matching Panasonic 20mm to FD
- Thread starter dracore
- Start date
I have this exact problem myself. The 20mm is almost excruciatingly sharp compared to the FDs.
I have tried a number of diffusion filters to soften the 20mm, but no luck so far in finding a good match. (Someone recommended the Tiffen Promist black 1/2, but I don't own one.)
Seems that tweaking in the editing stage would be the best solution, but I am just beginning to learn Sony Vegas Pro.
Does anyone else have any suggestions for possible settings? Thanks.
kostas
Well-known member
If you are not satisfied with the sharpness of the 20mm panasonic, and you prefer the image of FD lenses, why not get an 20mm FD 2.8 instead to better match your set of lenses?
Just wondering.
OK it is one stop slower and does not have autofocus. But it has better manual focus feel (and autofocus is hunting on the panasonic lens so I wouldn't use it), it is a good lens and it matches better your other lenses.
Just wondering.
OK it is one stop slower and does not have autofocus. But it has better manual focus feel (and autofocus is hunting on the panasonic lens so I wouldn't use it), it is a good lens and it matches better your other lenses.
Thanks for your suggestion, Kostas. I imagine the 20mm FD 2.8 would be difficult to find and a good deal heavier than the pancake ;-) And on its own, the pancake performs very well. I'm quite pleased with it optically (if rather disappointed mechanically).
I almost always lock focus before filming with the pancake, so its tendency to hunt (and to be noisy while doing so) is not really an issue for me.
I was hoping for a suggestion for editing, preferably for Vegas Pro.
kostas
Well-known member
It is a bit heavier but not really what you call a heavy lens. As for being scarce, they often pop here and there on eBay. It happens that I currently have one for sale, just put it on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...7199&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT#ht_2814wt_1141
I am sure the pancake lens is great (If I had a gh1 I'd mostly consider it for AF stills, even if lately I tend to manually focus even for stills
) but modern lenses seem to be difficult to match with vintage glass. So my suggestion was to stick with the same type of lenses. In post processing it may be difficult to achieve what you can't achieve while shooting.
Ben_B
Veteran
Yeah I agree.
I don't know what everyone is on about with soft as butter lenses giving a more "filmic" look. Every film I've ever seen has had tack sharp image in areas of critical focus. If you are going for a 1970s home movie look then by all means use soft "vintage" glass. Sometimes "vintage" just means old. For some companies "vintage" marks a time when optical quality and build quality were priorities, not simply making things cheap and easy to sell. Nikon is one such company, and their vintage glass exceeds all but their highest end glass in optical quality, sharpness, build quality, and general performance. Canon is not. Their older glass is inferior to most of their newer glass in all respects except build quality, across the board (low end to high) and it's not because Canon's modern glass is better than Nikon's, it's just that their old glass is so much worse, in all respects except maybe build quality.
Thanks for your thoughts, gentlemen.
From the photo, the FD 20mm 2.8 does appear to be surprisingly compact (probably because it's one of the newer bayonet mounts as opposed to the breech-lock mounts I have).
Still, the pancake is so much smaller and lighter (not to mention a stop and a half faster), so I think I'll stick with it. (I sometimes wonder if it's so sharp per se or if there isn't a lot of electronic processing going on in the background to dramatically boost apparent resolution. I believe I read somewhere that barrel distortion, for one, is virtually eliminated electronically).
When I get some time, I'll try to experiment with various settings for softening in Vegas Pro and post my results. But, as I said, I'm still at the learning stage when it comes to Vegas.
From the photo, the FD 20mm 2.8 does appear to be surprisingly compact (probably because it's one of the newer bayonet mounts as opposed to the breech-lock mounts I have).
Still, the pancake is so much smaller and lighter (not to mention a stop and a half faster), so I think I'll stick with it. (I sometimes wonder if it's so sharp per se or if there isn't a lot of electronic processing going on in the background to dramatically boost apparent resolution. I believe I read somewhere that barrel distortion, for one, is virtually eliminated electronically).
