Red lenses

[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.