Lenses?

[Stephen Williams]

Hi All,

 

I understand that Red has about 600 cameras reserved. Does anybody know where there are 600 spare sets of PL mounted lenses? I hear it's quite hard to rent PL lens sets in London. They are mostly rented out with P+S adaptors.

 

Stephen

[Arni Heimir]

Hi All,

 

I understand that Red has about 600 cameras reserved. Does anybody know where there are 600 spare sets of PL mounted lenses? I hear it's quite hard to rent PL lens sets in London. They are mostly rented out with P+S adaptors.

 

Stephen

 

I doubt that the users of Red would rent lenses 24/7.

[Stephen Williams]

I doubt that the users of Red would rent lenses 24/7.

 

Hi,

 

I was thinking they would want to own some lenses! What would the point of having a camera at home if you cant use it? The value of used lenses could soar above the cost of new lenses! or there may be many cheap 4k cameras on Ebay!

 

FWIW there were under 370 sync sound cameras in Hollywood until the 1970's !

 

Stephen

[Arni Heimir]

Hi,

 

I was thinking they would want to own some lenses! What would the point of having a camera at home if you cant use it? The value of used lenses could soar above the cost of new lenses! or there may be many cheap 4k cameras on Ebay!

 

FWIW there were under 370 sync sound cameras in Hollywood until the 1970's !

 

Stephen

 

Yeah, but I doubt people would record birthday parties, vacations, weddings... in 4k and with a full set of primes.

 

I've been thinking, who are these 600 or so people. Nothing against them. But its one think to own a camera worth 17k. the same price as a low end HD or high end SD digital camera, but the lenses are not in the same price range.

 

I understand your point.

[Mark Allen]

Perhaps someone could suggest a list of PL mount lenses which would be "good enough" for when one is shooting something on the spur of the moment and not in a case where they can rent the higher quality lenses for more structured projects.

[Dan Goulder]

Perhaps someone could suggest a list of PL mount lenses which would be "good enough" for when one is shooting something on the spur of the moment and not in a case where they can rent the higher quality lenses for more structured projects.

PL lenses generally tend to have the newest, most expensive glass. The next step down would be standard lenses with a PL adaptor. However, the resolution of these lenses is much lower, which would tend to defeat the purpose of a high resolution camera.

[Mark Allen]

PL lenses generally tend to have the newest, most expensive glass. The next step down would be standard lenses with a PL adaptor. However, the resolution of these lenses is much lower, which would tend to defeat the purpose of a high resolution camera.

 

Do you (or anyone) know if shooting at 4k, but finishing at 2k would make up for any lack of clarity in the lense?

 

When you say cheaper... what kind of prices are we talking about for the non PL? And how much are we talking about for PL?

 

My thinking is that once you have a drive and camera you're at around 19,500 for the RED... so if a useable lense was 3k. You're at 22,500. Well, people are easily spending 12k on their HVX with data and lense kits (which btw need lenses too). So, the difference there is pretty huge in what you would (assumming RED delivers) get for your additional 10k.

[Rik Andino]

When you say cheaper... what kind of prices are we talking about for the non PL? And how much are we talking about for PL?

 

My thinking is that once you have a drive and camera you're at around 19,500 for the RED... so if a useable lense was 3k. You're at 22,500. Well, people are easily spending 12k on their HVX with data and lense kits (which btw need lenses too). So, the difference there is pretty huge in what you would (assumming RED delivers) get for your additional 10k.

 

A used Zeiss superspeed could run you 5K per lens...

You may want to have at least four to use so add that up...it'll be

 

Whatever this camera will be when it debuts...

It will not be cheap enough for those indie dreamers and amateurs

Who think they can shoot a feature for under 10k.

 

No one has been even talking about the post production workflow...

Or the fact that it'll might take a serious DIT to set up the camera.

 

Well whatever some people need to learn the hard way.

 

Good Luck

[Patrizio De Sica]

It seems there is some lack of memoir (if not anything else) on the subject.

 

There will be Red lenses, a 18-85mm zoom for $9,500. PL mount.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

[Rik Andino]

There will be Red lenses, a 18-85mm zoom for $9,500. PL mount.

 

Wow 10k for a zoom lens

You might be better off buying a used set of S3 prime lens for that price.

 

Or you can do what film shooters have always done

Rent the lenses when they need them.

[Mitch Gross]

You can buy an old Cooke 20-100 zoom for under $5000. But I would much rather have an 18-100 at about three times the price. And I'd really rather have an Optimo, but that's $60,000.

