Why not Zeiss?

[georg lamshöft]

I'm a semiprofessional photographer and I've used nearly every camera/lens system and I have to say: there is no comparison to Carl Zeiss and Leica-lenses. So I've tried to get more information about the equipment that is used in cinematography and I've wondered that even the newest Zeiss-lenses (Variable/Ultra Primes?) are often not used in Hollywood, Panavision seems to be the favourite system. I never had the chance to compare Zeiss, Panavision and Cooke lenses directly, but in cinema or on DVD I think that I can see differences. All anamorphic lenses seem to have horrible flare and distortion. But films which are made with Ultra Primes seem to be sharper and have nearly no flare (even less than Primos and Cooke) - is this an illusion? Or have this little firms (Panavision and Cooke) managed something, what the photography-industry never (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Schneider, Rodenstock...) managed - surpass Carl Zeiss with over 160 years experience? Okay, the newest high-end-constructions from Canon etc. are often better than very old Zeiss- or Leica-lenses and films made with the newest Cooke (S4?) or spherical Panavision-Lenses (Primos?) seem to have less flare and better sharpness than old Zeiss, but the all Ultra Prime-lenses are new high-tech-constructions with all the knowledge of this company. Janusz Kaminski or John Toll are great cinematogrphers, but both are using mostly Panavision, but Kubrick, the perfectionist, always used Zeiss-lenses. Are Ultra Primes the "reasonable way" and all the other lenses are only used because some cinematographers don't like a certain look, without a logical reason (cinematography is still art).

 

Please apologize my bad english, but in school they never told me how to post in a cinematography-forum about lenses ;-)

[Filip Plesha]

I am allso a photographer, so i am not fully qualified to answer this question but here are my thoughts:

 

Panavision anamorphic lenses have blue flares, which makes them more visible.

Hawks have white flares. But seeing the difference in qualitty on DVD? I think this

is impossible if you are talking about sharpness. DVD has very little resolution.

If the sharpness of the lens was visible on it, then films would be unusable projected in cinema. What you are seeing must be a conincidence, a bad transfer

or something. There are million way of getting the film image to DVD, some better some worse.

[Max Jacoby]

If you shoot on Panavision cameras (as most Hollywood films do), you are forced to use their lenses, since they use a different lens mount (PV) than all the other cameras (PL). In that case most people use the Primos (which are Leitz glass if I'm not mistaken and exist in both spherical and anamorphic) or different older lenses.

 

On the other hand, if you are shooting Arri/Moviecam/Aaton, then you have the choice between several PL mount lenses. Besides older Zeiss, Cooke and other models, you have the choice between 2 state-of-the-art spherical lenses: Zeiss UltraPrimes and Cooke S4. While I have yet to meet a Dop who doesn't like Panavision's Primos, when it comes to S4s and UltraPrimes, people's preferences really differ. Eduardo Serra for instance loves the Cooke S4s, while Benoit Delhomme doesn't think they're any good for features and he only wants to shoot on the UltraPrimes, because they suits his lighting style better.

 

Generally speaking the UltraPrimes are the sharpest lenses while the S4s have the better contrast. The choice between the 2 is an artistic one, like you said.

[David Mullen ASC]

Primos (Leitz), Cooke S4's, and Zeiss Ultra Primes are all high-quality lenses so which you choose depends more on your taste. Some people don't like the razor-sharp look and higher contrast of Zeiss lenses. Personally, though, I'm happy if I can afford to shoot any of those three.

 

Anamorphic lenses are a whole 'nuther animal, a combination of a spherical lens and an anamorphic lens element(s). You can't really compare an anamorphic lens to a spherical lens -- they behave too differently. It's pretty hard NOT to have a horizontal flare when your front element is a cylindrical piece of glass.

 

Lastly, there are a number of people who deliberately don't want to shoot with the sharpest lenses available -- they WANT some softness or flare. Look at Gordon Willis, who preferred older lenses, or Harris Savides or Ed Lachman today. Or DP's like John Seale who prefer to shoot on zoom lenses.

