 worth of glass.

 

[Barry_Green]

They didn't use cine lenses, they used Nikon, Canon, or other SRL lenses, and the photos are perfect. There's no difference in optical quality, only in mechanical quality. No need to spend a fortune on cine lenses, when SLR lenses will do just fine.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that yes, you can get great images out of SLR glass, but there are many good and valid reasons why cinema glass is worth the price (to those to whom it's worth the price, of course). Not the least of which is that you can get a T1.3 matched set across all focal lengths, and in zooms the SLR zooms are just horrible in comparison to a decent cinema zoom.

But in general your point is right -- the best SLR glass is capable of perfectly magnificent results.

 

[Homunculus]

How about iris's? How do irises differ from cine lenses to top stills lenses? Barry mentioned zeiss ultra primes have 14 blades that makes bokeh much better, do top stills lenses ever offer such irises?

 

[Barry_Green]

excellent point. you guys are killing the cine-lens hype.

Well, hold on a minute there, pardner. It's not "hype", cinema lenses have massive advantages over SLR lenses. Why do you think companies like Zeiss and Cooke and Angenieux can turn out $4,000 to $100,000 lenses, and have been doing so for decades, and customers find them worth it? Are all the cine lens customers "stupid" or something? Of course not. There are many valid reasons why cinema lenses are vastly superior to SLR lenses. It's not that the ultimate image will be night and day better, it's everything else.

 

[Homunculus]

Well, hold on a minute there, pardner. It's not "hype", cinema lenses have massive advantages over SLR lenses. Why do you think companies like Zeiss and Cooke and Angenieux can turn out $4,000 to $100,000 lenses, and have been doing so for decades, and customers find them worth it? Are all the cine lens customers "stupid" or something? Of course not. There are many valid reasons why cinema lenses are vastly superior to SLR lenses. It's not that the ultimate image will be night and day better, it's everything else.

Same reason lamborghini can churn out a 500,000$ car and have customers lining up in droves whereas I can put 5000$ of parts into my old beat up trans am and have it annihilate the lamborghini on a race track, because there are rich people in this world that will easily pay for such minor amenities. Hollywood shoots hundreds of million dollar movies, to them renting a set of hundred thousand dollar lenses is like choosing a new toilet cleaner, barely even dents their pockets!

 

[Barry_Green]

Are you saying then that the only need for cine style lenses in the industry is for build quality, form factor, large degree focus turn, t stops and bokeh?

Basically, yes. Cinema lenses are designed to do the job a cinema shooter needs done. So they're standardized sizes, with luxurious mechanicals, massive focus travel, minimized or eliminated breathing, precisely calibrated, with exquisite bokeh, color-matched, T-stop-matched across the entire set.

SLR lenses have been with us since ... well, when *haven't* we had SLR lenses? Since the dawn of the SLR, obviously. And they've always been much less expensive than cinema lenses. And nobody in cinema uses them, then or now. For many extremely good reasons.

 

[Homunculus]

just curious as having never used a cine lens. How do you pull focus with the 'massive focus travel' if you have to rack focus in middle of a shoot from huge distance let's say you have to rack 30 feet of focus or something and your hand can't do it all in one rotation, so how do you then do it smoothly without having to stop the rotation reset your hand and do another rotation resulting in a broken up focus pull. do you use 2 hands and have the 2nd one take over as soon as the 1st hand is almost done with its rotation and try to connect the motion smoothly?