Equivalence between Focal Lengths

Thanks once again. I'm using this article as a reference:

http://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/

Of course, I'm no newbie to film directing, so I'm perfectly aware that the "film look" depends on a lot of variables, and not just a single miracle lens...

I use a Canon Xh A1 with a SGBlade, and what I'm after is that wide cinemascope that I love in Schindler's List, Raiders and other films. Of course I love Minority Report aesthetics, but it doesn't "look" so wide... For the short film I'm shooting now, I was looking for one of those wide cinemascope looks. I feel my 28mm Nikon is too wide and distorts perspective too much. Should I spend my money on a 35mm or maybe try to get an anamorphic lens? Any good place to start looking for one?

Thanks
Tiago
 
David Evans said:
Excuse me for asking, but can I use anamorphic lenses on my SGBlade? I'm completely new to anamorphic, never used one...
Click to expand...

If you use a 2x anamorphic on a 16x9 sensor your aspect ratio will be 3.5:1, which is extremely wide. You could crop to 2.40:1, & sacrifice resolution, or utilize 1.3x anamorphics, & sacrifice much of the look that makes anamorphic imagery special.

There are relatively inexpensive 1.3x anamorphic adapters which attach to the front of spherical lenses, but are meh. Hawk offers a range of quality 1.3x PL-mount lenses, however they're expensive to purchase, & (last I checked) hard to source on the rental market.

Shooting with anamorphics comes with numerous obstacles, much of which is detailed in...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?343297-Shooting-anamorphic
 
David Evans said:
Thanks once again. I'm using this article as a reference:

http://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought you were ;). I've seen that article. I find it specious. He says, use a 28mm for the cinematic look, without reference to frame size. A 28mm on a full-frame camera will be quite wide. A 28mm on a GH4 will look very moderately telephoto. A 28mm on a 7D will look very moderately wide, as it did on the old 35mm movie cameras, which is probably what he means. But it's remarkable that: (a) he doesn't cite any sources whatsoever for the magical 28mm focal length, (b) 28mm is atypical for Hollywood lenses, and (c) movies vary their focal lengths a lot; using a certain focal length will not really get you a cinematic look.

Of course, I'm no newbie to film directing, so I'm perfectly aware that the "film look" depends on a lot of variables, and not just a single miracle lens...
Click to expand...

Correct!

I use a Canon Xh A1 with a SGBlade, and what I'm after is that wide cinemascope that I love in Schindler's List, Raiders and other films. Of course I love Minority Report aesthetics, but it doesn't "look" so wide...
Click to expand...

It's odd that you say Minority Report looks less wide than Raiders of the Lost Ark and Schindler's List. I'm pretty sure that the average focal length on Minority Report is wider than on the other two movies. To me it's one of Spielberg's wider-angle movies.

For the short film I'm shooting now, I was looking for one of those wide cinemascope looks. I feel my 28mm Nikon is too wide and distorts perspective too much. Should I spend my money on a 35mm or maybe try to get an anamorphic lens? Any good place to start looking for one?
Click to expand...

Here's what I recommend, based on your apparent funds. Buy a used Nikkor AI 35mm f/2.8 for about a hundred bucks or less. Shoot a lot of your movie with that. Letterbox your movie to a 2:39:1 aspect ratio.

The 35mm lens on your 35mm adapter will give a mildly wide feel. Letterboxing will give it that widescreen look. But of course remember to liberally apply other cinematic principles, as you and others have noted.
 
combatentropy said:
Yeah, I thought you were ;). I've seen that article. I find it specious. He says, use a 28mm for the cinematic look, without reference to frame size.
Click to expand...

Agree he's vague on the format, but since he recommends a 14mm lens for a GH3 I'll assume he talking about using a 28mm on a Canon 5D, which (roughly) equates to the Field of View (FOV) produced by a 18mm on S35 digital cameras such as the ALEXA, F65, F55, C300, etc.