 

It's the same reason why everyone doesn't only shoot on the sharpest color negative stock, Kodak 5212 (EI 100). There are other factors to consider.

[Max Jacoby]

Although anamorphic lenses might not be optically as good as spherical lenses, that is compensated by the fact that if shooting anamorphically one uses a bigger area of the negative, so the end result is still a sharper picture.

 

Another interesting fact is that although people might choose either UltraPrimes or Cooke S4s because of their different look, when it comes to zoom lenses, they all tend to pick the same lenses to complement their set of primes: the long and/or short Angenieux Optimo zooms.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

The most beautiful lenses I've shot with were some 40 year old Schneiders we

tested some years ago - they weren't sharp or contrasty, but that's exactly what I

liked about them.

 

I just shot with the S4's and was very happy with them. But to be honest,

I can't say I see any difference between them and the Ultra Primes on a big HD

monitor. Or the older High Speeds, for that matter. Perhaps a tad bit softer, but

I'm not sure that's actually what I'm seeing as so much as everyone telling me

Cooke's are a bit softer? I honestly don't know. What I did like with the S4's was

the nice range they had - the 27mm and the 32mm are very useful and remind

me of the older Zeiss SuperSpeed range which is a very nice set.

 

All in all, my conclusion is that until I'm shooting something for the big screen or something that calls for something specialized, lenses are actually not that important. There's a lot of this anal retentiveness in film about the gear, and it really isn't that important. My job is to accomodate and facilitate the production without compromising the look: in Switzerland where I used the S4's, the rental company had just gotten them - so I tried them - but if they wouldn't have had them, I'm not that kind of DP that will throw a tantrum and have them flown in from London at huge expense. I'd be happy with any glass.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, in many ways, what's nice about the modern primes is not their sharpness or flare-prevention, it's the fact that they MATCH each other in a set so well, compared to older lens sets which are a lot more quirky in terms of matching in color, contrast, and performance. Hence why I'd be happy to shoot either Primos, Cooke S4's, or Zeiss UltraPrimes.

 

As you said, it all depends on degree of enlargement too, which is why I shot that low-budget 35mm vampire film "Out for Blood" (playing tonight on the SciFi Channel) on the older, cheaper Z-Series lenses from Panavision because it didn't seem worth it financially to insist that the production get me Primos. The savings might also get me another piece of camera gear I might need more.

[Sam Wells]

Or have this little firms (Panavision and Cooke) managed something, what the photography-industry never (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Schneider, Rodenstock...) managed - surpass Carl Zeiss with over 160 years experience?

Cooke are hardly newcomers ! doesn't Taylor-Hobson go back to the 19th Century or almost ?

 

-Sam

[Christian Appelt]

Janusz Kaminski or John Toll are great cinematogrphers, but both are using mostly Panavision, but Kubrick, the perfectionist, always used Zeiss-lenses.

 

Not so! Kubrick used both Cooke, Zeiss and Schneider primes in the 1950s/1960s, he had zooms by Cooke, Angenieux, a Kilfitt Macro Kilar, 9.8mm wide angles by Kinoptik and many adapted photo lenses like a Novoflex 640mm, Canon 35mm f1.4 and many others. Even in his last film EYES WIDE SHUT there are some shots done with an older Cooke 20-100mm zoom, I could not tell them from the Zeiss Variable Primes footage.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Yes, in the still world, zeiss and leica certainly produce the most amazing glass, which still carries into the motion picture realm: Zeiss Ultra Primes and Panavision Primos, which is Leitz glass. However, I don't believe that Leitz was involved with the Primo Anamrphcs. Anyone know for sure?

[georg lamshöft]

Thanks für your answers but a few questions are still left:

Primos are not always spherical? Are there special adapters to make a spherical lens anamorphic?

@audiris

But anamorphic lenses are not as fast as spherical lenses, so you have to use faster film and the advantages of the bigger area of the negative are gone - am I wrong?

Mostly I only see the copy of a copy of a copy... in the cinema, not a good quality, but I still have the impression, that films shot with Ultra Primes are sharper than those filmed anamorphically. On DVD I only analyze the flare and distortion.

