HockeyFan12

I would have sent them my Soligor zoom for free.

Thanks. I've owned the 11-16mm and 11-20mm and while the color matched and sharpness was great, I didn't find either intercut well with the old Nikkors. Will go with the 20mm f3.5 UD. Not a perfect option, but cheap at least, and seems to have a very "vintage" look. (Is this just a euphemism for bad performance?)

I should know the answer to this! I'm shooting S35 and my daily drivers are a set of f1.8/f2.0 Nikkors. They're great. I mostly went with the oldest ones I could. Single coated, longer focus throw, whatever. Lower contrast and vintage is my preferred look. For this at least. But I sold my 18mm f3.5 because it was too slow and the look didn't have the magic. I'm on EF mount so no speed booster for me. Debating between the 20mm f2.8, 20mm f3.5 UD (I love the look of this on Flickr), and 16mm f2 Rokinon and 20mm f1.8 Sigma EX. Sigma Art is too modern to intercut. I have owned a few Rokinons and they are all a bit different. I would expect the 16mm to perform too well to intercut with its fancy design and had at first dismissed it. I also mostly have 72mm filters and would need a step down ring, but I think I've read it can work with one. And I saw a video shot with one and mistook it for something older, so now I'm not as sure... Anyone got any (non-snarky, please) feedback or ideas? The 20mm f3.5 UD is in the lead right now. Back when I started this set I had a t2i and was limited to around 640 ISO tops so the depth of field is more for look than speed, I suppose, odd as that seems to me.

I think Andrew is exactly right on both points, about storage and about film.

I read some stuff on RedUser that I should know better than to blindly trust, but the impression I got there was they were probably the same, but possibly manufactured by a different OEM? I'm not sure.

+1 for EF and PL. Swappable mounts would have been nice, though. Aren't the Meike M43 lenses based on Veydras? Which are optically superb? If these are even close to as good, they seem disruptive. Nice selection of focal lengths, too.

Most Rokinons I've used are nothing special wide open, but fine by f2. They have unusually even resolution across the frame. Some of them I wasn't wild about the bokeh with but it's not bad. The 50mm I understand is good even wide open. They aren't bad. Do you have the option of renting or returning what you don't like? I feel like hipsters would sneer at Rokinon and corporate clients might ask why you're using old lenses their grandfather owned if you showed up with Nikkors. I had both for a while and there is nothing terribly wrong with any of them, except my 24mm f1.4 Rokinon was soft wide open. Unpopular opinion: 28mm f1.8 EF, 50mm f1.4 EF, 85mm f1.8 EF is a really good and really affordable kit, especially used, except for the focus ring. Big but not too big. But a lot bigger than Nikkors and bigger than Contax. Consistent 58mm fronts. Fast. Good center performance. Canon-branded so they look legit. Nice build quality and durability. Not as clinical as Zeiss or Sigma, not super vintage. I don't own the 50mm f1.4, but it's based on the nFD 50mm f1.4, which I think is the best of its kind, and the other two aren't perfect, but they perform better at f1.8 to me than their Rokinon brethren and I like the look more, too. And so incredibly cheap for what they are. Like $700 used for a set of three. The 28mm f1.8 has a bad reputation but it's actually pretty good, center is perfectly sharp even wide open. The 85mm f1.8 is very good. The focus throw is short and they don't have hard stops, and that might be a deal-breaker for you or you might shoot the kind of content where it's not if you're just pulling off the barrel anyway. But other than that they're just great. Absurdly cheap for what you get. Nice and chunky, too. Well, that explains why nFDs have the smoothest focus rings I've ever used. The K35s turn yellow over time, so does the Cooke 75mm, and apparently the rare glass in the Super Baltars degrades over time, too. It's almost like an E60 M5, when you tune something as far as you can tune it, it's not built to last. Master Primes fail in extreme cold. The Iscorama plastic parts are all apparently a mess, too. Anything bespoke or over-engineered seems to have issues, but those are always the most fun and most special. Aren't M43 lenses still serviceable at least? And if rehousing changes the focus mechanism, is there a market for your 85mm? I'll ask about this issue next chance I get, but it sucks. Panchros and K35s fail too, though. And virtually every cinema lens gets haze or stiff focus rings. I have some museum quality vintage lenses and it sort of hurts just to use them or to put focus gears on them that will scratch the barrels or whatnot.

