The first thing people always talk about when it comes to buying a lens is how sharp it is but I was wondering since sharpness is more associated with a digital look and film seems to have a more soft and dreamy quality to it do you really want "sharp" lenses for video?
When looking for a lens for video is sharpness a good thing?
- Thread starter dtjohns1
- Start date
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Its a personal preference.
Some people prefer the soft look that emulates shooting on film, but others want it to look tac-sharp for a super modern look. I would just recommend not combining the two, but stick to a style during a production and be consistent with it. But both have merit.
This is actually one of the reasons that many folks prefer vintage lenses:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?201760-The-Vintage-Lens-Thread
The old lenses are all manual which actually often means you have an easier focus wheel as well as aperture control, both big pluses in my book. But the minute imperfections of the older lenses give a look that more resembles film than the cold harsh look often achieved with modern Canon glass. Also having a softer picture can help alleviate some of the moire and aliasing issues during compression.
Either way, you definitely don't want it to be too soft, which I've had happen when shooting on a vintage Nikon lens with wide-open aperture. Then it just looks bad, IMO.
Some people prefer the soft look that emulates shooting on film, but others want it to look tac-sharp for a super modern look. I would just recommend not combining the two, but stick to a style during a production and be consistent with it. But both have merit.
This is actually one of the reasons that many folks prefer vintage lenses:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?201760-The-Vintage-Lens-Thread
The old lenses are all manual which actually often means you have an easier focus wheel as well as aperture control, both big pluses in my book. But the minute imperfections of the older lenses give a look that more resembles film than the cold harsh look often achieved with modern Canon glass. Also having a softer picture can help alleviate some of the moire and aliasing issues during compression.
Either way, you definitely don't want it to be too soft, which I've had happen when shooting on a vintage Nikon lens with wide-open aperture. Then it just looks bad, IMO.
Thanks for clearing this up. I'm driving myself crazy trying to get a feel for what look I like the best. I was going with all sigma and canon primes stopped down to either 2.8 or 4.0 and it looked good but just didn't nail the look I was going for. Now im in debate between primes wide open or zoom lenses because the both give a softer look and zoom lens seem to have more natural color and contrast.
mejonwhite
Member
Totally agree, I've recently switched to purchasing vintage glass and it's really more in line with where I want the look of my work to go.
Although I've also found for client based work that the sharpness is really one of the qualities they like the footage to have.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Lenses most definitely have a "flavor". The look of Cookes is quite different from the look of Zeiss, which is different from the look of Leica. People have definitely expressed preferences between older Canon FD lenses, and more modern Canon L lenses.
For video work, I think you'll find that most SLR lenses are going to be well up to the task of resolving properly for a video image. For full-frame stills, maybe not, but for video, they should be up to the task.
When buying older lenses though, you have to keep an eye open because they're not all the same. Some may yellow with age, for example. Some have radioactive elements in the glass. Who knows, the coatings may be stripped off one lens, and in great shape in another. So you can't judge all Super Takumar 50mm 1.8 lenses based on one particular sample, you'd probably want to review several to see if you like how any one particular brand of lens renders images.
For video work, I think you'll find that most SLR lenses are going to be well up to the task of resolving properly for a video image. For full-frame stills, maybe not, but for video, they should be up to the task.
When buying older lenses though, you have to keep an eye open because they're not all the same. Some may yellow with age, for example. Some have radioactive elements in the glass. Who knows, the coatings may be stripped off one lens, and in great shape in another. So you can't judge all Super Takumar 50mm 1.8 lenses based on one particular sample, you'd probably want to review several to see if you like how any one particular brand of lens renders images.
Contrary to belief film is actually very sharp, even when diffused. In addition to this as been discussed on other threads, there is a softening and slightly muddy look that happens to the image when it gets from the processor to the H24 codec so in my opinion the sharper the better. It is a balancing act to use sharp lenses but at the same time use the tricks necessary to reduce moire.
Film latitude is what really offers the film look and a high level of detail. That's why it's still king of all formats and has been around forever. Just to think that even back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s they were shooting with a format that still holds higher resolution and latitude then what we have today, pretty amazing.
Film latitude is what really offers the film look and a high level of detail. That's why it's still king of all formats and has been around forever. Just to think that even back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s they were shooting with a format that still holds higher resolution and latitude then what we have today, pretty amazing.
@draven4 I see what you're saying. I look at this trailer as the look I'd like to achieve someday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM&hd=1 I'm guessing the difference between this and dslr footage is resolution and the amount of detail that is kept in skin textures and so forth.
That film looks really nice, there are some great looking DSLR films though. I think Even Barry Green can show some examples as some are his projects.
@life4eva
Never said DSLR doesn't look nice. I love DSLR. I don't doubt there are great films on DSLR. There are plenty. I've seen some shot better then bad movies shot on film. That is not in question. I was just talking about technical aspects of the film medium itself.
Never said DSLR doesn't look nice. I love DSLR. I don't doubt there are great films on DSLR. There are plenty. I've seen some shot better then bad movies shot on film. That is not in question. I was just talking about technical aspects of the film medium itself.
Styles Sylvian
New member
I love how sharp digital can be, but i also like how soft things look, dont get me wrong people over use this effect on DSLR's and its turned into a gimik. I love using the DSLR in different ways, shoot most of the piece real crisp but then for a scene of two utalize the low DOF.