Why not Zeiss?

[Max Jacoby]

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 don't think a dvd is the best way to compare the sharpness of lenses, since the resolution of the format is too limited. The theatre screen is much more telling, especially for differences between anamorphic and Super35.

 

When they started shooting 'Lord of the Rings' the Ultraprimes were not yet available, so they had to use Zeiss Standards and Superspeeds. When the UltraPrimes got available, they switched to them progessively. Andrew Lesnies favourite lens turned out to be the UP 40mm.

[Peter Martin]

35mm motion picture is a small business. Cine lenses are produced in small numbers compared to still lenses. Companies like Zeiss are in competition with small specialized optical companies which strive for building the perfect lens set. In the still photo market Zeiss is in competition with bigger manufacturers like Canon and Nikon. These companies produce lenses in much bigger numbers and at lower sales prices. Therefore they have to accept compromises in optical and in mechanical quality in order to allow an economical production. This makes it difficult to compare them to Zeiss lenses where a higher sales price is accepted. And even Zeiss still lenses are often surpassed by Leica glass, which is a much smaller company and the lenses are even more expensive. The relation between image quality and sales price is obvious. Modern cine lenses are built to very high standards and a low sales price is not the main point. Cooke in England for example has a small team of engineers and lens designers. This compact group of highly skilled designers and their close contact to the cinematographers helps them to create the tools which the DoPs would like to have. The concept of the new Cooke products compared to the Zeiss Philosophy is a more pure philosophy. They intentionally renounce the use of different modern technologies like floating elements which have been developed for the correction of certain image defects. The strength of Cooke's decision lies in leaving it out. They are receiving a pure lens with a cutting-edge compromise which leads them to an extremely successful product. They combined the achievement with a very good mechanical design which is extremely important in the motion picture business. The philosophy of Zeiss can be understood as a more scientific and more mathematical one. Their unlimited manufacturing possibility enables them to produce even more complex optics. They use aspheric elements or floating groups straight away with the aim to get a fully corrected lens. Zeiss is doing much harder accepting compromises which are on the one side (in a more mathematical point of view) causing some aberrations but on the other side improving the performance in a field which is possibly more important for motion picture, for example contrast instead of definition (this issue needs another five pages to be discussed). Both ways, the Zeiss and the Cooke way, create very nice products. The cinematographers have to decide which one the use for what.

 

Flairs and softer images are defects often seen in older lenses caused by (at that time) limited technology. But as in this forum already discussed these additional characteristics are very popular. But for any manufacturer today it is nearly impossible to design lens systems which such individualities. You can compare it to cars: it is very nice and inspiring to drive an old high class automobile especially because of the lack of modern technologies, but no manufacturer would produce an old car again. Therefore, seen like that, the new Cooke lenses are more close to Zeiss than the previous sets of the 60's and 70's.

 

Anamorphic lens systems are very popular because they are adding unique characteristics to the shots because of their unique construction. I often read that the anamorphic picture is popular because of its big negative size or the longer focal lengths used which gives a shallow depth of field or the elliptical blurs which arises in the out of focus parts. Or the barrel distortion of the wider anamorphics (a lot of DPs like anamorphic because of that). It is often forgotten that the basic difference between symmetrically (spherical) designed and asymmetrically (anamorphic) designed systems is that the scope lenses capturing images using two focal lengths in one system. A longer focal length for the vertical part of the image and the wider one for the horizontal part (0.5x at 2.40 systems). This leads to pictures with more depth which have more three dimensional character. Unlike the higher definition this character preserves over all generations. It is irrelevant if a film is seen in a theatre on a big screen or on a VHS tape. The closest process in still photography is the use of cameras with lenses rotating around their nodal point while capturing. These still cameras producing photos with a constant vertical focal length and a de facto wider horizontal focal length compared to the more flat results using standard cameras. Today there are no significant differences in performance between anamorphic lenses and spherical ones. Especially because the true anamorphic format is supported by a much larger negative area and therefore a lower magnification factor. The limits in anamorphic production are more the availability of lenses or anamorphic camera accessories, heavier lenses, more cases, ?

