Video sharp? Film.. not sharp?!
- Thread starter Igelkott Film
- Start date
Jon Furtado
Well-known member
The reason they don't is because they're taking still images. Cine lenses are calibrated to match across a set and to behave perfectly the same each and every time. Still lenses don't need to do this because they're taking a snapshot in time. Also, still lenses tend to have less iris blades than cinema lenses.
Jon Furtado
Well-known member
Amen Giuseppe. Also you comments earlier about lighting for your eye and the directors and not for the mass public were spot on. I've noticed that a lot of people on here tend to get hung up over fstops and focal lengths and seem to ignore the most important thing that separate's "video" and film: LIGHTING. Every DOP i've ever met emphasizes this over and over. I think it's easy to get seduced by the sexyness of the camera and lenses and forget that lighting ALWAYS needs to be our #1 focus. It's the first thing to make an older camera's image really pop and a brand new camera's image look terrible!
We all get in this because we appreciate the way light plays across our lenses.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
As even HE himself said on day one: Let there be light. Lenses came on the second and sensors on the third... ;-)
I bet HE was out shooting on days 4 though 6 and of course rested on day 7
Cine lenses are optimized for the motion picture frame . They do perform better
You can't adapt a cinema lens to a hasselblad. They are medium format. That's why its never been done.
Indeed, here's an image that gives an indication of the frame size differences:
Realize that also digital medium format (the shown frame size) isn't even the full traditional "medium format" but still a crop, kinda like APS-C is to full frame. Of course "Large format" is even larger... but I don't know of any digital large format backs yet
It's a lot easier to replicate detail when your sensor/lens' is mountains bigger muahahahha
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Minor correction: there's at least one non-crop DMF out there - http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/p65/
John Caballero
Veteran
Again, in functionality. Image wise, there is in no way a $20-30 K difference.
Adam J McKay
Veteran
I have recently got the chance to use some Cooke S5's and I can tell you right away there is a difference. I come from a photography background and no still lenses I have ever used can compare to the way the image looks through the S5. Whether or not it's a 50 thousand dollar difference is up for debate. I do agree that part of this whole thing is part of an old Hollywood system. Because at the end of the day, as filmmaker we tell stories. If it's lit, if it's not, it's still a story. Yes we can all get crazy over this or that, but you don't need a 500k worth of lenses and 5 ton grip truck. You need a story to tell and a little bit of drive and determination. Will everything else help make you story look similar to what people are expecting to see? Yes. Does that matter in the end? Not really.
Have you ever used an S4? Or a Master Prime? or even more importantly, A:B compared them to a Still lens, or pulled focus with an appropriately deigned lens VS a Still lens.? there is a difference. But what you have to understand is that when you reach to top tier of performance, you are paying exponentially more for a smaller and smaller gain in performance. Master Primes are not designed for the average film maker. they are designed to be no compromise lenses for top tier productions.
This is the difference between a CP2 ( rehoused still glass into PL) and a purpose built Cinema lens, the Schneider Cine Xenar. You can see the Xenar does not breathe. This is one of the many differences between still glass and Cinema glass. Its extremely complicated to design and factors into the price. The Xenar is the same price as a set of CP2's. However to keep costs down the Xenar has floating front element. meaning the lens gets longer as you focus. The Master Primes can maintain no breathing while focusing, while remaining in a fixed lens housing. This is VERY complicated to do.
it was a nikon 80-200.
but rehousing a lens like that entials more than just slapping a PL on it. they did alot of reworking, and optimizing of the elements, position, focus, etc....
but rehousing a lens like that entials more than just slapping a PL on it. they did alot of reworking, and optimizing of the elements, position, focus, etc....
Coolbreeze
Member
Timur,
Can you briefly explain the differences between the Xenar versus the CP2s. I am interested in your opinion on image, clarity, quality, look/feel. Thanks much.
Can you briefly explain the differences between the Xenar versus the CP2s. I am interested in your opinion on image, clarity, quality, look/feel. Thanks much.
Mike, Have you tested Cp2's against Xenars in real life?
Im curious to see what other people have to say.
I will be doing a full Xenar Test this weekend. I have done a quick and dirty test a few weeks ago. They are warm, sharp, and have a organic feel. The bokeh is spectacular, they dont breathe and the build quality is spot on. They are a bit heavier than CP2's but they feel more solid.
