Digital goes back to the 70's - 1st impressions of Dog Schnit Optiks Flare Factory 58 lens and sample photos

[andy lee]

The Arri Alexa can shoot 'linear' (technically called Rec.709) which looks 'normal'. Or as LogC which looks 'milky and low contrast'.

 

LogC gives you more latitude. Which, depending on the calibre of the cinematographer, means, he can mess up the exposure and you fix it in post, or he can shoot amazingly and you can change the 'look' and better it in post.

 

On the set you can shoot LogC (milky) and yet monitor Rec709 (normal). So, many people get fooled into believing what's on the monitor is being recorded.

 

LogC need to be converted before you can see them normally.

 

This Milky low contrast  look has become very popular on TV.

 

The FF58 lens has a similar look to this - thats why I like it!

 

http://vimeo.com/13940259#

[alexcosy]

Hi there,

 

This lens caught my attention, i get what some of view are trying to point at. But what seems cool to me with it is that it's a real vintage lens, so it's identity is not fake, and, it's hand-modified by someone who surely loves its lenses, and at some point decided that he could make them even even more "his". Sure we can argue that it's a fashion, we can talk about the alexa and milky look of commercials (which i enjoy by the way... too much sat and contrast was also a fashion and is also a way to hide that your picture is not so interresting). This lens is not made i think to be a professional tool, it has not been thought to be THE lens, it's something a guy thought that some of us might enjoy, and that's it. It's creative, i'd be absolutely unable to do the same (i actually also own an helios 44-2), so i'd like one of these.

 

My question (yes i do have a question, my opinion is worth nothing, i need advice actually ;)

I saw the different options available, and i was wondering which would be the most interesting to you guys ?

I'm thinking that i would go for the Fixed Aperture Circular F1.5 – Extreme Flare, Ultra Low Contrast. with orange or blue tint... after all why not get the extreme one. But i guess an other opinion is never lost, and if Andrew could give me his advice, i'd be grateful!

 

I shoot a 5DII both for video and stills by the way.

[richg101]

Hey aelxcosy.

 

Re. the lens options.  Ultimately the quasi f1.5 'extreme' was originally conceived to work alongside the iscorama 36.  amber being specifically to work in unison with the single coated amber flare of the isco36.  The quasi f1.5 in non tinted, 'stupid' low contrast is really really milky.  it absorbs the natural hue from surroundling light sources and creates a cast matching the natural tones of the lighting.  using with an iscorama (which i feel is a little clinical when put up against a lovely little 8mm anamorphic) the quasi f1.5 makes the whole thing a lot more intergrated and unified 'as one' instead of looking like 2 lenses (a anamorphot and a taking lens) working together and each imparting their own look.

 

without an anamorphot the quasi f1.5 creates a Log type look, without the information being there to pull back in post.  so you have a baked in log/milky aesthetic.  boosting contrast/saturation 'in camera' while using a quasi f1.5 creates an interesting bastardised look.  the exact opposite of a contrasty lens used on a camera shooting log then bringing back contrast in post.  This creates a natural analogue / lo-fi feel which is created in the physical domain (with glass and light) rather than within the digital domain (with grading, overlays, and gamma adjustments).  The lack of information in the shadows is not rendered as noise, but instead a little bit of exposure that wouldnt normally be there on a more contrasty lens.

 

A variable standard aperture can be created into almost as low contrast as the quasi f1.5, and this is certainly the best option for someone who is a bit unsure.  The quasi f1.5 will need a variable ND filter on the front if you are the type of person who likes to maintain an optimum (base) iso and shutter speed of 1/50.  Though as Andrew Reid pointed out, over exposure is nice on this type of lens since it doesnt look quite as harsh as with a typical lens, and seems to make the aesthetic / flare properties more prominent.  

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

I put in an email to get on the waiting list. I can't wait! I'm very impressed with the passion and style you are putting in to these lenses. Well done.

[P337]

For those that can't find it here are the lens options:

Here are the options to choose from:

• Option 1 – 58mm Variable Aperture Circular f/2 – f/16
• Option 2 – 58mm Fixed Aperture* Oval Bokeh (1.5x or 2x) f/2.8(f/3.5 @ 2x), f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 (approx)
• Option 3 – 58mm Fixed Aperture* Triangle Bokeh f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 (approx)
• Option 4 – 58mm Fixed Aperture Circular f/1.5 (approx) – Extreme Flare, Ultra Low Contrast

Any of the above options are available with any or all of these customizations:

• Tinted Flares (red, green, blue, orange, purple)
• Un-Tinted Flares
• Contrast level (Low, Lower, Stupid) – the lower the contrast, the more prominent the tint
• Glow (high, medium, low) – chromed aperture ring causes additional vibrant coloured artifacts
• Element Cleaning Marks (high, medium, low) – subtle cleaning marks applied to any or all lens elements
• Lens Mount – Canon EF, Sony E-Mount, M4/3, Sony Alpha/Minolta, Arri PL
•  

 

 

 

I did not know the 1.5 was intended to use with the iscorama 36; I was planning on that one but now debating it.  

