RED production schedule

[Keith Mottram]

I know. In mass production this could almost certainly be automated to a very large extent. Possibly completely. Cooke makes something like 250 zooms a year, if I'm not mistaken. Don't tell me they couldn't be massively cheaper if that were 250,000.

No, but since I've already acknowledged cine lenses will win out on handling, and my points apply only to raw image quality, this isn't a particularly relevant question.

 

And even taking handling into account, and accounting for the extremely small volumes.... It also seems pretty clear that modern cine lenses are built well beyond what the point of diminishing returns would be for many potential users. To use common computer industry terms, the performance is great, but the price/performance ratio sucks. Unfortunately, since most existing customers have such deep pockets, the market basically only has a (very) high-end at the moment.

 

i am off to find a brick wall to slowly hit my head against...

[Chris Kenny]

i am off to find a brick wall to slowly hit my head against...

 

I'm curious, precisely what did I say that was so foolish it doesn't even deserve a response? That cine lenses would probably be a lot cheaper if they made 1000 times as many units? That the cine lens market basically only has a high-end? Both of these statements seem quite uncontroversial to me.

 

Frankly, it seems to be quite impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some of you guys about these topics. After a few exchanges, some of you stop providing meaningful responses and just start essentially shaking your heads and clucking at me. I'm sure all the people who already agree with you cluck along with you, so if those are the only opinions you care about, I can't precisely say this is an unwise tactic... but it would be more interesting to continue discussion, wouldn't it?

[Stephen Williams]

I'm curious, precisely what did I say that was so foolish it doesn't even deserve a response? That cine lenses would probably be a lot cheaper if they made 1000 times as many units? That the cine lens market basically only has a high-end? Both of these statements seem quite uncontroversial to me.

 

Frankly, it seems to be quite impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some of you guys about these topics. After a few exchanges, some of you stop providing meaningful responses and just start essentially shaking your heads and clucking at me. I'm sure all the people who already agree with you cluck along with you, so if those are the only opinions you care about, I can't precisely say this is an unwise tactic... but it would be more interesting to continue discussion, wouldn't it?

 

Hi Chris,

 

The whole point is that if you made 250,000 zoom lenses they would not be of the same quality as Cooke & Zeiss build today.

 

When testing Nikon lenses it is important to compare them with motion picture lenses before deciding they are good enough. For many years I used Nikon lenses on a Motion Control rig, it's just not something I would do in the 21st centuary.

 

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

The whole point is that if you made 250,000 zoom lenses they would not be of the same quality as Cooke & Zeiss build today.

 

There's no logical reason to believe this. There are many devices in mass production which require similar (or superior) levels of precision. Consider the mechanism which controls head travel in a hard drive, for instance.

 

Achieving very fine tolerances obviously costs more than achieving looser tolerances. It is not, however, something which is inherently impossible for mass produced products.

 

When testing Nikon lenses it is important to compare them with motion picture lenses before deciding they are good enough. For many years I used Nikon lenses on a Motion Control rig, it's just not something I would do in the 21st centuary.

 

As I said, I have little doubt the cine lenses are somewhat better. But see my above comments about price/performance.

[Stephen Williams]

There's no logical reason to believe this. There are many devices in mass production which require similar (or superior) levels of precision. Consider the mechanism which controls head travel in a hard drive, for instance.

 

Achieving very fine tolerances obviously costs more than achieving looser tolerances. It is not, however, something which is inherently impossible for mass produced products.

As I said, I have little doubt the cine lenses are somewhat better. But see my above comments about price/performance.

 

Hi Chris,

 

What struck me first with my comparison tests were the slates, I had written the information on graph paper. The Nikon lenses just resolved white paper, the Cooke zoom showed the graph paper clearly.

 

I wish you the best of luck using Nikon lenses.

 

Stephen

[Werner Klipsch]

There's no logical reason to believe this. There are many devices in mass production which require similar (or superior) levels of precision. Consider the mechanism which controls head travel in a hard drive, for instance.

It is a common mistake to assume that advances in one technology automatically can be translated into similar sized advances in another technology.

 

As far as cost coupled with performance goes, a 1965 computer compared to a 2005 computer appearas to have come from a different universe!

 

But a 1965 automobile compared to an equivalent 2005 model, while there is admittedly a difference, but several orders of magnitude less than the difference between the computers!

 

The rockets we use to launch most space satellites have evolved nowhere near as much as the satellites they carry.

 

As for the precision of hard drives, as with many other electromechanical devices these days, they rely heavily on automated feedback systems that 'customize' the electrical action of the motors and servos and so on. So even though there might be millions of drives that all appear to work the same, that is only because each one has been individually hand-finished electrically by a computer.

 

This is possible with a hard drive or DVD player or similar because the only essential arbiter of accuracy is how much signal the heads picks up and it is a wholly electrical adjustment.

