Expensive Lenses and Video... Do They REALLY matter?

ROCKMORE said:
The better the quality of your lenses regardless of the cost, the better images you will be able to create.
Click to expand...
Wish it were that simple, but it's not necessarily so. It SHOULD be so, but the DSLR has kind of thrown that for a loop. Anyone see the video where Shane Hurlbut threw the Arri Master Primes under the bus, complained loudly about them, said that they were ****... ? Best lenses possible. So why could he possibly complain about them?

If I had to bet, I'd bet that he tried them on a 5D. And the 5D aliases like a mad fool, and the sharper the lens, the worse it looks. Aliasing happens when the lens passes too much detail to the sensor, and sharper lenses really draw out the ugly appearance of aliasing. Now, this is not the fault of the lens, it's the fault of the camera sensor technology, and I'm sure that's what happened in Hurlbut's test -- he probably saw, for the first time, just how nasty aliasing can look. But instead of blaming the $2500 stills camera, he put the blame on the $80,000 lenses(!)

But the point remains -- if you're shooting film, or a fully-resolved video sensor, then yes -- sharper glass can lead to better/sharper results. But if you're using an aliasing DSLR, then the sharper glass will actually reveal (and in fact starkly reveal) the shortcomings of that particular video system. You would instead get more pleasing results by using softer glass, that would blur and smooth the aliasing edges away.
 
Barry_Green said:
But the point remains -- if you're shooting film, or a fully-resolved video sensor, then yes -- sharper glass can lead to better/sharper results. But if you're using an aliasing DSLR, then the sharper glass will actually reveal (and in fact starkly reveal) the shortcomings of that particular video system. You would instead get more pleasing results by using softer glass, that would blur and smooth the aliasing edges away.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised that no one is offering a strong anti alias filter for the 5D2. Yes, it would be a mod to the camera, but for video it would probably be a good mod to have.
 
I'd like to add that lens functionality is also a big part of the mix. I have the Canon 24-70 2.8 L series lens. Great lens but I never go to it until my Zeiss 35mm 2.8 cheapo Distagon (contax mount) is the wrong focal length. The biggest reason why is that the zeiss is the easier to pull focus as it has a longer throw. That has two advantages: 1) more subtle focusing 2) if I'm pulling focus without marks, I can make a small enough mistake and be able to track back to the right focal distance without it being obvious. I have other primes from Canon but I have the same issues. I shoot a medley of narrative and 2nd camera documentary with my dslr.

For stills, I don't care.
 
Barry_Green said:
Wish it were that simple, but it's not necessarily so.

You would instead get more pleasing results by using softer glass, that would blur and smooth the aliasing edges away.
Click to expand...

The resolve problems today may be gone tomorrow. We will change the camera bodies but still have the lenses.
There are many ways to take a sharp lens and make a soft image with lighting and focus, if that's what you're looking for or need. Better lenses also may have better contrast which will improve your image even at 1080. Another benefit that comes along with better quality lenses is usually speed and smooth bokeh, so sharpness is only part of the equation, not to mention faster, quieter, more accurate auto focus.
A set of Master Primes may be overkill, but Canon L lenses aren't that expensive and worth investing in for HD video and still photography.
 
Last edited:
Exact said:
Phil, very interesting post. Thanks. What process do you use for moire reduction? I'm looking at several options but always happy to look at others I may have not come across yet.

Also, do you noise reduce before curves and sharpen or the other way around?
Click to expand...

Noise reduction for me is the first step before going further. Which may seem odd since there's a slight lift in the shadows, but I've done a great deal of testing and putting it at the head of the process makes for a nicer image on the back end.

The one stipulation I'll make here is once you are at ISO 2000 and above, which I'm really normally not, some additional noise reduction may be desired near the tail of the process.

Moire reduction can be done in Neat Image as well. This is the one that's really a head banger for me. I've gone down many different routes included making a really dirty plugin myself, jumping to After Effects, and sometimes exporting stills and cleaning up in Photoshop/Camera Raw. Mostly it's Neat Image for me.

I will say with Adobe Dynamic Link it's pretty easy to jump out of Premiere and work on a specific clip.

Breezer said:
Phil, thanks for your very informative post...Your noise reduction is impressive, do you use After Effects? Neat Image? I like your grain too, very fine and clean... Your final image is fantastic...
Click to expand...

Also, do you noise reduce before curves and sharpen or the other way around?[/QUOTE]

I primarily use Neat Image with camera profiles for every ISO step. It's very important to shoot very clean and flat images when creating the noise profiles. Noise reduction comes first for me, as mentioned above.

Neat Image not only takes care of luminance and chroma noise, but it can also help with removing compression artifacts.

With a grain and sharpening I find it's best to have a very light hand. It's very different than working on a say a still frame. You want sharpness, but you really don't want edge artifacts. Makes the image look like it was cut and pasted together.
 
Phil Holland said:
Depends on the footage really. Unsharp mask is usually the way to go. Neat Image has an interesting sharpening effect as well. The key is to not go overboard when it comes to sharpening, just enough to bring out some edges and textural detail. It's usually around a 0.5 pixel adjustment.

Yep. My picture profile sharpening is always set to 0. I find that anything sharpened in camera produces either edge artifacts or halos that are difficult to recover from.

The secondary curve sort of squeaks out more detail in the shadows really. This is all before color correction or grading, so if you want that shadow detail it's there for you to use or squash into the dark abyss.

Image quality is my biggest concern. I'm not "baking" in my corrections other than a flat picture profile, so everything is adjustable later if need be.
Since we are dealing with a compressed format already I'm more concerned out of what can be achieved with the material rather than keeping the original file in pristine condition. Now if we are talking about other cameras like the Alexa or Red there's a whole other conversation that occurs and we are trying to keep the original file in a much more "stable" condition.

