Something to consider...

[Evin Grant]

For those out there that think still lenses are inferior optically to cinema specifc glass open your eyes...

"Panavision: The most commonly used source of anamorphic lenses , Panavision have several series of lenses which range from 20 mm to a 2,000 mm anamorphic telescope. The C-Series, which are the oldest lens series, are small and lightweight, which makes them very popular for steadicams. Some cinematographers prefer these to newer lenses because they are lower in contrast. The E-Series, which are Nikon glass, are sharper than the C-Series and are better color- matched. They are also faster, but the minimum focus distance on the shorter focal lengths is not as good. The E135mm and especially the E180mm are great close-up lenses with the best minimum focus of any long Panavision anamorphic lenses. The Super (High) Speed Lenses, also with glass by Nikon, are the fastest anamorphic lenses available with T-stops between 1.4 and 1.8; there is even one T1.1 50mm. But like all anamorphic lenses they need to be stopped down to get a good performance, as they are quite soft when they are wide open. The Primo and Close-Focus Primo Series, which are Panavision's latest anamorphic lens series. They are based on the spherical Primos and are the sharpest Panavision anamorphics available, as well as completely color-matched. But they are also very heavy (between 5 and 7 kilograms)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
Yes I know it's Wikipedia but it's been widely known for years that Panavisions anamorphics are none other than modified & rehoused Nikon still lenses.

[Don Woods]

Very Good Evin I think we are going to see a very nice fit between red and nikon.

[Jaime Vallés]

Awesome. Makes me feel reallly good about using Nikon lenses. Now all I need is a good Follow Focus unit and a lot of practice.

[PaulClements]

Problem is you need to take something like that and get it too all prospective clients that don't know or couldn't care less, and just see "SLR lenses?... Hmmph, I want professional gear!".

It's not so much a question of whether the Nikon's or other SLR lenses will work as much as it is a question of how other professionals in the field perceive your setup I suppose. An AC that knows cine lenses might be a bit apprehensive about SLR's... of course they can learn, and why not. But at the end of the day there are a great many individuals who would rather just have the name product there because it's not an unknown.

I think the results that get posted up here over the next year of Red footage using Nikon glass will certainly open peoples eyes to the benefits of price. Especially when they see what a $100 lens can do compared to it's >$4000 counterpart.

[James T Mather]

Problem is you need to take something like that and get it too all prospective clients that don't know or couldn't care less, and just see "SLR lenses?... Hmmph, I want professional gear!".

I would think it's a non issue provided the lenses are colour matched and focus correctly at the sensor -
I find Clients generally won't know/care about cameras or lenses - we use them already and no-one's noticed - the Frazier Lens system which, upon first use, I suspected utilised SLR lenses (in addition to a ton of wickedly clever optical wizardry by Jim Frazier) but the actual lenses themselves that pop on the front of this thing seemed, to me, to be stills lenses.So I checked this out:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Hcm

"Thus, all the objective lenses for the Panavision/Frazier lens are actually off-the-shelf 35mm SLR lenses (for those not in the know, the 35mm SLR format is larger than the 35mm Cine format) that Panavision strips out of their casings and remounts in custom casings that only fit the Panavision/Frazier lens. (Curiously, despite this remounting, Panavision continues to designate the objectives by their original focal length, not by the EFL obtained when mounted on the system)."


- but producers, on the other hand, will be uncomfortable taking a risk on unproven gear - make a demo or show them something - after that add a mattebox and some filters and noone will know nor care.

The main reason, I think, for going PL is that the stills lenses are not generally designed for critical focus pulling in a high pressure environment - colour matching and T-Stop matching are also possibly not balanced and finally, the wider lenses in Nikon (for example) are 2.8 - 3.5. This, I think is disastrous for high speed, high pressure shooting. Your widest lenses (which means that your lighting package will be doing its least) are slow. That's the deal-breaker from where I'm standing. A 50mm capable of 1.8 is fine but you're only as good as your slowest lens - and if that lens is your widest - then god help you on a night exterior when you're leaning hardest on fast lenses.

In short - if your film is a nighttime drama - like Collateral or After Hours - then I suggest you rent some superspeeds.

If its a daytime drama - you're fine.


It's not so much a question of whether the Nikon's or other SLR lenses will work as much as it is a question of how other professionals in the field perceive your setup I suppose. .

Just mention the Frazier lens.


I think the results that get posted up here over the next year of Red footage using Nikon glass will certainly open peoples eyes to the benefits of price. Especially when they see what a $100 lens can do compared to it's >$4000 counterpart.

I imagine there will be some, but not a crazy difference - it's all supply and demand - why are Arri standard mount lenses so much cheaper than PL? for that very reason - supply and demand. Pro equipment commands a much higher rate and Arri standard is seen as "older" gear.

Someone will win Sundance on a film shot on a digital system using Nikon lenses - the audience won't notice - and they'll be legitimised. It's the way things have always been.

[Alexander Nikishin]

jtm,

I think you forgot one of the largest issues in concerns to Nikon stills.....breathing.

Although they may hold up in sharpness, contrast, ca, so on so forth, they breathe quite a bit.

I love my Nikkor prime set, but if I had the choice, largely due to the amount of breathing and measuring system of Nikkors, I'd drag a client over to a set of ultra primes or s4's with ease.

