Lowlight and Sharpness standards

AS far as testing lenses goes,

First we tested at Hand Held Films inc. in NYC. They have a testing bay with a big back lit chart. its made of acetate thats frosted so there is a nice balanced even illumination emanating form the chart. It has pin wheel diagrams and resolution grids on it.

we knew we were shooting verite style and with almost no real lighting gear, a 2k and a couple of redheads. so we were expecting to be shooting most of the time Wide open, so we tested the wide open lens performance. We dimmed the chart illumination to an F2.8, spotchecked with a sekonic spot meter, The film stock was Kodak Vision2 5218 500T. its about as fast as the DVX100 is in 24p mode. Its really fast film.

Hand Held did not have a functioning Collimeter, so we had to check back focus manually. The lenses we were using were Xenon Arri standard mount lenses for the origional Arri IIc MOS camera, and a PL mount adapter for the BL4.

We had the Arri standard mount lenses, and we shot the film on an Arri IIc for variable speed stuff, and an ARRI BL4 for the Sound synch stuff. ( once you use a BL4, you will never complain that your HVX is heavy again.... EVER...... its a 50 pound camera when loaded with stock)

IIc:
35mm%20Arri%202C%20variable%20speed%20motor_1t.jpg


BL4:
arri_bl4.jpg


First we used a measuring tape and pulled three different distances with each lens, 10', 5' and min distance, using a slate we recorded the distance, lens and Fstop of each shot. then we did "eyesharps" where you pull focus with the viewfinder and find you sharpest focus by eye. we used a small flashlight with a single bulb in "candle" mode (MAGLITE) to create a single point of light where its easier to comeup with a point of focus.

The reason we do two tests of focus is to see which method is sharper. Then we sent off the film to be processed and we looked for softspots, CA, and inconsistent focus planes. When we got the rushes, we saw that the Eyesharps were consistently crisper, meaning that the ARRI standard mount => PL adapter was throwing the back focus off.

So we shot with "eye sharps". Should a lens have a quirk, like soft corners, you know that you can only use that lens when the sunject is more toward the center of the frame. We wouldnt use that lens for wide shots and such. CA is more difficult to deal with, though the ARRI Xenon lenses displayed NONE. they were pin sharp, and totally CA free. impressive for 60 year old lenses.
 
I wonder how many Letus Extremes have made it into customers hands?
Probably very few.
Dont you think that if they dont live up to the claims (both perceived and real) that the L.E. would be ripped to shreds buy the community at large? (they DO come with a 30 day guarantee~ do the others?)

All of the 35mm adapter makers have their *claims* ~its the footage and the reviews by the members here that sell the different adapters.

What SOLD me on the L.E. was the 1080 footage posted by Disjecta (oh, and the glass chess pieces footage on the Letus website are superb looking). Not any single claim on a website.

Ive been a fan of the Brevis from day one. But something 2 weeks ago changed that.

As more units hit the streets, Im sure the L.E. will be put through it paces and the community will report, as it always does.
 
For me numerical tests are worthless. I've had plenty of tack sharp glass that just doesn't render a very pleasing image, and numerically 'soft' glass that has the perfect color rendition and contrast and creates beautiful images.

If the longer optical path of the LE lets me zoom in less, any additional light loss might be offset by a bigger aperture on the camera. Not having to use a spacer might negate any difference as well. There are so many variables that unless the tester has your exact camera and lenses, it might not have any bearing on what will happen with your gear. With the Brevis and the LE, I don't think we're talking about huge differences anyway. It's not like the M2 or Mini35 where you know the thing is just chowing down on your light.

When it comes to bokeh, that's just too subjective to have any meaningful test data, you either like it or you don't.

For me, I rely on my highly technical test results, and right now those say all the LE footage I've seen is really freaking pretty and visually as sharp as I need for what I shoot.
 
T, that's a very well written, thorough overview of your film lens testing. The issues with the measured focus distances are exactly why we busted our keisters here making sure every lens mount system could be quickly field collimated. It's the PL and OCT19 cinema lens mounts that require the most carefull adjustment as we've found the tolerance for error extremely small with these types of lenses.

I'll admit a vacuous gap of knowledge with regard to the older Arri lenses. What would you guess is the "secret" behind the CA free performance of the Xenon's you tested? It's a rare thing to find a lens free of CA ... so please fill us in on any details (focal length, model etc) of the ones that worked best for you.
 
Timur,
Nice explanation. I wouldn't neccessarily assume that since the markings were a little off that your collimation was off. I don't where you got your lenses , but when I worked at a rental house, nothing ever left us that wasn't collimated with a collimater, but I still wouldn't neccessarily trust the markings without testing.
i think its pretty rare in the film world to shoot with uncollimated lenses, because its not just a matter of marks being off. A zoom will completely go to hell and a wide angle could be way off when its wide open. If your concerned, you should a test with all the lens outdoors at infinity - real infinity at least a hundred yards away preferably more.

What about the CA issue you mentioned earlier. How did you test for that.

Dennis- I wonder why the tolerances are more with those lenses. Could it be because they are basically sharper and you see what's out faster.

Timur - Man you are right about handholding a BL - I still remember holding one with only a 400' mag over some stupid murder scene in a bathtub - hurts to think about it.

- Lenny Levy
 
The Xenons are amazing ! They are the smallest lenses ive ever used. and i think the secret is that they have such little glass in them. the 28mm literally looked like it had 3 elements or so and they are the size of a spool of thread. Also, remember that the 35mm film camera plane is a small patch in the middle of the projected image. the CA that may actually have existed at the edges of frame on a SLR film camera was probably cropped out entirely. This means that the wide wide 28mm im used to on my Canon A1 SLR camera is MUCH wider than the 28mm on the BL4.
 
Back
Top