Cine Lenses and DSLR's: What '60s/'70s Lenses Can I Use?

[jnoahu]

I'm gearing up to begin prepro on my upcoming short film, utilizing a DLSR -- most likely a Canon 550D, but it's not yet in stone.

I've created threads in the past that addressed how much I hated being forced to choose digital over film, but time and financial constraints demanded the choice. I'm ultimately content with the DSLR option at this point, except for one particular pet peeve --

Why is it that virtually every DSLR project these days strikes the same visual look?

Something about film forced a distinctiveness from filmmakers of old. You can tell a Truffaut picture from a Cassavetes from an Antonioni from a Scorsese. Obviously being touched by genius helped these folks out (just a smudge). But still, I'm a bit upset with how "samey" the low-budget projects of today seem to my eyes. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Having done my newbie director homework has hammered into me three of the most important words for any kind of cinematic success: lenses, lenses, lenses. It's in the choice and preparation of the lens kit that a picture can live or die. I have a hunch that pinpointed, sophisticated lens work can also create a look that's more personal and distinctive for the filmmaker. Am I wrong about this? Not looking at it broadly enough?

This all leads me to the following questions:

- How do I fit a cine lens onto a DSLR camera?
- What cine lenses were in popular use during the 1960s and 70s?
- How does one track down such a 60s/70s vintage cine lens these days?
- Is it possible to mount a vintage cine lens onto a DSLR camera?


Any and all responses will prove enormously helpful to me and the team. Thanks a lot!

 

[jax_rox]

Having done my newbie director homework has hammered into me three of the most important words for any kind of cinematic success: lenses, lenses, lenses. It's in the choice and preparation of the lens kit that a picture can live or die. I have a hunch that pinpointed, sophisticated lens work can also create a look that's more personal and distinctive for the filmmaker. Am I wrong about this? Not looking at it broadly enough?

Firstly, this is for your DP to worry about/decide. Secondly, the most important factors in how an image looks is the lens, but more importantly lighting. On a DSLR, bad lighting is bad lighting. Good lighting (and a great looking frame) can make up (to some extent) for a softer lens.

- How do I fit a cine lens onto a DSLR camera?

It depends on the camera. You can modify a 7D (or buy a modified 7D) to take PL mount lenses, GH2s can just use an adapter to take PL lenses.
Or, you use 'cinevised' lenses which are not really as good as real cine lenses.

- What cine lenses were in popular use during the 1960s and 70s?

Cooke's and Angeniuex's

- How does one track down such a 60s/70s vintage cine lens these days?

Rental houses or owner/operators who haven't sold their old equipment to buy new digital systems.

- Is it possible to mount a vintage cine lens onto a DSLR camera?

It would depend on the mount of the vintage lens and the specific DSLR.


Realistically, lensing has a lot to do with the look of the film, but lighting has the most (at least from a cinematographer's point of view) to do with the look of the film (ignoring, for the moment, the Production Design which is absolutely crucial).

 

[knightly]

Fotodiox makes $10 adaptors (ebay, amazon) that will let you mount any lens to any camera. Obviously, not a universal adaptors, but a series of them; PK > EOS, MC/MD > EOS, T/2 > EOS, etc...

Your lenses will all end up manual as there aren't electronics that carry through.

 

[escher]

Lenses are important. Lighting is crucial. Everyone is so hung up on film, but if you want to stand out, get solid on your lighting. Second is learning how to color grade correctly. Unlike film, processing digital is like having the latent image on a negative -- you now have to develop your own film.

This is why a lot of digital movies look the same -- this extra developing step really hasn't been figured out by amateurs (and a lot of professionals) yet, and the same set of steps are being applied to arrive at the same look. (Well, that and the fact that general audiences are happy with absolute crap so a lot of Hollywood productions see no reason to do any better.)

 

[jax_rox]

There is a current 'flat' trend, espsecially in commercials when it comes to colour grading. On the topic of grading, there's nothing wrong with what comes out of your camera - Alexa's REC709 colour space still looks great. Colour grading is a very specialist skill, and Hollywood movies look like Hollywood movies because they're paying copious amounts for their DI process and their colourist.

