I always said go for a cheap one and then when you feel that you have reached the limit of that cheap lens then get the more expensive one You will have to force yourself to find out the difference between these two and maximise the usage of the expensive lens
+AppleIsTheBest So true. I'm getting into video shooting myself now, and it's so easy to get caught up with thinking that expensive gear will help you significantly somehow. Admittedly, I decided relinquish my Nikon D5100 for a Panasonic G7 - but 4K with 2015 technology vs 1080p from 2011: There really is no competition. And that is something to take into consideration too - lenses, in their relatively simple nature reached close to their maximum capacity 40-50 years ago. I'm no expert, but when you see people shooting with lenses from the 60's and 70's on today's cameras, and you cannot spot the difference, I think that proves my point. It's like with audio equipment: You kinda reached maximum (perceived) fidelity a loooong time ago. The digital stuff though, like higher resolution and bitrates and whatnot, still has a long way to go. Read reviews and check out YT clips, then decide what you need.
@ast5515 - it's the same scenario for the target audience. Since when do the audience get to see uncompressed footage on the best color corrected monitors? Never. Many production these days only end up on streaming platforms like youtube or netflix where quality drops anyway.
zeebazu nyeh, never had that problem with the awkward couple making out or people being on their phone, tbh. I've always paid attention to the screen. The reason no one complained about found footage image quality is because of the contextual understanding that most people don't record home videos with a professional gear. Hell, some of the found footage films look better than they should, unless Fincher's directing the film.
Satrio Prahasto I actually never heard complain about quality at all! Not just found footage. Regular consumers don't care because they don't know what to look for so they don't complain either. I am an audio guy primarily although I love camera so got into photo and video as well. In the audio world mix engineers are fighting all the time with one another about one brand of compressor or software vs hardware or what sounds warm and what sounds harsh etc etc all the stuff they can find to put blame of their incompetence on. I just laugh because audience just don't know about these. While they are wasting time nitpicking about the slightest differences, they could have probably polished three more songs and made them sound much more expensive.
zeebazu i can definitely tell the difference when they switch footage from Imax to non-Imax in an Imax screen, but in standard its barely noticeable when they change quality between different shots unless you take a couple of seconds just to focus on that
ShiniSpot i really saw some difference like some pixels were appearing on A and then on B it looks even better like in a Far away object , As well as for C it's similar to B but it as u said better for Night shooting due to the (also) wide lens
It's because in the night shot there are less aperture blades on the cheap canon lens so the "bokeh balls" are less circular and more jagged. That's the only one that stood out to me :3
ShiniSpot Hey RocketJump and people! First, thanks a lot for starting a film school, you guys have quite literally shaped my ideology of film making. I actually just finished editing and posting a new short film on my channel and it would mean a whole lot if anyone would leave a comment and let me know what you think.
So filmmakers it turns out are just like musicians. They sweat the petty details that 99.9999% of their audience not only don't care about, but can't perceive. Thanks for making this video. I know now to never spend more than $500 on a lens!
Patrick Burns When most content you get online are compressed, its barely noticeable. I think the real difference comes when you watch it in theaters or better an Imax screen
Patrick Burns There is still value in buying or renting out expensive cine lenses. Specifically when shooting fictional narrative films where the actors or the camera moves within a shot, having a cine lens makes focusing on a shallow depth of field so much easier and more accurate. But for regular run-and-gun shoots, cheaper photography lenses are definitely a better option both price wise and in practicality of use.
+euphoria mania You still won't notice it in theaters unless you are looking for the difference. But a big factor in these things isn't whether or not people notice the difference, but whether they automatically perceive it differently based on the quality of the lens.
+Patrick Burns I don't think $500 is a hard number to adhere to, honestly. I spent ~$700 on my Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and it was absolutely worth every penny I spent on it (they're cheaper now but I bought it a while ago). If you want a decent zoom, getting close to $1000 isn't out of the question, either. Spending 5-figures on a lens is just stupid, though. The differences from $1000 to $10,000 are completely negligible for 99% of people.
The reason for the short focus ring endpoint distance on the Canon lenses is because they are built for photography and meant to be used with autofocus, which can pull focus quicker and accurately with small turns. Those expensive lenses are manual and therefor have a bigger ring ratio for the exact reason you mentioned - so you can pull focus more precisely with your fingers. It's worth looking into old manual lenses if you are on a budget but still want long focus stops for filmmaking. Old photo lenses with a M42 mount and an EF adapter work great with Canon DSLR's and other cameras that can mount EF.
sanderaits, we tried carl zeiss prime manual lenses on our indie feature film on nikon d800 camera but felt the focus ring distance is too much and they were ruining the shots fully for moving subjects so switched back to nikon prime lenses because it is so much convenient to shoot in the real world for subject tracking shots, pans, handheld tracking shots etc :) .. yes it cant be too short distance too but guess there will be an average distance for convenient focus pulling and nikon prime lenses have got it just right for these..
@@NarendraKumarJ Because cine lens are meant to be used with focusing motors and to have a puller, a guy whose job is solely to pull focus. If you run and gun, it is much simpler to use photo lens.
+Kung Cidro Their entire job is making the the picture in the viewfinder of the camera look amazing. They are the ones are mentioned by freddie who tell the director/producer what lens they need for what shot. Their entire job is basically picking the right camera and lens for the job :P
Big fail for the so called 'experts' spewed a load of industry babble and could barely get a better than guess result. Just goes to show that for all their 'experience' they still couldn't advise their way out of a wet paper bag. Career crushed.
The only ones i knew i was correct was the last 3. All based on quality of bokeh. Canon had cat eyes 5000 one had hard edge bokeh The master prime soft round bokeh. Everything else would be straight up guessing
+Evi1M4chine Yea, with that deviation, the experts could not tell (as it was indistinguishable from noise). "The way they differentiate themselves" is through "good engineering and design", not any other metric.
what are you talking about??? I understood everything. I said that the GUY IN THE MIDDLE didn't understdand because they said earlier that he knows nothing of the subject, I just thought his confused look was funny.
This literally is one of the most well-thought-out, well made, videos I've seen on UA-cam in the last few months . Great production. Extremely Interesting And fun
I know right! They had two people who obviously knew what they were talking about, AND seen it on a large screen. People steady in comments: well its not big enough to compare. People just like to be pretentious. The point was that you can't tell the difference and its true!
I understand where they're coming from when they say that there's more space to work within with the more expensive lenses, but the value levels just go off the deep end once you get to that 10-15,000$ deep end.
A good carpenter never blames his tools. Even though I have all the Zeiss stuff etc, I still love the Soviet/Russian lenses made from the 50s until 80s because they have character and sharpness is overrated anyway, because many people have sharpness in their work but a lack of "sharpness" in their direction and concept. Oh and c-mount lenses on m43 cameras are way fun to use!!