I'm also not sure I'd want the "stupid" low contrast, so is the 1.5 similar to choosing a variable aperture option with "stupid contrast levels" and "high glow"?

[P337]

The Arri Alexa can shoot 'linear' (technically called Rec.709) which looks 'normal'. Or as LogC which looks 'milky and low contrast'.

 

...

 

The FF58 lens has a similar look to this [LogC] - thats why I like it!

 

http://vimeo.com/13940259#

 

@Andy Lee, which contrast level were you referring to that looked similar to Alexa's log? (I'd want the same)

 

Although what do you guys think about the differences between using a low contrast lens vs a log profile?  I've used vintage single coated Nikkors with a flaat profile to get a flat look on Canon DSLRs and while I think it would be fine if I were planning to bring a flat look to final, I don't think they help to replace a logarithmic profile for grading.  Those with experience grading on a log profile like in the FS100 vs a low contrast lens might know the differences better but I don't think this will help those needing a log replacement for grading.

 

​Logarithmic profiles are meant to retain details in the highlights and shadows to the best of the sensor's abilities, which when viewed on a screen with a limited dynamic range looks low contrast or "flat".  Low contrast lenses are just lenses that promote flaring, it doesn't retain any extra detail in the shadows and especially not in the highlights, a haze just makes the image appear "flat".

 

I'd recommend these lenses for those of us that either what the flat look in their final work without grading but more so like to play with flares (like me!) but not to attempt to replicate a log profile for a grading workflow.  

 

 

 

 

[alexcosy]

Hey aelxcosy.

 

Re. the lens options.  Ultimately the quasi f1.5 'extreme' was originally conceived to work alongside the iscorama 36.  amber being specifically to work in unison with the single coated amber flare of the isco36.  The quasi f1.5 in non tinted, 'stupid' low contrast is really really milky.  it absorbs the natural hue from surroundling light sources and creates a cast matching the natural tones of the lighting.  using with an iscorama (which i feel is a little clinical when put up against a lovely little 8mm anamorphic) the quasi f1.5 makes the whole thing a lot more intergrated and unified 'as one' instead of looking like 2 lenses (a anamorphot and a taking lens) working together and each imparting their own look.

 

without an anamorphot the quasi f1.5 creates a Log type look, without the information being there to pull back in post.  so you have a baked in log/milky aesthetic.  boosting contrast/saturation 'in camera' while using a quasi f1.5 creates an interesting bastardised look.  the exact opposite of a contrasty lens used on a camera shooting log then bringing back contrast in post.  This creates a natural analogue / lo-fi feel which is created in the physical domain (with glass and light) rather than within the digital domain (with grading, overlays, and gamma adjustments).  The lack of information in the shadows is not rendered as noise, but instead a little bit of exposure that wouldnt normally be there on a more contrasty lens.

 

A variable standard aperture can be created into almost as low contrast as the quasi f1.5, and this is certainly the best option for someone who is a bit unsure.  The quasi f1.5 will need a variable ND filter on the front if you are the type of person who likes to maintain an optimum (base) iso and shutter speed of 1/50.  Though as Andrew Reid pointed out, over exposure is nice on this type of lens since it doesnt look quite as harsh as with a typical lens, and seems to make the aesthetic / flare properties more prominent.  

 

So your advice would be for me to take a standard variable aperture, "stupid" low contrast. I would get a milky look, really low contrast but would still be able to choose aperture without loosing too much of the vintage look ?

I'll probably go for that.

What about the glow ? does a little glow add some magic ? ;)

[richg101]

yes.  the fundamental difference is that the log profile is what the sensor see's prior to any processing.  therefore the log profile maintains all and more of the information that would be captures in a non log profile.  

 

with the ridiculously low contrast lenses the sensor often might not even pick up shadow detail due to the lens milking over detail in the darks.

 

the main factor to these lenses is that they are introducing negative effects on the image seen by the sensor.  it is image degradation in the same way shooting high contrast in- camera kills shadow and highlight detail, only in the physical domain instead of with in-camera processing.

[richg101]

http://vimeo.com/63207859

[cls105]

how can i make my lens fixed f1.5?  By removing the aperture ring/circle/blades?