RED Sensors getting bigger

[Francis Kuhn]

If you had a truly great story to tell about exploring humanity, i'd work for food and a place to sleep. :lol:

 

Hi Glen,

 

Well, maybe not a great story about humanity, but I might have a little Honda spot coming up that would be a great place to test those crazy focus-pulling skills. The last one was so tricky it had my First about ready to dive into oncoming traffic And that was a T4! :D

 

Take Care,

 

-Fran

[Tom Lowe]

Tom,

 

Be honest. You're from the future, aren't you? Can you tell us how things turned out with Obama?

 

I'm just messing with you. :D

 

 

Jay

 

Haha. I know. I've kind of become a two-bit Ray Kurzweil wannabe here. :lol:

 

BTW, Glen "1.2--no problem!" Alexander, I like your can-do attitude!!

[Sam Wells]

I guess you can always boost the gain and shoot at a deeper stop.

-Fran

 

If they can get a good s/n on the FF sensor that's not crazy either; actually good s/n and you may not need the gain boost (well there seems to be no onboard gain boost done on the current Mysterium) --- I can often shoot @ 200 on my D3 and buy another stop even 2 from a RAW file in post (even if conventional 'ETTR' wisdom says I shouldn't it can work as well as an ISO gain boost).

 

You could also consider a larger format as simply a different type of canvas and design the filmmaking to not require constant focus pulls -- I don't know that FF35 is or need be suited to fast and furious moves, run 'n gun, Bourne Ultimatum......

 

As to the glass, with Leica going larger than 24 x 36 and Nikon (strictly rumor perhaps) about to venture there also, I'm not sure that past precedent is anything to go on, or should predict what Cooke and Zeiss may or may not do.

 

-Sam

 

Note to Tom: Don't be a two bit Ray Kurzweil wannabe, be a 12 bit Ray Kurzweil (at least 12 !) wannabe :lol:

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Cinema does not use rehoused 35mm SLR lens because they don't perform the same task and are not designed for motion cinema needs. In cinema we are shooting with lens that can stop down to T1.3 focus down to 8 inches with no focus breathing, no vignetting, and no color fringing. Virtually no commonly used consumer still lens function under these tolerances. The ones that do are rare and very expensive.

 

I can put on a macro and focus down to TWO INCHES at 60mm further back for 105mm or 200mm, ok they're not 1.3 but 2.8, in all of the nikon macros i've used, NEVER any breathing.

 

let me see you take a picture of a flower or a gecko on a sand dune at 2 inches.

 

take some serious photography lessons before you start railing against photographic lenses. they have been around much longer for much bigger film negatives than cinema.

 

I would put ANY Leica lens against ANY cinematic lens made by ANY MFG in the history of cinematic film, ANY where, place or time. The Leica lenses will absolutely stomp, crush, like Godzilla, on any of your best images, guaranteed. If I was to give your cinematic lens any chance at all I would use Nikon glass. Even Canon would be marginally better than any of your Zeiss or PV or Hawk.

 

cinematic lenses are rated sometimes around 1.3 but they are delivering an image for a much SMALLER frame, half as big in most cases that full frame SLR. double the size of film and your precious "1.3" would vignette, distortion, and produce total crap.

 

try a shot with the nikon medical macro 200mm and try to get the same shot with ANY of your "1.3".

 

 

i can turn most lenses into simple macros with a simple $10 reversal ring, while you're spending big bucks for your "1.3"

 

 

the lenses are not expensive if one "rents" them.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Chris Keth]

of course they are, are you kidding?

 

i shot at f1.2 a car moving at 30mph.

 

rip off that piece of poop rubber,

mount a gear ring with number of teeth you want to have control over, go to 64 or 96 if you want fine grain control

 

get a simple linear pull focus control

 

calibrate infinity and close focus

 

mark these on the controller with a grease pencil

 

check with a blade of a grass or bush

 

i did, it can't be that hard.

 

I know. You're filmmaking God. I'm a f-ing idiot like everyone else here. I get it; you've made your point.

