Red lenses

[evinsky]

Alot of attention here has been placed on using PL mount cinema lenses as well as still photography lenses but I'd like to see what is desired in the maketplace for Red's own line of glass. I know what I'd like to see...

Remember, a normal lens on red is 28mm
Affordable primes in focal lengths that span a useable range from super-wide to medium telephoto. We already know about the 300 2.8.
I'd Like 12,17,22,28,35,50,65,85,135mm.
These should all be T2 to keep them affordable but maybe add a few faster primes like 18,24,30,40 and 75 T1.3
If they really wanted to make us drool Red could make just one normal T1 prime for ultra low light work:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Two zooms would be nice, T3 if possible.
Something for general shooting that would have a good range.
I heard some rumors about an 18-100, don't know if it's true but it would be perfect for this. A long zoom is also needed 28-250 or so.

What do you guys think?
Any suggestions?

[Greg Lowry]

The challenge in making such lenses is not technical but financial. Making them affordable isn't easy.

[Jannard]

We have our hands full with this project. Given some time to catch up (couple of years) I think we can satisfy most of what is needed. It is just too much to ask to get this camera right and a full line of lenses in such a short time frame. Long term, that's our plan.

Jim

[Agent005]

What's going on,

I'm trying to figure out what the bootcamp is all about, and do you only have them in Cali?

hit me back

Jamaule Hall/Agent 005

[acoreasc]

I would like a good all purpose zoom in the T2.8 or 3 range - something like a 18-100 would serve me very well. Of course I would prefer the sharpness of primes, but at these resolutions I would gladly welcome a good zoom just for the sake of cost. I am already looking at some super 16mm lenses....but I would kill for Cooke optics.....very little breathing and a consistent stop all the way through the lens.

A great set of primes would kick, but like Jim said there is no way those could be ready in time. I imagine the experience the Red team has with optics will serve them very well. I guess we will jsut have to be patient.

[Jay A. Kelley]

We have our hands full with this project. Given some time to catch up (couple of years) I think we can satisfy most of what is needed.

It's cool Jim. But it does make one wonder something, or at least me.
Can you give us a timeline for your top 10 items that you are working on when when you would LIKE to see them ready? This would be helpful for those of us who have decided not to move to HD until RED.

Here's an example:

RED with Cage one - 1st or 2nd quarter 2007
RED EVF - Same time
RED 300mm lens 1st or 2nd quarter 2007
RED 17 - 100mm lens 1st or 2nd Quater 2007
RED Film Mag 2nd or 3rd quarter 2007

Ok there were some suggestions hidden in here, but you ge the basic idea. I won't hold you to anything you write, but still it would let me know what I may have to buy 3rd party until you get yours made

Jay #327

[evinsky]

Jim, I think we all understand it's going to take time. Never the less we are all very excited about the prospect of affordable cinema glass.

[evinsky]

Jim could also make the lenses more profitable by making them in other mounts, like Nikon, Canon EOS and Panavision. Wouldn't you love to have a RED 28mm T2 on your D200 or 30D?

[acrochordon]

I like Canon glass, especially ones with image stabilizers. It would be cool if RED ONE was designed so that it could take advantage of the stabilizers in a Canon lens. I don't know if Canon would allow that. They probably have patents. But Panasonic point and shoot consumer digital cameras come with optical image stabilizes, so it can't be to hard to make RED with IS. Optical Image Stabilization is important to me. It would be cool if RED had a list of second party lenses that worked well with the RED ONE. The only reason I would buy a Canon lens over a Cooke lens for the IS and that Astroscope (night vision) comes in a Canon lens mount.

Download the PDF's, they are very detailed.

http://www.militaryandlaw.com.au/page/9350_ccd.html

http://www.militaryandlaw.com.au/files/9350xl_xl2_brochure.pdf

http://www.militaryandlaw.com.au/files/9350_operating_manual.pdf

[evinsky]

The Canon lenses require many proprietary technologies insode the body to use the IS. Nikon has VR which is the same and this also requires alot of communitaction between the body and lens.

[Jarred Land]

optical stabilization is not as an advantage anymore as it used to be.. it can be dont digitally without degregation using the overscan of the sensor.

[mike the beginner]

It would be nice to know in advance what lenses will be coming from Red.

But spare a thought for the company..........Its competitors are watching!

We have placed our faith in Red and if you have been reading carefully you will already have some possible clues what lens might be following the first prime. :)

Red wants to be highly successful with a superb camera in Red one. It must (i think) sell in thousands not in hundreds to achieve that. Its camera has been priced much lower than the majority on this forum and in other forums, thought it would come out at. Its lenses might do the same. Red (i think) will want to sell these lenses in their thousands as well.

If the camera comes out as good as we all expect, the prime lens likewise then i for one will be buying Red lenses for sure. :)

[Jarred Land]

Well the next lense probally will be a zoom.. but who knows. And i dont think they will have a problem selling THOUSANDS of RED glass to keep the price down... remember, being PL mount, RED lenses will start to slip onto 235s, 435s, etc... so there is a cross market there... that is of course till everyone sells thier film cameras and buys the RED ONE heh heh heh.

[filmmaker1977]

yeah yeah but heavy.. HEAVY lenses..

sometimes you amuse me.. not you jarred specifically.. but these people here when they're talking about as 90% of the people here have an hollywood setup behind..

i guess that 90% of the dvxusers here have a 1/3" cam setup supporting their efforts and not a 35mm film camera..

[Jarred Land]

i think i kinda get your point but i dont really understand what your trying to say..

If your saying most people here have little cameras, yes your right. But most people here have if not owned, at least looked at or used a film camera at some time. At least a majority of people looking at buying a RED. Its going to be bigger than a prosumer camera yes.. in fact the lens alone probally will be.

[filmmaker1977]

35mm still photography mount option will rule that's for sure and unfortunately i don't read you posting right there as far as necessary.. this must be a RED dogma and not mainly the PL mount offer..

secondly, it will be good more efforts and info about the $5k RED UHD lenses offer as soon as the RED availability.. and unfortunately again i didn't read any post about that from the jannard's keyboard..

[filmmaker1977]

i think i kinda get your point but i dont really understand what your trying to say..

If your saying most people here have little cameras, yes your right. But most people here have if not owned, at least looked at or used a film camera at some time. At least a majority of people looking at buying a RED. Its going to be bigger than a prosumer camera yes.. in fact the lens alone probally will be.we need lightweight and affordable gear..

we want a RED revolution as far as it's easy dealing with a 1/3" cam.. that's the RED expectation.. i guess 90% of people here doesn't want an Arri 535/435/235 replacement what the D20 is, but an interlaced 1/3" or 2/3" killer.

[omen]

optical stabilization is not as an advantage anymore as it used to be.. it can be dont digitally without degregation using the overscan of the sensor.

This seems like the most logical solution with the technology available. Why bother with mechanics when chips can do the job ?
Less weight and fragility.

We'll just have to see if it can be done (in such a short period) with this amount of data.

[Greg Lowry]

The challenges of building an economical zoom to cover the S35 format are significant. There is no magic way to change the laws of physics in the design of optics. Take a look at Chris Hurd's photo of the ARRI Zeiss 16.5-110 T2.6 zoom (a very nice range).

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=630&c=42

It's quite huge, but reportedly delivers exceptional images, just as one would expect. It's a rental-only product at this time. If it were to be available for sale, it would probably sell for $60-$75k. Even the Zeiss Lightweight Zoom (15.5-45 T2.6) is about $45k.

I'm curious to know what prospective RED owners consider to be a "reasonable" price for a RED-branded zoom lens and what compromises, if any, to image quality, speed, zoom range, and/or mechanical design are acceptable?

[Robert Sanders]

After looking at the link and seeing the size of the lens, the size of the camera with mag, all the ports for different cables, etc., I laugh when I recall statements from major cinematographers who complain that digital cameras are too big, too heavy and need to be tethered. Cracks me up.

Look at the size of that friggin' thing!

[filmmaker1977]

yeah robert..

but there are a lot of poor filmmakers.. really indy people.. that care about the size..

well.. maybe, the weight(Y) specially when these people (indies?) are talking about PL mount..

dvxusers.. lol

[D_and_G]

The challenges of building an economical zoom to cover the S35 format are significant. There is no magic way to change the laws of physics in the design of optics. Take a look at Chris Hurd's photo of the ARRI Zeiss 16.5-110 T2.6 zoom (a very nice range).

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=630&c=42

It's quite huge, but reportedly delivers exceptional images, just as one would expect. It's a rental-only product at this time. If it were to be available for sale, it would probably sell for $60-$75k. Even the Zeiss Lightweight Zoom (15.5-45 T2.6) is about $45k.

I'm curious to know what prospective RED owners consider to be a "reasonable" price for a RED-branded zoom lens and what compromises, if any, to image quality, speed, zoom range, and/or mechanical design are acceptable?
Wasn't Jim working on a 17-100mm zoom ?

I would guess a $60K Zeiss lens should be comparable to a RED 17-100mm zoom, at $13-15K ?

Perhaps that is optimistic. I could see having a compromised speed and zoom range to keep the price lower, but keeping the image quality high. :beer:




RED# wish I was higher

[Greg Lowry]

Perhaps it won't be so funny when we see a fully loaded 4K-capable RED with onboard recorder, viewfinder, and comparable zoom lens.

[filmmaker1977]

Wasn't Jim working on a 17-100mm zoom ?yup.. for 2017.. :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

[Robert Sanders]

yeah robert..

but there are a lot of poor filmmakers.. really indy people.. that care about the size..

well.. maybe, the weight(Y) specially when these people (indies?) are talking about PL mount..

dvxusers.. lol

Well, I have two different thoughts about this.

First thought is that the bigger the better. It commands a lot more respect on set. It sets the tone that you're doing something significant. Even "24" star Keifer Sutherland admitted that he acts differently when a big ass Panavision is sitting in front of him.

The second thought is that smaller and light weight is better because it helps facilitate quicker and faster setups. Plus it's easier on everyone's backs. I'd much rather pick up a 17lb. XLH1 and move it then a 60lb. F900.

But the F900 gets the "wow" factor.

[D_and_G]

Perhaps it won't be so funny when we see a fully loaded 4K-capable RED with onboard recorder, viewfinder, and comparable zoom lens. ???


I hope that wasn't with regards to my post :)

I estimated that the RED 300mm zoom was about 1/3rd the price of comparable zooms out there, so if a 17-100mm zoom is about 1/3rd the price then it should be in the range of 13-15K. Likewise RED's specs break the barrier between ability and price.

RED is a revolutionary camera. It'd be great if there was a comparable one in lenses. :thumbsup:

My question is - we know that part of the reason that RED was formed was to deliver technology that was being withheld from the public (to protect the profit margins and higher end lines)with buyers. Is there a similar discrepancy in the lens market? Anyway, I would love to see a RED 17-100 zoom or prime. And I have full condfidence in the team at RED...and that ain't no joke. :beer:






RED #wish I was higher

[filmmaker1977]

Well, I have two different thoughts about this.

First thought is that the bigger the better. It commands a lot more respect on set. It sets the tone that you're doing something significant. Even "24" star Keifer Sutherland admitted that he acts differently when a big ass Panavision is sitting in front of him.robert you know i enjoy your work.. i respect you quite but..

i know you're in LA and i'm asking if as all (?) americans, are you thinking that the world is just US?..

there are a lot of filmmakers outside LA, outside US.. and sorry my guts, but i've a feeling that the majority of the RED customers are out there.

do you know the run & gun style?.. i can't believe that you had a filmmaker like John Cassavetes and you don't care..

this argument is not even an argument.. see what Mathieu Kassovitz posted about it.. and he's famous and he's working with Spielberg and so on.. however he's thinking lightweight.




CONT'D

[filmmaker1977]

The second thought is that smaller and light weight is better because it helps facilitate quicker and faster setups. Plus it's easier on everyone's backs.the real 'wow' form factor..

cinema is not only hollywood..

and i dare to say RED is above all the indie cam not the mainstream camera..

if Jannard will change that, he will lose a lot of customers..

and i can not be the first one but i wouldn't be the last one..

[Greg Lowry]

???I hope that wasn't with regards to my post :)

I estimated that the RED 300mm zoom was about 1/3rd the price of comparable zooms out there, so if a 17-100mm zoom is about 1/3rd the price then it should be in the range of 13-15K. Likewise RED's specs break the barrier between ability and price.

RED is a revolutionary camera. It'd be great if there was a comparable one in lenses. :thumbsup:

My question is - we know that part of the reason that RED was formed was to deliver technology that was being withheld from the public (to protect the profit margins and higher end lines)with buyers. Is there a similar discrepancy in the lens market? Anyway, I would love to see a RED 17-100 zoom or prime. And I have full condfidence in the team at RED...and that ain't no joke. :beer:

No, I was responding to another post about the size of the ARRICAM w/zoom. I don't buy into the conspiratorial economic theory. The point I was trying to make is that a zoom lens for the S35 sensor when used at full res will be quite large and heavy. Such lenses are usually expensive too. It won't be easy for RED to come up with an economical zoom lens solution. It also takes time. The price can obviously be lower if RED can sell in volume. But what's the magic price point and how many can they sell? Difficult questions right now.

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the RED 300mm lens (it's not a zoom, it's a fixed focal length telephoto) is 1/3 the price of comparable optics. What's the comparitive?

[D_and_G]

No, I was responding to another post. The point I was trying to make is that a zoom lens for the S35 sensor when used at full res will be quite large and heavy. Such lenses are usually expensive too. It won't be easy for RED to come up with an economical zoom lens solution. It also takes time.

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the RED 300mm lens (it's not a zoom, it's a fixed focal length telephoto) is 1/3 the price of comparable optics.

Oh, I just did a casual search for similar lenses. Obviously, it isn't because I thought it was a zoom.
:( ... Telephoto, that's an odd choice.

Out of curiousity what solution would you lean towards ?


Cheers

[Jarred Land]

filmmaker im not sure what kinda rampage your on.. nobody here is saying that RED should only make cameras for native LA people or only for americans.. they are making a global camera for the entire world... I dont get what the bejesus your talking about when you keep bringing up the only LA thing... I know your a smart guy and maybe its just me going nutso but I think you may of fell of your rocking chair a couple days ago :)

[Jarred Land]

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the RED 300mm lens (it's not a zoom, it's a fixed focal length telephoto) is 1/3 the price of comparable optics. What's the comparitive?

the 300mm lense is about 1/3 of the price as a standard prime... at least if you compare it to a cooke.

[filmmaker1977]

No, I was responding to another post about the size of the ARRICAM w/zoom.i thought it was to me maybe.. if it was, no hard feelings :) i have the same opinion..

these guys are thinking that PRO is the same than heavy gear..

not you Robert but you're working in hollywood.. as cinematography.com member, read the red forum and catch the idea what THOSE people have about the red revolution.. they don't want it and period

lol

why will it be?

and please robert, forget people like Kiefer Sutherland.. he's not an actor but a money maker.. :violent5:
(i'm sorry if once you're reading this, mister..)

but you don't think strange why will it be all that interest about 1/3" HD capture from people working with him?

i hope the same question from jannard's being the clever guy that he shows to be.

[filmmaker1977]

filmmaker im not sure what kinda rampage your on.. nobody here is saying that RED should only make cameras for native LA people or only for americans.. they are making a global camera for the entire world...i hope so but there are a lot of different people here with DISTINCTIVE needs.. we aren't thinking the same..


I dont get what the bejesus your talking about when you keep bringing up the only LA thing... I know your a smart guy and maybe its just me going nutso but I think you may of fell of your rocking chair a couple days ago :)that's my big trauma.. i'm used to sleep when i'm going to see the last big box-office hit :)

[Damon Botsford]

Is it me or the thread?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[filmmaker1977]

lol..

[Jarred Land]

Is it me or the thread?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
im glad im not alone.. i have no idea what is going on :badputer:

[filmmaker1977]

lol.. part 2

[Greg Lowry]

the 300mm lense is about 1/3 of the price as a standard prime... at least if you compare it to a cooke.
But Cooke doesn't make a 300 mm. Not a real comparison. 300mm lenses for cine use are modified still camera lenses, mostly Canons. Most still camera telephotos are not as pricy as Zeiss or Cooke primes. Century Precision optics has a remounted Canon 300 T3. I suspect it's in the same price range as the RED 300 mm T2.8. I'm sure the RED 300 wasn't designed and built from scratch. It's probably a Canon. Just a guess, but an educated one.

[Jarred Land]

ha ha thats why i said compare.. Cookes are between $15,000 and $20,000. I dont know how much they would scale a 300mm beyond their 180mm.. so who knows. And im being very generous to cooke.. it could very well be 5x the price.

[Greg Lowry]

Oh, I just did a casual search for similar lenses. Obviously, it isn't because I thought it was a zoom.
:( ... Telephoto, that's an odd choice.

Out of curiousity what solution would you lean towards ?


Cheers
There are many economical still camera alternatives to modify for RED fixed focal length lenses including Canon, Nikkor, Leitz, and the new Zeiss lenses. There are also some short (but quite slow) zooms made by these companies that could be modfied quite inexpensively. Century Precision Optics has several. But wide angle zooms with, say, 5-1 or greater zoom range are much more difficult. The big three zoom manufacturers are Cooke, Angenieux and Zeiss. I can't even think of a forth. Their glasses is superb and you pay for it. There are no comparable lenses available from the still camera world. A RED zoom is a big challenge, IMO. But that's what RED is all about so it'll be interesting to see what they develop.

[Jarred Land]

leica makes some pretty glass in the still world Greg.. but your right.. nothing beats the big boys. To me, nothing beats S4's. I use them whenever i can. It will be interesting to see what the RED primes/zooms look like.

I have a feeling though places like Century may start whittling some old glass for RED.

[Gordon Prince]

I've been following this debate and I agree with filmmaker. He's right. PL mount lenses are heavy. And for run and gun use, SLR alternative will be the best option. If not for all, for many people that are working with the hvx. Or from the dvx world.

[filmmaker1977]

as i said: not all the people have the same needs..

so many expectations about the red revolution..

it must mean different solutions according the several customer profiles that will be possible to find in each potential RED shooter and its future use..

and don't limit the lightweight and affordable way for those that need or want it.. that is what i'm looking for and if i'm not wrong i will not be alone.

[D_and_G]

Good point Greg. But i'm still wondering about follow focus with the still photography lenses (although it may be unwarranted) ...

The S4's look good.

What about these Russian made "Elite's" http://www.slowmotioninc.com/sales/35_lenses.htm
I don't know about the quality, but they are apparently much cheaper than Zeiss. I would be interested if anyone knows the price list for them, or has used them. And used Zeiss SuperSpeeds are another option.

I'm anxious to start testing RED with a variety of lenses to see which I may want to buy, which to rent, and all the combinations possible...:thumbsup:



Cheers.

RED # wish I was higher

[filmmaker1977]

Good point Greg. But i'm still wondering about follow focus with the still photography lenses.yup.. it's also my case.. SI is in that way and i am with them too!

Dolce e Gabbana.. don't be hidden never more ok?.. are you hearing about the dan (former MPIC, felix now) partnership with the Ari and Jason company?


I'm anxious to start testing RED with a variety of lenses to see which I may want to buy, which to rent, and all the combinations possible...:thumbsup:do you see jarred what i wanted to say?.. and this guy is coming from your native non-LA land.. :)

[acrochordon]

How much does the lens below cost?
Is this what we should be looking at to buy?
I only have a Canon 100mm macro. So I want to buy one zoom lens for my RED (when I get one) and that is it. I am not going to be able to afford more than one lens. (Yeah I know zooms have distortion, etc.)

What is the best zoom out there for RED? What is the cost of such lens?

I am guessing that Cooke will make all the lenses for RED. I am guessing that RED will have a zoom. I am guessing that it will be designed from scratch. But I want to know if it will be similar to the lens below in looks, weight and price. Maybe I am asking for too many RED secrets to be revealed too soon. I am just wondering how much money I should be saving up for a lens.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/s4hdzoom

[Jarred Land]

thanks Gordon for letting us know what filmmaker was saying.. and now i get it, and he does have a point. That is why there most likely will be a still mount for the Red camera. Unfortunately, there are alot of really slow, really crappy soft still lenses out there, but I still think that it will be a good starting point for alot of people that already are stretching to find the 17k for the body... many of those people hear the price of a cine-zoom to be $50,000 and they almost have a heart-attack.

[Jarred Land]

redrock has fixed the followfocus issue with still lenses.. they make adjustable rings for most still lenses out there with standard gearing.

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.472981/sc.2/category.11/.f

not the pretiest of things... but they work.

[Greg Lowry]

leica makes some pretty glass in the still world Greg.. but your right.. nothing beats the big boys. To me, nothing beats S4's. I use them whenever i can. It will be interesting to see what the RED primes/zooms look like.

I have a feeling though places like Century may start whittling some old glass for RED.
Leica lenses are made by Leitz. Leitz also makes many of Panavision's lenses. I'm a Zeiss fan, but the S4's are fabulous lenses. I agree that Century could be a useful source of lenses for RED users.

