35mm still photography lenses solution

The PL mounts have shorter FFD than the Nikons that's why you can only use long nikon lenses (larger dof for backfocus), or use wider lenses in macro mode only (no focus on infinity).

But interchangeable lens mounts is good enough. Even if RED doesn't offer a nikon F-Mount, you could have one machined for you for not much extra cost... (couple of hundreds, tops...) And probably there will be people manufacturing and selling those. Redrock, for instance, would love to get some RED users money doing this...
 
"it means that RED must offer an adapter to this kind of neutral mount just to handling with the century adapters or from any other manufacturer?"

NO- the century's lens have a nuetral thing ( mount ) on the end and then you attach a PL lens mt on that ( century sells them- they are changeable on long lens ) if you have a PL body mt on your RED ... you can buy different changeable mounts from century for the longer lens which would make the century lens useable on many different camera's that have different mounts ... so you could use your century lens with a RED PL mount this week and next week use it on a Aaton mount or a camera then uses a B4 mount ...
 
taubkin said:
Hey Stoke sorry for the long reply.

Okay, you're saying that you want it to work with electronical controlled SLR lenses. That's cool. The way you wrote it it gave me the impression you were saying that for RED to work with photographic lenses, it HAD to have electronic lens connectors, so that is innacurate.
Click to expand...

Hey, no prob.

This came up before and there was a discussion about it in another thread too. The juicy new bit of info in this thread is the back-end (flange) focusing distance. Definitely a concern for those looking to re-use their current investment in lenses, but looking at the Red renderings, it looks like it could be solvable with a thinner front plate.

And '77: Don't take anything as hostile, but consider that a good way to get an unhappy retort is to put words in someone's mouth and then say they're wrong. In my view, that's what happened, and thus my answer was not going to be honey-coated.

That said, this is a friendly forum, and a welcome relief from forums like DPReview, where anyone voicing the slightest criticism of a product is attacked in the most infantile and maladjusted way. So we can all chill out now; I took your initial post with a smile, for sure. Didn't mean to smash your hopes by raising technical issues!

Anyway, I for one am looking to make damned good images as cheaply as possible, and for me that means putting my $700 EOS lens on the Red if I can!
 
taubkin said:
The PL mounts have shorter FFD than the Nikons that's why you can only use long nikon lenses (larger dof for backfocus), or use wider lenses in macro mode only (no focus on infinity).
Click to expand...
but there is an extender adapter (http://www.centuryoptics.com/pdf/CpFilmPL.pdf -- page 3) and they don't speak about don't allow infinity.. at least, the 1.4x.. a wideangle will be still one wideangle.. only 40% less (24 as wideangle to the Nikon 17-35 for instance..) is not so much less.. is this? i mean: do allow it infinity?

taubkin said:
But interchangeable lens mounts is good enough. Even if RED doesn't offer a nikon F-Mount
Click to expand...
Graeme already posted it again.. i'm afraid they don't know how handling with this sort of problems..

taubkin said:
Even if RED doesn't offer a nikon F-Mount, you could have one machined for you for not much extra cost... (couple of hundreds, tops...). And probably there will be people manufacturing and selling those. Redrock, for instance, would love to get some RED users money doing this...
Click to expand...
i'd like to see it but maybe with an unnecessary glass or any screen between the lens and the RED camera?

donatello said:
"it means that RED must offer an adapter to this kind of neutral mount just to handling with the century adapters or from any other manufacturer?"

NO- the century's lens have a nuetral thing ( mount ) on the end and then you attach a PL lens mt on that ( century sells them- they are changeable on long lens ) if you have a PL body mt on your RED ... you can buy different changeable mounts from century for the longer lens which would make the century lens useable on many different camera's that have different mounts ... so you could use your century lens with a RED PL mount this week and next week use it on a Aaton mount or a camera then uses a B4 mount ...
Click to expand...
so if i have a RED with PL mount and I want to use my Canon manual 35mm still photography lenses and in this field RED just allows me the Nikon F mount, i don't need any other adapter except the century one?
 
