K Borowski Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) I'm sure we are just getting ourselves lost in definitions. My point is that if the diameter of the aperture at F2.8 is, for example 25mm, it will be fractionally bigger, say 27mm at T2.8. This larger aperture is to compensate for light loss, and as we all know larger apertures have less DoF. I think John and I just had a hard time seeing where you were comign from Stuart. You're just compensating in a different matter than we would. Hey, I know this is the internet and all, but pet peeve of mine: F/# (not F-#) and T-# (not T/#). This goes back to the definition of an F/stop. The division sign is a relic from when people actually did have to manually calculate the diameter of the stop in terms of the focal length of the lens. So "F/8" means your iris diameter is 1/8th of the focal length. That's why you'll also see the colon used ":" too, as it is to represent the fact that it isn't an actual measurement, merely a ratio relationship. So, if you're at F/2.8 on a 70mm lens, you'd be right Stuart, it would be a 25mm iris opening (assuming the manufacturer is being entirely honest). IDK if F/stops the standards organizations are really picky on, but there seems to be a whole bunch of leeway on the actual true focal length, sometimes being off by almost 10mm. Another gripe I have is that, often, the "mm" length is just poorly-rounded inches. Like, a "25mm" lens is a 1" (25.4mm). The cherished "127mm Graflex Lens" that was prized by news stringers for so long is a 5". What an ugly mix of units photography uses! Not that anyone really uses the calculations themselves anymore, but it'd be a simple matter if the true focal length were on the lens barrel and the same system used for measuring lens-to-subject distance were used in measuring the lens itself. Edited March 13, 2009 by Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You could boil it down to this: if you use f-stops on the lens, your DoF calculations will be correct, but your exposure will be slightly wrong. If you use t-stops, then your exposure will be correct, but your DoF will be slightly wrong.... Whether these differences actually make a difference is another question all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted March 13, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2009 You could boil it down to this: if you use f-stops on the lens, your DoF calculations will be correct, but your exposure will be slightly wrong. If you use t-stops, then your exposure will be correct, but your DoF will be slightly wrong..... Yes, or if you have both scales on the lens, use f/ for the generic DOF tables, and T- for exposure. If you have a DOF table specific to the make and model of lens, it may use either or both. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 14, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2009 Hi, Red seem to have learnt a thing or two since the 18-50 zoom. Mark L Pederson of Off Hollywood described the new RED primes "these are S4 killers. Period". Looks like there will be some real competition for Jan's lenses. Strephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) (...) I understand the first lenses will be 25, 32, 40, 50, 75,95 Second round 12, 14, 16 as well as the 150 Lenses will be T2 or better. Final pricing could be 2500, depending on volume. Beta test sets are available to buy at 2000 per lens. Edit - I have since been informed delivery is March/April Stephen, Where have you found this information? E. :-) EDIT -- Editing the quote. Edited March 14, 2009 by Emanuel A Guedes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) these are S4 killers. Period Stephen, how about a coherent, scientifically-supported quote? This is as much hype as RED was. Their talking hasn't stood up on the big screen or on HD on the internet here either. Whose lenses are they rehousing this time? Sorry, but their last batch was more than severely lacking, it was a blatant-knock-off. I mean, obviously, I am in the KODAK camp, but BOY, did they make some poor lenses themselves. . . {Sorry, I don't know how to spell. . .} Edited March 14, 2009 by Tim Tyler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted March 14, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2009 This is as much bull hype as RED was. Knowing that the founder of RED used to be with Oakley, and hearing so many times what a marketing genius he is, I am always surprised by the way he has handled the RED publicity. One of the truest signs of someone's insecurity about something they are trying to convince others of, is the regular use of exaggeration or hyperbole in their descriptions. We've all read how the RED camera is not just a good video camera that gives a film like look, but that it "revolutionizes filmmaking" (and what does that even mean exactly, what kind of revolution in filmmaking can possibly be brought on by a camera?). In searching for information on the new RED prime lenses, the same thing can be found. The descriptions are littered with phrases like: "To be honest, I expected the Red Pro Primes to be ... GOOD. I did not expect them to be STUNNING." "Then I put the 50mm RED PRO PRIME on the projector - turned to Jarred, speechless" Now I've had the opportunity to look at many different high end lenses on a lens projector, from Cooke S4's to Zeiss Master Primes, and Ultra Primes, and to my eye some looked better than others, but is was all in subtle variations. Nothing looked STUNNING compared to the others, and certainly no lens left me SPEECHLESS. I think the folks who would like to promote the RED camera system may have better success if they would drop all the hype and "zooming" and just give their reasoned opinions on what they observe from using the equipment. Just my 2¢ worth, -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Your POV, Tim, is from a professional, I believe. Used to a different sales approach, as we all know. Jim has to deal with his visionary dream and target offering his products to a vast group of potential customers. As RED customer, I must say I like to know that he's reaching his policy and goal, getting success with the economies of scale strategy in order to keep the prices down. Same with Jan, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 14, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2009 As RED customer, I must say I like to know that he's reaching his policy and goal, getting success with the economies of scale strategy in order to keep the prices down. Hi Emanuel, That was idea behind the original RED 18-50 zoom, many people were speechless when they first saw that one! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted March 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2009 As many people know, we consider these internet forums a waste of time.jan von krogh So ... where's Wally, I mean Jan? Has he turned into a forum seagull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Jim has to deal with his visionary dream and target offering his products to a vast group of potential customers. How much do you get paid to say this? Save the hype and drama for REDuser and a TV reality show, respectively. . . :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Rogers Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 "To be honest, I expected the Red Pro Primes to be ... GOOD. I did not expect them to be STUNNING." "Then I put the 50mm RED PRO PRIME on the projector - turned to Jarred, speechless" Now I've had the opportunity to look at many different high end lenses on a lens projector, from Cooke S4's to Zeiss Master Primes, and Ultra Primes, and to my eye some looked better than others, but is was all in subtle variations. Nothing looked STUNNING compared to the others, and certainly no lens left me SPEECHLESS. Yes, but that's because you were looking at lenses that all cost roughly the same amount. They are coming out with lenses that match the Ultra Primes and S4's at 32% the cost. If someone came out with a car that matched BMW/Lexus quality at $10,000, would you not be pretty impressed? My impression is that they were not expecting the lenses to quite be the optical quality of the top of the line primes, but they seem to be. So if you set the bar "here" and the end results end up being "wayyyyy over there", then you might be stunned also. The S4 killer comment was made by someone who is not employed by RED, but has a very good standing in the production community. I believe it was meant towards, why pay more for S4's when you can get the same quality for much less? Of course, depending on how the glass renders an image (warm/cold/soft/sharp/etc.) you might still like the look of S4's. And if anyone doubts RED's lens making (yes, the 18-50 was not a top end cine lens), get your hands on the 18-85. It is a VERY nice piece of glass both optically and mechanically. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2009 Some people are more generous with their superlatives than others, that's all. But Mark Pederson is a professional whose opinions you need to take seriously. Some others, yes, are so prone to hyperbole that it's harder to take them seriously. I personally still wouldn't necessarily describe a lens that manages to each parity with most professional lenses as "stunning" because then it suggests that most professional lenses are stunning (well, maybe they are!) But I would describe it as a significant achievement, certainly an exciting one for the market. If these lenses are as optically good as some say they are, then the next test will be the robustness and mechanics of the lens. In the past, we have seen some optically good lenses enter the market that did not stand up well to the rigors of filmmaking or the rental market. But this seems to be a great development for people who need to buy good, fast PL-mount lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gardner Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 There are still shots of images from these lenses over at Reduser. They look nice. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted March 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2009 There are still shots of images from these lenses over at Reduser. They look nice. Nick Got a link? Best, -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gardner Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Reduser post with frame grabs from myster german quality lenses. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27624 Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted March 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 16, 2009 Think of it this way: What does it cost to make a lens? There are two parts: 1. Design and tooling costs, divided over the production life of the design 2. Material and labor costs, the cost of making each unit. The cost per lens is its type 2 cost, plus the type 1 cost divided by the total number of lenses you make. So, the more lenses you make, the less it costs to make each one. The Red camera has created a huge new demand for lenses. We've seen how it has distorted the market for crummy old PL glass, what I call "sub-prime" lenses. Entrepreneurs are betting on hitting a price performance point that will capture a large enough share of that market to gain the advantage of those economies of scale. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Entrepreneurs are betting on hitting a price performance point that will capture a large enough share of that market to gain the advantage of those economies of scale. Are they still betting on this with the current financial recession? I wouldn't be. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Rogers Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Are they still betting on this with the current financial recession? I wouldn't be. . . I would. Considering that there are still tons of projects being shot, and tons more indie films (even in the down market), it's a good bet. Plus, the market will probably be up at least some by the end of the year. You've got to remember that these are $100,000 lenses. They are in the $15,000-$40,000 range. That makes them much more affordable, and people like ME can afford to have their businesses buy gear in that price range still. I'd say the markets that are more hurting right now are the markets below that range (more of the truly hobby type people), and the people above it (bigger rental houses that can afford not to really buy much gear this year.) Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted March 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 16, 2009 Are they still betting on this with the current financial recession? I wouldn't be. . . I'm pretty "in the dark" about most things RED, but I was surfing around the RED site trying to find information on the lenses, and I ran across a number of posts by Jim Jannard talking about the upcoming cameras and how the demand they were counting on (projected number of units they thought they would sell) has dropped significantly because of the economy. I got the impression from the posts that much of the pricing for the lower end cameras was based on a fairly large number of units being sold each year. Now with the economy in the tank for the foreseeable future, RED is cutting back on overtime and their push for getting the lower end cameras to market in the timeframe they were originally predicting. I wonder if it will also raise the prices. That would seem to follow. To me at least, it seems that RED's whole business plan was based on selling large quantities of their products, as demonstrated with the RED ONE. They have probably sold more RED ONE cameras than ARRI has sold 235, 435, 535, Arricam LT, Arricam ST and Arriflex 416's combined. But with the economy in the shape it is in, I wonder if that business plan is sustainable? Best, -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Duffy Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) Any idea who makes these lenses? :unsure: The photos on Red User look promising. Are Jan's lenses the same ones? Edited March 17, 2009 by Neil Duffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 17, 2009 Any idea who makes these lenses? :unsure: The photos on Red User look promising. Are Jan's lenses the same ones? Those are RED primes, not Jan's primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hawkes Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 But with the economy in the shape it is in, I wonder if that business plan is sustainable? Best, -Tim A 4 page thread about some lens that don´t even exist should give you an idea about how much is happening these days! But when things are slow you have really nothing else to do except R&D - so I´m all for some more lens literature! Jan, where are you? M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted March 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted March 17, 2009 Are they still betting on this with the current financial recession? . . Basically, they'd be stuck if they wanted to change their minds. These kinds of projects take time, and you have to commit to them up front. Remember, the economy didn't crap out until very recently, just last October. They probably had most of the money spent before then. You place your bets, and sometimes lightning strikes your damn horse while they're running. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 How much do you get paid to say this? Save the hype and drama for REDuser and a TV reality show, respectively. . . :ph34r: I could check this your provocation only today. What's your problem? Didn't your mother teach you to respect the others? Or at least their opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts