Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cinema Lens Shootout

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    If your talking 35mm lenses, then yes field of view will be the same. A 14mm is a 14mm on s16 and a 14mm on s35 is the same. The only thing that changes is the effective focal length when using 35mm lenses on a s16 sensor (because your only using the center of a s35 lens, effectively zooming in).

    Not to confuse but if you want the effect of a 50mm in 35mm, but are shooting 16, you will get (roughly) the same effect with a 25mm. (Super 16 will be the same vertically but obviously wider horizontally.)

    But yes, a 14mm or whatever, s16 or s35 have the same field of view for their respective coverage size. Nothing is different until you put a s35 lens on a s16 camera which effectively narrows the field of view of the lens.
    Last edited by MattRyan; 02-19-2013, 12:00 PM.
    http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
    twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
    My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by MattRyan View Post
      Not sure what your disagreeing with... I said for anything wider than the 16mm you'd need to do a post crop if you wanted to use them.

      I personally wouldn't downsample and then crop, your just losing more resolution. I'd crop and then downsample to 1080p. Gives you a sharper and true full HD image.

      Does the camera not have frame guides as an option? If it does hopefully it has a custom function where you can create your own.
      1) I'm disgreeing with the idea Zeiss 16mm Superspeeds wont work with the BMC
      2) Agree and that is my plan Just outlining the options as undoubtabtly someone will say you will lose resolution the other way too.
      3)ADoes any camera have a custom frame guide option? Thats a good idea and one I haven't heard of yet.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by markscott View Post
        1) I'm disgreeing with the idea Zeiss 16mm Superspeeds wont work with the BMC
        2) Agree and that is my plan Just outlining the options as undoubtabtly someone will say you will lose resolution the other way too.
        3)ADoes any camera have a custom frame guide option? Thats a good idea and one I haven't heard of yet.
        I didn't say they wouldn't work...I said they wouldn't cover( 9.5 and 12mm). You can still use them and I said you'd just have to crop. Not sure where your getting I said they wouldn't work with saying they won't cover the full sensor.

        Any time you crop you are losing resolution, but doing the crop greater than 1080p first will give you more resolution to downsample to 1080p rather than downsampling to 1080p first and then cropping.

        The Epic/Scarlet/Red One, and Alexa have custom frame guides you can input in camera as well as the standard frame guides. Not sure about the other cinema cameras.
        http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
        twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
        My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by MattRyan View Post
          I didn't say they wouldn't work...I said they wouldn't cover( 9.5 and 12mm). You can still use them and I said you'd just have to crop. Not sure where your getting I said they wouldn't work with saying they won't cover the full sensor.

          Any time you crop you are losing resolution, but doing the crop greater than 1080p first will give you more resolution to downsample to 1080p rather than downsampling to 1080p first and then cropping.

          The Epic/Scarlet/Red One, and Alexa have custom frame guides you can input in camera as well as the standard frame guides. Not sure about the other cinema cameras.
          Yes you said they wouldn't cover which is the same as saying they wouldn't work. Of course I didn't literally mean the camera wouldn't work but the fact that you would get portholing with the 9.5mm and vignetting with the 12mm I have already covered this.
          The fact the BMC is 2.5k Implies it can easily be cropped. This is not the case. The reason for the extra headroom over 1080 is because of debayering from the 2.5K sensor means a resolution and quality hit that is just right for 1920. NOW either way you will lose resolution and quality.
          Never used a Red camera and not sure I would want to. But custom frame guides is an excellent idea.
          Although having said that I believe Red are getting into the distribution side of things Maybe I will buy into Red.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by markscott View Post
            Yes you said they wouldn't cover which is the same as saying they wouldn't work. Of course I didn't literally mean the camera wouldn't work but the fact that you would get portholing with the 9.5mm and vignetting with the 12mm I have already covered this.
            The fact the BMC is 2.5k Implies it can easily be cropped. This is not the case. The reason for the extra headroom over 1080 is because of debayering from the 2.5K sensor means a resolution and quality hit that is just right for 1920. NOW either way you will lose resolution and quality.
            Never used a Red camera and not sure I would want to. But custom frame guides is an excellent idea.
            Aye yi yi, this could go round and round. Not covering is an accurate way to describe the lenses, not sure why you don't understand that. It does not mean they won't work, rather they will not cover the full 2.5k frame size, which is what not covering means.

            I don't know why people have such a disdain for RED. There's a ton of misinformation about them that it is ridiculous. Most people just don't like the owner, but that should not dictate whether you use a camera or not. The fud that is spread daily is laughable. I've been using RED camera's since 2007 and never had one, not one issue since I started. Unless you use the camera's yourself it's not wise to regurgitate or spread misinformation from others who have never used the camera. A professional will work with any tool that is right for the job and bias is not part of the equation and never should be. I guarantee you that the Alexa, BMC, and other cinema cameras would not be around right now if it wasn't for RED. Saying you'd not want to use a RED is extremely laughable. I'm not a fan of Canon but I have used the 5d, 1dC, and C300 because they were the right tools for the job.