Last edited:
"so if i have a RED with PL mount and I want to use my Canon manual 35mm still photography lenses and in this field RED just allows me the Nikon F mount, i don't need any other adapter except the century one?"

Century is now a part of Schneider Optics ...
that century PL lens mount is for the canon/nikon lens that century converts ( called S2000 models ) - it will not fit on a non century canon/nikon converted lens ...

i do see that Century does list a Canon to PL Mech Adaptor ( 0LA-CAAI-00 )for $475 - no other info is available ... i'll give them a call Monday ..

Nikon AI SLR to Aaton mount & PL to C mount use to be available thru Optex ...

it appears RED will offer different lens mounts.. how easy to change them ?? we'll just have to wait to see which mounts are offered and how easy they are to change ...

Optex use to offer a universal mount but "OpTex Ltd was placed into administrative receivership on Friday 23rd of December 2005
Accordingly no further orders will be processed at this time."


but at one time they did offer
Universal lens mounts are available for the following camera ports:

Arriflex PL, Bayonet and Standard Eclair/Cameflex
Mitchell 35R, BNCR Aaton
Cinema Products Panavision
'C' mount Sony 2/3" bayonet
Sony 1/2" bayonet Ikegami 2/3" cameras
BTS LDK91/Ikegami HC230 Hi-8 VL mount cameras
Nikon SLR still cameras Pentax still cameras
Canon FD still cameras Olympus OM still cameras

All Universal mounts are interchangeable between the following converted lenses:
Angenieux 25-250, Canon 300mm, Canon 400mm, Canon 800mm, Canon 150-600 (all versions including Mk III), Canon 50-300mm, Nikon 200mm, Nikon 600mm, Nikon 50-300mm, Cooke Varotal 20-100 and 25-250mm, Pentax 200mm macro.
 
guys i wouldnt sweat the lens mounts too much.. if the design stays the same as it is and as many people have suggested, if for some god forsaken reason Red does not sell a mount for your lenses, Jimmy over in the machine shop at clairmont would be happy to make one for you if you give him a little cash.
 
:dankk2: for your input Don

donatello said:
"so if i have a RED with PL mount and I want to use my Canon manual 35mm still photography lenses and in this field RED just allows me the Nikon F mount, i don't need any other adapter except the century one?"

Century is now a part of Schneider Optics ...
that century PL lens mount is for the canon/nikon lens that century converts ( called S2000 models ) - it will not fit on a non century canon/nikon converted lens ...
Click to expand...
i didn't know it.. when i read in that pdf document there was a nikon adapter or other canon i thought it was for all the lenses from these manufacturers not JUST to the canon/nikon lenses converted by century..?

i do see that Century does list a Canon to PL Mech Adaptor ( 0LA-CAAI-00 )for $475 - no other info is available ... i'll give them a call Monday ..
Click to expand...
:dankk2: so much..


jarred the problem is i never knew clairmont, even the states.. we are far far away from you and this is not America.. where's jimmy? :laugh:
 
Jarred Land said:
guys i wouldnt sweat the lens mounts too much.. if the design stays the same as it is and as many people have suggested, if for some god forsaken reason Red does not sell a mount for your lenses, Jimmy over in the machine shop at clairmont would be happy to make one for you if you give him a little cash.
Click to expand...

My words exactly... Except that part about clairmont. I know they rule... But they could be a couple of thosand miles closer, if you know what I mean...
 
taubkin said:
My words exactly... Except that part about clairmont. I know they rule... But they could be a couple of thosand miles closer, if you know what I mean...
Click to expand...

I will tell you what, if it comes down to Red not making them because of licensing or what not, and I can find someone to make them Clairmont or panavision, I will be happy to get some made up and fedexed out to you.
 
I think Robert and many others really missed my point. My comments are aimed at the many guys who think their $500 DSLR lenses look as good or can perform as good as HD or cine lenses. I am not talking $2k to $5k still lenses, at that point the argument is more vaporous. Ultimately attaching anything but the best glass to such a high end sensor makes no sense at all... plus, HD/cine lenses have many features and attributes that make them MUCH MUCH easier to use. Try pulling focus on a DSLR lens with a shallow DOF....