The major difference in the regular photographic lenses and cine lenses is not the quality, its the operation. 1 Better smoother focus ring with great numbering and a lock. 2 Aperture ring 3 smoother zooming ring
smith jonson I actually have the 14mm and the 135mm and the 135mm F2 has been proven to be sharper then the canon L counterpart for about $200-$300 less at that. So yeah I'd recommend them :) Excellent value for money.
cheap hmm eh you might have to drop a little bit of money. I'm sure there is something but it depends on your camera. My first through was the canon stm 18-135 or 28-135 non stm, but it all depends on your camera and your needs. Samyang/rokinon (like zeiss) only makes primes so you might want to look at a mid range lens or renting something a little more expensive (like a 24-105 lens)
Usually, sharpness and other problems are more visible in photos, since you have to push lenses to its limits. Movies usually use less resolution, even 4k. I always say to people: if you are a photographer, invest in your lenses, you will notice a huge difference. If you are a film maker, invest in tripods, monopods, lighting equipment, etc etc, you can get away with it.
+Stephan Eilert You are very right about video, nobody can see difference between lenses. Can you tell any side where is honest tested side by side, with full size pictures cheap vs expensive lens ? And dont forget that camera af must fine tune to lens. I have sony a99 and many 20- 100e lenses and my lenses make exellent resolution after af fine tune. Bokeh is something like you compete who can see better looking unsharp. I think it is idiotism.
You don't need to spend to much to get nice glass for photography. Well not 5 gs anyway. as in all visual medium the gear is less important than the skill. Know your gear, learn how light works, have experience, tell a story. To paraphrase Tony Notchup "High end gear is a time saver" you can achieve similar results with extra time. Course not totally true, come on You will never get a f0.95 look from any gear you have, it still hold some weight. Specially shoot mid apertures. I shoot Sony and my favoriate lens is a old Minolta AF 100mm f2.8 1:1 Macro. It is nicer looking than my Zeiss 16-35, 35, 55, 85, 24-70.
Stephan Eilert I completely agree there! With the video even when you're slightly off focus it still looks in focus with photography it's not that way if it's out of focus you can tell it's out of focus I don't know why motion hides that a little bit more maybe it is because the resolution you shooting. A 24 megapixel stills camera is not 4K, it's much larger than that. I think he was right to mention that people just want to show off all I can afford this lens and I can afford that lines the same goes for photographers some people don't even know how to shoot they just have the money to own very expensive lenses and pretend their photographers. At the end of the day like everything else the lenses the cameras and even the computer just tools if you don't know how to tell a story I think he was right to mention that people just want to show off all I can afford this lens and I can afford that lines the same goes for photographers some people don't even know how to shoot they just have the money to own very expensive lenses and pretend their photographers. At the end of the day like everything else the lenses, the cameras, and even the computer just tools. If you don't know how to tell a story, or capture a moment then the most expensive lens in the world won't help you any.
You also displayed the 5k footage scaled down to 1080p for the judges... its almost impossible to tell what detail is actually being resolved by the lenses at less than 1/4 resolution. You need to display on a large 4k+ projection or monitor to begin to notice the difference in most cases.
MaghoxFr youre right but youre also wrong. 4k is gonna be standard in like what... 3 years? and people will still be watching films and youtube videos that are shot now. so now it doesnt make that much of a difference but when 4k monitors are £200 (so like a good 1080p monitor now) i dont see many people sticking with 1080p
***** You overestimate the adoption rate of technology. If you look at Steam's hardware survey for May 2015, you will see that only 34% of the people surveyed use 1080p monitors and the percentages are way lower for resolutions higher than 1080p. Surprisingly 28% are using 2x 1080p monitors and the last large chunk to take into consideration are the people who are using 1366x768 (more than likely laptop users) that weighs in at 26%. Even if there is a dramatic shift to 4k in desktop environments (hardware requirements leave me skeptical), at best it'll be 30% in 5 years or so. Also if anything, 1080p usage will rise in the coming years as it becomes cheaper to put 1080p displays into 15inch laptops. store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
JSKAI yea I definitely see where you're coming from, but remember that the steam survey only covers gamers. I know people that don't know what steam is but have a 1440p iMac. Apple is also slowly gonna replace the normal iMac with the retina ones. And yes I definitely agree about laptops. For most people it won't be 3-4 years I guess. Also high end laptops are starting to come with 2k+ screens as well. Either way why not future proof and shoot everything in 4k :)
Thanks for making this. A whole lot of people (myself included) shell out a crap bunch of cash for gear that they have no use for (or at least want to). Really, those super pricey lenses and cameras are made in a very specific way to meet specific needs. I'm happy to see someone whose such an experienced filmmaker explain that the "cool gadgets" are widely unnecessary but can come in handy at times.
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) It is, but doesn't mean image quality doesn't matter. How many videos on youtube do you see where people complain " What did you shoot this with, a potato?" That, and there's technical and artistic things you can do with the image that convey something.
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) Audio and editing is more important than the image quality too, almost everything is more important than image quality. What makes images "good" is mostly composition
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) Well please allow me to disagree. Image quality is not about pixels or about how accurate a lens performs. It is about composition, lighting, framing, movement and the correct use of a particular lens. And of course about using digital video graded and tweaked to death or real film. Still a huge difference! Great cinematographers can tell stories just by using these devices (and great music and sound effects plus editing). BUT: certain shots require great lenses (low light situations, shallow depth of focus to tell the audience where to look, what's important - all story telling devices!). Just take Stanley Kubrick, the all time master cinematographer. For "Barry Lyndon" he short with natural candle light. He ordered special lenses from NASA. Not joking! Can't shoot that kind of image through a glass shard, piece of plastic or a bottom of a bottle. Image quality (not necessarily technical quality) matters a LOT - because master cinematographers can tell stories even with minimal or no dialog, using the right lenses as tools. It's not just the story that matters - it's HOW it's told.
We really are. Just the ability to shoot video and tweak it to look like film is such a great advancement. I think back to my two years at NYU dealing with Moviolas, waiting on labs, transferring, editing (then matching and editing again on the negative to match the edited workprint), syncing...It was both time consuming and financially prohibitive for the starting filmmaker. Today with a decent lens and a good prosumer camera, it's a pleasure.
+Thomas I disagree. I don't think we are in a great age. In the 60's and 70's anyone can get a camera and make a great movie. "Perhaps it sounds ridiculous, but the best thing that young filmmakers should do is to get hold of a camera and some film and make a movie of any kind at all." - Kubrick. Also the golden age of cinema has ended. Films are slowly dying. Nowadays people spend more time on UA-cam than watching movies.
I think the most obvious giveaway is the last night shot, the shape and quality of the lights as the come into focus... they are misshapen in A, and become more round and clean in B, and completely smooth and perfect in C.
It's true that virtually no-one will be able to tell the difference, particularly if they're absorbed into a storyline but I also think it's great that we have the people who do care about that last 5% of quality to ensure everyone else always sees the best.
