RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Is this supposed to be a response to vashadobri's posts? I'm quoting them again here so they don't get forgotten:
"I'd say that for support for the favored preferences in the domain of cinema lenses, one really needs to look no further than the ideas and constructive practice of - Zeiss itself. (The "problem" is that the alternative visual approach has not found an echo in any series of Zeiss photographic lenses - maybe, here-Leica m-domain, partly with the exception of the 50mm Sonnar.)
Namely, it is precisely as a "deviation" towards similar aesthetic goals in conjuring up images that the Zeiss Supreme (and even more so the newer Supreme Radiance with the new T blue coating) series was created versus the traditional Zeiss Ultra and Master lines... so, that interested and knowledgeable in the issue can more easily consult the solutions of their more extensive documentation.
So, what Dzo actually tries mostly to mimic is, imo, Zeiss Supreme results.
From advertising: "The Zeiss Supreme Primes were developed after heavy consultation with cinematographers across the world. The vintage Zeiss "Super Speeds" have gained popularity with DP's in recent years, given their gentle roll off and sharpness wide open. With the Supreme Primes, Zeiss wanted to give cinematographers a lens series that offered a similar character, but for use in large format cinematography and with modern design reliability. The Supreme Primes have a pleasing roll off on the edge of the full frame, with a lower contrast than previous Zeiss lenses such as the Ultra and Master Primes series."
Or Rodrigo Prieto: "The light sources became a very important point of the story. And the lenses allowed me to utilize the characteristics of them for storytelling. I would describe the look of the Supreme Prime Radiance lenses as relatively soft but with sharpness. These lenses don't have an aggressive sharpness to them, they feel organic."
Finally, given the above examples - those concerning shades of green in vegetation - I would venture to recommend one of, imho, extremely visually gorgeous recent examples of a film shot with Zeiss Supreme lenses - The Eight Mountains:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14641542/
"ZEISS Supreme Primes are specifically designed to produce an aesthetic, smooth focus fall-off that results in a gentle, non-abrupt background blur (bokeh).
- Key Features Related to Background Blur
Aesthetic Focus Fall-Off: A defining characteristic of the Supreme Primes is the very smooth transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas. This gentle roll-off adds depth to the image and avoids the harsh, abrupt blur associated with some other lenses.
- Elegant Bokeh: The out-of-focus background (bokeh) is described as "elegant" and "rounded". This is achieved through a high number of aperture blades: 16 blades for most focal lengths (15mm-100mm) and 18 for the longer ones (135mm-200mm), ensuring a nearly perfectly round aperture shape.
- Gentle Sharpness: While the lenses are very sharp in focus, they have a "gentle sharpness" or "organic look" compared to the more "aggressive" or clinically sharp look of previous ZEISS lenses like the Master Primes. This balance contributes to pleasing skin tones and a smooth image character."
...Show more →
This sounds like the mfr is telling us they have made optical design choices wrt the falloff rate. Given the human physiological response cues are predicated on rates of transition, the comment that the more "harsh" (i.e. less gentle / more rapid / more abrupt) are being avoided, to present a more "natural" rendering is noteworthy, imo.
The point being that, different optics approach this rate of rolloff differently. Imo, the "most abrupt" optics can deliver such a rapid rate of change, that it induces that "cutout" look. Otoh, a very slow rolloff rate renders a bit "flatter".
Imo, as the mfr's pushed the envelope of rate of transitions "abruptly", they are simply acknowledging that "too abrupt" isn't the most natural ... and to a degree, the pendulum is swinging back, a bit. This is something that folks have mentioned time and again, regarding those who prefer that maximum "pop" vs. those who indicate it looks unnatural to yet others.
This rate of change is a matter of preference. Consider that in terms of tonality, some folks find rapid contrast / rolloff in their monochromatic work to be more dynamic (by definition) than work with gentle rolloffs. Others, find the gentle rolloff's to their preference as having a natural rendering, vs. a dynamic one.
In a similar vein, some folks prefer a more abrupt / dynamic transition rate of rolloff, to yield more of a "pop" ("pop" goes the weasel, is essentially a term for abrupt change). As mentioned before, the terminology lends itself toward those who are looking for that abruptness from the focal plane. That, in comparison to those that are looking for excellence in iterative rate of change from the focal plane to give a sense of depth throughout the entire FG > BG of the scene. So, when we mix the terms of "pop" and 3D ... I think the former could be best defined as "most rapid" rate of change. The latter, referring to natural spatial depth rendering cues (as if I'm looking at in person), transitioning the depth of the entire scene.
We've often lamented the lack of proper definitions being an Achille's Heel to the discussion, and have never reached consensus. But, I do think that the term "pop" = "abrupt" transition from the focal plane ... not necessarily the same thing as spatial depth transitions of the entire scene dimensionality. In that manner, the phrase 3D Pop is antithetical ... it's one or the other, not both simultaneously. Kinda tough to have both, an abrupt rate of change and an iterative transitional rate of change simultaneously ... but some designs do aspire for that (I think the "dip" may part of that attempt to emulate both).
The rate of change ... abrupt vs. gradual is the optical designers choice ... and it seems as the designer has acknowledged this by intent, and is offering a different rate of rolloff, that seemingly is designed to present "more natural" depth cues (rolloff) vs. more "abrupt" (dynamic / pop).
Folks will have differing preferences on the matter, but it seems evident that the designers choose how to handle the rolloff in their optical designs. If Zeiss Supreme Primes series has swung the pendulum back from some other designs ... imo, that speaks volumes to the fact that the optical design does influence the rate of change / rolloff from the focal plane. The video links presented of Karbe showed how abruptly Karbe was approaching the rolloff for Leica. Here, we have Zeiss saying they are now going the "other way".
|