Im curious to see what other people have to say.
I will be doing a full Xenar Test this weekend. I have done a quick and dirty test a few weeks ago. They are warm, sharp, and have a organic feel. The bokeh is spectacular, they dont breathe and the build quality is spot on. They are a bit heavier than CP2's but they feel more solid.
No, just going by the video you posted. I know those are just test charts, but I like the look of the Cambelles on the CP.2's over the Xenar. It's a subtle difference though. I'd be curious to see a comparison of them in an actual shoot though.
Comparing results
We should never forget that we mainly see the result of a very complex chain of technologies to create the image shown on the big screen or on blu-ray. The camera (sensor / film) and lens are crucial within this chain but can be heavily manipulated in their looks by further processing.
The same goes for ridiculous comparisons on Vimeo or Youtube...
Sadly, most blu-rays are made from mediocre DIs (a fast telecine instead of a proper scanner downsampling from >4k) and encoded poorly. 35mm-prints in cinemas (don't get started about projectionists) are a joke - so you want to base your camera/lens-decision on these presentation standards? Get a 550D with a kit-zoom and buy a house from the money you saved not buying some Hawk anamorphics and an ARRICAM ;-)
But this is not our point of view, we want the best quality even if it takes years to finally see it in it's beauty (you know, the 4k DI or IMAX print of your independent movie you're able to pay for when you become famous 10 years later ;-)
Choice of camera & lens
But nevertheless, the choice of the best fitting camera / lens is crucial because it affects handling, workflow and how far can you push it to the desired "look". If you want something that looks like video, you should propably use video - you want to replicate the look of "girl with the pearl earring" (Cooke S4 + S35 + masterful cinematography) with a RED and a few Canon/ Nikon-lenses? You should propably think twice...
Film vs. Digital Part XXI ;-)
Film has great latitude (you don't nail the exposure in real-world-situations every single time - so that makes it a reliable and - yes - affordable technology), great tonal transitions, complete lack of digital artifacts and extreme dynamic range (up to 16 stops - that's why state-of-the-art filmscanners have to use double-exposure besides huge photosite to create real 16bit-files). That - together with modern technologies in digital processing - make it a very flexible tool, that's one of the major advantages from modern film, a film shot on Kodak Vision 3 and a 4k DI has barely any specific look, it can adapt any look you want. Warm, cold, grainy, soft, sharp, contrasty, grainless (modern denoising can nearly remove all the grain/ scanner noise of 35mm-4k-scans without mushing details) - whatever you want.
Film soft?
So is film "soft" in comparison to digital? Sharpness can be defined with MTF (contrast over detail) - generally, the overall "crispness" of an HD/2kDI-image is defined by the contrast at lower frequencies (like 20lp/mm for 35mm-size - that's about 1000 lines in horizontal direction) - even 500ASA stock delivers >90% contrast under these circumstances (http://motion.kodak.com/DE/de/motion/Quicklinks/Curves/5260MTF.htm).
Very good HD-cameras reach about 1500 lines in horizontal direction (30lp/mm on S35-sensor/film) with high contrast and barely any additional artifacts - the same goes for the 500ASA-stock with 70%-90% MTF (depending on color).
After that, the AA-filter kicks in (it has to push down contrast to 0% at ~40lp/mm! to avoid alaising) - you propably see detail on aligned, b/w-test chart patterns - but not in the real-world.
So is film per se softer than the best HD-cams? Not a bit.
Beyond 40lp/mm (still talking about S35-size) the differences really kick in, film slowly loses contrast until detail gently gets lost in grain.
A 4k-sensor (bayer-pattern) output can hold up contrast even beyond 40lp/mm, especially with further tricks like sharpening and ignoring artifacts by the debayering (2/3 of the color image are actually interpolated!) or aliasing (because they used a less strong AA-filter which doesn't reach 0% contrast @ 80lp/mm and hoping that the remaining alaising can be hidden). This makes the final resolution less dependent on contrast (like film) but prone to digital artifacts and even orientation of detail. Something to keep in mind when remembering the expense of a 4k DI or downsampling the image to a reasonable 2k resolution...