This FOV is what I think of as general purpose wide-angle since it produces images that aren't so wide that they might distract when panned, tilted, dollied, etc, something wider FOVs often do.

But I wouldn't shoot typical projects on a just a wide angle, & have additional focal lengths available, especially a Normal, & a short Portrait. While I'd love to be an Artist & only use a single focal length like Cartier-Bresson, & Winogrand, or an Auteur that uses just a couple, like Polanski, the reality is I usually bring a box of lenses (&/or zooms) to cover whatever needs may arise.
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
since he recommends a 14mm lens for a GH3 I'll assume he talking about using a 28mm on a Canon 5D
Click to expand...

Yes, but he also says, "Spielberg, Scorsese, Orson Wells, Malick, and many other A-list directors are have [sic] cited the 28mm lens as one of their most frequently used."

If he really heard or read them say "28mm," then I think that he doesn't understand that the 35mm motion-picture frame is different than the 35mm still-picture frame. He first needs to translate "28mm" from Flat 35 (crop factor 1.7) to Full Frame 35, about 48mm. Then he can translate it to 4/3, about 24mm. Here we can see that we're really talking about a normal lens.

But I doubt he ever heard them say "28mm," because if you look at the array of lenses from Cooke, Panavision, and Zeiss, 28mm is a very rare focal length. It is a very common focal length among stills lenses, but for whatever reason cinema lenses are 25mm, 27mm, and 32mm, but hardly ever 28mm.

But I wouldn't shoot typical projects on a just a wide angle, & have additional focal lengths available, especially a Normal, & a short Portrait. While I'd love to be an Artist & only use a single focal length like Cartier-Bresson, & Winogrand, or an Auteur that uses just a couple, like Polanski, the reality is I usually bring a box of lenses (&/or zooms) to cover whatever needs may arise.
Click to expand...

For documentary work, most people want many lenses or a long zoom, just to feel safe that they can catch whatever crops up --- although I believe they don't need quite so many. For fictional narrative work, as here, you can pick a lens based on the feeling it gives you, because theoretically you can put the camera wherever you want. A 35mm lens in full frame is about as wide as I will go, and I prefer the normal focal length of 50mm. Terry Gilliam and I will just have to agree to disagree ;)
 
I understand what everybody's telling me, and I just found out the price of a PL mount and I lost hope on using anamorphics :( But there is, in fact, something different about shooting anamorphic.

I was watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McF3gpOn2fE

The anamorphic shots seem wider and objects and faces seem kind of distorted just enough to look "unrealistic", but it's that good unrealistic that we associate to cinema. That wide cinemascope look is what I'm looking for. Should I look for a 35mm lens, then? Is it as close as I can get? :)

Thanks
 
If I were you.... I would look at getting a very nice zoom lens which would cover your needs.

Something like a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 would get you every focal length from 18mm to 35mm.

Need wider, a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 would cover a lot of ground.

Owning the 2 would give you every focal length from 11mm to 35mm.

Add a 16mm-50mm f2.8 zoom, and then 70mm-200mm f2.8 zoom, and you have just about all your major focal lengths covered.
 
Before I go out an buy me a new focal length lens to add to my 20mm and 50mm, just need to know if there are any anamorphic adapters, filters or anything like that, that is actually worth trying and dont cost heapes of money... I mean, is there a way to spend $600 and have my Canon XH A1 and SGBlade adapter equipped with an anamorphic image that looks good?

Thanks again for all your help.
 
I have one more question. I've also been reading and watching some videos made with the Blackmagic Cinema Pocket Camera and it looks incredible. Would this camera add anything worth of note to my Canon XHA1 + SGblade rig? Anyone has any experience with it?

Thanks
 
David Evans said:
I have one more question. I've also been reading and watching some videos made with the Blackmagic Cinema Pocket Camera and it looks incredible. Would this camera add anything worth of note to my Canon XHA1 + SGblade rig? Anyone has any experience with it?

