Using Cinema Glass

I often have heard cinematographers wax poetic about ‘cinema glass’ or lenses specifically designed and manufactured for filmmaking. I always thought it was nonsense. For most of my filmmaking career, I used the Zeiss CP.2’s which are superb glass. What I didn’t realize was that these not-so-cheap lenses — which cost about $4,500 brand new — were using Zeiss still photography glass in rehoused cinema bodies.

My DP on Skycrash convinced me to use cinema glass, and that there would be a big difference from the CP.2’s I had grown fond of. I’m glad I listened to him. For Skycrash, we used a 4 set of Arri Ultra Primes. Our focal lengths were 16mm, 24mm, 32mm, and 85mm. These were the same lenses used on Lord of the Rings, among many other films, and have a very slight vintage quality to them.

Once I started using the Ultra Primes, I couldn’t believe how far superior the look was versus my CP.2’s. Not even close. It’s hard to describe the difference. The CP.2’s seem more sharp whereas the Ultra Primes present the image in a more ‘cinematic manner’. The edges of the Ultra Primes, for example, when the Tstop is opened, show a really lovely blur/distortion that just looks so nice. The Ultra Primes also create an incredible glow around highlights that feels very buttery smooth. It’s clean and precise, yet not so clinical looking as the CP.2’s and other still photography glass.

This shot was a 24mm Ultra Prime, a Medium Wide Two Shot. I believe the Tstop was 2.6. Look at the two lamps on the edges of the frame and notice how the picture there is slightly distorted and blurred in what I would consider a very pleasing manner. You can notice too, the white glow of the HMI light from outside that wraps around the lamps. These are arguably subtle nuances, but you won’t get these effects on cheaper glass.

The Ultra Primes also do a great job of rendering color and picking up a wider range of light and shadow than cheaper still photography and cheap cinema glass. These traits might seem slight and trivial, but I promise they are not. They really effect the overall quality of the picture.

Now, could I use some cheap lenses for this film? Absolutely. And budget is always a consideration. I have used $400 Rokinon lenses in the past, and for $400 those lenses are very impressive. But it’s not cinema glass. When I look at cinema glass, it’s one more element that separates professional from wannabe. Much the same way a good color grade is another layer of what audiences expect, and if you don’t deliver, those watching may not be able to pinpoint what is lacking, but they’ll know something is.

Sharegrid is an excellent source for renting a lens kit. If I could go back in time, I’d convince myself to rent different lenses to get a feel for them before purchasing blindly. And some vintage glass can be somewhat affordable compared to newer lenses. Ultra Primes, for example, sold twenty years ago for $20,000 a piece. Now, you can buy them used for around $7,000. Don’t get me wrong, $7,000 is still a ton of money, but much more affordable than they are brand new.

One thing during production that helped enormously with my learning curve using the Ultra Primes was that I was also handling DIT. At the end of each production day (we had 29 in total) I would dump the footage on two SSD’s and then start to color grade clips. By doing this, I started memorizing the look and feel of each lens. If you asked me prior to this production if I knew the difference between the look of the 16mm and the 32mm, I would have said ‘yes, of course!’ But even I was surprised at certain subtle and not-so-subtle differences.

This Medium Closeup of TJ Pederson as Commander Ueberroth is a 32mm Ultra Prime at Tstop 1.9 (I’m guessing here, but pretty sure). Notice to the right of frame the yellow light perfectly spreads out in an incredibly pleasing way. This is what I would call ‘buttery smooth’ almost as if it was diffused in a perfect manner. Again, most still photography glass or cheap cinema glass won’t produce effects like this.

For example, it’s easy to watch a feature film and notice the framing of the shot — say a Medium Closeup. But it becomes more difficult to determine the focal length. A Medium Closeup can be filmed with an 85mm or a 16mm. Now obviously those are drastic differences. But can you tell the difference between a 32mm and a 24mm? I thought I could. But they are different, and I used both lenses to frame a Medium Closeup with two wildly different feels.

As the days wore on, I quickly ditched my director’s viewfinder. I found I didn’t need it any more. I could just look at the actors after blocking them, and about 80% of the time, I could tell our 1st AC exactly what lens I wanted on the camera. Had I waited until after production to start color grading and looking at the footage, I don’t think I would have acquired the skill to feel which lens was ‘right’ for each shot. A very useful skill!

One last thought on the Ultra Primes. During pre-production I was considering using anamorphic lenses, as I love the look from those lenses. The flares, the distortion, it’s all really nice. But I’m glad I went with spherical glass instead. Why? Because I realized that Skycrash was mainly fantasy with a little bit of sci-fi. And while sci-fi looks great stylistically with anamorphic, fantasy does not. For my taste, spherical is better suited look-wise for fantasy.