 

This is not as easily applicable to a lens as a suitable non-human feedback mechanism is not available. Such things are the subject of much on going research into machine vision and so on, but that has a long way to go.

 

Lenses are mainly adusted by dismantling and the fitting of shims. Unless a robot could be devised to directly replace the actions of a human operator, the lenses would have to be completely redesigned to make them automatically adjustable.

[Chris Kenny]

As for the precision of hard drives, as with many other electromechanical devices these days, they rely heavily on automated feedback systems that 'customize' the electrical action of the motors and servos and so on. So even though there might be millions of drives that all appear to work the same, that is only because each one has been individually hand-finished electrically by a computer.

 

This is possible with a hard drive or DVD player or similar because the only essential arbiter of accuracy is how much signal the heads picks up and it is a wholly electrical adjustment.

 

This is not as easily applicable to a lens as a suitable non-human feedback mechanism is not available. Such things are the subject of much on going research into machine vision and so on, but that has a long way to go.

 

It's not as easily available, but I wouldn't think it would be impossible these days. Measuring T-stops would be nearly trivial to automate, and while it's true that the general machine vision problem is still very difficult, the pace of progress there has picked up significantly in recent years. It actually looks like a lot of the problems we've had with machine vision for the last few decades were caused not by approaching the problem the wrong way, but just by not having enough computer power, and that's finally starting to change.

 

There are already commercially available tools which solve what look to me like much more complex machine vision problems than this one, which would basically consist of interpreting the sharpness of test patterns. Figuring out when a black test pattern on a while background is focused is simple; just rack focus until the image contains the least gray pixels (which will only appear where black blends into white, e.g. as a result of image softness).

 

Lenses are mainly adusted by dismantling and the fitting of shims. Unless a robot could be devised to directly replace the actions of a human operator, the lenses would have to be completely redesigned to make them automatically adjustable.

 

Probably. A significant part of the design effort for mass produced products goes into making sure that they're easy to produce. This is precisely the sort of thing that's worthwhile if you plan to make 250K of something, but not if you plan to make 250.

[Brian Drysdale]

I expect the comparison is more between a mass produced car and and the racing version of the same car. One functions fine for day to day commuting, whilst the hand built racing version pushes the limits of performance.

 

What might be acceptable on a reality show, wouldn't be acceptable on a drama. 35mm non telephoto stills lenses have been used on 35mm film cameras, but they've been modified rebuilt versions that weren't cheap. I believe this was done more for the look than any cost saving. Also, they tend to be slower than the cine lenses, especially the wide angle lenses.

 

If there's a market depend I expect the lens manufactures will bring out budget versions for cameras like the RED. However, I expect that the camera people will continue to push for the highest quality glass because it does make a difference, especially when you're pushing it to its limits.

[Brian Drysdale]

Best value for money doesn't mean you're going to get the best quality images. An instamatic camera will give you pictures, however, the SLR will give you better quality pictures and versatility. Which you use will depend on the job in hand - the holidays or a fashion shoot.

[Max Jacoby]

35mm non telephoto stills lenses have been used on 35mm film cameras, but they've been modified rebuilt versions that weren't cheap. I believe this was done more for the look than any cost saving. Also, they tend to be slower than the cine lenses, especially the wide angle lenses.

Not sure if by 'look' you mean the image that the lens creates or its mechanical appearance, but 35mm stills lenses get rebarreled in order to adapt them to the particularities of motion picure use: the focus markings get extended to allow for more precise focus settings and the housings are made much more solid to withstand shooting conditions.

 

I'm afraid the idea of putting a stills lens on a Red or any 35mm camera is just plain silly to me, if we are speaking about a normal shooting environment. The problem is not so much the look (i.e. sharpness and contrast) that the lens delivers, but people need to realize that stills lenses are designed to be eye-focused. Getting a focus puller to work off these tiny markings is just plain impossible for anything remotely challenging.

[Brian Drysdale]

Not sure if by 'look' you mean the image that the lens creates or its mechanical appearance, but 35mm stills lenses get rebarreled in order to adapt them to the particularities of motion picure use: the focus markings get extended to allow for more precise focus settings and the housings are made much more solid to withstand shooting conditions.

 

I'm afraid the idea of putting a stills lens on a Red or any 35mm camera is just plain silly to me, if we are speaking about a normal shooting environment. The problem is not so much the look (i.e. sharpness and contrast) that the lens delivers, but people need to realize that stills lenses are designed to be eye-focused. Getting a focus puller to work off these tiny markings is just plain impossible for anything remotely challenging.

 

Some of the London rental companies (I believe Samuelsons was one) had set(s) these lenses in their rental fleet. I'd expect they were re-barreled etc, I've never used them, however, I can't see these companies not doing a lot of reworking on them to get them mechanically up to spec regarding having new scales etc. These companies built up a reputation serving the needs of film camera people, so there'd be a lot more these than just putting a bog standard stills lens onto a film camera.

