Taken the Plunge for RED

So for you brainy guys out there what size (mm) wide lens would one need to fully cover the 4k sensor?? If it even exists ......... the lens that is.

Cheers and keep up the great work.
Mark.
 
CamDiver said:
So it seems, in order to get the best from this puppy it is best to shoot 4k? Either scenario as mentioned, thanks Muttondraw, seems to be a compromise on the overall ability of the camera. The slightly soft appearance of the image if scaled would be similar to the "film look" of 24p as opposed to the hard edged appearance of video? Or would it be a noticeably big softening of the final image?
Click to expand...

I think you might have misunderstood, but I wasn't really clear what I meant by soft. All I was intending to say was that 2k or 1080p is inherently softer than 4k because it is lower resolution. So when you scale the 4k down to 2k it will soften the image if you were comparing it with the original 4k image, but compared to any other 2k image it will be just as sharp. In fact if you shoot 4k and scale down you will actually get a sharper image than shooting windowed 2k. Not edgy video sharp but filmic real detail sharp. There are a lot of benefits to shooting 4k even if your intention is to output at 2k or 1080p.

Martin
 
CamDiver,

I appreciate it's early days yet but do you have any estimate or ballpark figure for a Gates housing for the Red?

col
 
Muttondraw said:
I think you might have misunderstood, but I wasn't really clear what I meant by soft. All I was intending to say was that 2k or 1080p is inherently softer than 4k because it is lower resolution. So when you scale the 4k down to 2k it will soften the image if you were comparing it with the original 4k image, but compared to any other 2k image it will be just as sharp. In fact if you shoot 4k and scale down you will actually get a sharper image than shooting windowed 2k. Not edgy video sharp but filmic real detail sharp. There are a lot of benefits to shooting 4k even if your intention is to output at 2k or 1080p.

Martin
Click to expand...

Exactly the reason why commercials are shot on 35mm even though they ultimately end up as 1080i max. (Okay maybe theatrical screening but they are usualy video prints anyway)
 
fishingwild said:
CamDiver,

I appreciate it's early days yet but do you have any estimate or ballpark figure for a Gates housing for the Red?

col
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but they haven't even got the housing down on blueprint yet. It will take a while. Seeing as they will also have to nail down at least one standard lens for use with RED so they can get a housing ready also adds time to the equation. I'll email John over at Gates and ask him.

The modularity of this housing with different shooters using different formats , meaning different lenses, points to a housing that will never really be finished per se. Each shooter once they have their lens set will then have to commission the construction of the adequate lens control features for the housing, or at least thats the way I could see it going.

I'll let you know once I get news from Gates.

Mark.
 
wide lens ...

wide lens ...

CamDiver said:
So for you brainy guys out there what size (mm) wide lens would one need to fully cover the 4k sensor?? If it even exists ......... the lens that is.
Click to expand...
Mark,
I guess it depend on what you mean by wide (how wide is wide) :huh:

I usually aim for 90-ish degree angle of view for u/w work (diagonal), which given the size of the sensor, I would say a 14mm rectilinear should do it (eg: if you used Nikkor glass, the 14/2.8). If you are happy with some distortion, then the cheaper 16/2.8 may also do the trick.

If only somebody could find a hack for the Nikkor DX lenses (aperture control) ;-) ... they are optimised for sensor sizes like the RED & they would be good candidates; there is some nice glass in this range.

Anyway, getting back to your main question, have a play with the following link and it may help you decide (focal lenght) :

http://www.canondv.com/industrial_bctv/ERC/calculator1.html

Cheers, David
 
I wish RED would release a high quality, low price, very wide angle prime. Seems like there is a good demand for it.
 
Once again, I would like to point to the Peleng 8mm fiseye, which will not give a 180 degree angle on te RED sensor (it is only round when using it on a full frame 24x36 negative) and for its price (200-250 dollars for Nikon mount 350 for PL mount) is a rather good lens (given the fact that it's a specialty lens which you would not use everyday). Here some info : http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stuff/peleng_fisheye/peleng_fisheye.html

Mick RED # 451
18-85 # 206
 
The lens might work out well for someone looking for an inexpensive fisheye. I think most uses would really need a rectangular image. Also I'm concerned that you would not get a full round image on RED, which would limit use even further.
 
David Nardini said:
Mark,
I guess it depend on what you mean by wide (how wide is wide) :huh:

I would say a 14mm rectilinear should do it (eg: if you used Nikkor glass, the 14/2.8). If you are happy with some distortion, then the cheaper 16/2.8 may also do the trick.

http://www.canondv.com/industrial_bctv/ERC/calculator1.html

Cheers, David
Click to expand...

David,
Thanks for that. IF I could post attachments I would post a shot of the current monster 120 degree external W/A I've got fitted to my Gates Z1 Housing. Its a $5k piece of glass from Fathoms in San Diego made especially for this housing. Diving here in Palau I can have the option to go out and film bunches of sharks, Japanese War Wrecks and Cave environments, as well as all the other regular dive possibilities. For these special environments I want to get as wide, and as close, as possible, hence this glass. Is there anything out there that offers something similar to this FOV for 4k? I have seen a few pieces of glass out there but prohibitively expensive, $30k and up.

