broughtonfilm
Well-known member
You are actually compressing pixels which otherwise would have to be masked off (lost), not stretching.
FS7: Difference between 'good and fantastic' lens
- Thread starter Publimix
- Start date
You are actually compressing pixels which otherwise would have to be masked off (lost), not stretching.
Viddovation
Veteran
Assuming the image sensor photosite layout is designed for 1:1 spherical lenses (true of most digital cinema cameras), and assuming the final output format expects 1:1 pixels (true of HDTV, and most projectors with spherical lenses), then you are going to have to manipulate the recorded image to fit that format. Whether you letter box or crop the sides, you're still going to be doing pixel scaling and stretching going from 2:1 or 1.333:1.
Grug
Veteran
Well, technically, you're doing both.
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
My point is that there is a difference between stretching pixels (keeping vertical resolution and stretching the squeezed anamorphic image horizontally to make it 1:2.35 aspect ratio ) and compressing / squeezing (keeping horizontal resolution and squeezing vertically to make it 1:2.35 aspect ratio). Of course unless the aspect ratio of the sensor is exactly of that of the squeezed optically anamorphic image there is still a waste of the sensor pixels.
Liam Hall
Veteran
That would depend on your post workflow.
Grug
Veteran
No, not really. You've got an anamorphic lens squeezing the light horizontally on to the sensor at a 2:1 ratio, and then (at some point in the chain) you're stretching out your pixels to twice their original width to compensate.
In what possible workflow for digital anamorphic would that change?
Liam Hall
Veteran
Anamorphic projection.
Viddovation
Veteran
Agreed with Liam. If you shoot with an anamorphic lens, and deliver for projection through an anamorphic lens, it's possible to never have to scale the image or desqueeze. However, I can't imagine very many projects that will solely be delivered in that singular manner, other than specialty art installations and such.
Grug
Veteran
Right... You might be able to get people to bust out ancient anamorphic projectors for special roadshow presentations of Tarantino films. But outside of that and the few remaining rep theatres, anamorphic projection is dead. No one does it digitally, so I'd hardly consider it a valid workflow for the contemporary marketplace.
allenfacemire
Well-known member
Quote from Doug Jensen"
But there are other standards that must be met for a lens to pass MY qualifications:
1) It must have a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 . . . or f/4 if it is a long telephoto lens.
2) If it is a zoom lens, it must have a constant maximum aperture throughout the entire focal length range.
3) It must have smooth manual focusing with a large turning radius.
4) The focus ring must turn the standard direction for broadcast and cinema lenses (Nikon lenses are out)
4) I prefer that the lens not have any auto-focusing capability. It is almost always the case that if a lens has AF capability then manual focusing will suck.
5) I only want to invest in lenses that are very likely to hold their value.
If a lens meets these criteria, it may be a fantastic lens . . . for me.[/QUOTE]
I pretty much always agree with Doug Jensen's assessments but I will disagree for at least one of his lens requirements. That said, he did say for HIS QUALIFICATIONS--and I respect that.
However, Nikon's are very very nice pieces of glass. Only reason I use them is, well I've been a Nikon guy since the days of the Nikon F. I'm not a stills photog but I know what I like and 50 years ago, nobody used Canon's. Always a Nikon.
Yeah, I'm an old fart. Sue me!
The focus? Yeah! That is frustrating but I'm used to it. Difficult to make the transition from Fujinon's and Canon's though. I find myself having to rehearse focus moves and I find myself reverse focusing sometimes--but for some situations it works as the director wants that look and feel of grabbing focus on the run as in The Office, etc. Bugs the crap out of me but again, vanilla/ chocolate--Ford/Chevy--Coke/Pepsi--Bud/Miller! OK, bad analogy about beer. Who drinks any of that corporate swill? Bet Doug doesn't.
Too bad Nikon's focus against the rest of the planet but no one can deny their sharpness, robustness and features.
And--if they focused normally, they would rule, IMHO!
One more thing--about 30 or so years ago Nikon jumped into the ENG fray with a series of B4 lenses that were just great and if I recall, they focused normally. I still have them. Amount the first with internal focus barrel.
Not sure the reasoning for the backward focus operation of their still lenses.
But there are other standards that must be met for a lens to pass MY qualifications:
1) It must have a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 . . . or f/4 if it is a long telephoto lens.
