Tag: Lens

Using Super 16 lenses on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera: It works for a 1080 HD crop

There are Super 16 lenses that have been sitting around collecting dust for the last 5-10 years, and you can usually scoop some up at bargain prices. That’s because, aside from a minority of Red users, no one’s been using them, due to HD sucking all the wind from its sails like some sort of gigantic cloud vampire. No, I’m not drunk. Yeah so anyways, that all might change now that the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is starting to ship in quantity.

SUPER 16 ZOOM LENSES

The BMCC sensor size is a good chunk bigger than Super 16 (abbreviated “s16” from now on… I’m too lazy to type it out the bazillion more times I’ll need to reference it). But it’s close enough that some s16 zoom lenses will cover the sensor at the higher end of their focal length ranges, probably half to three-fourths of its zoom range, depending on the particular lens. That’s because the image circle of a zoom must be big enough to fill a format’s picture area when at its shortest focal length, ie. zoomed all the way out. And then by principle of a zoom lens, that image circle will get larger as you zoom in. As that image circle gets larger, it can hence fill a larger picture area/sensor. Here is a diagram featuring completely random and arbitrary imagery:

But here’s one thing to keep in mind: some still photography zoom lenses maintain their small image circle due to their particular design, so the same may apply to some s16 zooms as well.

    ***A LIL’ UPDATE***
    Cinematographer John Brawley has posted some frames from his tests of the following s16 lenses…
    Angenieux 11.5-138mm T2.3
    Canon 6.6-66mm T2.7
    Canon 8-64 T2.4

    The results don’t look too great for full BMCC sensor coverage. The Angenieux maintains a small image circle, and the Canons show noticeable chromatic aberration outside the s16 picture area, even when they cover the sensor. You can see all the DNGs via his dropbox link in this Blackmagic Forum thread.

    A few paragraphs down, I’ve added examples of how these lenses can work for the BMCC via a 1080 center extract.
    ***

SUPER 16 PRIME LENSES

I have no idea if they’ll fill the BMCC sensor. Do long focal length primes have larger image circles than their short focal length counterparts? Maybe. Image circle sizes vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, and product line to product line. So the only way to know is to test that specific lens.

HOW TO USE ANY AND ALL SUPER 16 LENSES ON THE BMCC

This might be a big deal for some people. And it’s so simple: just crop into the 1920 x 1080 center pixels of the 2432 x 1366 frame of BMCC footage. Actually, you’ll only have to do that for footage that needs it. Like I mentioned earlier, some lenses will cover the whole sensor. But as a boilerplate, unilateral policy, it’ll work for all s16 lenses, regardless of focal length. Here’s why…

You can click here or on the picture to see a full res version of this BMCC 2432 x 1366 frame diagram. Notice how the Super 16mm picture area is just big enough to cover the extracted 1920 x 1080 HD frame from the full BMCC frame? Boom, there ya go. So it’s all good with using s16 lenses.

    ***UPDATE***
    Here are some examples of how the 1080 center extract would work with the three aforementioned s16 lenses…
    You can click on them to see ’em as full res 10% quality jpegs… which means they’re just for examining the image circle, and not the image quality of the camera. You can get to the original DNGs via this Blackmagic Forum thread. Mucho thanks to John Brawley for letting me use these frames.
    ***

I haven’t tested this myself because I’ve yet to get my filthy hands on a BMCC, but numbers don’t lie. There are a few things to keep in mind if you choose to do a 1080 center extract:

