Nikon Mount and lenses vs PL Mount and Film Lenses. And a question on true anamorphic

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Well-known member
I want to know if the quality in nikon slr lenses (35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, etc) if they are comparable to 35mm motion picture lenses with the pl mounts such as lomo, zeis, cooke, ett?

I am using a redrock m2 lens adapter, and if I had a choice to use either nikon lenses with the nikon mount, or to get a pl mount to use arri lenses, cooke, zeis, etc, what would be best? Will the sharpness, quality be better in any other format hands down? Or is this more subjective?

A good nikon slr prime lens can cost $80-$500 for a 1.4 35mm or 85mm.

A decent arri, lomo, cooke, zeis, 35mm motion picture prime lens can cost between $900 - $20,000 each.


I want to attach a motion picture 35mm film lens (cooke, zeis, or arri) to this mount for the m2 redrock, is this doable?
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl;j...c3eMbxuPe34Pa38Ta38Sax50?c=472981&it=A&id=703

Here is a motion picture lens I am thinking about using.
http://cgi.ebay.com/80-2-Anamorphic...ViewItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?hash=item439ae207e9

More motion picture lenses can be found here, all these pl mountable lenses are compatible with the pl mount from redrock?
http://www.anamorphic.biz/

Here is my other question.
I want to achieve true anamorphic with the redrock m2 and hvx200. Would I need a pl mounted anamorphic lens? Would this be true anamorphic, then I would have to resize in post? Adding mattes in post is not true anamorphic correct?
 
There is alot of drawbacks with anamorphic lenses. That they have very big problems being sharp over the entire image etc.

Its alot of money for a good anamorphic lense, so I wonder if its not better spend money on a better camera before you spend money on anamorphic.

EDIT

On Star wars episode 2, they didnt use anamorphic lenses but cropped instead. Thats because they wanted to avoid all the issues anamorphic has.
 
If you re using the original Redrock M2 adapter it will not be as sharp as any of the more recent adapters. the optics just aren't that good , so if you are planning to spend the money on PL mount lenses I would start with a more recent adapter - any of them.

An expensive PL mount zeiss prime is going to be better than an old Nikon for a few 100 however the Nikon's can be damn good so it may depend of your uses and your funds. DJ is right, for focus pulling cinema lenses are better. for poverty - the Nikon's are better.
 
nice

nice

This is a great article talking about lomo, zeiss, and pretty much throwing cannon or nikon out the window compared to real motion picture lenses.

http://konvas.org/faq/whats-the-look-and-feel-of-a-lomo-lens-compared-to-zeiss-cooke-other.html

But what does everyone here think?

I started with nikon slr lenses on a 35mm lens adapter, looks great, never shot with film or film lenses on it.

So is shooting with the lenses he is talking about in his article, and the $1000 and up lenses I found on ebay doable on the redrock with the pl mount?

I guess we should save anamorphic lenses for another debate? Or we can mix it in here so long as the original topics are missed, thanks!
 
"But they would not really be useful in any way with a 35mm adapter. Not at all. With a RED yes (marginally), 35mm ground glass, no way."

What do you mean, in which way, and how?

"If you re using the original Redrock M2 adapter it will not be as sharp as any of the more recent adapters."

I am upgrading my m2 to the m2 encore, which is much much better, more light, more sharpness, see here. http://redrockmicro.com/lensadapter/index.html
 
From the article.

The Nikkors would be fine for the RED because the image recorded is less than the image the lens delivers, but they just don't cut it for real film unless you are shooting in fog.
Click to expand...

They seem to base the article for film and not video. But I wonder what filmstock delivers more then 4K in reality(real world shooting). So based on the article you wouldnt need anamorphic.

The latest Star trek movie was shoot on Anamorphic and used a 2K DI. So 4k+ seems like an overkill for film aswell.

But what the reason you want to shoot anamorphic?
 
"The Nikkors would be fine for the RED because the image recorded is less than the image the lens delivers, but they just don't cut it for real film unless you are shooting in fog."

I think I understand, so using a lomo or zeiss motion picture lens would be overkill for an hvx200, or even red at 2k for that matter? Are they saying that a nikkon lens, or cannon, would be sufficient for digital? When you use a lomo or zeiss, will you only realize it is a lomo or zeiss because of the addiitonal data recorded onto film that digital simply wont even pick up? Are they saying this, and is it true if they are saying this? Like to see the best of nikkon or lomo, you have to shoot on 35mm? That if you put a lomo, zeiss, or nikon on an hvx or red, one wont see the difference?

" But what the reason you want to shoot anamorphic?"

I want to add that additional element of film look, plus I personally love it. Every film I love has a 2.35 aspect ratio, that extra wide anamorphic look. I dont want to shoot 1.78 (native hvx) and add mattes, or could I if I frame everything when I shoot as anamorphic? Also my goal would be theatrical distribution and dvd after that, all with a 2.35 ratio.

How can one notice the difference between true anamorphic and fake mattes in post?

What are drawback of shooting with the real pl mount anamorphic lenses? He said it was too sharp in the above response?
 
Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez said:
How can one notice the difference between true anamorphic and fake mattes in post?
Click to expand...

Because the anamorphic distortion is detectable at 2K. Look at this two screencaps. And see if one stand out more then the other.

Sorry about the "blood" but it was the only one on my current computer.

batman2-org.jpg


ltroi2.jpg
 
I see, I think I see, yeah lot of stuff in the bg just doesnt seem right in the army guy shot, but the night shot I dont really see, any help?

Would you recommend shooting 1.78 (native hvx 16:9 format) and framing for 2.35, and adding mattes in post? Is that the safer route?

Wait, the blurred out railing in the girl shot doesnt look like a smooth blur, is that the distortion you mean? It looks pretty bad if thats what you are referring to. Even the nikkon primes I have dont do that, they look blurred and smooth, not jaggedy blurred.

A good article explaining some basics of anamorphic.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/4303/vertical35mm.html
 
Last edited:
The frist pic is Academy35(Anamorphic) the other is Super35(Spherical)

Yes different movies isnt the best way to compare. But it will give you a hint.

I dont know, whats the best option with HVX, but I do crop to 2.39:1 with my XHA1. Since Its easier, cheaper and you dont get the focus problem as you would get with a anamorphic lense.

I did use Anamorphic Adapter with my DVX100. And it was alot extra work to handle it.

But you should ask in the HVX200 section what other users think about crop vs anamorphic.


water4.jpg
 
Last edited:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/p-s-technik-digital-image-converters/32379-pl-vs-slr-lenses-p-s.html

Great article, this sums it up. Charles says;
"The difference between SLR lenses and cine lenses has less to do with the resulting image than the practicality."

And Barry Green says;
"Exactly. There's not much image quality difference, but the usability is quite different."

I just needed to hear some other people say it, I thought it would have been different I thought everyone would argue that you pay more so you get more quality, but I realized it has more to do with the usability. I got quite good at pulling my own focus on shots with the nikon lenses, so since everyone says the quality is the same, great, im sticking with slr nikon lenses for now!

Another good article debating the same;
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1039

As for anamorphic, I think I may just put markers or a matte on my ikan external monitor for 2.35, or draw a outline of the 2.35 zone so I can frame for 2.35, then in post add the matte on, sounds good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top