I've been looking at some of the lenses listed here but as you can see again they are pretty darn costly, and good for 2k not 4k.

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

Mark.
 
CamDiver said:
David,
Thanks for that. IF I could post attachments I would post a shot of the current monster 120 degree external W/A I've got fitted to my Gates Z1 Housing.
Click to expand...

You can add pictures. Just look for the little
insertimage.gif
in the reply to thread toolbar. I would love to see a shot of your camera + lens.

I presume that there is no problem using a fisheye for the kind of stuff you shoot because you aren't in an environment with lots of straight lines. A conventional (rectilinear) wide angle lens minimises distortion of straight lines at the expense of increased distortion of areas. So you actually want the fisheye distortion which distributes the field of view more evenly over the whole image. I also presume you are looking for a lens where the wide angle view fills the frame entirely, not one where you end up with a circular image on a black background, is that the case?.

Martin
 
On the posting rules it says that I cant post attachments!! My website is not finished as yet so I have no on-line images to post. The Insert Image feature asks for my url and I just don't have anything set there yet for promo stuff. Looking at a December launch for the site.

Mark.
 
CamDiver said:
On the posting rules it says that I cant post attachments!! The Insert Image feature asks for my url
Click to expand...

Go to "Member Upload Center" on the main forum toolbar right in the midddle.

You can upload pictures there which will have a URL assigned to them. Link to that URL.

Martin

Ahh you sussed it before I completed my post
 
The housing is proofed to 450fsw although I haven't taken it there yet. All manual controls so I don't get crapped on with electronics failing when out in some obscure location, just a bunch load of spare parts for those which could fail.

4" external monitor, albeit an SD one. 120 degree external wide lens from Fathom Engineering in San Diego. The tubes on the top are just for buoyancy for use with the big glass 'coz its a heavy sucker.

No problems with this unit so far apart from a slight adjustment on the WB control and also replacing some of the spring mechanisms solely as a personal preference.

Cheers,
Mark.
1162381083.jpg
 
CamDiver said:
David,
Thanks for that. IF I could post attachments I would post a shot of the current monster 120 degree external W/A I've got fitted to my Gates Z1 Housing. Its a $5k piece of glass from Fathoms in San Diego made especially for this housing. Diving here in Palau I can have the option to go out and film bunches of sharks, Japanese War Wrecks and Cave environments, as well as all the other regular dive possibilities. For these special environments I want to get as wide, and as close, as possible, hence this glass. Is there anything out there that offers something similar to this FOV for 4k? I have seen a few pieces of glass out there but prohibitively expensive, $30k and up.

I've been looking at some of the lenses listed here but as you can see again they are pretty darn costly, and good for 2k not 4k.

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

Mark.
Click to expand...
Hi Mark,

Like you I'm aiming for 4k capture and then working down to 1080p in post prod [all this subject to : i) being able to keep the size of kit reasonable in a housing ii) at the moment I dont have a measure of the timescales involved in post prod working the clips]. Working in 2k just feels wrong to me (at the moment).

So for a wide angle lens, it's proving to be a challenge ! We have the additional problems of minimising the amount of glass (dome or Ivanoff or whatever optics you may have). My current plan is to start with the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 and an Ivanoff port (flat depth of field) and see where that takes me. At worst, I'll be driving down to Bristol and seeing the UK distributors of Gates optics and trying out their ports ... at $5k it's miles cheaper than going down the 'cinema world lenses' path ! [ref : http://www.gateshousings.com/hiperport.html]

I'm not familiar with the Gates optics, but I would assume that if it is corrected for u/w usage (flat depth of field, mininum edge distortion & minimal colour fringing, correct split level shots focus / FOV changes, etc ...). The simplest option, for you, is to rent something that gives you 75 degree FOV - approx 18mm (I'm guessing at the widest angle for your Z1 ...), and try that with the Fathoms port. There are lots of 18mm options from the SLR world you can try (primes or zooms) ... subject to getting the thing mounted on the RED.
To achieve 120 degrees with native glass and a dome you are going to have some work ahead (& cost) & most probably bad performance at the edges. If you own the Fathoms port, I'd try and re-use rather than re-invent.

My view at the moment ... it's very hard at the moment to plan without knowing exactly what is what (specs & workflow elapsed times) together with likely delivery times for the non PL lens mounts :crybaby:
Once these emerge, we can have a REAL go at solving this puzzle :beer: ...

The most flexible plan at the moment is (most probably) the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 with a good quality port (bespoke or Fathoms like). All this might get blown away if the 4k capture post prod work turns out to be a BIG time eater ... if only we had 48 hours in a day eh !

Hopefully some of the above makes sense.

David.

BTW : what is the ASA rating of the Mysterium chip ? I've read 160ASA but would love someone to confirm ...
 
David Nardini said:
The most flexible plan at the moment is (most probably) the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 with a good quality port (bespoke or Fathoms like). All this might get blown away if the 4k capture post prod work turns out to be a BIG time eater ... if only we had 48 hours in a day eh !
Click to expand...

17mm at S35 won't be that wide. It is equivalent to about 25mm on a conventional stills camera. You might be better off with the Nikon 14mm if you want a wide rectilinear lens.

Martin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top