  1. You’ll have to shoot in 2.5K RAW mode. Obviously the downsampled 1920 x 1080 ProRes or DNxHD modes won’t work for this.
  2. You’ll need to mark the 1920 x 1080 center on your viewfinder. This is actually not that big of a deal. You just get some clear touch screen protective cover, and then make your markings via trial and error… ie. set up a tripod & chart/whatever, import footage & perform the extract, then mark the cover. I do this exact process for certain kinds of VFX shots all the time, it’s easy.
  3. You’ll have to do the 1080 center extract in post, but it’s hecka easy. Do I even really need to explain this? I will, just in case. In whatever software, make your timeline/composition/whatever 1920 x 1080. Set your BMCC footage to be at 100% scale/size, that way it’s only showing the center. If a particular shot doesn’t need the 1080 extract, then change its scale/size to 79%.
  4. It’s obviously not going to look as good as the full sensor 2400 x 1350 image that’s been scaled down to 1920 x 1080, because of Bayer filtering mumbo jumbo that you can google. Whether or not the optical resolution is good enough is up to you… but if your basis of comparison is a DSLR/DSLM, then it likely will. From the samples I’ve seen, a 1080 center extraction looks pretty great. And if you do see de-Bayer artifacts, try extracting from a slightly larger area than 1920 x 1080 if your lens’ image circle allows for it.

If you’re thinking it’s just weird and strange to capture image areas that are going to be discarded or unseen by the viewing audience, just keep in mind that it’s standard procedure with most non-anamorphic lensed 35mm shooting formats. Also, cropping in to 1080 on the BMCC is very similar, in principle, to the crop resolution modes of the Red cameras. Plus, really, your work is 99% likely to ultimately be seen in 1080 HD anyway. Is the 1080 center extraction worth all the extra work? Probably only if you just really wanna shoot on a fast cine zoom that’s affordable.

Also, if you’re content with shooting for a 720 HD finish, you can use standard 16mm format lenses… by cropping to 1578 x 888 and then downscaling to 1280 x 720.

Read more

Best starter filmmaker lenses for mirrorless cameras: Nikon IX rises from the grave

Listen up, I feel like this is kinda a big deal. So you’re dirt poor. Or a student. Or a dirt poor student. Or a dirt student (agriculture major). And you wanna put an earnest effort into seeing if you can cut it as a filmmaker. So you buy a mirrorless camera that shoots video, and you go the ultra-frugal route and get only the body without kit lens.

So here’s what ya do about lenses: get on the ol’ eBayz and search for “nikon ix”.

These lil’ dudes are dead lenses. We’re talkin’ in a sealed coffin dressed in their mom’s favorite outfits. They deaddddd. They were made for Nikon’s Pronea cameras, which were part of APS (Advanced Photo System), a failed consumer photo film format thingee from the 90s. Made for a now-extinct film format, these lenses can’t work on present Nikon or Canon DSLRs because they have rear protrusions that would hit the reflex mirrors.

Well now we gunn git our George Romero on, bcuz these now be ZOMBIE lenses. Their putrifying little lens hands are reachin’ up out of the dirt in front of their little tombstones. Except instead of wanting to eat our brains, they wanna help you get yr filmmakin’ on, deep discount style — because they can work great on Micro Four Thirds, NEX, Sony E-mount, NX, and whatever else mirrorless cameras with a lens mount.

Once you apply all my advicey thangs listed later in this article, you’ll find yourself with some nice video-friendly lenses that are lightweight with good optics, with a useable focus throw, hard stop focus ring, and a clickless aperture… at an incredibly affordable price. You can have two filmmaking-ready zoom lenses that span from 20mm to 180mm for as little as $60.

They may not be Nikon’s finest lenses, but they’re still Nikkors made with mid/late 1990s lens technology. I really don’t think you’ll find this kind of quality at these price points. Here’s your shopping list…

1. THE LENSES

20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 (black model)

This is the first lens you wanna grab, since short focal length lenses are generally more sought after. Made in Japan, weighs just six ounces, close focus of 1.1 feet, 52mm filter thread, and a seven-bladed iris for nice fourteen-point lens flare sunstars– kinda a minor thing but I’m not too into six or eight pointed sunstars (fyi: odd number of blades creates double the number of sunstar points, and even number of blades creates the same number as blades). Actually, all the Nikon IX lenses are seven-bladed, hooray. Originally $380 back in the day, this guy usually goes for $15-40. Mine was brand new dead stock, $15. That’s absurd.