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
I think Robert and many others really missed my point. My comments are aimed at the many guys who think their $500 DSLR lenses look as good or can perform as good as HD or cine lenses. I am not talking $2k to $5k still lenses, at that point the argument is more vaporous. Ultimately attaching anything but the best glass to such a high end sensor makes no sense at all... plus, HD/cine lenses have many features and attributes that make them MUCH MUCH easier to use. Try pulling focus on a DSLR lens with a shallow DOF....
Click to expand...
http://www.dandiaconu.com/newweb/mug.htm

filmmaker1977 said:
..burnt to ashes.. :violent5:
Click to expand...
sorry.. unfortunately for you but not for the indie filmmaking, it happened.. but please don't here.. again.. it will not be necessary.. besides, Robert is not here..

=o)
 
Last edited:
Thank you filmmaker1977. This is the page where it should link to.
As for glass ...most SLR lenses can deliver in excess of 160l/mm (subject to focal length, aperture, film speed, viewing distance, etc). Film can resolve up to 140l/mm (most times 60) Is the sensor capable to resolve all lines from these lenses?
Second thought:
any 4Mpixel $400 still camera comes with.... a lens. Is that lens good enough for the 4M pixel sensor? I bet it is, since you can enlarge the image till you CAN see the PIXELS. There are hundreds of movies from the 50' sharp as a needle, yet they did not have the latest lenses we have.
Even a $100 1.4/50 Nikon off ebay would be better than the lenses they used on those movies. The glass is NOT the limiting factor (imo).
I watched last weekend a few shorts in a full size theatre with materials originated from HVX200 (and DVX???). All I can say is I could see from the last row the pixels on that big screen. Don't sweat it over the glass. The glass is good enough. The sensor's resolution and the enlarging factor (aside from color compression) are in question. My 2c.
 
well.. I must thank you your input that honor the cause.. there is indie filmmaking because there are people like you.. :thumbsup: my bet is the same about Jim Jannard.. that's why i believe in RED with 35mm still photography lenses.. :love4:

on the other hand -- (straight) complex aside -- people like you Dan, Evin, Robert and so many others are peremptory.. therefore, it encourages that move.. the economies of scale are there and are working.. it doesn't seen only if we don't want to see or our industry loyalty doesn't allow.. or if we cannot be rebels enoughly.. or still if we aren't rebels with a cause..

i salute you!.. or i may say.. we salute you!





edit

sometime ago (5 years) i needed $250K bucks for to pay a F900 system basis.. the HDCAM recorder was $85,000; today, it's possible to have 1080p with $15,000 from Silicon Imaging.. 10-bit online editing included.

any doubts?
 
Last edited:
We should salute EVERY SINGLE SOUL whose efforts are aimed towards the freedom of the aspiring filmmakers. In the end, when all tools will not make the difference they do now, the only thing to raise one’s work from the crowd would be... one’s work (not the tools he used, but the skills he has).

Anyway, I had some further thoughts on the resolution "thing".
Let's just say a film can resolve 60l/mm. That means that 60 black lines will be seen between 60 white lines, right? (some sort of a resolution chart)
Since nobody says horizontal or vertical (for film) we could have them both at the same time, right? Why not?
So... we could SEE on film 60 black and 60 white lines on each mm, right?
In case we have the same lines vertical and horizontal, we should see 120X120 tiny squares (black and white). If a sensor was to match that resolution, it should have... 14.400 pixels on each sq. mm. On a motion picture frame (let's just say 18/24mm) we have 432sq.mm.
Now, the math is easy:
432X14400=6,220.800 pixels. This would be a match for B/W film in a B/W sensor.
When it comes to color........ the sensor should (ideally) have three layers; true color for each pixel (in order to match color film and have no color artifacts on details). Eh...some sunny day....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top