What lenses for shooting 50s-style scifi flick?

M

maxsideburn

Member
I've currently got the Canon 18-55 IS kit lens, Tamron 75-300 f4-5.6 zoom, Rokinon 14mm f2.8, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 50mm f1.8 (FD adapted for EOS), Nikkor 28mm f2.8

I really want that 50s look as close as possible as shot, not in post, so what would you guys recommend for this type of project?

I'm thinking that with what I have now I can shoot everything at the widest apertures to keep the image fairly soft, but suggestions for other (especially vintage) lenses would be welcome. Thanks.
 
Well if you want a soft picture use that fd mount 50mm wide open and it should give you a very dreamy look
 
Yeah, the 50mm FD is a frankenstein job. Instead of using an FD adapter (and losing f-stops) I just set the aperture to wide open and removed the aperture mechanism. This allowed me to cut into a body-cap and mount it straight to that so it focuses to infinity.

If I get a chance later I'll post a little video from the 50mm FD.
 
oh wow, I was thinking of my fd 50mm 1.8 mounted with a glass adapter that has a diopter inside. It is sharp at f/2.4 and above but at 1.8 it has a really nice dreamy look to it.

Im not sure if that is what your looking for though.

Post some examples of footage you want to emulate and maybe we can help more
 
The Helios 44 lens is a good one for that classic look and it's an M42 lens which means no monkeying around to make it focus to infinity. Just an M42 adapter. The Takumars and Non AI Nikkors are also good for that period look. Heck, there's too many to name. You might also look into some off brands from that period as they are technically inferior like your Cosinas but might offer wicked lens flare and low contrast which might be the look you're going after. Best of luck!
 
Kind of doing the same thing and I'm ending up using my Nikon 50mm 1.4 most of the time. You can look at some of the stuff I shot here:
http://vimeo.com/23514258

Really I think the lens is secondary to what you do in post to achieve that...a lens in and of itself will not create the look. They were dealing with film stocks weather it be three strip Technicolor or Eastman color or whatever which contributed much more to the look than the lenses. Lighting will also be a big factor.

A lot of the 60's B- movies were very sharp, and you can always soften or diffuse in post.

Here is another example I did with a simular goal:
http://vimeo.com/3416693
 
Last edited:
this guy is using vintage carl zeiss jena medium format lenses to get that look:
http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/vintage-zeiss-glass-on-modern-cameras/

of course, as boulder said, how you treat your footage in post (in terms of contrast, saturation, etc., in the final images) will be fundamental to achieving the look you're after

here, I use a carl zeiss jena pancolar 50mm f/1.8 from 1968 and try to get a vintage look:
http://vimeo.com/16358850

here, I use the same lens, plus a leitz elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 from 1966, but treat the footage regularly and get a more "modern" look:
http://vimeo.com/19406576
 
maxsideburn said:
I've currently got the Canon 18-55 IS kit lens, Tamron 75-300 f4-5.6 zoom, Rokinon 14mm f2.8, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 50mm f1.8 (FD adapted for EOS), Nikkor 28mm f2.8

I really want that 50s look as close as possible as shot, not in post, so what would you guys recommend for this type of project?

I'm thinking that with what I have now I can shoot everything at the widest apertures to keep the image fairly soft, but suggestions for other (especially vintage) lenses would be welcome. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Art direction and technique are going to play a larger role then lens selection here.

Good Luck!
 
also I think the Nikkor 28mm I currently have probably produces the most "vintage" look. Also on a crop camera it's the closest to 50mm.

I can borrow a Sigma 30mm f1.4 from a colleague, maybe that'd be nice and soft.
 
Looks good !
Three things that I thought about, but are not related to the lens :
Have you tried using the Glow effect ? It can recreate this glow around the faces, you can see it in almost all close ups in the kind of film you used for comparison.
The lighting makes a lot of things, by the time these movies were made, 3-points lighting was rigorous : you can see clearly the back light on the hair of the characters that makes that bright outline.
Last thing, I think these movies were shot with a 4/3 image ratio. I am not sure about this... Don't remember when wider formats appeared.
 
well it's not 100% critical, since the movie is a comedy and it's got time travel involved...but I would like it to at least not look like modern video in black & white.

so I'm thinking vintage lenses, bright three-point lighting, and some softening in post.
 
I did forget about the helios 44. I love this lens but mine doesn't feel as 50s as i was thinking. It does however feel wonderful in every other way.
 