The point made @7:17 about degree of control over focus is really solid. It can be incredibly difficult in lower light to get sharp focus when you're doing it manually, it can be incredibly embarrassing to get your shots back and see that they weren't in focus. The greater fine control you have over focus the safer I feel with a lens.
When I like a video, I usually press that like button at the end... but for this one I had to hit it when Freddie (?) burst through the lens chart! There were many other moments that I appreciated. I really enjoyed your video and that you put production effort into things like the lens chart in Skyfall's painting frame, editing around the moving people, even though it was a tiny part of the whole. I really like the style you have and look forward to seeing your past work as well as what is to come.
I understand that the channel is for newbs, which so far is pretty cool and entertaining. I would suggest when talking cinematography, Perhaps start at the beginning... explain what ISO does, what F-stops are, and how they balance each other. Cinematography can get crazy bogged down in tech most wont understand at first. It's boring, but i'm sure you guys can do well to make it cool. All the best: -Chill bro Film student at LMU
SteamBunnyProd I don't know, I think they started off at an okay point. There's plenty of pre existing resources on the internet already where a complete noobie could go to find those answers. they're starting right where I think someone who is just past the point of knowing their way around a camera enough :)
As the inimitable Ken Rockwell once said, "If you can shoot well, all you need is a disposable, toy camera or a camera phone to create great work. If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a [top of the line Nikon] or Leica; your work will still be uninspired."
If you attach a follow focus ring to DSLR lens it'll make pulling figure much easier by increasing the diameter on smaller lenses. You'll have to travel farther to reach same focus point.
+CheapAssReviews I was just being silly, because it's pretty much assumed that you'll be using a follow focus for pulling focus with any of the lenses in this review. So the point still stands: a stills lens is going to have much less travel than a cine lens.
+Darktrack Studios if you attach something like this (www.ebay.com/itm/like/270932102641?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_ref=http%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F711-117182-37290-0%252F2%253Fmtid%253D1588%2526kwid%253D1%2526crlp%253D112158380529_324272%2526itemid%253D270932102641%2526targetid%253D186358896009%2526rpc%253D0.16%2526rpc_upld_id%253D74747%2526device%253Dm%2526mpre%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.com%25252Fulk%25252Fitm%25252Flike%25252F270932102641%25253Flpid%25253D82%252526chn%25253Dps%2526adtype%253Dpla%2526googleloc%253D9061292%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D629907517%2526adgroupid%253D33360053409%2526rlsatarget%253Dpla-186358896009%2526gclid%253DCjwKEAjwrcC9BRC2v5rjyvSbhWASJACKkjDzIamNzuwLk1_tIyQVVvxCr3ixZreMHpUlpDZ9xu-athoCHrHw_wcB%2526srcrot%253D711-117182-37290-0%2526rvr_id%253D1077157195940&ul_noapp=true ) you'll have a larger diameter and then more pull.
I HAD to stop the vid in the middle to make a comment. The moment that 007 sits down to stare at the painting I heard the audio beacon for The Emergency Broadcast System I ROLLED. BRILLIANT! But then I realised . . . it wasn't in the video, but was an ambient sound in my house (from the furnace to be exact) which somehow makes it even funnier. I'd never heard the furnace sound quite like that until this video. Well Done!
Superb work guys. Love the values behind this video. The guys in the couch talk about pushing the lens to its extremes, which makes sense as a creative decision, but is rarely done on features so in that context has little value for this discussion. Keep up the great work, what really matters is the audience and if they're experience is improved.
I just want to say thanks, what you guys are doing is amazing. I've spent countless hours online searching for a resource like this channel. I think it's great that you guys are giving this information away for free. Thank you so much, keep up the great work.
I feel like the only way they even got the extra answers were from specifically looking for more blurring and vignetting when it was wide open and noticing the number of aperture blades on the bokeh. Stuff that isn't at all subjective image quality but specifics qualities in lenses that are obvious tells about the type of lens you're using. I try to justify sharpness in lenses when buying for product photography, but even then you can fake and make up for so much of that in post that it realistically goes into the realm of snobbery very quickly. A good lens isn't going to make you a better photographer/cinematographer, it's just going to make your job easier. A pro with a shit lens will embarrass an amateur with the world's most expensive equipment any day.
Why did no one mentioning breathing, put your camera with inexpensive DSLR glass on a tripod with out panning or tilting, just still. Than rack focus and it will look bad in all situations, no possible solution than to change to the real stuff. A comparison with a rokinon cinema lens for example would therefore be much more interesting.
Questioning Humanity I still say pick the cheapest one and shoot lots of stuff. Your first few videos will be shit, and you're just seeing if you're into it or not.
+Joe Jr. More appropriate would be to buy something one notch up from the cheapest. In particular get something with at least a passable focus ring. In practice the canon 50 shown is almost unusable for a lot of video shots because not only is the focus change quick, but the ring is tiny and on the front of the lens, meaning more shake and accidental hand-in-shot moments. Don't blow the bank, but don't cripple yourself either if you don't have to.
Or basically any format other than super iMax.and even then most people will not care. It could be beautiful and have a terrible story or bad acting and nobody is going to recommend it.
Thank you for doing these! These videos make it so much easier for people like me to do some amatuer film-making, and go to show that you actually CAN do a lot with only a little budget! I'll definitely be watching more of these. Thank you.
Excellent video. Greatest value was the DPs sharing their thoughts about cheap gear vs expensive gear and the differences, and also their opinions in general about use and our generation. That kind of stuff in extremely valuable to aspiring videographers.
Man, you are waaaay too funny and I laughed my socks off! Glad I've stumbled on your channel and therefore I immediately clicked on the 'SUBSCRIBE' button!
...those were two of the douchey-est DP's ever. They spend 5 minutes explaining how it was obvious to them which was which and heres why and they only guessed half of the shots correctly!?
I liked that. Its pretty much the same all over the comments here. People saying: "oh yeah I could completely tell the difference" and "well I have no other medium to watch youtube vids but on my phone, so the fact that I'm wrong doesn't mean anything" I thought they were gonna get more correct too lol ...just shows you don't get cocky!
This reminds of the debates in the audio world transitioning to digital. Great audio engineers got embarrassed when asked to pick which tracks were compressed vs the lossless ones. The arguments for the lenses are exactly the arguments for vintage mics. And don’t get me wrong, there is a difference. But tech has a way of catching up to the point of make the difference less and less apparent. That being said I thought the rack focus argument was a good one. Both in the sense of how more fine tune control you have, and of how the lens reacts going through the transition. I also just liked the video. It’s funny, well paced, and entertaining.
So let me get this straight = your "expert" DPs want expensive lenses because of their imperfections? I call bullshit to this whole deal. It's as bad as h-ifi ripoff merchants, only most pro audio folk don't fall for it. For the difference in price, the results should be like chalk and cheese, but I struggled to tell the lenses apart, and even then, it wasn't clear which of them was objectively "better" in any way. Even you experts were barely better than random. It's laughable!
