Do You Own Cine Glass?

[morgan_moore]

Ha, well no matter where you or I started, we're talking about motion picture production. That industry was started on 35mm running 4-perfs vertically through the camera gate, aka Silent Aperture or now Super-35. It was decades later that Leica realized that they could make a camera for the military (i.e.: spying) that used the 35mm film stock but laid on its side and exposing across 8-perfs, the Leica format or VistaVision / Full Frame 35. When it comes to imaging for motion pictures S35 was the standard way before FF35 ever existed. Proper indeed.

I've lost you there - I guess the main point is that I don’t like the LF or “large format” used by Arri to describe ff35/vista/8 perf as I think “large format” has steady been taken by “5.7 or larger”

So lets call that size anything but 'large format'

True Large format may seem irrelevant but those lenses with huge image circles do have a space in cinematography even if a peripheral one and we will see in the future true large formate motions sensors .. even if they are only used by nasa!

 

[ahalpert]

usually whatever was the latest/greatest from ARRI. .

Would that be the Alexa LF, Alexa Mini LF, or the Alexa 65? The 65 is only available to rent, not to purchase. As is everything from Panavision, if I'm not mistaken. And there are a half-dozen or so versions of the original Alexa, I think...

Brawley told me, "I’m about shoot Venice 2 (I hope). Last show was Mini LF. Alexa mini before that. DXL before that."

Who's your favorite DP? This is the list of what Lord Chivo used on Song to Song (2017) for Terrence Malick:

Camera	Arri Alexa M, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arri Alexa, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arriflex 235, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arriflex 435, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses GoPro Red Epic, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Negative Format	35 mm (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219) Codex Digital Redcode RAW
Cinematographic Process	ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format) Digital (source format) Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format) Redcode RAW (5K) (source format) (some shots) Super 35 (source format)

The Revenant (2015):

Camera

Arri Alexa 65, Arri Prime 65 Lenses (some scenes) Arri Alexa XT M, Leica Summilux-C and Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arri Alexa XT, Leica Summilux-C and Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Red Epic Dragon, Angenieux Optimo Lenses (aerial shots)

And actually the Panavision site adds some lens listings: "photographed by Emmanuel Lubezki ASC, AMC with Arri Alexa XT M, Arri Alexa XT, Zeiss Master Primes, Leica Summilux C, Primo Prime Close Focus and C Series anamorphic."
https://www.panavision.com/revenant

"Lubezki used Arri/Zeiss Master Primes and Leica Summilux-Cs, sticking with the wider end of the range. His main lens was a 14mm Master Prime. He noted that Leica lenses were particularly useful because of their lighter weight. “As I age,” he said with a laugh, “certain equipment becomes very heavy for all the handheld work.”"
https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/Janua...ees/page5.html

Knight of Cups (2015):

Camera	Arri Alexa M, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses GoPro HD Hero Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision System 65 Lenses Red Epic, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Laboratory	FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA Modern VideoFilm, Burbank (CA), USA (digital intermediate) Technicolor, Hollywood (CA), USA
Negative Format	35 mm (Kodak) 65 mm (Kodak) Codex HD Redcode RAW
Cinematographic Process	ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format) Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format) Panavision Super 70 (source format) Redcode RAW (4K) (source format) Super 35 (source format)

Looks like he favors Zeiss Master Primes. There are a lot of different tools in play, though

He does say: "I love the way the Master Primes are – one of the best lenses probably ever made…they allow you to have clean images, and that I like very much."
https://www.arri.com/en/camera-syste...es/41878-41878

I think one thing about Chivo is that he favors wide-angles a lot, and the types of shots he uses them for benefit from clean, low-distortion glass. All of which, I imagine, leads him to a well-corrected set of lenses

 

[ahalpert]

Looks like Deakins likes master primes as well

1917: Arri Alexa Mini LF, Arri Signature Prime Lenses

goldfinch: Arri Alexa Mini, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Arri Alexa XT Studio, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses

BR2049: Arri Alexa Mini, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Arri Alexa Plus, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Arri Alexa XT Studio, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses

Hail Caesar:

Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Arriflex 535B, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Negative Format	35 mm (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219)

Zeiss Master Primes on his next 4 movies too, plus some Optimo zooms

My assistant, Andy Harris, and I had tested the Master Primes during their development. For NCFOM a full set was available so when Andy and I spent 7 or 8 days during prep shooting the opening landscape shots we decided to take a look at the Master Primes at the same time. Once I was used to the lenses I began to use them more and more but my main concern was their speed compared to the S4s. We had a lot of very low light night work on NCFOM and I knew the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 would be a great advantage for me. And it was. The spaces I needed to light were so large that I rarely achieved a higher stop than a 1.4 so that was were the Master primes really scored. Previous to using the S4s I was shooting with Zeiss Distagons so I was very glad to be back with true a 1.4 lens.

sort of sounds like he favors one set of lenses at a time. distagons -> s4s -> master primes, now I'm guessing signature primes when he needs to go "vista"

He prefers primes, since a constant glass forces you to change camera location, and thus makes you spend more thinking about the shooting angle... Deakins can’t stand lens artifacts (flares, vignetting, and breathing). That’s why he prefers shooting spherical over anamorphic, and on ARRI lenses... The preferred focal length on Deakins is around 40mm, which mimics the human eye. As explained, 1917 was shot within this focal length. For portrait, he likes using 60mm-70mm but not more than that. Deakins is not a fan of very long lenses, nor ultra-wide ones. As opposed to The Revenant’s Lubezki who used very wide lenses (around 15mm) on the huge sensor of the ALEXA 65, which granted a tremendous wide look with a rare shallow depth of field. However, it’s not Deakins’s style. Lubezki shoots extremely wide, compared to Deakins that shoots more naturally.

https://ymcinema.com/2021/08/06/roger-deakins-talks-about-lenses-spherical-primes-preferred/

 

[morgan_moore]

I might be banging on about 'sets' but if you are doing cine glass it is because you care.

Ergo it is no good having some nice 24-5-85 t2 'set' with an added 18 3.5 plastic fantastic. because it will ruin the feel, breath, be distorted and force you to light your wide scene to t4, (doubleing your lights package on the shot where your lights have to be farthest back)

If you dont care a few Contaxes and a Samyang 16 will see you good. very good in fact. at 1/4 the price of the cheap 'cine' 'sets'

For s35 the samyang 16 is a godsend as all vintage stills glass was made before apsC, dx crop (s35) was invented and full frame (vista) extreme wides are costy and poor performing on smaller chips.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I take quiet delight in the notion that of the folks who have been swept up in the vintage/technically flawed lens fad (oh sorry, "interesting"), if one was to point out the "boring/sterile/clinical" lens choices made by various of their revered DP legends like Chivo and Deakins, it surely creates a bit of an internal conflict of logic. I envision smoke coming out of their ears and heads exploding a la the Fembots.

There are many tools to create mood and look. Lenses are just one part of the puzzle. You don't automatically win the day just by slapping on a funky lens and cooing at the veiling flare.

 

[ahalpert]

Well, the point wasn't to downgrade the importance of everything else. Lighting/lens/camera/hmu tests

It's just that when you choose a lens, you're creating a look. 'Transparent' is semantics

And cmon, deakins doesn't even like to shoot anamorphic. I think he'd get a lot of disagreement there

Clearly, reusing the same lenses on very different projects doesn't seem to inhibit their masterful storytelling. but it sounds like they're open to bringing in new tools whenever the purpose suits them

At least they're in my corner when it comes to primes vs zooms

 

[Liam Hall]

I take quiet delight in the notion that of the folks who have been swept up in the vintage/technically flawed lens fad (oh sorry, "interesting"), if one was to point out the "boring/sterile/clinical" lens choices made by various of their revered DP legends like Chivo and Deakins, it surely creates a bit of an internal conflict of logic. I envision smoke coming out of their ears and heads exploding a la the Fembots.

