what is a standard lens for the Leica M bodies, 35 or 50mm ?

[tunalegs]

I thought it was normal to use "long" lenses for movies - it gives some space between the camera and crew, lighting, and the actors - microphones etc. There is also the viewing distance to consider (audience in a theater) - so using something a bit longer than "normal" has been desirable in shooting films.

 

[Murchu]

Well, 'normal' on 35mm film is one thing. 'Normal' on a Leica M I would argue is tied to the framelines you have available. Some like a little space around their framelines, and 50mm on .72 finder M's would probably be their normal. Others like a large field of view in their viewfinder, which would find 35mm lenses on that same .72 finder seeming normal to them.

50mm is quite normal to me in general, purely for the personal reason it fits in the middle of the focal ranges I tend to shoot most, 24/28/35 - 75/90/135mm. If I shot with more wides, I'm sure I would consider 35mm or even wider, my normal lens, depending on how wide or ultrawide I shot mostly.

 

[Richard G]

A 35 is much more normal for me now than when I first got a 35. A 50 now seems a bit narrow at times. The 35 is more versatile as it is often more compact. A film M and even the M9 with my 35 Summicron is such a go-anywhere package. I love 50s, but the kit is bulkier. But a Leica with a 50 must be the standard over many years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The argument about 'closest to the field of view of the human eye' has always struck me as the purest nonsense. After all, we scan the world in front of us rather than taking it all in at once; some parts of our retinas have very much higher resolution than others; what we 'see' is EXTREMELY heavily 'post-processed' in our brains; and even without moving our heads we can see slightly over 180 degrees side-to-side. The following extracts are from 'Persective and the Illusion of Depth', http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps perspective 1.html

'Magic distance' can be explained, we are convinced, with a (relatively) simple mathematical argument. It happens when the angle subtended at the eye by every single element in the picture is similar to the angle that was subtended at the camera by the object itself.

and

Traditional 'standard' lenses and viewing distances are all well and good until you start to consider enlargements. Obviously, very few people are going to look at 24x36mm images from a distance of 43mm (the negative diagonal), except perhaps when they are going through contact sheets with a magnifying glass. So let's imagine we use a 43mm lens (the nearest we know of is the 42.5mm Biogon for the pre-war Contax) and blow it up 6x to 144 x 216mm, a bit under 6x9 inches. The optimum viewing distance for the 'magic distance' is now 6 x 43 = 258mm or a bit over 10 inches -- an ideal viewing distance for a print that size.

Now make a 40x50cm/16x20 inch print from the same negative: people do. You'll have to crop the negative a bit to make it fit, but for a borderless print this size you are looking at almost a 17x enlargement. Your optimum viewing distance is now 17 x 43 = 731mm or about 29 inches: probably a bit closer than most people would normally look at such a big picture unless they were examining it fairly closely, for example in a gallery.

Perhaps needless to say, there's lots more about the illusion of depth in the whole piece: linear, aerial, scale, receding planes, lighting, texture, differential focus.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Samouraï]

The Academy Ratio was 1.37:1. This was a bit smaller image size than full aperture, which is 1.33:1, 24.89x18.67mm, and used the whole of 4 perforations. There are lots of formats, but these old pictures utilized more negative than modern filmmakers. Why tv's are 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1440 is a crime that is beyond me.

And I have never heard that using a long lens for filmmaking is standard. That's especially untrue, today, with location filmmaking. And when studio filmmaking was the norm, I can assure you that a long lens was not used for PRACTICAL purposes outside of the ease of reframing. There is no need to account for lights or boom operators in between subject and camera. There shouldn't be much in between the camera and the subject, ideally. Boom ops find a way after camera is set. And using a truly long lenses for regular filmmaking is rare. Lengths are more often used for a given field of view required to get a shot within a space, and for spatial/rendering qualities if you have a set or a large set or location (think western), or unless you just love wides (think Roger Deakins/Raising Arizona).

Now my whole point was that field of view does not matter or constitute what a "normal" lens is for some filmmakers or photographers. In fact, I believe the rendering qualities and spatial relationships produced by the 50 lens most closely resemble the human eye, regardless of medium.

