Zeiss superspeeds T1.3 vs. Cooke S4 T2

[Mr. Macgregor]

Hi. I am shooting a nice film in a futuristic environment.

 

Camera is Arri 435 set in super35mm. Framing will be 2.35 and we will later scan the film for color grading.

 

Since i want dramatic shots, with very low depth of field, i want to shoot at f2.0.

 

I had reserved the Zeiss superspeeds T1.3 in order to use them at T2.0.

 

However today when i went to pick up the camera equipment to make some tests, the superspeeds were not available. So i had to take a Cook T2.0 set and used it at f2.0 and f2.4 for filming these test (this tests were mainly for evaluating film stock and environments).

 

So i have the option now to continue with these lenses or to return them and get the superspeeds.

 

What lenses do you think will perform better at f2.0? Simple question. :D

[Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC]

Hi. I am shooting a nice film in a futuristic environment.

 

Camera is Arri 435 set in super35mm. Framing will be 2.35 and we will later scan the film for color grading.

 

Since i want dramatic shots, with very low depth of field, i want to shoot at f2.0.

 

I had reserved the Zeiss superspeeds T1.3 in order to use them at T2.0.

 

However today when i went to pick up the camera equipment to make some tests, the superspeeds were not available. So i had to take a Cook T2.0 set and used it at f2.0 and f2.4 for filming these test (this tests were mainly for evaluating film stock and environments).

 

So i have the option now to continue with these lenses or to return them and get the superspeeds.

 

What lenses do you think will perform better at f2.0? Simple question. :D

 

I actually really prefer the Cooke S4's. I got a short film coming up with them and I think the Cookes low contrast warmer feel will give me a nice look with a bleach bypass. And I used them on a feature a few months back. The only issue i found with them is that they love to flare... but i like flares so it worked out.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi. I am shooting a nice film in a futuristic environment.

 

Camera is Arri 435 set in super35mm. Framing will be 2.35 and we will later scan the film for color grading.

 

Since i want dramatic shots, with very low depth of field, i want to shoot at f2.0.

 

I had reserved the Zeiss superspeeds T1.3 in order to use them at T2.0.

 

However today when i went to pick up the camera equipment to make some tests, the superspeeds were not available. So i had to take a Cook T2.0 set and used it at f2.0 and f2.4 for filming these test (this tests were mainly for evaluating film stock and environments).

 

So i have the option now to continue with these lenses or to return them and get the superspeeds.

 

What lenses do you think will perform better at f2.0? Simple question. :D

 

Hi,

 

I would go with the Cooke S4's.

 

Stephen

[Mitch Gross]

Cooke S4 all the way., no contest.

[Mr. Macgregor]

Are they sweet at T2.0 or better to close to T2.4 or T2.8 for better results?

[Max Jacoby]

Cooke S4s are not the sharpest lenses to begin with. Unlike Zeiss lenses they do not have one point that clearly is in focus. This is most obvious when you have flat, high key lighting. But they can look nice in contrasty lighting because then the lighitng itself guides your eyes to where in the frame you're supposed to look and the three dimensional look that the lenses give comes into play.

 

If you want to maximise your sharpness, best stop down to T4, which is markedly better than T2. This is for theatrical projection of course, if your project is meant for the small screen, sharpness won't be an issue.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I absolutely love the softness of the T1.3's wide open, especially on close-ups. But at T2 they're pretty sharp.

The only drawback with them is the limited range in the series - the Cooke's offer a much better range.

[Mr. Macgregor]

At last I got the test footage that i shot with the 200T film stock and cooke lenses set at f2.0 and 2.8. It´s in DVcam so i cannot expect to judge resolution but i think latitude was very good.

I can see horizontal movement. I hope it comes from the telecine and not from the camera itself.

 

video 1 1Mb

 

video 2 2 Mb

Edited August 19, 2006 by macgregor

[Dan Goulder]

I can see horizontal movement. I hope it comes from the telecine and not from the camera itself.

I would recommend doing a steadiness test on the camera first. The telecine should be fairly steady. (Your footage has a nice hypnotic feel to it.)

[Max Jacoby]

How did you get the flare on the closer shots, did you light for it or is it the stray light from the windows?

[Mr. Macgregor]

How did you get the flare on the closer shots, did you light for it or is it the stray light from the windows?