Thanks
Click to expand...


Maneuverability!

I had an XH-A1 with DOF adapter and the darn thing was a bazooka.
 
David Evans said:
I have one more question. I've also been reading and watching some videos made with the Blackmagic Cinema Pocket Camera and it looks incredible. Would this camera add anything worth of note to my Canon XHA1 + SGblade rig? Anyone has any experience with it?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I don't know where you want to go in 'filming'... for narrative film production, for those who have little or no budget, or just plain don't want to spend big $$... the Pocket is the solution.

But it does not have many features that some people think they need... It is an image capture device, with a M43 lens mount, and sufficient control to capture footage. It is not a 'end all for all purposes'.

I shot a short film for a 77 Hour film fest in November. I saw the screening in December on the Big Screen, and I was not embarrassed by any artifact of such an 'enlargement'... one can quibble with my story... the acting... the sound... but the image was as good, and depending, better than many other submissions... of course that also depends on what the people did with their footage and how the encoded it for projection...

The camera goes list for under $1K and with a second sound system can produce great results.

I will be using it for an upcoming event, despite the fact that I don't really think of it as an 'event' camera, in that the sound is limited, unlike some of the Panasonic or Canon 'package' deals.

But image quality is based on lenses, and a 'steady hand' if shooting handheld...

It's other attribute is that it is in fact 'small' and could pass for a happy shots camera to avoid the dread accusation of doing a 'pro' shoot on the streets or some other venue where pros have to pay or be permitted to shoot...

Oh yeah... I'm not a fan of shallow DoF, so the fact that it is a Super 16mm sensor and the 'normal' lens is 17mm (or so...) is no big deal. One can get a 25mm or a 28mm lens and get shallower DoF if one wants... of course one has to account for the distance required for framing... but if one wants that shallow DoF look, then there is always a 'cost' somewhere...
 
Ok, but I wanted to know if, besides being lighter, would it add anything to what I already get (image wise) with my XH A1 + SGblade. Ive never tried a Blackmagic pocket camera, but the specs seem amazing (especially the dynamic range). Not sure if it will be better than what I already have...
 
BMPCC or any of a large number of other cameras would be a big improvement over an XHA1+SGBlade in my opinion... I'd even take a 5DMK2 from 2008 over that rig, in fact I did in 2008.
 
nyvz said:
BMPCC or any of a large number of other cameras would be a big improvement over an XHA1+SGBlade in my opinion... I'd even take a 5DMK2 from 2008 over that rig, in fact I did in 2008.
Click to expand...

Really? When I bought the XH A1 + Blade combo (I think it was 2008), the XH A1 seemed to be a favorite for everyone... "camera years ahead of its time", etc. I really like the combo, but video technology is always changing and I was wondering if its time for me to change and get something more recent. This BMPCC seems very nice. Will I need the SGblade or will it be of any use? Or would it just be the BMPCC with the 16mm lenses that I would also have to buy?

Thanks
 
David Evans said:
Really? When I bought the XH A1 + Blade combo (I think it was 2008), the XH A1 seemed to be a favorite for everyone... "camera years ahead of its time", etc. I really like the combo, but video technology is always changing and I was wondering if its time for me to change and get something more recent. This BMPCC seems very nice. Will I need the SGblade or will it be of any use? Or would it just be the BMPCC with the 16mm lenses that I would also have to buy?

Thanks
Click to expand...

The only 'video' camera I've owned was the DVX100B. When I bought it the 'rage' was 35mm adapters to get more lensing options as well as the search for the Holy Shallow DoF.

I have never been a fan of 'add on' optics. I think the lens manufactures take a lot of pains to make lenses for a given price as 'best as possible' and adding things into the optical path degrades that.

Perhaps there is a benefit which overrides the potential for degradation, but that for me has been rare.

