Zeiss f/0.7: You Can Now Rent Two of the Largest Aperture Lenses Ever Made(petapixel.com)
petapixel.com
Zeiss f/0.7: You Can Now Rent Two of the Largest Aperture Lenses Ever Made
http://petapixel.com/2013/08/05/zeiss-f0-7-you-can-now-rent-two-of-the-largest-aperture-lenses-ever-made/
6 comments
It's a real pity about the distractingly strange bokeh in the example shots. Narrow depth of field (when desired) is a great strength of large-aperture lenses, but if the out-of-focus part is ugly they lose a lot of value for that.
f/0.7 is way past the range of usefully thin depth of field, although this look is somewhat in vogue right now as a way of distinguishing "professional" photography from cameraphone photography.
The reason Kubrick used them was not for their depth of field, but because he was shooting on far slower film than the digital sensors available today. They're relatively pointless today except for their historical/curiosity value.
The reason Kubrick used them was not for their depth of field, but because he was shooting on far slower film than the digital sensors available today. They're relatively pointless today except for their historical/curiosity value.
More specifically, he was shooting a period film with all natural lighting — candles, to be precise, which you may recall are somewhat dimmer than professional lighting setups! (Terence Malick, or rather his cinematographer, does this too)
But yes, the film speed was an issue, since you can't exactly use mega-fast film for 35mm or the grain will be distracting.
But yes, the film speed was an issue, since you can't exactly use mega-fast film for 35mm or the grain will be distracting.
No light in film is natural. As no camera is like a human eye, not matter what apperture it is using.
Proper use of lightning is part of the art. The hardest part for the movie photography director.
What you are saying is that it was better for this movie, as a picture would be better for a realist painter's work.
There are millions of finely executed motion pictures with great image that gave your eyes the impression you were seeing actual candle light, without feeling it was underwater, like Kubrick did.
Proper use of lightning is part of the art. The hardest part for the movie photography director.
What you are saying is that it was better for this movie, as a picture would be better for a realist painter's work.
There are millions of finely executed motion pictures with great image that gave your eyes the impression you were seeing actual candle light, without feeling it was underwater, like Kubrick did.
> with all natural lighting — candles, to be precise
There is nothing at all natural about using several hundred candles in a room. No one would ever do that - a room that size would get 20 at most.
If he had actually used 20 candles and added extra light carefully tinted to match the color of a candle it would actually end up looking much more natural. But then no one would talk about it.....
There is nothing at all natural about using several hundred candles in a room. No one would ever do that - a room that size would get 20 at most.
If he had actually used 20 candles and added extra light carefully tinted to match the color of a candle it would actually end up looking much more natural. But then no one would talk about it.....
Kubrick was shooting on Kodak 5254, pushed one stop to ASA 200.
Today, you could shoot the same scene at ASA 800 with an f/1.4 lens, which is readily available.
Today, you could shoot the same scene at ASA 800 with an f/1.4 lens, which is readily available.
I was twitching on behalf of the 1AC in that dolly shot at the dinner table with an oblique angle. In fact, just looking at the credits[1], there was a dedicated focus puller on the film. The 1AC probably just watched the lens at all times to make sure it wasn't bumped or even thought of roughly.
Thinking that other nerds must be talking about it[2], I found a great thread discussing the ~20cm DOF @ 3m and the tradeoffs that would be involved in shooting a similar setup today. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?65115-Barry-Lyndon-C...
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/fullcredits
[2] I've been fixated on the New Wave and crusty mise-en-scène and so discussion of Kubrick only comes up about once a year. It's always Barry Lyndon, this lens, and how much better the film would have been without Ryan O'Neal. :-)
Thinking that other nerds must be talking about it[2], I found a great thread discussing the ~20cm DOF @ 3m and the tradeoffs that would be involved in shooting a similar setup today. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?65115-Barry-Lyndon-C...
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/fullcredits
[2] I've been fixated on the New Wave and crusty mise-en-scène and so discussion of Kubrick only comes up about once a year. It's always Barry Lyndon, this lens, and how much better the film would have been without Ryan O'Neal. :-)
"he was shooting on far slower film than the digital sensors available today. "
My guess is the hype engine will focus on the idea that if 48 FPS is "twice as good" as 24 FPS then 96 FPS is even better.
In true Hollywood style I bet they'll be post processing to make scenes look like they were filmed with standard lens.
My guess is the hype engine will focus on the idea that if 48 FPS is "twice as good" as 24 FPS then 96 FPS is even better.
In true Hollywood style I bet they'll be post processing to make scenes look like they were filmed with standard lens.
Not "slow" in frames per second, but "slow as in film speed. At the time they could maybe reliably shoot at the equivalent of ISO 800? (some historically informed cinematographer, please feel free to correct me.
On the topic of FPS, though, that's definitely an ongoing issue. I wrote up some of the most salient points a while back here, if you're interested:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/
On the topic of FPS, though, that's definitely an ongoing issue. I wrote up some of the most salient points a while back here, if you're interested:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/
>At the time they could maybe reliably shoot at the equivalent of ISO 800? (some historically informed cinematographer, please feel free to correct me.