There are many tools to create mood and look. Lenses are just one part of the puzzle. You don't automatically win the day just by slapping on a funky lens and cooing at the veiling flare.

Conversely, I'm often amazed how technically flawed (character) a lot of glass used in high-end production is. I can think of several films (Interstellar, Dunkirk for eg) where those "flaws" would have had the pixel peepers self-combusting.

At the owner-operator level I think it's a mistake to define yourself by your lens choice, just choose the lenses that fit your shooting style and your pocket then crack on.

It's all choices and compromises. I'd love to have a set of Arri Signature primes and zooms but my productions generally call for something else and often that means thinking creatively about lens choice.

 

[ahalpert]

Dunkirk:

IMAX MKIV, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses IMAX MSM 9802, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses

Interstellar: Beaumont VistaVision Camera, Leica Lenses
IMAX MSM 9802, Hasselblad and Mamiya Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision C-, D-, E-Series and Ultra Speed Golden Lenses

 

[Run&Gun]

Conversely, I'm often amazed how technically flawed (character) a lot of glass used in high-end production is. I can think of several films (Interstellar, Dunkirk for eg) where those "flaws" would have had the pixel peepers self-combusting.

At the owner-operator level I think it's a mistake to define yourself by your lens choice, just choose the lenses that fit your shooting style and your pocket then crack on.

It's all choices and compromises. I'd love to have a set of Arri Signature primes and zooms but my productions generally call for something else and often that means thinking creatively about lens choice.

I think as an owner op, generally speaking, you are best served by owning clean glass.

 

[morgan_moore]

As owner op I have clean and a few old cranks like my mamiya - which I’ll now be calling my interstellar lens

 

[Grug]

I think where cine glass is concerned, there's simply a spectrum of priority for function vs aesthetics.

For some people, aesthetics, look, character, appealing optical quirks trump all else (which can yield really unique images at times, but often comes at the expense of the focus puller's sanity, as they try to deal with the mechanical and rigging complications that older, indoscyncatric lenses frequently come with).

For others, rigorous functionality, speed of deployment/repair/servicabilty etc. is more important than anything else. These people want to know exactly what their lenses are going to do at all times, and never want to be held up by a lens change, or have issues replacing a focal length that might go down during a production.

I think the vast majority of people exist somewhere along that spectrum, with very few at either extreme.

I for one, find the differences between most spherical lenses incredibly slight for most purposes (with a few notable exceptions, like the K35s). So as long as I have the basic functionality that I need from a spherical lens, I'm normally not too fussed about which ones I'm using. Given a choice, if I want a little more edge-flare throughout a project, I'd probably opt for S4s. And if I want really invisible lenses that never draw attention to themselves, I'd probably opt for Master Primes (to pull lens breathing out of the equation). If shooting wide-open is going to be a constant throughout a shoot (say it's a period piece, and we'll need to hide/obscure period-inappropriate things from our frames frequently) then I'll probably want lenses that don't have too much CA. Or if we have a ridiculous shooting schedule, I'd really rather have zooms on the cameras, so we can just keep moving at all times. But these are slight preferences, and none are really deal-breakers for me.

Anamorphic is a different beast, because those lenses really do have profoundly different optic characteristics and mechanical/operational idosyncracies to deal with. So I do (personally) become a lot more picky when anamorphic is on the table.

 

[Liam Hall]

I think as an owner op, generally speaking, you are best served by owning clean glass.

These days, generally speaking, I would say, clean and fast with AF and MF, which rather rules out most cine glass.

 

[rob norton]

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

Thanks for sharing Liam. This is some excellent work, The Red Sea and Toyota dealership were lucky to have you on board. They're both a nice combo of a huge volume of shots, mixed in with more stylised sequences where possible, all under a time crunch I'm sure. I really like all of the interview angles, I've been changing angles frequently too, even if only working with a single camera.

That's also so cool your son was involved with one of your shoots, he got a glimpse of (part of) what you've been doing all these years!

To sum up this thread, I'd say Charles' looks don't take a hit despite using zooms while JB's schedule doesn't take a hit despite using primes!