When I get some time, I'll try to experiment with various settings for softening in Vegas Pro and post my results. But, as I said, I'm still at the learning stage when it comes to Vegas.
aquavideo
Member
AFAIK all FD were breech lock (as is the one on ebay - it's just hard to see in that photo) - that's what made it FD.
No, there are newer FD lenses with a black butt-end that can just bayonet twist into the same regular FD socket. They're typically lighter, smaller, and sometimes have somewhat better optics than the older breech-lock versions of the same lens.
I have a bayonet 50mm Macro f3.5 that really puts my breech-lock 50mm f1.4 to shame in absolutely every aspect. I realize they're different lenses but the feel of the focus ring alone is enough to make me want to trade my 1.4 for a bayonet version. Much smoother and easier.
I have a bayonet 50mm Macro f3.5 that really puts my breech-lock 50mm f1.4 to shame in absolutely every aspect. I realize they're different lenses but the feel of the focus ring alone is enough to make me want to trade my 1.4 for a bayonet version. Much smoother and easier.
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
FD lenses can deliver very sharp footage- but modern lenses like the Panasonic 20mm have much more contrast and a different overall look in terms of color - I find the contrast of modern lenses to be the tough thing to match when using both vintage and modern glass on the same production moreso than the sharpness, although it is a factor.
Lucas Adamson
Well-known member
In my experience, the resolving power of FD glass is plenty overkill for HD video with 2 Megapixels.
Contrast is releative to sharpness, however, and modern glass is very contrasty, and hence looks sharper.
The FD glass is said by many to look more filmic due to being low contrast, which equates to helping to get a wider dynamic range in video.
Remember that contrast can be added without any loss in definition or quality at the post-production stage to render FD lenses every bit as sharp and contrasty as modern lenses.
So, in answer to the OP, experiment with adding contrast to the FD images to match the Lumix 20mm.
Contrast is releative to sharpness, however, and modern glass is very contrasty, and hence looks sharper.
The FD glass is said by many to look more filmic due to being low contrast, which equates to helping to get a wider dynamic range in video.
Remember that contrast can be added without any loss in definition or quality at the post-production stage to render FD lenses every bit as sharp and contrasty as modern lenses.
So, in answer to the OP, experiment with adding contrast to the FD images to match the Lumix 20mm.
stoneinapond
Veteran
+1
The 20mm FD I had was quite soft although pleasant, whereas my 50mm FD is very sharp. I found it immpossible to match the Panasonic 20mm with the Canon. They were just so different. I find the Panasonic 20mm too "contrasty".
to attempt to answer the OP's question:
I created 2 custom film modes, 1 for my Lumix/Oly glass, one for my FD glass. The Lumix film mode uses Smooth with contrast and sharpness dialed all the way down. The FD film mode has contrast and sharpness boosted to maximum. I think I would get better results if I used Dynamic for FD instead, or one of the other higher contrast flavors.
Then its a matter of adjusting sharpness and curves in post, either bringing the FD image towards the Lumix, or the other way around.
That's as good as I've been able to do.
I created 2 custom film modes, 1 for my Lumix/Oly glass, one for my FD glass. The Lumix film mode uses Smooth with contrast and sharpness dialed all the way down. The FD film mode has contrast and sharpness boosted to maximum. I think I would get better results if I used Dynamic for FD instead, or one of the other higher contrast flavors.
Then its a matter of adjusting sharpness and curves in post, either bringing the FD image towards the Lumix, or the other way around.
That's as good as I've been able to do.
Lucas Adamson
Well-known member
+2 sharpness has got to be a horrible idea on any lens, surely?!
Perhaps consider FD sharpness 0 and the Lumix -2, and I agree +2 contrast for FD and -2 for Lumix. That should get you close.
Perhaps consider FD sharpness 0 and the Lumix -2, and I agree +2 contrast for FD and -2 for Lumix. That should get you close.
bitcrusher
Well-known member
I have a felling that maybe Tiffen ultra contrast filters might work here. Anyone with experience?