[filmmaker1977]

thanks Gordon for letting us know what filmmaker was saying..you got it.. :) yup, he's a supporter.. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)


That is why there most likely will be a still mount for the Red camera. Unfortunately, there are alot of really slow, really crappy soft still lenses out there, but I still think that it will be a good starting point for alot of people that already are stretching to find the 17k for the body... many of those people hear the price of a cine-zoom to be $50,000 and they almost have a heart-attack.i completely agree.. it is where i found my explanation about the crap (i mean CONTENT not the fancy cinematography) that i've been finding in every hollywood hit.. the people need to make money to pay the gear :laugh: and they're forgetting the art of making movies.. it's not only cinematography.. in my case, i'm just a director.. awarded or not it's not the point..

[Greg Lowry]

How much does the lens below cost?
Is this what we should be looking at to buy?
I only have a Canon 100mm macro. So I want to buy one zoom lens for my RED (when I get one) and that is it. I am not going to be able to afford more than one lens. (Yeah I know zooms have distortion, etc.)

What is the best zoom out there for RED? What is the cost of such lens?

I am guessing that Cooke will make all the lenses for RED. I am guessing that RED will have a zoom. I am guessing that it will be designed from scratch. But I want to know if it will be similar to the lens below in looks, weight and price. Maybe I am asking for too many RED secrets to be revealed too soon. I am just wondering how much money I should be saving up for a lens.
Are you sitting down? That lens, which is super-16 format, is $59,950. Only another $1,100 for the case.

Cooke zooms to cover the S35 sensor are $39,000 to $45,000. Cooke S4 primes range in price from $15,000 to $23,000 per focal length.

[joe 1008]

It wouldn´t make sense for RED to develop a zoom in that price range. They aim at a broader market where people pay less. They don´t want to develop a camera for rental stores, neither they want do so with the lenses, I suppose. So a reasonable price for a zoom would be around 10K to 15K. Don´t know if it´s possible but that price tag would fit the concept of the RED as I perceive it.

[Jarred Land]

I think they are targeting the zoom to be around $8000. I could be wrong, I know i got that number wrong before. But as you can see, compared to $50,000.. $8000 is a huge difference.

Im sure you understand the economies of scale though.. Cooke had a very small market to sell S35 lenses too.. basically Rental Houses and Very Rich people. Red comes in with a camera that should put a S35 camera in 1000X more hands... which will make the entire scale of prodution cost of the lens come down massively.

Oh.. and something to do with the fact Jim has a little company that has been making lenses for 25 years probally helps as well.

[joe 1008]

I thought the body of the RED would cost 10K and it came out at 17K. Now I wished the lens would be at 7K to 8K - so I wrote 10K to 15K. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) What I mean is: 8K for a zoom would be absolutely great!

[filmmaker1977]

I think they are targeting the zoom to be around $8000. I could be wrong, I know i got that number wrong before. But as you can see, compared to $50,000.. $8000 is a huge difference.:dankk2: Jarred!

my savings are on-budget.. now, the only thing that we need is an estimated delivery date.. Jim, where are you?..

but if you prefer, i can requesting: Mr. Jannard, where are you, Sir?..

[acrochordon]

Thanks guys for the price estimates. $2,000 is the most I want to spend on a lens. Maybe I will not be buying a RED ONE as soon as I thought. Maybe I should get a second job. Anybody need their lawn mowed?

[filmmaker1977]

do you see people?

don't worry.. people like me it will request a 35mm still photography mount as well..

and despite the non-offcial confirmation, jarred and graeme both already confirmed the feature.. though i'd like hear the owner himself.

[ZaneIsNumber1]

I think they are targeting the zoom to be around $8000. I could be wrong, I know i got that number wrong before. But as you can see, compared to $50,000.. $8000 is a huge difference.


I hope you're right! That price would be sweet.

Every RED camera should have an Oakley lens! If they cost $50,000, that won't be happening.

Zane

[acrochordon]

Is a Canon HD 20x for XL-H1 good enough to do 1920x1080 on the RED?
I don't own this lens. I could buy anything.

I want something good but still reasonably priced that will do 1080. I don't need a perfect lens, because I will probably not shoot in 4K.

What are some other good choices for around $2000? Please post a comment.

[Gordon Prince]

It's not a question of support someone which work we know, it's also a common point of view that we share with a large community of members here. Or where we are talking about as non-virtual individuals and real shooters.

[joe 1008]

Take still primes or still zooms. With the RED they will work even better than with a 35mm adapter like the M2 because the RED sensor probably will be much faster and you can close the aperture some stops (if you want) and avoid that sometimes too soft look which the adapter produce.

[Jarred Land]

check ebay for 16mm cine lenses.. that will gurantee you a windowed workflow. If you try and shoot the entire sensor though, your gonna be looking through a peephole.

Electronic lenses probally wont work (like canon eos lenses with autofocus etc.) and your gonna hafta leave them wide open... using SLR lenses that arnt manual may be a pain in the ass, depending on if the geniouses over at RED figure a work around.

So buying any still lenses right now for use on RED isnt the best idea. Not till we know what will work and what wont. Your pretty safe with any PL mount cine lense though, as long as you realize the limitations of each format.

[Gordon Prince]

Take still primes or still zooms. With the RED they will work even better than with a 35mm adapter like the M2 because the RED sensor probably will be much faster and you can close the aperture some stops (if you want) and avoid that sometimes too soft look which the adapter produce.I agree.

[joe 1008]

oops! Wasn´t there that talk that still lenses would fit? Seems I got something wrong.

[Gordon Prince]

check ebay for 16mm cine lenses.. that will gurantee you a windowed workflow. If you try and shoot the entire sensor though, your gonna be looking through a peephole.

Electronic lenses probally wont work (like canon eos lenses with autofocus etc.) and your gonna hafta leave them wide open... using SLR lenses that arnt manual may be a pain in the ass, depending on if the geniouses over at RED figure a work around.

So buying any still lenses right now for use on RED isnt the best idea. Not till we know what will work and what wont. Your pretty safe with any PL mount cine lense though, as long as you realize the limitations of each format.IMO, as filmmaker said, the question will be the weight for run & gun purposes. We are working with doc stuff and this will be a sensitive point.

[Jarred Land]

Take still primes or still zooms. With the RED they will work even better than with a 35mm adapter like the M2 because the RED sensor probably will be much faster and you can close the aperture some stops (if you want) and avoid that sometimes too soft look which the adapter produce.

and everything isnt upside down :)

[acrochordon]

Sorry guys, I didn't research before I posted. You can't just buy a Canon 20x HD lens. It only comes with the XL H1 body. You can't buy it seperate. So there goes that idea. Anybody else have any ideas? I read that a 35mm lens will get a 7x multiplication factor on a HD camera. Is that the exact number on the RED? That would mean my 100mm macro would become a 700mm tele. Hummmm. Scrap the 35mm adaptor idea. I guess I will just have to save my loose change for the RED lenses.
I guess you need a super lens to get the lines of resolution that 4k would require. I guess there is no cheap lens for HD (I mean 1080p which is technically not HD.)

[Jarred Land]

IMO, as filmmaker said, the question will be the weight for run & gun purposes. We are working with doc stuff and this will be a sensitive point.

dont worry... although Jim hasnt 100% commited to having still lens mounts.. im very confident third parties will step up.

[Jarred Land]

Sorry guys, I didn't research before I posted. You can't just buy a Canon 20x HD lens. It only comes with the XL H1 body. You can't buy it seperate. So there goes that idea. Anybody else have any ideas? I read that a 35mm lens will get a 7x multiplication factor on a HD camera. Is that the exact number on the RED? That would mean my 100mm macro would become a 700mm tele. Hummmm. Scrap the 35mm adaptor idea. I guess I will just have to save my loose change for the RED lenses.
I guess you need a super lens to get the lines of resolution that 4k would require. I guess there is no cheap lens for HD (I mean 1080p which is technically not HD.)

you dont want to buy an automatic lens.. your wasting your money.

[Gordon Prince]

dont worry... although Jim hasnt 100% commited to having still lens mounts.. im very confident third parties will step up.:dankk2: We are hoping so. But it was already confirmed by the RED team, wasn't it?

[Gordon Prince]

you dont want to buy an automatic lens.. your wasting your money.I wouldn't say the same about the manual option but if the question is around the auto offer, I agree.

[Greg Lowry]

Sorry guys, I didn't research before I posted. You can't just buy a Canon 20x HD lens. It only comes with the XL H1 body. You can't buy it seperate. So there goes that idea. Anybody else have any ideas? I read that a 35mm lens will get a 7x multiplication factor on a HD camera. Is that the exact number on the RED? That would mean my 100mm macro would become a 700mm tele. Hummmm. Scrap the 35mm adaptor idea. I guess I will just have to save my loose change for the RED lenses.
I guess you need a super lens to get the lines of resolution that 4k would require. I guess there is no cheap lens for HD (I mean 1080p which is technically not HD.)

Lenses designed for a 3 x 1/3", 1/2" CCDs won't work on the RED because 1) they don't cover even the smallest windowed sensor format (i.e. 720p) and b) they're not designed for a single sensor camera. If you want to do 1920 x 1080p work you need lenses that are the correct format for the sensor. The RED website indicates that this can be Super 16 or B4 mount 2/3" lenses. You may be able to find a very used zoom for $2000.

As for the image magnification (multiplication) factor you quote, it all depends on what HD sensor size you're using for the comparison. "HD" comes in many sensor sizes from 1/3" to S35.

[Proteus]

I think we should remember that while RED is 4k, (more like 3k) it's not film, so it won't have the same need as 35mm film for ultra-sharp lenses, especially if the filmmaker's intention is to downconvert to 1080p.

Sharpness is the last thing I would trade, but if the *real* benefit is say 10-15% it wouldn't worth it to pay 10 times more money...would it?

I think that the RED team should make some serious testing of existing affordable lenses and make a short suggested list preferably along with MTF curves and geometric and chromatic aberration measurements. That would be usefull to show how well they perform, not only with RED, but in comparison with other more expensive lenses. Just to help the RED customers to make the right decisions!

I also believe as filmmaker1977 (BTW, what happened that date?) that a good 35mm still lens might be the solution for many RED customers.
I’d like to know for example how my old good and famous (still selling) 17-35 f2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikon zoom lens with manual aperture would compare ($1500) with other more expensive “cine” lenses. Of course on RED it will be a 26-54 I think…

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/wide/img/ai_af-s_ed_17-35mmf28d_if/pic_001.jpg

[Jarred Land]

I think that the RED team should make some serious testing of existing affordable lenses and make a short suggested list preferably along with MTF curves and geometric and chromatic aberration measurements. That would be usefull to show how well they perform, not only with RED, but in comparison with other more expensive lenses. Just to help the RED customers to make the right decisions!

Very good proteus.. this will most likely be a test that we will do on DVXuser as soon as we can... take the camera and a whole whack of lenses and do a little glass shootout.

[donatello]

i would guess that sensor size is like film size /( 8, 16,35, 65mm)
the smaller the film (sensor) size the more resolution required from the lens ..
so based on that 2k/1080p ( most HD lens) require more resolution (then 35mm sensor size ) as it must put all the detail into a 1920x1080 area ... so shooting a Viper at 4k res on it's 1920x1080 sensor requires a ultra sharp lens to really see the 4k res ....
SO it would seem that shooting 35mm lens using full sensor (as far as i know HD lens do not cover 35mm size sensor) requires less resolution from lens then shooting on smaller section of the chip ( ie: 720p, 1080p ) ??

[Jarred Land]

your kinda right donatello.. in terms of pixel density. There are a few other things in there dealing with larger glass and the more the light needs to be bent, but on the bottom line, your got it.. the bigger the focus plane of the sensor falls on the lower resolution the glass needs to be... but remember... that would be assuming that the full sensor was used to directly capture 1080.. if you use the full sensor to capture 4k then that all goes out the window.

[evinsky]

I think we should remember that while RED is 4k, (more like 3k) it's not film, so it won't have the same need as 35mm film for ultra-sharp lenses, especially if the filmmaker's intention is to downconvert to 1080p.

Sharpness is the last thing I would trade, but if the *real* benefit is say 10-15% it wouldn't worth it to pay 10 times more money...would it?

I think that the RED team should make some serious testing of existing affordable lenses and make a short suggested list preferably along with MTF curves and geometric and chromatic aberration measurements. That would be usefull to show how well they perform, not only with RED, but in comparison with other more expensive lenses. Just to help the RED customers to make the right decisions!

I also believe as filmmaker1977 (BTW, what happened that date?) that a good 35mm still lens might be the solution for many RED customers.
I’d like to know for example how my old good and famous (still selling) 17-35 f2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikon zoom lens with manual aperture would compare ($1500) with other more expensive “cine” lenses. Of course on RED it will be a 26-54 I think…

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/wide/img/ai_af-s_ed_17-35mmf28d_if/pic_001.jpg

I've shot this lens on my 12mp D2x and blown it up to 30"x40" and it looks georgous! As long as you can handle the mechanics it should produce top notch results.

[omen]

If the revolution is what we're witnessing here, maaaybe the newest technology can step in...

I imagine the comparison between:

a) the cost and time of further developing this type of lens technology, centuries old, dependent on many glass limitations
-keeping the price cutting in mind

aand

b) the cost to develope liquid lens technology, which could most probably take things to a whole new level.


I see it like this...compare glass treatment and all the hardware that goes with it - with research in types of liquids and membranes etc. needed for the liquid lens technology.
As far as I know, current status with liquid lens is that manufacturers will put them in smaller devices for now, such as mobile phones, but the same manufacturers probably have tons of old lens to sell, or cooperate with the ones who do.

I belive RED can go further.

Think of the potential, guys.



I personally wouldn't want to carry THOSE gigantic expensive things around...


And for actors who feel better having a huge cylindrical things in front of their face......pffff:

-If you need that, my friend, to act...
go do something else.
Your occupation existed waaay before the camera did.

And the camera doesn't exist. Remember ?


Movie making is an art of creating moving visual experiences for the audience. All the complicating in between needs an tends to be cleared.
I personally don't need too complicated hardware systems and hundreds of people in a film crew to make something for what I think is good.
Who thought two decades ago movie making would come to your personal computer?

Things change.

Soon we won't need to have dosens of lens beacuse a few will cover it all. Maybe even just one. Think of the freedom.

If we put aside The Industry standards and it's needs for cost justification and concentrate on the primal motivation of moviemaking, we could see that the tools should be available for everyone. Their developement shouldn't be dictated and slowed down by huge companies. THEN we would see the best creations.

That is why I was happy like a child finding out about a revolutionary toy in the making - by the same guy who likes to play, seems like doesn't give a damn about the Industry,
AND can afford to make new toys.
Maybe some of MJ's carisma passed to him during cooperation :)... I dunno,
but surely it started.

The revolution.

Someone had to start it. I'm glad the guy who provided me the "Flesh" shoes did. Very glad.
He doesn't need somebody else to shoot films for the products HE designed.
And THAT is something to think about.
...................


If I chose to be a sculptor (or some other force did)
I wouldn't have to worry about earning $50k for the best chisel.

A good sculptor can make a masterpiece with the worst one.

Most of them did.

[omen]

That felt nice.

Apologies to the ones who fell asleep.

Maybe they needed a rest.

This occupation tends to really drain a person.

:)

[Proteus]

I imagine the comparison between:

a) the cost and time of further developing this type of lens technology, centuries old, dependent on many glass limitations
-keeping the price cutting in mind

aand

b) the cost to develope liquid lens technology, which could most probably take things to a whole new level.


I see it like this...compare glass treatment and all the hardware that goes with it - with research in types of liquids and membranes etc. needed for the liquid lens technology.

You have a point. I think that it's almost inexcusable that the lens technology remained *essentially* the same so many years. You see, it's far more convenient to step on the same path than discover a new, better one. Too many academic papers and not enough creativeness...
I also would encourage the RED team to dare to seek for something different than what everybody else is using....whatever that would be. Even if that will take a couple of years (with the right minds involved). BTW how about a parallel optics research team?


And for actors who feel better having a huge cylindrical things in front of their face......pffff:

-If you need that, my friend, to act...
go do something else.
Your occupation existed waaay before the camera did.

And the camera doesn't exist. Remember ?

I agree. If someone has been used to see big cameras, make him do all rehearsals in front of a ...little pocket DV camcorder and then shoot with the regular camera. That will make him see it *much* bigger than it is!

[Graeme_Nattress]

Actually, it's the hyperspace lens light bending technology that I'm working on for future lenses.

Graeme

[Proteus]

Actually, it's the hyperspace lens light bending technology that I'm working on for future lenses.

Graeme

Haha LOL, I wonder, will it work on the fifth or sixth dimension Graeme? :grin:

[mike the beginner]

This has been a great thread:)

When Jim Jannard was aked by someone? (reffering to Page 3 Red Dawn at NAB 2006 fxguide-visual effects school) about lenses he was quoted as saying "He explained that while Cooke lenses are brilliant,Red is building for a much higher volume and yet it still produced exceptional clarity in the lab" There was also a comment from Ted Schilowitz that they were working on a zoom lens which is currently spec'd at 11-100mm lens.

IF Red produce the goods (the camera) as expected, then i will feel really confident that the lenses will also be priced similar. Guessing the price of a zoom at prices anything approaching a Cooke must surely be exactly opposite what Mr Jannard envisages. Somewhere between Jarrads $5,000 and $8,000 would be a realistic price given that HE MUST sell thousands and to do that he has to sell cheaply. Many of us who have reserved a Red have went out on a limb (and more than a few prayers) to buy into Red AND factored in a Wide angle zoom at prices as above. If Red were to produce a great camera then in a few months time produce a zoom at say $15,000 then it would not be in the spirit of what Red is all about (i think and hope). IF Red sells really well (in the thousands) and their predicted zoom likewise at prices above THEN later on they can make other lenses that have lower f stops, otical viewfinders and othr expensive items etc. The big movie people will buy into all that whilst us wee guys will be delighted with our cheaper slower lenses and cheaper EVF etc.

Red removed the comments about the zoom lens and indicated that future lenses would probably not be ready until after the camera is in production. This is understandable given the huge task ahead of them and the importance of getting the camera out at or near the "engineering target" as possible without the carry on that we had with the HVX AND the trickle feed production. Red has already stated they are geared to mass production coupled with the founder's comments, i gather the first batch will be for the testers (Jarrad and Gibby etc) and that is good for Red and all the rest of us that have reserved further down the line as the bugs are more likely to be spoted by these guys and hopefully sorted before the first production run (for all those who have reserved:) )

How many s35mm zoom lenses are out there spec'd at 11-100mm? My bet is very few indeed hence Red is hopefully working on this one despite the withdrawl of comments.

Whilst on my huge learning path i was freaked out when i seen and read just how complex it is to produce a really good zoom lens. Since Cooke make great lenses i just wondered if there is advantages is waiting to produce the camera first and designing the zoom lens purpose built to suit the Red camera or does that not matter at all. I can appreciate lenses are made for any camera but just wondered are they tested on specific camera's during the process of making the lens.


When Red announced its first lens the 300mm prime, i got the ompression most people were surprised they choose a specialist lens. Why did Red choose that particular one? Like was it simply to see if they could produce a good lens similar to a Cooke but at much less than the price.

Being new to all this i hope i have not rambled on a load of rubbish if so sorry in advance:(

[Greg Lowry]

When Jim Jannard was aked by someone? (reffering to Page 3 Red Dawn at NAB 2006 fxguide-visual effects school) about lenses he was quoted as saying "He explained that while Cooke lenses are brilliant,Red is building for a much higher volume and yet it still produced exceptional clarity in the lab" There was also a comment from Ted Schilowitz that they were working on a zoom lens which is currently spec'd at 11-100mm lens.

IF Red produce the goods (the camera) as expected, then i will feel really confident that the lenses will also be priced similar. Guessing the price of a zoom at prices anything approaching a Cooke must surely be exactly opposite what Mr Jannard envisages. Somewhere between Jarrads $5,000 and $8,000 would be a realistic price given that HE MUST sell thousands and to do that he has to sell cheaply. Many of us who have reserved a Red have went out on a limb (and more than a few prayers) to buy into Red AND factored in a Wide angle zoom at prices as above. If Red were to produce a great camera then in a few months time produce a zoom at say $15,000 then it would not be in the spirit of what Red is all about (i think and hope). IF Red sells really well (in the thousands) and their predicted zoom likewise at prices above THEN later on they can make other lenses that have lower f stops, otical viewfinders and othr expensive items etc. The big movie people will buy into all that whilst us wee guys will be delighted with our cheaper slower lenses and cheaper EVF etc.

How many s35mm zoom lenses are out there spec'd at 11-100mm? My bet is very few indeed hence Red is hopefully working on this one despite the withdrawl of comments.

When Red announced its first lens the 300mm prime, i got the ompression most people were surprised they choose a specialist lens. Why did Red choose that particular one? Like was it simply to see if they could produce a good lens similar to a Cooke but at much less than the price.


I don't recall 11-100 being mentioned. Such a wide angle (approx. 100 degrees horizontal) zoom lens for the S35 format would be physically GIGANTIC. I think it was more like 17mm at the wide end. As for the low price you mention, time will tell. I would personally be impressed by a $15,000 price tag.

I don't believe the RED 300 mm lens was designed and built from scratch by RED. Jim may choose to correct me. Its price is comparable to other Canon 300 mm tele lenses remounted for movie cameras.

[Jay A. Kelley]

Based on a discussion with a friend that knows A LOT more than I do about lenses, he is very very sceptical about how the 16mm lenses will resolve the image on this sensor.
He opinion is that the sensor is simply NOT film and there could be a major sharpness issue. Frankly his reasons for saying this were a little over my head... But he seemed to make a lot of sense.

I guess the real answer will be this fall.

Another person brought up their extreme dislike for the cage concept. Let me see if I can say what he said:

He wants to see a larger body to allow for larger easier to use controls. He's fine with a "bracket system" that would allow additional items on the camera, but would prefer a larger body for the camera itself.
I asked him about size and he said "About 75% of the size of a sony 900 or Panasonic 900, a little smaller, easier to maneuver, but enough size to hold onto and work with." A good example (And I have heard this from a lot of people) is his distaste for the HVX 200. The body is bulky and off balance. Connections are too close together and hard to work with wearing gloves.

I see his point a little.. I would not mind larger controls that can be worked with gloves on. So if RED body were 35% LARGER That would be cool with me.

Over all there is a very pessimistic view of this camera in the professional world (Or at least the one I am exposed too). It is also worth noting that they HOPE they are wrong. "If it works, I will get in line" I was told by one person.
Jay

[Jay A. Kelley]

[quote=Greg Lowry]I would personally be impressed by a $15,000 price tag.
quote]

Many Greg I'm with you.. Any 35mm movie zoom lens under $20k would blow me away. Especially if it were a sharp and pretty lens!

Jay

[mike the beginner]

QUOTE:I don't recall 11-100 being mentioned. Such a wide angle (approx. 100 degrees horizontal) zoom lens for the S35 format would be physically GIGANTIC. I think it was more like 17mm at the wide end. As for the low price you mention, time will tell. I would personally be impressed by a $15,000 price tag.
______________________________________-

You may be right Greg probably a missprint since i recall two other articles that mention a 17-100mm lens and 18-100mm lens. I do hope your wrong in the lens guessing. It would make a mockery of the whole idea of producing a camera for the small type of operator, then coming out with a zoom at the same price (almost) of the camera. I need the s35mm lenses low light abilities and so do quite a few others. I dont want to reduce that quality by sticking on a much smaller (and cheaper) lens and i certainly would not have ordered a Red camera if i thought the zoom lens would come out at $15,000. Renting for me is not an option.

I wonder how much it cost lets say Canon to produce their xh1 or Panasonic to produce their HVX 200. Would they produce a loss if they only sold in their hundreds rather than thousands. My take on this is that they (Canon and Panny) factor in the prospect of selling in bulk otherwise it would not be worth their while making such a camera. Cooke only sell (from what i have read) to a limited amount of buyers. Their profit margin HAS to be much higher or they would loose money.....surely. Red's vision is to sell THOUSANDS at a lower profit margin....much lower (i hope):)

Does anyone know how many s35mm lenses are sold to give us an idea of costs and profits etc.

Michael







What weight would a 17-100mm zoom come in at?

[Greg Lowry]

The Cooke 18-100 is 12 lbs (5.5 kg), 14.65 inches (372 mm) long.

Of course I don't speak for RED, but to put things into perspective, it is not uncommon for a full set of lenses to cost considerably more than a high-end film camera. A set of Zeiss Digiprimes can be as much or more than a Varicam, Sony 900 or TGV Viper. And at the lower end of the scale, as the price of 2/3" video cameras declines, lens prices seem to holding firm. They can be as much or more than the camera body. Don't you think it's reasonable to plan to spend at least as much for lenses, recording systems, viewfinders, etc. as for the camera body? That's generally the expectation for pro gear (except perhaps for high-end DV equipment).

One disadvantage of RED marketing focusing so heavily on the $17,500 camera body for so many months is that the other essentials are somewhat off the radar screen in some people's minds.

BTW, if you need low light capabilities from your S35 lenses, zooms generally aren't the way to go. Find some used primes or use remounted still camera lenses.

On the subject of volume and profit margins, somewhere in my files I have info on how many sets of Zeiss Digiprimes have been sold to date. I'll see if I can find that as a frame of reference.

[Robert Sanders]

You bring up a good point Greg.

[taubkin]

An S35mm 17-100 zoom lens is not designed for everybody, and people who expect to OWN one of those, should get to their senses.

A used prime lens kit, remounted still lens kit, or even a 16mm zoom are amongst the most popular optics we will see REDowners carry. If you need a zoom lens, you can rent. If you´ll be running/gunning and need a zoom lens, shoow windowed 2K, as you won´t be able to shoot 4K anyway. And if you are running and gunning and want S35mm DOF, you might want to think again and choose to hit the occasional focus, instead. I consider a minimum 3000 maximum 15000 dollars lens package for a RED owner (as a reasonable investment), and the 15000 dollar package is not the RED zoom.

[mike the beginner]

Quote:One disadvantage of RED marketing focusing so heavily on the $17,500 camera body for so many months is that the other essentials are somewhat off the radar screen in some people's minds.

Somewhere in my files I have info on how many sets of Zeiss Digiprimes have been sold to date. I'll see if I can find that as a frame of reference.
_______________________________

Thanks for that information Greg it is really appreciated.

I wonder what most people think about your comments regarding the other essentials? But more importantly what are Jim Jannard's whole outlook towards this. Red is billed quite rightly as a revolutionary camera at a price point that more than a few pros got completely wrong!!

We had estimates over $50,000 for a Red camera. I just think the founder not only wishes to make a great camera but to completely shake things up in other ways and not just in camera design etc. I would not be surprised if Red is hoping for sales appproaching the likes of a sony fx in three years time. Some of you have already said there are plenty of big hitters sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if Red delivers. There are also a lot of small time operators assessing if they can afford Red plus lenses. Maybe i am cuckoo on this one but i happen to think that Jim Jannard is not in this for profit but for other reasons such as a passionate love of camera's over many years.

Some wealthy individuals crave for ways of making more money. In this instance the crave (if i have read him right) is all about making something that was NOT available to him AND giving the opportunity to the small independent operators to have these tools to compete with those much higher up. I have faith that Red will deliver on the other items at a great price and much lower than most expect. I also think that he stands a pretty good chance to turn loyalty on its head and instead of going for anything that is similar in price in future, we might just find people so taken back with the initial products that they may change their outlook and start supporting a company that has delivered what was un-deliverable by all the other manufacturers.

The same thing i hope will happen to the lens manufacturers if Red can deliver a zoom at a great price.

Greg i do worry though on what you said about their 300mm prime lens. If it does indeed compare with existing prime lenses then it is entirely reasonable to think that the price of a zoom will be as you state much higher. If they do price it at over $15,000 then i think a lot of small operators might be doing their sums again and re-examining their purchase of Red.

Bearing in mind i am a complete beginner so i respect fully the views of experience. I would like to hear more from the pros on this or better still the "man himself":)

Michael

[mike the beginner]

Quote:And if you are running and gunning and want S35mm DOF, you might want to think again and choose to hit the occasional focus, instead. I consider a minimum 3000 maximum 15000 dollars lens package for a RED owner (as a reasonable investment), and the 15000 dollar package is not the RED zoom.

Thanks for that Tabkin....WOW. I really need to quickly learn up on this. Maybe the whole aspect for me of doing fishing videos without having to worry about FOV being so limited with a 1/3rd camera sensor. My desperation for low light during the best opportunities of catching my target species during the last hour of light and the first hour of dawn is just something i might have to live with. I know Red will be much more difficult to focus with using the full sensor and me a beginner from a boat ha ha. If i am not in a boat i am beside a river on bank filming angler in water fly fishing and i would have to wade out to get close ups.....one trip and the camera could be in the water hence the zoom requirement. Am i trying for the almost impossible?

I am trying to learn all this theory in such a short space of time. So far i have heard very little of the difficulties of using a s35mm camera never mind one with a zoom lens. Jim Jannard has mentioned it will be more difficult to use but where are the views from all the others who have used a 1/3rd ccd HD camera AND used a 35mm camera.

My limited knowledge tells me i can't get close ups without ....getting close other than a zoom. I know so little ...yet i am very keen to tackle the issue and learn if at all possible.

I am glad this has been brought up. I look at the massive advantages of having a s35mm camera and lens. Well how about the disadvantages in the real world. Heck i know and accept it will be extremely difficult but please others tell me just how difficult.

The weight of the zoom lens does not bother me compared to the thought of not being capable of focusing properly through lack of experience. I have factored in one full year to learn, i worry now it just may not be possible? HELP......

Michael

[luisbustamante]

Has anybody considered the ZEISS Lenses for Nikon F Mount as an option?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/4AE4CD3C0EC87F91C12571110038C241

more info here:
http://www.zeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf

For what the Zeiss webpage says they "incorporate new technical advances from the ZEISS Ultra Prime®, Master Prime® and DigiPrime® lenses for motion picture cameras". Currently available are a 1.4/50 and 1.4/85, priced at 499 and 999 euros respectively, and more are supposed to come during 2006.

Also, a quick question, how will the aperture on a SLR lens be affected when used in the RED ONE?

And finally, a question that's been bugging me since NAB, why will the first RED lens be a 300mm prime? I don't know if you guys agree, but it seems a rather odd choice. Any thoughts?

[Lowkus]

If a 300mm still prime can be made for $5k, then they can make just about any other prime for that price or less. Looking at the still-photo world, long telephoto lenses tend to represent the most expensive lenses in a line.

Additionally, a zoom that operates in the normal range should be feasible for within the $5k range as well. Why? Because the physical components required to make such a lens are not so far beyond the physical components used to make a 300mm prime. Zooms require more internal lenses, gears and motors and electronics. It might seem to require a lot of extra money to do those things, but really they can be added to the manufacturing process for less than $1000. The most expensive part of creating a zoom lens is the cost of the R&D to get everything perfect... but that's familiar territory to the Red engineers, so it won't likely add much to the cost.

My prediction is that the first zoom lens will come in at around $3500.

[Greg Lowry]

Luis,

Yes, the Zeiss lenses have been mentioned many times and are an excellent prospect. They're particularly well-suited because they're fully manual lenses and can be purchased from Zeiss without a lens mount.

The 300 was the first lens finished, simple as that.

Greg

[Greg Lowry]

If a 300mm still prime can be made for $5k, then they can make just about any other prime for that price or less. Looking at the still-photo world, long telephoto lenses tend to represent the most expensive lenses in a line.

Additionally, a zoom that operates in the normal range should be feasible for within the $5k range as well. Why? Because the physical components required to make such a lens are not so far beyond the physical components used to make a 300mm prime. Zooms require more internal lenses, gears and motors and electronics. It might seem to require a lot of extra money to do those things, but really they can be added to the manufacturing process for less than $1000. The most expensive part of creating a zoom lens is the cost of the R&D to get everything perfect... but that's familiar territory to the Red engineers, so it won't likely add much to the cost.

My prediction is that the first zoom lens will come in at around $3500.
You're rather fast and loose with the numbers and predictions, but time will tell.

Since when do S35 format zooms have "internal motors and electronics"?

No one should confuse the complexity of a zoom lens with that of a 300 mm telephoto. A zoom is a MUCH more complex beast.

The bottom line is that the only thing that will materially lower the price of the lenses compared to Zeiss, Cooke and Angenieux is manufacturing and sales volume. Time will tell on that too.

[D_and_G]

A used prime lens kit, remounted still lens kit, or even a 16mm zoom are amongst the most popular optics we will see REDowners carry. I consider a minimum 3000 maximum 15000 dollars lens package for a RED owner (as a reasonable investment), and the 15000 dollar package is not the RED zoom.

You make some good points. This thread got my interest peaked, so I started asking around about lenses from a couple DP's. And I have to say, I probably underestimated the cost. These are VERY APPROXIMATE figures I was told :

I'm not a big fan of used lenses (the due diligence and micro examination you have to do before purchase, and the upkeep costs). The only ones that come close price-wise (new) for 35mm are the Russian Elite one's I mentioned earlier. They are about $3000 U.S per Prime. A minimum of 5 focal lengths is a bare minimum. So 15K there.

A Cooke zoom at 18-100mm T3 is about $39K.

Used 35's run form about $18,000 for a MK2 small set of Superspeeds. Around $3000 per prime. The Dp's I spoke to weren't to complimentary about used Agenieux's so I don't know the price on them.

Now if you want to shoot Super 16, you have, new the Arri/Zeiss Ultra's at $13,000 a piece. Or the Canon zoom 6-180 at $18,500.

Used S16 there is the zeiss SuperSpeed 11-110mm at around $10,000.

Personally, I'm only interested in the 35mm-Super16mm field, when it comes to owning. For projects that need Super35 specialty lenses, or cutting edge new 35, I would rent. I can't see owning lenses at those prices.

So, after talking to the Dp's, I think the remounted still lenses are more and more attractive. There are some huge reservations the Dp's had, but I won't go into that here. I think many of us are trying to come up with a budget and explore ALL the options, so when the camera comes we will at least have a hand hold on expenses and workflow - although there will be tons more research and testing needed to be done.

If any of the figures I mentioned sound off, please feel free to correct them. For my research, I think Taubkins $3000 figure would only apply to remounted still lenses, and the minimum for cine lenses would be at the $10K and on up range. Of course, there are some who probably be happy with MKI's and older Angeniuex's (less $$$). I guess it will depend on what you are shooting for.

This has been a cool thread :beer:

Maybe Jim will pull of another potential revolution in lenses ? Making obsolescence obsolete (camera) - Making dreams affordable.(lenses) sounds good to me :beer:


Cheers.

RED #wish I was higher

[Greg Lowry]

We had estimates over $50,000 for a Red camera. I just think the founder not only wishes to make a great camera but to completely shake things up in other ways and not just in camera design etc. I would not be surprised if Red is hoping for sales appproaching the likes of a sony fx in three years time. Some of you have already said there are plenty of big hitters sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if Red delivers. There are also a lot of small time operators assessing if they can afford Red plus lenses. Maybe i am cuckoo on this one but i happen to think that Jim Jannard is not in this for profit but for other reasons such as a passionate love of camera's over many years.


Context is everything. A fully loaded RED at $30k, $40k or $50k looks like a bargain compared to high-end cameras where it's possible to spend $60k-$120k for a camera body and $100,000+ just for lenses. I think that's how many purchasers look at it. You're coming at it from the other direction. Everything that has happened so far indicates that RED has a very broad market in mind.

[luisbustamante]

Thanks for the answer, Greg. So, if you can buy the Zeiss lenses without a mount, does that means you can fit a PL mount into it? Is it that simple?

[Greg Lowry]

D_and_G. Your numbers look about right. I think what's useful about this thread is to get people seriously exploring lens options sooner rather than later. I suspect that the demand and prices for used Zeiss primes will take a bounce as the delivery date of the first batch of RED cameras approaches. Now is the time to carefully consider what you will need. Then start shopping. Make sure you budget to have any used lenses checked out by a qualified lens service tech before you buy. And caveat emptor when you buy on ebay (although this can be an excellent source). Buying used from a rental house is the best bet because you can be certain that the lenses have been well-maintained.

[Greg Lowry]

Thanks for the answer, Greg. So, if you can buy the Zeiss lenses without a mount, does that means you can fit a PL mount into it? Is it that simple?
I'm not aware of anyone with PL adapters for the Zeiss lenses yet, but they're no doubt in the works somewhere. In addition to PL mounts, they'll need proper focus and aperture ring gears.

The Zeiss website mentions only the ZF mount (Nikon) but I have read elsewhere that the lenses will be available without a specific mount. There's only a 50 mm/1.4 and an 85 mm/1.4 available now with more to be announced at Photokina in September. Zeiss also makes lenses for Contax cameras so those lenses may be useful too. As the ZF and Contax lenses are intended for still cameras, the wide angles won't be so wide on a S35 sensor, but hopefully the range will be expanded over time.

If I were RED, I'd be focused on those lenses as an excellent interim solution for budget-conscious customers.

I believe Band Pro has the US distribution rights to the new Zeiss lenses. I heard this unofficially. The lenses aren't on Band Pro's website yet.

Another source of PL mount still camera lenses is Century Precision Optics (now part of Schneider Optics). Century already has many PL mount still camera lenses including "compact" zooms and telephotos (including a 300mm T3 which is a remounted Canon).

The Century/Schneider website lists the remounted lenses they supply, but it looks like the site is under construction as it's short on photos and details. http://www.schneideroptics.com/

[evexon]

...I think many of us are trying to come up with a budget and explore ALL the options, so when the camera comes we will at least have a hand hold on expenses and workflow - although there will be tons more research and testing needed to be done.


Yes! I am stumbling along but this is exacty what I am trying to get my head around.



I think what's useful about this thread is to get people seriously exploring lens options sooner rather than later. I suspect that the demand and prices for used Zeiss primes will take a bounce as the delivery date of the first batch of RED cameras approaches. Now is the time to carefully consider what you will need. Then start shopping. Make sure you budget to have any used lenses checked out by a qualified lens service tech before you buy. And caveat emptor when you buy on e-bay (although this can be an excellent source).


I guess I didn't ask it very well in my other thread but this is the decision I am trying to make earlier rather than later. Thanks Greg!

[JTmoney]

Wow good stuff here! I like others am in the same boat. Already have a tripod and microphone, that I think will work well with the red camera. however After I spend 20k for the camera, that does not leave me a boat load of cash left over for glass!

Option 1: Save my money, and wait for Red to come out with, a good zoom lens, at a fair price.

Option 2: Buy 3 used primes at about 3k each. Question: I never worked with 35mm before. If I was to start with only 3 primes, what would be the best sizes to start off with and why?

Option 3: Forget the hole thing and go take a nap.....Is there another option?

[Greg Lowry]

Naps are always good.

If I were to choose only three lenses for the S35 format they would be Zeiss 25mm, 35mm (or 50mm), and an 85mm. Depending on the series, either T1.3, T1.4 or T2.1. Of course your needs depend on the kind of shooting you do. Some great movies have been made with only one or two different focal lengths. Most of the movie "Being There" was shot with a single 29mm lens with one or two closeups shot with a 40mm. The discipline of using prime lenses will make you a better cinematographer. Your footage will cut together better too. But if you do mostly documentary work you probably won't be using the full sensor so you should be considering a good S-16 zoom like the Zeiss 11-110.

Here are a few links I found to used lenses. Be careful not to confuse the 16mm with the 35 mm format lenses.

http://www.cinematechnic.com/products/sales_lenses.html

http://www.visualproducts.com/store02.asp?ID=8

http://www.miamifilm.com/lenses1.html

http://www.rarecamerainc.com/group/GrpId16.htm

http://www.cinevision-ny.com/salesinfo/sales.htm

http://www.fvesco.com/used_equip/used_film.htm

[JTmoney]

Greg Lowry,

Thank you much. And Yes cinema is the plan for the camera. Valued input. And thank you for the links .....Some good prices on some :)

[filmmaker1977]

Context is everything. A fully loaded RED at $30k, $40k or $50k looks like a bargain compared to high-end cameras where it's possible to spend $60k-$120k for a camera body and $100,000+ just for lenses. I think that's how many purchasers look at it. You're coming at it from the other direction. Everything that has happened so far indicates that RED has a very broad market in mind.The context isn't everything. A fully loaded RED at $30k, $40k or $50k looks like an impossibility compared to high-end cameras where it's impossible to spend $60k-$120k for a camera body and $100,000+ just for lenses. I think that's how many purchasers look at it. You're coming at it from the other direction. Everything that has happened so far indicates that RED has a very broad market in mind.

[Greg Lowry]

In looking through some of the used lens sites, I remembered another good choice for S35 lenses. The Canon K35 series (18, 25, 35, 50 and 85 if I recall correctly -- all T1.4 except the 18 that was T1.6 I think) -- circa mid 1970s -- are really excellent lenses. I used them for 35mm work back in the early 80s. 1970s lenses may seem ancient, but a well-maintained set will still deliver great images. I'm sure these lenses are still in use at some rental houses. Some of the low-light Irish exterior (non-candlelight) scenes in Barry Lyndon were shot with those Canons. Canon also made a companion 25-125 zoom that was good too. I used them all. There were originally BNCR mount, but i note that the can be converted to PL mount. Highly recommended if in good condition.

[Greg Lowry]

Filmmaker, I don't know what your point is, but you seem to have missed mine.

