Do You Own Cine Glass?

[Liam Hall]

It a tricky one.. I hate this setup.. but as Mitch is saying its about what works for the client and what works for you.

Ed is a fit chap but still cant handhold for as long as required.. this is a feature set so you really have to hold the shot while makeup do 'checks' and the director has a chat with the producer about the shot. Whenever possible my boss, the key grip,took the rig.

Ive worn such and binned it in the first hour because at my height you are scraping the ceiling and ripping down the practicals. but then Ive had offers of jobs (ike an 'as live' show) where I knew handholding the Movi was not on the cards because youd be in the rig for 3 hours, not with the tally light on thogh. and do wonder if i have to go down this horrid route.

Overall handing the rig off is IMO far better safer and more comfortable.

Im working on my own poor mans trinity and trad steadi vest.. but that is a different story

Yes, of course, proper on set management with suitable number of pairs of hands and rest periods makes it works. Though, my clients would have me trussed up like that all day. Hence my op!

 

[ahalpert]

We don't talk enough about repetitive stress injuries from camera operating

 

[morgan_moore]

We don't talk enough about repetitive stress injuries from camera operating

(very) seriously I have this printed out and in my manbag ready to flash at anyone who applies innapropriate pressure..

also have some airport scales in my manbag.

the ocon (2575 or whatever) head in flight case while only 40cm cubed is clearly a two person pickup as is the ronford atals in flight case.

I think my large stature can illude people in that I will carry anything for them - on the recent film there was some chat about lifting the golf cart off the luton van.. we didnt do it but made a sensible arrangement.

golfcart https://www.instagram.com/p/CV3VdFVq..._web_copy_link
manbag also has ear defenders and safety gogles knee pads and high vis waistcoat.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CU9fT28K..._web_copy_link

 

[Liam Hall]

Do you think there's more to the secret sauce than difference in maximum apertures?

Yes, I do.

I'm not anti-zoom lens. I generally use primes in the 35-85 range and zooms beyond that. A quick look at a couple of my recent jobs reveals roughly a 50/50 split.

Subtle difference, at times, which might not be of importance to others but for me my primes make me smile more than my zooms (in the mid range at least).

Optical performance is generally superior and more pleasing to my eye; whether it is vignetting, flare, bokeh, distortion or some of the more subtle things like micro-contrast.

would definitely struggle to see the difference between a prime and zoom of the same focal length and brand/series e.g. sigma ART if they had matching apertures. Do you have any examples?

Agree, but but I'm not using primes at f/8, I'm usually taking advantage of their speed. I also feel they make me more active when I'm shooting doco style. I can't just sit back and let the lens do the work, I have to move my feet and that leads to more interesting shots (inn my mind at least!).

As for tests, it's something I've been meaning to test properly for years. Might do one over the holidays...

At the cinema lens level, part of the primes being perceived as better quality is the greater variety (Mitch's point about zoom manufacturing being expensive). if each company was forced to make zoom equivalents of their prime sets, it seems like size and aperture would realistically be the major selling points.

Maybe if you're spending $40-50,000 on a cinema zoom it is different but I think zooms lose a bit of character, that said I love my 70-200 and it's been a constant fixture in my lens bag for 15 years.

 

[ahalpert]

On the 18-80--I used to own one, but once I started using the 19-90, I sold it. Not enough reason to justify the weight difference (I wasn't having my operators lug that thing around on Steadicam or handheld). Shot most of Key & Peele on that lens though.

That's a great demonstration of what the lens can do!

 

[ahalpert]

I would definitely struggle to see the difference between a prime and zoom of the same focal length and brand/series e.g. sigma ART if they had matching apertures..

In my experience, zoom lenses generally have poor distortion performance at their wide end. Much worse than a prime from the same series. I don't know if that's true for fancy schmancy lenses like the Cabrio. And I agree with Liam about other subtle image qualities that may or may not be imaginary and may or may not get noticed by the viewer. But I don't think we're imagining it.