It's not really something you can learn in a couple months and be good at (or even a couple years!). If you're serious about being a colourist, it's going to take you some years of practice to be able to produce results comparable with high end productions.

Lighting is the most important thing. If you light properly, you shouldn't need to grade too much anyway, apart from simply putting some contrast in if you've shot in log.

 

[CraigL]

If you have an iPad, this app http://dalegrahncolor.com/ looks pretty neat to learn/practise colour grading by focusing on the controls one had when it was all done via chemicals and timing.
If, like me, you don't have a iPad, then drop Crumplepop an email and tell them you'd like to see an Android version of this.

 

[jnoahu]

Firstly, this is for your DP to worry about/decide. Secondly, the most important factors in how an image looks is the lens, but more importantly lighting. On a DSLR, bad lighting is bad lighting. Good lighting (and a great looking frame) can make up (to some extent) for a softer lens.

Note to self: enlist a PA with serious lighting experience thanks for the tip

It depends on the camera. You can modify a 7D (or buy a modified 7D) to take PL mount lenses, GH2s can just use an adapter to take PL lenses.
Or, you use 'cinevised' lenses which are not really as good as real cine lenses.

Only possible with a 7D? Or with a 550D as well? If not, I'll have to rearrange some purchasing plans...

Cooke's and Angeniuex's

Thanks. Quick -- off the top of your head, what are YOUR personal favorite films of the 60s/70s that have made use of Cookes or Angenieux's?

Rental houses or owner/operators who haven't sold their old equipment to buy new digital systems.

Any advice on tracking one of these rental houses / owners / operators in Los Angeles? Thanks!


It would depend on the mount of the vintage lens and the specific DSLR.

Realistically, lensing has a lot to do with the look of the film, but lighting has the most (at least from a cinematographer's point of view) to do with the look of the film (ignoring, for the moment, the Production Design which is absolutely crucial).

100% on-board with you re: production design, my team is definitely prioritizing it during pre-pro.

As for lighting... OK here goes: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/11/effective-affordable-ultra-cheap-diy-light-kit

I've used this as a sort of primary reference for assembling a low-budget / high-quality makeshift light kit. Thoughts? Thanks a ton!

 

[jnoahu]

Fotodiox makes $10 adaptors (ebay, amazon) that will let you mount any lens to any camera. Obviously, not a universal adaptors, but a series of them; PK > EOS, MC/MD > EOS, T/2 > EOS, etc...

Your lenses will all end up manual as there aren't electronics that carry through.

@ Knightly... "Fotodiox makes $10 adaptors (ebay, amazon) that will let you mount any lens to any camera. Obviously, not a universal adaptors, but a series of them; PK > EOS, MC/MD > EOS, T/2 > EOS, etc...

Your lenses will all end up manual as there aren't electronics that carry through."

Thanks for this. Pretty technical for a newbie like me. But I'm Googling each word as I type this, also copying and saving for my team.

 

[jnoahu]

Lenses are important. Lighting is crucial. Everyone is so hung up on film, but if you want to stand out, get solid on your lighting. Second is learning how to color grade correctly. Unlike film, processing digital is like having the latent image on a negative -- you now have to develop your own film.

This is why a lot of digital movies look the same -- this extra developing step really hasn't been figured out by amateurs (and a lot of professionals) yet, and the same set of steps are being applied to arrive at the same look. (Well, that and the fact that general audiences are happy with absolute crap so a lot of Hollywood productions see no reason to do any better.)

Sounds like some real wisdom to me!

About the relationship between the lighting and color grading -- could you potentially direct me to any books / sites where I could learn more about this? I'm sure my DP would have quite a bit to say, but anything to help me become more knowledgeable...

And on color grading -- so what would you advise a first-time director do with his project in post, if he didn't wield the years of color grading experience that are necessary? Is his project just lost in the water then?