Several years ago I bought the Lumix GH-1, rather than continue with the Panasonic 'camcorder' line which had been upgraded to suppor HD capture. The GH-1 is a Micro 4/3 camera and the kit lens at the time as a 14-140mm zoom.

When I was looking to 'upgrade' to something more modern, the Pocket was available and it matched what I want out of a camera... namely a lens mount and a capture sensor, and minimal controls for capture.

For the GH-1 I bought a 'cheap' mechanical adapter for my Nikon lenses, cost about $60 US, and allowed me to use my Nikon still lenses. The Pocket has a Micro 4/3 mount, so I was able to use the adapter and my Nikon lenses as before.

I have also bought a c-mount lens adapter for about $20 and have a 'vintage' 25mm f/1.9 c-mount lens. I typically use the 140-140mm zoom, but have a f/2.0 28mm lens that is very good and allows for the lower light levels... just have to have enough room for the 28mm... the 'normal' for the Pocket is 17mm.

One can also get a PL mount adapter for 'real(tm)' cine lenses...

If your reason for getting the 35mm adapter (SGblade) for your fixed lens Canon was to have lens choice, then for fairly cheap, you can get a 'dumb' adapter for the Pocket.

If you want to take advantage of the fact that the circle of coverage for a 35mm full frame still lens 'wastes' light, and get one of the 'Speed Booster' type adapters. Also if you want to use the more electronic dependent 'modern' lenses that don't have a f-stop ring for manual exposure adjustment, there are adapters for that as well.

The Pocket works 'automatically' with my Lumix 14-140mm lense, where as the Nikon lens is total manual... about 45 years old... but I have used the Wife's 17-35mm f/2.8 (rarely... when she's not looking...) as well in full manual mode...
 
The thing is... I have a rig that serves me well... though I don't really like the light problems that these 35mm adapters have with all the fstops they "eat". I'd just like to know if I get a Blackmagic pocket camera, will I get a better image out-of-the-box than the one I have now. Maybe get a crisper image as well... And will I be able to utilize my Nikon 35mm lenses on the BMPCC? Maybe with a MFT-> Nikon mount? I'm seriously considering getting one of those, but still trying to gather all the info I can get.
 
David,

Any Micro 4/3 Speedbooster will fit on the Pocket Camera however the best performance comes from using versions designed specifically for BlackMagic. This is due to the difference in thickness of the glass in front of the sensor on the GH4, & BlackMagic's m4/3 mount cameras. The performance will be most noticeably when lenses are used near wide-open.

Metabones offers two different strength SpeedBoosters (aka Focal Reducer) for BlackMagic's cameras. The version with a 0.64x focal reduction was designed for their original Cinema Camera, but can be used on the Pocket. They subsequently released a stronger version with a 0.58x focal reduction designed specifically for the Pocket, but it does not cover the Cinema Camera's larger sensor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecompressor

You'd likely be best served with the 0.58x Speedbooster made for the Pocket Camera, but will only be able to use it on that camera, or (presumably) the upcoming Micro Cinema Camera.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicmicrocinemacamera

Whether you'd should adopt the Pocket Camera is hard to answer, & suggest heading over to BMCuser to do research. You'd certainly get wider dynamic range, but be limited to 24-30p. Moire, & aliasing, can also be issues, as is poor battery life, but still many users love the little camera.

Ultimately it's best to test for yourself. If your in the USA consider renting from LensRentals. Be sure to have the recommended SD cards, & plenty of batteries. If you purchase you'll also want to add a loupe for the LCD, &/or EVF/Monitor.

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/video/cameras/blackmagic/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/vi...n-lens-to-blackmagic-pocket-cam-speed-booster
 
Last edited:
Bern, great advice! How didn't I think of renting it! It's just that I'm from a country that's usually not very good in the prosumer renting market. Usually, I Can only find pro stuff. But I found a studio that rents, not the pocket, but the cinema camera 2.5. Could I rent this and have an idea of what the pocket camera can do? (they don't have the pocket camera)... Or are they very different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top