Varicam with Zeiss Digi-Primes

[Michael Totten]

Wondering how digi-primes translate to 35mm. I've heard it's 2.5 times. Is this correct?

For instance... A 24mm digi-prime would be the equivalent to a 60 mm lens in 35mm ?

[David Mullen ASC]

Wondering how digi-primes translate to 35mm. I've heard it's 2.5 times. Is this correct?

For instance... A 24mm digi-prime would be the equivalent to a 60 mm lens in 35mm ?

 

Yes.

[Michael Totten]

Yes.

 

 

Thanks David.

 

Curious what the advantage is using a Zeiss digi-Prime or perhaps the Zeiss Digi-Prime 6-24mm zoom over let's say other cine-style lenses such as the Fujinon C or E-Series Cine Zooms.

 

The thing that attracts me to the digi-primes is that they open to a T1.6, but beyond that what is the difference? Some people say they're more "film like"... it confuses me though as I hear they're much more SHARP. To me sharp feels like video.

 

I guess you can get a shallower depth of field in certain situations because they're faster? so that's the more filmic characteristic ?

 

thanks,

michael

[David Mullen ASC]

The shallow depth of field from the fast speed helps; also, mechanically, they rack in and out of focus in a smoother way, more like cine lenses. The way lights look in the out of focus b.g. looks more traditional. But I can't say for sure that they are radically better than the new Fujinon primes, not having tested those.

 

HD has less resolution than 35mm, so I think it looks soft on the big screen compared to 35mm. So a sharp lens that is fast is a good thing.

 

But HD, maybe due to the limited latitude or the nature of a CCD, whatever, does look less flattering, more "edgy" in close-ups (even with the edge enhancement turned off), hence why a little mild diffusion may help -- but due to the generally soft look of HD-shot movies on the big screen, I'm a firm believer in not overdoing the diffusion.

[Michael Totten]

The shallow depth of field from the fast speed helps; also, mechanically, they rack in and out of focus in a smoother way, more like cine lenses. The way lights look in the out of focus b.g. looks more traditional. But I can't say for sure that they are radically better than the new Fujinon primes, not having tested those.

 

HD has less resolution than 35mm, so I think it looks soft on the big screen compared to 35mm. So a sharp lens that is fast is a good thing.

 

But HD, maybe due to the limited latitude or the nature of a CCD, whatever, does look less flattering, more "edgy" in close-ups (even with the edge enhancement turned off), hence why a little mild diffusion may help -- but due to the generally soft look of HD-shot movies on the big screen, I'm a firm believer in not overdoing the diffusion.

 

 

Thanks David.