 

[tunalegs]

And I have never heard that using a long lens for filmmaking is standard.

I know most 8mm cameras came with 12 or 13mm lenses, which is also longer than "normal" given the film diagonal of just over 6mm. 16mm cameras usually were used with a 25mm lens, and so far as I know 50mm lenses were considered "normal" for 35mm. So I'd think that'd mean long lenses were considered "normal" for films. At least so far as the camera companies were concerned anyway. 🙂

 

[Samouraï]

I know most 8mm cameras came with 12 or 13mm lenses, which is also longer than "normal" given the film diagonal of just over 6mm. 16mm cameras usually were used with a 25mm lens, and so far as I know 50mm lenses were considered "normal" for 35mm. So I'd think that'd mean long lenses were considered "normal" for films. At least so far as the camera companies were concerned anyway. 🙂

This is simply not true, concerning 16 or 35 in 1950s, 1970s, or modern times. I'm not completely aware of the "standard" lengths that were used while shooting in enormous backlot sets or half-rooms constructed in warehouses, but those needs are considerably different than any faced by filmmakers, today.

For 16mm, generally, 25 is the longest lens in the Zeiss SS prime set, with a 50 being added later. Lengths are 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm, and sometimes 50mm (which is a specialty lens, really). Of course you'll get 8-64 canon zooms that put 25 in the middle, but it is not the standard length of 16. You also get 24-290mm Angineux Optimos for S35, but that doesn't make 125mm the standard length.

As for 35, 50mm is not the most used or most versatile length. At least not in the film industry, today, and apparently not in the film industry in the 50's, as Ozu was building sets to accommodate the length. The 35 Zeiss SS set was comprised of 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses. General purpose is 30-40mm range.

And ever since people started masking their films to 1.85 or manufacturing 16x9 only sensors, the 50 has lost too much vertical information to remain usable as a near-standard length.

As for 8mm, I'm used to zooms, but the cameras aren't generally used for commercial filmmaking. And yes they do tend to run a little longer than 16, relatively (the classic 16mm Canon 8-64 is the same range as many high-end, but common, s8 cameras).

All that said, I'm not sure where you get your information. Location filmmaking has changed the game a little, and perhaps longer lengths were the norm is the Hollywood era. But 16mm is a modern format, and 25mm is not the standard length.

 

[tunalegs]

This is simply not true, concerning 16 or 35 in 1950s, 1970s, or modern times. I'm not completely aware of the "standard" lengths that were used while shooting in enormous backlot sets or half-rooms constructed in warehouses, but those needs are considerably different than any faced by filmmakers, today.

For 16mm, generally, 25 is the longest lens in the Zeiss SS prime set, with a 50 being added later. Lengths are 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm, and sometimes 50mm (which is a specialty lens, really). Of course you'll get 8-64 canon zooms that put 25 in the middle, but it is not the standard length of 16. You also get 24-290mm Angineux Optimos for S35, but that doesn't make 125mm the standard length.

As for 35, 50mm is not the most used or most versatile length. At least not in the film industry, today, and apparently not in the film industry in the 50's, as Ozu was building sets to accommodate the length. The 35 Zeiss SS set was comprised of 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses. General purpose is 30-40mm range.

And ever since people started masking their films to 1.85 or manufacturing 16x9 only sensors, the 50 has lost too much vertical information to remain usable as a near-standard length.

As for 8mm, I'm used to zooms, but the cameras aren't generally used for commercial filmmaking. And yes they do tend to run a little longer than 16, relatively (the classic 16mm Canon 8-64 is the same range as many high-end, but common, s8 cameras).

All that said, I'm not sure where you get your information. Location filmmaking has changed the game a little, and perhaps longer lengths were the norm is the Hollywood era. But 16mm is a modern format, and 25mm is not the standard length.

I built a collection of 8mm and 16mm cameras when video came in and those are the focal lengths most cameras had stuck on them. The "wide" lenses I have give relatively normal angles of view.