 

I still hold my stance that still lenses are unsuitable for pulling focus. Fine if you shot a wide of a car moving at 30 mph. That's easy. Do the same thing with a tight single with an actor that leans a lot and is very expressive.

 

Edit: After reading your post directly above this one, I think maybe I'm being too hard on you because you're just a kid. You're what, like 14?

Edited November 20, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Tenolian Bell]

I would put ANY Leica lens against ANY cinematic lens made by ANY MFG in the history of cinematic film, ANY where, place or time. The Leica lenses will absolutely stomp, crush, like Godzilla, on any of your best images, guaranteed. If I was to give your cinematic lens any chance at all I would use Nikon glass. Even Canon would be marginally better than any of your Zeiss or PV or Hawk.

 

Its not really my intention to have a cinema vs still lens debate. Yes Leica, Canon, and Nikon make some great glass. Yes they can be used to shoot motion photography. My over all point is that cinema and still lens serve two different purposes. Still lens are not designed and optimized for motion photography. As well as cinema lens are not designed and optimized for stills. They are intended for different purposes and their is nothing wrong with that.

 

 

I can put on a macro and focus down to TWO INCHES at 60mm further back for 105mm or 200mm, ok they're not 1.3 but 2.8, in all of the nikon macros i've used, NEVER any breathing.

 

Breathing is eliminated through the grouping of lens elements inside the casing. Still lens are generally not designed to eliminate this because they are made to take one picture. So it doesn't matter that they breath.

 

let me see you take a picture of a flower or a gecko on a sand dune at 2 inches.

 

Yes this can be done with parascopic lens systems for shooting macro in cinema. Such as the Frazier lens system.

 

[Dominic Cochran]

Yes this can be done with parascopic lens systems for shooting macro in cinema. Such as the Frazier lens system.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Cine lenses are better made for pulling focus, but I have to say that from what I remember the Frazier system has a max aperture of something like 5.6-8.0 and is pretty widely known to be a re-housed and re-purposed(and remarkably well done) still lens system.

[Max Jacoby]

I would put ANY Leica lens against ANY cinematic lens made by ANY MFG in the history of cinematic film, ANY where, place or time. The Leica lenses will absolutely stomp, crush, like Godzilla, on any of your best images, guaranteed.

This is of course based on actual experience, it's not just you overblown ego speaking, right Glen? ;)

 

But yeah, let's compare a 14mm Master Prime to your 15mm Leica stills lens. You have one that opens to T1.3, right?

[Max Jacoby]

I bet Cooke will design and sell FF35. Watch and see. Plenty of companies will. Arri? Who knows. They are going to have worry about their camera business pretty soon here.

Sorry Tom, I have to ask: have you ever even spoken to the people at Arri or Cooke?

[Brian Drysdale]

Regardless of the very good to excellent optical quality of high end stills lenses, for everyday film work you need to have sets of lenses that open to the same stop right across the range of lenses. Currently still lenses tend to be be mostly f1.4 between 35mm and 85mm, then go to f2.8 at the wider focal lengths (with the odd f2.0), if not F3.5. They also don't have the same range of focal lengths that are currently available for cine lenses.

 

Stills lenses have been used with excellent results for specialised optical set ups eg macro or Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" candle light shots. They've also been converted for film work, I believe mostly for commercials, by the rental companies - this could've be partly driven by stills photographers moving over and preferring the look of the stills lenses. However, you tend not to see them listed so much these days.

 

I should add that I've used the Zeiss Contax lenses on my Aaton and I was happy with the results. Although, I found that the 35mm f1.4 was halfway between my T2 10-100 and my T1.3 Super Speed Distagon primes in terms of sharpness. The downside was having to eye focus the focus marks, which tends to slow things down.

 

I expect if there are enough FF35mm cameras the lens manufactures will produce suitable lenses. However, I can see people tending to back off a bit once you start having 10:1 zooms or T2 (or even T2.8) 18-100 zooms fitted to the cameras. Primes are one thing, but zooms tend to get rather large as the format size increases.