I'll ask about that next chance I get. I have a 24mm f2 with a bit of play in the focus ring that I'm probably going to sell for cheap rather than repairing. I wonder if the SSC Aspherical generation has the same problems. Those look even nicer (a bit more vintage I'm told and better build quality) but the price tags are absurd. I wonder if there's a way to prevent wear. Is it from excess use or from neglect? A shame the 35mm f1.2 is only available with the K35s. From the sound of things the other three are if not identical to very close to K35s. Good to hear the 50mm matches the others, I know the 55mm Aspherical is the classic K35 but 50mm is a better focal length to me.

Do you know if it's possible to repair the roller bearings? I'd heard about that issue but that's worse than I realized. I imagine there must be nylon or brass bearings that are close enough even if factor parts aren't? Any way to prevent wear? How'd you find the 50mm f1.2 matched the other two? It's the newer design and odd duck but I suppose not by much.

Just the fact that you're on full frame means any bespoke cinema lenses are going to be pretty obscenely expensive. Established DPs will shoot with Rokinon or Nikon but there is a bias against Rokinon being cheap, I think. They're not even bad, but it's no one's top choice. Whereas Top Gun 2 is Sigma Art, which is kind of crazy. And Joker has some Nikkor. But no one's top choice is Rokinon. I'd try to avoid that kind of client in the first place but that's not always an option. Not all of this is personal experience: The Nikkors offer the best price/performance I think. They've been used for years for Vistavision and Joker had at least one Nikkor used pretty extensively I've read. Focus direction is backward, if it matters to you. The f2 versions of 28 f2, 50 f2, 85 f2 are all 52mm fronts. Make sure to match vintages approximately if consistency is your goal, coatings changed over time, likely not too much in recent years. The Contax lenses do feel bigger and the mechanics are really high end, they feel a lot nicer than many "true" cinema lenses. But focus rings are a bit stiff in some cases. The 28mm and 50mm f1.4 have 55mm fronts, I suspect the 85mm f2.8 does, too. Again, I never had issues with Nikon focus rings being too small but these are bigger. More room for fingers. Better grip. Again you could just get follow focus gears. https://followfocusgears.com/ And have wider diameters and a better grip and look more "pro" but a bit silly to get those without a follow focus? Canon SSC Aspherical is rumored to share the same designs with K35s, the most desirable set of vintage super speed lenses you can get. The 24mm and 85mm are 72mm fronts, 55mm is a 58mm front, but is still enormous and the build quality is outstanding. A set has recently gone from like $2000 on eBay to $8500 or something ridiculous so good luck. This is sort of the ultimate, though. The next generation (nFD L) has the same designs but different coatings and the 55mm has been replaced with a 50mm f1.2 with a different design. By all accounts that one is tiny and has 52mm front threads but the others remain large. I think these correlate with second generation K35s, a bit less desirable. Build quality and mechanics have been downgraded a bit. Coatings are updated and a bit less vintage but a tenth of a t-stop faster. You could probably still get a set for $2500 or less. The 50mm might be a little small and you'd want to buy a 72mm step up ring I guess. I've also read the bearings in these can degrade over time and will eventually need repair. If you don't need hard stops, Sigma Art is an option. If that's too clinical, first generation Canon EF L are the basis of the CN-Es, I think, at least some of them, and you get the pro red ring. I think Blue Ruin was shot on these, looked good to me. Mix of 77mm and 72mm fronts, easy to add some step up rings. If you don't need hard stops this might be the best option with that Sigma to L adapter. Never tried it. Some of the ZEs I think are updated Contax designs and less desirable. I think the 25mm f2, 50mm Makro Planar, and 35mm f2 I think are new and excellent but the line was recently discontinued so not too expensive. Milvus is pretty high end, never used it, but excellent performance and big. Maybe a bit clinical. Sort of a Sigma Art/Otus type deal. Rent one? Can't speak for the build quality, but the image from SLR Magic MicroPrimes is stunning. Apo designs so bokeh is smooth with pure colors. You could get a 25, 50, 85 for 3500 euro I think. 82mm threads and 2 pounds each despite being "micro." I think these are bespoke "cinema" designs but miniaturized, but it remains to be seen how the construction holds up. Optically from what I understand they are excellent. Not so sure about the mechanics.