[Jay A. Kelley]

I agree with you Greg.. People are going to have to get used to the fact this stuff is going to cost money.. We're talking about PROFESSIONAL equipment. Filmmaker you need to get your demographic straight. We're talking about the broad market of people who are used to dropping $30 - $40k (Pana SDX900) for a camera but cannot reach the $65 - $100k range of the varicam. This camera is not meant for hobbyist, ok perhaps the rich ones. Pros who make a living shooting will be the ones grabbing this camera and I dare say not to many DVX users either. There will be some, but we're a long way from $6,000.00. A profrssional who makes enough to pay for his investement in two years and STILL make a decent living will be the camera's customer of choice. There are, of course, exceptions, but this will be the camera's main base. The other popular client will be small independant production companies who do enough work to make back what they would pay in rental for a camera not even as good as a RED. Of course for them to be interested RED will have to work very well with things like Final Cut Pro.

My feeling for RED is EXACTLY as Greg described it: I look at RED as a bargain when comparing similar technologies for $65K and up (And we're talking camera body only for that 65K)

Jay

[Proteus]

I think that RED will be flexible enough. Although the expensive accessories will be reachable only by the rich (or succesful), at a total cost of about 20k it should be useable, at least for 1080p, with much better quality than HDV, using a good SLR 35mm manual lens.

Of course the rich boys will take pictures of their rigs with every possible accessory on it, just to make the rest of us jealous! :huh:

Just crossed my mind ..it's like buying a Porsche with just an AM radio, no air-conditioning and cotton seats! ...still, you'll have a Porsche! :D

[donatello]

please don't look at cine lens as all or nothing !!
for those that cannot afford cine lens now there will be still lens mount.
so you buy 35mm still lens - there was/is nothing wrong with those lens 25, 20,15, 10,5 years ago for still photo and they'll serve very well/good on a RED .. come on your new RED has a 35mm sensor in it = 35mm DoF ..
you work with what you got !!! down the line you rent cine lens when you need or you buy when you can afford ...
i'll choose a 80-200mm F 2.8 & 28-70mm F2.8 nikor ( use as a variable prime not zooming) over a cooke 25-250 on a 16mm or 35mm Aaton 80% of the time ...
i'm no so sure that most here know the size/weight of a 18-100 or 25-250 cooke/angeniux ... you really have to see these lens to really "get" their size..

IMO a RED with any good still lens is going to to look good !!

again buy what you can afford !!!

[Greg Lowry]

donatello, if you read this (admittedly lengthy) thread you would see that a considerable part of the discussion is indeed about using remounted still camera lenses. While still camera lenses are indeed an option, in my experience lenses designed for a specific format perform best. Most 35mm still camera lenses are not as well built mechanically as cine lenses. They can tend to get a bit sloppy with heavy use and the the additional stresses of a mechanical follow focus system. But they can be an excellent compromise for those who can't afford cine lenses. It's a matter of making an informed decision. Intelligent compromise is usual part of that process. It's good to know all the options.

[filmmaker1977]

my good fellows greg and jay, besides my joke or provocative input what i meant to say it was already posted by proteus and don..

and despite your good will, the fact is there isn't "the" PROFESSIONAL..

but several sort of shooters, professionals and so on.. why not?

so please don't reduce the RED world to black & white, ok?

[Greg Lowry]

On the subject of sales volume of high end lenses, apparently 1000+ Zeiss Digiprime lenses have been sold since the lenses were introduced about 4 years ago. There are currently 8 focal lengths in the prime range and two zooms. If memory serves, each prime is $15k-$20k. Draw your own conclusions.

[Greg Lowry]

filmmaker, my good man (tips hat goodnaturedly), I believe I wrote: "Everything that has happened so far indicates that RED has a very broad market in mind."

I haven't reduced the market to single "sort of shooter". All I have done is provide a little information. What's done with it or how it's interpreted isn't up to me. I particularly take no responsibility for how you interpret what I write as you either don't grasp what you read or don't even bother to read the posts before your reply.

As for the "rainbow" world of RED, perhaps you'd prefer if we don't discuss anything at all, lest your delicate sensibilities be offended.

[filmmaker1977]

ok.. do you want a numbers war?.. :D

take this:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=488048&postcount=40

«It says that Canon has now produced 30 million EF lenses! 10 million of those lenses were made in just the last 5 years (probably due to the DSLR craze). That's an amazing amount of product and it really tells you something about economies of scale.»

don't you care about this point? i care!

do you want to know other professionals with this point?

besides don (you already know), i can add others like:

Robert Jackson.. this man is working since more than two decades in cinematography.. dealing with PL mount lenses.. he knows what he's talking about.. seriously

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=486357&postcount=7

and so on.. follow the thread..

this was also discussed before among us and the results are here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=58282

besides Tim L Ne, Robert Jackson or donatello, we have supporting this goal people like:

Evin Grant (evinsky here), taubkin, Emanuel, Mathieu Kassovitz.. are you familiar with THESE names?..

it matters.. because we don't want to go back.. and it's relevant to protect what we believe it must happen and Jim Jannard cannot forget..

[filmmaker1977]

filmmaker, my good man (tips hat goodnaturedly), I believe I wrote: "Everything that has happened so far indicates that RED has a very broad market in mind."

I haven't reduced the market to single "sort of shooter". All I have done is provide a little information. What's done with it or how it's interpreted isn't up to me. I particularly take no responsibility for how you interpret what I write as you either don't grasp what you read or don't even bother to read the posts before your reply.

As for the "rainbow" world of RED, perhaps you'd prefer if we don't discuss anything at all, lest your delicate sensibilities be offended.although my non-native english, i understand very well ALL the written english and if i wished to play with your words it was precisely i thought that would be possible to extract from your own thoughts a substantial concordance with our beliefs besides your rainbow.

[Greg Lowry]

*shakes hands with filmmaker and agrees to lighten up the tone of our exchanges.

[filmmaker1977]

:)

..

[JTmoney]

Wow that was exciting ...To me its about learning and helping others. Not about being right or wrong. I put in my reservation two days ago. And the glass is the bigest deal cost wise. Its nice to know all my options. We are all in the same boat for the most part. To me we are all valued here

[filmmaker1977]

Here are these three posts from Robert Jackson (IMHO particularly helpful):

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=486553&postcount=14
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=487065&postcount=22
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=488073&postcount=41

:thumbup:

[Greg Lowry]

Yes, i read Robert's posts and generally agree with him.

[Jay A. Kelley]

For the record,

I think everyone on here is completely wrong, and I am RIGHT.

I'm not sure what we're talking about.. But I'm damn sure I'm right about whatever it is!

There, I feel better.

Jay
:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[Gibby]

I like this thread! To me, the whole concept of a tech community board is to provide a think tank for members to exchange ideas and expertise. If not, we're wasting our time here.

In reading through this thread, I see some good minds in motion - a positive thing indeed.

A couple of observations:

An accessorized RED camera system can be inexpensive, relatively inexpensive, or very expensive, depending on the genre or sub-genre of production you work in. There will be people doing projects who just squeak out a "starter kit", consisting of a RED One camera, RED Drive, two RED internal batteries, a 3-handle or cage system, and a single used S16 prime lens or adapted still photography lens. Probable total system cost = around $23k. They will do a few projects to raise capital and gradually upgrade their system components.

There will be various levels of users with more resources and support that build much larger kits, all the way up to people who build huge RED systems costing several hundred thousand dollars. They will buy what they regularly use, and rent the rest on a per-project basis. Long-form projects with lengthy shooting schedules pose a rental problem, but if you were doing lots of projects, you'd think you would be generating enough funds to readily buy those long-form project accessories.

This entire thread has bypassed the RED ENG-style production possibilities and lens needs. I realize that the bulk of you are cine-oriented, but there is excellent money in rounding out your skill sets and equipment bins to be true convergence shooters. With 1080p, 1080i, and 720p on the RED spec sheet, and 2/3" B4 mount lenses included in the image and lens format matrix, there is a wide universe of ENG-style genres and sub-genres enabled by RED: sports (mobile ENG style and hard-lined), documentaries, reality, news (HD Net & others), high-end corporate, and many more. An ENG-style shooter will want to have a good shoulder brace mount, probably the 3-handle system or cage for creative handheld shots. Lenses? The least expensive route will be a used Canon or Fujinon 18x HD zoom, without a 2x, which you can now find for around $7k if you look hard. You can score a used Century 2x, if you need longer focal length, for about $1,200. It goes up from there. There are various HD zooms in the mid-teens for cost. The new, lightweight Fujinon HA16x6.5 zoom retails for about $25k. When you get to the 22x zooms, with 2x, they can run you as much as $40k.

So, a RED "starter kit" for someone who does a ton of ENG-style shooting, including camera system, shoulder brace, RED Drive, internal batteries, used HD zoom, should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $28k. If you're a convergent shooter, a basic addition might be to simply add in a used S16 zoom, or a used prime, and your combination ENG-style/cine-style "starter kit" might be around $32k.

The main thing is to buy equipment that will generate you revenue. Buy things you need, before things you simply want.

Again - nice thread, and good info for everyone to consider!

I'm heavily into a production schedule on multiple projects, and my time is way limited, so I won't be moderating this forum any more. I always find time to read multiple forums, no matter how busy I am, but moderating takes a lot of time. My first priority is production of my projects.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Proteus]

That's an awesome response Gibby, you made things even clearer!
Good luck with your projects! :beer:

[toke lahti]

How many new s16 and 35mm cameras are sold globally a year?
A couple of hundreds?
This could give an estimation to how much new glass are needed in front of them.
Now if RED will sell 20,000 cameras a year that will be about 100 times more.
And that will give an estimation of lenses to be bought for them.
With 100 times volumes lens prices will surely drop from traditional cine lens prices and they could maintain the quality level at the same time.
Or what do you think?

[Greg Lowry]

20,000 RED cameras a year? Not likely.

[toke lahti]

Ok, your estimation?
2000 a year is still maybe ten times more than film cameras?
It is still possible that if RED is succesfull it will hit the traditional video camera market hard.

[taubkin]

I just read the thread, and, oh boy, what did I miss!

Honestly, I´m still trying to understand how Gregg and Filmmaker could get into such heated argument saying the same thing! :)

I believe in the used S16mm zoom theory. And I´m considering a RED starter kit to be in the range of 23-25K, just as Gibby, brilliantly put.

That would be good for a magnificent 1080p image, and a very nice 2K. Maybe not 4K, but honestly, if anyone here says he NEEDS 4K right away, well you´re in a different budget range than most of us.

I just wanted to stop spending so much time making plans, and assumptions, without even knowing what the images from the cam will look like, but I can´t. I am just too hooked in the RED legend: I hope it´s for real, but even if it isn´t I´m actually enjoying the ride! :)

[Greg Lowry]

I won't estimate because it would be a guess. What's the point? I hope RED sells lots of cameras and expands the market. I don't know why it's so important to some people that RED takes market share from other manufacturers. The market is dynamic and is filled with many brilliant people working on many brilliant products. RED's innovations will stimulate others to innovate and vice versa. That's the way of the world. Happily, there is no monopoly on good ideas.

[Greg Lowry]

Honestly, I´m still trying to understand how Gregg and Filmmaker could get into such heated argument saying the same thing! :)


Heated argument? Nah. We had a little misunderstanding that we resolved like gentlemen.

[toke lahti]

I think that in this thread we are trying to guess what will be the prices for lenses.
The prices will be mostly depending on the volume of the camera sales.
My point is that after RED, we could propably have the best quality-price ratio ever with cine grade lenses.

[evinsky]

Wow, this thread has really taken off. Cool. I have to admit to being a bit of a glass whore. I loves me some nice glass. My fave is Leica M. Somehow I will get an M mount for my Red. In fact Zeiss is also making lenses in M mount for their Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera
http://www.zeissikon.com/images/front.left.jpg
http://www.zeissikon.com/images/lenses.groupfoto.jpg
And the shorter flange focal distance means the optical formulas can be simpler, smaller and sharper than SLR lenses. I'll still get a PL mount and Nikon mount. I just love the fact that I can use any piece of glass I can find as long as I get a mount.
Here is a Leica M 28mm f2
http://www.samys.com/products/leica/leic11604_x190.jpg

[Greg Lowry]

I think that in this thread we are trying to guess what will be the prices for lenses.
The prices will be mostly depending on the volume of the camera sales.
My point is that after RED, we could propably have the best quality-price ratio ever with cine grade lenses.

I'd agree with that.

[Greg Lowry]

evinsky, yes, the new Zeiss and newish Leica M rangefinder camera lenses are optically extraordinary (measurably better than their SLR counterparts). They're probably the best 35mm still camera lenses for resolution and contrast. They're physically very small so a little difficult to use on a movie camera if you want to gear them up, but not a major issue. The short flange to focal plane distance precludes them from being used on optical reflex cameras, but they may be adaptable to RED. Hopefully Zeiss will develop a broader range of focal lengths, particulary at the wide end.

It should be noted that most of the Zeiss M lenses are f2.8 (probably T2.8) so they're 2-stops slower than the new ZF lenses (for 35mm SLR) which are T1.4.

[lordnumberzero]

Evin,

I will go half on the tooling of the RED M mount.

I think it would be funny as hell if I could put my summicrons on there.

-Clay

RED 142

[Emanuel]

Great thread, Evin... You must be proud with the boys... And you 2 boss...


ok.. do you want a numbers war?.. :D

take this:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=488048&postcount=40

«It says that Canon has now produced 30 million EF lenses! 10 million of those lenses were made in just the last 5 years (probably due to the DSLR craze). That's an amazing amount of product and it really tells you something about economies of scale.»

don't you care about this point? i care!

do you want to know other professionals with this point?

besides don (you already know), i can add others like:

Robert Jackson.. this man is working since more than two decades in cinematography.. dealing with PL mount lenses.. he knows what he's talking about.. seriously

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=486357&postcount=7

and so on.. follow the thread..

this was also discussed before among us and the results are here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=58282

besides Tim L Ne, Robert Jackson or donatello, we have supporting this goal people like:

Evin Grant (evinsky here), taubkin, Emanuel, Mathieu Kassovitz.. are you familiar with THESE names?..

it matters.. because we don't want to go back.. and it's relevant to protect what we believe it must happen and Jim Jannard cannot forget..Nice synthesis point.

:dankk2: for the quote... Closer and before Mathieu K., well, it couldn't be better... :)

But the question is relevant and earns this interest. I'm afraid there will be a lot of customers following this separate subject. With a $17,500 rate the price of the lenses will be proportional.

As it happens with the Panavision gear where there isn't other business besides the rental one. This is their unique aim. They're partners of the majors. Or even if they are independent producers it works equal. And that's there where the art vs. industry debate sometimes flows. With industry rates like for example the actual cost of the PL mount lenses, who doesn't care to get audiences to support any business plan = will be in trouble. This will have a huge effect on the language adopted. And actually it has been since ever. I would guess that's what it matters for the Cassavetes' generation.

Jim brought a sincere hope among us. The times are changing. The Coppola's prediction of the entire democratization of a medium is on the way. This is what the RED revolution means!

So, it doesn't make sense a lenses price in any way other than as what a different market asks. For the RED spirit sakes. If not, why will Jim be here or at the dvinfo? Or why would Jarred open his doors?

Then, Oakley/RED lenses will be the key. And a 35mm still photography lenses option will be the working title just till their launch. Specially the run & gun RED zoom lens (the 300mm is just the trailer). Steve (Gibby) posted maybe mid-2007. Good sign.


EDIT -- And as far as used lenses is concerned, I've read a lot of others that are thinking the same as me regarding used glass. Perhaps the RED shooter will have a half of a year to test the 35mm SLR via from his/her/their own collection or from a (completely) cheap basis. Adding six months later the affordable purchase of the RED lenses. What road map this is!


Take care people :beer:

[Jarred Land]

Clairmont and Panavision will both machine pretty much any mount you want for any camera as long as you have the $$$. Thats what this community is for though.. if Red doesnt "officially" decide to make a certain adapter ( i doubt they will make one for EVERY lens out there) we can all team together here and order them as a dvxuser group to get a nice group discount.

[ZaneIsNumber1]

I'd want to deck my RED out into a unit that will at least make me some of the investment back (worst case senario), but my budget is tight to begin with. Would a s16mm zoom be a good general purpose lens for various jobs. I'd then save for the RED zoom for cine work (I understand the primes arguement, but I like the option of an occasional zoom shot).

Where's a good place to get a s16mm zoom (and a good price)? Used is fine.

My other concern is the tapeless system. What do I deliver the footage on? Hard disk? HVX users can probably help me out here.

[Greg Lowry]

I posted some links on page 11 of this thread to sources of used 16mm and 35mm format lenses. You might want to start there.

[ZaneIsNumber1]

Thanks Greg,

I missed that page it seems.

[evinsky]

My partner has a machine shop, we made a Nikon hard mount for an Arri IIc in a weekend. If there's a market we can make any mount we want.

Here's how I see my breakdown:
Own:
Nikon mount+
Assortment of Nikon AF and MF lenses
Zeiss ZF 50mm and 85mm 1.4s
Leica M mount
ZM 15mm 2.8
ZM 21mm 2.8
ZM 25mm 2.8
Leica M 35mm F1.4 Asph Summicron
Leica M 28mm F2 Asph Summicron
Leica M 50mm F1 Noctilux
Leica M 50mm F2 Summicron

These are all expensive lenses fro still, although the ZMs are much less than the equivelent leicas, but all are a pure bagain compared with ultra primes or Cooke S4s. You could piece meal an older Zeiss T2 prime set for the same money but I think the Leica M, ZM and ZF will actually outperform them. Zeiss has even said the design of the ZF and ZM lines was derivitive of thier Digi-Pime line.
E.

[ZaneIsNumber1]

Wow the price does vary!

If I bought an Angenieux s16mm zoom as opposed to spending several times the amount on a Zeiss or Cooke for run and gun work would I live to regret it or never know the difference?

[mike the beginner]

QUOTE:This is how I see my breakdown:
Own:
Nikon Mount, Leica M mount & a PL mount
Assortment of Nikon AF and MF primes and zooms.
Zeiss ZF 50mm & 85mm 1.4 (35mm 1.4 too if they offer it)
Leica M mount ZM 15mm, 21mm & 25mm 2.8s
Leica M 28mm F2 Summicron
Leica M 35mm F2 Summicron
Leica M 50mm F1 Noctilux
Leica M 50mm F2 Summicron
_________________________________
Fantastic stuff! AND very helpful.

Last year i went to a large Game fair held each year in Britain. They have various stalls mostly to do with outdoor sports etc. The various companies that make Binoculars were all there from big named glass makers with their £2,000 + Binoculars to the cheap mass produced makers with their £100.00 Binoculars (the type i have). The difference in quality HAS to be seen before anyone could possibly imagine!! Cheap Binoculars are a total waste of money IMO. However a russian company had brought with them Binoculars at fantastic prices comapred to the big names. Quite honestly the difference was slight IMO and it was possible to get a great pair of Binoculars for around £500.00.

My point: How does the lenses evinsky listed compare in a similar take on camera lenses. Also the coatings on new lenses with new methods give the impression of improvements. Does this mean we now get better lenses made now than say five -ten years ago? None of us wants to purchase a second hand lens with associated risks, unless we get similar quality from what is available now and at half the price!!......

We all want and seek value for money and Emanuel makes a great point that we are likely to have six months before the zoom lens comes out (forecast by Jim Jannard to be available mid 2007) IF!!! the Red manages to astound us and come out as estimated in early 2007. But as Jim Jannard has already indicated at DV info forum "There are a thousand things that can go wrong from here till then" interestingly i got the impression that is not the case with the lenses.

Some of us are buying Red to produce fantastic picture quality at 1080p for use on TV rather than big screen. Surely our lens requirement could be less discerning in terms of quality but still show brilliantly on TV.

I am lost in all this as i know nothing about the lenses on cameras. evinsky has given us the possibility of using different mounts (he and others can make them) and suddenly our options have increased substantially.

I want to start looking now on a possible good buy starter lens to get me started and learning with 35mm (FOV and low light essential). Just came accross these links that might help beginners like me.

www.Photo.net (http://www.Photo.net) Lens Tutorial (How lens work etc)

www.Photo.net (http://www.Photo.net) Making Photographs:Lens

www.The (http://www.The) Case Against Zooms

All for photography but might be useful (havent read ....yet)


Michael

[Gibby]

Primer and overview of S16 lenses types and uses: http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/optics_for_super-16.html

Used lens outlets for cine-style, ENG-style, and photo lenses are easy to find by doing a simple Google search. No rocket science involved with finding them, but you'll want to make sure they can mount on your camera, they'll help create the images you need, and that they'll enable the mobility you may need.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Greg Lowry]

Wow the price does vary!

If I bought an Angenieux s16mm zoom as opposed to spending several times the amount on a Zeiss or Cooke for run and gun work would I live to regret it or never know the difference?
Which Angenieux? My observation is that the used S16 Angenieux's aren't really cheaper than their Zeiss counterparts. Gibby's link above is a good one.

[ZaneIsNumber1]

Which Angenieux? My observation is that the used S16 Angenieux's aren't really cheaper than their Zeiss counterparts. Gibby's link above is a good one.