Every time I see masterpieces of cinematography shot anamorphically (Apokalypse Now, Leon...) I'm shocked by the flare, the distortion - I hate this look :(

You can always reduce the sharpness but you can never increase it, so you can put a Softar, "vaseline" (you know what I mean?) or a black net in front of a Ultra Prime when you need it and you still have the mechanical quality, the flare-prevention - is it really necessary to use "cheap" equipment in 35mm (in big productions)? Ok, but you said it already, people's preferences differ, I for myself don't like unsharp pictures, flare, Video, >35mm, shaky hand-camera if it isn't really necessary (exception: James Ryan), Dogma 95...

 

@SamWells

Ok, most of the scenes, but only in special situations, because there are no Zeiss 10x Zooms (after "2001"). Cooke = Taylor-Hobson? But how do they earn enough money for the newest machines and developements? Zeiss is very innvovative (so is Leica), aspherical lenses, floating elements, special coatings..., I've seen the production-facility from Leica, really impressive! When they are really as good as the newest Zeiss/Leica-constructions, they are welcome at "still photography"!

[Max Jacoby]

Primos are not always spherical? Are there special adapters to make a spherical lens anamorphic.

There are both anamorphic and spherical Primos. It is possible to turn spherical lenses into anamorhic ones (Joe Dunton and Technovision do that), but this is labour intensive and is a permanent operation. The only exeption are zoom lenses where one can put a small anamorphic elements at the back to turn them into anamorphic lenses (as opposed to primes where the anamorphic element is either at the front or in the middle of the lens.

 

But anamorphic lenses are not as fast as spherical lenses, so you have to use faster film and the advantages of the bigger area of the negative are gone - am I wrong?

Despite all this anamorphic still gives you the best picture quality. Most of these lenses are not necessarily slower than spherical lenses, but one needs to close them down by at least 2 stops to get the best performance out of them.

 

On DVD I only analyze the flare and distortion.

Every time I see masterpieces of cinematography shot anamorphically (Apokalypse Now, Leon...) I'm shocked by the flare, the distortion - I hate this look :( 

Personally I love the look of anamorphic, especially the flares. Although technically speaking it is a 'flaw', if used well I find that it adds to the look, it creates a certain texture. 'In Apocalypse Now' for instance Storaro was looking for flares because it supported his approach of the lighting of the film which was the superimposition of one culture onto another. The same it true for 'Alien' where the flares added to the run down and gritty look of the spaceship.

[David Mullen ASC]

Since everyone seems to shoot 500 ASA film stock these days, something shot in anamorphic on the SAME stock will look finer-grained than something shot in S35 or 1.85 using spherical lenses. You are recording more information on the negative with anamorphic, which tends to compensate for any optical difficiencies in the anamorphic lenses. But I suppose you could shoot wide-open on crappy old anamorphic lenses and get a worse picture than something shot on modern spherical lenses stopped down.

 

However, it is true that spherical lens photography is less distorted and has fewer flares. Sharper on the big screen than anamorphic? Rarely happens. But less distorted and fewer flares, sure. Just compare "The X-Men" to "The X-Men 2" -- the first was shot on anamorphic and has finer-grain, richer colors, more detail but a lot of flare, barrel distortion, and shallow-focus problems. The second one was shot in Super-35 and is softer and grainier, but has more depth of field and less distortion and flare. Which you prefer is a matter of taste. Certainly you'll find great DP's with opposing opinions on the subject.

 

You can read the article by John Hora, ASC on anamorphic photography in the ASC Manual.

 

I believe the Primos use Leitz glass from Canada (not Switzerland) and the anamorphic element is made at Panavision for the Primo anamorphics.

 

I remember having this argument with an executive at Arri who couldn't understand why anyone would shoot in anamorphic since spherical lenses were better. He didn't believe that having nearly TWICE as large a negative area had any significant effect on the image. Well, to my eyes, the proof is everytime you go to a theater and see a movie on the big screen. But certainly doing the blow-up from S35 to anamorphic digitally has done a lot to reduce the objectionable graininess, making S35 look better than ever these days. But just look at "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" and tell me it wouldn't have looked less grainy if it had been shot in anamorphic.