I don't know if this is just me? But the last shots at night, you can really see the difference in the images. The "bokeh balls" In the first shot were slightly egg shaped. Which is produced by the cheap Canon 50mm (marked as Lens A). The more expensive the lens, the better quality of "bokeh balls". You can tell in the last shot that they were perfectly rounded. I guess coming from a photographer's standpoint, we really see a difference in the images because we work with such a high quality image. Expensive lenses are worth the price aesthetically speaking.
Well this is relatable to guitars. It's like a low end all laminate guitar, vs a mid range solid wood guitar, vs a hand crafted high end solid wood guitar. The tone difference may not sound different to someone who doesn't play guitar, but to someone who actively plays guitar will notice an enormous difference in tone between the three
Awesome, fantastic test. I hope you extend this using what the guys were talking about with ease of rack focus etc. with the cheaper lenses too. I was hoping you would show all of the footage with explanations of which was which, but I guess that's what the full comparison video is going to be, so thanks!
Great video! So funny, I laughed out loud a few times. But with reminders of humility when they get too pumped up about themselves. Some of the best thoughts I've heard on this subject. So, if racking focus is not critical to a shoot and viewing takes place on say 80 inches or smaller, cheaper is way to go. Very good points on when to use an expensive lens. This video also demonstrates the importance of story and humor. It's so well-done, I'd be happy shooting on Jamie's dad's VHS camcorder. I'm old enough to where my dad bought the two-piece tethered unit.
Thoroughly enjoyed this video. I shoot with a BMCC and DSLR lenses and enjoy seeing something like this that helps me feel better about what I do. BTW you've gained a quality subscriber, thanks for the video!
AndreasSheiLT It's neither. It's all about the person operating the camera. If you can't properly frame a shot or know how to pull focus then no amount of expensive fancy hardware will save you. There's photographers out there that can capture gorgeous images and footage using some of the cheapest hard ware you can find or even build their selves. Same goes for pretty much any other tool out there. :)
in my opinion, the biggest difference a sensor makes is in its dynamic range and how it handles light.. resolutions have gotten a bit ridiculous lately and I doubt most people will be able to tell the difference between 4k and 6K (or even larger than that) and of course the person operating is very important! and the story is obviously above everything else!!! but i was talking about only technical stuff here..
AndreasSheiLT for the most part, most people cant tell the difference between 2 and 4k...from what I hear from some cinematography friends is that they are trying to get to 31k+ as its supposed to represent "true to life" representation
I always said go for a cheap one and then when you feel that you have reached the limit of that cheap lens then get the more expensive one
You will have to force yourself to find out the difference between these two and maximise the usage of the expensive lens
You hit the nail on the head.
+AppleIsTheBest that's why your name is AppleIsTheBest
+AppleIsTheBest So true. I'm getting into video shooting myself now, and it's so easy to get caught up with thinking that expensive gear will help you significantly somehow. Admittedly, I decided relinquish my Nikon D5100 for a Panasonic G7 - but 4K with 2015 technology vs 1080p from 2011: There really is no competition. And that is something to take into consideration too - lenses, in their relatively simple nature reached close to their maximum capacity 40-50 years ago. I'm no expert, but when you see people shooting with lenses from the 60's and 70's on today's cameras, and you cannot spot the difference, I think that proves my point. It's like with audio equipment: You kinda reached maximum (perceived) fidelity a loooong time ago. The digital stuff though, like higher resolution and bitrates and whatnot, still has a long way to go. Read reviews and check out YT clips, then decide what you need.
And I'm sitting here watching the footage that was downsampled and compressed by UA-cam trying to tell the difference.
Not the best scenario.
@ast5515 - it's the same scenario for the target audience. Since when do the audience get to see uncompressed footage on the best color corrected monitors? Never. Many production these days only end up on streaming platforms like youtube or netflix where quality drops anyway.
zeebazu The cinema?
zeebazu nyeh, never had that problem with the awkward couple making out or people being on their phone, tbh. I've always paid attention to the screen. The reason no one complained about found footage image quality is because of the contextual understanding that most people don't record home videos with a professional gear. Hell, some of the found footage films look better than they should, unless Fincher's directing the film.
Satrio Prahasto I actually never heard complain about quality at all! Not just found footage. Regular consumers don't care because they don't know what to look for so they don't complain either. I am an audio guy primarily although I love camera so got into photo and video as well. In the audio world mix engineers are fighting all the time with one another about one brand of compressor or software vs hardware or what sounds warm and what sounds harsh etc etc all the stuff they can find to put blame of their incompetence on. I just laugh because audience just don't know about these. While they are wasting time nitpicking about the slightest differences, they could have probably polished three more songs and made them sound much more expensive.
zeebazu i can definitely tell the difference when they switch footage from Imax to non-Imax in an Imax screen, but in standard its barely noticeable when they change quality between different shots unless you take a couple of seconds just to focus on that
Loved the bits with the focus charts. Especially the skyfall one "makes me feel a little melancholy"
Me too. Told me this wouldn’t be a serious lens comparison right from the beginning.
I can't see any difference, except in the night shoot... Interesting
ShiniSpot i really saw some difference like some pixels were appearing on A and then on B it looks even better like in a Far away object , As well as for C it's similar to B but it as u said better for Night shooting due to the (also) wide lens
It's because in the night shot there are less aperture blades on the cheap canon lens so the "bokeh balls" are less circular and more jagged. That's the only one that stood out to me :3
ShiniSpot Hey RocketJump and people! First, thanks a lot for starting a film school, you guys have quite literally shaped my ideology of film making. I actually just finished editing and posting a new short film on my channel and it would mean a whole lot if anyone would leave a comment and let me know what you think.
Alfie Vaughan Films I found the zeiss were a lot sharper
Then your eyes are more finely tuned than mine sir :3
So filmmakers it turns out are just like musicians. They sweat the petty details that 99.9999% of their audience not only don't care about, but can't perceive. Thanks for making this video. I know now to never spend more than $500 on a lens!
Patrick Burns When most content you get online are compressed, its barely noticeable. I think the real difference comes when you watch it in theaters or better an Imax screen
Patrick Burns There is still value in buying or renting out expensive cine lenses. Specifically when shooting fictional narrative films where the actors or the camera moves within a shot, having a cine lens makes focusing on a shallow depth of field so much easier and more accurate. But for regular run-and-gun shoots, cheaper photography lenses are definitely a better option both price wise and in practicality of use.
+euphoria mania You still won't notice it in theaters unless you are looking for the difference. But a big factor in these things isn't whether or not people notice the difference, but whether they automatically perceive it differently based on the quality of the lens.