            I would start a thread about RED here but don't want to troll. It would be a question answering from a non bs, non owner like myself. Non biased answers so you can get the real info. There's so much ill will and negativity towards RED from people who have never touched the cameras before. Ridiculous.
            Last edited by MattRyan; 02-19-2013, 01:12 PM.
            http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
            twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
            My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by MattRyan View Post
              Aye yi yi, this could go round and round. Not covering is an accurate way to describe the lenses, not sure why you don't understand that. It does not mean they won't work, rather they will not cover the full 2.5k frame size, which is what not covering means.

              I don't know why people have such a disdain for RED. There's a ton of misinformation about them that it is ridiculous. Most people just don't like the owner, but that should not dictate whether you use a camera or not. The fud that is spread daily is laughable. I've been using RED camera's since 2007 and never had one, not one issue since I started. Unless you use the camera's yourself it's not wise to regurgitate or spread misinformation from others who have never used the camera. A professional will work with any tool that is right for the job and bias is not part of the equation and never should be. I guarantee you that the Alexa, BMC, and other cinema cameras would not be around right now if it wasn't for RED. Saying you'd not want to use a RED is extremely laughable.

              I would start a thread about RED here but don't want to troll. It would be a question answering from a non bs, non owner like myself. Non biased answers so you can get the real info. There's so much ill will and negativity towards RED from people who have never touched the cameras before. Ridiculous.

              Not covering by its nature means not covering IE Doesn't work because of vignetting or portholing.

              I never said I have a disdain for Red or Dislike Reds owner. Jim Jannard has done a lot to progress things in the indie world.
              My problem with the Red is reliability and the number of times I have heard of cameras breaking down and pro shoots often having spare cameras for this. I'm sure on a multi million pound shoot then it wouldnt be a problem as spares and technicians would be available.

              Why saying I wouldnt want to use a RED be laughable? I think your comment is a putdown and sounds like your saying your a professional and I'm a novice. Although I wouldn't class myself as a DP More a director But I have been a DP to understand what DP's go through and needed a good understanding of lenses which doesn't mean I know everything about every lens and cant afford to test all the lenses myself and is why I was interested on review sites like your cinema lens shootout that showed the CP2's in a not very good light and not until I visited Shane Hurlbuts site did I realise your tests were a bit unbalanced in only finding weaknesses.
              Thankfully now though I do have a very good understanding of the Zeiss CP2's So thank you for helping me redress the balance.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by markscott View Post
                Not covering by its nature means not covering IE Doesn't work because of vignetting or portholing.

                I never said I have a disdain for Red or Dislike Reds owner. Jim Jannard has done a lot to progress things in the indie world.
                My problem with the Red is reliability and the number of times I have heard of cameras breaking down and pro shoots often having spare cameras for this. I'm sure on a multi million pound shoot then it wouldnt be a problem as spares and technicians would be available.

                Why saying I wouldnt want to use a RED be laughable? I think your comment is a putdown and sounds like your saying your a professional and I'm a novice. Although I wouldn't class myself as a DP More a director But I have been a DP to understand what DP's go through and needed a good understanding of lenses which doesn't mean I know everything about every lens and cant afford to test all the lenses myself and is why I was interested on review sites like your cinema lens shootout that showed the CP2's in a not very good light and not until I visited Shane Hurlbuts site did I realise your tests were a bit unbalanced in only finding weaknesses.
                Thankfully now though I do have a very good understanding of the Zeiss CP2's So thank you for helping me redress the balance.
                Not covering does not imply it wouldn't work, it implies it will not fully cover. That is a professional, industry wide term.

                Saying you'd not want to use a RED because of what you have heard, without ever touching one yourself is what is laughable. Thats like me saying I'd never use a BMC because I hear that infinity focus is unattainable and the glossy screen sucks in sunny conditions... Do you get what I'm saying?

                Again, I've been using RED camera's since 2007 and never had an issue. If a huge budget feature like The Hobbit and The Amazing Spiderman, who could have chosen any camera, chose to shoot with the beta pre-release cameras and not have any real issues, what more proof do you need? If you talk to the DP he will tell you the truth, not the fanboy bs. Most of the issues you see on the web are from user error. If you had used one yourself, you'd know they are extremely reliable. There have been a few minor firmware bugs that are always fixed on the next version. There have been some ssd mags that have failed and caused bad writes, but RED took care of that and sent out new mags and now they don't have those issues. So yes, there is a ton of misinformation out there. I'm not putting you down, I'm saying it is unfair to judge a tool without ever using it.

                I don't know why you keep saying the test put the lenses in a bad light, it's called a stress test on purpose. Shane Hurlbut was not shooting in low light wide open, which is what a lot of people would be doing. He was shooting at a t2.8 and a t4 which as we state in our test and show most all of the lenses flaws are gone by t2.8. Our test was meant to show what you get in those situations, wide-open. The description explicitly explains this. It's something you want to know before you purchase and find out on your own in a crucial situation...