A DI of film is working the opposite way, the transition from film to digital is always a quality-loss and it becomes worse when using a lower resolution in the attempt to hide grain...
A 4k DI renders even coarse detail better and actually reduces grain at the same magnification.
Here's a 1:1 comparison, 4k vs 2k DI from 35mm-film: http://img153.imageshack.us/i/p3fig01.jpg/ (source: ARRI 4k+)
Useful information about resolution
The source is a very interesting document, everybody should read it who is interested in the resolution and HD vs. 4k-debate:
http://www.arri.de/?eID=registration&file_uid=3525
It shows that a good 4k DI can render detail up to 60lp/mm or about 3000 lines (the 50ASA film stock used by ARRI has lower MTF in comparison to the 100/200ASA stocks and they used an old Zeiss lens)- although there is more detail in the film itself.
So 35mm-film is neither 4k, 5k or 6k but it renders fine detail in real-world situations better than 3k/4k/5k-cameras but neither 35mm-sized aquisition medium achieves high contrast @ 4k (that are 80lp/mm, barely possible in real-life even regarding focus) - that's 65mm-territory.
Cine-lenses vs. consumer lenses
As mentioned, cine-lenses are designed and manufactured differently.
- more robust, precise, long-lasting mechanics
- handling (focus scales, positions)
- breathing is taking into account and barely noticeable in modern lenses due to complex mechanics
- rendering of bokeh important (even the number of aperture blades)
High-quality consumer-lenses (L-series from Canon, Nikon...) are made with well controllled processes. But when elements/assemblies are out of tolerance but within process parameters, they're delivered to customers anyway.
Cine-lenses are actually quality-controlled, not just the production process. Actual tolerances are measured and taken into account, some processes involve rejection rates up to 90% ! No mass-producer would allow tolerances that make the processes this unstable! They drive the tolerances up to achieve "zero-failure-rate" - that's lean-production-thinking (always find ways to improve quality but more importantly: don't cause investments and don't drive costs up!)...
Even the focus scales are engraved for every specific lens individually (1 meter IS 1 meter)!
I've seen how Leica makes 3k$-lenses in Solms (where they make the future Summilux C-lenses as well) - don't think that they make more money with one of these lenses than Tamron with one of it's 500$-plastic-zooms...
Is it worth paying ~14000€ (Master Prime) instead of ~2000€ (e.g. Nikon 1.4/24) - so not really 500$ vs. 50000$... ?
From an image quality standpoint - well, the last 10% of quality cost 10 times as much - a rule of thumb in engineering. Modern cine-lenses like Master Primes blow even the best Canon/Nikon-lenses out of the water, some even at full aperture (T1.3 - that's about F1.2!!!)
For some filming with an HDSLR? Propably not. For a rental houses which wants to use the lenses over the whole lifecycle (10-30 years)? For sure! For somebody who invests >2 years of his life to make a small-budget film? For sure! For a big-production where the focus puller of the 2nd unit is already more expensive than the rental rate of a set of Master Primes? For sure! For any project with complex scenes that don't have to be repeated ~ 10% more often because the focus pulling was too tricky? For sure...
Fighting the system with digital technology
Come on, you want to tell a proper cinematic story (which isn't about two people sitting in a dark room for two hours) - you need time, you need crew, you need specialists (costumes, production designers...) and it will cost you some money. It's not the digital revolution of the music industry, where artists record their albums in their basement with a Macbook instead of paying for a whole studio!
The additional costs in filmmaking are enough to make you forget about the cost of a few hours of 35mm film-stocks and processing.
There are enough <1M$-movies out there produced with state-of-the-art equipment.
There is no feature film project that became profitable because of savings in shooting HD instead of 35mm!
That doesn't mean that producers don't want to cut on every corner, every cent (Michael Ballhaus wasn't allowed to make a 4k DI for "the Departed"! "Too expensive")...
The "Hollywood-Establishment" has nothing to do with professional equipment and it's costs. The studio-system collapsed and many classics were made in the 60/70s for very little money on 35mm! Now it's too expensive? That's the way they killed 65mm. Oh, "Cleopatra" was a flop - it was the expensive film material! Now they make 200M$ on 35mm... Race to the bottom... Filmmakers should decide whether they want to use RED, an HDSLR or 35mm - not producers! We have to fight for it, because the industry has lobbyists that already decided which medium should win (the one that's doesn't use matured cameras that can be used for >30 years!).