+Patrick Burns I don't think $500 is a hard number to adhere to, honestly. I spent ~$700 on my Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and it was absolutely worth every penny I spent on it (they're cheaper now but I bought it a while ago). If you want a decent zoom, getting close to $1000 isn't out of the question, either. Spending 5-figures on a lens is just stupid, though. The differences from $1000 to $10,000 are completely negligible for 99% of people.
Kaleido but are the subtle differences in a $700 lens even going to be noticed by anyone but you? You're actively *looking* for them.
Viewers: if you're actually interested in being a cinematographer or shooting movies, you'd do well to ignore everything said in this video.
8:17 the 2 seconds waiting for him to notice made me feel uneasy
I'm a Jamie type of person.
+Trapstep Network jamie hyneman type :DDD
Me too...
#TeamJamie
#TeamJamie
Purest We love you.
The reason for the short focus ring endpoint distance on the Canon lenses is because they are built for photography and meant to be used with autofocus, which can pull focus quicker and accurately with small turns. Those expensive lenses are manual and therefor have a bigger ring ratio for the exact reason you mentioned - so you can pull focus more precisely with your fingers.
It's worth looking into old manual lenses if you are on a budget but still want long focus stops for filmmaking. Old photo lenses with a M42 mount and an EF adapter work great with Canon DSLR's and other cameras that can mount EF.
sanderaits, we tried carl zeiss prime manual lenses on our indie feature film on nikon d800 camera but felt the focus ring distance is too much and they were ruining the shots fully for moving subjects so switched back to nikon prime lenses because it is so much convenient to shoot in the real world for subject tracking shots, pans, handheld tracking shots etc :) .. yes it cant be too short distance too but guess there will be an average distance for convenient focus pulling and nikon prime lenses have got it just right for these..
+sanderaits Some photography lens have much better focusing rings, but as a cost tradeoff it makes sense for that reason.
@@NarendraKumarJ Because cine lens are meant to be used with focusing motors and to have a puller, a guy whose job is solely to pull focus. If you run and gun, it is much simpler to use photo lens.
the two guys to the right look so fucking nervous finding out the results lol. jiggelin their feet like kids on christmas eve
+Kung Cidro Because it's supposed to be their job. And they didn't do /that/ any better than the other dude.
+Kung Cidro Their entire job is making the the picture in the viewfinder of the camera look amazing. They are the ones are mentioned by freddie who tell the director/producer what lens they need for what shot. Their entire job is basically picking the right camera and lens for the job :P
+Aaron66111 yeah and they are so scared they might find out that their job isnt needed 😆
+Kung Cidro bc this was a circle jerk and they knew it lol... they had no fuckin idea what they were looking at. esp floppy hair
Big fail for the so called 'experts' spewed a load of industry babble and could barely get a better than guess result. Just goes to show that for all their 'experience' they still couldn't advise their way out of a wet paper bag. Career crushed.
The only ones i knew i was correct was the last 3. All based on quality of bokeh.
Canon had cat eyes
5000 one had hard edge bokeh
The master prime soft round bokeh.
Everything else would be straight up guessing
What
+Twisted Chikon bokeh is when a light is out of focus and it makes a cool bright circle
Deez Nutz
Oh, okay.
Exactly.. Bokeh was easy to identify.. I thought it was C > B > A. What did you think.
I was thinking at least 7k lens would have awesome bokeh.
why the fuck they didn't tell us the results??? I wanted to know which shot was which lens!
+dligac I was annoyed by this too...!!!! Also the blabla of the guys was as interesting for me as this cryptic test picture he is holding all the time
+Evi1M4chine Yea, with that deviation, the experts could not tell (as it was indistinguishable from noise).
"The way they differentiate themselves" is through "good engineering and design", not any other metric.
***** I could tell tho
+dligac So you don't need the results.
IamAlso aDeer I wanted to know if I was right
This is really well made, i am looking forward to the rest of this series :)!
Video education, well done, thanks a lot!
Juggling $45000 camera lenses lmao
My Names Tommy I would pay a dollar to see that, and an extra dollar to see that fail.
kuyanatnatdkrx7 You might need to pay $44999 more in order to see that.
+kuyanatnatdkrx7 if you can get 22,500 more people to pay that, I'll juggle
i nearly died watching him say that
+My Names Tommy except they are built to be thrown and still working, so he can actually juggle them and be fine
7:52 *feet nervously intensifies*
8:16 How awkward was that waiting for that handshake?
+MeLeet Would be more awkward if no shake at all.
+MeLeet hahahahaha I didn't notice :D
This is evidence supporting the idea that snobbery is an expensive pursuit with, sometimes, little to gain. Ha!
Virtually always little to gain, in virtually all fields of snobbery.
They didn't watch it on youtube though. Only we did.
7:25 the guys in the middle has no clue what they're talking about.
Alexandre Boucher What point didn't make sense to you?
what are you talking about??? I understood everything. I said that the GUY IN THE MIDDLE didn't understdand because they said earlier that he knows nothing of the subject, I just thought his confused look was funny.
Alexandre Boucher LMBO. I was thinking the same thing. His face was like "I'm going to pretend like I'm thinking hard/ understand."
Alexandre Boucher ...and then you get the KNOWALL Shaun.......zzzzzzzzzz
... wait, why am I watching the lens comparison on my mobile phone screen?
Steve Jobs. That's why.
This literally is one of the most well-thought-out, well made, videos I've seen on UA-cam in the last few months . Great production. Extremely Interesting And fun
8:18 feel the almost-awkwardness of Jamie. Dat boi got saved
There you have it... Never use the excuse 'I wish I could afford a super lens.' Get your vintage and new gear out and get shooting.
Absolutely fantastic stuff. Perfect balance between entertainment and information.
That asian fitness guy really let himself go.
I knew it would end up like that, I love when videos crush people's preconceived notions.
I know right! They had two people who obviously knew what they were talking about, AND seen it on a large screen. People steady in comments: well its not big enough to compare. People just like to be pretentious. The point was that you can't tell the difference and its true!
I understand where they're coming from when they say that there's more space to work within with the more expensive lenses, but the value levels just go off the deep end once you get to that 10-15,000$ deep end.
A good carpenter never blames his tools.
Even though I have all the Zeiss stuff etc, I still love the Soviet/Russian lenses made from the 50s until 80s because they have character and sharpness is overrated anyway, because many people have sharpness in their work but a lack of "sharpness" in their direction and concept.
Oh and c-mount lenses on m43 cameras are way fun to use!!
the focus chart in Skyfall has some considerable moire. Probably shot on a canon camera. Psshhh
The INEXPENSIVE one looked great to me in all the shots, thanks guys! I have made my purchase idea!
The major difference in the regular photographic lenses and cine lenses is not the quality, its the operation.