2) If it is a zoom lens, it must have a constant maximum aperture throughout the entire focal length range.
3) It must have smooth manual focusing with a large turning radius.
4) The focus ring must turn the standard direction for broadcast and cinema lenses (Nikon lenses are out)
4) I prefer that the lens not have any auto-focusing capability. It is almost always the case that if a lens has AF capability then manual focusing will suck.
5) I only want to invest in lenses that are very likely to hold their value.
If a lens meets these criteria, it may be a fantastic lens . . . for me.[/QUOTE]
I pretty much always agree with Doug Jensen's assessments but I will disagree for at least one of his lens requirements. That said, he did say for HIS QUALIFICATIONS--and I respect that.
However, Nikon's are very very nice pieces of glass. Only reason I use them is, well I've been a Nikon guy since the days of the Nikon F. I'm not a stills photog but I know what I like and 50 years ago, nobody used Canon's. Always a Nikon.
Yeah, I'm an old fart. Sue me!
The focus? Yeah! That is frustrating but I'm used to it. Difficult to make the transition from Fujinon's and Canon's though. I find myself having to rehearse focus moves and I find myself reverse focusing sometimes--but for some situations it works as the director wants that look and feel of grabbing focus on the run as in The Office, etc. Bugs the crap out of me but again, vanilla/ chocolate--Ford/Chevy--Coke/Pepsi--Bud/Miller! OK, bad analogy about beer. Who drinks any of that corporate swill? Bet Doug doesn't.
Too bad Nikon's focus against the rest of the planet but no one can deny their sharpness, robustness and features.
And--if they focused normally, they would rule, IMHO!
One more thing--about 30 or so years ago Nikon jumped into the ENG fray with a series of B4 lenses that were just great and if I recall, they focused normally. I still have them. Amount the first with internal focus barrel.
Not sure the reasoning for the backward focus operation of their still lenses.
Liam Hall
Veteran
It is possible. I looked into it last year for a job I was pitching for where I needed to project a film in extreme wide aspect ratio. I found an anamorphic lens adapter you could use with a digital projector. Job never happened, so I can't tell you how it turned out. I've done extreme wide aspect ratio jobs before, but I've used multiple projectors rather than anamorphic lenses.
cameramanben
Well-known member
Liam,
when you mention extreme aspect ratio, I just have to mention a shoot from a couple of months ago. A film to be projected on three walls of a long, thin room, plus a portion of the floor in front of the centre wall. Total wall area 20m x 3m (65'6"x10') for an aspect ratio of 6.67:1! Six projectors.
The big challenge was getting attractive images which looked good all the way around the 220-240 degrees of the (three camera) rig I built,
Ben
when you mention extreme aspect ratio, I just have to mention a shoot from a couple of months ago. A film to be projected on three walls of a long, thin room, plus a portion of the floor in front of the centre wall. Total wall area 20m x 3m (65'6"x10') for an aspect ratio of 6.67:1! Six projectors.
The big challenge was getting attractive images which looked good all the way around the 220-240 degrees of the (three camera) rig I built,
Ben
Cooke lenses are available to rent in Berlin. I used them on a shoot there long time ago (it was on 35mm). Great city to shoot in and very good local crew
Interesting links, and points.
However, the author fails to do a proper side by side comparison. So i cant really see true evidence for his points.
In the image that is supposed to prove a nice 3D rendition of the females face, i see a different aperture (and the entire face is in focus, as opposed to the other "flat" photos) and some humans have very deep faces, while others (like some asians) have very flat faces. So unless its the same model side by side, i cant really tell what is evidence and what is natural differences.
I really miss proper side by side comparisons of lenses. Even on the FS7.
Edit: Saw the mickey mouse photos in the other link. I cant tell the difference between the two, and later in the post some images is supposed to show how much better old glass is. But the light is completely s*%t on the "flat lens" photos. So they dont prove anything other than how important light is.
Last edited:
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Martin,
I would agree that the examples on that blog could be better and of course lighting is key to any depth representation. I posted those links hoping it would start a bit of discussion to see what the consensus was. I do subscribe to the author's view, I can see it with my own lenses. The Nikkor AIS lenses I own have more 3D depth to the image than my modern glass, it is very obvious at 'normal' focal lengths but the downside is more chromatic aberration and flare than modern Nikkor glass. It may have nothing to do with the number of elements in the lens and be due to some other factor I don't know enough about lens designs.
