16x lens breathing
 

Hey All

I was reading a post from quite some time back, and it discussed the "Breathing" of the 16x manual lens.

For those "Not in the know", Breathing is the slight zooming effect that can occur when a lens focuses. You would pull focus and the lens might zoom in or out slightly. This is a result of the lens pieces moving to obtain focus.

Anyway, the "focus" of this thread (haha) is; Anyone out there with the 16x manual lens... how bad is the breathing? I was considering getting the 16x to pull focus on dramatic films, but if it breaths a lot, I don't see a point. I don't want to zoom everytime I pull focus... it's not the 70's.

Thanks.

Matt

For reference, the original "breathing" thread is located here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36504

Oh, yes Chris, sorry.

I just started this thread because the old one got quite off topic and the situation was never satisfactoraly resolved.

Does anyone on these forums have the 16x manual lens? If so, could you set up the camera and do some snap focuses on subjects roughly 5 feet apart and post it? I am curious to see how much the lens breaths...

No one?

Mathew...

Patience my boy, some of us just read your post, and are busy editing other projects.

But I did pop something in the oven. If you email me your addy, I'll send it to you.

Check that, just sent it to you. Check your mailbox.

If you don't get an example, let me know, I've got plenty. It is rather annoying, and depending upon how far you gotta go with your focus, pretty darn obvious. That being said, there just aren't many alternatives and if the scene is good enough, I don't think it will be too distracting for viewers. . I've got a 14x fully manual that does it also. Of course, you can go nuts trying to rack focus on the 20x lens. I know Fuji made a lens that will work woth the XL, but I have not tried that one yet.

Matt

Thanks for the reply guys...

Sorry about the impatience... you can understand. Always excited about the prospect of spend X-thousands of dollars on a new camera, you can't wait to plan it all out... At least I can't... I'm sick, aren't I?

The footage has shown me a lot. I don't know if the 16x manual is really worth it to me. In dramatic film making, you need to snap focus, and if it zooms each time, that seems kind of lame...

P.S. Nice hangliding footage :P

I think the Fuji lens would do the same. In fact, I think almost all zoom lenses will have some 'breathing' during change of focus (varied, depending on type of lens and amount of movement of different lens groups).

If you really need to keep the 'breathing' to a minimum, then it is best to stick to prime lenses, such as the Canon EOS range. I prefer to use the Nikkor lens range. Of course, this means that you've got the x7.2 factor to add, but lenses such as the 12mm, 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm etc should keep you in a decent range. You could also fit a wide angle converter to the front of the prime Canon or Nikkor to bring some width back to the frame.

In reality, I don't find the 'breathing' of the 16X manual lens too much of an issue, especially for most of my outdoor work. Sometimes that extremely slight change of view, adds to the affect in a positive way, as you keep the zoom locked in one position. For example, refocus between a sharp take of the leaves on a bush, to a bird hidden inside the bush, or visa versa; or from a deer drinking in a stream (with the out-of-focus autumn leaves in the foreground), and then shift focus to a single leaf in the foreground.
That very slight 'breath' during the shift of focus while maintaining a fixed place of the zoom, rarely is annoying to the viewer, because almost everything in nature is round or curved, and the eye is almost expecting a slight change in view.

When it is annoying for the chosen subject, it is normally easy to do a very short pan during the focus change to hide the slight frame shift.
However, I could see there being a bigger problem when filming indoors, with many straight lines near the edges of the frame, such as doorways etc.

Those are very good points Tony...

I am just starting to wonder if the 16x (which is really pricey) is worth it above the 3 x wide...

The pure "control" with a manual focus lens (and fine adjustments of the back-focus knob if needed) are the main reasons why I use the 16X manual. The manual and servo zoom controls are also very handy. Those same reasons are why I also continue to use a wide adapter optic on the 16X lens, rather than using a X3 autofocus for wide shots.

Tony,
What wide angle optic do you use on the 16x manual?

Thanks,
Marty

Matthew, Get the 16x. There really isn't much choice in the matter. Most zoom lenses display some amount of breathing. Ironically, the 20x doesn't.

Such is the consequence of shooting MiniDV, it is what it is.