 

I believe they were mostly used on commercials for the image they created. From memory I don't think they cost any less to rent than the normal cine lenses.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Brian Drysdale

[Max Jacoby]

Rehoused Nikon and Leica lenses are quite common and a lot of rental houses carry them. I recently saw Leica Macro lenses that Vantage Film refit into a PL mount and mechanically they look very nice indeed. You're right that the rental price isn't any less than regular 35mm motion picture lenses, since a Leica stills lens itself costs already several thousands and the rehousing probably at least as much.

[Stephen Williams]

Rehoused Nikon and Leica lenses are quite common and a lot of rental houses carry them. I recently saw Leica Macro lenses that Vantage Film refit into a PL mount and mechanically they look very nice indeed. You're right that the rental price isn't any less than regular 35mm motion picture lenses, since a Leica stills lens itself costs already several thousands and the rehousing probably at least as much.

 

Hi,

 

Van Diemen rehouse Leica glass, most lenses in the £5-6000 range (10-12,000 USD) The lenses are very slow for motion picture use IMHO.

 

http://www.vandiemen.tv/leica_lenses.html

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

The lenses are very slow for motion picture use IMHO.

 

Stephen

 

Yes, with the still lenses you don't get f1.4 lenses with shorter focal lengths than 35mm.

 

Usually the wide angles are around f 2.8, which means they have no speed advantage over a zoom lens.

[Keith Mottram]

I'm curious, precisely what did I say that was so foolish it doesn't even deserve a response? That cine lenses would probably be a lot cheaper if they made 1000 times as many units? That the cine lens market basically only has a high-end? Both of these statements seem quite uncontroversial to me.

 

Frankly, it seems to be quite impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some of you guys about these topics. After a few exchanges, some of you stop providing meaningful responses and just start essentially shaking your heads and clucking at me. I'm sure all the people who already agree with you cluck along with you, so if those are the only opinions you care about, I can't precisely say this is an unwise tactic... but it would be more interesting to continue discussion, wouldn't it?

 

I apologise if i seem a tad facetious, but if you want to bang on about economies of scale you are missing a serious issue- a market. assuming every potential red devotee wanted a set of cookes you are still not talking about enough of a market, to manufacture them cheaply enough, for the red market to actually afford. and obviously this rule is the same for zeiss and other manufacuters. currently there is a huge b4 mount market, yet only a small market for digi primes. why is this? because there are only a small amount of productions which can accomidate the skills needed for utilising this level of lens technology. if you could buy a set of super cheap cine lenses they will still be useless to you without the correct team of people in the camera department. this is what the majority of 'revolutionaries' seem to neglect there are only a finite amount of decent focus pullers (unless you can think of a way of mass producing them). this is why the whole 2k/ 4k/ whatever k debate is as pointless as this lens debate, there are only finite amount of productions that professional equipment is of any use for. this is not elitism, this is fact.

 

i could be patronising now and say something about a market that would pay $50 for a sticker (promoted tastefully on the rear of a hummer)... but i wont.

[Phil Rhodes]

..and I will.

 

Any market supporting a $50 humvee sticker is filled to bursting point with pathologically stupid people.

 

There, saved you the bother.

 

Phil

[Chris Kenny]

I apologise if i seem a tad facetious, but if you want to bang on about economies of scale you are missing a serious issue- a market. assuming every potential red devotee wanted a set of cookes you are still not talking about enough of a market, to manufacture them cheaply enough, for the red market to actually afford. and obviously this rule is the same for zeiss and other manufacuters. currently there is a huge b4 mount market, yet only a small market for digi primes. why is this? because there are only a small amount of productions which can accomidate the skills needed for utilising this level of lens technology. if you could buy a set of super cheap cine lenses they will still be useless to you without the correct team of people in the camera department. this is what the majority of 'revolutionaries' seem to neglect there are only a finite amount of decent focus pullers (unless you can think of a way of mass producing them). this is why the whole 2k/ 4k/ whatever k debate is as pointless as this lens debate, there are only finite amount of productions that professional equipment is of any use for. this is not elitism, this is fact.

 

I've mentioned that cine lenses would probably be a lot cheaper if they sold in larger volumes, but my point wasn't actually that I believe a huge market exists. My point was merely to note that a lot of the price difference between photo lenses and cine lenses is a result of the tiny volumes cine lenses sell in, and that therefore the actual difference in quality, while one does exist, is not as large as the difference in price would otherwise imply.

[Stephen Williams]

I've mentioned that cine lenses would probably be a lot cheaper if they sold in larger volumes, but my point wasn't actually that I believe a huge market exists. My point was merely to note that a lot of the price difference between photo lenses and cine lenses is a result of the tiny volumes cine lenses sell in, and that therefore the actual difference in quality, while one does exist, is not as large as the difference in price would otherwise imply.