                As another outside example here is a shot from Vincent Laforet's first blog about the BMC and Zeiss ZE (same as CP.2) (No one commented on the CA). You can see plenty of CA in the shot, and thats not a stressed condition wide open like we tested for:
                http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/...ul-befuddling/



                So there are plenty examples of a lenses flaws out there, ours is just more definitive and repeatable on a lens by lens basis.
                Last edited by MattRyan; 02-19-2013, 02:44 PM.
                http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
                twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
                My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

                Comment


                • #53
                  What I actually said was
                  Never used a Red camera and not sure I would want to. But custom frame guides is an excellent idea.
                  Although having said that I believe Red are getting into the distribution side of things Maybe I will buy into Red.

                  And to add to that Maybe the time will come when I will feel confident about Reds relaibility and if I had backup Red cameras with a technician on standby on a multi million pound shoot then I'd feel secure too. There is no way this moment in time I would take a single Red camera out and shoot a film with no backup. That in my book is a risk to far. I do a similar thing with cars as well If I read a trusted review about a car having this or that problem I tend to put some faith in that.


                  How can you judge from those two pictures for CA when effectively using two pola's. Seriously you need to look at the way you think about testing.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by markscott View Post
                    How can you judge from those two pictures for CA when effectively using two pola's. Seriously you need to look at the way you think about testing.
                    Alright this is getting old Mark. If you knew anything about testing or optics, or anything for that matter you'd realize you have no clue. Just for the record it's one vari ND, not two pola's.

                    Our test did not use any filtration so I don't understand what you are talking about. Maybe if you understood the nature of testing you would get it. Again, I think your just a guy who is never pleased with anything. Not sure why I even continue a conversation with you, it's going no where and is clear you just don't get it. You are the first person to say the test is flawed, and that is coming from the professionals who have watched it, ASC DP's, VFX guys, the actual lens companies and representatives, to lens techs, down to hobbyists. So I'm pretty sure it's not the test... If you think our test is flawed then maybe you should do tests on your own and post them for everyone to see. You need to check your logic skills if you think our test is flawed.

                    Maybe it was a bad idea coming to this site. All the best Mark, hope your happy with whatever purchase you make.
                    http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
                    twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
                    My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      So you're saying using a variable ND filter over the lens is a good way to test the lens? Do you know the difference between a variable ND filter and an ND filter with decent glass?

                      Talking about your Vincent Laforet pictures you put up in your post.
                      Last edited by markscott; 02-19-2013, 03:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by markscott View Post
                        So you're saying using a variable ND filter over the lens is a good way to test the lens? Do you know the difference between a variable ND filter and an ND filter with decent glass?

                        Talking about your Vincent Laforet pictures you put up in your post.
                        It's not a lens test, and a vari nd won't cause CA like that. It's just an example of CA and like I said in the post no one cares about the CA in that shot... It's not my shot, and it's not my test. A true test would shoot clean with no filtration. But again it's not my test, yet a real world example of CA. Here's a shot (from a film I shot) with a 28mm CP.2 @ t2.1 that I shot without any filtration (open in a new tab and zoom to full size, look at the gun and his hand). Do you think anyone cares about the CA there?:


                        Now, wouldn't you want to know what flaws the lenses have rather than going off of one test that was just a simple shoot with no "trouble" spots in the frame like Shane Hurlbuts (and he shot at t2.8 and t4, not even at their max aperture)? If you go back and look at our Beauty test you will notice every lens looked great wide open, no flaws really. But that is not pushing the lenses to the extreme like our stress test, and that is something you need to know.
                        http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
                        twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
                        My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Hi Matt,
                          Want to ask you what was your opinion on the cheap Rokinon 85mm vs the big boys.
                          I've downloaded your files and the Rokinon looked really nice on the beauty tests.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Macielle View Post
                            Hi Matt,
                            Want to ask you what was your opinion on the cheap Rokinon 85mm vs the big boys.
                            I've downloaded your files and the Rokinon looked really nice on the beauty tests.
                            Hi Macielle,

                            Unfortunately we only had it on day 2 for the beauty test and not the first day for the Stress test so I really can't comment much. It seems to be pretty good. I can say it is cheap, cinevised, and covers FF. So if your looking to buy a low cost set they are a great option, just keep in mind they are plastic so handle them with care. Personally I'd probably buy a set and use them as my "throwaway" set and use them in tough shooting conditions where I'd be scared to use a $20,000 lens. I'm sure they are decent enough to get you shooting with pleasing results. Especially considering the money your saving. Sorry I can't really give you any more info, but there are quite a few Redusers who use them and like them a lot. Personally I don't have any experience with them but think they are a great option and would personally buy a set myself.

                            http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2...f1-4-showdown/






                            If you have time read through this thread and check out the image samples Redusers posted from the lenses:
                            http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...hlight=Rokinon
                            http://matthayslett.com, http://www.facebook.com/MattHayslett,
                            twitter.com/#!/matthayslett, mattryandp@gmail.com
                            My real name is Matt Ryan Hayslett

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Thanks Matt! And congratulations on the test.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X