So much discussion on a camera! What about lenses

[Nova Invicta]

No one has stopped to think whether present lenses are able to deliver 4K resolution for a VIDEO format. Remember this is not film and lenses other than 2/3" lenses have all been designed for film.

Also take a long hard look around every lens manufacturer (Oakley make sunglass optics with respect these are not the same thing as Zeiss, Cookes, Canon, Nikon, Olympus et al.) Where will you find a 18-85mm f2.8 lens? OK so someone has to be the first but good optics that will resolve 4K for $10K it would need the same revolution everyone is proclaiming here for the camera.
Except that only a handful of manufacturers make the raw glass and its not cheap, throw in the mechanical design needed to make robust lenses for videography (I hate the phrase filming when film is not used) otherwise you may as well throw the lens away after a few months and the scale of doing this is much more than many here realise. Its not impossible digital still camera lenses with a focal lentgh of 18-50mm F2.8 or 50-150mm f2.8 are available for less than $1,000 but they are not made for cinematography use and are not designed for 4K.

Red will not be the only computer with a CMOS chip for moving images, but their will be very few companies making the optics and even less at cheap prices.

 

[DrizztG]

No one has stopped to think whether present lenses are able to deliver 4K resolution for a VIDEO format. Remember this is not film and lenses other than 2/3" lenses have all been designed for film.

First its not a video camera, its a DIGITAL CINEMA camera and explain to me why we cannot use film lenses with the RED One?

 

[acehole111]

No one has stopped to think whether present lenses are able to deliver 4K resolution for a VIDEO format. Remember this is not film and lenses other than 2/3" lenses have all been designed for film.

Also take a long hard look around every lens manufacturer (Oakley make sunglass optics with respect these are not the same thing as Zeiss, Cookes, Canon, Nikon, Olympus et al.) Where will you find a 18-85mm f2.8 lens? OK so someone has to be the first but good optics that will resolve 4K for $10K it would need the same revolution everyone is proclaiming here for the camera.
Except that only a handful of manufacturers make the raw glass and its not cheap, throw in the mechanical design needed to make robust lenses for videography (I hate the phrase filming when film is not used) otherwise you may as well throw the lens away after a few months and the scale of doing this is much more than many here realise. Its not impossible digital still camera lenses with a focal lentgh of 18-50mm F2.8 or 50-150mm f2.8 are available for less than $1,000 but they are not made for cinematography use and are not designed for 4K.

Red will not be the only computer with a CMOS chip for moving images, but their will be very few companies making the optics and even less at cheap prices.

You do realise that 35mm lenses require greater clarity and qualith than the video counterparts because imperfections are so much more noticable on 35.. So 35mm lenses will do just fine.

And with all due respect, do a patent seaerch on Oakley lens technology before dismissing anything. They are waaay more advanced than you think. Oakley employ the most advanced lens making technology in existance which have to undergo scrutiny of the human eye (let alone film). Ive done my research on the company and I think anyone who also has will be sure to have faith in the Red team. I guess all you can do is sit and wait for the results to speak for themselves. Hey, if you dont like the lens quality you can always attach your own lens

Oh, and yes we have given it plenty of thought. Have a look around the threads.. Plenty of lens talk!

 

[Stuart English]

Lenses

Lenses

Well Nova, prepare to be surprised...

And you are correct, we don't "film" anything, but we'd prefer to use the phrase 4K Cinematography when shooting motion pictures with the RED camera. Although it is electronic, it isn't a "video" camera in the sense of all those traditional camera's image quality limitations.

 

[FatBird19]

No one has stopped to think whether present lenses are able to deliver 4K resolution for a VIDEO format. Remember this is not film and lenses other than 2/3" lenses have all been designed for film.

Also take a long hard look around every lens manufacturer (Oakley make sunglass optics with respect these are not the same thing as Zeiss, Cookes, Canon, Nikon, Olympus et al.) Where will you find a 18-85mm f2.8 lens? OK so someone has to be the first but good optics that will resolve 4K for $10K it would need the same revolution everyone is proclaiming here for the camera.
Except that only a handful of manufacturers make the raw glass and its not cheap, throw in the mechanical design needed to make robust lenses for videography (I hate the phrase filming when film is not used) otherwise you may as well throw the lens away after a few months and the scale of doing this is much more than many here realise. Its not impossible digital still camera lenses with a focal lentgh of 18-50mm F2.8 or 50-150mm f2.8 are available for less than $1,000 but they are not made for cinematography use and are not designed for 4K.

Red will not be the only computer with a CMOS chip for moving images, but their will be very few companies making the optics and even less at cheap prices.

