Red lenses

It's not a question of support someone which work we know, it's also a common point of view that we share with a large community of members here. Or where we are talking about as non-virtual individuals and real shooters.
 
Take still primes or still zooms. With the RED they will work even better than with a 35mm adapter like the M2 because the RED sensor probably will be much faster and you can close the aperture some stops (if you want) and avoid that sometimes too soft look which the adapter produce.
 
check ebay for 16mm cine lenses.. that will gurantee you a windowed workflow. If you try and shoot the entire sensor though, your gonna be looking through a peephole.

Electronic lenses probally wont work (like canon eos lenses with autofocus etc.) and your gonna hafta leave them wide open... using SLR lenses that arnt manual may be a pain in the ass, depending on if the geniouses over at RED figure a work around.

So buying any still lenses right now for use on RED isnt the best idea. Not till we know what will work and what wont. Your pretty safe with any PL mount cine lense though, as long as you realize the limitations of each format.
 
joe 1008 said:
Take still primes or still zooms. With the RED they will work even better than with a 35mm adapter like the M2 because the RED sensor probably will be much faster and you can close the aperture some stops (if you want) and avoid that sometimes too soft look which the adapter produce.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Jarred Land said:
check ebay for 16mm cine lenses.. that will gurantee you a windowed workflow. If you try and shoot the entire sensor though, your gonna be looking through a peephole.

Electronic lenses probally wont work (like canon eos lenses with autofocus etc.) and your gonna hafta leave them wide open... using SLR lenses that arnt manual may be a pain in the ass, depending on if the geniouses over at RED figure a work around.

So buying any still lenses right now for use on RED isnt the best idea. Not till we know what will work and what wont. Your pretty safe with any PL mount cine lense though, as long as you realize the limitations of each format.
Click to expand...
IMO, as filmmaker said, the question will be the weight for run & gun purposes. We are working with doc stuff and this will be a sensitive point.
 
joe 1008 said:
Take still primes or still zooms. With the RED they will work even better than with a 35mm adapter like the M2 because the RED sensor probably will be much faster and you can close the aperture some stops (if you want) and avoid that sometimes too soft look which the adapter produce.
Click to expand...

and everything isnt upside down :)
 
sorry for being an idiot

sorry for being an idiot

Sorry guys, I didn't research before I posted. You can't just buy a Canon 20x HD lens. It only comes with the XL H1 body. You can't buy it seperate. So there goes that idea. Anybody else have any ideas? I read that a 35mm lens will get a 7x multiplication factor on a HD camera. Is that the exact number on the RED? That would mean my 100mm macro would become a 700mm tele. Hummmm. Scrap the 35mm adaptor idea. I guess I will just have to save my loose change for the RED lenses.
I guess you need a super lens to get the lines of resolution that 4k would require. I guess there is no cheap lens for HD (I mean 1080p which is technically not HD.)
 

Attachments

  • skinny.jpg
    skinny.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 0
Gordon Prince said:
IMO, as filmmaker said, the question will be the weight for run & gun purposes. We are working with doc stuff and this will be a sensitive point.
Click to expand...

dont worry... although Jim hasnt 100% commited to having still lens mounts.. im very confident third parties will step up.
 
acrochordon said:
Sorry guys, I didn't research before I posted. You can't just buy a Canon 20x HD lens. It only comes with the XL H1 body. You can't buy it seperate. So there goes that idea. Anybody else have any ideas? I read that a 35mm lens will get a 7x multiplication factor on a HD camera. Is that the exact number on the RED? That would mean my 100mm macro would become a 700mm tele. Hummmm. Scrap the 35mm adaptor idea. I guess I will just have to save my loose change for the RED lenses.
I guess you need a super lens to get the lines of resolution that 4k would require. I guess there is no cheap lens for HD (I mean 1080p which is technically not HD.)
Click to expand...

you dont want to buy an automatic lens.. your wasting your money.
 
Jarred Land said:
dont worry... although Jim hasnt 100% commited to having still lens mounts.. im very confident third parties will step up.
Click to expand...
:dankk2: We are hoping so. But it was already confirmed by the RED team, wasn't it?
 
Jarred Land said:
you dont want to buy an automatic lens.. your wasting your money.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say the same about the manual option but if the question is around the auto offer, I agree.
 
Last edited:
acrochordon said:
Sorry guys, I didn't research before I posted. You can't just buy a Canon 20x HD lens. It only comes with the XL H1 body. You can't buy it seperate. So there goes that idea. Anybody else have any ideas? I read that a 35mm lens will get a 7x multiplication factor on a HD camera. Is that the exact number on the RED? That would mean my 100mm macro would become a 700mm tele. Hummmm. Scrap the 35mm adaptor idea. I guess I will just have to save my loose change for the RED lenses.
I guess you need a super lens to get the lines of resolution that 4k would require. I guess there is no cheap lens for HD (I mean 1080p which is technically not HD.)
Click to expand...

Lenses designed for a 3 x 1/3", 1/2" CCDs won't work on the RED because 1) they don't cover even the smallest windowed sensor format (i.e. 720p) and b) they're not designed for a single sensor camera. If you want to do 1920 x 1080p work you need lenses that are the correct format for the sensor. The RED website indicates that this can be Super 16 or B4 mount 2/3" lenses. You may be able to find a very used zoom for $2000.

As for the image magnification (multiplication) factor you quote, it all depends on what HD sensor size you're using for the comparison. "HD" comes in many sensor sizes from 1/3" to S35.
 
Last edited:
I think we should remember that while RED is 4k, (more like 3k) it's not film, so it won't have the same need as 35mm film for ultra-sharp lenses, especially if the filmmaker's intention is to downconvert to 1080p.

Sharpness is the last thing I would trade, but if the *real* benefit is say 10-15% it wouldn't worth it to pay 10 times more money...would it?

I think that the RED team should make some serious testing of existing affordable lenses and make a short suggested list preferably along with MTF curves and geometric and chromatic aberration measurements. That would be usefull to show how well they perform, not only with RED, but in comparison with other more expensive lenses. Just to help the RED customers to make the right decisions!

I also believe as filmmaker1977 (BTW, what happened that date?) that a good 35mm still lens might be the solution for many RED customers.
I’d like to know for example how my old good and famous (still selling) 17-35 f2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikon zoom lens with manual aperture would compare ($1500) with other more expensive “cine” lenses. Of course on RED it will be a 26-54 I think…

pic_001.jpg
 
Last edited:
Proteus said:
I think that the RED team should make some serious testing of existing affordable lenses and make a short suggested list preferably along with MTF curves and geometric and chromatic aberration measurements. That would be usefull to show how well they perform, not only with RED, but in comparison with other more expensive lenses. Just to help the RED customers to make the right decisions!
Click to expand...

Very good proteus.. this will most likely be a test that we will do on DVXuser as soon as we can... take the camera and a whole whack of lenses and do a little glass shootout.
 
i would guess that sensor size is like film size /( 8, 16,35, 65mm)
the smaller the film (sensor) size the more resolution required from the lens ..
so based on that 2k/1080p ( most HD lens) require more resolution (then 35mm sensor size ) as it must put all the detail into a 1920x1080 area ... so shooting a Viper at 4k res on it's 1920x1080 sensor requires a ultra sharp lens to really see the 4k res ....
SO it would seem that shooting 35mm lens using full sensor (as far as i know HD lens do not cover 35mm size sensor) requires less resolution from lens then shooting on smaller section of the chip ( ie: 720p, 1080p ) ??
 
your kinda right donatello.. in terms of pixel density. There are a few other things in there dealing with larger glass and the more the light needs to be bent, but on the bottom line, your got it.. the bigger the focus plane of the sensor falls on the lower resolution the glass needs to be... but remember... that would be assuming that the full sensor was used to directly capture 1080.. if you use the full sensor to capture 4k then that all goes out the window.
 
Proteus said:
I think we should remember that while RED is 4k, (more like 3k) it's not film, so it won't have the same need as 35mm film for ultra-sharp lenses, especially if the filmmaker's intention is to downconvert to 1080p.

Sharpness is the last thing I would trade, but if the *real* benefit is say 10-15% it wouldn't worth it to pay 10 times more money...would it?

I think that the RED team should make some serious testing of existing affordable lenses and make a short suggested list preferably along with MTF curves and geometric and chromatic aberration measurements. That would be usefull to show how well they perform, not only with RED, but in comparison with other more expensive lenses. Just to help the RED customers to make the right decisions!

I also believe as filmmaker1977 (BTW, what happened that date?) that a good 35mm still lens might be the solution for many RED customers.
I’d like to know for example how my old good and famous (still selling) 17-35 f2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikon zoom lens with manual aperture would compare ($1500) with other more expensive “cine” lenses. Of course on RED it will be a 26-54 I think…

pic_001.jpg
Click to expand...

I've shot this lens on my 12mp D2x and blown it up to 30"x40" and it looks georgous! As long as you can handle the mechanics it should produce top notch results.
 
Or...............

Or...............

If the revolution is what we're witnessing here, maaaybe the newest technology can step in...

I imagine the comparison between:

a) the cost and time of further developing this type of lens technology, centuries old, dependent on many glass limitations
-keeping the price cutting in mind

aand

b) the cost to develope liquid lens technology, which could most probably take things to a whole new level.


I see it like this...compare glass treatment and all the hardware that goes with it - with research in types of liquids and membranes etc. needed for the liquid lens technology.
As far as I know, current status with liquid lens is that manufacturers will put them in smaller devices for now, such as mobile phones, but the same manufacturers probably have tons of old lens to sell, or cooperate with the ones who do.

I belive RED can go further.

Think of the potential, guys.



I personally wouldn't want to carry THOSE gigantic expensive things around...


And for actors who feel better having a huge cylindrical things in front of their face......pffff:

-If you need that, my friend, to act...
go do something else.
Your occupation existed waaay before the camera did.

And the camera doesn't exist. Remember ?


Movie making is an art of creating moving visual experiences for the audience. All the complicating in between needs an tends to be cleared.
I personally don't need too complicated hardware systems and hundreds of people in a film crew to make something for what I think is good.
Who thought two decades ago movie making would come to your personal computer?

Things change.

Soon we won't need to have dosens of lens beacuse a few will cover it all. Maybe even just one. Think of the freedom.

If we put aside The Industry standards and it's needs for cost justification and concentrate on the primal motivation of moviemaking, we could see that the tools should be available for everyone. Their developement shouldn't be dictated and slowed down by huge companies. THEN we would see the best creations.

That is why I was happy like a child finding out about a revolutionary toy in the making - by the same guy who likes to play, seems like doesn't give a damn about the Industry,
AND can afford to make new toys.
Maybe some of MJ's carisma passed to him during cooperation :)... I dunno,
but surely it started.

The revolution.

Someone had to start it. I'm glad the guy who provided me the "Flesh" shoes did. Very glad.
He doesn't need somebody else to shoot films for the products HE designed.
And THAT is something to think about.
...................


If I chose to be a sculptor (or some other force did)
I wouldn't have to worry about earning $50k for the best chisel.

A good sculptor can make a masterpiece with the worst one.

Most of them did.
 
Last edited:
That felt nice.

Apologies to the ones who fell asleep.

Maybe they needed a rest.

This occupation tends to really drain a person.

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