For the budget conscious, Nikkors are a killing in terms of a bargain. I've shot many beautiful images with my Nikkors and a 35 adapter. Yet there is a large difference and I don't think we should attempt to fool our clients into thinking they're getting apples for apples in comparison to cine glass.

[Evin Grant]

But let's be honest do you see it? If your looking for it it can be found but in most circumstances it's hidden in moves or action and dosen't even become visable unless the focus shift is dramatic, beyond six feet or so. I'm not saying still lenses don't breath (Although the 17-35 Nikkor is as good as any cinema prime) but is it really an issue that demands a $15K-$25K investment to solve? For me it's not. As far as focusing there are practical solutions being developed by many company's to address the issues still lenses have with focusing. The best of these may end up being Red's own focus assist.

So the question I pose to you is if the market creates a solution to focusing/distance and we all agree the sharpness/quality of the glass is up to snuff is the breathing on a handfull of shots enough of an issue for you to spend as much or poossibly more than your Red cost in order to remedy it.

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

[Sam Druckerman]

"BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnification difference to correct the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you."

Great thread.

This is what I've been thinking and hoping all along.

We have so much resolution to play with it really shouldn't be that big a deal to simply reframe the move in a NLE.

This will be one of the first things I test when my camera comes....

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

[James T Mather]

Yet there is a large difference and I don't think we should attempt to fool our clients into thinking they're getting apples for apples in comparison to cine glass.

Alexander, please don't put words in my mouth - where in my post did I say that? I said this :


I find Clients generally won't know/care about cameras or lenses


and this :

- but producers, on the other hand, will be uncomfortable taking a risk on unproven gear - make a demo or show them something - after that add a matte-box and some filters and no-one will know nor care.

I have never discussed a lens with a client. Clients care about the product - they don't know the difference between cine and stills lenses, they want a sharp picture and clean, professional work - the details are left up to us. If breathing happens to be your foil - great - others hate CA or veiling glare or barrel distortion or narcissus or...the list goes on.

I agree with Evin - it's what you choose to see - "Cine Glass" as you put it is just as capable of artifacting as any other lens - for example, anamorphics generally breathe horribly when rack focus pulled. Particularly the Primo Close Focus Anamorphics (possibly the most sophisticated anamorphics I've ever used). I'm currently shooting a job on a very old set of Zeiss superspeeds (yes, the ones with the triangular circular bokeh - they're the only prime lenses available in the country we're shooting in for a variety of reasons) and the director (who generally shoots anamorphic) loves them because they are so optically messy. he's not impressed by primos or S4s (and hates all digital cameras including the Genesis and the d20) . It's all relative.

99% of jobs I do are on PV Primos. Yet I have to agree with the director in this case - it is a refreshing change to use some interesting lenses with odd and interesting optical characteristics - I might not want it everyday, but , today it's an interesting and fun change from the norm. and we didn't have to sell the client apples or anything else because the client didn't care less - he's interested in the product being sold.

[Evin Grant]

Thanks JTM, sometimes it's hard to get people to think pragmatically like that. It's funny how much the Zeiss zelots who say still lenses are useless, sound like all the video guys who tell me Red can't make a 4k camera because Sony hasn't. :poster_oops:

[Poi Boy]

Given the price and quality of my Nikkors I am giving up very little in performance compared to cine lenses.
Aloha
-A

[Ken Corben]

Thanks Evin!

Very interesting facts. Since we are all exploring new ground here in different genres, thanks to RED, the proof will be in the RED testing similar to all your lens work to date for specific applications - theatrical, HDTV, digital projections and the list goes on.

[Alexander Nikishin]

So the question I pose to you is if the market creates a solution to focusing/distance and we all agree the sharpness/quality of the glass is up to snuff is the breathing on a handfull of shots enough of an issue for you to spend as much or poossibly more than your Red cost in order to remedy it.

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

Hey I'm all for shooting with Nikkors Evin. But, if the production allows for a set of S4's or Master/Ultra's, I'd easily accept the offer.

Newer cine glass breathe's less, has extensive barrel markings, has better overall ca/contrast/sharpness. So the cost may be 10x the cost of a Nikkor prime set, yet you can't deny their quality.

Sadly, customers do care about name brands. Owning a set of Zeiss or Cooke primes will guarantee you more work, if not rentals without a problem. So I consider it somewhat of an investment vs. a loss.

I'd really love to see a comparison of say an ultra prime vs. Nikkor in regards to sharpness, breathing, ca and the like.

[Hrvoje Simic]

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

Oh, I will gladly withstand the pain of that 10 sec. action in post or NLE as many times as necessary...

[Evin Grant]

Newer cine glass breathe's less, has extensive barrel markings, has better overall ca/contrast/sharpness. So the cost may be 10x the cost of a Nikkor prime set, yet you can't deny their quality.

Sure I can, it depends on the glass, Cooke S4s are not that sharp, there not suposed to be. The softness is what makest them an alternative to Zeiss.
They resolve fine though, almost all reasonably good optics will resolve enough for 35mm film. That includes still lenses, which are rutinely used at resolutions beyond Reds 4K. As far as CA correction that depends on how old the lenses are, what is your definition of "modern"? The only 35mm cinema optics I know of that were designed for a digital sensor are the Zeiss Master Primes.