I use the 16X almost all the time. I did a little test with the 20x:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=38166

If you do use the 20x, the trick is to rack focus at the same speed. Otherwise the marks will drift. Likely, they'll drift anyway.

Marty, to answer your question - I use the Optex Wide Angle Mk2 X.7 Multi-Coated Optic (together with a home-made flag/shade for filming during harsh sunlight conditions).

I will also be trying out the Red Eye .5X Wide Angle lens during filming in USA & Canada this spring, and hopefully will be able to provide detailed feedback or a review when I arrive back in UK.

That .7x OPtex is a fixed adapter right? No zoom through?

The Optex is only a part zoom (very short range) and not a zoom through, although I think that this helps to maintain quality images.
Most of the time, I open up the aperture, adjust the back-focus, stop it back down to about f/5.6 or f/8 (depending on subject) and then simply leave it at that for a lot of my filming.

Depending how much depth of field I've got I may make a short zoom when needed, but more often I'll just treat it like a fixed wide angle, because the adpater combined with the 16X manual allows you to move around filming both distant landscapes and tight wide angles, or close-ups without needing to shift focus. Occasionally I'll re-adjust the back-focus when I'm changing a lot between wide landscapes and tight macro subjects during the same shoot.

The Optex comes as a single .7x for a 30% increased angle of view:

http://www.xl1s.com/products.php?cat=11&pg=3

Or as a combined .7X two element .5X system for a 50% increase in angle:

http://www.xl1s.com/products.php?cat=11&pg=2

I've used the 16x lens on a couple of student films. I can not recomend it. For me the purpose of it is to be able to accurately pull focus. It is true that it will allow you to acuratly pull focus, but it looks terrible. The breathing is awful. I feel that one gets a much better look by simply doing the best you can with the 20x, either using the built in "focus puller" function on the lens or do a few takes pulling by hand.

This is what I suppsed...

I don't think I could spend $2500 on something with that much compromise..

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Nayman : This is what I suppsed...

I don't think I could spend $2500 on something with that much compromise.. -->>>

What are you spending $2500 on and what is the huge compromise here? The 16x manual is not $2500 and my experience with it is that the breathing is perfectly acceptable. The ability to easily focus and control your image is amazing compared to the servo lens. The only thing I like better about the 20x is the OIS.

Everyone has an opinion but that doesn't mean it is automatically fact.

It is 2500 dolalrs canadian... I am from canada.

And the only reason i would get the manual lens is to snap focus, and if it breaths as much as it seems, it isnt worth it.

As much as I don't like the excessive breathing of the 16x, I have to admit, I use much more often than the 20x. The 16x is just easier to work with and more dependable for focus. I would highly suggest trying to find a used one. You should be able to get one for around $800 or so.

One other interesting tid-bit of difference between the 20x and the manual 16x is that the 20x can do a much slower creeping zoom than the 16x. Not sure if that is just a limit in the 16x servo or what, but it is quite noticable. In fact, I almost only ever use the slowest zoom setting if I really have to zoom in a shot and don't find the 16x slowest zoom speed very usable, it's just to fast.

I use the Century 0.7x WA for the 16x manual and it works fine, thoug it is quite soft at the edges at full ap.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Wilson :
I use the Century 0.7x WA for the 16x manual and it works fine, though it is quite soft at the edges at full ap. -->>>

Matthew......I experience the same thing with the softness at the edges. However I have to say that is is much better than on the 20x where I would get considerable softness further into the image. What is your experience with the .7x and the 20x lens?

Something I'd lke to add to this. I am not an optics expert and I don't play one on TV. But in my talks with some Canon Tech and lens gurus it has been eluded to me that the Servo lens is designed to mimic a manual lens to the best of it's abilities. However it achieves this by moving multiple elements around inside the barrell to achieve a desired focus or zoom. All of this is achieved by a samrt chip that reads you current lens setting and helps to determine how best to achieve what you are inputting into the lens via the ervo ring. In other words a simple rack focus on the manual may be moving a single element forward or backward on a fixed path or track that is exactly the same everytime. The same rack focus in the servo may cause several elements to move based on the logic of the XL2 lens. Therefore the 20x may show less breathing because multiple pieces of glass move to compensate for this. This is a theory based on discussions with Canon guys.

If anyone can back this up or refute this please do as I am just throwing it out for discussion.