^^^A prime example of why ignorance is NOT always bliss. :beer:

 

[FatBird19]

....throw in the mechanical design needed to make robust lenses for videography (I hate the phrase filming when film is not used)

I'll bet you do.....:zombie_smiley:

 

[Homersapien]

^^^A prime example of why ignorance is NOT always bliss. :beer:

Lol I like it.

Seriously though Nova Invicta, have you actually tried a search on these forums before posting? There is plenty of evidence that suggests the red lenses will be a good quality and there is also plenty of evidence that there are a number of alternatives that until now have not been an option on many other cameras. You fail to even mention the possibility of renting out a lense anyway or if you are supplying the camera for a shoot then whoever you are supplying it to renting out a lense. To suggest that no one has stopped to think is kinda odd given that for the last few months or so all people here have done is think about factors around the Red camera such as this!

 

[Petrus]

The resolving power of Red is somewhat greater than 35 cine film original resolution. Thus not all cine lenses (zooms) might be good enough to get all out of Red. Same thing with 35 mm SLR lenses, their quality starts to break down when we approah 10-12 Mpix, but this is with bigger-than-Red chips, thus only the best SLR lenses can do Red justice.

Primes will be fine and less a problem (plenty of them around), but I also wonder how hi-rez cheap, fast zooms are going to turn out?

In general: be prepared to pay more for the lenses (and hard disk-systems) than the camera body if you want everything out of it...

 

[Glazarus]

You can't talk about resolution when talking about film. Film use grain and not pixels. Grain moves randomly and does not have a strict position changing color. A 35mm frame can have less sharpness but still without "artifacts" that digital images have.

This is why 35mm feels more "alive"

 

[Petrus]

It is possible to test film for resolution, and talk about it. It is the smallest detail (closest line pair) that can be seen on the film (or video). Go to Kodak pages where you can find graphs decipiting resolution (MTF curves) for their films.

Film grain is noise, video has compression artefacts. Nothing is perfect if we strive for perfect duplication of reality, not aesthetic effects.

Different things limit the resolution. With film it is usually the grain, with video the native resolution of the sensor (and many other things after that).

If the lens resolution is less than the sensor/film resolution, then the optics become the limiting factor at the beginning ot the chain.

 

[laguun]

You can't talk about resolution when talking about film. Film use grain and not pixels. Grain moves randomly and does not have a strict position changing color. A 35mm frame can have less sharpness but still without "artifacts" that digital images have.

This is why 35mm feels more "alive"

let me transfer that to audio...

compact cassette and longplay 33 records use analogue electrical and mechanical and not sampling @ 24bit/96khz. The noise, distortion, hiss etc dont have a strict frequency where its altering the perfect sound. A compact cassette can have less frequency response and dynamic but still without "artifacts" that digital audio has.

This is why compact cassette sounds more "alive"

Also, the grain structure is the secret, why digital SLR camera never were succesful...

Same applies to DVD vs. VHS. DVD was never able to get successful (digital!), as VHS feels so much more alive with all the noise.

SCNR

 

[acehole111]

let me transfer that to audio...

compact cassette and longplay 33 records use analogue electrical and mechanical and not sampling @ 24bit/96khz. The noise, distortion, hiss etc dont have a strict frequency where its altering the perfect sound. A compact cassette can have less frequency response and dynamic but still without "artifacts" that digital audio has.

This is why compact cassette sounds more "alive"

Also, the grain structure is the secret, why digital SLR camera never were succesful...

Same applies to DVD vs. VHS. DVD was never able to get successful (digital!), as VHS feels so much more alive with all the noise.

SCNR

I hope that by alive you mean Organic.

 

[Stephen W]

The "resolution" of film seems variable depending on who you talk to (and what their motives are). The only test I've come across that could be described as truly "independent" shows Kodak Vision 2 stock resolving at least a 6k image (possibly higher).

Of course, this is for a camera negative and, as has been said, you can't really determine it properly in terms of "resolution". Point is, a good film lens will easily provide a good enough picture for Red.

 

[Noel Evans]

Well I think Nova has some pretty good points... then again I dont know too many people who have shot at 4K so I think there are some areas that require some exploring before they are dismissed. Weather film shoots at around 6K or not really not a factor as its not being recorded to film the image is being recorded by a cmos censor. Id like to see the tests before I dismiss these points.

Further someone mentioned this is not a VIDEO camera its a DIGITAL camera. .. Why not a Digital Video Camera? as has been the common term for some years in relation to the recording of an image to 0's and 1's in many compressions and formats.

Im not detracting from the fact red promises to be good, but I see many comments from people expecting to shoot 4k at around the 30k mark. If you include everything required to shoot 4k this is simply a pipe dream. The lenses plus hardware etc is going put you at a min of around the 60 k mark. Assuming your not renting.