[Sam Wells]

Cooke = Taylor-Hobson? But how do they earn enough money for the newest machines and developements?

They charge HIGH prices ;)

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

The pine sap comes from Canada so Leitz brings the glass over.... So you know it's fresh

:)

 

 

Actually Bolex was a major developer in aspheric optics (as used by Kern, Zeiss, and Cooke in the Aspherons) including the use of plastic elements

 

-Sam

[Nate Downes]

Ahem? Everyone shooting in 500ASA indeed? I didn't spend a small fortune on an f1.3 12.5mm prime for my 16mm work just to then waste it on 500ASA film stock. I have a shoot in 3 weeks, and that prime will be my key in capturing a live show in a nightclub using slow-speed film. (100 and 125ASA to be exact)

 

On a more relevent note, I've not used the older style Zeiss, but the new Zeiss used on some digital cameras are quite interesting, if not that exciting. I'd love to use a classic Zeiss lens sometime for comparison.

[Max Jacoby]

I remember having this argument with an executive at Arri who couldn't understand why anyone would shoot in anamorphic since spherical lenses were better. 

By their own admittance, Arri missed the boat on anamorphic in the 90s. They thought most people would shoot 3 perf instead. But they are determined to get back into the anamorphic rental game. Arri is getting together with Elite in St. Petersbourg to produce a newer, lighter version of Elites.

[Christian Appelt]

They tried to get a foot in the door in the early 1990s when they teamed up with Isco to make new anamorphic primes that went under the trade name Arriscope. It was certainly bad market research and timing because they did not provide smaller lenses for Steadicam use and hand-held work like Hawk/Vantage did, I believe that the sheer size and weight of the Arriscope lenses scared away many DoPs from using them.

 

But remember, in most markets there was very little demand for anamorphic lenses at that time, even Arri's own UltraScope lenses (which were 1960s technology but still sharp & fine lenses) had not been rented out for years.

[georg lamshöft]

It's really difficult to see the differences in sharpness/grain for somebody like me, because there are so many different film stocks, the projector and the copys have a bad quality. How big is the negative area?

 

18x24mm with anamorphic and Super35 4:3 ?

13x24mm with Super35 1:1,85 ?

7,6mmx24mm with Super35 and 1:2,35 ?

 

So I think it will be really difficult to reach the quality of a more than two times bigger negative area "just" by sharper lenses but shot with an two times slower film, shot with the sharper lenses...

Kubrick used the best of both worlds with the aspect ratio of 4:3.

How fast are "normal" anamorphics? ~1:2?

Is "Lord of the Rings" or "Gangs of New York" really not as sharp as films filmed with anamorphics? Like I've already told, it's really hard for me to find out.

Is there no way to see high-quality examples/scans?

Is it like shooting with a 6x4,5 Hasselblad with a Zeiss Superachromat (outstanding performance) and Fuji Provia 100F and shooting 6x9 with a Fuji-Camera (good performance) and Provia 400F?

 

"I remember having this argument with an executive at Arri "

I've heard the same argument from Michael Ballhaus...

 

When somebody shots "normal scenes" with 500ASA, he/she isn't looking for the best quality anyway...

 

The Primos are build by Elcan, that was a part of Leitz/Leica (ErnstLeitzCANada) and has become independent since Leica has brought (nearly) the whole lens production back to Germany. Switzerland has nothing to do with Leica, only with somes special tools (medical stuff?) from Leitz.

 

"They charge HIGH prices "

Okay, but they don't have a "consumer"-market, I think they only sell a few hundred lenses a year!?

[David Mullen ASC]

Shooting a movie on 500 ASA stocks is not a sign that image quality is not important to a DP. Some subjects or locations may be best rendered using faster film. It may be easier to get the scene to be lit correctly or more naturally with faster film.