According to this page: http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/peacock/chapter1/custom2/deluxe-content.html

40mm and 50mm were considered "normal" for 35mm movie cameras.

This book claims 54mm as "normal" - at least for the Academy aspect ratio.

I would agree though the lenses used today are commonly wider than this. Although I find it interesting that Ozu's lens choice would be considered odd in his own time, since 50mm would seem to have been pretty usual for at least the majority of the period he worked in.

 

[Rob-F]

When dealing with Leica Experts, remember the etymology of 'expert'. It comes from 'ex' meaning 'a has-been' and 'spurt' meaning 'a drip under pressure'.

When I was a field engineer who travelled to fix company equipment for the USAF, I got told that an expert was "any SOB from more than 50 miles out of town."

 

[santino]

Hard to argue against that M3 argument (no 35 framelines and sold with a 50mm). By the way, according to LFI, the 50mm was way easier to build with a moderate f stop (slow films back in that time required fast lenses) and good enough resolution to render crisp images even for greater enlargments.

So historically it is the 50mm which is the M normal lens.

 

[Rob-F]

The Academy Ratio was 1.37:1. This was a bit smaller image size than full aperture, which is 1.33:1, 24.89x18.67mm, and used the whole of 4 perforations. There are lots of formats, but these old pictures utilized more negative than modern filmmakers. Why tv's are 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1440 is a crime that is beyond me.

It has to do with the need to accommodate wide screen motion pictures for TV viewing, without having to crop their left and right sides to fit the old TV ratio. The challenge was to find the aspect ratio that would utilize the TV set's screen area, with the least wasted area, with pictures from 1.33 : 1 all the way to the 2.54:1 of early Cinemascope. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences recommended a 2: 1 aspect ratio for the new HDTV format, because 2:1 is the geometric mean of the entire gamut of Hollywood ratios. However, the final choice was made by Congress, not by engineers, film makers, or anyone else who knew what they were doing. And they chose 16:9 (equivalent to 1.78 : 1).

 

[Samouraï]

It has to do with the need to accommodate wide screen motion pictures for TV viewing, without having to crop their left and right sides to fit the old TV ratio. The challenge was to find the aspect ratio that would utilize the TV set's screen area, with the least wasted area, with pictures from 1.33 : 1 all the way to the 2.54:1 of early Cinemascope. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences recommended a 2: 1 aspect ratio for the new HDTV format, because 2:1 is the geometric mean of the entire gamut of Hollywood ratios. However, the final choice was made by Congress, not by engineers, film makers, or anyone else who knew what they were doing. And they chose 16:9 (equivalent to 1.78 : 1).

Well, thankfully 2:1 wasn't made the standard, or watching a 4x3 picture would be even sillier than it already is. The amount of anamorphic media is minuscule compared to 4x3 stuff. It just upsets me that classics that have more negative information are encoded at a lesser resolution and size, and shown with pillarboxes when by all rights, their negative width is just as wide as anything else, but it's height is far greater. What I wouldn't give for a modern 4x3 television standard, wherein larger negatives might recieve larger resolutions.

 

[angelog]

Not being an engineer, I would look at how lenses were constructed and guess that the focal length of the pancake lens was the normal. Is this too simple or am I too ignorant of the subject?

 

[Samouraï]

And Tunalegs, you're absolutely right, concerning the cinematographic "normal" lens which tends to run about double the negative's diagonal. I was mixing up versatile and what was normal for a theatre's viewing distance.

Apparently, in the 1.33 era, the idea was that a 50 put the theatrical audience right where the camera sat in a movie, while minimizing spatial distortion (which is why I prefer a 50). I spoke ignorantly based on modern experiences, wherein cameramen don't use the 50 all too often. Hitchcock shot Psycho on a 50, but was forced to use a 35 during reshoots, to his chagrin, because of space restrictions.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

We've left 9.5 cine out of this argument and I seem to remember a time when 16mm and 9.5 were the standards for church halls and home. Both cameras and projectors were on sale in the 30's btw.