Sorry, I was a tad unclear. I was looking at the following link:

http://www.visualproducts.com/store04.asp?ID=28&Cat=8&Cat2=20

Would a $2000 S16mm zoom cut it?

Been doing some google searches and I clearly have a lot too learn about lenses (I think many of us do as this thread has reached 15 pages!). I've learnt a lot about prices today at least. Lenses are expensive, be they 35mm, s16 or 2/3". It seems I have been spoilt with years of shooting with fixed lens cameras.

Gibby mentioned 7k+ for a 2/3" hd zoom as an ENG solution. I need an ENG solution to make myself as employable as possible, but at that price, shouldn't I just buy an HVX as well? Especially since I have doubts about how well RED will perform with a 2/3" lens given how little sensor coverage that would allow.

Anyway, I'm going to go crunch some numbers. If I'm way off track feel free to yell at me.
:)
Thankyou for your patience!

[evexon]

My name is Steve and I am a fixed lens camera user. :)

When is that Glass for Dummies Bootcamp starting up?

Seriously I am learning a lot, I wonder how many of us will buying/bidding against each other for the limited supply of lens that appear to be available

I think I am finally getting some common sense. Initially I was going to buy a 35mm lens and do 2K scaled and crop/scale in post for HD. But after reading about potential workflow issues and considering the weight of 35mm zooms... I need to temper my excitement for the higher end stuff and go with a HD ENG zoom and buy primes when I have a better cash flow. I will continue to evaluate and evaluate but am thankful for this thread so far.

Best,

Steve

[D_and_G]

Just wondering - Has anyone put a still lens on a super35mm sensor camera before ? Or will this be the first time ?

The only ones I can think of that are comparable are the D20 & Genesis.

PS - That glass comparison/shootout (down the road)is a great idea Jared. :thumbsup:


Cheers.

RED # wish I was higher

[Greg Lowry]

Yes, it has already been done with the ARRI D20 and probably with the Genesis. There are many lenses out there that started out as still camera lenses and have been remounted. In fact, there really isn't that much difference between putting a still camera lens on a 35mm film camera or on a digital camera with a 35mm-sized sensor.

As an aside, I have recently read some observations from the Aussie camera crew on Superman Returns that the film lenses used on the Genesis exhibited slightly less depth of field than when used on a Panaflex film camera. The initial thinking is that the somewhat thinner imaging surface of the digital sensor relative to the layers on color film stock results in a different circle of confusion. These are the kinds of differences that will emerge as more large, single sensor cameras are used.

[Greg Lowry]

Sorry, I was a tad unclear. I was looking at the following link:

http://www.visualproducts.com/store04.asp?ID=28&Cat=8&Cat2=20

Would a $2000 S16mm zoom cut it?

Been doing some google searches and I clearly have a lot too learn about lenses (I think many of us do as this thread has reached 15 pages!). I've learnt a lot about prices today at least. Lenses are expensive, be they 35mm, s16 or 2/3". It seems I have been spoilt with years of shooting with fixed lens cameras.

Gibby mentioned 7k+ for a 2/3" hd zoom as an ENG solution. I need an ENG solution to make myself as employable as possible, but at that price, shouldn't I just buy an HVX as well? Especially since I have doubts about how well RED will perform with a 2/3" lens given how little sensor coverage that would allow.

Anyway, I'm going to go crunch some numbers. If I'm way off track feel free to yell at me.
:)
Thankyou for your patience!
The only way to know for sure is to test the specific lens and to have it checked out by a service tech. One generally gets what one pays for in used equipment. Age, wear-and-tear, maintenance history, etc., are all important factors to consider. If the Angenieux is the least expensive lens on the list, there's a reason. The reason may be entirely acceptable relative to the price, or maybe not. Never buy a used lens without testing and having it checked out. Yes, I'm repeating myself, but you won't regret a bit of caution.

As I've never used a 2/3" format video zoom on a film camera I don't know from experience if that's a viable alternative to an S16 lens, but I do know that the frame dimensions of the 2/3" video format are smaller than the S16 frame, so an adapter is necessary so the 2/3" lens can cover the S16 frame. That makes me a bit nervous as I'd prefer a lens to have a larger image circle than the format I'm using rather than requiring an adapter to cover the format. But having said that, many S16 film lenses are really 16mm format lenses adapted to cover S16 (for example, the Zeiss 16mm format 10-100 becomes an 11-110 after the S16 mod.

It does seem intuitive (at least to me) that an S16 lens should perform better on a single sensor than a lens designed for a 3-CCD prism camera.

The other consideration is that as RED will be a fully manual camera, the auto-features of some 2/3" lenses won't work so why pay for them? But if you already have a 2/3" lens, that's another matter. The RED definition of ENG may not be the same as yours.

[mike the beginner]

Ok i have now read up on the difference between zoom and primes. Thanks again to taubkin for his comments they have been very helpful.
For those without experience we have to know the pitfalls or we jump in regardless. I can now see why a cheap 50mm lens fixed lens (i think) might be suitable for starting and learning more about real world videography.:)

On reading up about lenses further i can see why primes have clear advantages over zooms all things being the same, primes offer better quality lenses. Zooms will always be a comprimise (but necessary at times) or you pay a huge price difference for a similar optical quality with a zoom.

But what i don't understand is why are several experienced videographers suggesting s16mm zoom lenses at prices of $12,000 - $15,000 when Red could (must IMO) come out with a s35mm zoom at below these prices??? Maybe they won't but i am usually pretty good at guessing prices with most things and i reckon you guys that state prices of $15,000 and $20,000 will be proved wrong !!!! by Red lenses.

You guys with experience are saying very little of the technical difficulties of using a s35mm zoom lens other than it is heavy! How can others with NO experience of 35mm camera's evaluate without clear guidance from those who know! Like others probably on this forum i am very keen to spend the time to learn but can we not get some more guidance from the pros out there....please.

I have heard that at the extreme end of zoom lenses on the HD 1/3RD format (canon XLH1) maintaining a steady picture without a tripod is really difficult and sometimes impossible. If that is the case then how much more difficult would that be with a Red camera using a s35mm lens with the intention of utilising the full sensor but windowing to 2k and cutting to 1080p. Does the cutting allow allow you to remove any shake? i am curious on that? What i want (need) to know is how difficult to use Red hand held with a s35mm lens (probably a zoom).

No one wants to jump in and make a balls up of it but without guidance we may just follow the herd.

Sometimes i wish Red was priced in the same region of the HVX then we would have some of the worries i have aired and discussed, maybe with Red we are in the bracket of real professionals and most (not all thankfully) distance themselves from the wee guy that knows little:(

Michael

[Greg Lowry]

sorry I Had Trouble With The Quotes, See The Next Post. I Need A Tutorial On Using Quotes Here. Haha.

[Greg Lowry]

QUOTE:
But what i don't understand is why are several experienced videographers suggesting s16mm zoom lenses at prices of $12,000 - $15,000 when Red could (must IMO) come out with a s35mm zoom at below these prices??? Maybe they won't but i am usually pretty good at guessing prices with most things and i reckon you guys that state prices of $15,000 and $20,000 will be proved wrong !!!! by Red lenses.

REPLY:
Maybe so, but when existing state-of-the-art 35mm zooms are $45,000 and up, an estimate of $15,000 for a RED zoom doesn't seem outrageously high to me. In fact, the opposite is more likely true. RED doesn't exist in a vacuum, the same laws of physics and optical design apply. Hopefully, a RED zoom will come in at a lower price, but who knows at this point? Higher volume can keep the price lower, but until the RED zoom is available all anyone can do is operate with the facts that exist today. If you can wait, then by all means wait.

QUOTE:
You guys with experience are saying very little of the technical difficulties of using a s35mm zoom lens other than it is heavy! How can others with NO experience of 35mm camera's evaluate without clear guidance from those who know! Like others probably on this forum i am very keen to spend the time to learn but can we not get some more guidance from the pros out there....please.

REPLY:
There are no technical difficulties per se in using a zoom. The fact is that these lenses are much bigger and heavier than primes. That in itself changes how one can use the camera. Most often a 35mm zoom is on a tripod. Handholding a big Cooke zoom is no fun because of the weight and the center of gravity of the camera shifts forward considerably. Also, a zoom will tend to be 1, 2 or 3 stops slower than a prime, so they require more light. They're also not a sharp as a primes.

QUOTE:
I have heard that at the extreme end of zoom lenses on the HD 1/3RD format (canon XLH1) maintaining a steady picture without a tripod is really difficult and sometimes impossible. If that is the case then how much more difficult would that be with a Red camera using a s35mm lens with the intention of utilising the full sensor but windowing to 2k and cutting to 1080p. Does the cutting allow allow you to remove any shake? i am curious on that? What i want (need) to know is how difficult to use Red hand held with a s35mm lens (probably a zoom).

REPLY:
"Shake" or image stability is a function of image magnification, camera and lens balance, weight, and, more than anything, the talent of the camera operator. It really has nothing to do with windowing the sensor. I can say from years of experience shooting 16mm, 35mm and 65mm film (and now digital) that I have used nearly every prime and zoom out there. If you're intending to do mostly handheld work, a typical 35mm zoom is a VERY bad idea. I personally hope that RED designs a short, compact zoom with, say, a 3:1 range like the new ARRI Zeiss zoom. I think that would be very useful -- perhaps more useful than a 17-100. Both would be even better. RED is listening. Tell 'em what you want. I just did.


QUOTE:
No one wants to jump in and make a balls up of it but without guidance we may just follow the herd.

Sometimes i wish Red was priced in the same region of the HVX then we would have some of the worries i have aired and discussed, maybe with Red we are in the bracket of real professionals and most (not all thankfully) distance themselves from the wee guy that knows little.

REPLY:
The RED camera IS a pro camera. There is no shame in realizing that maybe you're not ready to buy a RED camera (due to budget, the kind of work you do, or any other reason).

[mike the beginner]

QUOTE:The RED camera IS a pro camera. There is no shame in realizing that maybe you're not ready to buy a RED camera (due to budget, the kind of work you do, or any other reason).[/quote]
_____________________________________________

Thanks Greg for your response. I hope to work mostly with suitable tripod but at times i will have to take camera off tripod and hand hold. I fully accept it is a pro camera and i am prepared to learn how to use it properly. You have been very helpful throughout the various threads in giving an alternative viewpoint which is healthy... right. But you evade the real question.... HOW difficult is it to use a s35mm zoom lens on a Red camera???? compared to say using an XLH1. I am sure the guys at the other extreme end of Red possible users might want to know this too?

On the price of zooms all i will say is that correct me if i am wrong but i read somewher that the nearest camera to Red is priced at $125,000. That leaves plenty room for lenses at much lower than you think! Greg i know you have the experience in all this but i have bben very good up till now in simply guessing prices and i reckon that $7,000 to $8,000 will be the price of their first zoom.

I am not the kind of guy that thinks, oh it would look cool having a Red camera or whatever, quite frankly i don't give a damn so long as i achieve what i want and an s35mm format appears to solve the problems of low light and FOV ETC. I would use a $10.00 camera if it achieved my objective!

I am not running around with a camera all day, i am hoping to film specific situations on water in and out of a boat and i really want to know that if i do use the Red camera handheld it is not an impossible situation to get a superior quality of picture with this format using a zoom.

If you guys feel pretty certain that with a s35mm zoom it is too difficult to get a steady picture hand held then i want to hear it said ......now, not when i have purchased the camera and i learn through my own attempts.

Ps. i am one of the poor not the rich so massive sacrifice for a Red.

Michael

[Greg Lowry]

There is no evasion. No one on the planet has used a RED camera yet! How can anyone give you a definitive answer?

But considering the size and weight of the camera body we've seen to date (even though that design is fluid), a typical (i.e. currently available non-RED) zoom lens will be bigger and heavier than the body, unless it's a compact zoom. A recording device and battery will help balance out the package, but i personally would not want to handhold a typical 35mm zoom all day. For the occasional shot, sure.

Given your comments so far, I'd buy some primes and forget about the zoom unless the kind of work you do DEMANDS a zoom.

I hope that helps.

[Greg Lowry]

Here is a photo taken by Chris Hurd of dvinfo.net of the ARRI Zeiss lightweight 15.5-45 zoom (on an ARRI 235 film camera). It's a nice size for handholding, but it's by no means small. And it's $45,000. Cooke makes a comparable lens with a similar price.

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=616&c=42

At the other end of the scale is the ARRI Zeiss 16.5-110 which is gigantic (and made to look more so by the exaggerated perspective in the photo).

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=631&c=42

Both of the these lenses are designed to cover an S35 format (film or digital).

Which one do you want to handhold? That's why I think it would be a good idea for RED to build a compact zoom too. How they do it for $10k is up to them.

[mike the beginner]

Quote:There is no evasion. No one on the planet has used a RED camera yet! How can anyone give you a definitive answer?

Good point Greg, i do appreciate you taking the time and trouble to responding it is appreciated believe me:dankk2:

You make a good case for a shorter zoom. What do others think?

Ok so the camera's that would compare does not exist or are much...much heavier accepted. But i can't believe that Red will come out with a zoom that will not balance with the camera!! Surely they will design the camera so that it can be "balanced" with a zoom they make for the camera!!!

So given the expected weight of the zoom that RED will make for the camera and that it WILL be balanced by whatever means, how difficult will it be to use handheld/ Perhaps we will have to wait until Jarrod/ gibby etc get a hold of it and try it to find the answers.

In addition to the lenses we still have the recording to sort out. I note this has been discussed over at DV info and Mike Curtis has posted some brilliant posts (i thought) with regard this.

I just want to try and sort things in my head to see if i am still on the path to Red or not. Me thought what you guys did was simple.....ha ha

Michael

[Greg Lowry]

I doubt that Jim Jannard believes a zoom is a replacement for primes. Primes are the workhorses for film-style shooting. A zoom is generally part of a comprehensive lens kit. On many movies the zoom is used maybe 10% of the time or less, sometimes not at all.

If you're shooting documentaries or ENG, EFP type stuff, then I think you should reconsider using the full sensor with 35mm format optics. It's serious overkill.

I'm sure RED will be very conscious of the size/weight/ergonomics of every component of the RED system, lenses included, but don't expect miracles from a zoom, especially if it's in the 17-100 range that has been previously discussed. And if it's a physically small 17-100, it will likely be slower. For example, there is a 2-stop difference between a T1.4 prime and a T2.8 zoom. That can be a big difference. There is no free lunch with optics.

As you don't seem to like any of my answers despite my experience with 35mm gear, and prefer the opinions of Jarrod or Gibby, by all means wait for their critical assessment. And keep asking other people. Mine is only one opinion. All I can do is use my cumulative experience and knowledge to provide enlightened speculation about how a 35mm zoom may function on the RED camera. But please be careful not to keep asking until you get the answer you want, rather than one that's realistic.

[donatello]

once red comes out ..we'll all have to share our results with the lens we choose ... RED 103 is basically for personal projects ( not planning to get income using RED)
so i'll checking out still lens - i want some mobility and cine 25-250 or 20-100 IMO are not mobile ...

AND i am looking for a used 10-100T2 zeiss which i'll have converted to S16 ... for shooting S16 2k and 1080p modes ...

there's lens out there for any budget ( 17.5 body +) ..
get the RED then grow it over time to meet your needs, bydget, income ( fro those planning to make $$ with their REDS )

[D_and_G]

You guys with experience are saying very little of the technical difficulties of using a s35mm zoom lens other than it is heavy! How can others with NO experience of 35mm camera's evaluate without clear guidance from those who know! Like others probably on this forum i am very keen to spend the time to learn but can we not get some more guidance from the pros out there....please.

I'm cetainly not a pro cinematographer camera op, but i'll answer anyway. :grin:
It's been awhile since I've shot, and I've never shot on a Super35mm sensor, but Zooms definately have their tradeoffs. One of the biggest for me, in the past was amount of light needed with a zoom vs. a prime (in certain situations).

I'm coming at it from a primary narrative/blow up to film aspect, so that's where my considerations are. If you are looking at the doc aspect, I would seriously consider weight, the ability to pull focus quickly, how fast you need to change lenses, and the various light conditions you will be encountering and thus the speed of the lens needed (not too mention the durability of the lens).

Either way, there is going to be a lot of due diligence have to be done by all kinds of shooters -doc, production house, narrative, sports, event photography etc...

I just reread a few of my old Cinematography books to get an idea of what the 35mm 2K or Super16 implications may be. Unfortunately, we don't have a cinematography book dealing with the Super35mm-type sensor, that i'm aware of. The digital cinematography books seem to go out of the ballpark pretty quickly due to the advances in technology. I mean, who would have thought a few years ago we would be talking about 4K acquisition at this price range ? Sorry if this didn't help you that much, but like I said, maybe brushing up on cinematography around the format size you are intending to use could help. But don't feel out in left field. A lot of us are in a similar situation - even the Genesis and D20 guys have to figure out workflow etc...I for one, relish getting back into the field.

IMHO, a set of used primes (depending if you have the need to change lenses quickly) may be the best choice, or a compact zoom (as mentioned earlier)...

PS - I'd listen to Greg. His experience is invaluable andd much appreciate here...:beer:





RED #wish I was higher

[Greg Lowry]

D_and_G's comment about focus pulling brings up another point. If you're used to the depth of field of a 1/3" CCD camera, you're in a huge adjustment when you use an S35 sensor and lenses because depth of field is reduced tremendously. That's why a focus puller is an essential member of a 35mm crew. Trying to pull focus yourself is asking for trouble (in the form of out of focus images). And if you're using a zoom you'll need a heavy duty bridge plate and support rods or equivalent cage to support the heavy zoom lens, a mechanical follow focus system, a zoom motor and control (optional but recommended), and a matte box with filter holders. None of which is inexpensive. And if you don't buy a follow focus system, you'll need long arms and some sort of psychic follow focus ability. Trying to pull focus with 35mm format lenses while operating the camera is a fool's errand. Double that if you're handholding.

[D_and_G]

After re-reading the last couple of pages, I realize you are asking about a very specific application for RED. You want to know how difficult it is to use a 35mm zoom on RED, in a one man operation, and using it on the water filming a doc or event-type situation. Please correct me if I got it wrong.

In that case, I would avoid 35mm lenses altogether. Not only is pulling focus going to be virtually impossible, but you have to think about drift, and image stabilization would be ten fold harder, depending how far on the lens you are.

IMHO, you should stick to the S16 format, shoot 1080p, or use a 2/3" lens with some kind of stabilization system. Or using still primes might be ok , depending on what kind of range of action you are following. That's the funny thing about all this stuff, is it really will depend on your style of shooting, your crew, and what level of format and quality you need. Even in the doc field you have formal BBC docs with full 35mm crews all the way to the other spectrum to a one man band. :beer:




Cheers.



RED # wish I was higher

[Gibby]

As I've never used a 2/3" format video zoom on a film camera I don't know from experience if that's a viable alternative to an S16 lens, but I do know that the frame dimensions of the 2/3" video format are smaller than the S16 frame, so an adapter is necessary so the 2/3" lens can cover the S16 frame. That makes me a bit nervous as I'd prefer a lens to have a larger image circle than the format I'm using rather than requiring an adapter to cover the format. But having said that, many S16 film lenses are really 16mm format lenses adapted to cover S16 (for example, the Zeiss 16mm format 10-100 becomes an 11-110 after the S16 mod.

It does seem intuitive (at least to me) that an S16 lens should perform better on a single sensor than a lens designed for a 3-CCD prism camera.

The other consideration is that as RED will be a fully manual camera, the auto-features of some 2/3" lenses won't work so why pay for them? But if you already have a 2/3" lens, that's another matter. The RED definition of ENG may not be the same as yours.

I can shed some light on the use of ENG 2/3” B4 mount HD lenses on RED. The S16mm lens format is 11.1x6.3. The 2/3” B4 lens format is 10.4x5.9. Thus the S16 format is just over 12% larger than 2/3” in coverage area. RED has stated their intention to make an optional B4 lens adapter, and that the RED camera will be able to crop the image from the sensor to satisfy the needs of the 2/3” lens format. No other adaptor beyond the B4 lens mount will be necessary to cover the 2/3” lens format.

I have not seen any comparative MTF data between S16 lenses and 2/3” lenses in use on a single sensor vs. a 3 CCD sensor system. It would be interesting to see a comparison like that. My guess is that on RED, with the S16 lens shooting in 1080p, and a 2/3” HD lens shooting in 1080p, the results should be similar, and a choice between the results would probably be subjective in nature.

True, the RED will be a fully manual camera, as all professional cameras usually are, and certain electronic features of an HD ENG zoom may not be enabled by RED, but the key features needed on RED to justify the use of an HD ENG lens would be a multi-pin power bus and/or an RS232 connector to enable use of the zoom servos. Many of the HD ENG lenses are RS232 enabled, thus if RED has an RS232 bus, it’s feasible that could be a way of controlling lenses. In reviewing my published interview with Jim Jannard, he mentioned a wide assortment of connectors, but not specifically an RS232. At the end of his list, he did say “and many others”, leaving the door open to the possibility of RS232, etc. If there is no multi-pin or RS232 bus on RED, it may still be possible to power the servos of an HD ENG zoom with a small external power pack.

