Zeiss vs Canon / Prime vs Zoom

J

jacotte

Carbonite Member
When I started shooting with the Letus Extreme I noticed a slight focus drop as opposed to the bare EX1. However the quality of the image for emulating film made me choose the adaptor route.

Later I purchased Nikon lenses (28mm, 50mm, 85mm and 35-70mm zoom). After starting production, I wound up mostly sticking with the zoom because it is so versatile.

The camera zoom is set to 74 and the camera focus has been adjusted for that zoom setting. All has been taped for safety. I also taped the gain button to no gain so as to avoid any accidents (I once shot accidentally at 9 gains which added a lot of grain).

Now I recently looked at all my dailies and noticed the focus. It looks fine but often on the soft side. It is difficult to tell when the DOP is the problem but generally I wonder what this is going to look like projected on a big screen. Could it be too soft? This raised a few questions which I would like to discuss here. All experienced opinions would be welcome.


What does this sort of setup look like when projected on theater big screen?
Is the adaptor/EX1 setup good enough for a feature in the first place?

Is the Letus Extreme softer than other adaptors?

Are zooms sharp enough for a feature or should one stick with prime lenses?

Should one avoid standard brands altogether and go with Zeiss?
 
99.9% of what I'm saying is opinion. Though to be fair, 99.9% of what ANYONE could say in response would be opinion.

jacotte said:
What does this sort of setup look like when projected on theater big screen?
Click to expand...
You ever go to the movies and see all that stupid commercial crap and behind the scenes of this seasons new show garbage they show before the trailers start? Those are high def digital projections. 1920x1080. If you're okay with how that looks, then you'll be okay with how YOUR footage looks as far as being shown "on the big screen" goes. If not, well damn.

jacotte said:
Is the adaptor/EX1 setup good enough for a feature in the first place?
Click to expand...
Again, matter of opinion. Your answer to my above question/response should reflect directly here.

jacotte said:
Is the Letus Extreme softer than other adaptors?
Click to expand...
No. As much as everyone would like to debate, all of the prosumer level lens adapters running between 1 and 2 thousand dollars are pretty darn comparable to one another. I personally think the Letus produces a very crisp & sharp image when used properly. But that's only because I own one. Ask a RedRock owner or an SGPro owner and they'll tell you the same. It's Honda vs. Toyota.

jacotte said:
Are zooms sharp enough for a feature or should one stick with prime lenses?
Click to expand...
A decent zoom is plenty sharp. If you're concerned with your adaptert produced images being sharper, make sure you have enough light to stop your cameras iris down a bit, as well as your adapted lens.

jacotte said:
Should one avoid standard brands altogether and go with Zeiss?
Click to expand...
It's really not necessary. If you get a good name brand lens that's in excellent condition, it'll produce excellent images. What you need to be concerned with is composition, lighting, texture and depth.
 
Here are some examples (not to toot my own horn at all, but it's the footage I have to grab from). Sorry they're low res. But personally I wouldn't worry at all about which brand lens I use, because if the composition is strong and gives a sense of something ABOUT to happen, if the lighting is dynamic and enhances the mood of the scene and the characters, if the textures are rich and if your depth gives you the correct sense of space and emotional intimacy you want for that particular moment, who gives a crap if you're using Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Zeiss, or whomever.

These are from a project I recently shot called "WEALTH".
3714550040_6a82a4fca9_o.jpg
3714550108_426215ed2c_o.jpg


3714550194_79c65a5403_o.jpg




These below are from another film I shot recently called "A Strange Little Loop"
3714550240_666b8b4fdf_o.jpg
3713739047_20c5a58687_o.jpg


3714550390_d7481a8f01_o.jpg
 
jacotte said:
Looks great. Is most of that natural lighting? What lenses did you use?
Click to expand...


Thanks. Actually in every shot you see absolutely no natural or previously existing light was used, everything you see was heavily staged.

The 3rd, 4th, and 6th shots were all with a Nikon 50mm f1.8 (stopped down a bit), the 1st shot with a Nikon 85mm f2 (also stopped down a tad), and the 2nd and 5th shots were with a Nikon 100mm f2.8.
 
I've been shooting everything with a 35-70mm 2.8 zoom. Perhaps I should pull outy that 50mm 1.8 lens from time to time.

What kind of zebra levels do you use?
 
All that junk just confuses me a little and is a bit frustrating. You know if the image you see looks right and you know if it doesn't.
 
You didn't mention what camera you are using as that could make a difference.
As a general rule I always have my detail settings a little higher when using an adapter. This was especially true on an HVX200 as opposed to my EX-1, but I think its a good general principle. Test to find what you like.
 
Lenilenapi said:
You didn't mention what camera you are using as that could make a difference.
As a general rule I always have my detail settings a little higher when using an adapter. This was especially true on an HVX200 as opposed to my EX-1, but I think its a good general principle. Test to find what you like.
Click to expand...


The above screen grabs were shot with a DVX100B.
 
jacotte said:
Whyen not using Zebra I got hot overexposed areas on the faces and clothes.
Click to expand...

Oh god, that is bad. Don't do that in the future.

I've just always used to LCD screen. I mean I can see if something is overexposed. Ah well. To each his own.

Anyway, to make a long story short, all those screen grabs were shot with a DVX100B, a Letus Extreme, and a couple old cheap manual Nikon lenses. I've even used secondary brand lenses before. The point I'm trying to make is this: Don't be concerned with what brand equipment you're using, what matters is HOW you use it. What you need to be concerned with (visually), as I've stated before, is, in this order, composition, light, texture, and depth, and how each of those relate to the story, characters, and emotional moment/s.
 
pact2roll said:
Those screen grabs are from a dvx? How do you keep the resolution so high without noise?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure you mean to say "resolution", but in general how one avoid's noise is with light. All of those shots were using quite a lot of light, each shot had at least a few thousand watts of light pouring in.
 
Incorrect info alert!!!! - 1080p saturates your eyes' resolution short of the very front row of most theatres. You could not see more resolution at a normal viewing distance, even with 40-20 vision - this is why 1080 lines at 16:9 was set as the HD standard.

Those ads before a movie are projected in 480p (very often) not 1080p, or mastered in 480p. Why? Who knows, but it is fact.

Many theatres project using a Christie 1080p system (when digital.) Projectors above that resolution are very rare in digital movie theatres. Public Enemy was shot 100% at 1080p (the resolution of an Ex1) , including some shots made with a bare EX1.

That said, many camcorders are not capable of true full-raster 1080p. Under $10 000, the Ex1/Ex3 are alone in that regard. The way most camcorders shoot 1080i is more like 550p, as each half-image field is recorded from a different moment, 60 times a second, so there is never a full 1080p picture of any single moment. Trye to crunch these down to 30p, and you get combing which hits resolution hard. Others use interpolation and other tricks, which are fake 1080p and noticeably softer.

The 5D skips sensor lines, so 1080 is not quite that, even though there are the correct number of lines of info (more or less, it's actually more like 900 lines, but still not bad).
 
You are shooting SD on a small 1/3" chip camera and running it through a lens adapter. I hate to say it but you are probably never going to get really sharp images. As nice as the DVX100B is, it is still a marginal camera especially for blowing up to a large screen. Even when set-up perfectly, the lens adapter will further degrade the image. The best you can do is play with detail and see if it helps without getting nasty looking. Of course making sure your lenses are sharp in the first place and your back focus is correct is also important.
Upgrading to an HD camera like an HVX or esp an EX-1 will do wonders for your resolution.

By the way I agree that using your LCD screen as a way to judge exposure is very chancy indeed.

Lenny Levy
 
Honestly, I'd LOVE to move to HD. It's just not in my budget ANY time soon sadly. But I would kill for an HPX170, don't know why, just in love with that camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top