60-180mm f/4-5.6 (black model)

Made in Japan, 9.5 ounces, close focus 3.9 feet, 52mm filter thread, seven-bladed iris. It originally went for $245, and can be found for $15-60.

So with those you’re covered pretty well, focal length-wise. But if you care there’s an in-between zoom…

24-70mm f/3.5-5.6 (only available in black)

Made in Thailand, six ounces, close focus 1.1 feet, 52mm filter thread, seven-bladed iris. Original price $160. They show up on eBay for about $15-50… mine was new dead stock.

And here are the later white models… note that their eBay prices are generally the same as the black models, though specs-wise the black models seem to be a better choice. The differences are in italics.

20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 (white model)

Same specs as the black model, except this one’s made in Thailand instead of Japan.

60-180mm f/4.5-5.6 (white model)

Alright, this one is considerably different than the better black model. Made in Thailand, 9.5 ounces, close focus 3.9 feet, 46mm filter thread, seven-bladed iris, and it has ten elements in seven groups while the black version is eleven/eight. It originally went for $100-150, which was a lot cheaper than the black model. Note that the minimum f-stop is 2/3rds a stop slower as well.

30-60mm f/4-5.6 (only available in white)

Made in Thailand, weighs a ridiculous 3.4 ounces, close focus of 1.1 feet, 46mm filter thread, seven-bladed iris. I don’t really see a point in getting this one if you can get a 20-60mm instead… other than its insane light weight. Unless if you need to tie your camera to a helium balloon, I dunno.

2. NIKON G TO MFT LENS ADAPTER

So with the G-Type adapter, there’s a little ring that allows you to have stepless aperture control. Booya. To me this is a huge deal– to be able to have minute control over how your highlights look is important to me, as well as being able to do simple iris pulls during a shot (like when you follow an actor through a tunnel or exiting a building into the sun). Kinda a big deal to have this feature using a $20 lens. One downside is that you’ll have no f-stop indicator to let you know what stop you’re shooting at, though this isn’t really a big deal with digital cinematography and its WYSIWYG LCD screens… and this is coming from a snobby, fluent practitioner of the Zone System.

Here are a couple low-priced adapter options for MFT cameras… I’ve used them both and they do the job. But the Fotodiox’s aperture control ring is way, way better than the Fotga.
Fotodiox Nikon G to MFT lens adapter (about $26)
Fotga Nikon G to MFT lens adapter (about $10)

The Fotga’s ring isn’t dampened at all and it has annoying click-stops at wide open and a little past closed. The Fotodiox will travel the entire iris range without engaging an annoying click at fully open or closed, and the ring is somewhat smooth and dampened… well worth the price difference.

Or if for some reason you wanna get a high quality, first-class adapter with a nice smoothly dampened aperture ring (and without any clicks), then here ya go…
Novoflex Nikon G to MFT lens adapter (about $260)

3. FOTGA LENS ADAPTER MODIFICATION

Alright, let’s say for some reason you have to go with the Fotga adapter. Remember when I mentioned iris pulls a minute ago? Well trying to do that with the Fotga out of the box is a headache. That’s because of those annoying aforementioned clicks on the aperture ring. When you have your iris open all the way and you try to smoothly close down a little, there’ll be a clumsy pop as you disengage from the click. Even if you never do an in-shot iris pull, it’s still annoying.

But luckily the aperture control mechanism is pretty simple. It’s just a little bolt jutting into the inner barrel of the adapter that pushes the lens’s aperture actuator lever (the same thing that the camera engages to control the iris). So if you carefully study the actuator lever’s behavior and how it corresponds to the adapter’s bolt, then you can grab some needle-nosed pliers and bend the end of the bolt a little so that it pushes the lever more towards the open iris direction.

By doing this, you’ll reach fully open iris before the adapter’s ring is able to rotate to the “open” click.

If you do it right, it’ll still completely close the iris before the ring rotates to the “lock” click… which means you’ll now have full adjustable range of the iris without engaging the annoying click when wide open. If it takes a little adjusting to get it right, no biggee, it’s a metal bolt and can withstand a little bending. Plus, it only cost like $10. Just make sure you thoroughly clean out the adapter of any metal flakes from using the pliers on the bolt… you don’t want that stuff getting on your sensor or rear lens element.