The HD Eng 2/3” lens I referenced earlier as being around $7k is the Fujinon HAS 18x7.6 ERM, 7.6mm - 137mm, T1.9 (no extender). I found several of these online today costing between $6,250 and $6,850. It only weighs 3.3 lbs (1.49kg). A rig consisting of a RED One camera (7 lbs), an internal battery (half pound), a RED Drive or RED flash (half pound), a shoulder brace (2 lbs), and a Fujinon HAS 18x7.6 ERM lens (3.3 lbs) would weigh around a total of 13.3 lbs without a viewfinder, and probably a total of around 15 lbs with the RED EVF when its available. Those of us who regularly hand hold and shoulder mount 35 lbs ENG HD and SD rigs, will find that using a 15 lb rig that way all day is a cakewalk. And no “focus puller” needed. Shooting this way we use a 3-point hold: shoulder, right hand through servo grip, and left hand racking focus. We do this routinely with F900’s – and good shooters rack focus quite accurately with it in HD resolution.

Most of the cine-style rigs with RED will weigh significantly more than 15 lbs. Then you add rods, follow focus, etc. and you have this heavy rig that’s real difficult to hand hold or shoulder mount, plus the problem of pulling focus.

Mike the Beginner: you mentioned shooting on the water, in and around a boat. If you’re shooting that at 1080p, and the final footage is destined for HDTV, or high-end corporate projects, you’d want to seriously consider the 15 lb ENG HD rig I described above. I shoot ENG-style and cine-style, depending on the project. What you describe sounds like an ENG style project. Greg has given you some excellent insight and advice for cine-style shooting with RED. I shoot a lot of cine-style projects now, but I’d consider my knowledge/experience base to be 60% ENG-style, and 40% cine-style.

The RED wide zoom? Things can change, but this quote from Jim Jannard in my published interview with him, will answer a lot of this thread's questions about RED's concepts for the wide zoom: "We also do recognize that there is a void in the 35mm PL lens mount for a compact, lightweight, inexpensive, high-quality zoom. That really is the focus of the RED team - to fill that void. That is definitely something we feel is hugely important."

I hope all of this has helped the guys on this thread that are new to the business and hungry to learn. I really respect the other experienced guys here like Greg, Evin, Haakon, Jarred, Donatello, Taubkin, and many, many more. The whole community has pitched into this thread and we’ve all learned some new things. Very cool!!!!!

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Greg Lowry]

Excellent post, Gibby. Lots of useful info.

To Mike the Beginner: Way, way back in my more adventurous days, I worked on a documentary in Barbados. The shoot was three months long and we shot a high percentage of the (16mm) film in and from tiny fishing boats out of sight of land in the beautiful but often very rough Carribean Sea, surrounded by sharks and all sorts of other ominous dark shadows. I thought I would be clever and use a tripod gimbal to to smooth out the swell of the sea. But the gimbal counter-weights acted like a pendulum on the rolling ocean, so it was quickly shipped back to the rental company after the first day. I quickly learned that the only sensible way to shoot on the water (unless you're on a big boat) is handheld. It's the only way to maintain a reasonably level horizon so your audience doesn't get as seasick as I was every day on those stinky fishing boats. All of the on-ocean stuff in Jaws is handheld. All of it. For the same reason.

Take Gibby's sensible advice and go with an ENG HD rig. A 35mm rig is unnecessary.

[acrochordon]

I am researching 16mm lenses, hoping they are smaller and lighter weight, but sadly not cheap. :(

http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/optics_for_super-16.html

Anybody think super16mm is the way to go for 1080p?

[acrochordon]

If I could get a RED with three built in Super 16mm lenses, that might be very cool. I could change lenses fast and dust would not get inside. Does anybody else think this is a good idea?

[Greg Lowry]

A lens turret isn't really practical. You'd have to build a custom triple PL lens mount. Given the size of PL mounts and lenses, the turret would be larger than the camera (only a slight exaggeration) and the camera would be exceedingly front heavy.

[Jarred Land]

oh my god.. I must admit ive used an old konvas 35mm with turrett and it was slightly amusing, but i would never think of using a turrett now adays. As greg points out the weight would be pretty incredible, follow focus gearing doesnt really work, nor does rods.. and your going to have 15-80k worth of glass hanging off the front of the camera. That just sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

[mike the beginner]

Quote from D and G : If you are looking at the doc aspect, I would seriously consider weight, the ability to pull focus quickly, how fast you need to change lenses, and the various light conditions you will be encountering and thus the speed of the lens needed (not too mention the durability of the lens).

YOUR AN ABSOLUTE STAR D and G:) Thats what i wanted to hear cause thats what i suspected (feared:( ) but i needed to hear it from an experienced person not from me cause all i know is theory!!

Greg since D and G post, you too come out with points that i wanted to hear. I can't thank you enough for a great effort to help a beginner.

Gibby well done you just gave me the set up that Greg was more or less saying but you defined it in such a way that a beginner or someone with limited knowledge can pick up so easily:dankk2:

All of you are a great credit to the videography world and this forum. To be so helpful and so patient (sorry Greg) speaks volumes, you are all stars really :)

If any of you ever come over to Scotland and need a spare Red camera for a project mine's will be there for you free.

Boy have i learned a lot in this thread!!!!!!!!!

[ZaneIsNumber1]

Gibby, Greg, D and G, you guys are all great!

But still more questions!

How much more depth of field would a 2/3" lens have over a s16mm lens? I guess I'm trying to figure out my starter lens for RED (and, ultimately, my RED starting price) and I'm leaning towards a s16mm zoom as a general purpose lens, but pulling focus while operating is a big concern.

:dankk2:

[Greg Lowry]

How much more depth of field would a 2/3" lens have over a s16mm lens?
:dankk2:
The short answer is none. If the sensor area is the same, and the chosen focal length, aperture and focus distance is the same, the depth of field will be the same. The same thing applies to 35mm format lenses used for S16. A 25mm lens (for example) is always a 25mm lens, no matter what the format. What changes is the relative magnification of lenses when used on different formats (a 25mm lens may be considered a normal for S16 but a wide angle for S35 ... and a telephoto on 1/3" format), but that has nothing to do with depth of field computations.

I know this is going to confusify a few of you.

[Jarred Land]

You guys definitely are a great asset here and thanks for laying down the knowledge.. for every 3 people that say thank you there are 1000 quiet people thinking it. And when I say thank you im not only thanking Greg and Gibby and DG etc.. but you guys asking the questions, that is just as important.

Thanks.

[Greg Lowry]

Thanks Jarred. Sharing knowledge is part of the gig as far as I'm concerned.

[Greg Lowry]

Here's a follow-on from the depth of field question and reply about lenses for different formats:

Let's assume you are shooting a medium closeup head and shoulders shot with the camera fairly close to the subject. Let's also assume you would use a 50mm lens on S35 format. For S16 you'd probably use about a 25mm to maintain the same image size in the frame. For 2/3" about a 22mm; for 1/2", a 16mm; and for 1/3" format, a 12mm.

Each of these focal lengths -- 50, 25, 22, 16 and 12mm -- will give you the same image size in the frame, but assuming the same aperture setting, they'll give you different depth of field. The 50mm will have the least of depth of field, the 12mm the most.

This is where the confusion arises about lenses having more or less depth of field on different formats. It's not the lens or focal length that has a different depth of field, it's the fact that you use a different focal length to achieve the same image size. And different focal lengths have different depth of field characteristics.

This is why an S35 sensor is highly regarded by many cinematographers, particularly those accustomed to 35mm film. S35 format lenses allows for more selective focus than the smaller video formats where sometimes nearly everything appears to be in focus. Selective focus is an artistic tool to direct the audience's attention.

This is basic stuff, but I hope it's useful to those of you who are just getting up to speed. One of the disadvantages of the current crop of video cameras is that it's not really necessary to know the basics of photography to achieve a decent image. But when you understand the basics, you can get more out of any camera and start to make technical and artistic choices that can greatly enhance your projects.

[acoreasc]

someone bronze this post above by G-Low and mount it somewhere. Spread the knowledge brother

[evinsky]

I'm somewhat confused by all the fervor over s16 and 2/3" lenses on RED. Isn't the S35mm sensor and the accompanying DOF one of the biggest draws of the camera? I truly believe that the latest generation of still lenses from the better optics houses will outperform any of the S16 zooms from the 80s or early 90s. And any of the good 2/3" HD zooms are more expensive than a set of T2 Zeiss primes. It is really not as hard to mount follow focus gears on to these lenses as you may think. Most are designed for professional use and can take the FF pressure just fine. And although the distances may be less accurate you will most likely be using an HD monitor to set marks anyway. I'm all in favor of using cinema glass when the budget and project demands, but blowing $ on a smaller format zoom seems silly to me.
My 2¢.
E.

[acoreasc]

I am still investigating the possibilities of glass on the RED and talking with several members. The Zeiss glass is great and the cost of a T2 11-110 Super 16mm zoom is good considering the imagery you should be able to get in 2K or 1080p.
I was also looking at the Zeiss ZF 1.4 Primes as a possibility, but how wide would that prime have to be (and expensive) to work as say a 24mm prime in the S35 or 4K mode? Then you get into the fact of the higher storage needs of 4K....
What format are you going to be shooting the most, this would most likely determine your choice of glass to own. I anticipate renting the heavy duty glass (Cooke 35mm primes, etc.) for bigger projects that demand 4K. I guess we won't know really until someone is able to produce at least some test imagery with assorted glass.

[Greg Lowry]

What format are you going to be shooting the most, this would most likely determine your choice of glass to own.
That's really key. For the work many people do, primes or 4K capture is just not a viable option. For others, it's the best option. And others need both ends of the scale and everything in between.

I personally can't imagine doing any sort of fast-paced documentary or grab style shooting with a set of primes. By the time you change lenses, your subject has left town or you're dead.

Also, storing the captured images/data and the post workflow always has to be a big consideration in the choice of the shooting format. Handling 4K files is no joke.

I think it's impossible for anyone to claim there's a "best" RED format/lens solution. It's just too subjective.

[Proteus]

Everything will be more objective a week or two after RED is released...

Now if RED can provide 1080p digital output by downconverting from 4k (which it should) then I will definitely use a still 35mm lens (with FF gear etc) to take advantage of the extra definition provided from the downsampling. I consider this an absolutely critical feature. I hope the RED team won't underestimate it.

BTW, if the light is adequate you can always stop down the lens a couple of stops to increase the depth of field and make focus easier...
So if I get RED I would avoid window mode except if I want 120fps or digital stabilization, but this can also be done with a full frame lens while the opposite is NOT true...

Besides, why get RED if your are not going to take advantage of 4k either for higher res or for the advantage of downconversion?
You could get Silicon's for less money.

[Greg Lowry]

Now if RED can provide 1080p digital output by downconverting from 4k (which it should) then I will definitely use a still 35mm lens (with FF gear etc) to take advantage of the extra definition provided from the downsampling. I consider this an absolutely critical feature. I hope the RED team won't underestimate it.
I agree.


BTW, if the light is adequate you can always stop down the lens a couple of stops to increase the depth of field and make focus easier...
So if I get RED I would avoid window mode except if I want 120fps or digital stabilization, but this can also be done with a full frame lens while the opposite is NOT true...
I don't follow the second part of that statement.


Besides, why get RED if your are not going to take advantage of 4k either for higher res or for the advantage of downconversion?
You could get Silicon's for less money.
The point is that one can grow into the RED's higher-end capabilities without having to get an entirely new camera.

[Proteus]

I mean, with a full frame lens you can have all the features including full sensor advantages and whenever you want you can switch to windowed mode (of course with the associated consequences as is the increased focal length etc). With a smaller format lens you'll be stuck always to the smaller ccd area.

[Proteus]

The point is that one can grow into the RED's higher-end capabilities without having to get an entirely new camera.

Ok, this can be a reason...

[nalu]

Great thread guys, really enjoying it and learning!


The point is that one can grow into the RED's higher-end capabilities without having to get an entirely new camera.

Also can't we anicipate that RED at 1080p will outperform Silicon's results????

I'll be looking at either a ENG style setup as described by Gibby a few pages ago or a S16 zoom - hard to decide between the two. I'll be a one man team for shooting and also do the majority of my own post production so 1080p and 2K will be the only formats I will deal in. Unless, I'm rented for 4K project.

I'm planning to build a water housing for RED - predominantly for above/just below water shooting (i.e. not deep diving) - action sports such as surfing etc.
Anyone have thoughts on an approrpiate Prime lens. I'm figuring I'll need something with a massive depth of field (want focus to begin just beyond the housing).
I don't know much about film lenses - what would be the options here??? Need to have everything in focus over a wide distance.

PS - Gibby? did you get my email as requested??

[Proteus]

Also can't we anicipate that RED at 1080p will outperform Silicon's results????


If downconversion from 4k will be implemented, it is obvious that it will outperfom Silicon. If not, it will be similar.

[Greg Lowry]

I mean, with a full frame lens you can have all the features including full sensor advantages and whenever you want you can switch to windowed mode (of course with the associated consequences as is the increased focal length etc). With a smaller format lens you'll be stuck always to the smaller ccd area.
The problem with this is that still camera lenses (like the Zeiss ZFs) will be fine for use on the full frame, but they become mostly normals or telephotos on a small sensor area.

A lack of wide angle variety is always a problem when using still camera lenses for motion picture use.

[Proteus]

The problem with this is that still camera lenses (like the Zeiss ZFs) will be fine for use on the full frame, but they become mostly telephotos on a small sensor area.

A lack of wide angle variety is always a problem when using still camera lenses for motion picture use.

As I posted to this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=64025&page=2 it's only a 1.475 multiplier. That's not too much IMO. For example my favorite still lens Nikon 17-35 would be just 25-51.

And a wide prime 11mm would be about 16.2mm still wide enough IMO for many situations.

[Greg Lowry]

Well a 25mm on an S16 camera is a normal lens. Consider that Zeiss makes 6mm, 8mm, 9.5mm, 12mm and 14mm wide angles just for S16 format. They offer these lenses because wide angles are very important. Maybe the kind of shooting you do doesn't require wide angles, but most does. And if you look at the range of ARRI Zeiss 35mm format cine lenses, there is a very broad range of wide angles for the same reason. They're invaluable.

For me, the weakness of the Zeiss ZF option is the very limited wide angle lenses (when the full range becomes available, right now it's just the 50 and 85 that are trickling out of the factory). Perhaps an acceptable situation for S35 use, but a real problem for S16.

I think you have misinterpreted Jim Jannard's conversions in the link you provided, because the ratio you quote is for still camera lenses used on the full sensor, not a windowed sensor. But perhaps I have misunderstood YOU. Always a possibility. haha.

[Proteus]

Well a 25mm on an S16 camera is a normal lens. Consider that Zeiss makes 6mm, 8mm, 9.5mm, 12mm and 14mm wide angles just for S16 format. They offer these lenses because wide angles are very important. Maybe the kind of shooting you do doesn't require wide angles, but most does. And if you look at the range of ARRI Zeiss 35mm format cine lenses, there is a very broad range of wide angles for the same reason. They're invaluable.

For me, the weakness of the Zeiss ZF option is the very limited wide angle lenses (when the full range becomes available, right now it's just the 50 and 85 that are trickling out of the factory). Perhaps an acceptable situation for S35 use, but a real problem for S16.

There is a misunderstunding (or two) somewhere...
Obviously the focal lengths of the S16 Zeiss lenses you refered, are not characterized in terms of 35mm still format.
So the equivalent focal lengths to 35mm still lenses will be:

6mm S16 = 19.5mm (35mm still equivalent)

8mm S16 = 26mm (35mm still eq)

9.5mm S16 = 31mm (35mm still eq)

12mm S16 = 39mm (35mm still eq)

14mm S16 = 45mm (35mm still eq)

So if you use e.g the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor it will be converted to 20.6mm (35mm still eq) S35 for RED, similar as the wider 19.5mm (35mm still eq) S16 Zeiss.

http://www.nikonusa.com/images/products/1925_360.jpg


I think you have misinterpreted Jim Jannard's conversions in the link you provided, because the ratio you quote is for still camera lenses used on the full sensor, not a windowed sensor. But perhaps I have misunderstood YOU. Always a possibility. haha.

Yes, I meant the still lens' focal length increase for full frame "S35".

P.S If you think my calculations are wrong please discuss it...
.

[taubkin]

This keeps getting better and better. It's an honor to be part of this wealth of information, and intelligent thinking.

It's also unfair that I get to be listed as "experienced" ammongst the the masters in here here, such as acoreasc, gibby, greg, proteus and etc.

Since we're thanking everyone...

Cheers!

-EDIT- But I still don't understand Proteus's math. If you use a 14mm still lens, but have to use a S16 windowed capture, you'll fall with an equivalent of a 40mm. An S16 16mm lens roughly equals a 50mm still. But sure, if you're using full S35 sensor, a still wide angle can be wide enough for most people's needs!

[acoreasc]

thank you Taubkin - but I am helpless infant compared to the guys you listed.....really, like a crying, diapered infant...but I'm learning!

Can at RED or anywhere build a lens conversion chart for s16 and 35mm still lenses to the particular RED Sensor of choice.....just thinking

[Emanuel]

I'm somewhat confused by all the fervor over s16 and 2/3" lenses on RED. Isn't the S35mm sensor and the accompanying DOF one of the biggest draws of the camera?:thumbup:


I truly believe that the latest generation of still lenses from the better optics houses will outperform any of the S16 zooms from the 80s or early 90s. And any of the good 2/3" HD zooms are more expensive than a set of T2 Zeiss primes.:thumbsup:


It is really not as hard to mount follow focus gears on to these lenses as you may think. Most are designed for professional use and can take the FF pressure just fine. And although the distances may be less accurate you will most likely be using an HD monitor to set marks anyway. I'm all in favor of using cinema glass when the budget and project demands, but blowing $ on a smaller format zoom seems silly to me.
My 2¢.
E.Posted before by Filmmaker1977, just for example and as to prove...so simple than what offers:

http://www.dandiaconu.com/newweb/mug.htm

[Greg Lowry]

Proteus: The points I was trying are simply these:

1. One could use the Zeiss ZF lenses for the RED 35 and S35 formats but the focal length range at the wide end is limited. Not a major issue.

2. For those considering the ZF option for windowed and S16 formats, the ZF's are a bigger problem because of a complete lack of meaningful wide angles. Not very practical.

The reason I listed the Zeiss S16 format lenses was to illustrate how important wide angles are to modern cinematography. I personally would not buy the ZFs if I were shooting the smaller formats, but I'm eager to buy a set to play with for other purposes.

I'm curious to know your level of experience. Feel free to email me if you prefer. Thanks.

[Greg Lowry]

I'm not entirely sure i want to wade in on this post because I still don't understand Proteus' point of view, but here goes.

An S16 format 6mm lens may be the equivalent of a 35mm format 19.5mm (i'll assume your math is correct) but the opposite obviously isn't true. So your exercise in lens conversion doesn't help those who are considering still camera lenses for the smaller formats.

Once again I strongly point out that a lens is NOT "converted" to a different focal length when used on a different format. A 10mm is a 10mm no matter what the format. Semantics are important in this discussion and the use of the term "conversion" is absolutely wrong. One reason why this is crucial is that depth of field computations are based on the focal length of the lens.

Read my previous post on this subject for further explanation.



So the equivalent focal lengths to 35mm still lenses will be:

6mm S16 = 19.5mm (35mm still equivalent)

8mm S16 = 26mm (35mm still eq)

9.5mm S16 = 31mm (35mm still eq)

12mm S16 = 39mm (35mm still eq)

14mm S16 = 45mm (35mm still eq)

So if you use e.g the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor it will be converted to 20.6mm (35mm still eq) S35 for RED, similar as the wider 19.5mm (35mm still eq) S16 Zeiss.

Yes, I meant the still lens' focal length increase for full frame "S35".

P.S If you think my calculations are wrong please discuss it...
.

[mike the beginner]

Quote: personally can't imagine doing any sort of fast-paced documentary or grab style shooting with a set of primes. By the time you change lenses, your subject has left town or you're dead.
__________________________________
Thats why i could only use primes in scenes when that would not apply. Underwater (part submerged) filming fish close up perhaps. Scenic landscapes with appropriate primes. Hope ive got that right?

Just thought i should mention that Graeme Nattress has already confirmed that Red WILL downconvert the full sensor to 2k in camera and then cropped in post. He also hinted that Red is considering also trying to downconvert from full sensor to 1080p in camera. The comments were made over at DV info. Much discussion has since came about with Mike Curtis mentioning how much of a pain cropping would (IS he said) be from 2k to 1080p. Graeme did come back at him with 4 different options on 1080p. Might be useful to know so thought i would mention.

Thanks again all of you for confirming the difficulty of focusing whilst using s35mm lenses. Great posts there brilliant:)

My brain cells are still burning though and none more so when Proteus mentions what i am thinking regarding the use of s35mm lens, even the swapping over from full sensor to windowed 2k to get the 120fps on occasions. BUT.....It is the two or three stops to increase depth of field that was lurking in my brain cells. You see my theory learning suggest that because we have such a large sensor AND used with a s35mm lens we have a massive aperture opening compared to a 1/3rd camera. EDIT
AND ADD "to begin with"

IF....artistic options are briefly ignored for now and all you want to film is the whole area in focus then would that not be an option without the worry of crtical focusing. Accepted you loose a lot of low light advantages (important to me) but surely you would still have more low light capabilities than if you were restricted to a 1/3rd ccd with appropriate lenses. What do others think? have i failed to grasp the theory in this situation?

Michael

[Greg Lowry]

A "massive aperture" means less depth of field, not more.

T1.4 is a large aperture setting (shallow DOF), T16 is a small aperture (deep DOF).

A T1.4 maximum lens aperture remains a T1.4 maximum lens aperture no matter what the format.

[mike the beginner]

Quote: A massive aperture" means less depth of field, not more.

________________________________________

Greg i mention the massive aperture opening as meaning "you begin with a lot of available light using an s35mm lens" and a huge sensor. But you then have a very shallow depth of field and focusing problems.

By THEN reducing the aperture size i increase depth of field and focusing becomes less of an issue. My point being how far can i go doing this but still be well ahead in low light capabilities compared to a 1/3rd ccd camera with oppropriate lenses. Now do you get what i am saying:)

Michael



This i thought would give you more leeway to close the aperture and increase the depth of field thereby also reducing the focusing requirements:)

[Greg Lowry]

A large sensor isn't necessarily more sensitive than a small sensor. in fact, with currently available large sensor cameras the opposite seems to be the case. And you can only stop down to increase depth of field if the exposure sensitivity of the sensor allows it, so I think your basic premise is flawed. I don't mean to be a hard-ass, I'm just trying to keep the facts straight. Sometimes the terminology you use makes it difficult to understand your meaning, but that's perfectly OK. If I misunderstand you, let me know and I'll try harder to understand.

At this point we don't know what sort of exposure index (EI) rating the RED sensor will have. (You may prefer ASA or ISO. I use EI because it's now the way film stocks are rated and it gives me a frame of reference I immediately understand. It's also the way the large sensor, film-style digital cinema cameras usually rate their sensors.) The ARRI D20, Panavision Genesis and Dalsa Origin large format sensors are rated at about EI 320(ish). Current 1/3" CCD camera sensors generally have a higher EI than that (the DVX's EI is 640, isn't it? I'm no expert on 1/3" CCD cameras, so help me out if I'm wrong).

Hopefully RED will work its magic and come up with a sensor with a high EI rating. It won't be long before EI 1000+ large format sensors are widely available. In fact there is at least one camera with that capability now but the pixel pitch of the sensor is 12.5 microns (red is 5.4 microns). Large pixels help with light sensitivity and low noise, but not as many 12.5 micron pixels will fit on an S35 sensor, thus limiting spatial resolution.

[stephen natanson]

Just to heip with the lens "conversions" (may be better to say equivelent lens angle) according to professional (and they get things wrong every now and then) tables and sticking to typical still camera range.

35 photo 21mm = s35 film 14mm = s16 7mm
35 photo 26mm = s35 film 17mm = s16 8mm
35 photo 31mm = s35 film 21mm = s16 10mm
35 photo 39mm = s35 film 26mm = s16 13mm
35 photo 50mm = s35 film 33mm = s16 16mm
35 photo 81mm = s35 film 54mm = s16 27mm

I underlined the same (almost the same) focal length lens in each sensor size to make it clear that a wide angle photo lens becomes less wide in s35mm film format and is a portrait lens in s16mm. Looking at the table, if you are shooting with still camera lenses and using the whole s35 film sensor area, the only lens that you would be missing is the super wideangle 14mm, they are available for 35mm photo cameras but are expensive and worse very heavy with massive front elements. I think that the sensors which are slightly smaller than traditional 35mm used in the first batch of pro and semi pro still cameras such as the Canon Eos range are closer than to S35mm film size and they developed lenses for those cameras which could fit the wide angle spot. The lenses are however very "automatic" and would have to be modified and may also not be sharp enough.

I find the idea of using massive traditional cinema zooms on the red camera ridiculous, even cinema primes are larger and often heavier than the body. Instead of building a cage and fixing the camera to the tripod it would make more sense to figure out a way of fixing the lens to the tripod and just attaching the red sensor to that.

Actually I very rarely use zoom lenses to zoom in shot when I film so I think the idea of using small light photo zoom lenses very pleasent for situations where there is enough light and where a shallow depth of focus is not wanted. Who knows some genius may figure out a way of modifing them to make them behave better (smooth zooming, breathing focus problems etc.). I have an old cinema zoom and it is a horrible lens, one forgets at time how bad some of the old technology was, I am sure that photo zooms are better. May be fun to use on the red however.

One issue which may be a problem is all the amout of extra light going into the sensor area as the lenses cover much more than necessary. In cine cameras stray light reflecting on the mirror mechanism etc. could be a big problem causing general fogging or strange light smears. I am sure the red team is spending time and attention to light baffles and anti reflective surfaces but just in case thought I would try and remind them.

I really enjoy reading these forums, makes me think that something is moving after all. Keep it up and hopefully Red, and the competition, will deliver wonderfull new, cheaper and lighter tools we can tell our stories with.

[Greg Lowry]

Just to heip with the lens "conversions" (may be better to say equivelent lens angle) according to professional (and they get things wrong every now and then) tables and sticking to typical still camera range.

35 photo 21mm = s35 film 14mm = s16 7mm
35 photo 26mm = s35 film 17mm = s16 8mm
35 photo 31mm = s35 film 21mm = s16 10mm
35 photo 39mm = s35 film 26mm = s16 13mm
35 photo 50mm = s35 film 33mm = s16 16mm
35 photo 81mm = s35 film 54mm = s16 27mm
Useful info, Stephen. Thanks!

I think it's important to emphasize that this is a table of equivalent focal lengths for different formats based on angles of view. It's equally important to understand that a 21mm photo lens does not become a 14mm equivalent on an S35, nor a 7mm equivalent on an S16. This may be painfully, ridiculously obvious to most, but not to all.


I underlined the same (almost the same) focal length lens in each sensor size to make it clear that a wide angle photo lens becomes less wide in s35mm film format and is a portrait lens in s16mm. Looking at the table, if you are shooting with still camera lenses and using the whole s35 film sensor area, the only lens that you would be missing is the super wideangle 14mm, they are available for 35mm photo cameras but are expensive and worse very heavy with massive front elements. I think that the sensors which are slightly smaller than traditional 35mm used in the first batch of pro and semi pro still cameras such as the Canon Eos range are closer than to S35mm film size and they developed lenses for those cameras which could fit the wide angle spot. The lenses are however very "automatic" and would have to be modified and may also not be sharp enough.
I find that the super-wides for photo cameras have noticeable curvilinear distortion, a.k.a. barrelling (where the top and bottom of the image bulges outwards). They also vignette somewhat. Modern cine lenses don't suffer so much from these problems.


I find the idea of using massive traditional cinema zooms on the red camera ridiculous, even cinema primes are larger and often heavier than the body. Instead of building a cage and fixing the camera to the tripod it would make more sense to figure out a way of fixing the lens to the tripod and just attaching the red sensor to that.
Good point. Whenever the camera is smaller or lighter than the lens, that's really what happens anyway, isn't it? haha.


Actually I very rarely use zoom lenses to zoom in shot when I film so I think the idea of using small light photo zoom lenses very pleasent for situations where there is enough light and where a shallow depth of focus is not wanted. Who knows some genius may figure out a way of modifing them to make them behave better (smooth zooming, breathing focus problems etc.). I have an old cinema zoom and it is a horrible lens, one forgets at time how bad some of the old technology was, I am sure that photo zooms are better. May be fun to use on the red however.
I think you mean depth of field rather than depth of focus.

I have recently been testing a variety of "stock" photo zooms for another use. Some exhibit noticeable focus drift through the zoom range (i.e. they don't hold focus) enough to be unuseable for actual zooming. And the degree of drift can vary between two otherwise identical lenses. But they're generally ok for use as vari-focal lenses if they're refocused after zooming to a different focal length. This problem is usually corrected when they are converted (at considerable expense) for cine use. Breathing can also be reduced, but not completely. And of course, lenses from different manufacturers exhibit different technical idiosyncracies. These lenses are, as you correctly observed, rather slow. The one I like best so far is the Leica (Leitz) Tri-Elmar M 28-35-50 f/4. From the name you can tell that it's intended to be a varifocal rather than a zoom. It's a Leica M rangefinder camera lens (non-retrofocus), surprisingly sharp with beautiful contrast. It's only about 68mm long.


One issue which may be a problem is all the amout of extra light going into the sensor area as the lenses cover much more than necessary. In cine cameras stray light reflecting on the mirror mechanism etc. could be a big problem causing general fogging or strange light smears. I am sure the red team is spending time and attention to light baffles and anti reflective surfaces but just in case thought I would try and remind them.
Yes, this could be a problem as the image circle of all lenses is obviously larger than the rectangular active sensor area, and could be a big deal when using 35mm format lenses on a small sensor area. Some sort of physical mask of the sensor may be necessary in addition to any electronic windowing. It'll be interesting to see how RED addresses this issue or if it's even a problem.


I really enjoy reading these forums, makes me think that something is moving after all. Keep it up and hopefully Red, and the competition, will deliver wonderfull new, cheaper and lighter tools we can tell our stories with.
Motion or the illusion of motion? Isn't that our business? haha

[acoreasc]

Stephen Natanson wrote:

One issue which may be a problem is all the amout of extra light going into the sensor area as the lenses cover much more than necessary. In cine cameras stray light reflecting on the mirror mechanism etc. could be a big problem causing general fogging or strange light smears. I am sure the red team is spending time and attention to light baffles and anti reflective surfaces but just in case thought I would try and remind them.

Will the "smearing" and other photographic abberations associated with cine cameras and lenses really be a problem? RED isn't like the Arri D-20, it doesn't have a mirrored shutter system, so there shouldn't be problems regarding image capture? Would stray light simply blow out the image?

Will the build of different lenses (Super 16mm, ENG, Still, S35) affect they way they render imagery on Red. I am not talking about DOF, or the image rendered, or even something as basic as the mount - I am talking about how the optics are constructed. I guess I am just a little overwhelmed with how one camera, with the simple changing of a mount and the sensor size can use any of these types of lenses....what about calibration.....so much info....this is not pressing need mind you, just my general curiosity.

[Greg Lowry]

This is really, really, REALLY not something to worry about. It's something the RED engineers will address, along with thousands of other details. That's the nature of camera development. It's better to focus on things under our control. That's complicated enough.

[acoreasc]

Oh no, not worried, just interested in the technology. I am absolutley not trying to raise flags here!

[stephen natanson]

sorry I always get confused with depth of focus and depth of field it's the opposite to what you would think it was.
I might not have been clear enough that a lens is a lens is a lens.
A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens whatever the camera you are using it on. The focal length cannot be altered without adding other lenses.
"The focal length is the distance from the lens to the film, when focused on a subject at infinity. To focus on something closer than infinity, the lens is moved farther away from the film. This is why most lenses get longer when you turn the focusing ring."
Now, for those of you who are reaching for their tape measures, with modern lenses because of magical mumbojumbo and the fact that they have multiple elements inside, it is what is called the equivelent lens distance. And that is as much as I feel you should know about that subject. Possibly because that is all I know about it.
Two lens formulas mainly affect the physical lens size.
Telephoto lenses allow you to have long lenses which are shorter than they should.
Wideangles are longer than they should be to allow space for the shutter mechanism in film and photo cameras. A 14mm lens should be just, for you archaic imperial system people, half an inch (0.55 of an inch I have no idea how you should say it in fractions) off the sensor surface. I have forgotton what the magical and expensive mumbojumbo is called. I think it could be inverted telephoto. Basicly it applies the same principle as that which you see when you look through a telescope backwards. Its called something else in Italian but I have forgotten that as well.
One of the many wonderfull things about the Red camera project is, since there is no mirror mechanism (Yeahh!!!) we can go back to the shorter, simpler, better, faster and cheaper lens formulas for wide angle lenses such as those used in rangefinder cameras where the back element almost touches the film-sensor plane.
Going back to my rant on focal lengths. So the only difference between a lens of the same focal length for 16mm or 35mm work is that the lens for 35mm which is often physically bigger, but not necessarily so, illuminates a larger area than needed. Given focal length less sensor area = less angle of view. So a wideangle 35mm photo lens becomes a closeup lens when used on a s16mm.
This, by the way, is the reason that no one has ever seen, although it was wildly advertised by Canon as one of reason you should buy their camera, a Canon XL1 with camera lenses. If you put a still camera lens on an XL1 you can only use it to film a pimple on the backside of a mosquito at a 100 yards/meters whatever. And then you have to figure out a way of keeping the camera steady. This is because the sensors are really tiny 1/3 of an inch.
What is great is that with these new large sensors without backflange problems (I mean no mirrors in the way I am sure that Greg will correct me on this) we can use some excellent lenses that have been developed for still cameras for film work.
While I am at it.
Since we are all doing this for fun, information and hopefully to change the way we are making films, television etc. now and although I am as much of a fetishist apropo lenses equipment etc. as the rest of you what I am really interested in is how do you think this will affect filmmaking.
If we are talking about a revolution, what is this revolution. Will it change the way we shoot films. The "film language" that we use. Is it a similar revolution to Music videos or Dogma? Both have developed different ways to tell stories and have affected traditional filmmaking as well. Or is it something completely different. How will it change things? How will it change the camera manufacturers business? Rental business? Production? Film crews? Post production? Will it change things? If I knew how you make threads this could possibly be a new thread?
Another thing that I am curious about is what do you thing will or should come after red? Maybe a 6 by 9 sensor so that you can use Hassleblad or Mamiya lenses. Or just one which covers the full 35mm photo area. What about shutter speeds, I see some want to shoot 60fps not for slomotion but to be able to project at that speed, why not faster? I for one would like to be able to shoot and possibly project at slower frame rates, I like (probably something I should be ashamed of) those streaky images caused by motion.
What do you want? Besides the Red camera project, what is it you really want. Because who knows someone may be listening and eventually we may all get it. I know this is wishfull thinking and most filmcamera and video manufacturers are incredibly short sighted but you never know they may see the light. Anyrate certainly if you don't ask for it you will never get it.
I know that this is very close to the red idea contest, but I found that fascinating although, maybe because of the prize, people were mainly proposing practical and simple ideas. What is it that filmmakers want or think they want?

[Greg Lowry]

Wideangles are longer than they should be to allow space for the shutter mechanism in film and photo cameras. A 14mm lens should be just, for you archaic imperial system people, half an inch (0.55 of an inch I have no idea how you should say it in fractions) off the sensor surface. I have forgotton what the magical and expensive mumbojumbo is called. I think it could be inverted telephoto. Basicly it applies the same principle as that which you see when you look through a telescope backwards. Its called something else in Italian but I have forgotten that as well.
retrofocus.


One of the many wonderfull things about the Red camera project is, since there is no mirror mechanism (Yeahh!!!) we can go back to the shorter, simpler, better, faster and cheaper lens formulas for wide angle lenses such as those used in rangefinder cameras where the back element almost touches the film-sensor plane.

I'm a huge fan of the quality of rangefinder lenses and I'm exploring every single M mount lens on the planet for a variety of uses including 3D, but electronic viewfinders are still lousy. So it's still an unfortunate trade-off to lose optical reflex viewing in exchange for simpler lens design. Even when we have 4K electronic viewfinders (available the same year as the flying car) I'd still prefer to look through the optics sometimes. Of course, I want both! And a flying car.



Going back to my rant on focal lengths. So the only difference between a lens of the same focal length for 16mm or 35mm work is that the lens for 35mm which is often physically bigger, but not necessarily so, illuminates a larger area than needed. Given focal length less sensor area = less angle of view. Since we are all doing this for fun, information and hopefully to change the way we are making films, television etc. now and although I am as much of a fetishist apropo lenses equipment etc. as the rest of you what I am really interested in is how do you think this will affect filmmaking.
There are definitely worse (and more interesting) fetishes. haha.


If we are talking about a revolution, what is this revolution. Will it change the way we shoot films. The "film language" that we use. Is it a similar revolution to Music videos or Dogma? Both have developed different ways to tell stories and have affected traditional filmmaking as well. Or is it something completely different. How will it change things? How will it change the camera manufacturers business? Rental business? Production? Film crews? Post production? Will it change things? If I knew how you make threads this could possibly be a new thread?
Another thing that I am curious about is what do you thing will or should come after red? Maybe a 6 by 9 sensor so that you can use Hassleblad or Mamiya lenses. Or just one which covers the full 35mm photo area. What about shutter speeds, I see some want to shoot 60fps not for slomotion but to be able to project at that speed, why not faster? I for one would like to be able to shoot and possibly project at slower frame rates, I like (probably something I should be ashamed of) those streaky images caused by motion.
What do you want? Besides the Red camera project, what is it you really want. Because who knows someone may be listening and eventually we may all get it. I know this is wishfull thinking and most filmcamera and video manufacturers are incredibly short sighted but you never know they may see the light. Anyrate certainly if you don't ask for it you will never get it.
I know that this is very close to the red idea contest, but I found that fascinating although, maybe because of the prize, people were mainly proposing practical and simple ideas. What is it that filmmakers want or think they want?
I'm disappointed that the industry so quickly adopted 24p for digital cinematography. Yes, the motion resolution of 24 fps says "movie" to our collective consciousness, but sometimes the heightened reality of 30 fps or the hyper-reallity of 60 fps can better suit the subject matter. Showscan, the 60 fps 70mm film format, is still my all-time favorite big-screen experience because the subconscious barrier of flicker was removed and motion resolution was nearly as smooth as reality -- none of the usual strobing or motion blur. Some people complained that it was "too real" and, therefore, not a good storytelling medium -- that it lacked the dreamlike qualities of 24 fps film. The fact that you could see the heads of nails on sets made some people nervous too. Even Doug Trumbull, the inventor of Showscan, wondered if it was "too real". But I say that we've not yet had a chance to evolve the storytelling potential of 60 fps. It's like the difference between black and white and color. Or big screen cinema and TV. Each evolves it's own specific visual language over time. I've read Jim Cameron's comments on this subject. He wants to be freed from the tyranny of 24 fps too. 3D and 24 fps particularly don't like each other. Yet the industry is in the process of installing thousands of digital projectors with a 24 fps standard speed. 30 fps isn't even the spec, let alone 60fps or higher. Yes, these digital projection systems can probably be upgraded, but I think the standards set are unnecessarily restrictive and were, as usual, mostly decided by engineers and technicians without much input from filmmakers. It's the 21st Century. The world is very much in our faces and sometimes more real than we may like. Some people want to escape to dreamlike safety of 24 fps. I for one want to capture this hyper-real world using tools that can accomplish that. And high frames rates really do offer a much more immediate, real, and visceral experience.

[Shaw]

I'm personally a fan of 30p :) Not sure I'd want to shoot something dramatic at 60p though.

[Graeme_Nattress]

I think drama in 60p or 50p could look fantastic. Half the problem with video drama is that it's not always made with the kind of dramatic lighting you'd normally apply, and colour correction, to make things look good. That 60i looks cheap is as much a cultural phenonema as it is the type of productions associated with it.

A lot of very fine drama in the UK was shot, well lit and well edited on normal video, often studio being video, and location being film. I don't think that the higher quality motion of 60p would make any work shot in it less dramatic, and could indeed enhance the drama by taking the viewer away from the un-reality of 24p film.

I'd love to see high frame rate dramas shot with the RED!

Graeme

[Greg Lowry]

It'll happen, even if it receives only an HDTV/home video/internet release at the intended 60 fps. I'm personally less and less interested in the theatrical cinema. I think more interesting work is being done for TV these days. I still love the big screen, but the theatrical cinema is a slow-moving, dim-witted dinosaur. Digital projection doesn't really change much. At a time when movies cost $100 million++, the real opportunites for revolution are elsewhere.

I guess we're way off topic from RED lenses now, but every technical choice ultimately has a creative result.

[Jarred Land]

i agree Graeme. Frame rates are nothing more than a stylistic choice. Its very similar to color grading.. cooling images off or warming them up doesnt make things less or more dramatic, but instead dramatically "different".

I'm personally less and less interested in the theatrical cinema. I think more interesting work is being done for TV these days. .
I dont know though Greg.. i dont think thatrical cinema at 24p is going to go anywhere anytime soon. people pay alot of money to make 60 stuff match 24p movement.

60 has its place... and 24 has its place. Im not so sure that that will move much in the future.

[Greg Lowry]

You're right. The dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years. Theatrical cinema @ 24 fps has a long life ahead. And I'm happy about that. But it's more fun to explore new territory than to follow the beaten path.