Unforntunately, the Century WA I have only workks with the 16x manual, it won't fit the 20x, gotta buy that one separately. I am interested in the Canon 3x. I'm hoping that it's a little sharper at the edges and maybe less barrel distortion as well. Anyone got one for sale?

You explanation of the breathing may be right, but I've used other pro ENG lenses that didn't exhibit as much as the 16x manual, of course, you do get what you pay for.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Wilson : Unforntunately, the Century WA I have only workks with the 16x manual, it won't fit the 20x, gotta buy that one separately. I am interested in the Canon 3x. I'm hoping that it's a little sharper at the edges and maybe less barrel distortion as well. Anyone got one for sale?

You explanation of the breathing may be right, but I've used other pro ENG lenses that didn't exhibit as much as the 16x manual, of course, you do get what you pay for. -->>>

But those ENG lenses probably cost more than $1300 right? Like you said you get what you pay for. It would be nice if you could clarify what price range those pro ENG lenses are in. It might help people to understand how hard it is to get good glass at a good price.

I just googled "Fujinon Lenses ENG" and found this bargain;
Fujinon A13x4.5BERD
Our Price: US$16,999.00

Other lenses were a bit higher.

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : I just googled "Fujinon Lenses ENG" and found this bargain;
Fujinon A13x4.5BERD
Our Price: US$16,999.00

Other lenses were a bit higher. -->>>

You could buy 4 XL2's for that ammount! And that's just the glass! No electronics.

I'd guess there are some other ENG lenses that are less than that but still way more than the retail price of the Canon 16x manual.

Thanks.

Not a Canon mount lens (Sony, this one) but it shows that some good Fuji lenses can be bought fairly cheaply:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3319&item=7505984159&rd=1

Yup, deals can always be found for used equipment.

While it is true that these ENG lenses can be found in a price range that is not too far beyond the cost of the XL series manual lens, unless someone can verify that these "cost effective" lenses don't breathe then we have proven nothing. Someone stated that they used ENG lenses and never saw any breathing issues with them. Obviously ENG lenses cover a large range of prices and quality so I asked for some clarification on the price range of the lenses that were actually used and didn't breathe. If that FUJINON lens for $2500 at BH and chepaer on Ebay doesn't breathe then I think those of you that are upset by the manual 16x canon lens have a little bit of a point. Because that is not that much more expensive glass. However as we have seen some ENG glass can exceed $15K. I'd expect much better performance from that.

Still.....so many of us complain about the cost of the Canon lenses yet we whine because they are not perfect. If Canon made a 16x manual that didn't breathe but it cost $$2500 would that make us happy? If it was identical to the current model just breathing was eliminated would it be worth $1000 extra bucks? Or would we complain because it was out of the price range for a prosumer camera?

Just wondering.......

I am wondering... which converter works fro Prime Nikon Lenses?

Actually, I said that I have used other ENG lenses that do not exhibit as much breathing as I see in the 16x Manual. I don't think you have to spend a ton either. I owned a Canon 18X IF lens that didn't breath AS MUCH and it sells for around $2300 or so. I also checked a couple other 1/2" lenses yesterday and, while they exhibit the same effect, it is not as pronounced; however, I have a feeling some of the problem may be more related to the difference in DOF between the smaller and larger chip cams. The breathing seems to be more noticable when there is not as drastic a difference in focus between rack settings. With the 1/3" camera, unless you are pretty telephoto, it's hard to get shallow enough DOF to hide the effect well. But that's just my opinion.

As I said before, I use the 16x a lot and have learned to live with what it is, which is still a pretty good lens.

I like the 16X lens, and I got it extremely cheaply as part of a deal along with a body, etc. It doesn't have to exibit the same outstanding quality of my expensive Nikkor ED-IF lenses, but then again, it doesn't need to. The Nikkors are made to extract every ounce of sharpness from 35mm film, and they are more than enough for the Canon 3 CCDs.
The 16X manual is not quite in the same league as a fixed Nikkor 300mm F/2.8ED-IF prime, but there again, stuck on an XL1/s/2 camera, it doesn't need to be...you're not going to see much difference - once you view the moving images on a screen - between an XL2 + 16 X lens, or an XL2 fitted with a lens costing ten times as much.