[Brian Drysdale]

I expect if there are enough FF35mm cameras the lens manufactures will produce suitable lenses. However, I can see people tending to back off a bit once you start having 10:1 zooms or T2 (or even T2.8) 18-100 zooms fitted to the cameras.

 

Perhaps I should have said a T2 ( or even T2.8) 28mm to 150mm zoom, which would roughly be the full frame equivalent

[Keith Walters]

Apart from all the above there is the simple fact that the various members of film crews have come to expect that certain types of equipment (such as lenses) will work in certain standardized ways.

They are generally monumentally uninterested in learning all the idiosyncrasies of somebody's cheapo engineering project, particularly with just a few hours notice.

 

It's a bit like hiring an office temp who would most likely only have training in the Major business office software packages, and expecting her/him to instantly master some weird Linux-Based bug-fest that your nephew wrote for a school project.

 

Of course if you're a one-man-band well good luck to you, but remember also that skills you learn on your bodgie equipment may not transfer too well to the real thing!

[Stephen Williams]

Of course if you're a one-man-band well good luck to you, but remember also that skills you learn on your bodgie equipment may not transfer too well to the real thing!

 

Hi Keith,

 

As those people don't earn their livings from shooting it really does not matter. The benefit of course is that they rush to buy cameras & subsidize the devolopement costs.

 

Stephen

[Keith Walters]

Hi Keith,

 

As those people don't earn their livings from shooting it really does not matter. The benefit of course is that they rush to buy cameras & subsidize the devolopement costs.

 

Stephen

There is that. It's like we wouldn't be able to do all the amazing things we can do on inexpensive PCs if they weren't subsidized by hundreds of millions of peabrains who just want to play games on them.

 

But I come from a background of watching people sinking vast amounts of money into get-rich-quick schemes involving buying video equipment that they have neither the talent, the discipline or the knowledge to make any money with. Not so bad if it's their own hard-earned money, but more often than not, it's their parents' money or some similar relative.

 

With video equipment, another problem is that they always expect they're going to compete with champagne competitors with beer equipment :lol:

 

Expensive kit usually has pretty good resale value, cheap crap has virtually zero.

[Stephen Williams]

Expensive kit usually has pretty good resale value, cheap crap has virtually zero.

 

Keith,

 

What value would you put on a 5 year old RED One?

I know an original Digital Betacam DVW700 that is still in use today after over 12 years service, they still charge about $700 a day & it gets used regularly

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Sorry Tom, I have to ask: have you ever even spoken to the people at Arri or Cooke?

 

Max, if you know something I don't, please tell me.

 

[Gary McClurg]

Max, if you know something I don't, please tell me.

 

 

Now makes you wonder... I see Red as a camera for the middle guy... if you can afford a set of $100k primes... you can afford the other highend cameras...

 

I'm still on the fence... a friend and I emailed each other yesterday... and for the money.. the Red One seems to still be the package we both like... yes 2k for different frame rates and ramping... to me I would give up that 6k for the F35 Scarlet which only goes to 30 frames and stick with the Red One...

 

See I like HD for the smaller films... those that go to HBO, Showtime, DVD... etc.. an unless it was a heavy ladden effects film... if I was doing a studio level film... I'd shoot film...

 

Plus Tom... I thought I read that all Cooke did was print they're name in red... they're not custom made glass for Red...

Edited November 20, 2008 by Gary McClurg

[Paul Bruening]

I love my Nikons and defend them often. But, I also know that their principle strength is that they are cheap. They have the highest quality to cost ratio of any lens available for cine cameras. Does that mean they are as good as a good cine lens? Absolutely not. As has been mentioned, they have various minimum stops which can result in lighting changes mid-scene just to change lens. They breathe (not worse than some notorious cine lenses, however). The focus ring throw is short (sometimes that's useful but more times a trouble). Nikons pull focus in the opposite direction as cines (though a little practice can eliminate that issue). Most still lenses tend to fall apart in image quality on the wide-open end, so, any fast lenses like the Nikon, 50mm f1.2 aren't so useful as you might originally think. Worst of all, they're not as sharp as a really good cine lens, which really does matter when going from a one inch wide transparency, through a couple of generations, to a 40' wide screen.

