Red lenses

once red comes out ..we'll all have to share our results with the lens we choose ... RED 103 is basically for personal projects ( not planning to get income using RED)
so i'll checking out still lens - i want some mobility and cine 25-250 or 20-100 IMO are not mobile ...

AND i am looking for a used 10-100T2 zeiss which i'll have converted to S16 ... for shooting S16 2k and 1080p modes ...

there's lens out there for any budget ( 17.5 body +) ..
get the RED then grow it over time to meet your needs, bydget, income ( fro those planning to make $$ with their REDS )
 
You guys with experience are saying very little of the technical difficulties of using a s35mm zoom lens other than it is heavy! How can others with NO experience of 35mm camera's evaluate without clear guidance from those who know! Like others probably on this forum i am very keen to spend the time to learn but can we not get some more guidance from the pros out there....please.
Click to expand...

I'm cetainly not a pro cinematographer camera op, but i'll answer anyway. :grin:
It's been awhile since I've shot, and I've never shot on a Super35mm sensor, but Zooms definately have their tradeoffs. One of the biggest for me, in the past was amount of light needed with a zoom vs. a prime (in certain situations).

I'm coming at it from a primary narrative/blow up to film aspect, so that's where my considerations are. If you are looking at the doc aspect, I would seriously consider weight, the ability to pull focus quickly, how fast you need to change lenses, and the various light conditions you will be encountering and thus the speed of the lens needed (not too mention the durability of the lens).

Either way, there is going to be a lot of due diligence have to be done by all kinds of shooters -doc, production house, narrative, sports, event photography etc...

I just reread a few of my old Cinematography books to get an idea of what the 35mm 2K or Super16 implications may be. Unfortunately, we don't have a cinematography book dealing with the Super35mm-type sensor, that i'm aware of. The digital cinematography books seem to go out of the ballpark pretty quickly due to the advances in technology. I mean, who would have thought a few years ago we would be talking about 4K acquisition at this price range ? Sorry if this didn't help you that much, but like I said, maybe brushing up on cinematography around the format size you are intending to use could help. But don't feel out in left field. A lot of us are in a similar situation - even the Genesis and D20 guys have to figure out workflow etc...I for one, relish getting back into the field.

IMHO, a set of used primes (depending if you have the need to change lenses quickly) may be the best choice, or a compact zoom (as mentioned earlier)...

PS - I'd listen to Greg. His experience is invaluable andd much appreciate here...:beer:





RED #wish I was higher
 
D_and_G's comment about focus pulling brings up another point. If you're used to the depth of field of a 1/3" CCD camera, you're in a huge adjustment when you use an S35 sensor and lenses because depth of field is reduced tremendously. That's why a focus puller is an essential member of a 35mm crew. Trying to pull focus yourself is asking for trouble (in the form of out of focus images). And if you're using a zoom you'll need a heavy duty bridge plate and support rods or equivalent cage to support the heavy zoom lens, a mechanical follow focus system, a zoom motor and control (optional but recommended), and a matte box with filter holders. None of which is inexpensive. And if you don't buy a follow focus system, you'll need long arms and some sort of psychic follow focus ability. Trying to pull focus with 35mm format lenses while operating the camera is a fool's errand. Double that if you're handholding.
 
Last edited:
After re-reading the last couple of pages, I realize you are asking about a very specific application for RED. You want to know how difficult it is to use a 35mm zoom on RED, in a one man operation, and using it on the water filming a doc or event-type situation. Please correct me if I got it wrong.

In that case, I would avoid 35mm lenses altogether. Not only is pulling focus going to be virtually impossible, but you have to think about drift, and image stabilization would be ten fold harder, depending how far on the lens you are.

IMHO, you should stick to the S16 format, shoot 1080p, or use a 2/3" lens with some kind of stabilization system. Or using still primes might be ok , depending on what kind of range of action you are following. That's the funny thing about all this stuff, is it really will depend on your style of shooting, your crew, and what level of format and quality you need. Even in the doc field you have formal BBC docs with full 35mm crews all the way to the other spectrum to a one man band. :beer:




Cheers.