It would be unusual to shoot on film stock as fast as ISO 800. In most cases 500 would be the highest. The scenes in Barry Lyndon shot on the f0.7 lenses were actually filmed on ISO 200 stock, partly to avoid too much grain.
Standard film stocks would be 50, 200, 250, and 500 ISO. I know that nowadays Kodak don't produce 35mm film stock greater than ISO 500 (unless as part of a special order).
It would be unusual to shoot on film stock as fast as ISO 800. In most cases 500 would be the highest. The scenes in Barry Lyndon shot on the f0.7 lenses were actually filmed on ISO 200 stock, partly to avoid too much grain.
Standard film stocks would be 50, 200, 250, and 500 ISO. I know that nowadays Kodak don't produce 35mm film stock greater than ISO 500 (unless as part of a special order).
It is quite common to push-process Kodak Vision 500T one stop to ASA 1000.
Of course, Stanley Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon before the widespread availability of T-grained film. Thus, the high-speed film available in 1975 would've been much grainier.
Of course, Stanley Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon before the widespread availability of T-grained film. Thus, the high-speed film available in 1975 would've been much grainier.
What does it mean to "push-process" film to a higher ISO? Is that the film equivalent of shooting digital at ISO 500 and then increasing the exposure a stop in Lightroom?
Similar.
You intentionally underexpose the film when you shoot, pretending that it has a higher ASA rating than it actually does.
You then increase the time and/or the temperature when developing the film, to compensate for the underexposure. You end up with a correctly-exposed image, but at the cost of extra grain, extra contrast, etc.
You intentionally underexpose the film when you shoot, pretending that it has a higher ASA rating than it actually does.
You then increase the time and/or the temperature when developing the film, to compensate for the underexposure. You end up with a correctly-exposed image, but at the cost of extra grain, extra contrast, etc.
Not sample rate, but rather the unrelated concept of "film speed" [1], a measurement of the light sensitivity of a piece of film.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
I was thinking the same thing about the bokeh, but clearly if you don't like how bright points of light in the background look, don't frame your shots that way. The Barry Lyndon shots look great.
This happens a lot with old lenses meant for film. Amusingly, that was a desired effect at the time. It's even more appropriate for a lens made for NASA as a proper lens will render out of focus elements with sharp-ish edges. Refer to the issues with Hubble.
I have some old summiluxes and one summicron that do the same thing on my current digital cameras and, while it's not the "creamy bokeh" many people pursue today, it's a characteristic of the equipment. This was a time when asph lenses were either insanely expensive (although, I seem to remember these lenses were in the $100k range at the time, which is beyond insane) or unavailable.
As with any aberration or distortion (including creamy bokeh) it can be a benefit or a disadvantage. Sometimes you want to eliminate or obscure the background and sometimes you want to remind people that the background is there.
If you talk to someone in a room lit by candles, you're going to have dozens or hundreds of little light sources beside and around them. They're going to catch your eye and, if you wear glasses, you're going to flare.
I have some old summiluxes and one summicron that do the same thing on my current digital cameras and, while it's not the "creamy bokeh" many people pursue today, it's a characteristic of the equipment. This was a time when asph lenses were either insanely expensive (although, I seem to remember these lenses were in the $100k range at the time, which is beyond insane) or unavailable.
As with any aberration or distortion (including creamy bokeh) it can be a benefit or a disadvantage. Sometimes you want to eliminate or obscure the background and sometimes you want to remind people that the background is there.
If you talk to someone in a room lit by candles, you're going to have dozens or hundreds of little light sources beside and around them. They're going to catch your eye and, if you wear glasses, you're going to flare.
You can use Kubrick's lens, but it doesn't come with his skills :)
Does anyone know if there is any technical difficult in producing them in a large scale? (besides the fact that maybe the market is not so big)
If you read up on the Barry Lyndon lenses, you'll find they were customized quite a bit and actually were in danger of crashing through the film plane, so I don't think they would want to make more of these.
As for <F/1 lenses in general, you can manufacture them but the precision required and the quality of glass make it extremely expensive. Cinema primes of that quality can cost tens of thousands of dollars if they are for sale at all.
As for <F/1 lenses in general, you can manufacture them but the precision required and the quality of glass make it extremely expensive. Cinema primes of that quality can cost tens of thousands of dollars if they are for sale at all.
Most lenses such as this are rented for a number of reasons. For example, there's little need for ownership before and after a film is shot, so it's just an expense.
The other is that a lens such as this will be awkward to use on a day-to-day basis. It's specialized and you wouldn't use it for anything except staged and planned photography. You'd have to stop way down (which you would have the flexibility to do) to get a manageable depth of field, but then you'd struggle with artifacts from the iris unless it had a costly number of leaves/blades.
There are 'inexpensive' (~$1k) lenses that come close. I think Voigtländer and Zeiss have a couple options for f/0.95 or /1.0 in 50mm. I don't have personal experience with them (I've only rented the Leica f/0.95 50mm noctilux) but they're amazing when you want to take photos in a dark place.