 

Peter Martin

Lens Design Hawk Anamorphic

Vantage Film

 

www.vantagefilm.com

[georg lamshöft]

Thanks for this very informative and comprehensive answer!

But (Made in Germany - not the cheap Contax-Lenses) Zeiss-lenses are not cheaper than Leica-lenses.

I think I understand what you try to explain with the different "construction philosophies". Cooke's customers are artists, cinematogrpahers, but Zeiss builds many optical instruments for scientists, they are not interested in non-measureable characteristics like "boke".

 

"This leads to pictures with more depth which have more three dimensional character".

I've never noticed that, maybe I was too shocked about the flare and the distortion ;-) But I try to keep an eye on it in the future :blink:

 

@audiris

You're right, 720x576pixels are not enough, but as I already told, on DVD I only try to notice the flare, the distortion and other lens-characteristics.

I think Lord of the Rings was the first film shot with Ultra Primes, even with prototypes. I think Lesnie only used older lenses (Standards etc.) when no comparable UP (focal length) was available.

[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 see what you mean. I don't believe that there is an absolute right or wrong in artistic decisions.

 

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 :-) 

 

Tom Tykwer is a fine director who knows his craft, so maybe Mr. Ballhaus took care to give technical sound answers. I have heard great DoPs like Jack Cardiff or Jost Vacano explaining complex technical facts to general audiences, so I know it is possible. That I happen to dislike the permanent personal advertising of Ballhaus and his "trademark" 360 degree shots is just a matter of taste - I don't believe a good cinematographer needs a trademark because his treatment will come out of the storytelling he deals with.

(BTW, that Ballhaus is especially popular in Germany is mainly because he does American films, the same way Hans Zimmer is popular for being a successful German in Hollywood, which has nothing to do with the artistic value of his scores.) <_<

[Dan Salzmann]

I love the Cooke S4's. I think the Zeiss UltraPrimes can sometimes be a bit cruel in terms of sharpness and require all kinds of fiddly ProMists.

All lenses have certain characteristics and I personally do not always go for the sharpest possible image. I've even used a brass Taylor-Hobson Cooke lens from 1930 on a project where I wanted a low-con, flared look. My AC wasn't too thrilled with this lens because the distance markings were not too accurate as well as being in feet.

The essential is to use the right tool for the job.

I find more and more directors wanting to get away from the fiercely sharp video look.

[georg lamshöft]

"BTW, that Ballhaus is especially popular in Germany is mainly because he does American films, the same way Hans Zimmer is popular for being a successful German in Hollywood, which has nothing to do with the artistic value of his scores.) "

 

You're right, we are very proud of people who made it in Hollywood - look at most german films (especially technical stuff like cinematography, special effects...) and you know why :rolleyes:

Before I have seen Gangs of New York, I wasn't a huge Ballhaus-Fan, I thought: "..just because he is german...". But this film showed me what he is able to do when he has the right budget, the right script and director. In my eyes he is one of the "top 5"-cinematographers in the world (+Kaminski, Toll, Storaro...)

I understand why some people don't like Hans Zimmer, sometimes his (older) scores were to "obtrusive" (?) and very often his themes seem very similar when they are made within a short time. A "Zimmer-score" is not automatically a good one, but when you listen to his scores from "rain man", "crimson tide", "the thin red line" or "gladiator" (together with Lisa Gerrard) it's hard to say that he is not a excellent componist. But it's all art and a matter of taste. :lol:

But shouldn't we talk about lenses? ;-)

[Paul Bruening]

I have an Arri IIB with Schnieder flats, standard mount. Are there any Russian anamorphics that plug right in or can be conversion ringed in? I've heard that the Lomos are an adequate quality lens. Is that true? Also, I intend to go digital internegative. Can I unsqueeze anamorphic digitally?