As for the breathing, if I could afford a lens costing $15,000 that fits the Canon (without any increased X factor) and doesn't breath, I'd already have one. At the moment, the 16X manual lens is the very best that I can use for professional quality results.

Matt -
I don't know how much of the prior thread you caught but I'll again mention my stupid trick of using the backfocus for pulls. You can do very dramatic stuff, it will not breath, and it's repeatable. Try using the macro button, if that doesn't work you will need to loosen the ring and lose your BF setting.

There was flack I got last time for mentioning this; There is a school that thinks backfocus is a sterile clean-room setting not to be toyed with in the field; There is second school that thinks backfocus is just another setting to be mastered, not avoided.

You make the call! :} If you want an example let me know and I'll try to do one.

Jeff, I'd be interested in seeing something. Learning different techniques is always a good thing.

I'd like to see an example also or at least an in depth description of what you are doing so that I can try it. I would guess if you are using the macro button to focus for this then a focus puller would be out of the question???

I set up a test and shot some video of the focus trick last night. I'll get some stills of that tommarrow night hopefully and post them if someone doesn't beat me to it. Later!1

awesome jeff, can't wait :D

Pics of pulls, front versus back focus
 

Here are stills of some video I shot the other night. A quick disclaimer, I am not a pro videographer, photographer, or any other grapher, so don't waste time razzing me if there's something with the pics or if what I did is fundamentally wrong. This stuff makes sense to me and I'm all I've got to work with.
Also, I do believe that the backfocus setting is a somewhat sacred thing, but I also believe that if you need to lose it to get a good shot, then do it.

That said, I hope you like toy dinosaurs.

Setup:
XL2 NTSC, 16x manual lens, 16x9, 60i, 0dB gain, iris at 6 (iirc), CP1: slightly lowered sharpness, slightly upped color gain
JVC 9" studio monitor
Monfrotto sticks, 200w of tracklight
Pics were not worked on in post.

What I did was put two dinosaur toys on stands about four feet apart, and the nearest toy was about six feet from the lens. (In hindsight the toys should've been further apart, but it's how my tracklighting was setup and the example still works). It looked a bit like this:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...nfo/setup1.jpg

Our subjects today are a t-rex model and an 'Extreme Dinosaur' action figure (or doll if you want to nut me about it). We begin with a pull on the front focus between our toothy friends. The easy way to view this is to save the files to disk, I open them in Gimp, overlap the windows and alt-tab between them. The files are named by f/b front/backfocus, and ext/rex on who's in focus.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...o/ff_ext_1.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...o/ff_rex_1.jpg
Well, they focus up nicely and there is a bit of DOF there but it's obvious that the picture changed, look at how the curtain in the lower right moves, and how the figure's arm is in/visible.

Now, I pressed the macro button and spun the back ring to focus up on the rex.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...o/bf_rex_1.jpg
then, turned it until the Macro button locked.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...o/bf_ext_1.jpg
Neat huh? The background hardly changed, but the subjects go in/out of focus at will. I admit the figure might not completely be in focus because the macro button locked, but I did it that way because it proves that:
1) My silly idea works
2) It works without having to sully the backfocus setting (since I only used Macro)

Granted, the macro trick probably won't work if your subjects are very far away. But, still, there it is.
Also Marty asked me if a puller could do this. I'm assuming we mean like a cable actuated, geared puller. I've never set one up but I'm pretty sure the backfocus ring doesn't lend itself to this. The FF and zoom rings are geared, the backfocus is pretty utilitarian and isn't even very round (the macro and lock all jut out of it). Someone would need they're hands up in the camera for this trick.

Let me know if this is and the images are helpful at all, as I've never posted a test like this before. Thanks, good night. I'm Jeff Miller, and I'm for hire. lmao

edit: added vbcode

I just got the 16X lens and this was the first thing I tried. It works great!! Takes a bit of practice to hit the mark, but produces a very nice rack focus.

Matt

Matt,
JUst curious on your opinion of the 16x "breathing". To me it is not a big deal so I am curious what you think now that you have it in hand.

THanks!

This thing breathes like cheerleader on prom night. I REALLY like the lens for the softer more film like image quality it produces, but a rack focus is definitely noticeable. However I can use Jeff's method to produce some really nice results.