 

I don't care how much the camera costs. Glass is always where you want to spend the money--that's where the image quality comes in. I usually shoot with a package in which the lenses cost considerably more than the camera body. This is true in 16, 35, HD, whatever. And that's the way it should be. To get the most out of RED I would expect to use $50K worth of glass in front. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

It's crazy to spend money on a 4k camera system and then stick a coke bottle in the front, like buying a Ferrari and then pouring moonshine in the gas tank.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

It's crazy to spend money on a 4k camera system and then stick a coke bottle in the front, like buying a Ferrari and then pouring moonshine in the gas tank.

 

Oh, what's wrong with pouring moonshine in the gas tank...I do it all the time. :D

[Patrizio De Sica]

Oh, what's wrong with pouring moonshine in the gas tank...I do it all the time. :D

 

Ah Ah Ah! Me too! :D

 

 

You can buy an old Cooke 20-100 zoom for under $5000. But I would much rather have an 18-100 at about three times the price. And I'd really rather have an Optimo, but that's $60,000.

 

I don't care how much the camera costs. Glass is always where you want to spend the money--that's where the image quality comes in. I usually shoot with a package in which the lenses cost considerably more than the camera body. This is true in 16, 35, HD, whatever. And that's the way it should be. To get the most out of RED I would expect to use $50K worth of glass in front. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

It's crazy to spend money on a 4k camera system and then stick a coke bottle in the front, like buying a Ferrari and then pouring moonshine in the gas tank.

 

You people from the Cinematography department, first you're obsessed with the quality of glass... And where does the content count? And the production factor (that is: M O N E Y) ?

[Mitch Gross]

Ah Ah Ah! Me too! :D

You people from the Cinematography department, first you're obsessed with the quality of glass... And where does the content count? And the production factor (that is: M O N E Y) ?

 

This is a Cinematography forum. Quality cinematography uses quality optics. Perhaps you'd feel better at an indie production forum or a writer's forum. I use all sorts of optics in vast ranges of quality for what is appropriate for a given production. But why bother talking about cinematography and then negate the value of good glass?

[Patrizio De Sica]

Wow 10k for a zoom lens

You might be better off buying a used set of S3 prime lens for that price.

 

Or you can do what film shooters have always done

Rent the lenses when they need them.

 

Your in your own. Each one knows what's the best for his/her own money.

 

Otherwise, quoting Mr. Stephen Williams:

 

Hi,

 

I was thinking they would want to own some lenses! What would the point of having a camera at home if you cant use it?

 

Still, there is a revolution out there. If you didn't have enough information, it's your problem not a world's problem...

 

I believe Red will offer the best that a glass manufacturer can provide. Again, if you don't believe, wait for the facts and see others using that.

[Patrizio De Sica]

This is a Cinematography forum. Quality cinematography uses quality optics. Perhaps you'd feel better at an indie production forum or a writer's forum. I use all sorts of optics in vast ranges of quality for what is appropriate for a given production. But why bother talking about cinematography and then negate the value of good glass?

 

I don't! I appreciate to hear you. But maybe because this is a cinematography forum, there are other segments of the film business completely forgotten. I'm just speaking for my own background. And because there are a diversity of distinctive crafts (and interests) over here, all the different points are acceptable. If with all the respect for the viewpoints of the other members. Writers, directors, producers... the forum is open to all the parts, isn't it?

 

There isn't one sole truth but should be space and time to any reader of these boards for taking his/her/their own conclusions.

[Stephen Williams]

I believe Red will offer the best that a glass manufacturer can provide. Again, if you don't believe, wait for the facts and see others using that.

 

Hi,

 

That may well be true, but the Red zoom lens will not be available AFAIK when the cameras starts shipping! That was the reason for my curiosity!

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

What's with all of this constant cheerleading for the RED camera, Patrizio? Do you realize that you come off as a paid shill for the company?

 

I heard the same things back in 2000 when the Sony F900 was coming out, that it would create a revolution for independents, that it would kill film, etc. It had an impact and still is having one, but nothing on a revolutionary scale.

 

Ultimately, we're just talking about a camera with a lens on it that takes a pretty good picture, that's all. That's not revolutionary even if it's technically impressive and a significant advance. A Super-16 camera with the right film stock, lenses, and post can create a pretty good-looking picture too.

 

Picture quality is a wonderful thing and something that cinematographers constantly deal with, but a cheaper camera with a better picture will not revolutionize anything in terms of moviemaking in general -- RED will just become part of the alternative tools to 35mm that people employ, like HD or Super-16. Even today, anyone can buy a decent digital still camera but that doesn't make them Ansel Adams.