 

Thanks for any help,

Paul Bruening

pbruenin@yahoo.com

[Christian Appelt]

No, Konvas lens mounts are mostly OCT-18 (older turret Konvas) or OCT-19 (Konvas 2M and Kinor 35, similar to Mitchell mount)

Most converted Lomo lenses are rebuilt for PL mount, but you may contact a dealer and ask if he can have it converted to Arri Standard.

 

In my opinion, a better procedure would be converting your Arri to a single PL mount, that way you can use any modern optics, and PL conversions of Lomo anamorphic lenses.

 

If you look & search long enough, you may find an older anamorphic lens in Arri Standard mount on eBay, a friend of mine bought a nice UltraScope 50mm prime, and some weeks ago there was a French DyaliScope lens for sale. But it is very hard to find a whole set of lenses or a decent zoom.

 

It also depends on the kind of project you are doing. If you just want to do a short in Scope, you even could use an anamorphic adapter (like a Kowa 8Z) which will turn your prime lens (from 50mm upwards) anamorphic. But forget zooming & focus pulling, and there is to be some slight distortion at the edges. Well, just for a short and when it fits your style...

 

Yes, you can turn standard footage into anamorphic release prints, but there are some problems too.

 

- No matter if you do it digital or through optical printing, it is going to be expensive.

Unless you edit on video/computers and leave the postproduction costs to an distributor, you just pay later and compromise on image quality.

 

- I suppose your Schneider lenses are quite old. While they certainly give a nice picture, modern optics with better resolution are necessary for anamorphic conversion. Remember, you are using only half the area of your 35mm frame).

New lenses are not cheap and will most likely not have Arri Standard mounts.

 

- Your Arriflex has (I am guessing) an academy aperture, that means the sound track area is not exposed by image information. Basically, you would be doing what they called Superscope in the 1950s:

 

SuperScope AWSM

 

Using smaller image area means less resolution, more grain and problem in using high speed stocks and certain lighting techniques (like using smoke) that will make the image appear less sharp.

 

 

I had the same dilemma and solved it by buying a Konvas 2M for which all types of anamorphics are available at decent prices, keeping my Arri for commercial and short film projects that keep turning up.

 

If you want to keep using your Arri, have it converted to an anamorphic aperture plate and PL mount, then get some Lomo anamorphics in PL mount. Some people seem to be very happy with the work of Les Bosher:

 

Les Bosher Camera Engineering

 

You also could have your Arri rebuilt to take OCT-18 (old Lomo) lenses, but why should you keep yourself from getting newer, cheap Russian lenses and the option to use (rental) lenses for special purposes.

 

Remember, the two elements that create the image are lens & film stock, and no system is easier to "update" than an old Arriflex! ;) As you will note, I am biased towards anamorphic photography because it has these advantages: B)

 

- Best image quality of all 35mm formats, grain is lower because of lower magnification.

 

- Workprints and answer prints can be made from cut negative without expensive scanning/recording or optical extraction printing. Betting on a distributor paying for lab work can be trap, especially for low budget films it is important to get a screening in a theatre or being able to deliver 35mm to film festivals.

 

- Inexpensive Russian anamorphic lenses are widely available , a good set of primes or a zoom will get you through your picture without paying huge rental sums.

 

But in the end it all depends on the type of film you are making and the money you can spend on it.

[Paul Bruening]

Christian- Thank you for the very informative answer. You've saved me alot of guessing and errors.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

just a little note.

in france we have to go thrue test for insurences and buy watching charts for either primo, S4 or Arris on microscope from the negative (even in anamorphic) you can compare the sharpness, softness and differents "warm or cold" ambiance of the image, just on a chartd it's a cheap and easy way to compare lenses, you can also says if old optics are matching together.

primo are warm soft with a verry good definition

S4 are colder but with more light effect and excellent definition

Ultra primes are... close to yhe S4

but that's only my opinion

by