Sadly, customers do care about name brands. Owning a set of Zeiss or Cooke primes will guarantee you more work, if not rentals without a problem. So I consider it somewhat of an investment vs. a loss.

I don't think this will be so for much longer. Hopefully enough Red shooters can prove to the comunity that using high priced cinema lenses is as much of an anachronsim as using glorified video cameras to make movies.
BTW I do consider Reds own lenses a part of that evolution, if Zeiss made a 18-85mm 2.8 it would cost $30K



I'd really love to see a comparison of say an ultra prime vs. Nikkor in regards to sharpness, breathing, ca and the like.

Hopefully soon:bleh:

[Mark Mannschreck]

Sure I can, it depends on the glass, Cooke S4s are not that sharp, there not suposed to be. The softness is what makest them an alternative to Zeiss.
They resolve fine though, almost all reasonably good optics will resolve enough for 35mm film. That includes still lenses, which are rutinely used at resolutions beyond Reds 4K. As far as CA correction that depends on how old the lenses are, what is your definition of "modern"? The only 35mm cinema optics I know of that were designed for a digital sensor are the Zeiss Master Primes.



I don't think this will be so for much longer. Hopefully enough Red shooters can prove to the comunity that using high priced cinema lenses is as much of an anachronsim as using glorified video cameras to make movies.
BTW I do consider Reds own lenses a part of that evolution, if Zeiss made a 18-85mm 2.8 it would cost $30K



Hopefully soon:bleh:

The problem is there are just sooooOO many Nikkors out there! Although this great forum and sites like www.naturfotograf.com will no doubt help out many who plan to use quality Nikkors with their Red to produce stunning imagery, I think that knowledgeable DP's, Directors, and even Producers will continue to request a lens package that has a proven track record. Of course, I am using the 17-35, the 35-70, and the 85mm Nikkor right out of the gate with Red and I'm sure they will kick ASS.


But let's be honest do you see it? If your looking for it it can be found but in most circumstances it's hidden in moves or action and dosen't even become visable unless the focus shift is dramatic, beyond six feet or so. I'm not saying still lenses don't breath (Although the 17-35 Nikkor is as good as any cinema prime) but is it really an issue that demands a $15K-$25K investment to solve? For me it's not. As far as focusing there are practical solutions being developed by many company's to address the issues still lenses have with focusing. The best of these may end up being Red's own focus assist.

So the question I pose to you is if the market creates a solution to focusing/distance and we all agree the sharpness/quality of the glass is up to snuff is the breathing on a handfull of shots enough of an issue for you to spend as much or poossibly more than your Red cost in order to remedy it.

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

Correcting the breathing of multiple focus pulls in Post is not really as simple as adding a couple of scale keyframes to counteract the magnification factor during the pull. There is always the human factor of the pull and the graduated velocity between the two points that can make it fairly difficult to accomplish... BTW - Breathing isn't a problem if you just shoot "Drunk Cam" all the time.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Evin, In the end, when dealing with a client I'll take the approach of........ Well I have a set of Nikkor primes we can shoot with if the S4's or ultra primes aren't within your budget.

Without a doubt, modern primes (Ultra, Master, S4 heck even SS Mk3's) out-do Nikkors. I'm not saying there will be a night and day difference by any means, rather a slight advantage here or there, but never the less, an upgrade in comparison with Nikkors.

[Finner]

Evan I would not disagree with you that nikon and other still lens companies build good lenses. When it comes to using them for cine use a nikon will not be as good or easy to use as a S4 or Ultra prime set. Cine lenses are a dead match on color, end barrel size, T stop and have a great long focus throw. A brand name cine lens is superior.

Now I do not doubt that people will be able to produce great images with the nikons. When it comes to breaking down cost to performance difference I believe the nikons will be the winner but when it comes to a set that will be the easiest to work with and the best results even if it is slight, it will be the cine lenses.

[Evin Grant]

When it comes to using them for cine use a nikon will not be as good or easy to use as a S4 or Ultra prime set. Cine lenses are a dead match on color, end barrel size, T stop and have a great long focus throw. A brand name cine lens is superior.

Cinema lenses are certainly purpose built and so do perform better ergonomically than thier still counterparts. But let me ask you this, have you ever shot with a Zeiss or Cooke lens on a 35mm sensor digital camera at 4K? I'm assuming no, neither have I. But I have shot many Nikkors at that resolution digitally and know exactly what to expect. At the moment it's the Nikkors that are the known performers not the cinema lenses. We can make guesses based on their film performance but there is really no way to know till the Red ships. So we don't know that Zeiss or Cooke primes are better, in fact I think it's actually those lenses that have to prove themselves now. As far as color matching is concerned this is really no issue in a RAW based workflow and I've been shooting Nikkors for years and compositing diffrent lenses together, there is very little if any color diffrence inside a particular lens line. As far as focus draw, I have a feeling that will be solved by the marketplace.



Now I do not doubt that people will be able to produce great images with the nikons. When it comes to breaking down cost to performance difference I believe the nikons will be the winner but when it comes to a set that will be the easiest to work with and the best results even if it is slight, it will be the cine lenses.