Puh, enough for now - I hope it's at least a little bit helpful for some...
We should never forget that we mainly see the result of a very complex chain of technologies to create the image shown on the big screen or on blu-ray. The camera (sensor / film) and lens are crucial within this chain but can be heavily manipulated in their looks by further processing.
The same goes for ridiculous comparisons on Vimeo or Youtube...
Sadly, most blu-rays are made from mediocre DIs (a fast telecine instead of a proper scanner downsampling from >4k) and encoded poorly. 35mm-prints in cinemas (don't get started about projectionists) are a joke - so you want to base your camera/lens-decision on these presentation standards? Get a 550D with a kit-zoom and buy a house from the money you saved not buying some Hawk anamorphics and an ARRICAM ;-)
But this is not our point of view, we want the best quality even if it takes years to finally see it in it's beauty (you know, the 4k DI or IMAX print of your independent movie you're able to pay for when you become famous 10 years later ;-)
Choice of camera & lens
But nevertheless, the choice of the best fitting camera / lens is crucial because it affects handling, workflow and how far can you push it to the desired "look". If you want something that looks like video, you should propably use video - you want to replicate the look of "girl with the pearl earring" (Cooke S4 + S35 + masterful cinematography) with a RED and a few Canon/ Nikon-lenses? You should propably think twice...
Film vs. Digital Part XXI ;-)
Film has great latitude (you don't nail the exposure in real-world-situations every single time - so that makes it a reliable and - yes - affordable technology), great tonal transitions, complete lack of digital artifacts and extreme dynamic range (up to 16 stops - that's why state-of-the-art filmscanners have to use double-exposure besides huge photosite to create real 16bit-files). That - together with modern technologies in digital processing - make it a very flexible tool, that's one of the major advantages from modern film, a film shot on Kodak Vision 3 and a 4k DI has barely any specific look, it can adapt any look you want. Warm, cold, grainy, soft, sharp, contrasty, grainless (modern denoising can nearly remove all the grain/ scanner noise of 35mm-4k-scans without mushing details) - whatever you want.
Film soft?
So is film "soft" in comparison to digital? Sharpness can be defined with MTF (contrast over detail) - generally, the overall "crispness" of an HD/2kDI-image is defined by the contrast at lower frequencies (like 20lp/mm for 35mm-size - that's about 1000 lines in horizontal direction) - even 500ASA stock delivers >90% contrast under these circumstances (http://motion.kodak.com/DE/de/motion/Quicklinks/Curves/5260MTF.htm).
Very good HD-cameras reach about 1500 lines in horizontal direction (30lp/mm on S35-sensor/film) with high contrast and barely any additional artifacts - the same goes for the 500ASA-stock with 70%-90% MTF (depending on color).
After that, the AA-filter kicks in (it has to push down contrast to 0% at ~40lp/mm! to avoid alaising) - you propably see detail on aligned, b/w-test chart patterns - but not in the real-world.
So is film per se softer than the best HD-cams? Not a bit.
Beyond 40lp/mm (still talking about S35-size) the differences really kick in, film slowly loses contrast until detail gently gets lost in grain.
A 4k-sensor (bayer-pattern) output can hold up contrast even beyond 40lp/mm, especially with further tricks like sharpening and ignoring artifacts by the debayering (2/3 of the color image are actually interpolated!) or aliasing (because they used a less strong AA-filter which doesn't reach 0% contrast @ 80lp/mm and hoping that the remaining alaising can be hidden). This makes the final resolution less dependent on contrast (like film) but prone to digital artifacts and even orientation of detail. Something to keep in mind when remembering the expense of a 4k DI or downsampling the image to a reasonable 2k resolution...
A DI of film is working the opposite way, the transition from film to digital is always a quality-loss and it becomes worse when using a lower resolution in the attempt to hide grain...
A 4k DI renders even coarse detail better and actually reduces grain at the same magnification.