1 Better smoother focus ring with great numbering and a lock.
2 Aperture ring
3 smoother zooming ring
Samyang lenses are all manual and are usually under $500 with all the things you just mentioned :) Also they have fantastic glass
tjseid thanks a lot. I was looking for some cheap cine lens for some time. have you used it yourself.
smith jonson I actually have the 14mm and the 135mm and the 135mm F2 has been proven to be sharper then the canon L counterpart for about $200-$300 less at that. So yeah I'd recommend them :) Excellent value for money.
but I need something like 35-100mm lens. is there any cheap option similar to that.
cheap hmm eh you might have to drop a little bit of money. I'm sure there is something but it depends on your camera. My first through was the canon stm 18-135 or 28-135 non stm, but it all depends on your camera and your needs. Samyang/rokinon (like zeiss) only makes primes so you might want to look at a mid range lens or renting something a little more expensive (like a 24-105 lens)
This is true of so many hobbies. People always want the best before they have any idea how to use it. I loved seeing the scores.
Usually, sharpness and other problems are more visible in photos, since you have to push lenses to its limits. Movies usually use less resolution, even 4k. I always say to people: if you are a photographer, invest in your lenses, you will notice a huge difference. If you are a film maker, invest in tripods, monopods, lighting equipment, etc etc, you can get away with it.
+Stephan Eilert You are very right about video, nobody can see difference between lenses. Can you tell any side where is honest tested side by side, with full size pictures cheap vs expensive lens ? And dont forget that camera af must fine tune to lens. I have sony a99 and many 20- 100e lenses and my lenses make exellent resolution after af fine tune. Bokeh is something like you compete who can see better looking unsharp. I think it is idiotism.
You don't need to spend to much to get nice glass for photography. Well not 5 gs anyway.
as in all visual medium the gear is less important than the skill.
Know your gear, learn how light works, have experience, tell a story.
To paraphrase Tony Notchup "High end gear is a time saver" you can achieve similar results with extra time.
Course not totally true, come on You will never get a f0.95 look from any gear you have, it still hold some weight. Specially shoot mid apertures.
I shoot Sony and my favoriate lens is a old Minolta AF 100mm f2.8 1:1 Macro. It is nicer looking than my Zeiss 16-35, 35, 55, 85, 24-70.
Stephan Eilert I completely agree there! With the video even when you're slightly off focus it still looks in focus with photography it's not that way if it's out of focus you can tell it's out of focus I don't know why motion hides that a little bit more maybe it is because the resolution you shooting. A 24 megapixel stills camera is not 4K, it's much larger than that. I think he was right to mention that people just want to show off all I can afford this lens and I can afford that lines the same goes for photographers some people don't even know how to shoot they just have the money to own very expensive lenses and pretend their photographers. At the end of the day like everything else the lenses the cameras and even the computer just tools if you don't know how to tell a story I think he was right to mention that people just want to show off all I can afford this lens and I can afford that lines the same goes for photographers some people don't even know how to shoot they just have the money to own very expensive lenses and pretend their photographers. At the end of the day like everything else the lenses, the cameras, and even the computer just tools. If you don't know how to tell a story, or capture a moment then the most expensive lens in the world won't help you any.
It's about time someone did a proper lens test like this one. Great stuff. Very informative.
lmao the pride of those DPs was completely shattered X)
My dad is the DP on Orphan Black, cool cool
You also displayed the 5k footage scaled down to 1080p for the judges... its almost impossible to tell what detail is actually being resolved by the lenses at less than 1/4 resolution. You need to display on a large 4k+ projection or monitor to begin to notice the difference in most cases.
akirawing so, in other words, as almost nobody will be watching the final producto at that resolution, it doesn't matter
MaghoxFr youre right but youre also wrong. 4k is gonna be standard in like what... 3 years? and people will still be watching films and youtube videos that are shot now. so now it doesnt make that much of a difference but when 4k monitors are £200 (so like a good 1080p monitor now) i dont see many people sticking with 1080p
***** You overestimate the adoption rate of technology. If you look at Steam's hardware survey for May 2015, you will see that only 34% of the people surveyed use 1080p monitors and the percentages are way lower for resolutions higher than 1080p. Surprisingly 28% are using 2x 1080p monitors and the last large chunk to take into consideration are the people who are using 1366x768 (more than likely laptop users) that weighs in at 26%. Even if there is a dramatic shift to 4k in desktop environments (hardware requirements leave me skeptical), at best it'll be 30% in 5 years or so. Also if anything, 1080p usage will rise in the coming years as it becomes cheaper to put 1080p displays into 15inch laptops.
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
JSKAI yea I definitely see where you're coming from, but remember that the steam survey only covers gamers. I know people that don't know what steam is but have a 1440p iMac. Apple is also slowly gonna replace the normal iMac with the retina ones. And yes I definitely agree about laptops. For most people it won't be 3-4 years I guess. Also high end laptops are starting to come with 2k+ screens as well. Either way why not future proof and shoot everything in 4k :)
There's more to a lens' quality that sharpness.
Thanks for making this. A whole lot of people (myself included) shell out a crap bunch of cash for gear that they have no use for (or at least want to). Really, those super pricey lenses and cameras are made in a very specific way to meet specific needs. I'm happy to see someone whose such an experienced filmmaker explain that the "cool gadgets" are widely unnecessary but can come in handy at times.
Funny video bobby lee. Thanks. Subbed!
hahahahahahahahaha
Story is more important than the image quality
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) thats why your movie has not made it in cinemas
OOOHHHHHH
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) It is, but doesn't mean image quality doesn't matter. How many videos on youtube do you see where people complain " What did you shoot this with, a potato?" That, and there's technical and artistic things you can do with the image that convey something.
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) Audio and editing is more important than the image quality too, almost everything is more important than image quality. What makes images "good" is mostly composition
+Xiaoke Ding (carveid4) Well please allow me to disagree. Image quality is not about pixels or about how accurate a lens performs. It is about composition, lighting, framing, movement and the correct use of a particular lens. And of course about using digital video graded and tweaked to death or real film. Still a huge difference!
Great cinematographers can tell stories just by using these devices (and great music and sound effects plus editing). BUT: certain shots require great lenses (low light situations, shallow depth of focus to tell the audience where to look, what's important - all story telling devices!).
Just take Stanley Kubrick, the all time master cinematographer. For "Barry Lyndon" he short with natural candle light. He ordered special lenses from NASA. Not joking! Can't shoot that kind of image through a glass shard, piece of plastic or a bottom of a bottle. Image quality (not necessarily technical quality) matters a LOT - because master cinematographers can tell stories even with minimal or no dialog, using the right lenses as tools. It's not just the story that matters - it's HOW it's told.
It's nice to know that in a financial pinch, the lower end lenses will still get the image.
+Thom Florio Imagine if some of our old film heros had access to lenses of this quality at these prices... We're in a great age.
We really are. Just the ability to shoot video and tweak it to look like film is such a great advancement. I think back to my two years at NYU dealing with Moviolas, waiting on labs, transferring, editing (then matching and editing again on the negative to match the edited workprint), syncing...It was both time consuming and financially prohibitive for the starting filmmaker. Today with a decent lens and a good prosumer camera, it's a pleasure.