As for film stock, I don't think the two variations on the perforations came in until fairly recently(?) as pre-war negative stock I've got is identical to modern.

Talking of aspect ratios; my printer does A4 but where's the camera that turns out those proportions? Would you believe the digital camera makers make the printers?

Regards, David

 

[Rob-F]

Well, thankfully 2:1 wasn't made the standard, or watching a 4x3 picture would be even sillier than it already is. The amount of anamorphic media is minuscule compared to 4x3 stuff. It just upsets me that classics that have more negative information are encoded at a lesser resolution and size, and shown with pillarboxes when by all rights, their negative width is just as wide as anything else, but it's height is far greater. What I wouldn't give for a modern 4x3 television standard, wherein larger negatives might recieve larger resolutions.

While it's true that all 35mm projection prints have the same width, there are 70mm films that are much wider, and are shown to best advantage on a wide-screen format. Lawrence of Arabia, for instance; or South Pacific, just to name a couple. Yes, there are lots of old 4:3 films that we still watch. I don't think the producers realized, back then that they were making works of art that we would still be watching, many years later. Some were so carelessly stored that they have turned to vinegar. Those of us who value them should have the means on hand to display them to best advantage. If I'm watching South Pacific, or Doctor Zhivago, I show them on my 50" Panasonic flat screen. If Casablanca comes on the satellite, I put it on the 27" Panasonic CRT.

The point of selecting an HDTV aspect ratio that is the geometric average of the two aspect ratio extremes, was to utilize as much of the screen area as possible when displaying a film of any given ratio. 1.33 x 2.54 comes out to close to 2:1 (IIRC). With that proportion, whether we are watching a film in 1.33, 1.37, 1.66 (VistaVision), 1.85 (standard Academy aperture), 2.2:1 (Todd-AO and 70mm Panavision), 2.35:1 (Mag-Optical Cinemascope release prints); or 2.54 (magnetic Cinemascope), as little screen area as possible is wasted with a given film.

In actual practice, the present letterbox standard of 1.78:1 somewhat favors the less wide end of the spectrum. For Casablanca fans, perhaps that was a good decision after all!

 

[sevo]

As for film stock, I don't think the two variations on the perforations came in until fairly recently(?) as pre-war negative stock I've got is identical to modern.

Odd. BH actually is the earlier perforation. The later KS (the perforation common on 135 film) never caught on in cinematography except as a print/positive format. See http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Support/Technical_Information/Processing_Information/perforations.htm

 

[Samouraï]

Don't forget VistaVision. Horizontally fed 35.

Width tends to be the detirmining factor for where I can place a television. And height would generally make no difference, so I long for more vertical pixels. But now that a television can be hung like a painting, my perspective on ergonomics has changed.

As far as film preservation, yeah, so many pictures were lost because storage was purged and negatives destroyed. In Japan especially. But then you have 60 year old tins of long lost masterpieces being discovered in broom closets of mental hospitals, a la Passion of Joan of Arc. Resilient medium, film.

 

[Rob-F]

Don't forget VistaVision. Horizontally fed 35.

I didn't. in developing and promoting VistaVision, Paramount pointed out something that others overlooked in the rush to the wider processes, especially Cinemascope, the widest. And it is something that I agree with, and I think you will too: that Height is an important element of the picture. VistaVision covered enough width without sacrificing height. In my view, height is needed to create enough illusion of depth. Throw away too much foreground, and you throw away depth along with the "you are there" illusion.

 

[Samouraï]

I didn't. in developing and promoting VistaVision, Paramount pointed out something that others overlooked in the rush to the wider processes, especially Cinemascope, the widest. And it is something that I agree with, and I think you will too: that Height is an important element of the picture. VistaVision covered enough width without sacrificing height. In my view, height is needed to create enough illusion of depth. Throw away too much foreground, and you throw away depth along with the "you are there" illusion.

You already know me too well. And honestly, thanks for the wealth of information. Could you expound upon the 'illusion of depth' and its relation to frame height. I can probably infer much of it, but perhaps there is more to concept than I have thought about before (and might important to consider consciously, in the future).