 

On the strengths side: the wider coverage means you don't see any vignetting or other edge related aberrations. It also allows you to cheat on camera mods since the still lenses can get away without lens re-centering if you don't mind a slightly offset centered image. If you're going DI the image sharpness isn't quite as big an issue as with an all optical path. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter. It's just that DI can be a little more forgiving of a less than super crisp lens. On the aesthetic side, you might actually prefer the look of a Nikon. Who's to say one lens is better than another from an artistic standpoint anyway? That's a personal decision. Oh, did I mention that they are cheap?

 

I bought all new Nikons simply for the high bang for the buck. I have eleven, factory fresh primes with Duclos focus gears for less than the price of one premium, prime, cine lens. No doubt, though, if I could have afforded a set of the best cine lenses I would have gotten them instead.

[Max Jacoby]

Plus Tom... I thought I read that all Cooke did was print they're name in red... they're not custom made glass for Red...

Exactly. These are regular S4s with 'RED' on them. To deduct from that that Cooke is going to design a completely new set of lenses to fit a bigger sensor is beyond ridiculous.

[Tom Lowe]

Now makes you wonder... I see Red as a camera for the middle guy... if you can afford a set of $100k primes... you can afford the other highend cameras...

 

Yeah, but what if Red One actually out-performs those other 1080p "high-end" cameras?

 

I'm still on the fence... a friend and I emailed each other yesterday... and for the money.. the Red One seems to still be the package we both like... yes 2k for different frame rates and ramping... to me I would give up that 6k for the F35 Scarlet which only goes to 30 frames and stick with the Red One...

 

Plus Tom... I thought I read that all Cooke did was print they're name in red... they're not custom made glass for Red...

 

Keep in mind that the Scarlet FF35 will be able to overcrank to 3K @ 60fps, presumably by cropping the sensor like R1 does.

 

Yeah, you might be right about Cooke. My point was, they don't seem to have any problem working with Red.

[Tenolian Bell]

Yes this happens with specialized and rarely used cine lens. It can be prohibitively expensive to ground new glass for a lens that will not be widely manufactured and rarely used. It can be easier and cheaper to rehouse still lens.

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Cine lenses are better made for pulling focus, but I have to say that from what I remember the Frazier system has a max aperture of something like 5.6-8.0 and is pretty widely known to be a re-housed and re-purposed(and remarkably well done) still lens system.

[Tenolian Bell]

Yeah, but what if Red One actually out-performs those other 1080p "high-end" cameras?

 

Red will not necessarily perform better than a 3 CCD uncompressed 1080 camera that has more megapixels and a higher analog to digital bit rate. Has anyone done a full out MTF test to see how they all perform.

 

 

 

Yeah, you might be right about Cooke. My point was, they don't seem to have any problem working with Red.

 

Slapping the name Red on common S4 is simply a marketing tactic. People are easily susceptible to marketing.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Exactly. These are regular S4s with 'RED' on them.

Yes but now they're revolutionary!

[Stephen Williams]

Yes but now they're revolutionary!

 

Hi,

 

The Cooke S4's Obsolescence Obsolete... more true than any digital camera from today or in the future,

 

Stephen

[Max Jacoby]

Yeah, you might be right about Cooke.

Might be right? It is the way Gary said. If you don't believe him, why not give the good people at Cooke a call so you don't have to indulge in useless speculation.

 

My point was, they don't seem to have any problem working with Red.

I don't understand why you bring up the issue of Cooke having or not having a problem working with Red. Cooke make PL mount lenses, Red has a PL mount, that 's all there is to it. Cooke sell lenses, they do not care what camera you put them on. It's a business.

 

Arri? Who knows. They are going to have worry about their camera business pretty soon here.

And as far as Arri is concerned, this is a company that's been around for over 90 years so they must be doing something right, don't you think? If you ever have the pleasure of using their equipment and/or dealing with the company, I'm sure you'd change your tiring and uninformed tune.