The cine lenses may be easier to work with, but not as easy as a producer who just saved thousands of dolllars in rentals for the same quality of work.

All that said I'd still like to see Red create an affordable prime set with all those features you mentioned and the digital specific performace necesary for the Mysterium sensor.

[Finner]

But let me ask you this, have you ever shot with a Zeiss or Cooke lens on a 35mm sensor digital camera at 4K? I'm assuming no, neither have I.

All that said I'd still like to see Red create an affordable prime set with all those features you mentioned and the digital specific performace necesary for the Mysterium sensor.

I have shot Ultra Primes testing with D20 (2K) and 435. The cine lenses looked great on the d20 and I would not hesitate to use them with that camera. I am very excited though to see independant DP tests with the red and different lenses.

I also would like to see a set of red primes.

The next few months should be very exciting.

[Andrew M.]

But I have shot many Nikkors at that resolution digitally and know exactly what to expect. At the moment it's the Nikkors that are the known performers not the cinema lenses.

Evin, You shot many still pictures, I presume?
I did many as well, up to 16MP sensors.
We have to remember that cine screen is much larger than the material that we look at while shooting the stills.

I have seen some statement that there is no point of going with the resolution more then 60 Lp/mm on the film material because human eye is only 6 to 10 Lp/mm.
Hmm… I guess guy forgot that we can turn our head ~40 deg right or left easy, when we are in the cinema. We do not tend to do it when we are watching the printed material or even HDTV. Home theater screens though are getting bigger and bigger so we want to have these crisp, tons of details materials.

Second statement I have seen was that some lenses are to sharp (Nicon’s)
I think RED is too sharp for these guys all togheter.
Too sharp for what shots? Not for Nature or Science films?
If you want soft, add some softenees in post and whatever art look and fill you do want.
But once you have soft lenses then, forget about the shoots that needs the details.

My experience with sill camera lenses is that all of them have it’s sweet spots and if picked wisely and used with limited zoom range and stop range, all will deliver 150Lp/mm

[Evin Grant]

Evin, You shot many still pictures, I presume?
I did many as well, up to 16MP sensors.
We have to remember that cine screen is much larger than the material that we look at while shooting the stills.

Viewing distance is relative, I routinely print 2'x4' from my D2x and Nikkors and view them from two feet away. That is about the same magnification as a scope projection from the front section, and the movement and temporal resolution of projection will work in my favor on the Red.

[Andrew M.]

Viewing distance is relative, I routinely print 2'x4' from my D2x and Nikkors and view them from two feet away. That is about the same magnification as a scope projection from the front section, and the movement and temporal resolution of projection will work in my favor on the Red.

I agree and that’s why we moved above 10MP for large format.
At this size, prints from 8MP will not look great and lenses are more and more crucial factor.
What they say, the human eye has 1' (minute) angular resolution?
Now convert it to pixels:-)

[Andrew M.]

the movement and temporal resolution of projection will work in my favor on the Red.

Actually you touched interesting subject.
Temporal will add to the sensor perceived resolution, so lenses have to deliver even more when sensor gets better? (pixel is in slight offset while moving)
Also I have noticed, for 100 deg shots looking on the stills that do not move, it doesn’t bother me if details on the edges are bit of focus or curved.
The same on the moving picture will bother me, especially if it is long shot.
Maybe because it is not only the still picture out of the ordinary look there but the whole movement of the object and perspective play is off.
I am more forgiving to the out of the order item on the large still picture that on the movie screen.
Should be other way around.
Is that me or you do have the same impression?

[Evin Grant]

Actually you touched interesting subject.
Temporal will add to the sensor perceived resolution, so lenses have to deliver even more when sensor gets better? (pixel is in slight offset while moving)
Also I have noticed, for 100 deg shots looking on the stills that do not move, it doesn’t bother me if details on the edges are bit of focus or curved.
The same on the moving picture will bother me, especially if it is long shot.
Maybe because it is not only the still picture out of the ordinary look there but the whole movement of the object and perspective play is off.
I am more forgiving to the out of the order item on the large still picture that on the movie screen.
Should be other way around.
Is that me or you do have the same impression?

It's just you. Or more to the point it's you thinking you see this. When it's your own tests your scanning the screen fore every little imperfection but almost all of them are hidden by the process. Watch the Bullit HD-DVD and you'll see what lens abberation really is. I've never seen CA that bad in a movie before.

[Paul Hazlett]

I think we also have to view this topic in the context of using red in the first
place. When your client walks on to the set, what he sees is going to be totally alien in the first place. Whatever your shooting, Movies, eng, Doco.
having a red camera there is going to be the first jolt, but once you the client
sees the image and you are able to bring the clients vision to life, they will buy in.

I had the same problem with perception when I first bought a dvx100 for clients that did not want to spend the money on a bigger rig, once they saw
the images they came to terms with the method. The main thing is YOU have to be good enough to make it happen. Red and all the cine lenses in the world
will not make you (put favorite director here), you have to have the skill to make it happen.

[James T Mather]

Vis a vis earlier posts regarding Nikkors "breathing" -

Yesterday (yes, good Friday - apparently it's "not a bank holiday" according to the producers but a common law holiday and, as such, not subject to crushing OT - but I digress ) - At the last second on the recce the director opted to get a zoom.

