Interesting article on lenses

[marc]

I found this interesting article on lenses. It basically points out that lenses that are too sharp can actually degrade an image. It mentions that some cinematographers are using old, vintage lenses that are decades old for this reason. When lenses are too sharp they create too much contrast which makes you lose detail in the shadow areas. So, the paradox here is this: Lenses that are too sharp can actually take away detail from the shot.

https://petapixel.com/2020/01/07/low-co ... -use-them/

[jpolzfuss]

To be honest: I've never heard of any cinematographer using low quality lenses or filters to reduce the image quality for any purpose other than shooting dream-sequences or flash-backs. (Okay, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilitis_(film) where they've used this "dreamy look" throughout the whole film to avoid the movie getting rated/banned as pornography.) You'll also notice that your whole article only speaks about digital cameras, like the Sony F55.
So far, only videographers are using such rubbish lenses/filters as they think by mistake that this will turn them into a cinematographer...
And of course, tons of photographers are doing this for special purposes - see Lomo, Holga, ... . But only because of the different look. None of them expects "better" images, only different ones.

BTW: IMHO the article has got several false assumptions. E.g. the comparison of the Nikon lenses from the 1970s and 1990s. IMHO the 1970s Nikon lenses were as good as the newer Nikon lenses when new. The "glow" only comes from the fact that the lenses are now 40-50 years old and hence degraded to a certain degree...

[marc]

The article was just one example. I can show you countless others. But the point that a lot of photographers agree with, including those that shoot classic photographic emulsion, is that the older lenses had a certain "soul" to them. And that quantifying a lens solely based on "sharpness" is pointless. Especially in cinema where the nature of the imagery is fluid and dynamic. Things like sharpness are irrelevant, and many times, subjective. But you cannot ignore the fact that the author of the article speaks the truth about sharp lenses having so much contrast that they miss some of the detail in the shadows. I have experienced this myself with high end Super 8 cameras. So, for all those elitists out there that harp on the mid to low end "Japanozooms", their arguments don't always hold water in practical application.
https://emulsive.org/articles/opinion/i ... simon-king
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bneeb6t2C8I

[marc]

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

[marc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyCumQ78ZoI

[marc]

Many cinematographers have opted to use vintage lenses; because they have soul. When lenses are too sharp they become too clinical, sterile and devoid of any emotion. Manufacturers use lens sharpness as a marketing ploy. When you look at the instruction manuals of those high end Super 8 cameras with sharp lenese like Canon, Nikon, Leicia, etc. you always see pictures in the manual of a guy shooting Marcro ( insects), wildlife (birds), sports analysis, etc. This is what they were marketed for, not cinema in the emotional or entertainment sense.

[marc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk4woeP08LI

[marc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SNcyTL3Mo0&t=23s

[jpolzfuss]

Back in the 70s, nobody used the tele-lens to film birds. However, only Isco was honest enough to show the real use-case on their boxes...

BDDBB617-0DB3-4E0A-B696-D8F2EA3DFC29.jpeg

Once again: using defect or vintage lenses is only for shooters of digital video that are bored by their „too clean“ feel caused by using sensors. (To fix this feeling, they could simply switch to the only real recording media - film )

[marc]

Back in the 70s, nobody used the tele-lens to film birds.

Yeah, they got great close ups with shorter focal lenght primes!