 

Hi.

 

Leica & Zeiss still lenses perform rather better than Nikon glass. In both Still & Motion picture lenses you get what you pay for.

 

FWIW Cine style HD lenses perform better than the identical ENG style version. The glass is the same, however the best elements get selected & it's assembled to a higher degree of accuracy

 

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

I'm afraid the idea of putting a stills lens on a Red or any 35mm camera is just plain silly to me, if we are speaking about a normal shooting environment. The problem is not so much the look (i.e. sharpness and contrast) that the lens delivers, but people need to realize that stills lenses are designed to be eye-focused. Getting a focus puller to work off these tiny markings is just plain impossible for anything remotely challenging.

 

Yes, I've acknowledged the handling issues. You could presumably make pulling focus easier with a follow focus that was geared properly and with careful planning. This is not ideal, but... I bet within a year someone shoots a movie like this and gets it to work.

 

Keep in mind, time considerations are very different if you're making a movie with a crew of four people who are working for a percentage, rather than a few dozen people who are getting paid union rates. If you have to try a shot a couple of more times every now and then because your lenses make it harder to pull focus, you're not burning through outrageous amounts of money in the process.

 

(For the record, we're probably going to pick up a Zeiss 2.1 set, so it probably won't be us. Although we do have access to a bunch of Nikon glass and will probably buy Red's Nikon mount.)

[Keith Mottram]

bash. bang. bash. bang.... now where did i leave those bandages. oh sod it i'll just rap my head with toilet paper, i'm sure it's almost as good and it's definately cheaper... my head...it's... still... bleading... feeling drousy...

[Chris Kenny]

bash. bang. bash. bang.... now where did i leave those bandages. oh sod it i'll just rap my head with toilet paper, i'm sure it's almost as good and it's definately cheaper... my head...it's... still... bleading... feeling drousy...

 

Thank you for this valuable contribution.

[Brian Drysdale]

Keep in mind, time considerations are very different if you're making a movie with a crew of four people who are working for a percentage, rather than a few dozen people who are getting paid union rates. If you have to try a shot a couple of more times every now and then because your lenses make it harder to pull focus, you're not burning through outrageous amounts of money in the process.

 

Yes, the time considerations are usually worse with the crew of 4 because in practise you've got less resources: it takes a certain number of man hours to achieve something and you've got less people.

 

Never mind that they've got experience on their side and know the short cuts. That's not allowing for external financial pressures on people who aren't getting paid for a long period because they're working for a percentage (which usually means getting paid nothing).

 

Having worked on low budget, small crew productions the schedule is relentless.

[Chris Kenny]

Yes, the time considerations are usually worse with the crew of 4 because in practise you've got less resources: it takes a certain number of man hours to achieve something and you've got less people.

 

Never mind that they've got experience on their side and know the short cuts. That's not allowing for external financial pressures on people who aren't getting paid for a long period because they're working for a percentage (which usually means getting paid nothing).

 

Having worked on low budget, small crew productions the schedule is relentless.

 

Sure, anyone who has been on a low-budget shoot knows it can be grueling, particularly when things aren't going to plan, equipment is acting up, etc. But there are enough people out there who care enough about making a movie that they'll put up with all the nonsense.

 

People have made movies with far less workable setups than a RED w/ Nikon lenses. I was on a crew shooting a 16mm short a couple of years back, with a camera which was basically just broken. It would occasionally decide to stop at random in the middle of a take. We had two days to shoot the whole thing, though, and there was no time or money to get a different camera, so we did it anyway.

[Brian Drysdale]

Sure, anyone who has been on a low-budget shoot knows it can be grueling, particularly when things aren't going to plan, equipment is acting up, etc. But there are enough people out there who care enough about making a movie that they'll put up with all the nonsense.

 

People have made movies with far less workable setups than a RED w/ Nikon lenses. I was on a crew shooting a 16mm short a couple of years back, with a camera which was basically just broken. It would occasionally decide to stop at random in the middle of a take. We had two days to shoot the whole thing, though, and there was no time or money to get a different camera, so we did it anyway.

 

It gets worse on a long form production, what's OK for a couple of days just annoys after a week or two. People do end up falling out etc., not over anything big, just lots a small things piling up for time.

[Mark Wilson]

bash. bang. bash. bang.... now where did i leave those bandages. oh sod it i'll just rap my head with toilet paper, i'm sure it's almost as good and it's definately cheaper... my head...it's... still... bleading... feeling drousy...

You did open a fresh packet did you?

Don't use the one that's already on the roll holder, you don't know where it's been. :lol:

 

I haven't visited this forum for some time, and it's interesting reading some of the threads from 18 months to two years back. People are still making the same predictions, most of which seem remarkably reluctant to come to pass.