It's interesting thinking about how the Director of Photography, mostly viewed as being responsible for image only, is also contributing to performance.

 

[morgan_moore]

It's interesting thinking about how the Director of Photography, mostly viewed as being responsible for image only, is also contributing to performance.

Its why I hate 23 year olds who are 'DPs' - because being a DOP is about look. content, managment budget and a whole circle of stuff.

In fact playing the parts until the circle is round is the art

 

[Liam Hall]

Thanks for sharing Liam. This is some excellent work, The Red Sea and Toyota dealership were lucky to have you on board. They're both a nice combo of a huge volume of shots, mixed in with more stylised sequences where possible, all under a time crunch I'm sure. I really like all of the interview angles, I've been changing angles frequently too, even if only working with a single camera.

Thanks Rob. You've pretty much nailed my approach to productions where I'm forced to wear too many hats - run around like a headless chicken shoot everything that moves and hope people will think it was all planned. Keeps it entertaining.

That's also so cool your son was involved with one of your shoots, he got a glimpse of (part of) what you've been doing all these years!

It was. Pre-covid almost everything I did was foreign so it's actually been great to do some local jobs and involve the family. Not sure they see it the same way!

 

[Mitch Gross]

Would that be the Alexa LF, Alexa Mini LF, or the Alexa 65? The 65 is only available to rent, not to purchase. As is everything from Panavision, if I'm not mistaken. And there are a half-dozen or so versions of the original Alexa, I think...

I referenced Michael Ballhaus. He is now deceased. He shot on film.

 

[ahalpert]

I referenced Michael Ballhaus. He is now deceased. He shot on film.

No, I got that. But I meant that, applying the principle to today's technology, I'm not sure what it would even refer to. Even among film cameras, which I know far less about, they had different models for different purposes, each of which was the latest and greatest of its type

 

[CharlesPapert]

No, I got that. But I meant that, applying the principle to today's technology, I'm not sure what it would even refer to. Even among film cameras, which I know far less about, they had different models for different purposes, each of which was the latest and greatest of its type

The thing that is hard to grasp for those who came up on digital was that a 50 year old film camera could produce exactly the same footage as the latest to roll off the assembly line. The differences were largely in ergonomics/weight, quietness, and eventually electronic features (for programming shutter pulls/speed ramps and the like). Sadly we got to such a great place with the last generation of film cameras before everything went to crap for five years with the early S35 sensor cameras.

 

[Mitch Gross]

And to continue what Charles was saying, Michael Ballhaus owned pretty much at least one of everything ARRI, because they always JUST WORKED for him with sensible design and controls. And in the digital age it is much the same, as I can assure you that as the guy who used to sell 'em, many DPs purchased Alexas and often multiple models for whatever work they were doing. And then they didn't have to think about the things again because the cameras were incredibly consistent, straightforward to use and delivered pretty much what the DP wanted with minimal fuss.

To bring this back around to lenses, wanna know why Roger Deakins likes the Master Primes so much? Because they're functionally invisible to him. He feels that they're like looking through a clear window, which means he can rely on his own eyes and his lighting to shape the image. And in the end I think that's the most sensible answer to 10 pages of posts on this topic: the best lens choice is the one that doesn't get in your way.

 

[ahalpert]

The thing that is hard to grasp for those who came up on digital was that a 50 year old film camera could produce exactly the same footage as the latest to roll off the assembly line. The differences were largely in ergonomics/weight, quietness, and eventually electronic features (for programming shutter pulls/speed ramps and the like). Sadly we got to such a great place with the last generation of film cameras before everything went to crap for five years with the early S35 sensor cameras.

I understand that the film stock was the key ingredient of the process and that it would be impossible to tell which camera had been used to film it. Therefore it seems less limiting to me to always shoot with the same film camera versus always shooting with the same digital camera. But even with film cameras, I know that there were large, full-studio rigs and there were small, lightweight cameras meant for shoulder-mounting. There were probably smaller full-studio rigs as well. And if you wanted a very high framerate, you might need a specialty camera