Whether you’re using a modified Fotga or a Fotodiox, the rotation throw is really short, so doing a smooth in-shot iris pull might be challenging. If you think you’ll need it, I’d recommend this Varavon Sling thingee… it’s a little awkward looking (and I feel like it should have a little fist at the end of it), but it’ll increase the rotation radius to help make up for the adapter’s ring. I have one and it works well for iris pulls.

4. FOCUS RING REMEDY

The Nikon IX focus rings suck. Like suck really hard. Like horribly bad… sucky majoris. Look at this photo:

See the tiny little sliver of a ribbed ring at the very end of the lens barrel? Well that’s the focus ring. It’s way too small to put a geared ring on it for use with a follow focus, and the focus throw is tiny. All the IX lenses are like that. But here’s how to fix that.

First, get a 52mm-82mm step up ring for each of your IX lenses. You can get them for about $2 each on eBay, but with a long ship time from China.

Then get two 82mm UV filters per lens from eBay or wherevs. They should be about $3-4 each. Just get the cheapest you can find. The quality of the threading & metal are irrelevant– you’re not going to be screwing & unscrewing them over and over, which is when that would matter. Once you get them, just carefully break out the glass… like maybe put them in a paper bag and just pop ’em with a hammer. Then carefully clean them out of any tiny glass pieces. Next, take all the shards of glass out of the bag and rub them all over your face. Just kidding, don’t do that. Because of that joke, I’ll probably have to get a lawyer now.

Now just stack all them doodads onto the front of the lens… step up ring + empty 82mm ring + empty 82mm ring. Now there’s a little more travel distance for focusing by hand, but more importantly you now have plenty of room to add a geared lens ring or whatever else.

Because the focus throw was so short to begin with, I’d recommend getting a bigger geared ring to help increase it. I’d suggest this one (these are what I use)… it should be about $17.
Geared lens ring for 75mm-85mm diameter from eBay seller up2uhk

Btw, I’d recommend you change out those screw clamps for my DIY elastic version so you can easily move it from lens to lens. You can read about it in my article about no-budget options for geared rings.

The focus throw is still far from ideal, but it’s now at least useable. And also, like all Nikkor lenses, the focus ring rotation is reversed compared to other lenses, but this is a pretty minor issue.

If you prefer a semi-permanent and more svelte-looking geared ring, you can use Half Inch Rails’ Zip Tie Lens Gears, though the smaller overall circumference will give you less of a focus throw than the other geared ring above. But whatever you’re comfortable with.

THE SUPER BIZARRO CATCH-22

Alright, something’s gotta give. Nikkor optics, stepless aperture, feather light, follow focus compatible with hard stops, and at the price of like four McDonald’s extra value meals? We live in a cruel, cruel world that loves to dangle such sweet globs of nectar in front of you, only to replace it with something grody like a stale McNugget with a hair stuck to it just as your hungry lips are within striking distance. Yeah so, here’s the issue: if you don’t find one with the rear end cap included, then you’ve got a little problem. That’s because the end cap model (Nikon LF-3) is no longer made. How weird & dumb is that? A piece of plastic whose compatriots cost ninety-five cents can mess this all up. Cool, whatevs, you’ll deal. I happened to already have an old Tamrom Adaptall 2 Nikon end cap that works though, so maybe there are some other older third party Nikon end caps that just happen to be long enough, I dunno. Maybe try going to a used camera shop and asking. They’ll often have a box full of random old end caps that you can sift through. The Nikon LF-3 and aforementioned Tamron one are both about 20mm or 7/8″ long if that helps as a guide.

That’s the 20mm long Tamrom end cap that works, and the Nikon LF-3 end cap will have that cute little Illuminati planetary alignment APS logo on it. I probably shouldn’t joke about that, I hope Jay-Z and Kanye don’t come after me.