RED # wish I was higher
 
Greg Lowry said:
As I've never used a 2/3" format video zoom on a film camera I don't know from experience if that's a viable alternative to an S16 lens, but I do know that the frame dimensions of the 2/3" video format are smaller than the S16 frame, so an adapter is necessary so the 2/3" lens can cover the S16 frame. That makes me a bit nervous as I'd prefer a lens to have a larger image circle than the format I'm using rather than requiring an adapter to cover the format. But having said that, many S16 film lenses are really 16mm format lenses adapted to cover S16 (for example, the Zeiss 16mm format 10-100 becomes an 11-110 after the S16 mod.

It does seem intuitive (at least to me) that an S16 lens should perform better on a single sensor than a lens designed for a 3-CCD prism camera.

The other consideration is that as RED will be a fully manual camera, the auto-features of some 2/3" lenses won't work so why pay for them? But if you already have a 2/3" lens, that's another matter. The RED definition of ENG may not be the same as yours.
Click to expand...

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. RED has stated their intention to make an optional B4 lens adapter, and that the RED camera will be able to crop the image from the sensor to satisfy the needs of the 2/3” lens format. No other adaptor beyond the B4 lens mount will be necessary to cover the 2/3” lens format.

I have not seen any comparative MTF data between S16 lenses and 2/3” lenses in use on a single sensor vs. a 3 CCD sensor system. It would be interesting to see a comparison like that. My guess is that on RED, with the S16 lens shooting in 1080p, and a 2/3” HD lens shooting in 1080p, the results should be similar, and a choice between the results would probably be subjective in nature.

True, the RED will be a fully manual camera, as all professional cameras usually are, and certain electronic features of an HD ENG zoom may not be enabled by RED, but the key features needed on RED to justify the use of an HD ENG lens would be a multi-pin power bus and/or an RS232 connector to enable use of the zoom servos. Many of the HD ENG lenses are RS232 enabled, thus if RED has an RS232 bus, it’s feasible that could be a way of controlling lenses. In reviewing my published interview with Jim Jannard, he mentioned a wide assortment of connectors, but not specifically an RS232. At the end of his list, he did say “and many others”, leaving the door open to the possibility of RS232, etc. If there is no multi-pin or RS232 bus on RED, it may still be possible to power the servos of an HD ENG zoom with a small external power pack.

The HD Eng 2/3” lens I referenced earlier as being around $7k is the Fujinon HAS 18x7.6 ERM, 7.6mm - 137mm, T1.9 (no extender). I found several of these online today costing between $6,250 and $6,850. It only weighs 3.3 lbs (1.49kg). A rig consisting of a RED One camera (7 lbs), an internal battery (half pound), a RED Drive or RED flash (half pound), a shoulder brace (2 lbs), and a Fujinon HAS 18x7.6 ERM lens (3.3 lbs) would weigh around a total of 13.3 lbs without a viewfinder, and probably a total of around 15 lbs with the RED EVF when its available. Those of us who regularly hand hold and shoulder mount 35 lbs ENG HD and SD rigs, will find that using a 15 lb rig that way all day is a cakewalk. And no “focus puller” needed. Shooting this way we use a 3-point hold: shoulder, right hand through servo grip, and left hand racking focus. We do this routinely with F900’s – and good shooters rack focus quite accurately with it in HD resolution.

Most of the cine-style rigs with RED will weigh significantly more than 15 lbs. Then you add rods, follow focus, etc. and you have this heavy rig that’s real difficult to hand hold or shoulder mount, plus the problem of pulling focus.

Mike the Beginner: you mentioned shooting on the water, in and around a boat. If you’re shooting that at 1080p, and the final footage is destined for HDTV, or high-end corporate projects, you’d want to seriously consider the 15 lb ENG HD rig I described above. I shoot ENG-style and cine-style, depending on the project. What you describe sounds like an ENG style project. Greg has given you some excellent insight and advice for cine-style shooting with RED. I shoot a lot of cine-style projects now, but I’d consider my knowledge/experience base to be 60% ENG-style, and 40% cine-style.

The RED wide zoom? Things can change, but this quote from Jim Jannard in my published interview with him, will answer a lot of this thread's questions about RED's concepts for the wide zoom: "We also do recognize that there is a void in the 35mm PL lens mount for a compact, lightweight, inexpensive, high-quality zoom. That really is the focus of the RED team - to fill that void. That is definitely something we feel is hugely important."

I hope all of this has helped the guys on this thread that are new to the business and hungry to learn. I really respect the other experienced guys here like Greg, Evin, Haakon, Jarred, Donatello, Taubkin, and many, many more. The whole community has pitched into this thread and we’ve all learned some new things. Very cool!!!!!

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
Excellent post, Gibby. Lots of useful info.

To Mike the Beginner: Way, way back in my more adventurous days, I worked on a documentary in Barbados. The shoot was three months long and we shot a high percentage of the (16mm) film in and from tiny fishing boats out of sight of land in the beautiful but often very rough Carribean Sea, surrounded by sharks and all sorts of other ominous dark shadows. I thought I would be clever and use a tripod gimbal to to smooth out the swell of the sea. But the gimbal counter-weights acted like a pendulum on the rolling ocean, so it was quickly shipped back to the rental company after the first day. I quickly learned that the only sensible way to shoot on the water (unless you're on a big boat) is handheld. It's the only way to maintain a reasonably level horizon so your audience doesn't get as seasick as I was every day on those stinky fishing boats. All of the on-ocean stuff in Jaws is handheld. All of it. For the same reason.

Take Gibby's sensible advice and go with an ENG HD rig. A 35mm rig is unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
3 lenses built in

3 lenses built in

If I could get a RED with three built in Super 16mm lenses, that might be very cool. I could change lenses fast and dust would not get inside. Does anybody else think this is a good idea?
 

Attachments

  • Filmo70.jpg
    Filmo70.jpg
    5.2 KB · Views: 0
A lens turret isn't really practical. You'd have to build a custom triple PL lens mount. Given the size of PL mounts and lenses, the turret would be larger than the camera (only a slight exaggeration) and the camera would be exceedingly front heavy.
 
Last edited:
oh my god.. I must admit ive used an old konvas 35mm with turrett and it was slightly amusing, but i would never think of using a turrett now adays. As greg points out the weight would be pretty incredible, follow focus gearing doesnt really work, nor does rods.. and your going to have 15-80k worth of glass hanging off the front of the camera. That just sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
 
Quote from D and G : If you are looking at the doc aspect, I would seriously consider weight, the ability to pull focus quickly, how fast you need to change lenses, and the various light conditions you will be encountering and thus the speed of the lens needed (not too mention the durability of the lens).

YOUR AN ABSOLUTE STAR D and G:) Thats what i wanted to hear cause thats what i suspected (feared:( ) but i needed to hear it from an experienced person not from me cause all i know is theory!!

Greg since D and G post, you too come out with points that i wanted to hear. I can't thank you enough for a great effort to help a beginner.

Gibby well done you just gave me the set up that Greg was more or less saying but you defined it in such a way that a beginner or someone with limited knowledge can pick up so easily:dankk2:

All of you are a great credit to the videography world and this forum. To be so helpful and so patient (sorry Greg) speaks volumes, you are all stars really :)

If any of you ever come over to Scotland and need a spare Red camera for a project mine's will be there for you free.

Boy have i learned a lot in this thread!!!!!!!!!
 
Gibby, Greg, D and G, you guys are all great!

But still more questions!

How much more depth of field would a 2/3" lens have over a s16mm lens? I guess I'm trying to figure out my starter lens for RED (and, ultimately, my RED starting price) and I'm leaning towards a s16mm zoom as a general purpose lens, but pulling focus while operating is a big concern.

:dankk2:
 
ZaneIsNumber1 said:
How much more depth of field would a 2/3" lens have over a s16mm lens?
:dankk2:
Click to expand...
The short answer is none. If the sensor area is the same, and the chosen focal length, aperture and focus distance is the same, the depth of field will be the same. The same thing applies to 35mm format lenses used for S16. A 25mm lens (for example) is always a 25mm lens, no matter what the format. What changes is the relative magnification of lenses when used on different formats (a 25mm lens may be considered a normal for S16 but a wide angle for S35 ... and a telephoto on 1/3" format), but that has nothing to do with depth of field computations.

I know this is going to confusify a few of you.
 
Last edited:
You guys definitely are a great asset here and thanks for laying down the knowledge.. for every 3 people that say thank you there are 1000 quiet people thinking it. And when I say thank you im not only thanking Greg and Gibby and DG etc.. but you guys asking the questions, that is just as important.

Thanks.
 
Here's a follow-on from the depth of field question and reply about lenses for different formats:

Let's assume you are shooting a medium closeup head and shoulders shot with the camera fairly close to the subject. Let's also assume you would use a 50mm lens on S35 format. For S16 you'd probably use about a 25mm to maintain the same image size in the frame. For 2/3" about a 22mm; for 1/2", a 16mm; and for 1/3" format, a 12mm.

Each of these focal lengths -- 50, 25, 22, 16 and 12mm -- will give you the same image size in the frame, but assuming the same aperture setting, they'll give you different depth of field. The 50mm will have the least of depth of field, the 12mm the most.

This is where the confusion arises about lenses having more or less depth of field on different formats. It's not the lens or focal length that has a different depth of field, it's the fact that you use a different focal length to achieve the same image size. And different focal lengths have different depth of field characteristics.

This is why an S35 sensor is highly regarded by many cinematographers, particularly those accustomed to 35mm film. S35 format lenses allows for more selective focus than the smaller video formats where sometimes nearly everything appears to be in focus. Selective focus is an artistic tool to direct the audience's attention.

This is basic stuff, but I hope it's useful to those of you who are just getting up to speed. One of the disadvantages of the current crop of video cameras is that it's not really necessary to know the basics of photography to achieve a decent image. But when you understand the basics, you can get more out of any camera and start to make technical and artistic choices that can greatly enhance your projects.
 
Last edited:
I'm somewhat confused by all the fervor over s16 and 2/3" lenses on RED. Isn't the S35mm sensor and the accompanying DOF one of the biggest draws of the camera? I truly believe that the latest generation of still lenses from the better optics houses will outperform any of the S16 zooms from the 80s or early 90s. And any of the good 2/3" HD zooms are more expensive than a set of T2 Zeiss primes. It is really not as hard to mount follow focus gears on to these lenses as you may think. Most are designed for professional use and can take the FF pressure just fine. And although the distances may be less accurate you will most likely be using an HD monitor to set marks anyway. I'm all in favor of using cinema glass when the budget and project demands, but blowing $ on a smaller format zoom seems silly to me.
My 2¢.
E.
 
I am still investigating the possibilities of glass on the RED and talking with several members. The Zeiss glass is great and the cost of a T2 11-110 Super 16mm zoom is good considering the imagery you should be able to get in 2K or 1080p.
I was also looking at the Zeiss ZF 1.4 Primes as a possibility, but how wide would that prime have to be (and expensive) to work as say a 24mm prime in the S35 or 4K mode? Then you get into the fact of the higher storage needs of 4K....
What format are you going to be shooting the most, this would most likely determine your choice of glass to own. I anticipate renting the heavy duty glass (Cooke 35mm primes, etc.) for bigger projects that demand 4K. I guess we won't know really until someone is able to produce at least some test imagery with assorted glass.
 
acoreasc said:
What format are you going to be shooting the most, this would most likely determine your choice of glass to own.
Click to expand...
That's really key. For the work many people do, primes or 4K capture is just not a viable option. For others, it's the best option. And others need both ends of the scale and everything in between.

I personally can't imagine doing any sort of fast-paced documentary or grab style shooting with a set of primes. By the time you change lenses, your subject has left town or you're dead.

Also, storing the captured images/data and the post workflow always has to be a big consideration in the choice of the shooting format. Handling 4K files is no joke.

I think it's impossible for anyone to claim there's a "best" RED format/lens solution. It's just too subjective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top