Is there any disadvantage to using still SLR Nikons or what have you with RED? Someone suggested the lenses will be unable to utilize the full surface area of the Mysterium because of the SLR's focal length. Or be limited at 4K shooting. I was under the impression the still lens would work just fine, though the quality of glass would just pale in comparison to true 35mm prime lenses.
using SLR lenses with RED--disadvantages?
- Thread starter sean90291
- Start date
egproductions
Veteran
my understanding of it (which is probably wrong) is that the red sensor is s35 in size so if you use a still 35 lens than there will be a slight multiplication fact so you wont get the full widness that your lenses might have. I am not sure if it uses up lens of the sensor if you shoot less than 4k but If it does than I imagine the still 35 lens would have an even greater multiplication factor.
mike the beginner
Well-known member
Sean take a look at the red lens thread, it answers most of your questions and will still leave some questions that will have to wait until red does some tests with these type of lenses
Jarrad has already stated that once the camera ships he and others will do extensive tests. Hopefully red will do their own tests with the first small batch of beta testing camera they make some time in December all going well.
Michael
Jarrad has already stated that once the camera ships he and others will do extensive tests. Hopefully red will do their own tests with the first small batch of beta testing camera they make some time in December all going well.
Michael
Barry_Green
Moderator
Still lenses have been used in film frequently, but (like a discussion in another thread) that's not what they're designed for. So yes there's a potential big disadvantage, which is that still lenses aren't designed to rack focus or track focus.
A cine lens usually has a very long focus travel on its lens, which is designed so that a focus puller can easily and smoothly pull focus during a shot, and the better cine lenses don't "breathe". Still lenses usually aren't built that way at all. They have comparatively very short focus travel, which makes it a lot more difficult to smoothly find exactly the right focus spot. And still lenses can breathe like a fat guy running up a hill, because frankly there's no reason for them not to -- with a still camera you'd never change focus *during a shot* so what does it matter whether they "breathe" or not? Whereas in cine, especially S35 cine, you're going to be changing focus a LOT and breathing is a very undesirable characteristic.
Overall sharpness (the paling in comparison that you reference) really isn't the problem; still lenses can work and be acceptably sharp for movie/cine work. It's the focus issues that's the problem.
A cine lens usually has a very long focus travel on its lens, which is designed so that a focus puller can easily and smoothly pull focus during a shot, and the better cine lenses don't "breathe". Still lenses usually aren't built that way at all. They have comparatively very short focus travel, which makes it a lot more difficult to smoothly find exactly the right focus spot. And still lenses can breathe like a fat guy running up a hill, because frankly there's no reason for them not to -- with a still camera you'd never change focus *during a shot* so what does it matter whether they "breathe" or not? Whereas in cine, especially S35 cine, you're going to be changing focus a LOT and breathing is a very undesirable characteristic.
Overall sharpness (the paling in comparison that you reference) really isn't the problem; still lenses can work and be acceptably sharp for movie/cine work. It's the focus issues that's the problem.
Last edited:
Poi Boy
Well-known member
still lenses do breathe more than cine lenses and they are a bit harder to focus but that is really about it as far as disadvantages go. the sharpness is absolutely not an issue especially with an s35 sensor where you are using only the sweet spot of the lens. If I had to choose between the two of course I'd go with cine primes but if you are on a budget and have skills no one will know.
Aloha
-A
Aloha
-A
Ah, okay. Well I wasn't as concerned about the breathing, since it's an irritation I was already aware of. Though I suppose, now that you mention it, breathing could be FAR more noticeable in 4K HD!!! I was more concerned about the suggestion that an SLR lens will simply be unable to take advantage of the full chip size. There's a chart on the RED site ( http://red.com/formatoptions.htm ) and I'm just not tech-savvy enough to understand it. Is it suggesting some lenses will be unable to take advantage of some of the camera's formats?
I'm in line for a RED and will be going with good SLR lenses to start (renting better lenses when necessary). So I'm quite curious about whether SLR's are going to be of limited use on the RED (cf. what egproductions says above).
I'm in line for a RED and will be going with good SLR lenses to start (renting better lenses when necessary). So I'm quite curious about whether SLR's are going to be of limited use on the RED (cf. what egproductions says above).
"wasn't as concerned about the breathing"
maybe one hasn't done any rack focusing from one subject to another subject. on longer lens it is less noticeable but on the wider lens it is very distracting to rack focus - it looks like the lens is zooming while it changes focus ...
now just because you buy a cine lens doesn't mean it doesn't breathe
the 16mm zeiss 10-100 T2 ( 11-110/12-120- S16) lens will cost 6500-9500 used and it is famous for breathing especially in the 10-20mm range ( breathes just as much as any still lens) .. 16mm cooke 9-50 ( 10.4-54 S16) does have internal focus but it still has a little breathing ... and those 16mm hi speed speed zeiss have a little breathing ... zeiss 35mm prime T2.2 lens breathe ... older 35mm prime hi speed ziess have a little ... all those 1970-1990's 35mm zooms have some breathing - the older they are the more they tend to breathe ... certain lens made in the mid 90's to present have pretty much done away with breathing but they are in the $16-40k each area ...
most DP's try to hide the breathing - change focus while person is moving , change focus while camera is moving =panning/dolly/tilt .. the static shot with subjects standing still and you rack focus between the 2 is the shot you can't hide it ...