 

It is easily done in post. I love the hypnotic feeling of this kind of intrusive lights. Someone should develop a flare software to do these things... :D

[Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC]

It is easily done in post. I love the hypnotic feeling of this kind of intrusive lights. Someone should develop a flare software to do these things... :D

 

What kind of software and filter did you use to get the flare?

[Mr. Macgregor]

The software is not important. You put a square in the color you want, apply a guassian blur. And combine it with screen mode. Any software can do that.

[Michal Tywoniuk]

The software is not important. You put a square in the color you want, apply a guassian blur. And combine it with screen mode. Any software can do that.

[Michal Tywoniuk]

Hi, nice tests, if this is kind of subject u want to shoot I would go definitely for S4, superspeeds are also very good but not as smooth, more sharp and higher contrast, I think S4 fits better for the mood you want to get. Anyway, the best is to shoot the same test with both sets and watch the result on the screen, comparing directly.

[Matt Workman]

This looks awefully similar to Similo. Are you remaking a sup35 version?

[Mr. Macgregor]

This looks awefully similar to Similo. Are you remaking a sup35 version?

 

Hahaha, no it is not the remake. I guess it is just my style.

 

At last i got the 2k scans from the actual film:

 

 

 

 

[Matt Workman]

Wow. How much is a 2K scan for a 1000' roll? Did they come as Cineon files or something like a .tiff?

 

Is that last one a DI - Day for Night?

 

Heh I guess it was more of the production design, white walls, sheets, etc. Kind of like The Island.

[Mr. Macgregor]

Wow. How much is a 2K scan for a 1000' roll? Did they come as Cineon files or something like a .tiff?

 

Is that last one a DI - Day for Night?

 

Heh I guess it was more of the production design, white walls, sheets, etc. Kind of like The Island.

 

 

Hi, the price i got was around 0,25-0,3? per frame. So you can just multiply to whatever you need.

The last one has level and gamma correction, so it looks more like night.

 

 

The files i got are cineon files, yeah. Too much grain for my taste. What do you think?

[Mr. Macgregor]

Hi, the price i got was around 0,25-0,3? per frame. So you can just multiply to whatever you need.

The last one has level and gamma correction, so it looks more like night.

 

 

The files i got are cineon files, yeah. Too much grain for my taste. What do you think?

 

;)

[Hans Engstrom]

Too much grain for my taste. What do you think?

Nice beauty shots. Hard to judge the grain on compressed jpeg files. As the background is white without a lot of details and the lighting is soft the eye will focus on the grain, that can be the reason why you think it looks to grainy.

[Matt Workman]

You got a quote per frame? Is that stadard? I thought it was per hour?

 

Euro conversions :blink:

 

What are you editing your cineon files in? Shake? I had a test clilp of cineon files and it killed my computer to try to play back the rendered series.

 

The stills look really nice. I'm trying to tell the difference between those stills and the once taken by an SLR. The Cookes are definitely bettter glass than any Canon L-Series. I guess I don't really know that, I'm assuming.

[Mr. Macgregor]

0,25? would be around $0.30 per frame at 2k.

 

I import the cineon files in after effects. No problems at all. Then i render a 720p quicktime file with time code so i can edit anyware i want (Vegas in my case). Later i just have to go and do the same editing with the cineon files in the original quality.

Sure this is not the smartest way in a world of EDLs, but i´ve heard of no one who edits with native 2k cineon files, so this is kind of being pioneer. :lol:

 

Footage is 100 Gb, so not too big for any fast machine.

[Mr. Macgregor]

0,25? would be around $0.30 per frame at 2k.

 

I import the cineon files in after effects. No problems at all. Then i render a 720p quicktime file with time code so i can edit anyware i want (Vegas in my case). Later i just have to go and do the same editing with the cineon files in the original quality.

Sure this is not the smartest way in a world of EDLs, but i´ve heard of no one who edits with native 2k cineon files, so this is kind of being pioneer. :lol:

 

Footage is 100 Gb, so not too big for any fast machine.

[Mark Allen]

You got a quote per frame? Is that stadard? I thought it was per hour?

 

Telecine is done by hour, but scanning is generally done by frame even in the US. In telecine you're spending time color correcting with an operator and with scanning it's not a process with creative input, thus the rate can be standardized.