 

For example, one could shoot night exteriors in the city on 100 ASA film but probably would be shooting at wide-open and still not be capturing ambient detail in the background. Does that still make it a "better" image than one shot on faster film where more of the city lights will expose sufficiently to read? Just because the grain is finer?

 

Even for interior scenes, there are some advantages to using faster film: more depth of field or lower light levels and thus less heat, plus self-illuminated objects might read brighter (candles, for example, or city lights.)

 

Sure, one can solve the grain difference between anamorphic and Super-35 by shooting the Super-35 on slower-speed film. Of course, you lose some advantages to shooting in Super-35. And you still might not record more fine-detail in the frame. For example, day exterior movies, normally shot on slower film anyway, where the light levels are not a problem for anamorphic lenses -- almost always, the anamorphic-shot movie will render the wide shots in more detail. Just compare a Super-35 film like "Silverado" to an anamorphic film like "Dances with Wolves", or even Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp". Even the DP to "Silverado" would agree with that, considering that anamorphic has since become John Bailey's favorite format.

 

Where exactly is this discussion going, anyway? If you're determined to not shoot in anamorphic and want to shoot in Super-35, then go ahead. You want to shoot with Zeiss lenses, go ahead. You want to shoot on slow film stock, go ahead. I'm sure you can get some really nice results. I'm sure you can get a sharp and fine-grained image. I'm sure it will have less distortion and flare than something shot with anamorphic lenses.

 

Some DP's prefer one versus the other. They can all make arguments to support one over the other and they are all correct. The only indisputable fact is that the 2.35 area on an anamorphic negative is larger than one on a Super-35 frame. Take whatever you want from that fact. The only other factor is that anamorphic-shot movies allow you to make contact prints off of the negative, while Super-35 movies require some form of post conversion to anamorphic for making composite prints (ones with a soundtrack.)

[David Mullen ASC]

No, "Lord of the Rings" is not the sharpest scope movie out there, by design. The DP used the older, softer EXR200T stock for most of the movie; some scenes had lens diffusion and others used digital diffusion. Plus the parts of the first one went through a 2K DI, were recorded back to a Super-35 IN, and then the whole thing blown-up optically to an anamorphic IN from a Super-35 IP -- so no, it wasn't a particularly sharp movie, but deliberately. The other two were a little sharper by design; less diffusion and they did the DI for the entire movie so they could output directly in anamorphic.

 

Look at Kubrick -- maybe he used a lot of Zeiss lenses, but he shot "Barry Lyndon" through heavy LowCon filters and pushed everything one-stop, he push-processed the 400 ASA stock on "Full Metal Jacket" by one stop and the 500 ASA stock on "Eyes With Shut" by two stops. He also used a zoom lens a lot.

 

For some movies, shooting on the sharpest lenses at the best f-stop using the slowest-speed film is the right approach, and for others using heavy diffusion, skip-bleach processing the film, using fast film, using old lenses, using zooms, etc. is the best approach.

[Christian Appelt]

I've heard the same argument from Michael Ballhaus...

 

Mr. B's comments on technical questions are often very strange. I remember him talking to an audience at a film museum after THE AGE OF INNOCENCE had been shown. A lady in the audience politely asked two very interesting questions about lenses, to which he replied that he wouldn't like to "bore" the audience with such elaborate technical matters. Then he continued his anecdotes about having breakfast with Madonna and so on.

Sure, great promotion for himself, and nice advertising for Super 35, and people went out thinking how great it was that such a new thing had been invented, moviemaking had been nothing but compromising before. As if the great works of cinematography had not been created with other lenses/formats/camera systems before. :blink:

 

I remember him telling similar *misleading* information about the electronic speed control from Arri, people must have thought that it had been virtually impossibleto change the fps during the shot all the decades before. As if the boxing fights in RAGING BULL with manual changes in exposure and speed had not be done years before! :angry:

 

To sum it up, I consider Mr. Ballhaus rather a source of misinformation on technical details of cinematography, but I'll admit he is a fascinating and charming storyteller. I talked to film students who really believed that he also shot RAGING BULL (Michael Chapman), CASINO (Robert Richardson) or CAPE FEAR (Freddie Francis) ! :o

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Don't distrust the competence of Cooke - I kind of got the feeling that you felt

that only Zeiss and Leitz are the ones who make lenses to a high standard. Cooke

has a 100 year tradition of making fine lenses. And since they were bought by ZGC in America and reinvested in new production facilities and new machinery, they've taken the film world by

storm. The S4's are universally considered to be one of the best lens series made.