For S16 I would generally use the Canon 8-64 but the PV tech said that I should try the Zeiss 10-1 - better optically- in the spirit of adventure I used it (Had a set of Superspeeds in the case as well) - we popped the Zeiss on and, yes, it's clean optically (less milky on the long end) but oh-my-god the breathing on focus pulls looked like something from a spaghetti western. It was crazy and, I would have said, unusable for anything but a film composed entirely of statics.

Now I have recently been mucking around with the SGpro and the Nikons (f2 - 28, 50, 105) - and have to say that there is very little in the way of breathing with these lenses. They look to me similar to regular cine lenses in that regard - certainly not objectionable - and definitely usable. Breathingwise, in comparison with the S16 Zeiss 1-10 - they look like Masterprimes.

Just my 2 yen. :)

[tj williams]

This is a really interesting thread....
All The nikons have the marks very close together on the barrel.
in close there are not very many marks. Sure Nikons can make great images
sure they don't breath all that much....... So we use them in the movie and then......We dolly in, pan over pull focus to the star... she does the best take of the day and... it's soft.... Someone comes down on the 1st about it and he/she says...... You know what they are gonna say.......

Maybe RED will re-house a bunch of Nikkors or Canons??

[Michael Hastings]

TJ I will be doing mostly wildlife and documentary stuff, but since part of my idea of getting a RED is to try doing some low budget features,let me ask: On a normal film shoot is the focus puller using only the marks or does he/she have some sort of viewfinder? What I am driving at is will we be in a better position with RED since we can give the puller either the LCD or the viewfinder to see focus (maybe with whatever focus expansion magic that RED is supposed to show us at NAB?) Does this then become less of an issue also given the use of follow focus extensions that could provide finer focusing through gears.

BTW IMHO it seems to me that in any major budget picture it would be foolish to use anything but the type of Cine lenses everyone is used to and the cost of renting those lenses would be trivial in the overall budget.

On the other hand on a low budget feature, maybe everyone knows there will be a few more of those snafus.

For the low budget feature i.e. 250K to 2.5Mil, what would we expect to pay to rent a set of the high end lenses - I can read a rental price sheet but what about the real world of longer term rentals and/or availability of these lens packages already owned by a DP. In other words if it is going to cost $20K to have a set for a 25 day shoot on a 250-500K budget do we instead use our own still primes and spend the 20K on a few days of a somewhat known TV actor instead? Or are there sufficiently good deals to be had, that it wouldn't cost that much?




This is a really interesting thread....
All The nikons have the marks very close together on the barrel.
in close there are not very many marks. Sure Nikons can make great images
sure they don't breath all that much....... So we use them in the movie and then......We dolly in, pan over pull focus to the star... she does the best take of the day and... it's soft.... Someone comes down on the 1st about it and he/she says...... You know what they are gonna say.......

Maybe RED will re-house a bunch of Nikkors or Canons??

[Evin Grant]

TJ I will be doing mostly wildlife and documentary stuff, but since part of my idea of getting a RED is to try doing some low budget features,let me ask: On a normal film shoot is the focus puller using only the marks or does he/she have some sort of viewfinder? What I am driving at is will we be in a better position with RED since we can give the puller either the LCD or the viewfinder to see focus (maybe with whatever focus expansion magic that RED is supposed to show us at NAB?) Does this then become less of an issue also given the use of follow focus extensions that could provide finer focusing through gears.


This is what I'm counting on.



BTW IMHO it seems to me that in any major budget picture it would be foolish to use anything but the type of Cine lenses everyone is used to and the cost of renting those lenses would be trivial in the overall budget.


Of course, as it should be.



On the other hand on a low budget feature, maybe everyone knows there will be a few more of those snafus.

For the low budget feature i.e. 250K to 2.5Mil, what would we expect to pay to rent a set of the high end lenses - I can read a rental price sheet but what about the real world of longer term rentals and/or availability of these lens packages already owned by a DP. In other words if it is going to cost $20K to have a set for a 25 day shoot on a 250-500K budget do we instead use our own still primes and spend the 20K on a few days of a somewhat known TV actor instead? Or are there sufficiently good deals to be had, that it wouldn't cost that much?
You could probabl get some cheaper primes but they may not perform as well if they are older. So much of this is conjecture till we see what's what at NAB. I think personal projects and very low/no budget films are a perfect fit for still lenses. Otherwise a good set of primes S4/Ultra/Master should be a priority.

[Michael Hastings]

Evin:

I think we're on the same page.

I've worked with some major stars on the documentary side, but I've never been on a major motion picture set, so what do they do - I assume the DP/camera operator has the viewfinder so what does the focus puller use?

[M Olsen]

Evin:

I think we're on the same page.

I've worked with some major stars on the documentary side, but I've never been on a major motion picture set, so what do they do - I assume the DP/camera operator has the viewfinder so what does the focus puller use?

A good A\C uses a Reference monitor just for that purpose. They still use marks and distance references to do their stuff. A\C's that just rely on an LCD screen I try and educate .. there is no substitute for intuitively learning distance. The reference monitor is primarily useful for checking timings for focus pulls, shot size etc.
Having said that.. these (HD) days and this will apply to our Red shoots of course, someone will be watching a high res monitor and can comment on focus.
Thats my old school belief anyway and at the risk of sounding immodest I did a pretty good job !

[Michael Hastings]

Thanks, turnover.

RED will be revolutionary in a lot of ways, but there are a lot of techniques and methods that will remain the same - and there will be a lot of us coming over from the video world that want to learn whatever we can from the film pros.

[Álex Montoya]

What about the sensor area? I mean, 35mm SLRs use a bigger film area than cinema cameras... Does that mean that using a 17mm nikkor with the RED would equal around a 20mm prime?

[Evin Grant]

17-35mm Nikkor will be the equivelent of a 27-57mm in 35mm still format FOV.

[Álex Montoya]

Ok, thanks, Evin. I will pick the RED with the minimum and my first approach will be working with still lenses.

[Evin Grant]

Me too, untill my Red primes are ready.

[Rodrigo Lizana]

Zeiss makes lenses like the Master Primes and lenses like the ones on the Sony handycam cameras (or licensed the technology to Sony) but this doesn´t mean that their video or still photo line is near in quality to their cine line.
Zeiss cine lenses are amazing lenses. It´s true pleasure to work with and I´m yet to see a still 35mm lens that rivals their image quality not to mention they are build like rocks (considering they are glasses).

Can´t talk about the Panaisvon thought.

[Evin Grant]

If we could all afford Master Primes (Or if they were affordable) this would not be much of an argument. Of course if you hae the bucks rent the MPs. But alas most of us will not have that kind of money, even for rentals. My point is that you can get moust of the way there with still lenses. And you might be surprised just how well the do. In the end once you out resolve the sensor the rest becomes gravy.

[sully]

I have a dream..."I am hand holding my Red One with a 28mm lens at T3 following Helen Mirren on a moodily lit set. She is giving the most emotionally rich performance of her life. This is her best take. But instead of going to her old mark, she turns and walks toward me. Instinctively, I focus 'Clock Wise' as she nears me. However, the lens is a Nikon prime. I should be focusing 'Counter Clock Wise' to keep her in focus....Of course I ruin the take and the dream becomes a nightmare." Please, please, please...make a Leicaflex to Pl adapter so older cameramen (trained for decades on cine and video lenses that focus 'Clock Wise' for close up) can "instinctively" make the right focusing decisions under pressure.
Canon FD and Canon Eos lenses also focus the "Old Way" like Leicaflex, Zeiss, Cooke, and Angenieux. I agree completely with Evin that Nikon lenses will make beautiful images. For the price they can't be beat. But for older operators or DPs that do their own focusing, we need those Leicaflex lenses.

[David Mullen ASC]

I once did a movie with Helen Mirren -- don't worry, she'll hit her mark! She's a total pro and a sweetheart as well, very easy to work with.

But I can think of some other actors that where your nightmare scenario would be a problem...

[Paul Hazlett]

Oh Man!!
this could be problem. If I have to remember red left, beta right for closer focus I might as well find the old Wendy's uniform.

[chuck colburn]

Or use a follow focus unit that is reversable.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Im using nikkors fo SHO!,
heres the bottom line..
most of the audience doesnt even know the difference between digital cinema and film..
not to touch on is film better than digital.. but the audience has no idea what is what.. and do you think if thats the case.. will they know whether you shot using cooke or zeiss vs nikon? We are thinking too much. nerding out way to much.. sure if you nit pick everything you shoot, you might notice lens breathing on certain shots.. but ill bet 1000000 bucks that the audience will not notice anything like that. I do plan on getting the RED prime set eventually because lets face it.. its an amazing deal! but nikkor will definatly give me an awesome picture for a lot less!
besides if its a name issue.. then hell, ill start rehousing nikkors in my own name brand lens that will specifically say "cine lens" on it. I dont think producers are that worried about which lens a DP wants to use. as long as your end product comes out looking good.. thats all that matters

[Zakaree Sandberg]

ps.. I dont have a million bucks.. if i did id buy super speeds

[Rodrigo Lizana]

will they know whether you shot using cooke or zeiss vs nikon?

They won´t know for sure but they might feel something different. I guess...who knows..

[Stephen Williams]

They won´t know for sure but they might feel something different. I guess...who knows..

Hi,

A well known DOP shot some stills of his wife using a selection of motion picture lenses. Prints were made and they were passed among the wife's friends, lenses made by Cooke be it SII or S4 came out on top!

Stephen

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Hi,

A well known DOP shot some stills of his wife using a selection of motion picture lenses. Prints were made and they were passed among the wife's friends, lenses made by Cooke be it SII or S4 came out on top!

Stephen

if your comparing the photos side by side.. then yes, I agree with the wives.
But there is no comparing the same movie shot with 2 different lenses...

Theres no point to even go over this really. do cine lenses produce a better image for cine? as far as we know yes.. we havent shot still lenses on the red yet and that will be the true test.. BUTTTTT for the sake of my empty ass wallet after my red purchase,i think nikons will suit me just fine.. and if I need to shoot high end, Ill rent zeiss.
I dont think a client will not hire you if you dont own your own zeiss set.
I plan on getting in good with some rental companies here in LA.. let them rent my shit out.. they get a percentage.. i get a percentage and, im sure ill get hook up rates for any cine lens rental I want!