+Thomas I disagree. I don't think we are in a great age. In the 60's and 70's anyone can get a camera and make a great movie. "Perhaps it sounds ridiculous, but the best thing that young filmmakers should do is to get hold of a camera and some film and make a movie of any kind at all." - Kubrick. Also the golden age of cinema has ended. Films are slowly dying. Nowadays people spend more time on UA-cam than watching movies.
Or just get the 0$ no-lens attachment
I think the most obvious giveaway is the last night shot, the shape and quality of the lights as the come into focus... they are misshapen in A, and become more round and clean in B, and completely smooth and perfect in C.
hahaa! I love this. Best lens test video ever!
It's true that virtually no-one will be able to tell the difference, particularly if they're absorbed into a storyline but I also think it's great that we have the people who do care about that last 5% of quality to ensure everyone else always sees the best.
Statistically, they three got pretty much the same results.
The point made @7:17 about degree of control over focus is really solid. It can be incredibly difficult in lower light to get sharp focus when you're doing it manually, it can be incredibly embarrassing to get your shots back and see that they weren't in focus. The greater fine control you have over focus the safer I feel with a lens.
that chart in an art gallery frame in Skyfall actually does not looks out of place, call it modern art lol
When I like a video, I usually press that like button at the end... but for this one I had to hit it when Freddie (?) burst through the lens chart! There were many other moments that I appreciated. I really enjoyed your video and that you put production effort into things like the lens chart in Skyfall's painting frame, editing around the moving people, even though it was a tiny part of the whole. I really like the style you have and look forward to seeing your past work as well as what is to come.
I understand that the channel is for newbs, which so far is pretty cool and entertaining. I would suggest when talking cinematography, Perhaps start at the beginning... explain what ISO does, what F-stops are, and how they balance each other. Cinematography can get crazy bogged down in tech most wont understand at first. It's boring, but i'm sure you guys can do well to make it cool.
All the best:
-Chill bro Film student at LMU
SteamBunnyProd I don't know, I think they started off at an okay point. There's plenty of pre existing resources on the internet already where a complete noobie could go to find those answers. they're starting right where I think someone who is just past the point of knowing their way around a camera enough :)
Alex Overby true, but if your going to teach, assume people know nothing and move from there :)
You got me there! I don't know, I guess I didn't look at it from the complete noobie perspective!
This was so amazing. I expected these to all just be one shot lecture type things but this is so much better!!!
As the inimitable Ken Rockwell once said, "If you can shoot well, all you need is a disposable, toy camera or a camera phone to create great work. If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a [top of the line Nikon] or Leica; your work will still be uninspired."
At 2:14 I thought he was going to bash the camera onto the table. I literally jumped from my seat! lol
If you attach a follow focus ring to DSLR lens it'll make pulling figure much easier by increasing the diameter on smaller lenses. You'll have to travel farther to reach same focus point.
Hahahahahaha that was a good one 😂😂😂
:...(.....
+CheapAssReviews I was just being silly, because it's pretty much assumed that you'll be using a follow focus for pulling focus with any of the lenses in this review. So the point still stands: a stills lens is going to have much less travel than a cine lens.
+Darktrack Studios if you attach something like this (www.ebay.com/itm/like/270932102641?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_ref=http%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F711-117182-37290-0%252F2%253Fmtid%253D1588%2526kwid%253D1%2526crlp%253D112158380529_324272%2526itemid%253D270932102641%2526targetid%253D186358896009%2526rpc%253D0.16%2526rpc_upld_id%253D74747%2526device%253Dm%2526mpre%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.com%25252Fulk%25252Fitm%25252Flike%25252F270932102641%25253Flpid%25253D82%252526chn%25253Dps%2526adtype%253Dpla%2526googleloc%253D9061292%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D629907517%2526adgroupid%253D33360053409%2526rlsatarget%253Dpla-186358896009%2526gclid%253DCjwKEAjwrcC9BRC2v5rjyvSbhWASJACKkjDzIamNzuwLk1_tIyQVVvxCr3ixZreMHpUlpDZ9xu-athoCHrHw_wcB%2526srcrot%253D711-117182-37290-0%2526rvr_id%253D1077157195940&ul_noapp=true ) you'll have a larger diameter and then more pull.
+CheapAssReviews ebay.to/2bgMFSG
I HAD to stop the vid in the middle to make a comment. The moment that 007 sits down to stare at the painting I heard the audio beacon for The Emergency Broadcast System I ROLLED. BRILLIANT!
But then I realised . . . it wasn't in the video, but was an ambient sound in my house (from the furnace to be exact) which somehow makes it even funnier. I'd never heard the furnace sound quite like that until this video.
Well Done!
Some of the most unintelligent information and decisions i've heard from a group of DP's
Superb work guys. Love the values behind this video. The guys in the couch talk about pushing the lens to its extremes, which makes sense as a creative decision, but is rarely done on features so in that context has little value for this discussion. Keep up the great work, what really matters is the audience and if they're experience is improved.
8:17 hate when that happens
I just want to say thanks, what you guys are doing is amazing. I've spent countless hours online searching for a resource like this channel. I think it's great that you guys are giving this information away for free. Thank you so much, keep up the great work.
I feel like the only way they even got the extra answers were from specifically looking for more blurring and vignetting when it was wide open and noticing the number of aperture blades on the bokeh. Stuff that isn't at all subjective image quality but specifics qualities in lenses that are obvious tells about the type of lens you're using.
I try to justify sharpness in lenses when buying for product photography, but even then you can fake and make up for so much of that in post that it realistically goes into the realm of snobbery very quickly.
A good lens isn't going to make you a better photographer/cinematographer, it's just going to make your job easier. A pro with a shit lens will embarrass an amateur with the world's most expensive equipment any day.
I almost spit coffee into my laptop screen in the time of focus chart joke. love your sense of humor. amazing video!
Why did no one mentioning breathing, put your camera with inexpensive DSLR glass on a tripod with out panning or tilting, just still. Than rack focus and it will look bad in all situations, no possible solution than to change to the real stuff.
A comparison with a rokinon cinema lens for example would therefore be much more interesting.
Awesome start to the school. Can't wait for all the information I will learn and money I will save in the rest of the videos!
8:17 hello darkness my old friend
HAHAHA The Skyfall painting "Always makes me feel a little melancholy" got me dying lol
If you're just getting into filmmaking, pick the cheapest one.
+Joe Jr. Buy the one you can afford.
Questioning Humanity I still say pick the cheapest one and shoot lots of stuff. Your first few videos will be shit, and you're just seeing if you're into it or not.