 

As a little sidenote - I was on a shoot many years ago when I was an AC and the

DP shot with his personal set of old Cooke Speed Panchro's. I had the opportunity

to watch the dailies on the big screen and they were absolutely fabulous. This from

lenses from the 60's that still had mouse ears on them... So there's a definitive

limit to how much sharpness and state of the art-ness one needs...

 

As for anamorphic, I absolutely LOVE the inperfections they create. In fact, that's the whole reason to use them for me. But if you dislike all that, and many do, then s35 is

a better choice.

[georg lamshöft]

" I kind of got the feeling that you felt

that only Zeiss and Leitz are the ones who make lenses to a high standard"

 

That's the impression I've got in still photography. Really big companys with long-time experience developing new "high standard"-lenses but every time I have the chance two compare them to the newest Leica-constructions (e.g. sharpness of Apo 90/135/180...) I need to recognize that Leica and Zeiss are always ahead, especially in extreme situations (full aperture, edge-sharpness...). I don't say that all non-Leica/Zeiss-lenses are bad, but they are not highest-end.

So I'm wondering that such a "unknown" (for still photographers) company like Cooke is able too reach the Leica/Zeiss-Quality, but maybe ZGCs money has made this possible.

 

I've thought of "Lord of the Rings" as a good example because of some "close range"-shots especially in the third episode but maybe the good DVD-transfer and the great work of Andrew Lesnie has blinded me ;-) I've noticed the soft image in the "beauty shots", I think he used a black net in front of the lens, in this case, even the sharpest lens is worthless...

 

But as still photographer many things are told here are new for me, if I want the best quality I use Technical Pan or Velvia (both 40-50ASA) - when there is not enough light I use a tripod - things like anamorphic lenses or the fact that exposure time is limited (at >24fps) are completely new for me, but thanks to all people who are trying to help me :-).

Many details seem different in cinematogrphy. For example: Most photographers looking for the best lenses they could get or simply don't care about technical quality, but I barely know photographers who use old lenses BECAUSE of the

softer sharpness or the flare - that seems to be different in cinematography!?

 

@Christian Appelt

Maybe you're right, but it seemed logical and it's hard not to believe (even in technical questions) somebody who is such a brilliant artist - that's like telling picasso that he is using the false brush ;-)

I've read the book "Das fliegende Auge", Tom Tykwer (Director of "run Lola run") is interviewing Mr. B about his life and career. I didn't noticed technical flaws in his answers, and he also talked about the lenses he is using :-)

[David Mullen ASC]

Cinematography and still photography can have different goals; a movie is made of a sequence of shots, so the individual shot is not always meant to stand out, or be studied for a long time.

 

Also, stylistic trends are different in commercial still photography than movies.

 

There are lots of reasons that someone might use a softer lens -- mainly to flatter an actress, but also to create a feeling of another time or place. Gordon Willis, for example, used older lenses on "The Godfather." Ed Lachman shot most of "Far From Heaven" with older lenses.

 

"Saving Private Ryan" used a mix of old and new lenses, some with their anti-reflection coatings stripped off, to create more flare, softness, and milkiness. This was counteracted by the "hardening" effect of the higher-contrast silver retention printing process.

 

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. I'm more surprised to hear that commercial still shoots are so conservative about the lenses they use -- the real question is why don't they experiment more with lenses just as they might with film stocks?

 

What I always dread is the notion of a universally accepted type of photography that everyone must adhere to. If everyone was doing super-sharp, fine-grained work I'd probably be trying to find excuses to do soft and grainy work. And vice-versa. Want I want to see in the movie theaters more than anything is variety.