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Hi,
Cooke be it SII or S4 came out on top!

Stephen

PS.. I have a theory behind this choice..

cooke produces a softer image.. girls dont like sharpness
(on pictures of themselves)
the cooke lens made all the wrinkles and weird skin stuff to go away.. hence the choice..

THATS MY PHILOSOPHY

[Costelloe Michael]

Guys,

Nikon lense quality can be fantastic, it can also be quite sloppy depending on the particular lense you use. They make many types with different build qualities and characteristics.

They can make superb cheap alternatives to 'proper' lenses BUT are an absolute pain in the behind to use. I use them with a 35mm adaptor. They are extremely hard to match, don't have a common 'stop' and are very difficult to focus.

Besides to get a good quality set second hand you will pay about $2k / $3k. By the time you get down to 20mm things get very sloppy. If you have a good project rent or buy. That's my two penneth worth.

Mike EC

[Poi Boy]

If you buy the good ones you give up very, very, VERY little in image quality and yes you have to work a little harder pulling focus. I really don't find them to be a pain but when I can afford them I will buy proper cine primes.
Aloha
-A

[Costelloe Michael]

I think it really depends what type of shooting you do and the expectations and experience of the director and crew. I find that we tend to limit ourselves in design when we know we are shooting with Nikon Stills primes, not due to quality, but merely to do with ease of use. Tracking the camera in relation to actors is very tricky due to the limited travel on the barrel making it hard to keep focus. There are only a certain number of times the director is willing to 'go again' when the performances are 'trailing off'. The focus puller tends to look at the reference monitor rather than rely on his/her spacial awareness. There is no 'trust' in the lense or it's markings. All adding to the difficulty.

Having said this we still shoot with them due to cost. It is a shame when creativity is second to technical considerations. I mean this in a basic manner pertaining to the above, not in general.

Having said all this all lenses have their 'characteristics'. I'm not a fan of Zeiss superspeeds, but they sure come in useful if you want to shoot ambient at night and they flare beautifully.

We have to bear in mind also what the end product is. I am sure that those who intend to project 4k in a large space are going to want to rent / buy cine lenses and lower budget jobs destined for the net or an LCD screen may not see the need for the extra expense.

Mike EC

[Poi Boy]

my focus puller hasen't found it difficult at all to pull focus when using a redrock gear on my still lenses. For the television commercial budgets I work with It is a great solution.
Aloha
-A

[Stephen Williams]

PS.. I have a theory behind this choice..

cooke produces a softer image.. girls dont like sharpness
(on pictures of themselves)
the cooke lens made all the wrinkles and weird skin stuff to go away.. hence the choice..

THATS MY PHILOSOPHY

Hi.

Lots of DP's make a great deal of money because they share your theory.

Stephen

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Hi.

Lots of DP's make a great deal of money because they share your theory.

Stephen
exactly

[Mark Crabtree]

I have ordered 2 Reds. My plan is to buy the Red cine lenses and the Birger mount to use Canon EOS lenses. One camera/lens combination for the Ad Agency/Film crowd and one camera/lens combination for the indie/low budget crowd. But I do think that the Birger mount and remote follow focus system using the EOS internal lens motors may turn out to be a great thing. The Red focus assist may change the workflow for many of us. When you watch a network TV show on HD you'll see many of the close ups are out of focus, and they are using industry standard 35mm cine lenses and folow focus units with professional pullers. Red will (hopefully) give us much better conformation of focus before and after the shot than what is available to the 35mm film shooter. And one more advantage of the Birger mount is that the EOS lenses (or any 35mm still lens for that matter) are so light weight. Just imagine how heavy the whole Red rig is going to be with drives, battery and a heavy cine lens. I wonder after all is said and done if I'll be going out more with the EOS rig because it is just easier to handle. And as far as image quality, I can make really sharp images with my meager 20D.

[mezmo]

Hi Guys,
I have a set of 35MK2 Zeiss Primes,12,16,20,24,28,32,50,85,135.
I've had most of em for about fifteen years, and they have paid for
themselves about 10 times over. My accountant can't believe
they still exist let alone still make money.
The 50mm needed a new front element, the 28mm got bent
and needed to be fixed,one time the 135mm needed to be cleaned
after a sandy shoot. Apart from that nothing.
My point is, getting high quality glass is an investment. These lenses
can be used on film or digital and may make even more money
for me in the future with something like a Red or 3perf S35mm film.
It's all about the glass guys and I've used Nikon long lenses and got
great results, but Nikon build quality and ergonomics come nowhere
near Zeiss motion picture lenses IMHO.
Sometimes you've just gotta spend the bucks in the right area but
it pays off in the long term. This should also apply for Digital.
Cheers Mezmo.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Hi guys! This is a very interesting thread. I just wanted to say that it all come down to what end result is needed. How high end is the production to be. If you're shooting an EFP production of some sort go with Nikon. If you're shooting an high end commercial you can't. If the shots are for cinema then it's out of the question, unless you can live with the breathing made by a still lens. It might seem like a small issue but when it's there and it's visible it's not. I generally only shot 35mm commercials and will gladly switch to RED but as a D.O.P for 10 years I know how important really good glass is and if you're having a 4K image infront of you then it's very prominent. It's funny that no one is really mentioning the RED lenses. From what I've seen so far they seem to be very superior and the price range is very competetive. As it is now I can't wait to get RED and to start to do tests on what lenses it works the best with. My guess is that it will be the S4's.