And just thinking about it theoretically - anything that you can do with a complex instrument like a zoom you should be able to do just as well or better on a simpler lens. The only question is if you have surpassed a performance threshold with the zoom such that there is no appreciable difference optically between the prime and the zoom. I mean, I doubt that someone could make a zoom that actually looks better than a prime, unless they just really engineered the **** out of it and made it so much more expensive than what anyone is doing with primes.

Obviously, being able to zoom is a major performance enhancement. But fast apertures aren't trivial, either.

Gotta say - John showed me some shots from the Panaspeeds and they are possibly the most flattering lenses I've ever seen on a close-up

 

[ahalpert]

I think my large stature can illude people in that I will carry anything for them - on the recent film there was some chat about lifting the golf cart off the luton van.. we didnt do it but made a sensible arrangement.

That's the beauty of being short - I get to surprise people by how much I can carry rather than being asked to carry a freaking golf cart -- good god, man! And I think that as a giant, you really have to take good care of your back. Lift with your knees and so forth. But it sounds like you're deep into ergonomics and probably have it all better sorted than I do

BTW my poor man's trinity is a 3-legged thing trent monopod with a weebill-s and an a7siii. Not a real camera, not a real rig. But it's such a liberating joy to use. Such a range of motion, so many useful shots taken. Here's a shot handholding the rig up to the ceiling to feature the disco ball that the client was so excited to have at their auciton of nile rodgers guitars yet nobody could see

 

[morgan_moore]

But it sounds like you're .. sorted

not really

 

[markfpv]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3rvs8l54y2lxrz/primes_schitts.mov?dl=0

Perfect. :beer:

 

[Run&Gun]

In my experience, zoom lenses generally have poor distortion performance at their wide end. Much worse than a prime from the same series. I don't know if that's true for fancy schmancy lenses like the Cabrio. And I agree with Liam about other subtle image qualities that may or may not be imaginary and may or may not get noticed by the viewer. But I don't think we're imagining it.

And just thinking about it theoretically - anything that you can do with a complex instrument like a zoom you should be able to do just as well or better on a simpler lens. The only question is if you have surpassed a performance threshold with the zoom such that there is no appreciable difference optically between the prime and the zoom. I mean, I doubt that someone could make a zoom that actually looks better than a prime, unless they just really engineered the **** out of it and made it so much more expensive than what anyone is doing with primes.

Obviously, being able to zoom is a major performance enhancement. But fast apertures aren't trivial, either.

Gotta say - John showed me some shots from the Panaspeeds and they are possibly the most flattering lenses I've ever seen on a close-up

Talk to some of the DP’s that have shot with some of the Fuji Premier series zooms. There were some respected people saying they are as good as primes. We are also talking about single lenses that cost ~$100K.

 

[morgan_moore]

In the cheap zoom lens department- canon 24-105, for example, there is clear bullship about the speed and probably fov - you can see the “consistent” Iris darken as you zoom in.
There might be a situation where a prime 105 f4 looks better than a zoomed in canon 24-105
not because zooms are bad.. but because that zoom is bad.

Im not experienced with the $20g zooms.

The xf605 and the cheapo canon 24-105 F7.1 had wildly different aov the 605 should be less but was way more.

Clearly there are some paper specs about that are not true and of course our YT numbskulls would be clever enough to actually test something so obvious

 

[Liam Hall]

Here's two recent jobs of mine using both zooms and primes. Bog standard, super quick shoots with me as a self-shooting director with no help on camera (apart from my son on work experience on the second one).

Nothing spectacular or reinventing the wheel here but I think it's obvious which are primes,which are zooms and which shots have the secret sauce.

Usual caveats... ...not final grade etc:

https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/636345757/47dd9d732d

https://vimeo.com/647452281/af42176241

 

[CharlesPapert]

We don't talk enough about repetitive stress injuries from camera operating

Ed is a fit chap but still cant handhold for as long as required.. this is a feature set so you really have to hold the shot while makeup do 'checks' and the director has a chat with the producer about the shot. Whenever possible my boss, the key grip,took the rig.

Ive worn such and binned it in the first hour because at my height you are scraping the ceiling and ripping down the practicals. but then Ive had offers of jobs (ike an 'as live' show) where I knew handholding the Movi was not on the cards because youd be in the rig for 3 hours, not with the tally light on thogh. and do wonder if i have to go down this horrid route.

Overall handing the rig off is IMO far better safer and more comfortable.

Well yes to all of this, which is why I "solved" these problems with the ZeeGee (thezeegee.com). The part that Sam notes about having to hold the camera while others watch the monitor, I addressed that by making it able to lock off in a given pan and tilt orientation, and best of all if you don't have to walk around during the shot you can mount the thing to any stand with 5/8" spud. My goal is to get the damn thing off the shoulder and prevent longterm injury. I've seen it in others and glad to say I got out before I did any serious damage to myself, but it's no joke. On the narrative gigs we always hand the camera off but that doesn't really help when the mandate is "keep it rolling, let's do another" and operators have to go 10, 15, 20 mins or longer with 30+ lbs on one side of their body. Yuck.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Talk to some of the DP’s that have shot with some of the Fuji Premier series zooms. There were some respected people saying they are as good as primes. We are also talking about single lenses that cost ~$100K.

This is what I was referring to. Fuji absolutely knocked it out of the park with the Premier 18-85 T2 zoom. A lens of such high performance that it had two different PL mounts included, one for use on a film camera or a lens projector/collimation bench and one for use with a digital camera where an OLPF was between the lens and the sensor. That's because the acuity level was so high that the refraction difference was clear when the OLPF was included so it was optically compensated for in the lens design (basically there is a crystal optical flat in the "film" PL mount to correct for the missing OLPF). This lens sells for about $80K and it is a superb optical instrument, and it's been around for a decade. Now Fuji has the Premista series which cover Full Frame 35 and they gleefully show tests comparing them to the finest prime sets. In blind test comparisons not only could experienced DPs, lens technicians and optical engineers not tell which were the zooms, they often chose the zooms as their preferred glass. They're not cheap and they're not small or light, but boy do they perform.

 

[ahalpert]

So basically if you pay an arm and a leg and sacrifice weight and speed, you can get a zoom on par with the best primes. That sounds reasonable and must certainly have its place, but not exactly the death knell of prime lenses

 

[Run&Gun]

So basically if you pay an arm and a leg and sacrifice weight and speed, you can get a zoom on par with the best primes. That sounds reasonable and must certainly have its place, but not exactly the death knell of prime lenses

I don't recall anyone saying anything about primes being killed off...

Regarding cost(...if you pay an arm and a leg...)
Lets use Mitch's example of the Fuji 18-85 T2 and compare it to a set of Arri UltraPrimes(T1.9) to try to go apples-to-apples.

Fuji 18-85 T2: 1 lens covers almost 70 focal lengths(but really anything between 18-85), T2, ~$79K

Arri Ultra Primes(non-LDS versions) in same range: 8 lenses/focal lengths: 20, 24, 28, 32, 40, 50, 65, 85, T1.9, ~$16K-$18K EACH(add ~$4K to each for LDS)(over $130K to over $160K).

But anyway... What was really said, at least the sentiment, was that primes used to have a real, optical advantage over zooms, but with modern zooms, especially high-end modern zooms you are no longer making a big compromise in image quality for the speed(work) and convenience afforded by working with zooms.

I own nice primes and zooms and they both have their place. For me and a lot of what I shoot and the way I work, my zooms are way more useful and used more often by me. I'd say 80% of the use for my primes are for interviews.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I will note that theoriginal Fuji Premier zooms were from more than a decade ago when lens prices were at a different level because so far fewer were sold to that then-smaller market. The newer Premista lenses are still not what anyone would call cheap, but the market for high end full frame cinema glass is much larger these days. This Premista 28-100 T2.9 is $43K at B&H. Nothing to sneeze at, but compared to a set of high end primes quite the deal. There are other Premistas in the range at similar prices, and a small set of short zooms can be a lot more convenient than a couple cases of prime lenses. Or you could go for a big bazooka and never take it off (the lens off the camera or the camera off the dolly!).

I'm not shilling for Fuji here -- I don't get anything from them. Just trying to impart the knowledge that there are many ways to skin the cat these days without compromising image quality. Not everything is about throwing a 24-105 & a 70-200 in a backpack with your camera body & editing laptop.

​​​​​​https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...t2_9_full.html

 

[Grug]

I gather I'm in the minority, but my first ever major equipment purchase was a set of Zeiss CP.2s. I owned the glass before I ever owned a camera to attach it to. And for a very simple reason - I'd seen people trying to use stills photography lenses on set, and the consequences were immediately apparent - everything took longer, and nailing takes (focus-wise) was never guaranteed.

With stills lenses the 1st ACs could never control the focus with the same kind of dependibility I'd seen from camera crews using normal cinema glass. So for me personally, when I decided to invest in gear with my own money - I knew that cinema glass was a non-negotiable for how I wanted to work. Perhaps that comes from my control freak streak - but it's an intuition that's served me well these past nine years I've been doing this full-time. I need the focus to be true when an actor nails a take, and dependable, repeatable manual focus control has been an intrinsic element in achieving that.

The advancements in autofocus technology (for video work) in the last couple of years is certainly suggesting that change is on the way (I've just had my first ever autofocus-only shoots in the last two weeks, and was wildly impressed) but until we can switch seamlessly between autofocus and precise (FIZ motor-controllable) manual control, I don't think there's going to be any significant exodus away from how conventional production is currently lensed.

 

[ahalpert]

Regarding cost(...if you pay an arm and a leg...)
Lets use Mitch's example of the Fuji 18-85 T2 and compare it to a set of Arri UltraPrimes(T1.9) to try to go apples-to-apples.

Brawley tells me he timed a lens change on Wednesday and it took 95 seconds, including rebalancing the gimbal head.

Can anyone point me to a side-by-side comparison of the 18-85 with a set of primes? I can't find one online.

I don't think you necessarily need to get 8 primes to complete a set. The 18 to 85 basically replaces 5: 18, 24, 35, 50, 85. (Although yes, the zoom has an infinite number of focal lengths available since it's continuously variable.) But all in all, I'd rather have a 16mm T1.9 Ultra Prime than cap out at 18mm anyway. 18 and 24 and not that far apart.

But I think the bigger issue in the cost equation is that someone will probably want to have a set of primes AS WELL as their zoom. Papert notes that he still uses primes when he needs a smaller set-up, a closer focus, or a faster stop. (And that's with a much smaller and lighter zoom than the Premier.) So it doesn't sound to me like the zoom can actually save you money in buying or renting your package, just potentially time on set (which is obviously worth a great deal). But unless you're shooting something that necessitates zooming anyway, you'll probably looking at a zoom lens on top of the primes you were going to get in the first place.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Bill Wages, ASC switched over to the Fuji 19-90 about seven years ago. He also carries a Fuji 80-300 when he needs to go long but rarely uses it. For awhile when he needed a lightweight rig he would use a Panasonic GH5 and some tiny primes, but a few years back he switched that over to an EVA1 retrofitted with a PL mount (courtesy me). I think he picked up a single PL prime just in case but has yet to use it. Bob's shot a bunch of features and TV series on the Fuji zooms and he says for the way he works he's never felt the need to use anything else. Been very happy with it.

I know at least a dozen other successful DPs working very much the same way. I'm sure if I asked around there would be a whole bunch more.