I think some images might explain what I'm doing a bit more.
Here's a test I did a couple days ago using the new Marvels Cine 3.3 Picture profile against my older Canon Neutral/flat settings.
This is all at ISO 640, f/8, and 1/50th with a 50mm f/1.2L on a Canon 5D Mark II. Rim light is 5600k, ambient fill around 3000k. Focus is locked on the "models" eye. Light is pointing down at the Passport ColorChecker.

001_canonNeutral.jpg

Canon Neutral Flat - bigger

003_marvels3Flat.jpg

Marvels Cine 3.3 Profile (no contrast) - bigger

004_marvelsPhilFlat.jpg

My corrections: Curve, sharpen, noise reduction, grain profile - bigger

005_marvelsPhilFlat_FullGradedMoireReduced.jpg

My final grade with moire reduction - bigger

If you look at this guy's right shoulder and see where that core shadow rolls off into the background shadow area you'll notice actually separation in the values with that extra curve applied. In the first image there's almost no tonal variation between those two points, even with those flat settings. Also, his ribs reveal a lot more visible detail.

That's pretty much what I do. I don't always apply a grain profile, but if I'm exporting back to film I have to. The ArriLaser shoots to an intermediate stock that essentially shows no grain at all. So if you want to match other actual film footage you have to bake something in grain-wise. For digital deliveries I usually don't add it though. If I'm mixing and matching with higher end digital cinema cameras there's another curve that gets applied usually and special attention is payed to the black and white levels.
Click to expand...

Nice work. You got a lot more details in the dark shadowed areas.

What would be the basic equivalent of Marvel Cine if using the camera profile settings?

Right now I shoot everything Neutral 0-0-0-0 which works well most of the time.
 
ROCKMORE said:
Nice work. You got a lot more details in the dark shadowed areas.

What would be the basic equivalent of Marvel Cine if using the camera profile settings?

Right now I shoot everything Neutral 0-0-0-0 which works well most of the time.
Click to expand...

There is no "basic" equivalent unfortunately as Marvel Cine is basically applying a reversal curve against the standard in camera curve that already is baked in.
The best you can do really is smash contrast all the way down.

I think most agree that "Neutral" is the way to go. Some people knock a couple ticks back on saturation to get a less saturated film feel as typically video looks so super saturated. I usually keep saturation in the middle and pay attention to problem areas like saturated reds and dial back if needed. Reds and purples are really the first thing to go when they are out of range so be on the lookout for pure reds and expose for them properly if possible.

Sharpness is really best to keep all the way down and handle in post. Color tone can remain at default.

Some people still use Highlight Tone Priority, but it really just boosts your noise up in the shadows and limits your ISO range. It does flatten the image more and help retain smidge of highlights. I've done some shooting in daylight at ISO 200 with HTP on and was able to get good results, but I can get essentially the same image off of ISO 100 with a flat profile like Marvels.
 
So then the ultra-sharp lenses =
bad for Canon DSLRs, because they increase tendency for aliasing
bad for Panasonic GH2, because they increase tendency for aliasing
good for Panasonic AF100, because the camera has a video-optimized sensor and can take advantage of the extra sharpness?
 
Chris Lawes said:
So then the ultra-sharp lenses =
bad for Canon DSLRs, because they increase tendency for aliasing
bad for Panasonic GH2, because they increase tendency for aliasing
good for Panasonic AF100, because the camera has a video-optimized sensor and can take advantage of the extra sharpness?
Click to expand...

There is nothing bad about ultra sharp lenses for any camera. For now you just have to learn the best way to use them and avoid obvious mistakes. Keep the sharpening down on the camera and increase the contrast in post, or defocus the object causing the moire.
Sooner or later the aliasing and moire problems will be resolved. You can replace your camera body, but you won't have to replace your lens collection.
 
Last edited:
Chris Lawes said:
So then the ultra-sharp lenses =
bad for Canon DSLRs, because they increase tendency for aliasing
bad for Panasonic GH2, because they increase tendency for aliasing
good for Panasonic AF100, because the camera has a video-optimized sensor and can take advantage of the extra sharpness?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes.
 
Barry_Green said:
This is what you'd have to do, to have the ultrasharp lenses not overly pollute the DSLR footage with aliasing. You would have to actively, consciously, choose to shoot your footage slightly out of focus.
Click to expand...

Barry, I actually got the defocus idea from one or your posts last year.
I do actively, consciously choose everything in my frame every day of my life.
You did mention you have some Zeiss lenses, what camera and what subject?
 
I didn't get the CP.2's, I got the originals, which are PL-mount only. I am currently using the Ciecio7 adapter, with an eye towards getting a better one soon.
 
Barry_Green said:
I've got a set of Zeiss ZF's and a set of Zeiss Compact Primes. I use them mainly on the AF100 and on the GH2.
Click to expand...

Your Zeiss lenses were a good investment for the future even though they capture more resolution than your current camera bodies.
 
ROCKMORE said:
Your Zeiss lenses were a good investment for the future even though they capture more resolution than your current camera bodies.
Click to expand...
Well I also use them with a Super16 film camera, and I still keep my eventual eye on an Epic-S or F3 or something like that if it makes sense, so yeah, the lenses are designed to be applied to a lot more than just the current Af100. :thumbsup:
 
Barry_Green said:
Well I also use them with a Super16 film camera, and I still keep my eventual eye on an Epic-S or F3 or something like that if it makes sense, so yeah, the lenses are designed to be applied to a lot more than just the current Af100. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Good move. They look relatively pricey at about 20k a set. What lenses do you have in the 2 sets?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top