A cheap way to get 50's softness and that halo effect is a technique from the 50's- using a net filter, which was very common, doing it in post will make it look that much more videoy you can tweak it yeah but it's not as authentic. Nets are practically free -I got a square yard of black tulle for a dollar where a Promist is like $100 or more. I used it on a Nikon 28 2.8 too, http://vimeo.com/8489873 at 1:24-1:34 you can see the halo effect on the tire iron. A lot of people mention lenses with character and flaws, and the net has pinwheel flares around sources so if that irritates you then go with post, but I thought the flares in my short were too much and even after I pointed them out people didn't notice or care about them. But watch Indy and the Crystal Skull or the first 30 min of War of the Worlds for nets in big modern movies that are doing homage to 50's films.

To have it not be foggy or too dreamy I attached it to the back of the lens, light glued a quarter size piece of black tulle to metal nubs near rear lens element- these nubs don't touch anything so it won't scratch off, I used nail varnish as it's easy to clean off won't leave any crud and it's what the pros use. But you can put a piece in front of the lens as long as you don't go wider than a 24mm lens. Also you can't shoot deeper then f8 or else it looks like a chain link fence over your whole shot, which you probably wouldn't shoot that deep but you never know.
 
Also another free Promist alternative is you can use hair spray on a clear uv filter, very lightly use an aerosol hair spray on the uv filter, add more coats for heavier softness and more glow. David Mullen did this once; he also suggests going 50/50 with lens filter and post, meaning using a light lens diffusion then adding more to taste in post, sort of best of both worlds solution.
 
Love the question and thread. A few thoughts...

50's flicks were by in large shot with enormous cameras and even bigger blimps. Which meant nowhere near the amount of camera movement we can achieve with today's tiny cams, as you needed huge equipment to hold the huge cameras (and a lot of dudes to move it all). Film stock was slow, and so was most of the glass.

As a result, most 50's flicks were primarily shot in studio, or on back lots. CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and THEM being notable exceptions, but even in those films, virtually all of the outdoor shots were during the day. Most studio films were still shot in B&W, and virtually all the indie films were. Obviously, the lower the budget, the more likely there will be poor glass, but in reality, I find most fifties film look pretty crisp. Prolly because they dumped a huge amount of light onto those stages.

Of course, the 50's brought the wide screen format as a means of beating TV. Cinemascope led the charge, but by the end of the decade, Panavision was becoming the norm. If you really want the those lenses, Panavision might still have some of that old glass. Their contact info:
http://www.panavision.com/locations

SFX-wise, there was a lot of use of matte painting and forced perspective - all helped by the mostly B&W nature of most films.

Thematically, it was all about Westerns, Rock and Roll, and atomic powered mutant monsters - which you gotta admit, is still pretty cool.

The acting style was changing drastically from the 20-40's - the method was brought to the big screen as Brando, Shatner, Sellers, Rod Steiger, Steve McQueen, and James Dean all made their debuts. Part of that meant a different style of shooting, which including a greater willingness to shoot/use tight close ups, but mostly it was letting the actors actually act. That said, the majority of shots in a classical film focus on gestures or facial expressions (medium-long and medium shots).

One other method for softening the image is to smudge the glass with a light layer of vasoline. You see that technique used a lot for dream sequences and the like.

Modern cutting was still a long way off, so no cross cutting or flash backs if you're staying true to the style.

In the end, I think 50's films are notable for the style of shooting/cutting/acting, rather then a lens. The size of the camera and slowness of film stock a much greater thing to overcome. Hope this helps you a bit...
 
Last edited:
I would be very careful about using diffusion methods while shooting as you cannot undue that. I have yet to come across cheap diffusion methods that I can't replicate in post with very little effort. As I said befor and many have reiterated, the glass isn't going to give you the look. The tools you have for post now are phenomenal and are an art by themselves. Shoot flat and clean and then create the look in post.
 
I agree with boulder about being careful when using diffusion in camera, but that's kinda the point right?, it's more "method" to do it practically- like you would feel cooler wearing an actual WWII uniform with real mud than a replica even if looks the same on camera it changes the experience making the movie which if might or might not matter to you. Also to counterpoint, I've yet to see a post method that can replicate the halo effect where it looks like light passing through a real material object that's not mathematically perfect and uniform, digital post also tends to do weird crushing of highlights and blacks, and skin looks way too airbrushed to me. Maybe boulder can cite some examples, as I'm not a purist and if that flawed organic look can really be done digitally that would be awesome.
 
here I've got some tests of a $10 fotodiox diffuser filter from ebay
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsf.html

it's supposed to keep detail but reduce local contrast by creating light spills; you can guess this one is not the best one available, but for $10 it does the job

to be used only for beautiful ladies, specially the first time they appear on screen

and, as others said, be careful and don't overdo it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top