For the money, I like Nikkors but there is such a range of designs and model years and coatings that consistency can be an issue. Contax is a bit more substantial but priced to match. Bigger focus rings and more precision, but also stiffer focus. ZE prices are low now but less vintage look. Difficult to beat the Nikkor price/performance. The faster more expensive Nikkors might have bigger focus rings, I don't have particularly big hands so for me Nikkors are okay but smaller might be a problem yeah. Focus gears increase the diameter. Look at follow focus sean's gears. Although seems a bit strange to use if you don't have a follow focus.

Just personal preference. I prefer the look of the 3.2k and 2.8k Alexa to the Alexa 65 and Alexa LF, it seems more organic and has more texture and I think that's part of the reason vintage lenses are so popular on the 65. And features I watch that were shot at 2.8K look better to me than my own 4k+ footage (pretty obviously). But when I worked in post with a variety of cameras the Alexa footage always looked so much better than the F55 and Epic footage to me, too. It's just got a smoother look to it and the texture is smooth and looks more organic and more like film so even if the shadows are noisy it's a good look, and when you lose that texture it either looks more digital or more plastic to me. I know other people who feel this way, but I know a lot of people don't. It could be fine. The Gemini and Black Magic stuff doesn't look too bad to me, presumably since it's not over-sharpened. Oddly, Alexa ProRes is sharpened by default so who knows. Maybe it's the low frequency sharpening on Alexa footage that I like, but I dislike the edge enhancement on a drone or iPhone or something. I can't say for sure, just speculate. But when you capture too much fine detail it looks worse to me. There's an interview with the DP on the Crown where he goes through all the steps he took to make the F55 look more organic. He wanted to use an Alexa but he wasn't allowed to. I guess I can relate to that. It's just personal preference. I really like the look of S16 and 2-perf S35. I like a more painterly image, I was more into Kaminski than Deakins. I like high speed film when I shoot stills. But I also want the texture to look good. I think it's also sort of a running gag, they keep delaying it and the joke among Alexa fanatics is they're delaying it because the 2.8k is already so good.

Aren't Primos nearly a stop slower than Sigma Art, though? With much less coverage? And less sharp wide open? Your answer makes sense to me, I think the issue is that "pleasing character" is such an ill-defined catch all. Shane Hurlbut I think defined his preference for S4s over Rokinons in terms of the S4s have more barrel distortion and softer edges, but then the Cooke anamorphics have pincushion distortion and have sharper corners than most competitors, so how do you sell something so hard to define? Have you tried Signature Primes? I haven't but Arri seems to be selling them on the basis of look rather than sharpness and again it's not so clear what they mean. They've got this A/B comparison of a 75mm signature prime with an 85mm ultra prime I'm guessing and the biggest difference I can see is of course the face is rounder at a shorter focal length. And are you even sure not falling apart is desirable? K35s and Cookes seem so popular in part because they do fall apart. I suppose that's a pretty strong look, though, more intended for indies and music videos. I think it all speaks to the divide between marketing and what actually looks good. Netflix is pushing for 4k but I fully expect the 4k Alexa to look worse than the current 2.8k model. Have you tried any Kinoptik primes btw? I've only used the infamous Tegea but there are all these really expensive Astro Berlin and Kinoptik lenses on eBay that I know next to nothing about.

What do you mean by steeply curved surfaces? Do you have any examples of this? One thing I have noticed with much older lenses is bubble bokeh, which I've read is the result of over-correcting spherical aberration. Some older designs were discontinued due to the ban on leaded glass, but from what I understand this obstacle is easily overcome. Also, what lenses would you describe as having a vintage character and being sharp wide open? S5is and Summiluxes? I haven't used them.

Story of my life.

Thanks, that directly contradicts the dpreview article I read on the subject (and my understanding of dynamic range in audio): https://***URL removed***/articles/4653441881/bit-depth-is-about-dynamic-range-not-the-number-of-colors-you-get-to-capture Is this article wrong? I've been posting it online and will stop posting it if it is. I don't want to spread misinformation. Granted, I get that the article is about raw bit depth with still cameras (where the raw data is linear, as off the sensor) and this is different with the C200 and Alexa, where the ADC has a greater bit depth and then the raw data is converted to 12 bit log. But C200 and Alexa raw is processed that way to save disk space, and that's different in still cameras. I still thought the ADC's bit depth correlated with maximum dynamic range give-or-take a bit of error for noise reduction or DXOMark normalizing to 8 megapixels. With those caveats, I always thought ADC bit depth correlated directly with the maximum dynamic range a system could capture and that's verbatim how dpreview explains it. Anyway if I'm wrong I'll stop referencing the article.