 

[jnoahu]

There is a current 'flat' trend, espsecially in commercials when it comes to colour grading. On the topic of grading, there's nothing wrong with what comes out of your camera - Alexa's REC709 colour space still looks great. Colour grading is a very specialist skill, and Hollywood movies look like Hollywood movies because they're paying copious amounts for their DI process and their colourist.

It's not really something you can learn in a couple months and be good at (or even a couple years!). If you're serious about being a colourist, it's going to take you some years of practice to be able to produce results comparable with high end productions.

Lighting is the most important thing. If you light properly, you shouldn't need to grade too much anyway, apart from simply putting some contrast in if you've shot in log.

So the gist of this post is ... lenses are important. But lighting is more so. Right?

OK so -- the hypothetical makeup of a tiny low/no-budget crew would be: director, DP, sound technician, lighting technician, and a PA?

 

[jnoahu]

If you have an iPad, this app http://dalegrahncolor.com/ looks pretty neat to learn/practise colour grading by focusing on the controls one had when it was all done via chemicals and timing.
If, like me, you don't have a iPad, then drop Crumplepop an email and tell them you'd like to see an Android version of this.

MAJOR tip here. Thanks seriously so much. Obviously I won't become a color grading wizard in just two months' time (what remains before production is scheduled to start). But better some exposure and understanding than none at all, right?

 

[jax_rox]

Note to self: enlist a PA with serious lighting experience thanks for the tip

Or enlist a Gaffer

You definitely want someone with lighting experience on set - it should be your DP, or at least he should know what he wants out of the lighting and the look. You should have someone to facilitate the DP, especially if you have no camera crew. As a DP myself, I hate being my own Gaffer and AC. It means my work suffers as a whole. There's a reason such crew positions are imperative on most budgeted productions. I'd look into getting either an AC who can set up camera whilst the DP lights, or a Gaffer who can set up lights after chatting with the DP about the look of the scene/shot whilst the DP sets up cam. Ideally, you'd get both.

Only possible with a 7D? Or with a 550D as well? If not, I'll have to rearrange some purchasing plans...

I'm not sure. I never seen a PL modded 550D, but the sensor size and flange depth is similar to the 7D, so I can't imagine it would be too difficult to modify. The 5D Mark x can't be modified because it's flange depth is too long.

Thanks. Quick -- off the top of your head, what are YOUR personal favorite films of the 60s/70s that have made use of Cookes or Angenieux's?

Off the top of my head, my favourite-looking movies from the 60s/70s were Panavision movies that were obviously shot with Panavision lenses. That said, hundreds of movies were shot on Cooke Speed Panchros at the time. Older Cooke's and Angeniuex's are lenses you're most likely to find still around today. I'm not sure where you'd find something like an old Baltar, or even if you'd be able to mount it.

Any advice on tracking one of these rental houses / owners / operators in Los Angeles? Thanks!

Try Clairmont, I know they've got a couple of old Angeniuex zooms, and wouldn't be surprised at all if they had older Cooke Panchros. You want to look for rental houses that have been around for a while, not just started up with the digital revolution.

As for lighting... OK here goes: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/11/effective-affordable-ultra-cheap-diy-light-kit

I've used this as a sort of primary reference for assembling a low-budget / high-quality makeshift light kit. Thoughts? Thanks a ton!

Honestly, whatever works for you. If that lighting setup works great for you, and you get great images out of it then great! Just make sure you keep in mind (or you hire a DP who knows it) that lighting is about telling a story - you're essentially painting with light. It's not just about getting an exposure, or lighting for the sake of lighting.

So the gist of this post is ... lenses are important. But lighting is more so. Right?

Exactly. The two most important factors are your lenses and your lighting. Lensing is important, but lighting is more important. Lensing, lighting and body/format are all important, but the one that will make or break your image the most out of the three is lighting. A badly lit scene is a badly lit scene whether shot on a 550D with a kit lens or on Panavision with Primos. And vice versa.