The Cooke cinema lenses are renowned for this 3D look where the background is pulled away from the foreground giving a depth dimension but unlike my AIS lenses they do it with precision optics that suffer no CA or flaring. I could never afford a set of Cooke lenses so I'll make do with my AISes.
Shane Hulbut has a cinema lens comparison on his YT channel which clearly shows the Cooke Look compared to Zeiss, Xeen et al.
I would agree that the examples on that blog could be better and of course lighting is key to any depth representation. I posted those links hoping it would start a bit of discussion to see what the consensus was. I do subscribe to the author's view, I can see it with my own lenses. The Nikkor AIS lenses I own have more 3D depth to the image than my modern glass, it is very obvious at 'normal' focal lengths but the downside is more chromatic aberration and flare than modern Nikkor glass. It may have nothing to do with the number of elements in the lens and be due to some other factor I don't know enough about lens designs.
The Cooke cinema lenses are renowned for this 3D look where the background is pulled away from the foreground giving a depth dimension but unlike my AIS lenses they do it with precision optics that suffer no CA or flaring. I could never afford a set of Cooke lenses so I'll make do with my AISes.
Shane Hulbut has a cinema lens comparison on his YT channel which clearly shows the Cooke Look compared to Zeiss, Xeen et al.
Thank you for not taking ill to my dispute on the links. I, like you, want to believe theres more to lenses than just corner sharpness.
But as i only own some Canon L and Sigma Art glass, and live far off the map, i cant test this for my own. And have to rely on side by side comparisons.
Would really love to see some FS7 tests on vintage + modern flat lenses, + perhaps some of these new Milvus lenses thats on the board discussion right now.
So im looking at Shanes comparisons now, and its the same thing!
"Look at the left side on this flat glass" he says
Then on the Cooke comparison, theres a friggin dude standing there on the left side so we cant compare anything. The tripod seems to have been moved also. The hallway in the back really shifts position between the two images.
Comparing the girl was much better. Though i still dont see anything 3D like that will make it worthwhile buying Cooke lenses for. But i love the skin tone of the Cookes! Wow! Through the Leicas, she acquired an asian skin tone... And the Cooke skintone had me interested in the video below also. And that had me thinking, perhaps my lenses are the reason why i hate the FS7 "Sony look" in the skin tones.
Love how this rather quick test shows off the characteristics.
Is there anything similar of Sigma, Canon, Nikon, ED, Zeiss glass available?
Zacuto Camera Shootout-like for lenses?
Last edited:
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Martin
I don't have Flash installed on my computers so I cannot see the videos you are referencing.
The cooke lens comparison I saw clearly showed more depth than the other lenses.
I have not done a scientific side by side but can clearly see the difference between my modern 24-70 and 28-85 AIS. It may well be the increased barrel distortion combined with more chromatic aberration and soft corners is enough to trick the mind into believing there is more depth to an image. I certainly favour the look of the 28-85 any day of the week with all of its character flaws. This does not explain the Cooke Look though.
I don't have Flash installed on my computers so I cannot see the videos you are referencing.
The cooke lens comparison I saw clearly showed more depth than the other lenses.
I have not done a scientific side by side but can clearly see the difference between my modern 24-70 and 28-85 AIS. It may well be the increased barrel distortion combined with more chromatic aberration and soft corners is enough to trick the mind into believing there is more depth to an image. I certainly favour the look of the 28-85 any day of the week with all of its character flaws. This does not explain the Cooke Look though.
JPNola
Veteran
How does recommending the Sony Cine primes jibe with your following criteria?:
"I only want to invest in lenses that are very likely to hold their value."
One of the biggest knocks on the Sony Cine primes is that they get no love or respect for their quality and won't hold much resale value.
Yeah, i favored the Cooke as well. And also so in the Red Dragon lens comparison film i linked to. But i really want to find an explanation behind it, a tangible evidence of such.
Theres so many factors that need to be 100% right before such minute details can be discerned by untrained eyes like mine ;-)
Hope you get to see the films on a different computer. I like the topic.