[BENTrandom]

I'm stepping up to take my newbie beating. I've been reading this thread and the one thing that somehow shoots over my head is "breathing".
Now, I'd rather have someone clarify it just to be on the safe side rather then sound like an idiot later. Is breathing the term for how smoothly a lens pulls focus from one length to another or am I way off here?
Thanks in advance and not in the face please.

[R Fogg]

Breathing refers to a shift in the shot framing when focus is racked. There were a few demonstrations of this on the site but I can't seem to find them now.

and from wiki
"Breathing refers to when a lens' optics change the apparent focal length slightly when shifting the mechanical focus. Some (often more expensive) lenses are designed to lessen the degree this effect. Lens breathing does not prevent one from racking focus or following focus with this lens, but it lessens the desirability of any type of focus adjustment, since it noticeably changes the perspective and composition of the shot."

[BENTrandom]

Thanks Rfo! Glad I asked. I have a general distrust of most Wiki entries. Good to get information from those who really know.

[Nova Invicta]

Evin Grant seems to suggest that lenses like S4 Cookes (which are not softer than Primos or Ultra Primes / Master Primes) are not nessisary on the Red One camera and that lenses like Nikons are perfectly acceptable which in many instances they will be but not in all. Firstly anamorphic lenses are actually two lenses put together with one locked off and the other able to focus and the characteristics of a Nikon for instance are completely changed by the second anamorphic lens. Some high performance lenses that look great spherically look bad when anamorphic glass is added to the point there unuseable yet in there normal state out perform everything else.
As you increase the resolving power of your film or CMOS sensor it stands to reason you need to do the same with your lenses. Secondly stills lenses are optimized at 5.6 generally where as cinematography lenses will be optimized at 2.8 because most cameramen want to shoot wide open. The designers of cinematography lenses have been doing them for a very long time and have many different characteristics to consider that for stills are less important. Still lenses are also not generally designed to work to the same harsh conditions as cinematography lenses (try ripping your Nikon regularly with a preston and see what happens to the mechanics!)
In lenses you definately get what you pay for yes Nikons will give you acceptable images and if that what you can afford go for it but they wont extract the full potential of your sensor and if the arguement were true then why do stills manufacturers also sell lower priced versions of the same types of lenses?

[Michael Brennan]

Hi Guys,
I have a set of 35MK2 Zeiss Primes,12,16,20,24,28,32,50,85,135.
I've had most of em for about fifteen years, and they have paid for
themselves about 10 times over. My accountant can't believe
they still exist let alone still make money.
The 50mm needed a new front element, the 28mm got bent
and needed to be fixed,one time the 135mm needed to be cleaned
after a sandy shoot. Apart from that nothing.
My point is, getting high q the long term. This should also apply for Digital.........
Cheers Mezmo.

I agree lenses are a long term investment.
I've found with HD zoom lenses (like SD zooms) that they will need to be serviced to remove the very very fine dust and pollution that is deposited on inner elements.
A reasonable analogy is the fine layer that gets deposited to the inside of your car windscreen.

You'll notice improved contrast after the service.
Primes seem to suffer less as there is less glass and less sucking of air into the lens by moving elements.

Living and working in London and working on a wide range of shoots including docs, side mount aerials I decided to service my zoom lenses after 30 months of heavy shooting after comparing contrast to a new lens.
I guess that is the test, put a new lens on and compare, this a process that is easy to do and evaluate with HD and RED than with film camera.




Mike Brennan

[Lachlan Ward]

Problem is you need to take something like that and get it too all prospective clients that don't know or couldn't care less, and just see "SLR lenses?... Hmmph, I want professional gear!".

It's not so much a question of whether the Nikon's or other SLR lenses will work as much as it is a question of how other professionals in the field perceive your setup I suppose. An AC that knows cine lenses might be a bit apprehensive about SLR's... of course they can learn, and why not. But at the end of the day there are a great many individuals who would rather just have the name product there because it's not an unknown.

I think the results that get posted up here over the next year of Red footage using Nikon glass will certainly open peoples eyes to the benefits of price. Especially when they see what a $100 lens can do compared to it's >$4000 counterpart.

Yeah its a shame that the guys with the dosh don't know about the Nikon Panavision thing. Its the one of the main Resons I am kiting up with a nice new selection of Cooke's. + Itech is just kick ass. I would use all the Red Lenses but people get freaked out enough with the idea of all this new "untested" gear, so the more brand name stuff you can surround your Red with the better your prospects of getting moneyed up loons to pay you.

But i have nothing but respect for the guys that are putting together setups with Red Lenses and Nikkons Lenses for there own films and there own prod companies. More power to you, & I am hoping to see a lot of hot little films being shot on red and released. A return to auteurship, lets see more 'Into The Wilds'.

Good luck to everyone:biggrin: