RED Pro Primes on GH1

ryancglover said:
yeah, @ 720p lens image quality isn't going be a big deal, and i actually perfer the look of my FDs to what i saw from the RRP's... but ask your AC which lens they'd prefer to pull on all day long. ;)

and i added all the noise in FCP because i get bored of super clean HD.
Click to expand...
it did look really good still but it brings up a very good point, i'm sure at full resolution things like zeiss and the red primes are better but point is how much better are they than cheap canon fd or nikon primes? Are they that much better to warrant thousands of dollars and something like 3000% price increase? To me all the things I've seen shot on GH1 with Zeiss or cinema glass really does not look noticeably better than anything shot on stock lens or anything else. Am I just complete noob or is the difference really only miniscule?
 
Homunculus said:
it did look really good still but it brings up a very good point, i'm sure at full resolution things like zeiss and the red primes are better but point is how much better are they than cheap canon fd or nikon primes? Are they that much better to warrant thousands of dollars and something like 3000% price increase? To me all the things I've seen shot on GH1 with Zeiss or cinema glass really does not look noticeably better than anything shot on stock lens or anything else. Am I just complete noob or is the difference really only miniscule?
Click to expand...


What you have to remember the people with Red Primes or access to them are Pros and will make any video clip look good. Us cheapskates with $35 FD's are hobbiest or enthusiasts, so while we can make an image look good with 2k canvas, we can't compete with the Pros.

R
 
Homunculus said:
it did look really good still but it brings up a very good point, i'm sure at full resolution things like zeiss and the red primes are better but point is how much better are they than cheap canon fd or nikon primes? Are they that much better to warrant thousands of dollars and something like 3000% price increase? To me all the things I've seen shot on GH1 with Zeiss or cinema glass really does not look noticeably better than anything shot on stock lens or anything else. Am I just complete noob or is the difference really only miniscule?
Click to expand...

It's one of those things, you've got to spend exponential money to get minor improvements when it comes to lenses - and when you're talking Zeiss cine-lenses or Red Pro Primes, these are no-compromise lenses and they don't make very many of them, so they're just astronomically expensive. It's also about usability and durability in the field, as far as straight IQ it would be likely very hard, if not impossible to see differences between a Zeiss ZE Canon mount lens and an equivalent length/speed Zeiss cine-lens, but using them is a whole different story, how well they're built is a whole different story too, so it's not just about straight IQ.

In all honesty you could probably shoot a film in Super35 with Canon FD glass and it would be far more than acceptable in terms of image quality, if you used Canon FD L glass you might have a very hard time seeing the difference between that and Zeiss cine-lenses, but it would be such a pain in the ass to use them that on a production with a real budget, it wouldn't be worth the pain.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
It's one of those things, you've got to spend exponential money to get minor improvements when it comes to lenses - and when you're talking Zeiss cine-lenses or Red Pro Primes, these are no-compromise lenses and they don't make very many of them, so they're just astronomically expensive. It's also about usability and durability in the field, as far as straight IQ it would be likely very hard, if not impossible to see differences between a Zeiss ZE Canon mount lens and an equivalent length/speed Zeiss cine-lens, but using them is a whole different story, how well they're built is a whole different story too, so it's not just about straight IQ.

In all honesty you could probably shoot a film in Super35 with Canon FD glass and it would be far more than acceptable in terms of image quality, if you used Canon FD L glass you might have a very hard time seeing the difference between that and Zeiss cine-lenses, but it would be such a pain in the ass to use them that on a production with a real budget, it wouldn't be worth the pain.
Click to expand...

thanks for the explanation. it's just this one thing I've been noticing recently, is that in every industry it seems even the top experts in a double blind test actually can't tell the difference between low end and high end products. I'll give you a few examples:

watching Hell's Kitchen that chef show, they blindfolded the chefs and made them taste a bunch of really obvious ingredients like chick peas or various greenery etc. 90% of the time the chefs couldn't tell what the ingredient was.

in the field of music: I've seen numerous tests where professional composers were 100% convinced that a certain recording was real orchestra but it turned out to be sampled (synthesized/fake)

in film: I read an article somenoe posted on here about a hollywood DP who said in a test (possibly that ASC / PGA test I forget) with side by side footage most professional ASC hollywood dp's/producers could not tell the difference between a piece of footage from Red One camera (25,000$) and Arri 435 (300,000$ or whatever it is).

This all just goes to show to me that only under very stringent laboratory conditions (like zooming in a lot for example in Zacuto test where you stop the footage and zoom in and see each little pixel) can even top pros tell the difference in any given field between most comparable things.... similarly if I were to show identical footage one shot on 20$ canon FD and one shot on RPP or Zeiss I am willing to bet 95% of users here professional or not would not be able to tell the difference. That's just how it is and I agree with your position that when working on a big budget movie and you HAVE the money to spend then why not spend it for the slight improvement because one tiny improvement here, one tiny improvent there, it all adds up to more significant improvement in the totality of things - but in the end each little thing really doesn't make as much of a difference as many people think. This same video in my opinion shot with Canon FD 20$ would probably look pretty much identical unless super close laboratory condition-like scrutiny is applied.

just my 2 cents
 
Homunculus said:
thanks for the explanation. it's just this one thing I've been noticing recently, is that in every industry it seems even the top experts in a double blind test actually can't tell the difference between low end and high end products. I'll give you a few examples:

watching Hell's Kitchen that chef show, they blindfolded the chefs and made them taste a bunch of really obvious ingredients like chick peas or various greenery etc. 90% of the time the chefs couldn't tell what the ingredient was.

in the field of music: I've seen numerous tests where professional composers were 100% convinced that a certain recording was real orchestra but it turned out to be sampled (synthesized/fake)

in film: I read an article somenoe posted on here about a hollywood DP who said in a test (possibly that ASC / PGA test I forget) with side by side footage most professional ASC hollywood dp's/producers could not tell the difference between a piece of footage from Red One camera (25,000$) and Arri 435 (300,000$ or whatever it is).

This all just goes to show to me that only under very stringent laboratory conditions (like zooming in a lot for example in Zacuto test where you stop the footage and zoom in and see each little pixel) can even top pros tell the difference in any given field between most comparable things.... similarly if I were to show identical footage one shot on 20$ canon FD and one shot on RPP or Zeiss I am willing to bet 95% of users here professional or not would not be able to tell the difference. That's just how it is and I agree with your position that when working on a big budget movie and you HAVE the money to spend then why not spend it for the slight improvement because one tiny improvement here, one tiny improvent there, it all adds up to more significant improvement in the totality of things - but in the end each little thing really doesn't make as much of a difference as many people think. This same video in my opinion shot with Canon FD 20$ would probably look pretty much identical unless super close laboratory condition-like scrutiny is applied.

just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

Yep, as far as straight IQ I think that's all right, just don't forget about the overall build quality and precision, sets of these lenses are also sold in sets with apertures that all match and the lenses themselves of similar size so that gears, matteboxes etc all are easily interchangable - these things don't really affect IQ but from a production standpoint with lots of money on the line, make sense. There are also Zeiss lenses that have little equivalent in terms of Canon FD - wider/faster/exotic, etc., at a given focal length and similar aperture, I think you'd be still be able to see slight differences in terms of color/contrast but it gets more pronounced when you're talking about superfast lens speeds or super-wide focal lengths, that's where that exponential money makes a real difference...but say, if you're shooting 50mm at f/4, zeiss ultra prime 50 or canon fd 50 are gonna look pretty close!

Wide open? That's another story - and that's where the money comes into play - good wide open performance requires the wallet to be wide open too. You really can tell a difference between a Zeiss 50mm @f/1.4 and a Canon FD 50mm @f/1.4 - could I pick them out blind? Maybe but there are lots of variables - I am not sure the end product is the best place to start comparing, because the way you shoot and compose will be affected by the lens characteristics and you're going to do your best to squeeze the best image possible out of whatever lens you're using - I shoot differently when I'm using a Zeiss lens as opposed to a Canon lens...same shots possible? Maybe, possibly, but the characteristics of the lenses themselves have a big effect on how you use them, so it's not just that if i'd been using a canon fd instead of a zeiss that my image would be worse or not as sharp as the zeiss, but i probably would have composed an image sufficiently different enough that a comparison wouldn't really be possible - part of being a DP is playing to your lenses and cameras strengths, which back to your point, is much more important that which manufacturer made the lens, it really doesn't matter who makes it or how good it is if you can't use it well.
 
Last edited:
May sound strange but I think there's a bit of a confidence boost when you're using a really great lens - not that it's going to make you a better DP, but there's some comfort in knowing that your lens will be able to handle anything you can throw at it, and having that sort of confidence when you're on set, where pressure is high is extremely valuable, knowing you can count on your lens...it's worth a lot. I have two lenses I feel that way about without any question, and I shoot my best stuff on them always - a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 (west german rollei qbm mount) and a Canon FD 24mm L f/1.4 - i know they'll take whatever i throw at them and i always shoot my best stuff on them.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
May sound strange but I think there's a bit of a confidence boost when you're using a really great lens - not that it's going to make you a better DP, but there's some comfort in knowing that your lens will be able to handle anything you can throw at it, and having that sort of confidence when you're on set, where pressure is high is extremely valuable, knowing you can count on your lens...it's worth a lot. I have two lenses I feel that way about without any question, and I shoot my best stuff on them always - a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 (west german rollei qbm mount) and a Canon FD 24mm L f/1.4 - i know they'll take whatever i throw at them and i always shoot my best stuff on them.
Click to expand...

I agree with this to a degree... I'd say it's more about knowing your gear than having it be "The Best". A good friend of mine is a photographer and he only owns a nikon 50mm f2.8 lens... The thing is beat to hell on the outside but the glass is clear. The point is, no one ever questions him when he pulls it out at this point because they look at his work and know whatever he's going to do is why they hired him in the first place. He's confident in his gear and people in turn see the results and are confident in him. Gear is gear. Knowing what your doing is more important than the price of your equipment.

But I do know what your saying, I've got a nikon 85mm f1.8 that I always feel brings out my best... Maybe because when I bought it it cost me alot (ten years ago 300 bucks meant that I didn't eat for a week lol) and I appreciate it more because I feel like I have to make it my "go to" lens...

Whatever it is I love that thing. :Drogar-Happy(DBG):
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top