Here's a 1:1 comparison, 4k vs 2k DI from 35mm-film: http://img153.imageshack.us/i/p3fig01.jpg/ (source: ARRI 4k+)
Useful information about resolution
The source is a very interesting document, everybody should read it who is interested in the resolution and HD vs. 4k-debate:
http://www.arri.de/?eID=registration&file_uid=3525
It shows that a good 4k DI can render detail up to 60lp/mm or about 3000 lines (the 50ASA film stock used by ARRI has lower MTF in comparison to the 100/200ASA stocks and they used an old Zeiss lens)- although there is more detail in the film itself.
So 35mm-film is neither 4k, 5k or 6k but it renders fine detail in real-world situations better than 3k/4k/5k-cameras but neither 35mm-sized aquisition medium achieves high contrast @ 4k (that are 80lp/mm, barely possible in real-life even regarding focus) - that's 65mm-territory.
Cine-lenses vs. consumer lenses
As mentioned, cine-lenses are designed and manufactured differently.
- more robust, precise, long-lasting mechanics
- handling (focus scales, positions)
- breathing is taking into account and barely noticeable in modern lenses due to complex mechanics
- rendering of bokeh important (even the number of aperture blades)
High-quality consumer-lenses (L-series from Canon, Nikon...) are made with well controllled processes. But when elements/assemblies are out of tolerance but within process parameters, they're delivered to customers anyway.
Cine-lenses are actually quality-controlled, not just the production process. Actual tolerances are measured and taken into account, some processes involve rejection rates up to 90% ! No mass-producer would allow tolerances that make the processes this unstable! They drive the tolerances up to achieve "zero-failure-rate" - that's lean-production-thinking (always find ways to improve quality but more importantly: don't cause investments and don't drive costs up!)...
Even the focus scales are engraved for every specific lens individually (1 meter IS 1 meter)!
I've seen how Leica makes 3k$-lenses in Solms (where they make the future Summilux C-lenses as well) - don't think that they make more money with one of these lenses than Tamron with one of it's 500$-plastic-zooms...
Is it worth paying ~14000€ (Master Prime) instead of ~2000€ (e.g. Nikon 1.4/24) - so not really 500$ vs. 50000$... ?
From an image quality standpoint - well, the last 10% of quality cost 10 times as much - a rule of thumb in engineering. Modern cine-lenses like Master Primes blow even the best Canon/Nikon-lenses out of the water, some even at full aperture (T1.3 - that's about F1.2!!!)
For some filming with an HDSLR? Propably not. For a rental houses which wants to use the lenses over the whole lifecycle (10-30 years)? For sure! For somebody who invests >2 years of his life to make a small-budget film? For sure! For a big-production where the focus puller of the 2nd unit is already more expensive than the rental rate of a set of Master Primes? For sure! For any project with complex scenes that don't have to be repeated ~ 10% more often because the focus pulling was too tricky? For sure...
Fighting the system with digital technology
Come on, you want to tell a proper cinematic story (which isn't about two people sitting in a dark room for two hours) - you need time, you need crew, you need specialists (costumes, production designers...) and it will cost you some money. It's not the digital revolution of the music industry, where artists record their albums in their basement with a Macbook instead of paying for a whole studio!
The additional costs in filmmaking are enough to make you forget about the cost of a few hours of 35mm film-stocks and processing.
There are enough <1M$-movies out there produced with state-of-the-art equipment.
There is no feature film project that became profitable because of savings in shooting HD instead of 35mm!
That doesn't mean that producers don't want to cut on every corner, every cent (Michael Ballhaus wasn't allowed to make a 4k DI for "the Departed"! "Too expensive")...
The "Hollywood-Establishment" has nothing to do with professional equipment and it's costs. The studio-system collapsed and many classics were made in the 60/70s for very little money on 35mm! Now it's too expensive? That's the way they killed 65mm. Oh, "Cleopatra" was a flop - it was the expensive film material! Now they make 200M$ on 35mm... Race to the bottom... Filmmakers should decide whether they want to use RED, an HDSLR or 35mm - not producers! We have to fight for it, because the industry has lobbyists that already decided which medium should win (the one that's doesn't use matured cameras that can be used for >30 years!).
Puh, enough for now - I hope it's at least a little bit helpful for some...
Rolf Silber
Veteran
+ 101. Excellent.