maybe one hasn't done any rack focusing from one subject to another subject. on longer lens it is less noticeable but on the wider lens it is very distracting to rack focus - it looks like the lens is zooming while it changes focus ...
now just because you buy a cine lens doesn't mean it doesn't breathe
the 16mm zeiss 10-100 T2 ( 11-110/12-120- S16) lens will cost 6500-9500 used and it is famous for breathing especially in the 10-20mm range ( breathes just as much as any still lens) .. 16mm cooke 9-50 ( 10.4-54 S16) does have internal focus but it still has a little breathing ... and those 16mm hi speed speed zeiss have a little breathing ... zeiss 35mm prime T2.2 lens breathe ... older 35mm prime hi speed ziess have a little ... all those 1970-1990's 35mm zooms have some breathing - the older they are the more they tend to breathe ... certain lens made in the mid 90's to present have pretty much done away with breathing but they are in the $16-40k each area ...
most DP's try to hide the breathing - change focus while person is moving , change focus while camera is moving =panning/dolly/tilt .. the static shot with subjects standing still and you rack focus between the 2 is the shot you can't hide it ...
Homersapien
Well-known member
Does anyone have any good examples of breathing using SLR lenses at all? maybe with a 35 adapter? These things are so much more obvious when there is a physical example lol.
Anders Holck
Well-known member
Actually Nikon's DSLR FOV crop is 1.5 at 23.7x15.8mm or just 0.35 mm slimmer in the sides than the s35.
I think all DX lenses covers...if it matters because of the missing aperture ring I don't know.
I think all DX lenses covers...if it matters because of the missing aperture ring I don't know.
Last edited:
Anders Holck
Well-known member
Tim Le said:
Hmm, guess I ruined that now
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Does breathing affect a non-zoom lens? If I use a Nikon 35mm SLR prime lens and do a rack focus, there's no "zoom" to change, right? Or am I missing something?
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
It's not zoom that gets changed by breathing, but that the focus control also tends to also act as a zoom control, making things look bigger and smaller as they come into and out of focus.
egproductions
Veteran
is this true...is it really a 1.5x multiplication factor for still lenses? thats much bigger than I expected
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Graeme_Nattress said:
Ah, I see now. Thanks, Graeme.
Well then. Now that I know what "breathing" means, I have to say I'm not worried about it as much as I thought I should be. I've seen tons of big hollywood flicks where a rack focus produces breathing. I noticed it, but never thought it was a defect, just a property of lenses. Shows how much I know. :embarasse :grin:
taubkin
Veteran
Just so you know, it's not a bit harder to focus. It's considerably harder to focus. And almost impossible to focus without looking through the EVF and using some sort of focus assist. Still, Most of us don't hire ACs, anyway, and are willing to loose some good shots because of bad focus (especially since we won't be paying for negative...)
Anders Holck
Well-known member
Yes, s35 FOV crop is around 1.5x (1.475x) compared to a full frame 35 still image.
So if you shoot a still image with a Full frame 35mm still camera using a 50mm lens, you'd need a 34mm lens to get the same image width.
Note that this is true for all lenses not only still lenses. The 300mm Red lens on the Red camera would have the same horizontal FOV as a 443mm still lens on a full frame 35 mm still camera.
So if you shoot a still image with a Full frame 35mm still camera using a 50mm lens, you'd need a 34mm lens to get the same image width.
Note that this is true for all lenses not only still lenses. The 300mm Red lens on the Red camera would have the same horizontal FOV as a 443mm still lens on a full frame 35 mm still camera.
Holosynthetic
Active member
Anders Holck said:
When using a different focal length to get the same size image wouldn't it also change the perspective quite a bit? If your going for a normal look and then to compensate use a smaller focal length, it could make things look farther away and in some cases not what the scene calls for, or am I wrong?
Anders Holck
Well-known member
No, perspective is a function of object to camera distance.
If you moved the camera back to get the same image FOV, the perspective would change.
Say you use a 100 mm lens to shoot a portrait and then change to a 28 mm wideangle to distort the perspective, you will see that you will only gain the distortion if you also move closer to the subject at the same time.
Or say you shoot a scene with a zoom lens. While keeping the same camera to objet distance you zoom out. What do you get? The exact same perspective but the FOV has changed.
If you moved the camera back to get the same image FOV, the perspective would change.
Say you use a 100 mm lens to shoot a portrait and then change to a 28 mm wideangle to distort the perspective, you will see that you will only gain the distortion if you also move closer to the subject at the same time.
Or say you shoot a scene with a zoom lens. While keeping the same camera to objet distance you zoom out. What do you get? The exact same perspective but the FOV has changed.
Last edited:
Tim Le said:
Helps immensely Tim. And thanks Anders...for reminding me just how much I don't know!!!
Though this all does bring up another question in my mind: so by the looks of things the SLR lenses can easily take advantage of the entire chip, but does the fact I'm using an SLR lens limit the exposure lattitude? Like, is the exposure lattitude limited by the lens itself? Or is that a factor inherent in the camera's chip.
Last edited:
taubkin
Veteran
latitude is limited by the camera chip/negative or the digital processing done in the camera DSP. Of course lenses project the image on the chip/film with varying contrasts, so a less contrsty lens, could "maximize"latitude, because you can always find your contrast in post.
BUT it's so little variation, that for RED, we can consider lenses do not afect lattitude.
BUT it's so little variation, that for RED, we can consider lenses do not afect lattitude.