[Jarred Land]

well said. ha ha ha.

when I was shooting all the http://purposelabs.com stuff using a high speed camera, some of the dramatic stuff like fists of dawn we didn't shoot on a 24 base.. we would shoot at 120 or 96 or 48 etc. and just drop frames in post. Had some interesting effects. Added with Overcranking it indeed was fun to expore " new territory "

[toke lahti]

I can shed some light on the use of ENG 2/3” B4 mount HD lenses on RED. The S16mm lens format is 11.1x6.3. The 2/3” B4 lens format is 10.4x5.9. Thus the S16 format is just over 12% larger than 2/3” in coverage area.
If you are talking about target sizes, we should compare 16:9 2/3" to S16.
Then it's 9.6mm x 5.4mm vs. 12.35mm x 7.5mm.
So s16 has 29% bigger horizontal FoV than 2/3".

http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/tbleframelist.asp

One thing that maybe hasn't been mentioned in this thread, is that lenses designed for 2/3" cameras are designed for 3-ccd element, which has the red (!) ccd's optical plane little offset from the others. Eg. zeiss paid a great attention to this when they designed Digiprimes and there's lots of info about this in their papers.

[Greg Lowry]

The S16 v. 2/3" format difference has been previously mentioned and is buried somewhere in this long, long thread. Your comments and link are useful.

It's my opinion that adapted 2/3" video lenses aren't a particulary good alternative to true S16 lenses for a variety of reasons, and your post adds to that. Thanks.

[Gordon Prince]

To me that's the difference between SI (S16) & RED (S35) like shooting 16mm vs. 35mm. That's why it will be important to have the 35mm SLR option as RED feature and not only as 3rd party offer.

[Gibby]

If you are talking about target sizes, we should compare 16:9 2/3" to S16.
Then it's 9.6mm x 5.4mm vs. 12.35mm x 7.5mm.
So s16 has 29% bigger horizontal FoV than 2/3".

http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/tbleframelist.asp

One thing that maybe hasn't been mentioned in this thread, is that lenses designed for 2/3" cameras are designed for 3-ccd element, which has the red (!) ccd's optical plane little offset from the others. Eg. zeiss paid a great attention to this when they designed Digiprimes and there's lots of info about this in their papers.

The comparative dimensions I use to compute the comparison for my post came from the RED One Recording Matrix, upper right hand part of the page, S16 = 11.1x6.3, and 2/3" = 10.4x5.9. Link: http://www.red.com/product/format-options/?PHPSESSID=4c73a9af580dbe5b49f3b2d5c1877a6d

Using the dimensions they published, and doing the math, the coverage for S16 is just over 12% larger than the coverage for the 2/3" frame. I'm sure if RED is publishing the use of 2/3" B4 mount lenses that the camera will be engineered to handle the technical nuances of the format.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Gibby]

It's my opinion that adapted 2/3" video lenses aren't a particulary good alternative to true S16 lenses for a variety of reasons, and your post adds to that. Thanks.

For cine-style productions, where more cinematic values are needed, I would agree with that statement, but for ENG-style production (sports, reality, news, certain documentaries, many corporate productions), where multiple focal lengths are needed in rapid succession, the crew is small (or just yourself), and/or the production is destined for HDTV, I feel an HD ENG 2/3" zoom lens is far and away the best choice. I shoot a ton of productions in those genres, with HD ENG cameras, and the same HD ENG lenses. I don't hesitate to go to S16, 35, or S35 when the production genre calls for it, but in my experience, for the genres I listed above, an HD ENG zoom lens is the ticket. Obviously I'd use RED with the top handle of the 3-handle system, and a shoulder brace for those genres of shooting. I realize there is a lot of people adopting RED that have a strictly cine-style background, but there is a distinct reason that RED included 2/3" B4 and 1080p, 1080i, and 720p on their recoding matrix - so that HD ENG workflow is enabled by the camera, and for broader user adoption of the camera.

If you only do cine-style production, by all means, hang with S35, 35, or S16 lenses. But if you do any of the ENG-style genres I listed above, an HD ENG zoom lens, and the ENG rig I outlined earlier in this thread is my professional recommendation.

Versatility in range of production genres is what I'm after - it makes me more money and is more professionally gratifying to me.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Greg Lowry]

A completely valid point of view.

[Gibby]

I'll say it again...this has been an excellent thread! Even after all these years of production I get up each morning excited to learn something new about my craft. If I stay healthy and mobile, and live to be 90, I want to still be shooting every day then, and I hope at that age I'm still eager to learn new techniques and technology for my craft.

There's just something absolutely magical about laying down some beautiful images - its as euphoric as a drug. Come to think of it...it is my drug of choice...

I work as an executive producer, producer, director, editor, scriptwriter, DP, and cinematographer, but there's no question what my favorite thing to do is - shoot! I'm 58, been shooting images for almost 40 years of that, and the "stoke" has never worn off.

There's an old phrase in the surfing community: "Only a surfer knows the feeling!". I surf, so I definitely understand that, but for this industry I'd like to morph the saying into: "Only a shooter knows the feeling!"

Thanks to everyone for sharing their lens knowledge on this thread...

Gibby
Red #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[toke lahti]

I think that 10-100T2 S16 lens would be great for both ENG and cine.
And nobody's preventing to use that lens with 2/3" window...
That & red might be optimal package to own and bigger and expensive can be rented.

[Greg Lowry]

I think that 10-100T2 S16 lens would be great for both ENG and cine.
A small correction: The S16 version/conversion of the Zeiss 10-100 results in an 11-110 T2.2.

[toke lahti]

The comparative dimensions I use to compute the comparison for my post came from the RED One Recording Matrix, upper right hand part of the page, S16 = 11.1x6.3, and 2/3" = 10.4x5.9. Link: http://www.red.com/product/format-options/?PHPSESSID=4c73a9af580dbe5b49f3b2d5c1877a6d
Those numbers seem to be wrong.
You can check the right dimensions from samuelsson's bible or ASC manual.

[filmmaker1977]

lightweight?

[Greg Lowry]

Both ARRI and Panavision (and probably Aaton and every other S16 camera) use a gate size of 12.5mm x 7.5mm for S16. But this yields an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. This is the aspect ratio that S16 film has always been since it was invented in the late 60s. Don't forget that S16 was originally designed for the 1.85:1 and 1.66 cinema aspect ratios long before the invention of 16x9 widescreen TV or HDTV. The RED Lens Format chart indicates S16 sensor dimensions of 11.1mm x 6.3mm. This is an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 or 16x9 -- the aspect ratio for HDTV.

S16 film images have to be cropped top and bottom (to about 12.5mm x 7mm) for a 16x9 aspect ratio, but RED S16 is a native 16x9 format. No wasted pixels ... in theory.

There is, however, still a bit of a discrepancy when one does the math for the number of pixels x pixel pitch (size):
1980 pixels x 5.4 micron pixel pitch = 10.368mm
1080 pixels x 5.4 micron pixel pitch = 5.832mm

Hmmm. 10.368mm x 5.832mm isn't the same as the RED S16 dimenions on their chart (11.1mm x 6.3mm). Somebody in the know at RED is going to have to explain that one.

The difference between the dimensions of the S16 film frame and the dimensions of the RED S16 frame means that the lens angles of view currently calculated for the standard 12.5mm x 7.5mm S16 frame need to be recalcuated for the smaller RED S16 format. No big deal.

If things aren't too crazy this coming week I'll have one of my co-workers whip up an Excel spreadsheet so everyone here can plug in their own numbers to answer questions about various lenses, angles of view, etc. for the various RED formats, etc. I'll post a link. *Disclaimer: Promise subject to workload.

[donatello]

from what i recall on converting the zeiss 10-100 T2 to S 16.
one conversion was a 12-120 T2.4 and another was 11-110 T2.2 .. the price to convert to 11-110 T2.2 was approx 50%-100% more then 12-120 T2.4 ....

[Greg Lowry]

I've never encountered the 12-120 conversion. Who does that?

OK, answered my own question: http://www.cinematechnic.com/super_16mm/Super_16_Lens_Conversion.html

I learned something new today. woo hoo.

[filmmaker1977]

my dear greg.. you're so prolific! mainly, here in this thread.. it's yours..

don't forget the lightweight subject.. not all of the shooters here have your non-fiction north american setup..

and congrats for your 200th post!

[Greg Lowry]

my dear greg.. you're so prolific! mainly, here in this thread.. it's yours..

don't forget the lightweight subject.. not all of the shooters here have your non-fiction north american setup..

and congrats for your 200th post!
200 posts? I hadn't noticed. Yes, quantity over quality. haha. Actually, I've been chained to my computer this past week so this thread provides some distraction from more business-related activities.

I can really only write about my personal experience. I do come from documentary roots but evolved into other areas. There are highly qualified individuals here who fill in my knowledge or experience gaps very nicely.

Thanks for the kind words.

[taubkin]

I think that 10-100T2 S16 lens would be great for both ENG and cine.
And nobody's preventing to use that lens with 2/3" window...
That & red might be optimal package to own and bigger and expensive can be rented.

Sure. We all shot S167mm documentaries on cine zoom lenses. But to have an integrtated servo zoom in your hand grip, and fast focus with no zooming, is also pretty cool to have. That's why Gibby said there's a place for HD Zoom lenses als well as cine-style lenses.

I too would prefer a cine zoom. If I had a RED today, and were shopping for lenses, I'd probably go for a Cooke 9.5 - 47mm T1.5. For me the price factor/sharpness/lightness is the best choice. For me, the lens opening more than T2, and wider than 11-12mm is a very cool feature. My Ideal would be a 8mm-60mm S16 T1.4 lens, but that Cooke is close enough. Couple with a nice follow focus and mattebox, and I'm set.

-EDIT- As greg pointed out, its a heavy mamma, not very good for handholding (can be done, though!)!

We can all rent other lenses if we need them!

[Greg Lowry]

Hi Taubkin,

Is this the Cooke lens to which you refer?

http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=11&Cat=8&Cat2=20&Cat3=28

That lens is a Super-16 conversion of the Cooke Varotal 18-100 or 20-100 35mm format zooms which are 320mm (12.6 inches) long and weigh 5.5 kg (12 lbs), with a 150mm front diameter. A big, heavy lens.

Having used the 35mm version, I recognize the design. If you look at the size of the PL mount relative to the lens, you can see that the lens is very large. The purpose-built Cooke S16 zoom is T2.5. The super fast 9.5-47 at T1.5 would necessarily be very large. You pay for the large maximum aperture with size and weight. (No free lunches in optics.) I think you would find that particular lens more than a bit unweidy for documentary production.

Where did you the get the information that this is a lightweight lens?

[Jarred Land]

damnit greg.. i almost bought that link.

[Greg Lowry]

http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/calculate_convert/dofcdepthoffieldcalculator.html

[Greg Lowry]

damnit greg.. i almost bought that link.

You could buy it and think of it as a combo camera lens and weight training device.

[taubkin]

Lightweight?

I was being crazy. One thing I was saying that I'd be confortable using a S16mm lightweight zoom for docu work. Other thing is that I'd own that Cooke to use in Commercial/industrial work, wich is what I do the most with my equipment! It's funny how I can start writing one thing and end up writting another...

Anyway, stranger things have happened when I don't take the time to review my writing!

I used that lens as an example, of course, but I have worked with a Large Cooke for S16 (with a similar range, and similarly, very clear), owned by some guy, not a camera shop. I never realized it was large because is was addapted from 35mm, but it makes a lot of sense! I was really impressed with the results the cinematographer got with it, it looking so old and beat up.

But did I say it was a lightweight lens? Look at that picture, it's monstruous! hehehe!

Thanks for listening, and pointing that in!

[Greg Lowry]

But did I say it was a lightweight lens? Look at that picture, it's monstruous! hehehe! Thanks for listening, and pointing that in!
Taubkin wrote: "I'd probably go for a Cooke 9.5 - 47mm T1.5. For me the price factor/sharpness/lightness is the best choice."

That's the sentence where I got the impression that you thought it was lightweight. Perhaps you were referring to the large max aperture when you used the term "lightness". Glad to know you recognized it as a monster.

Actually, the purpose built Cooke S16 format zooms are all quite heavy and a bit larger than other S16 zooms, but they're engineered for tough physical production. I wonder how many 2/3" format video lenses will still be in use 20 years from now? Cookes aren't the lightest, smallest or cheapest, but they're optically and mechanically excellent.

[mike the beginner]

QUOTE:http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/icons/icon1.gif Depth of field calculator dashboard widget for Mac OS-X
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashb...alculator.html
Greg you are surpassing all expectations. I was looking at that last night!!

Well done as well for keeping us beginners in touch. Sometimes seeing lens format tables can make you even more confused unless someone like yourself points out the obvious pitfalls and assumptions the less experienced could (would) have made but for your explanations:dankk2:

Red will be producing the full sensor images in September, i wonder if they will have the new modular camera body by then???. I know Jim Jannard was hinting about locking things down at some point in time. This might allow some testing with some of the lenses that have been mentioned here. Just a thought, otherwise we may find it wise to wait until testing IS done before committing to some of the smaller lenses that were designed for 2/3rd sensors....no. Fine though if you already have these lenses but an expensive error if you go out and purchase only to find they do not work well with the Red camera (i mean those designed to work with 3 ccd sensors)

Michael

[Greg Lowry]

My pleasure, Mike.

If you can delay your decision on lenses that's probably a good thing. Accumulate as much info as possible and then take the plunge.

I would think that the modular camera body model or preprototype and other goodies will be part of the IBC display.

BTW, I read elsewhere that RED tested the full sensor (not just a test slice) at the beginning of July. No further details, but this indicates that they're on schedule. September will be here before we know it.

[taubkin]

That's the sentence where I got the impression that you thought it was lightweight. Perhaps you were referring to the large max aperture when you used the term "lightness". Glad to know you recognized it as a monster.


Yeah, I meant it had a wide aperture... Here in brazil we say a lens is Clear or Light, when it let a lot of light pass through them... Probably the beter translation would be "Brilliant" (although one would take the impression it's filled with internal flares!)...

Perhaps I did use a S16 Zoom that wasn't a 35mm addaptation. You're right - they are all big. In Brazil they are much more difficult to find than Zeiss lenses, and you're right when you say their quality is amazing. They truly are built like tanks!

But thanks for all the info! Your posts were great!

Cheers!

[Greg Lowry]

In the english-speaking filmmaking world, we typically use the term "fast" to describe lenses with a large maximum aperture.

I'm constantly impressed by the members here for whom english is a second, third or forth language. You guys do a great job of expressing your thoughts on complex subjects. It's understandable that occasional words don't translate well.

[Greg Lowry]

I have another thought on the subject of primes for the budget conscious. In the late 60s and early 70s, Zeiss made a set of prime lenses for ARRI (16mm, 24mm 32mm, 50mm, 85 all T2.2 -- the 16mm may be T2.4, my memory is a bit hazy) that covered the 35mm and 16mm format. For 16mm only there was a 8mm at the wide end. The 8mm MAY cover RED S16, but the other focal lengths would be suitable for both S16 and S35. The beauty of these lenses is that they're only 50mm front diameter and about the same length. Very, very compact compared to current primes that are twice that size. I owned a set of these lenses in the 70s and used them on an ARRI 35BL for TV commercials and some cinema work. For many years they were the standard primes used on ARRIs. On a 50' (15m) wide cinema screen the Zeiss lenses always impressed in terms of sharpness and contrast. Many were still in use at rental houses until a few years ago. Kubrick owned at least one set. They're obviously not as good as today's primes, but a set in good condition will still deliver beautiful pictures. I think you could probably pick up an entire set in good condition for $2000-$2500, if you can find them. I've seem them on ebay from time to time. They originally came with either the original ARRI standard mount or B-mount, but a PL adapter fixes that problem. Back in the day when I used that Zeiss glass, the film stock available was 100 ASA. I never found the T2.2 speed to be a problem. Today's sensors are considerably faster than 100 ASA. You don't necessarily need T1.4 lenses.

I just did a quick ebay search under "zeiss arri mount" and came up with this http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2 F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=zeiss+arri+mount&category0=

You can do a more comprehensive search and probably find many more lenses. Don't buy anything without investigating the condition and history of the lenses from the owner.

Despite the "vintage" of these lenses, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in buying a set in good condition. If you decide to sell them at a future date, you won't lose money on them. For the more patient in the group, you can pick up individual lenses as they're available and build a complete set one lens at a time. They'll all match well.

What a great addition to a compact S16/S35-capable RED kit!

[taubkin]

If they are going for that little money nowadays... I'd take it all back! Yeah, gimme one of those!

BTW - Thanks! Fast lenses! That's the word right there! :)

It's actually not that hard, really. Every book I read on the subject was in English! :)

[acoreasc]

Greg - DVXUser.com has sent you a check for this thread. This is now officially your second job.

[Greg Lowry]

Thanks, acoreasc. Cinematographers are a band of brothers ... gotta help out my bros.* It's actually fun to remember the stuff I had forgotten. haha.

Next week I'll be unchained from my computer and back out in the world so I'm trying to be as useful as possible in the meantime.

*p.s. and the sistas too!

[Greg Lowry]

For the S35 format, you may also want to consider Cooke Speed Pancro lenses. These lenses are predecessors to the current S4 series and are much beloved by many cinematographers. They don't have the razor sharpness of current lenses and they'll flare a bit more, but that shouldn't put you off. The image quality is beautiful. Hundreds of movies and thousands of commercials and TV shows were shot with Speed Pancros and they're still available at some rental houses.

There are several generations and series of Speed Pancros (Series 1, 2 and 3 -- the newer the better), various speeds, various remounts and customizations so you should do as much homework as possible to determine the best of what's available. I've seen them for sale on ebay and from rental houses. Deep detective work and persistence may turn up gold at bargain prices.

The focal lengths available are 18, 25, 32, 40, 50, 75, 100. Also a 14.5 and 12.5 I think, but my memory is fuzzy there.

There are older Cooke primes for 16mm too. Search for "Cooke Kinetal" lenses.

A small sample of search results:

http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail02.asp?productID=49&Cat=8&Cat2=19#bigPic

http://www.rarecameras.com/Motion18.html

http://www.filmcamerakit.com/html/arri_standard_primes.htm

http://www.arri16s.com/FilmClips.htm

CAUTION: NOT ALL LENSES WILL COVER S16.

The more you immerse yourself in the long history of cine lenses, the more you'll understand that your options don't have to break the bank.

[Greg Lowry]

I previously mentioned these lenses:

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.visualproducts.com/images/store/s621c.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp%3FproductID%3D621%26Cat%3 D8%26Cat2%3D18%26Cat3%3D26&h=83&w=110&sz=21&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=rDGcSUcgU6sn0M:&tbnh=60&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcanon%2Bk35%2Blens%26svnum%3D10%26hl% 3Den%26hs%3DnFb%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

They're outstanding! Gorgeous glass. I used them often for 35mm shooting, including some really low light situations. They frequently amazed me. Super sharp and nice contrast. Turn off the lights and shoot. This looks like a good deal, IMO. If you needed a set of high speed 35mm lenses and have $10k, you can't go wrong with these. They're geared for follow focus systems and already PL mount. Beauties. Don't be afraid to negotiate the price.

In case anyone is wondering, I have no affiliation with any of the companies in the links I provide.

[Greg Lowry]

OK, I'll give you (and me) a rest and get my work finished. Sorry if I'm overloading the thread. I'm a lens enthusiast as you may have deduced.

[Greg Lowry]

If you can find one of these zoom lenses in better condition and maybe not from a Russian seller (sorry Russia), you should seriously consider it. It has a large barrel diameter, but it's not very long for a 35mm zoom. Close focus capability. I used this zoom with the Canon K35 series primes and found it to be pretty good.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-K-35-Macro-zoom-lens-ARRI-Arriflex_W0QQitemZ150010661627QQcmdZViewItem

The ad says it's 25-120 f2.8, but I remember it being a 25-125. I could be wrong.

[Greg Lowry]

Nice work, Pro-lo! I hope somebody else will double-check the math. haha.

Your pal.
G-Low

[acrochordon]

Thanks for doing all that work for me.

I was thinking I would get S16mm lens and film at 2K. The reasoning was that I could down convert to 1080 or up convert to 4K if needed.

You said that filming with that set up would not be so great if I am reading correctly.

So the best way (for the budget minded), if I am reading is to use a 35mm lenses and film at 4K and then down convert to 1080p.

I was thinking S16 would save me weight and bulk. Also I like more depth of field.

Will RED down convert 2K to 1080 easily in post production?

I am still trying to figure out what lens set up is best for me.

I want to make nature films. I want a light weight rig. I then want to edit and sell the films on Blu-ray discs.

What do the experts think I should get as far as lenses and the format I should shoot in?

[Proteus]

Thanx Greg, although I tried to avoid mistakes, anyone who feels that there is something wrong please say it!
I was skeptical too about the simplicity of calculations but I think the graphic and the choice for the same aspect ratio for all the formats proves the concept -or so I think. I tried hard to find an evidence that proves that this is wrong but I couldn't find any.