+Joe Jr. More appropriate would be to buy something one notch up from the cheapest. In particular get something with at least a passable focus ring. In practice the canon 50 shown is almost unusable for a lot of video shots because not only is the focus change quick, but the ring is tiny and on the front of the lens, meaning more shake and accidental hand-in-shot moments. Don't blow the bank, but don't cripple yourself either if you don't have to.
The focus chart part killed me! Excellent video.
cant tell any difference with the compression so it just shows if your doing youtube it doesn't matter.
Or basically any format other than super iMax.and even then most people will not care.
It could be beautiful and have a terrible story or bad acting and nobody is going to recommend it.
this was the most logical approach I've seen till now... thank you guys for your amazing channel
DP's are full of themselves
Thank you for doing these! These videos make it so much easier for people like me to do some amatuer film-making, and go to show that you actually CAN do a lot with only a little budget! I'll definitely be watching more of these. Thank you.
It seems like the biggest visual difference in the lenses is in the bokeh, or is it just me?
That's the only major difference I could see
the fact that you made a joke about focus charts AND THEN ROTOSCOPED SAID CHARTS INTO THE ACTUAL MOVIE made my day
50 1.8 has insane image quality but it's a sack of shit to pull focus
Excellent video. Greatest value was the DPs sharing their thoughts about cheap gear vs expensive gear and the differences, and also their opinions in general about use and our generation. That kind of stuff in extremely valuable to aspiring videographers.
jon is so pretentious it hurts.
+duzzy i know, right? and how he's so nervous after he finds out he scored so poor that his foot is trembling uncontrollably. Damn!
I am glad that someone finally explained the REAL differences to me!!! Thank you guys!!!
Not everything from germany is expensive! (I am german) 😂
Hahahaha!!! That was hilarious
you must be expensive too, how much is it costing me to type this lol.
still the quality speaks for itself
Man, you are waaaay too funny and I laughed my socks off!
Glad I've stumbled on your channel and therefore I immediately clicked on the 'SUBSCRIBE' button!
...those were two of the douchey-est DP's ever. They spend 5 minutes explaining how it was obvious to them which was which and heres why and they only guessed half of the shots correctly!?
I liked that. Its pretty much the same all over the comments here. People saying: "oh yeah I could completely tell the difference" and "well I have no other medium to watch youtube vids but on my phone, so the fact that I'm wrong doesn't mean anything" I thought they were gonna get more correct too lol ...just shows you don't get cocky!
This reminds of the debates in the audio world transitioning to digital. Great audio engineers got embarrassed when asked to pick which tracks were compressed vs the lossless ones. The arguments for the lenses are exactly the arguments for vintage mics. And don’t get me wrong, there is a difference. But tech has a way of catching up to the point of make the difference less and less apparent. That being said I thought the rack focus argument was a good one. Both in the sense of how more fine tune control you have, and of how the lens reacts going through the transition.
I also just liked the video. It’s funny, well paced, and entertaining.
Shaun seems quite full of himself...so typical of these spoilt brat type people.....zzzzzzz
This is the first video I've seen on this channel and it's actually kinda funny! That focus chart part cracked me UP!
So let me get this straight = your "expert" DPs want expensive lenses because of their imperfections? I call bullshit to this whole deal. It's as bad as h-ifi ripoff merchants, only most pro audio folk don't fall for it.
For the difference in price, the results should be like chalk and cheese, but I struggled to tell the lenses apart, and even then, it wasn't clear which of them was objectively "better" in any way. Even you experts were barely better than random. It's laughable!
You won me over in the first 2 minutes. Subscribed on that alone. You rock, sir.
Awesome Sound design + Good Image Quality + Amazing Story Line = You're Set.
I don't know if this is just me? But the last shots at night, you can really see the difference in the images. The "bokeh balls" In the first shot were slightly egg shaped. Which is produced by the cheap Canon 50mm (marked as Lens A). The more expensive the lens, the better quality of "bokeh balls". You can tell in the last shot that they were perfectly rounded. I guess coming from a photographer's standpoint, we really see a difference in the images because we work with such a high quality image. Expensive lenses are worth the price aesthetically speaking.
Well this is relatable to guitars. It's like a low end all laminate guitar, vs a mid range solid wood guitar, vs a hand crafted high end solid wood guitar. The tone difference may not sound different to someone who doesn't play guitar, but to someone who actively plays guitar will notice an enormous difference in tone between the three
..the focus chart part is so hilarious, that I'm having pain in my belly from laughing.....Thanks a lot!!!1
Awesome, fantastic test. I hope you extend this using what the guys were talking about with ease of rack focus etc. with the cheaper lenses too. I was hoping you would show all of the footage with explanations of which was which, but I guess that's what the full comparison video is going to be, so thanks!
You totally nailed that focus chart shot. GG!
I wasn't really into filming (and i'm not sure if i am now) but you make really funny videos of good quality. Thumbs up!
Really interesting vid guys, I was very surprised to see just how little "perceptive" difference there is between the three.
Amazing video, making film school accessible, fun and free?! Awesome!
Great video! So funny, I laughed out loud a few times. But with reminders of humility when they get too pumped up about themselves. Some of the best thoughts I've heard on this subject. So, if racking focus is not critical to a shoot and viewing takes place on say 80 inches or smaller, cheaper is way to go. Very good points on when to use an expensive lens. This video also demonstrates the importance of story and humor. It's so well-done, I'd be happy shooting on Jamie's dad's VHS camcorder. I'm old enough to where my dad bought the two-piece tethered unit.
8:17 such dangerous moment. I'm so glad he didn't leave him hanging.
Not only very funny but also educational. Subscribed.
This is the most informative video I have ever seen about lenses. Thank you for doing this!
Never stop making these type of videos guys
Focus charts! Gave me my second giggle for the day! Love it!
Thoroughly enjoyed this video. I shoot with a BMCC and DSLR lenses and enjoy seeing something like this that helps me feel better about what I do. BTW you've gained a quality subscriber, thanks for the video!
People keep saying that "it's all about the lens" ... well, i think that it's all about the sensor.. but I could be wrong :/
AndreasSheiLT It's neither. It's all about the person operating the camera. If you can't properly frame a shot or know how to pull focus then no amount of expensive fancy hardware will save you. There's photographers out there that can capture gorgeous images and footage using some of the cheapest hard ware you can find or even build their selves. Same goes for pretty much any other tool out there. :)
AndreasSheiLT I'd say it's all about the story. That's just me though.
Joshua Lonsako Good point :)
in my opinion, the biggest difference a sensor makes is in its dynamic range and how it handles light.. resolutions have gotten a bit ridiculous lately and I doubt most people will be able to tell the difference between 4k and 6K (or even larger than that)
and of course the person operating is very important! and the story is obviously above everything else!!! but i was talking about only technical stuff here..
AndreasSheiLT for the most part, most people cant tell the difference between 2 and 4k...from what I hear from some cinematography friends is that they are trying to get to 31k+ as its supposed to represent "true to life" representation
I love how you guys bring this, rocketjumpsauce