Yeah, this was my understanding, too, and what the dpreview article states, which is why I'm confused. I get that with Canon Log and Arri Log the data is converted from a 16 bit linear signal (or whatever it is) to a 12 bit logarithmic one (or 10 bit with 60p on the C200). So you can store more dynamic range in a raw file than its bit depth. This just usually doesn't happen with still cameras, usually it's linear data that hasn't been compressed as much. But I thought that an ADC quantized (if that's the right term) a linear signal and so each bit represents another order of magnitude of signal strength represents another potential stop of dynamic range. But of course the sensor's noise floor and full well capacity are the other limiting factors so it's not like ADC equals dynamic range, either, just potential dynamic range. I thought. I dunno, last time I tried to wrap my head around something like this I got it all wrong, so I'm probably just confused. I still don't get it, but it's probably just me. Carry on...

Thanks, do you have a source for this? What paper are you referencing? I don't have a horse in this race, I've used the S1H and was impressed by it so the results are there and I don't really care about the specs that much. It wouldn't matter to me either way. I just don't understand how this could be the case because it directly contradicts the dpreview article I posted, which is how I understand these things work.

On one hand I think the S1H probably actually measures as 14 stops (the Cinema5D chart even indicates as much–13.8 stops at SNR=1 plus a bit from the first wedge having a little room to go before clipping) and the C300 Mk II probably measures at 14-15 in the lab. So I can't fault any manufacturer for making claims that are basically accurate. Some of Red's claims seem a little out there, though. On the other hand, yeah, the C300 Mk II has an ugly noise texture and color channels clip earlier than claimed and the sensor has streaks when hit by bright lights. So in practice it's not that great. While the Alexa actually is super noisy in the shadows but the noise texture looks organic so in practice it's even better than it measures. I'm not even trying to argue about one camera over the next, I just don't get how the 12 bit ADC in the S1H is producing 14 stops of measurable dynamic range. And yes, that's what the Cinema5D Xyla chart shows if read traditionally, even though I agree the noise floor isn't useful in practice, the Xyla chart shows 14 stops. I do find these measurements helpful: https://cinematography.net/CineRant/2018/07/30/personal-comments-on-the-2018-cml-camera-evaluations/ The Alexa actually doesn't have that much more DR total with the noisy shadows but it has gobs more highlight detail. I really don't want to turn this into a camera debate. I just don't think the S1H has a 12 bit ADC in video mode. Either that or I'm misunderstanding something and would like to understand better.

How do you get more than 12 stops of dynamic range from a 12 bit ADC readout? Isn't this impossible by definition? Wouldn't there by a hard ceiling of 12 stops from a 12 bit ADC? See the depreview link above. My issues are that I don't know why Cinema5D uses SNR=2 as the noise floor or why they place the first wedge of the Xyla chart below clipping. SNR=2 seems arbitrary, and their best explanation of why they choose this is it's what gets them a 14 stop measurement from the Alexa, but Arri intentionally underrates its sensors and if you talk with their reps they'll tell you the Amira, Mini, etc. are 15+ stops. And the official number from Arri has always been 14+ anyway. That's why I see the comparisons as useful, but to me the actual measurement I'd derive from the S1H's result are the 13.8 they find at SNR=1 plus a bit more from them placing the first wedge below clipping. So about 14 stops. Likewise all their numbers seem low to me. Numbers like "usable dynamic range" and Cinema5D's decision to sort of arbitrarily decide a cut off point for noise have been discussed in the past and never that productively. Canon took issue with their results on the C300 Mk II and released their own tests that correlate more closely with 14-15 stops if read traditionally rather than by Cinema5D's arbitrary (however useful for comparison) metrics. If you're interested in useable dynamic range in the field I find Geoff Boyle's over/under tests on CML more helpful anyway as you can see an entire scene and where different channels clip and there are some cameras that clip certain colors sooner or less attractively. Of course the Alexa does best. If the S1H results are heavily influenced by noise reduction I don't know. I didn't know the Ursa Mini had no NR at that, that's impressive if true. I haven't had issues with noise reduction on either camera, but I have read about the S1H having ghosting issues for other people so clearly others have. I'm not really concerned with that, though, as I'm not planning to buy either camera. I'm just trying to understand how you can get 14 stops of dynamic range from a 12 bit ADC.

I might be misunderstanding something, but my understanding was that the bit depth of the ADC correlated with the maximum number of stops of dynamic range: https://***URL removed***/articles/4653441881/bit-depth-is-about-dynamic-range-not-the-number-of-colors-you-get-to-capture There are serious issues with Cinema5D's methodology, even if their comparisons are useful. But even 12.7 stops would be too much for a 12 bit ADC was my understanding and to me their results read as significantly more. Regardless, the S1H has outstanding dynamic range, in my experience more than most cinema cameras with quoted 14 stops of DR (though not Alexa-level by any means), and something doesn't add up here.

Not being snarky, genuinely curious: how does the S1H achieve 14 stops of dynamic range with a 12 bit ADC?

I've had similar IR issues with footage I've received from the Ursa mini but nothing as severe as the above with the P6k. @Super8 is right that by the time a colorist receives footage, it's rarely raw anymore, if it ever was. For instance any visual effects shots are going to be delivered in ProRes or DPX or something even if the project is shot in raw. I expect the IR pollution shows up in the monitors but is lost in glare. I saw it happen on a Red MX shoot too, but not nearly as bad. It's a real problem. Pro ACs and operators can pull focus better than you, but they're not necessarily knowledgeable about prosumer video. A few years ago I remember reading in ASC mag I think about a network series shooting Alexa in ProRes 422 1080p instead of HQ I think? As bad as your storage issues might be, imagine scaling them up across an entire series... A lot of the time amateurs and small post houses are way ahead of larger studios technically. You can afford to shoot raw. NBC can't. I suspect this has changed to an extent by now, of course, but it's worth considering what luxuries we're granted in different segments. It's also true that raw isn't the same across cameras. Disregarding the potential for IR pollution, etc. different sensors have different noise levels and different chromaticities based on the dyes used. I worked with a DP who was on the ACES board or knew someone on it–or something–and manufacturers would send in data from their sensors. There're all sorts of differences between them. If I remember correctly, Red, for instance, had green and red chromasticities rather close with its early sensors, so you got ruddy foliage but then the Panavision DXL fixed this with software and you could grade it to mitigate it pretty well anyway. Apparently the C200-generation Canons have a special Bayer array to capture a much wider gamut than their predecessor so they can be used in BT2020 workflows. Granted, raw footage can be graded with more flexibility than raster in general, but raw footage isn't necessary as interchangeable across camera systems as would be ideal. Of course the whole point of ACES is to equalize things as best possible so it's not entirely hopeless matching cameras. But the raw signal from an Alexa is going to be way better and way more flexible than the raw signal from a less expensive camera. I forget what the original argument was. But amateurs have advantages larger studios don't in all aspects of production. I talked with a grip who'd worked on an Adam Sandler movie and they had these massive nets and 18K HMIs set up primarily so they wouldn't have to wait on cloud cover. Not even because it looked better, but because it was too expensive to wait. Chances are you can afford to wait on cloud cover. Or even wait until golden hour. Likewise a GH5 will fit on a gimbal an Alexa rig won't. And on and on... This might be a lesson to me more than anyone else, but I think it's worth mentioning: play to your strengths. You might have better luck with a Pocket 6k than Warner Brothers does. Everything I've seen from the Pocket 6K indicates it's the best price/performance around. It looks a lot like a 6K Alexa to me. That doesn't mean it's the best for every workflow by any means, though. One of the advantages of the Alexa is how easy it is to operate if you're someone who's used to shooting film. The menus are minimal and interface relatively simple.

I'm trying to consolidate a Premiere Pro project to move onto another drive. I was not very careful in my naming convention and for a number of shots the file names are redundant (more than a few files named 4.mov). I've noticed that Premiere gets confused and only sometimes will it copy files properly. In other cases it will reference the incorrect 4.mov and the consolidated projects I've moved to an external disk will be missing clips with the wrong clips in their place. Any easy way to address this? Or am I doing something wrong? Edit: posted this in the wrong forum I think, feel free to move to the correct one...

Highlight detail is so good on the S1H. On the S1, too. That camera is a sleeper. P6K is excellent, too. To me the 2.1Gbps codec on the C500 Mk II would be too heavy to be pragmatic, regardless of image quality.