But really, worst case scenario is that you just permanently keep one of those lens adapters on each lens and get MFT end caps, it’s not the end of the world. Just the world continuing with a little less money in your pocket.

The biggest catch is that it’s likely just a matter of time before other people figure all this stuff out and the IXs’ prices increase.

USING NIKON IX LENSES ON VARIOUS CAMERAS

They should totally work with up to APS-C sized sensors. The APS film negative was 30.2 × 16.7mm, so any sensor that’s APS-C or smaller should be fine. As far as sensors bigger than APS-C, I dunno, I haven’t tried.

One thing to look out for is that these lenses protrude from the rear mount, about 17mm.

So that means they’ll only work with cameras that are using a long enough lens adapter that the rear protrusion won’t hit the camera’s sensor… ie. is the Nikon 46.5mm flange focal distance more than 17mm longer than your camera’s? Though this is in theory, and I haven’t tried them on anything but a GH2.

If you hate reading words in paragraph form and ignored the above section, here’s a neat little list…

MFT: Yes.

Canon EF/EOS: No. There’s only a 2.5mm flange distance difference, so the rear protrusion will smoosh all up against your Canon’s guts an’ stuff.

Nikon DX & FX: No. Like with Canon, it’ll hit the mirror.

Samsung NX: Yes, in theory… though I haven’t tried it.

Sony NEX/E-mount: Yes, in theory… haven’t tried.

Note that this is as of July 2012, so in future times that list may become inaccurate. But you’ll be too distracted by flying cars and at-home plastic surgery kits to care.

OKAY THIS LONG-ASS ARTICLE IS ALMOST OVER

So there ya go. Practice and shoot your own projects with these thrifty amigos, and instead spend your money on lighting & light modifying gear. If you get a sweet client project with a budget, then you just rent pro lenses like Zeiss CP.2s (or even a better camera). Honestly, if you don’t have much money, or are just starting out, this is such a no-brainer to me.

There’s definitely other pricier still lenses that are better suited for video out there, but maybe these will help someone get started.

Here are some sources I pulled some specs from, as well as some further info I’ve dug up online…
imaging.nikon.com/lineup/discontinue/lens.htm
photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#IX
heritagecameras.co.uk/nikon-ix-nikkor-aps-lenses…
photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#IX
kenrockwell.com/nikon/ix-lenses.htm
photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/0090yh

Read more

Panasonic’s GH2: If you’re an aspiring filmmaker then you really really really have no excuse anymore

You’ve probably already heard some stuff about the GH2 and how great it is for video. I bought one and days later used it for a client project, and have since ran some tests. This camera is a big deal. Seriously, I can’t believe this thing exists… for the money, it just can’t be beat. For now at least.

Pictured here with the 14-42mm kit lens, and Fotodiox adapter which puts to use old analog SLR lenses I already done ownededed. Neato.

No need for me to go over all the technical specs, that’s what the entire rest of the internet’s for. Here’s the bits that matter most in regards to low-cost filmmaking (I could care less about it as a stills camera)…