I'm not sure about SLR and PL-mount lenses, though. The Canon EF mount is very popular in digital filmmaking, so you might find a really wide aperture there. Zeiss Master Series has a T-stop of 1.3, but I don't know the apertures for calculating DOF. (I'm going to guess f/0.95 or f/1.1.)
If you're just after better low light performance, sensors are getting better all the time and are a much less expensive variable to tweak. I'd probably grab a decent f/1.4 or even f/1.8 and then look for the best low-noise sensor I could afford. $2k of sensor would buy you $10k of lens.
The other is that a lens such as this will be awkward to use on a day-to-day basis. It's specialized and you wouldn't use it for anything except staged and planned photography. You'd have to stop way down (which you would have the flexibility to do) to get a manageable depth of field, but then you'd struggle with artifacts from the iris unless it had a costly number of leaves/blades.
There are 'inexpensive' (~$1k) lenses that come close. I think Voigtländer and Zeiss have a couple options for f/0.95 or /1.0 in 50mm. I don't have personal experience with them (I've only rented the Leica f/0.95 50mm noctilux) but they're amazing when you want to take photos in a dark place.
I'm not sure about SLR and PL-mount lenses, though. The Canon EF mount is very popular in digital filmmaking, so you might find a really wide aperture there. Zeiss Master Series has a T-stop of 1.3, but I don't know the apertures for calculating DOF. (I'm going to guess f/0.95 or f/1.1.)
If you're just after better low light performance, sensors are getting better all the time and are a much less expensive variable to tweak. I'd probably grab a decent f/1.4 or even f/1.8 and then look for the best low-noise sensor I could afford. $2k of sensor would buy you $10k of lens.
Not a professional art critic or anything, but they honestly just look like pretty bad shots.
They look like internal lens reflections and not blurred background details to me...
A list of fast lenses on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed#Fast_lenses
There are several lenses around 0.7, and some with even lower f-numbers.
They don't appear to be commercially available, and some of them seem rather special-purpose.
Most are for XRay imaging.
They don't necessarily do a terrible job at optical imaging though. http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=50166
And one of them is a hoax.
Note that the Zeiss f/0.7 casts a pretty small image circle: the camera it's paired with uses a 21.1 x 11.9mm sensor. (75% as big as a Canon APS-C sensor)
21.1 mm x 11.9 mm? So a 24.2 mm diagonal.
Micro Four Thirds (and the non-Micro type) uses a sensor which is 18 mm x 13.5 mm, with a 22.5 mm diagonal. And MFT has no mirror, so the rear element can get as close to the sensor as it likes. Perfect match if you ask me!
Micro Four Thirds (and the non-Micro type) uses a sensor which is 18 mm x 13.5 mm, with a 22.5 mm diagonal. And MFT has no mirror, so the rear element can get as close to the sensor as it likes. Perfect match if you ask me!
Yes, off the top of my head it seems that an F/1.2 lens made for full frame cameras these days would actually offer superior light gathering ability, though the quality of the final image compared with Kubrick's film stills would be doubtless a matter for discussion.
That said, of course, these lenses are marvels and any photographer would be delighted to give them a try — we do value novelty and and uniqueness in this sort of thing.
That said, of course, these lenses are marvels and any photographer would be delighted to give them a try — we do value novelty and and uniqueness in this sort of thing.
As a complete noob about this matter, what is the challenge of building this kind of lens and what makes it special?
Simply put, a bigger aperture means you can let more light in, which means better image quality in low light conditions (don't need to increase film/sensor ISO level as much), and shorter minimum exposure time (for taking photos of super fast actions without blurring). It also gives you a much shallower depth of field which cannot be achieved with something of a smaller aperture.
It is of course more expensive to build a lens like this, because the larger the aperture, the larger your lens cross section has to be (to actually let the light in), and the harder it is to design such a big lens that minimizes optical aberrations. With glass, the maximum aperture size theoretically achievable is around f/0.5, anything bigger and you will have to use something with a higher index of refraction than glass. So f/0.7 is very impressive.
It is of course more expensive to build a lens like this, because the larger the aperture, the larger your lens cross section has to be (to actually let the light in), and the harder it is to design such a big lens that minimizes optical aberrations. With glass, the maximum aperture size theoretically achievable is around f/0.5, anything bigger and you will have to use something with a higher index of refraction than glass. So f/0.7 is very impressive.
> that minimizes optical aberrations
There is an interesting idea to simply let the lens have its aberrations and correct for them in software. i.e. customize the sensor to match the exact aberrations of the lens so the end result is normal.
There is an interesting idea to simply let the lens have its aberrations and correct for them in software. i.e. customize the sensor to match the exact aberrations of the lens so the end result is normal.
You'll see synthetic depth of field effects in a lot of stock photography intended for websites. The subject is sharp and the rest of the image is blurred, like shallow depth of field but it's faked in photoshop.
Bit of a waste to couple those lenses with anything but the most exceptional of sensors
Cool, so it'll be on the Nokia 1030, right?