 

Unless you have an incredibly soft definition of "revolutionary" that includes inventions like Pop Tarts...

 

The RED camera doesn't exist as a finished product yet so everyone should give the complaining and the cheerleading a rest until it does.

[Patrizio De Sica]

Hi,

 

That may well be true, but the Red zoom lens will not be available AFAIK when the cameras starts shipping! That was the reason for my curiosity!

 

Stephen

 

Good point. Rent is a possibility. There will be Nikkor and Canon manual lenses mounts... I know they breath and... But what can we do? Maybe handling with the hassles and wait for the affordable Red lenses.

 

The difference between a $30,000 - $50,000 range lens and an affordable one is the difference between to shoot our contents or not. Is there alternative? This is the point on the Red offer. Is there alternative to Red? This concept means all the difference.

 

Sorry me. I'm coming from a 35mm tradition but if I can't work with what I don't have, I must look for what my resources can afford. It's a matter of logic, that's rational! (using a word already used before in these same boards).

[Stephen Williams]

Good point. Rent is a possibility. There will be Nikkor and Canon manual lenses mounts... I know they breath and... But what can we do? Maybe handling with the hassles and wait for the affordable Red lenses.

 

 

Hi,

 

I can only see a reference to a PL mount on the RED website. This could be because of FFD issues, but that is only a guess.

 

Stephen

[Patrizio De Sica]

What's with all of this constant cheerleading for the RED camera, Patrizio? Do you realize that you come off as a paid shill for the company?

 

With all the respect, you're one of my favorite DoPs. A genuin like a Storaro. But...

 

We are fighting for the Red success. Because it will be our success too. If you want to call it "constant cheerleading", call it. It's not a problem. We gave our money on a reservation (camera, lens and upcoming accessories when available).

 

By the way, I have the support of a lot of other 35mm professionals. Not cinematography.com members, of course... Unfortunately, I must say it! But with decades of experience in major roles, including the cinematography field (not only) that are thinking the same:

 

Red is the (next) future.

 

 

Hi,

 

I can only see a reference to a PL mount on the RED website. This could be because of FFD issues, but that is only a guess.

 

Stephen

 

This information has coming from the Jim Jannard's mouth and it's available out there from other forums.

 

He's not over here any more, unfortunately. And we all know why.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

[Patrizio De Sica]

This information has coming from the Jim Jannard's mouth and it's available out there from other forums.

 

Here is the link from someone that I think Mr. Mullen knows very well because I already read some posts there between Mr. Kassovitz (and for sure he can't be accused as being cheerleader, correct?) and Mr. Mullen on this Red subject related:

 

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=75585&page=3

 

On this conversation between these important posters, here is the link:

 

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?...3857#post533857

 

To the naysayers, read what this movie maker posted about the issue. "Jerks" and "completely unacceptable", the words aren't mine and it's very known the level of tolerance of that forum on this kind of language. But it can who can.

[Stephen Williams]

Red is the (next) future.

This information has coming from the Jim Jannard's mouth and it's available out there from other forums.

 

He's not over here any more, unfortunately. And we all know why.

 

Hi,

 

No mention of price!

 

Jim mentiones an `intermediate adaptor` as Nikon has a far shorter FFD than a PL mount ,I don't see how there will be space for anything extra in between. Could be wrong just curious!

 

Stephen

[Patrizio De Sica]

Hi,

 

No mention of price!

 

Jim mentiones an `intermediate adaptor` as Nikon has a far shorter FFD than a PL mount ,I don't see how there will be space for anything extra in between. Could be wrong just curious!

 

Stephen

 

Fair concern. Your push on the price subject is useful to our private (Red) and common (motion picture besides our pocket) cause. The skepticism can be a helpful aid. We hope Jim Jannard has been reading these boards from outside.

[Max Jacoby]

I believe Red will offer the best that a glass manufacturer can provide.

I don't think anyone who knows about lenses seriously believes that the Red zoom will be superior to the best zoom lenses already available, all of whom are at least 5-6 times more expensive. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

 

From the preliminary specs already one can see that its T2.8 speed is inferior to lenses with a similar zoom range. Both the 17-80mm Angénieux Optimo and the 17.5-75mm Panavision Primo zoom are 2/3rds of a stop faster at T2.2 and T2.3 respectively. A T2.8 stop seriously handicaps you if you want to do any kind of low-light and night work, especially considering that this camera/lens combination is aimed at low-budget filmmakers who in most cases are not able to afford a lot of lights to raise their shooting stop. And even at that stop you better get yourself a focus-puller too.