  1. It has a swivel screen, which right off the bat will save lots of time and headache in a no-budget shooting situation. Otherwise there’d be some low/high/oddly angled shots you just wouldn’t be able to get without shelling out for an external monitor.
  2. The Micro Four Thirds format has a sensor that’s slightly smaller than the size of 35mm motion picture film, which means it has a depth of field that’s close to such. Spherical-lensed, 1:85 35mm cine film (the most common format up until the mid/late 90s) has an image area of about 21.95mm x 11.87mm, and the GH2’s sensor in video mode is 18.8mm x 10.6mm (though nowadays nearly all Hollywood non-digital acquired films are shot on 24.89mm x 13.45mm Super 35mm). In my opinion, the mega shallow depth of field obtainable with the Vistavision-sized 36mm x 24mm sensor of the Canon 5D Mark II, while a nice option, is unneeded 99% of the time for video. And once you start shooting actual dramatic/narrative setups with focus-pulling, you’ll appreciate having more breathing room, especially if it’s a no-budget situation where you can’t afford to lose takes to focus problems. Bottom line: the depth of field “shallowness” is beyond good enough.
  3. The video footage looks great. It doesn’t have the aliasing/moiré/pixel-skipping issues that Canon’s 5D Mark II and 7D have… thin diagonal lines are smooth and clean in the GH2. The rolling shutter isn’t too much of an issue, and the compression looks pretty good for AVCHD.
  4. Probably the best thing about the GH2 is that you can use almost any old lens on it. This is huge. Once you make the jump into shooting with interchangeable lenses, the cost of glass usually becomes half the money involved. The flange distance (from back of lens to sensor plane) on the GH2 is really short, way shorter than analog SLR or DSLR formats. So if you simply get a cheap $30-40 adapter (basically just a metal ring that puts the lens further away from the sensor plane), then you can choose from literally hundreds of great old cheap lenses from ebay, garage sales, craigslist, whatever. Like go search for old Nikon F-mount manual lenses on ebay and behold. And on top of that, since the smaller sensor uses only the center of the lens, that means you can usually even resort to using ultra cheapo bad lenses, since most lens problems occur around the edges (you’re also scaling down to, and resolving for, only 1920 x 1080 pixels for video, which is very low res compared to still photos, so lower grade lenses generally should still perform perceptually fine). Take all that money you save and put it to work in front of your lens in the form of props, costumes, locations, actors, whatever. Just note that the effective focal length of 35mm still lenses will be doubled on the GH2… ie. an old 50mm Pentax K-mount lens will look like a 100mm in your footage. So you may end up buying a Micro Four Thirds lens if you like short focal lengths. One more note about using old lenses: if you don’t already own some, I’d recommend going with the Nikon F-mount adapter since there’s a lot of great old cheap Nikon lenses. And an added bonus: if you later get a Canon camera, you can use those Nikon lenses on it with another adapter because the Nikon flange distance is shorter than Canon’s.
  5. The body is only $900. THAT’S JUST FARGING RIDICULOUS THAT YOU CAN GET A CAMERA THAT SPITS OUT FOOTAGE LIKE THIS FOR A PRICE LIKE THAT. I started out with super8, then Hi8 video, then 16mm, then DV, HD… all those formats & cameras had some kind of serious flaw in regards to cost versus quality, and what I see in the GH2 is none of that. This is by far the most bang for your buck I’ve ever seen. And I have a feeling we’ve kinda reached the ceiling for a while in that regard. So waiting around for something better & cheaper is probably not gonna yield anything other than wasted time.

$900 GH2 + $30 Pentax adapter + $220 Peleng 8mm lens = Footage that looks like this. Unheard of. You can peep the raw frame as 90% quality jpeg here.
Okay, so here’s the bad things about it…

  1. You gotta deal with the audio issue… either record double system with something like the Zoom H4n for $300, or plug the GH2 into a BeachTek box. Orrrrrr… if you already have a miniDV or whatever camcorder with decent audio, then you can use that to record audio. Having the visual reference in the audio footage also can make synching sound to picture faster.
  2. It’s usually out of stock, so finding one takes more legwork than just clicking five or six times in your browser. I have a feeling video production companies are buying them in three’s. I wonder if anyone has bought it not primarily for video… probably not, that’s what the Canons are for. REALTALK.
  3. Using multiple old lenses makes using filters complicated. If you’re shooting in direct sun and wanna open up your aperture wider than like f8, you’re gonna need an ND filter. So to not spend mucho bucks on multiple screw-mount ND filters for all the varied lens face sizes, you either need to invest in a matte box & rectangluar filters (very expensive), or get one set of ND filters in a big face size and a step-up ring for each of your lens face sizes (not as expensive).

Of course, there are many higher quality, better workflow video camera options out there (duh), but if you’re looking for a camera to try out filmmaking or up your game from HDV/etc with minimal financial risk, then straight up the GH2 is it. Feel lucky you weren’t born twenty years earlier. Or thirty. Or whatever, you know what I mean.

Check out my recommendations for a barebones budget GH2 kit.

Read more